Have you ever wondered why the World Health Organization (WHO) only requires 90 days of testing on GM crops before scientists are allowed to call them ‘safe’ or ‘statistically equivalent’?

Yeah, so have I.

Now that all of the suppressed science about GM food is coming out, it makes perfect sense why an agency that has such a heavy hand in the world food supply would act as though they were conducting a real investigation of genetically modified organisms, all while shoring up information they’ve had that GM food is toxic for decades.

Here is the WHO’s current statement on GMOs on its website, despite the WHO IARC’s recent findings that glyphosate is ‘probably carcinogenic.’

“Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally, e.g. through the introduction of a gene from a different organism. Currently available GM foods stem mostly from plants, but in the future foods derived from GM microorganisms or GM animals are likely to be introduced on the market. Most existing genetically modified crops have been developed to improve yield, through the introduction of resistance to plant diseases or of increased tolerance of herbicides.

In the future, genetic modification could be aimed at altering the nutrient content of food, reducing its allergenic potential, or improving the efficiency of food production systems. All GM foods should be assessed before being allowed on the market. FAO/WHO Codex guidelines exist for risk analysis of GM food.”

Notice there is no mention whatsoever that GM foods have not been proven safe, or that their claims of giving plants resistance to disease or even increased resistance to herbicides has been found to be untrue.

In an FAQs section, the following answer is given to a commonly asked question:

How is a safety assessment of GM food conducted?

The safety assessment of GM foods generally focuses on: (a) direct health effects (toxicity), (b) potential to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity); (c) specific components thought to have nutritional or toxic properties; (d) the stability of the inserted gene; (e) nutritional effects associated with genetic modification; and (f) any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion.”

Notice how the requirement of only three months for testing all of these ‘unintended side effects’ is glaringly missing.

Notice how there is no mention of the fact that in a widely used study, rats who dined on a 33% GM diet for their full lifetimes, typically between 30 and 36 months, became seriously ill with health problems that started showing up at – guess which month? Four.

In just four months, a trifling four weeks after the WHO’s required duration for GM testing, we can see the truth of what genetically modified food does to our health. (Begin at minute 3:37.)

Australia’s Dr. Judy Carmen brings out this point of inadequate testing in her talk to the SHAKA movement. You can watch that video in full here.

The WHO could have picked any arbitrary number of months to ensure that GMOs were safe, and make sure that the public wasn’t dining on food that would cause serious damage to their intestines, their livers, their reproductive organs, and their brains. But I suppose just THREE months will do just fine when experimenting with the global food supply and global population.

This post originally appeared at Natural Society.

NEWSLETTER SIGN UP

Get the latest breaking news & specials from Alex Jones and the Infowars Crew.

Related Articles


Comments