Natural News Lies; Then Points a Finger at Big Ag

Today’s Natural News article fans the flames of the anti-GMO crowd.  It is another fine piece of work by the anti-scientist, Ethan Huff, the same person that brought you the distortion of the breastfeeding and vaccination story.  For those that do not read this blog often, there is a substantial section of humanity that believes that transgenic technology (GMO, GM, GE, Frankenfood, etc)  is dangerous.  They indict the companies that generate the plant materials and target scientists that don’t support their bogus claims.  They find fringe journals and self-proclaimed experts to substantiate their positions.  Ultimately the problem is that they spend a lot of time attacking a safe, proven and ubiquitous technology that presents no independently reproducible evidence of harm.

Another anti-science travesty by the self-proclaimed experts

at Natural News

Natural News is a central purveyor of their disinformation.  Articles are written by non-scientists, cherry picking either legitimate science or company websites in an attempt to distort truths to garner sensationalized readership.  The articles are inflammatory and are not based on real science.  Of course, the articles nestle aside a rich slate of advertisements, many for items that perpetuate the naturalist fallacy.  Ironically, they attack sound science and promote unvetted claims.  There, we needed some backstory.

Today’s Natural News starts with the title “There is no need for, or value in testing the safety of GM foods in humans”.   Of course, this is a complete lie and inconsistent with the current regulatory environment. In fact, Monsanto and their ilk like to keep regulatory hurdles high to keep out public scientists and small business, but I digress.   The first line of the article says:

NN:  (NaturalNews) There is a growing body of scientific evidence which proves that genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are inherently different from natural organisms, including the way the body processes them, as well as how the immune system responds to them. 

Note that this claim has no citations, and a quick review of the literature does not back these claims.

NN: But Monsanto, the largest purveyor of GMOs in the world, believes that GMOs are no different than natural organisms, and that GMO testing is both needless and valueless.

It is not just Monsanto.  It is just about every scientist that understands genes and genomics.  Genomes are dynamic.  Genes and large stretches of DNA move about the genome with regularity.  Modern plant lines, even the most wholesome of the organic favorites, result from breeding plants against other plants, oftentimes mixing tens of thousands of genes, transposons, and other regulatory molecules in ways that can never be predicted.

In short, adding a gene, or a few genes via the lab is trivial compared to what happens in breeding or in the course of natural plant growth.  Transgenic plants are essentially equivalent to non-trangenics.

NN:  In the Why aren't you running human clinical trials on GM crops? section of Monsanto's Food Safety page, the biotechnology giant explains its opinion that GMOs are "substantially equivalent" to natural organisms. According to Monsanto, since concentrations of proteins, carbohydrates, and other nutrient factors vary among natural crops, as well as among natural and GM crops, then these differences are automatically unimportant in light of GMO safety.

And Monsanto’s position is supported by science.  Transgenic crops are considered equivalent to those produced through traditional breeding by many international organizations with no ties to Monsanto or US agriculture.

The article also fails to point out that Monsanto absolutely does see a need to test the safety of the protein that is being introduced.  These studies are performed and carefully regulated.

NN:  Furthermore, Monsanto claims that its injection of foreign DNA into its GM crops is also automatically safe because, get this, DNA is present in natural crops as well. Never mind that the injected DNA is foreign and unnatural, and is used to alter the entire genetic structure of GM crops -- according to Monsanto, its unnatural DNA is automatically non-toxic because every other plant also has DNA. Case closed.

Here the ignorance of the author shines.  DNA is not “injected” into GM crops. It is installed using a well-vetted process that has been in existence for decades. DNA is DNA, and there is no reason that added plant DNA (or even bacterial sequences) would be any more harmful to ingest than the DNA in the plant already.  Just about all the sequences used in genetic engineering are natural.  They originate in plants, bacteria and plant viruses and are used because they are well understood and work well.  Evolution engineered some good stuff for us to use.  Case closed.

NN: Using this same absurd illogic, injecting foreign animal DNA into a developing human baby, for instance, must also be safe because that baby contains DNA, right?

(Head hits desk)

The author has now taken an absurd position to frighten readers.  And yes, you could inject DNA into a baby and it would be safe.  Not because the baby contains DNA, but because the body knows how to make and metabolize DNA.  Does it all the time.

 NN: Or how about drinking antifreeze, which is made of atoms, because your body is also made of atoms?

(Head hits desk again)

Antifreeze is made of ethylene glycol, which contains carbon, oxygen and hydrogen.  These are the same three central compounds (along with nitrogen) that make up plants, even the organically grown ones.  By the authors argument, since DNA is dangerous if from another source, what about the elements in the plants?  How can foreign DNA be a threat, yet foreign carbon, oxygen and hydrogen be safe?

NN: Based on Monsanto's pseudoscientific nonsense, everything can be considered non-toxic and safe because it is all made of atoms, just like our bodies!

The author has a lot of cojones throwing around the term "pseudoscientific", when none of his own claims are based in science.  Furthermore, Monsanto (or any scientist) will tell you that nothing ever can be considered completely safe.  Nothing.  All we can ever say is that there is no evidence of harm.  That leaves the door open for someone to demonstrate dangers.  That’s the way science works.

And GMO crops rise to that standard of safety. Despite the fact that just about everyone has been eating transgenic crops for a decade, there is no reproducible evidence of harm.  I can’t go ten minutes in front of a television without seeing a lawyer group suing a drug maker because of a rare side effect of an otherwise beneficial drug.  If there was any evidence that transgenic crops were harmful they’d be all over that too.

The sad part is the comment section.  Here well-meaning people chime in with non-scientific vitriol against Monsanto and science.  It shows the magnitude of the problem.  Natural News can make up information, bend the truth, spin a story and perpetuate lies. They can say what they want without evidence and the readership lacks the sophistication to identify legitimate science to substantiate or refute the claims.  They just fall in line.

Don’t believe me, read the scientific literature.  Transgenic crops have a tremendous safety record and present no reproducible evidence of harm.  Natural News, the people and the products therein, rely on misinformation and lies to stay in business.  They have a lot of nerve pointing a finger at Monsanto.