by: Jonathan Benson
(NaturalNews) The recent release of the first ever long-term study to examine the consequences of prolonged consumption of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) has set the world ablaze, with individual citizens and even government officials now calling for an immediate embargo on all things GMO. But strangely silent in all this has been The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, BBC, and various other mainstream media groups based in the U.K., none of which have bothered to even mention the study in any of their reports.
"These newspapers have sycophantically reported on small GM research trials about purple tomatoes, blood oranges and cooking oil as if civilization depended on such things. Yet, they completely ignore this new research which reveals significant health risks and the inadequacy of the GM regulatory system," writes Lawrence Woodward for NYR Natural News. "The research on rats, carried out at the University of Caen in France, found that GM maize, GM maize sprayed with Roundup, and Roundup itself causes tumors, multiple organ damage, and premature death."
Among those media sources that did give the research at least a cursory mention, many peppered their reporting with doubt and skepticism about the legitimacy of the research. With the exception of the U.K.'s Guardian, which published an editorial urging regulators to take the research seriously (http://www.guardian.co.uk), as well as IBTimes UK (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk) and the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk), virtually no other media groups have given the research a fair shake, according to Woodward.
Industry-backed American media largely ignores GMO study, dismisses it as invalid
Sadly, the situation is not much different in the U.S., except for the fact that the mainstream media there, when it did report on the study, largely dismissed it as invalid. Even though the research was conducted in accordance with the generally recognized protocols for studies of this nature, industry-backed news corporations like Forbes, Slate Magazine, and CBS News, among many others, basically insinuated that the research could not be trusted.
Forbes, for instance, ran a headline asking the question, "Does genetically modified corn cause cancer? A flawed study fails to convince." And Slate ran this obnoxious little gem of a headline, "GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left," followed by the unbelievably false and incendiary statement urging readers, "Don't worry. Genetically modified corn isn't going to give you cancer."
That any so-called journalist would dare make such an inane statement in light of the new research, regardless of any potential flaws it may or may not have, is highly irresponsible. Since not a single long-term study other than this one has ever been conducted on the safety of GMOs — and not a single study ever has proven GMOs to be safe — how, exactly, is it in any way scientific or rational to tell the world that eating GM corn will not cause them to develop cancer?