"Substantial Equivalence": The GMO Food Safety Scam (PART 1)

How it became acceptable to destroy the food supply...

Let me paint you a picture: There are two tomatoes. One is a normal, beautiful tomato, the kind that fits nicely in the palm of your hand. This tasty-looking tomato was grown on a normal farm by a normal farmer who started with a normal heirloom seed. Then there’s a second tomato, three times the size, it’s so large you struggle to hold it up. This tomato is so red - it’s a red so red that it is unlike any other red you have ever seen, you wonder if this red is a new shade entirely. You marvel at its skin, so shiny your wife is using it like a mirror to apply her lipstick. When you cut open this tomato you discover that it is seedless. How can a tomato be seedless?, you wonder, as your wife scolds you for ruining her beauty routine.

It turns out, this tomato was designed by a man in a white lab coat. (In all fairness, it could have been designed by a woman in a white lab coat or a purple-haired they in a leopard-print lab coat). This tomato, which we shall now refer to as a fauxmato (pronounced fo-mato), designed by man, is not a natural tomato, it has been tinkered with by science to make it what science views as better. But how do we know the lab-created fomato is safe to eat? This is where substantial equivalence comes in.

To prove the fomato is safe, the scientist holds it up in his left hand and while displaying the farmer’s tomato in his right and says, “See, these look the same! You can barely tell the difference between the fomato and the tomato and we all know tomatoes are safe so therefore fomatoes are safe too” - substantial equivalence.

“Who decided this bullsh*t is acceptable?”, you ask. Let’s find out:

“The concept of comparing genetically modified foods to traditional foods as a basis for safety assessment was first introduced as a recommendation during the 1990 Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on biotechnology and food safety”. What’s interesting is that this concept wasn’t even new, the idea was borrowed from the FDA who, back in the 1970s, decided substantial equivalence could be used in the medical field to prevent dreaded safety testing because if there’s one thing we don’t want to waste precious time and money on, it’s something as trivial as safety.

Only a couple years later, in 1993, substantial equivalence was made a food safety food “safety” policy by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Other than being another annoying four-letter you’ve never heard of, OECD is a large intergovernmental organization whose purpose was established back in the 1960s, “to stimulate economic progress and world trade” (which sure sounds like another way of saying “we do whatever we want”)

The OECD is an official United Nations observer - this means they participate in the work of the United Nations (aka: help the UN achieve its goals). The OECD doesn’t just make rules for GMO produce, they also set the rules governing international taxation for multinationals, they partake in “multilateral surveillance”, they like to write so they author books, papers and magazines on climate change and other UN topics, and they also have a bunch of other responsibilities that don’t seem like they would have anything to do with fomatoes, but hey, someone has to decide which lab made things are good for the plebs to eat so it might as well be them.

So, the OECD decided that the makers of GMO foods, to prove they are safe, should simply show they are substantially similar to the 100% natural version. How do they go about this? Well, “the OECD bases the substantial equivalence principle on a definition of food safety where we can assume that a food is safe for consumption if it has been eaten over time without evident harm.” - this means, as long as the tomato is safe, then the fomato is too. It also means that “safety testing” consists of the manufacturer running data to show the fomato is as nutritious or almost as nutritious as the tomato.

In addition to stating the two pieces of produce are fairly identical, the fomato makers should also claim that it is unlikely that the genes they tampered with would transfer to other species. The final step is to say the plant isn’t toxic, and if it is toxic, then say it isn’t any worse than the farmers tomato.

Then the paperwork is reviewed by someone who agrees the fomato is horse-shoes-and-hand-grenades close enough to the tomato that we can say it’s essentially the same, then they stamp it with their approval and a year later your wife is doing her makeup in its shiny skin. Oh, and because they are basically the exact same thing, there are no labeling requirements, let alone regulations.

But the story of substantially equivalent GMO fomatoes has another plot twist, and that plot twist took place in 1992, which just so happens to be after the 1990 FAO/WHO meeting and before the 1993 regulation (3 minute video)

Yep, although these lab-created versions of foods are substantially equivalent, when the patents for them are filed, they are filed as “uniquely different” - but more on this later.

Although all of the annoying three-and-four-letter agencies assure us substantial equivalence is the pinnacle of safety, many in the public aren’t so sure. Let me tell you why…

Wakeup-World.com wrote a great article about a 2017 study into substantially equivalent food. I’m going to plagiarize a few sentences for you:

“The recent study is entitled An integrated multi-omics analysis of the NK603 Roundup-tolerant GM maize reveals metabolism disturbances caused by the transformation process.”… “the GMO corn had markedly different effects compared to the control non-GM corn. These changes included the plant producing different levels of enzymes, undergoing an imbalance in energy metabolism, having indications of oxidative stress and producing 4 different polyamines (a type of protein). Almost all of these changes are not healthy.”

The article goes on to outline how each change is horrible for our health and covers the medical-sciency aspects of it. If you enjoy medical-sciency stuff, you can read the full article here.

There was also this scientist guy who ran an incredibly simplistic experiment: (2 minute video)

Then there’s an article written by the Permaculture Research Institute called New GMO Studies Demonstrate ‘Substantial Non-Equivalence’ which says, “Studies document substantial differences of GM maize and GM soybean from their conventional non-GM counterparts, exposing a permissive regulatory regime that has failed miserably in protecting public health and biodiversity.”

How about the sheep study? (1 minute video)

In 1997, John Fagan, Ph.D., a Professor of Molecular Biology at Maharishi University of Management wrote an article called The Failings of the Principle of Substantial Equivalence in Regulating Transgenic Foods. TheGMOReport summarizes Mr. Fagan’s article by saying, “…in essence it was designed to be flexible to producers who could then tweak this concept to support whatever criteria fit their agenda, which was done regarding GMOs even though proper testing had not been performed to determine residual effects- effects we are now seeing played out across the globe”.

There’s also the rat study (1 minute video)

Want to know what happened with that guy? He was basically shunned to the pits of censorship where he hangs out with

Dr Mike Yeadon

for speaking out against virus scam and my little crew for raging against vitamin scam.

Believe it or not, the idea of using substantial equivalence as the gold standard for safety of GMO foods wasn’t just preposterous to conspiracy theorists, tinfoil hat scientists and far right wing doctors, even a member of the Royal Society spoke out against it in their publication Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada, Ottawa p.182 (April 2001). The Royal Society wrote, “We have been critisizing this approval procedure since several years and feel greatly satisfied to find that important bodies of scientists have joined us in rejecting it. It should be a matter of short time before the GE food approval regulations will be changed accordingly. This should inevitably lead to the withdrawal of all GE foods on the market as they were all approved on the basis of this flawed principle.” - I think you get the picture. I’ll add a ton of links to the sources section of this document if you want to continue reviewing data. Now let’s get back to what I mentioned earlier:

SO SIMILAR THAT IT’S DIFFERENT

Monsanto claimed that its genetically modified produce was so similar that it did not need any testing, yet it was famous for suing farmers who it accused of infringing on its patents because it claimed its seeds were so different that the farmer had stolen technology exclusive to its company. In a 2014 article, Substantial Equivalence: The Who, What, When, Where, and Why, a daughter of an organic farmer wrote, “In reviewing Monsanto’s track record since the introduction of genetically modified crops into the food chain in 1997, Monsanto has filed 145 lawsuits against farmers. On average, that is about one lawsuit every three weeks, for 16 straight years. Of those lawsuits, Monsanto has won every single battle.”

THE TOP SECRET SEEDS

To make the entire situation even more sketchy, there is a layer of secrecy applied to genetically modified seeds. You see, because these seeds are patented proprietary property, they cannot be touched or grown without contractual agreements being signed. This means, as mentioned in the rat experiment video, if ya want to hold a GMO seed you will need to first sign a contract with the seed manufacturer. This also means you have to abide by the terms of the contract which specifically exclude testing and, I would bet my bottom dollar, include a nondisclosure agreement which prevents the grower from sharing any details related to the plant or its maker.

While the food supply was being decimated by science, something else was happening, the second phase of the seed war Agenda was being implemented. This brings us to the second half of this series, NEXT READ: STEALING THE SEED SUPPLY

If you like my work and appreciate the time and energy I put into it, support truly independent journalism; support authors who refuse to have sponsorships or advertisers because we don’t want our content to be controlled by those who are funding it.

NEXT READ

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

SOURCES, NOTES & OTHER STUFF

https://www.bitchute.com/video/xdjj1PdhNPgz

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2014/02/21/new-gmo-studies-demonstrate-substantial-non-equivalence/

https://gmoreport.blogspot.com/2011/03/substanital-equivalence-anything-bu.html

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/gmo-faq/are-gmo-foods-substantially-equivalent-to-non-gmo-foods-as-the-fda-maintains/

https://www.greenamerica.org/blog/substantial-equivalence-who-what-when-where-and-why

https://www.gmfreecymru.org.uk/pivotal_papers/sustantial.html

https://wakeup-world.com/2017/01/21/big-biotechs-substantially-equivalent-argument-busted-by-latest-gmo-study/

https://www.bitchute.com/video/tqYnMbh-ZBE/

https://www.mypatriotsupply.com/blogs/scout/protect-your-seeds-lawmakers-are-coming-for-them#:~:text=Seed%20Sharing%20Is%20Illegal%20in,a%20permit%20to%20share%20seeds.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving#:~:text=%22folk%20varieties.%22-,Legality,entity%20(often%20a%20corporation).

https://cases.open.ubc.ca/monsanto-and-terminator-seeds/

https://personal.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/knowledge_goods/monsanto.html#:~:text=environmentally%20sound%20ways.-,'',varieties%20on%20their%20own%20farms.

https://cban.ca/gmos/issues/terminator-technology/#:~:text=Terminator%20Technology%20genetically%20engineers%20plants,buy%20seed%20each%20season%20instead.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2014/02/21/new-gmo-studies-demonstrate-substantial-non-equivalence/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12505347/

In 2009, French professor and anti-GMO activist Gilles-Eric Séralini (Read GLP Profile here) declared that he had found that engineering eggplant seeds to make them insect resistant resulted in small variations that he claimed made the crops “unfit for human consumption.”

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/05/11/substantial-equivalence-are-gmos-as-safe-as-other-conventional-organic-foods/

Substantial Equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_equivalence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generally_recognized_as_safe

https://www.businessinsider.com/fake-honey-problems-how-it-works-2020-9

https://modernfarmer.com/2013/05/farm-fakes-a-history-of-fraudulent-food/

https://www.classaction.org/diet-pepsi-pfas-lawsuit