Parroting Monsanto: Boston Globe says GMO labels are 'misleading,' 'burdensome' and a waste of money

Parroting Monsanto: Boston Globe says GMO labels are 'misleading,' 'burdensome' and a waste of money

Friday, June 03, 2016 by: Julie Wilson staff writer

Tags: Boston Globe, GMO labels, industry puppets

Boston Globe

(NaturalNews) Mounting research suggests that human consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) poses innumerable risks, including a proclivity for food allergies, nutritional deficiencies, sex hormone disruption, immune-suppression, cancer and general toxicity. Agriculture reliant on GM crops and their associated pesticides generates environmental risks as well, including soil degradation, water pollution and significant harm to wildlife and essential plants.

Based on the aforementioned risks to humans and the environment, it is absolutely imperative that Americans have the right to know whether or not their food contains ingredients that have been genetically altered to contain foreign DNA. However, the Boston Globe would beg to differ.

In March, the Globe published a despicable editorial waging an all-out assault on GMO-labeling and its supporters, which constitutes 89 percent of Americans. The piece, which is suspiciously missing author information, claims that GMO-labeling is "an impractical and potentially burdensome solution that will cause unwarranted alarm and needless expense."

Boston Globe attacks American values
Yes, you read that correctly. The Globe believes that America's call for clearly labeled foods is impractical and a burden to poison-pushing, multi-million dollar food companies – which by the way, have no problem spending money on meaningless "all-natural" labels attached to items such as Lays potato chips.

Not only does the Globe discount citizens' quest for better health while favoring profit-driven corporations, but it actually encourages lawmakers to vote against the needs and wants of their constituents.

Referring to Massachusetts's recent proposal to establish GMO-labeling, the Globe says simply: "Lawmakers should reject the bill." Consumers interested in purchasing non-GMO foods can already do so, it adds, downplaying the need for all genetically modified foods to be labeled.

But what about people who cannot afford food that's Non-GMO Project Verified or USDA certified organic? After all, such products are significantly more expensive than conventionally processed foods.

The Globe seems to be insinuating that individuals of lower socioeconomic status do not reserve the right to know whether or not their food contains highly controversial ingredients – products that have been rejected by numerous governments around the world due to their potential toxicity.

Audaciously, the Globe says that GMO-labels are misleading and will do nothing but confuse customers. Hmm. ... Sound familiar? If you've followed this debate closely you are probably aware that this is one of Monsanto's key talking points.

A Monsanto website addressing the growing demand for GMO-labeling links to a statement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) explaining "why mandatory labeling could create confusion for consumers."

AAAS of course, is a mouthpiece for Monsanto, as well as other major biotech companies.

A quick Google search using the keywords "AAAS" and "Monsanto" retrieves some pretty telling headlines, including a Grist.org story entitled "Is a major science group stumping for Monsanto?" a Huffington Post article entitled "Is AAAS Serving Science or Monsanto?" and a US Right to Know article entitled "Who's Behind the Attacks on US Right to Know?"

You get the picture.

The Globe's attack on GMO-labeling steals another Monsanto talking point when it falsely reports that there is a lack of scientific evidence distinguishing GMOs from non-GMOs. Not only is this untrue, but it is a downright lie.

Several studies have indicated that organic food is significantly more nutritious than conventional. In fact, the British Journal of Nutrition just released a study this year concluding that organic dairy and meat contain 50 percent more omega-3 fatty acids versus conventional.

"Omega-3s are linked to reductions in cardiovascular disease, improved neurological development and function, and better immune function," wrote the study authors.

How the Globe fails to consider that a distinguishable trait between GM foods and non-GM foods is beyond me. But the truth is, they know the truth, and are simply concealing it from you because they sold their souls to powerful industries long ago.

Unfortunately, the Globe's piece is one of many callous attacks on consumer rights, financed in full by the very industry seeking to destroy public health under the disturbing guise of humanitarianism. Nonetheless, their efforts have failed to stop the health food movement currently sweeping the globe.

Sources:

CenterForFoodSafety.org

WashingtonExaminer.com

GMAOnline.org

NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov

CenterForFoodSafety.org

GMWatch.org

Discover.Monsanto.com

MALegislature.gov

BostonGlobe.com

NCL.AC.uk

Science.NaturalNews.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/054247_Boston_Globe_GMO_labels_industry_puppets.html#ixzz4AcfeQNiM