Category: Alternative Health


Natural News : Urgent action alert: EPA about to raise allowable concentrations of glyphosate on food crops, edible oils and animal feed – comments needed by July 1

Filed under: Activism, Bioethics, Chemicals, Corporate Assault on Our Lives And Our Health, Corruption, Food Production, Food Safety, Fraud, Freedom Of Choice, Fundamental Rights, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Geo Engineering, Government, Government Overreach, Greed, Human Experimentation, Human Rights, Hypocrisy, Medical Research, Poisons in Our Foods, Politics, Legislation and Economy News, Special Interests, Unethical — 7 Comments
June 19, 2013

glyphosate

Tuesday, June 18, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) This is an urgent action alert from Natural News and the Health Ranger. Public comments are due by July 1 to object to new EPA regulations which are already in place, allowing glyphosate contamination of food crops, edible oils and waterways at concentrations which are thousands of times higher than the amount needed to cause cancer.

The new regulation, which can be viewed HERE, sets the following regulations regarding glyphosate residues on crops:

• It allows forage and hay teff to contain up to 100 ppm glyphosate (that’s over one million times the concentration needed to cause cancer according to a recent study). See PubMed source here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

• Allows oilseed crops (flax oil, canola oil, soybean oil, olive oil, etc.) to contain up to 40 ppm glyphosate (which is over 100,000 times the concentration needed to cause cancer)

• RAISES the allowable glyphosate contamination level of root crops (such as potatoes) from 200 ppb to 6000 ppb.

• Allows glyphosate contamination of fruits at anywhere from 200 ppb to 500 ppb.

Importantly, the EPA says no one even commented on all this when it was initially filed! “There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.” Since then, a total of just 396 people have posted a public comment at the time of this story being published.

You can post your comments with the EPA at this page:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132-00…

EPA declares glyphosate to be perfectly safe

Borrowing a page right out of Monsanto’s quack science playbook, the EPA says:

A chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in rats found no systemic effects in any of the parameters examined (body weight, food consumption, clinical signs, mortality, clinical pathology, organ weights, and histopathology).

The EPA even offers this utterly absurd, false statement as justification for its allowable contamination levels of glyphosate: “EPA has concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.” (SOURCE)

Huh? Do you understand this? The EPA is saying glyphosate is so incredibly safe that it is not even necessary to study its possible carcinogenic effects in humans. No science needed! The EPA simply waves a magic (Monsanto) wand and says, “Shazam! Glyphosate is safe enough to EAT!”

The EPA, of course, is sadly mistaken. It is apparently not aware of two crucial facts to consider in all this:

1) The Seralini study released last year showed an alarming increase in cancer tumors in rats that were fed glyphosate in their drinking water.

2) Monsanto has already been found guilty of committing scientific fraud by altering the results of “scientific” studies in order to trick regulators.

The “scientific” data proving glyphosate to be “safe” has been fabricated! And the EPA is basing its conclusions on fabricated, corporate-quackified junk science that has one purpose: trick regulators into thinking the deadly poison is safe, thereby vastly increasing the usage of the chemical by farmers.

ACTION ITEM: Post your comments to protest the EPA’s glyphosate poisoning of the American people

It is crucial that We the People let the EPA know that raising the allowable levels of glyphosate in foods is unacceptable. This is especially true given the recent studies linking glyphosate to breast cancer, a disease that is ravaging women across America and has reached epidemic levels.

Post your comments in the following ways:

METHOD #1 – POSTING ONLINE

1) Go to this page:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132-00…

2) Click the “Comment Now!” button on the top right.

3) Enter your information and comment, then click “Submit.” Be sure to include reasons WHY you believe the EPA should not allow such high levels of glyphosate in foods, edible oils and animal feed. You can quote pages like GMOevidence.com:

http://gmoevidence.com/location/roundup-evidence/

You can also quote this excellent article from GM Watch which explains why the corporate-controlled media (and industry) so viciously attacked the Seralini rat study, trying to discredit it:

http://gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14514

METHOD #2 – MAIL IT IN

1) Write your letter of protest. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132 on the first page of your letter.

2) Mail it to: (all mail must be received by July 1st)
OPP Docket
Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.
Washington, DC 20460–0001

METHOD #3 – EMAIL ANDREW ERTMAN

Please use Method #1 or #2 if you want your comments to actually count. But if you also wish to email or phone the EPA person from the Office of Pesticide Programs, you may contact:

Andrew Ertman, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone number: (703) 308-9367
Email address: ertman.andrew@epa.gov

Note: If you choose to email Andrew Ertman, please be polite in your email. Do NOT send stupid things like death threats or emails full of profanity. Make your case clearly and politely, and ask him to review the full breadth of the scientific evidence now available instead of just the selected subset Monsanto wants EPA scientists to be aware of.

Over 200 million pounds of glyphosate poison is a chemical attack on America

The following map, compiled by the USDA, shows the use of glyphosate across America:

This is also a map of the mass poisoning of America with a chemical that has been scientifically linked to an increased risk of cancer.

Compare it to this map showing the rates of cancer by state:

By the way, Monsanto has already been caught committing scientific fraud in attempting to fake safety studies on glyphosate. The company also engaged in wildly false advertising, claiming RoundUp was “safer than table salt” (implying that it’s safe to eat in high doses).

Now the EPA is about to allow glyphosate in animal feed at concentrations that are one million times the concentration needed to cause cancer.

At the same time, the EPA continues to allow glyphosate at 700 ppb in public drinking water, too.

We are all being mass poisoned by this deadly chemical, and the EPA is actively conspiring with the chemical industry to downplay the real dangers of glyphosate, pretending it’s safe enough to eat in quantities that are orders of magnitude larger than should be allowed.

Allowing 100 ppm of glyphosate in animal feed is equivalent to allowing 1000 ppm of lead in children’s candy. It’s a deadly poison that inundates our food supply at such high concentrations that it’s guaranteed to cause deadly diseases in huge numbers of people.

EPA document is a blueprint for the mass euthanasia of Americans

This EPA regulation document is a blueprint for billions of dollars in profits for the cancer industry. It’s also a death sentence for America’s soils, farmers and food consumers. And it is insane policies like this that will ultimately lead to the downfall and collapse of modern human civilization… a civilization so stupid that it poisons its own food, water, soils and even its own children… all to make a quarterly profit on the selling of a deadly poison.

Humanity is being mass-euthanized by GMOs and glyphosate, and the EPA is standing by and openly allowing it to happen. This is an agency that did tremendous good back in the 1970′s but has since become nothing more than a corporate sellout and a purveyor of poison.

The EPA wants you to eat glyphosate. There’s no harm, they say. Lick it up!

What concentration of glyphosate should be allowed in foods? No more than 10 ppt

There is no safe level of exposure to glyphosate. The chemical has now been shown to promote cancer cell proliferation at ppt concentrations. This demands that glyphosate be eliminated from being sold in the USA — BANNED for life.

Remember: Glyphosate is the new DDT. But it’s much worse than DDT because its toxic effects kick in at far lower concentrations. If a “safe” level of glyphosate exposure were based on legitimate scientific studies that weren’t faked by Monsanto, it would have to be set no higher than 10 ppt.

In other words, it would need to be virtually undetectable even by the most precise laboratory equipment available today.

Glyphosate has no place in a civilized nation. I call it “Satan’s Molecule” because it is a destroyer of life and a destroyer of worlds.

No wonder it was invented by a scientist working for — guess who? — MonSatan.

Take action today. Comments are due by July 1, and if the EPA doesn’t hear from the People, it’s going to do whatever Monsanto tells it to do. Heck, it will probably do that anyway, but at least if you post a comment, when all of us die from cancer you will know that you did not willfully participate in the mass murder of Americans.

Related articles
About these ads
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

The future of food: insects, GM rice and edible packaging are on the menu

Filed under: Crossroads News : Changes In The World Around Us And Our Place In It, Food Production, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Nutrition, Science, Sustainability2, World News — Leave a comment
June 17, 2013
Image Source
******************************************************************************

As the global population rises and food prices do too, many scientists are looking for alternatives to traditional foodstuffs

Eating insects

Two billion people around the world, primarily in south-east Asia and Africa, eat insects – locusts, grasshoppers, spiders, wasps, ants – on a regular basis. Now, with food scarcity a growing threat, efforts are being made to normalise the concept of entomophagy, or the consumption of insects, for the other 5 billion. Last year, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) published a list of more than 1,900 edible species of insects; the EU, meanwhile, offered its member states $3m to research the use of insects in cooking.

  1. FutureFest
  2. Shoreditch Town Hall, London EC1V 9LT
  3. Date: 28 September 2013
  4. Time: 9:30am
  5. Duration: 2 days
  6. Event website
  7. Add to your calendar

Why? Because insects, compared to livestock and fish, are a much more sustainable food source. They are available in abundance: for every human on Earth, there are 40 tonnes of insects. They have a higher food conversion rate than even our fastest-growing livestock (meaning they need to consume less to produce the same amount of meat) and they emit fewer greenhouse gases. As a fast-food option, which is how people treat them in countries such as Thailand, insects are greatly preferable to the water-guzzling, rainforest-destroying, methane-spewing beefburger. They are nutritious too: rich in protein, low in fat and cholesterol, high in calcium and iron.

That leaves the issue of palatability. Insects are generally viewed with disgust in the west, but attitudes are beginning to change. Thanks to adventurous restaurants – Copenhagen’s Noma has served up ants and fermented grasshoppers – and pioneering organisations such as Ento in London, we are coming to terms with the notion that insects might actually be nice to eat.

Edible packaging

Our current food system is monumentally wasteful. Last January, a report found that almost half of the world’s food is thrown away each year. In the UK alone, according to the government’s waste adviser, Wrap, we generate 6.6m tonnes of food, drink and packaging waste per annum, at a cost of £5bn.

The fight against waste has thrown up some intriguing solutions.

For Harvard bioengineer David Edwards, the answer to the packaging problem is simple: just eat it. Last year, Edwards launched WikiCells, a company that makes edible packaging for fruit juices, coffee, ice cream and other products. Mimicking the design of a piece of fruit, the packaging consists of a soft skin “entirely comprised of natural food particles held together by nutritive ions” encased in a protective outer layer that is edible or at least biodegradable. Not only are the membranes more environmentally friendly than plastic, they are designed to taste good too.

Other packaging innovations promise to lengthen the shelf life of perishables, which would mean a reduction in food and drink waste. Pepceuticals, a company based in Leicester, is developing an antimicrobial film that it claims “should significantly prevent the deterioration of … fresh meat and save waste”.

Read More Here

Related articles
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Tender Beef, Without The Pathogens: USDA Proposes Labeling Rules

Filed under: Food Safety, Poisons in Our Foods, Holistic Health, Food Borne Illness, Health And Wellness Report, Food Labels — Leave a comment
June 14, 2013
NPR .'s profile photo

by Allison Aubrey

June 11, 2013 5:12 PM
Meat tenderized the old-fashioned way. The industrial method is a mechanized process involving needles.

Meat tenderized the old-fashioned way. The industrial method is a mechanized process involving needles.

iStockphoto.com

In order to make tough cuts of beef more tender, the industry uses a mechanical tenderizing process that involves piercing the meat with needles.

This is effective in breaking up the tough muscle fibers, but there’s a downside, too: a higher risk of surface bacteria making their way into the cut of meat, which can set the stage for food poisoning. That’s a particular concern when it comes to the center of meat cuts, which don’t get heated to the same temperatures as the exterior.

Since 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has learned about five foodborne illness outbreaks linked to mechanically tenderized beef.

And what was the common denominator in these outbreaks? Undercooked or raw beef.

So, the USDA has that would require new labels for mechanically tenderized meats, so that consumers know what they are purchasing. The thinking is that if you know your cut of meat has been mechanically tenderized, you’ll be inclined to cook it a little longer.

 

Read More Here

Related articles
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Even A Small Change In Habits Helps Fend Off Stroke

Filed under: Exercise, Health, Health And Wellness Report, Holistic Health, Medical Research, Nutrition — Leave a comment
June 14, 2013
NPR .'s profile photo

by Nancy Shute

June 06, 2013 4:18 PM
Your brain will appreciate even a modest improvement in stroke risk factors.

Your brain will appreciate even a modest improvement in stroke risk factors.

iStockphoto.com

This is not one of those posts that is going to beat you up for doing a crummy job exercising, eating better and all the other things you’re failing to do to ward off death.

Instead, this post is here to say that if you improve one thing just one teeny bit, it’s going to lower your risk of having a . So pick something, and stick to it.

Stroke, which happens when a blood vessel bursts or is blocked in the brain, is a leading cause of death and disability.

Scientists looked at seven factors known to affect stroke risk: cigarette smoking, body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol, blood sugar, physical activity and diet.

Most Americans aren’t doing so well on these. And most of us, knowing we’re supposed to be doing better on them all, just sigh and reach for the remote.

So the scientists dug into a large study that tracked 30,239 people to see how much improvement it takes to prevent stroke. The people were all over age 45 at the start, and the study lasted from 2003 to 2007.

The good news is it doesn’t take much to make a difference. Each risk factor for stroke was scored from 0 to 2, with 0 being crummy, 1 kind of OK, and 2 terrific. Even a one-point improvement in the total score across all seven factors significantly reduced stroke risk. Each improvement of a point on the 14-point scale meant an 8 percent reduction in stroke.

 

Read More Here

Related articles
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Exclusive: The agricultural revolution – UK pushes Europe to embrace GM crops

Filed under: Fundamental Rights, Food Safety, Poisons in Our Foods, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Legislation, Health, Medical Research, Bioethics, Freedom of Information, Geo Engineering, Greed, Food Production — 2 Comments
June 12, 2013

 

The Independent

 

Environment Secretary will urge EU to relax restrictions on crop licensing

Tom Bawden Oliver Wright

Tuesday 11 June 2013

Genetically modified maize in Shropshire

Britain is to push the European Union to relax restrictions on the licensing of genetically modified crops for human consumption amid growing scientific evidence that they are safe, and surveys showing they are supported by farmers. The Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, is expected to use a speech next week to outline the start of a new government approach to GM to ensure Britain “is not left behind” in agricultural science.

The move comes as 61 per cent of UK farmers now say they would like to grow GM crops after a disastrous 12-month cycle of poor weather that is expected significantly to reduce harvest yields. Senior government officials said that ministers are increasingly concerned that the potential moral and ethical benefits of GM are being ignored by costly and bureaucratic licensing regulations.

With one-twelfth of global arable land under GM cultivation they have privately warned that Britain faces being left behind in an important technology that has the potential to improve crop yields, help the UK’s agricultural industry and provide benefits to human health through vitamin fortification.

Government sources added that GM also had applications beyond food including the potential to combat diseases such as ash dieback and in developing new medicines.

“The point about GM is not simply about food production,” they said. “There are wider potential environmental and economic benefits to the technology both in the UK and internationally.

“What we want to do is start a dialogue within Europe on GM based upon the science.”

Ministers are hopeful of building support in Brussels for a change of heart on GM, with Germany seen as a key swing voter. However, any attempts to relax the rules could face opposition from countries such as Poland which in April became the eighth EU member state to ban the cultivation of GM crops.

Mr Paterson is said to believe that Britain should take the lead in moving the debate on from the knee-jerk reaction against GM for much of the last decade.

Read Full Article Here

 

Related articles
Related articles
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

CDC Data: Raw Milk Safe During Pregnancy

Filed under: Food Safety, Health, Holistic Health, Medical Research, Nutrition — Leave a comment
June 12, 2013

Image Source

****************************************************************************

The Healthy Home Economist

by Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist on June 10, 2013

 

 

When I was first introduced to the benefits of raw milk nearly 12 years ago, I was newly pregnant with my second child. While I wanted to reap the benefits of this nutrient dense food, I was initially cautious to begin consuming it for fear it might harm my baby.

 

Everywhere I turned for research and information about the safety of raw milk during pregnancy was negative.

 

Numerous citations and sources I reviewed warned against consuming raw milk during pregnancy due to the risk of infection with Listeria monocytogenes, a deadly pathogen that can cause fetal death or premature birth.

 

 

 

While the research I uncovered contained dire warnings about infection with Listeria during pregnancy, I couldn’t actually find documentation about anyone who had actually contracted it from drinking raw milk let alone died or miscarried from it!

 

After much reading and thought, I concluded that the warnings against raw milk were unwarranted and the nutritional benefits to myself and my child vastly outweighed any risk.

 

I began to consume raw milk along with aged raw cheese, raw cream and raw butter late in the first trimester of my second pregnancy.  I continued this practice throughout my second and third pregnancy with no ill effects.  Both children were born healthy, full term and a normal weight.

 

Why Does the FDA Warn Against Raw Milk During Pregnancy?

 

In the 12 years since I began consuming raw milk while newly pregnant, the nonexistence of infection with Listeria monocytogenes for raw milk drinkers has continued.  Analysis of Centers for Disease Control data on raw milk outbreaks listed no cases whatsoever of food-borne illness from raw milk caused by Listeria during the entire 13 year period from 1993-2005.

 

Read Full Article Here

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

North Dakota – Herdshare Bill Signed into Law

Filed under: Food Safety, Freedom Of Choice, Freedom of Information, Fundamental Rights, Health And Wellness Report, Holistic Health, Legislation, Nutrition — Leave a comment
June 12, 2013

Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund

by Pete Kennedy, Esq. on June 7, 2013

litigation-milkHerdshares in ND now referred to as “Shared Animal Ownership”

A victory for grassroots efforts!
See Action Alert

NDDA prohibited from restricting herdshares

On April 29 herdshares become officially legal in North Dakota when Governor Jack Dalrymple signed Senate Bill 2072 into law. SB 2072 provides that “it is not a violation [of law] to transfer or obtain raw milk under a shared animal ownership agreement.”

Shared animal ownership is defined in the bill as “any contractual arrangement under which an individual:

      a. Acquires an ownership interest in a milk-producing animal;

b. Agrees to pay another for, reimburse another for, or otherwise accept financial responsibility for the care and boarding of the milk-producing animal at the dairy farm; and

c. Is entitled to receive a proportionate share of the animal’s raw milk production as a condition of the contractual arrangement.

The original version of SB 2072 did not contain a provision on herdshares; the bill only amended the state dairy code to adopt the latest revision of the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), which governs the production and sale of pasteurized milk in the U.S.

 

Read Full Article Here

 

****************************************************************************

Rapid City Journal

Raw milk backers say proposed rules too burdensome

June 07, 2013 6:00 am  •  Bob Mercer Legislative correspondent

PIERRE | A public hearing Thursday served as the latest battleground over regulation of raw milk in South Dakota.

The state Department of Agriculture has proposed nine pages of rules regarding bottled raw milk for human consumption.

More than a dozen residents who believe in what they call the natural benefits of drinking raw milk showed up to oppose the regulations, as did several farmers who produce it.

There are five licensed raw milk producers in South Dakota.

Gena Parkhurst of Rapid City, who described herself as a raw milk consumer, said the proposed rules would prohibit consumption of bottled or packaged raw milk produced by anyone without the necessary state permit, whether or not the milk was free or for sale.

“They cannot offer it to their neighbor; they cannot offer it to their family; they cannot give it away to an informed consumer,” said Parkhurst, a volunteer coordinator for Dakota Rural Action in the Black Hills.

She also claimed that testing for tuberculosis and brucellosis was “unnecessary.”

That’s different than the view of state veterinarian Dustin Oedekoven, who spoke in support of the rules. He said raw milk can spread diseases such as tuberculosis.

The state Department of Health tracks illnesses linked to raw milk, while the Legislature allows its sales.

Mellette County raw milk producer Leland Schoon said the proposed requirement of disease testing would be “burdensome and cost-prohibitive” for him since his cows are in a multi-purpose pasture.

 

Related articles
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Study: GMO Feed Harmful to Pigs

Filed under: Animal Testing, Bioethics, Crossroads News : Changes In The World Around Us And Our Place In It, Diseases, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Genetics, Geo Engineering, Health, Medical Research, Poisons in Our Foods, Research — 4 Comments
June 12, 2013
Pig stomachs gmo feed

Image source

 

****************************************************************************

Pigs eatingjpg Study: GMO Feed Harmful to Pigs

by GM Watch

A groundbreaking new study [1] shows that pigs were harmed by the consumption of feed containing genetically modified (GM) crops.

GM-fed females had on average a 25% heavier uterus than non-GM-fed females, a possible indicator of disease that requires further investigation. Also, the level of severe inflammation in stomachs was markedly higher in pigs fed on the GM diet. The research results were striking and statistically significant.

Lead researcher Dr Judy Carman, adjunct associate professor at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia,[2] said: “Our findings are noteworthy for several reasons. First, we found these results in real on-farm conditions, not in a laboratory, but with the added benefit of strict scientific controls that are not normally present on farms.

“Second, we used pigs. Pigs with these health problems end up in our food supply. We eat them.

“Third, pigs have a similar digestive system to people, so we need to investigate if people are also getting digestive problems from eating GM crops.

“Fourth, we found these adverse effects when we fed the animals a mixture of crops containing three GM genes and the GM proteins that these genes produce. Yet no food regulator anywhere in the world requires a safety assessment for the possible toxic effects of mixtures. Regulators simply assume that they can’t happen.

“Our results provide clear evidence that regulators need to safety assess GM crops containing mixtures of GM genes, regardless of whether those genes occur in the one GM plant or in a mixture of GM plants eaten in the same meal, even if regulators have already assessed GM plants containing single GM genes in the mixture.”

The new study lends scientific credibility to anecdotal evidence from farmers and veterinarians, who have for some years reported reproductive and digestive problems in pigs fed on a diet containing GM soy and corn.[3]

Read Full Article Here

Related articles
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

GMOs and Health: The Scientific Basis for Serious Concern and Immediate Action

Filed under: Bioethics, Corporate Assault on Our Lives And Our Health, Diseases, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Genetics, Geo Engineering, Health And Wellness Report, Medical Research, Nutrition, Poisons in Our Foods, Special Interests — Leave a comment
June 12, 2013

Sunday, June 9th 2013 at 12:45 pm

GMOs and Health: The Scientific Basis for Serious Concern and Immediate Action

OMG, GMOs!

You might ask, “why all the fuss about agricultural genetically modified organisms (GMOs)?” After all, regulatory agencies have approved these technologies for widespread application and consumption, so they must be safe, right?  Well, the truth is that there is no agency and no industry that  works to protect our health.  At best, the EPA, USDA, and FDA attempt to respond to our disease after the cause is widespread.  At that point only risk reduction, rather than risk avoidance, can be achieved.  This has been the case historically with radium paint, tobacco, particulate air pollution, water pollution, asbestos, lead, food-borne illnesses, and DDT.  A number of the various 80,000 chemicals in production will likely be added to this list in the future while the majority of them that actually do contribute to disease (often in combination and in complex ways) will never be scientifically associated with disease.  This is because science is far from perfect, scientific methodology is always biased and often manipulated, and scientific interpretation by stakeholders and decision makers is alarmingly inept (I’m not being political or condescending, these are well known and easily observed facts).

The situation with agricultural GMOs is unique compared to other technologies. While genetic engineering of food crops has been ongoing for 15 years, it is currently experiencing a major boom with the potential for widespread worldwide application.  Yet, few people understand how a GMO food could really be so much different than a non-GMO food in regard to health and disease effects.  GMO foods look like non-GMO foods and so we don’t experience the same hesitation and aversion to consuming them like we would, say, a clearly labeled bottle of virus and pesticide in tomato juice.  Therefore, the quality of public education, consumer awareness, and informed public discussion about this technology has the potential to alter the future of GMO agriculture for better or worse.

In this article, I’ll first briefly mention the relative paucity of risk assessment studies on GMOs and the unbelievable weaknesses of the industry studies that have been done.  Then, drawing from numerous independent studies, I will explore the routes by which agricultural GMOs may cause adverse health effects.

GMOs Have Never Been “Proven” Safe

Let me be clear; despite the following negative review of industry science, this article is not a hatchet job against the agricultural GMO industry but, rather, a vehicle for consolidated scientific information on the safety or risks of GMO foods intended to allow readers to make informed choices about this technology.  It is just that, well, the science coming from the industry tends to raise serious concerns and suggests that the agricultural GMO industry has little concern for protecting public and ecosystem health.  Before we dive into the independent non-industry studies which suggest potential harm from GMO crops and foods, we must first look at the studies which supposedly demonstrate the safety of GMO crops and foods.  A critique of these studies remained impossible for some time as the data was kept private, until French researchers obtained a court order for their release.  This team of researchers, lead by Joel Spiroux de Vendomois, then analyzed the raw data from studies on three varieties of GMO corn owned by Monsanto.  Yet, it immediately became apparent that this data was not extremely helpful as the study methodology was profoundly insufficient.  In a 2010 paper published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences[1], the researchers summarize several major flaws in the study.  I’ll list just a few of them here:

1. For each of the three varieties of GMO corn tested, only a single study was done.  However, a central tenet of sound science is that the results are reproducible and replicated by other studies, preferably those done by different researchers.

2. Only the rat was used as a toxicological model.  Rats are useful models for the human detoxification systems, but poor models for human reproductive and embryological systems.  Remember, rat studies “proved” that thalidomide was safe for pregnant women to use… but the rabbit studies done AFTER thousands of babies were harmed “proved” that it caused birth defects!  Scientific proof is only as good as the scientific studies, which are always limited and narrowly focused.

3.  The studies lasted only 3 months and were done on young adult rats.  Yet, captive rats live about 24 months.  No studies looking at late life outcomes from this brief exposure or studies which used lifelong exposure to GMOs were performed.  This is clearly a problem unless human consumers are only supposed to eat GMO foods for no longer than 9 years between the ages of 10 and 20.  Yet, GMO food technology has been released (without labeling) with the intention of lifelong consumption.

4.  No reproductive or developmental studies were done.  Yet GMO foods do not carry a label declaring that their safety during pregnancy has not been evaluated.  Instead, they are unlabeled and meant to be consumed by both genders, at all ages and developmental stages, including during pregnancy and infancy.

5.  Adverse outcomes were only considered if they occurred in both genders!  Clearly genders are different.  For instance, women are much more likely to get breast cancer than men, and one must have a prostate to get prostate cancer.  In the industry studies, increases in prostate cancer in male rats and increases in mammary tumors in female rats would apparently have been omitted since they differed between genders.  This explains exactly what happened to their findings that male rats eating GMO corn had an 11% increase in heart size while female rats eating GMO corn had a 40% increase in serum triglycerides[2].   It is not clear what to make of these findings, but they should not have been omitted and, instead, should have been used to encourage more numerous and longer duration (lifespan) studies before the worldwide release of GMO corn.

6.  Adverse outcomes which are consider “normal” in old rats were omitted in this young rat population.  For instance, the researchers did not consider “chronic progressive nephropathy”, a kidney disease common in older rats, to be a problem even though it was occurring in young, 5 month old, rats eating the GMO corn.

Now, I can attest that modern toxicology students training at respectable universities are taught to do much better work than this. We can only speculate about the reasons such limited study methodologies were chosen.  Nonetheless, these are the studies which the FDA determined to be sufficient for the approval of the three GMO corn varieties represented.  As if the major flaws in the study methodologies were not enough to warrant a different decision, the French team of researchers found a number of concerning associations upon re-analyzing the raw data[3].  They summarize:

“Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and hematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn.”

This is not the only group of researchers to demonstrate an association between GMO consumption and adverse health outcomes.  Despite the industries resistance to providing GMO varieties to outside researchers for independent studies, there are still dozens of studies available to the public for review.  I’ll synthesize the findings of several of these studies below in considering the possible mechanisms by which agricultural GMOs may cause problems.  In general, the health effects of agricultural GMOs are mediated through at least three routes; 1. Directly though ingestion, 2. Indirectly through GMO associated pesticide exposure and ingestion, and 3. Indirectly through environmental and ecosystem effects.

Effects of GMO ingestion:

Ingesting GMOs can affect both the microbiome and human cells.  The microbiome is the microorganism population which lives on and in the human body.  Most of it exists in or on the mouth, nose, stomach, intestines, and skin.  The gut microbiome has received considerable attention due to its apparently profound effect on the immune system, not to mention its effect on food digestion.  The gut microbiome is involved in determining the risk of autoimmune diseases, allergic diseases, cardiovascular disease, and some infectious diseases like osteomyelitis.  The microbiome can get out of balance (called dysbiosis) and produce severe diseases such as Clostridium difficile overgrowth and more mild disorders like small bowel bacterial overgrowth and irritable bowel syndrome.  The bottom line is that a balanced microbiome is critical for health and we are just now beginning to appreciate how serious the consequences of dysbiosis may be.

Several studies have shown that the organisms (mostly bacteria) of the microbiome can take up genes from GMO foods[4],[5].  “Conjugation”, or gene transfer, is a common trick used by bacteria to evolve and adapt.  This is one mechanism by which antibiotic resistance perpetuates.   The consequences of GMO gene transfer to intestinal bacteria involve the expression of the gene and/or insertional mutagenesis.  The frequency with which these consequences will occur is not known, but they will occur to some degree at least.

Intestinal bacteria which begin to express the GMO gene will then be producing the same active proteins which define the GMO.  For example, intestinal bacteria could start producing the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) pesticidal toxin that has been inserted into potatoes, corn, and soybeans.  The exact effect of this toxin on humans, if any, is not well established but it has been found in a study of Canadian women, including pregnant women and their fetuses[6].

Insertional mutagenesis refers to the gene inserting itself into another coding gene and, thus, causing a gene mutation by disrupting the code.  This may produce more severe results as it is a well known mechanism by which viruses may cause cancer, cell death, or cellular dysfunction.

These same mechanisms, gene transfer and insertional mutagenesis, can affect human cells just the same.  While intestinal cells are likely to be the most affected, GMO genes which pass into the blood intact may affect just about any cell and tissue in the body.  It is quite possible that GMO foods are regularly resulting in the genetic modification of the humans consuming them!  There are many unknowns here and I suspect that there remains a lot to be discovered, but we should not let the absence of evidence be mistaken for the evidence of absent harm.  We should, instead, demand more information and more research!

 

Read Full Article Here

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment

Scientists Find Holes in Monsanto GM Wheat Denial

Filed under: Bioethics, Corporate Assault on Our Lives And Our Health, Crossroads News : Changes In The World Around Us And Our Place In It, Environmental, Food Safety, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Geo Engineering, Poisons in Our Foods — Leave a comment
June 9, 2013

Published on Thursday, June 6, 2013 by Common Dreams

- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer

(Boris Grdanoski / AP)

Monsanto claimed Wednesday that the Oregon field found last week to be contaminated with Monsanto’s unapproved GM wheat was an “isolated” incident, and that it was likely either the result of an accident or “sabotage.” However, scientists warned Thursday that the biotech giant’s denial has many holes.

Monsanto claims that it has since tested 31,200 seed samples in Oregon and Washington and found no evidence of contamination—insisting there is no cause for concern in the world market.

However, researchers this week said that Monsanto’s tests are misleading and that the genetically modified gene, not yet approved for use in the U.S., will likely continue to be found in wheat seeds.

“We don’t know where in the whole chain it is,” said Carol Mallory-Smith, the weed science professor at Oregon State University who tested the initial wheat plants and determined they were the unapproved Monsanto seed.

“I don’t know how Monsanto can declare anything. We obviously had these plants in the field.”

“You introduce something into the environment, and genes move around in the environment, whether transgenic or not,” she added.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is currently investigating how the wheat gene, which was taken out of test fields eight years ago, is now showing up.

Monsanto claims that all of the tested seeds had been either destroyed or recovered and sent to a USDA facility in Colorado for storage.

However, David Andow, a professor of entomology at the University of Minnesota, said in an interview with Bloomberg that these claims are misleading and that the tests cited by Monsanto this week, which displayed clean wheat in the state of Washington, are shortsighted.

“Sure they tested it, but that doesn’t mean it’s all clean,” Andow said. “It just means it’s not so widespread that it could be detected easily.”

And Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, said that this is not the first time Monsanto has been less than forthcoming on the extent of its seed contamination: “In previous cases, such as during the outbreak of herbicide-resistant weeds in recent years, Monsanto has initially played down the risks.”

“The reality is that nobody knows what happened until extensive testing is done.”

Additionally, Bloomberg reported recently that even if Monsanto’s claims about this specific wheat strain were proven true, Monsanto has resumed trials of other and very similar GM wheat seeds, according to information posted in a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) database.

Monsanto planted 150 acres of GM wheat in Hawaii last year and 300 acres of GM wheat in North Dakota this year—meaning the risk of genetic pollution from unapproved Monsanto wheat is even greater than most people are aware.

Meanwhile, the discovery of the GM wheat in Oregon caused fast moving international backlash, with Japan suspending some imports of US wheat, South Korea testing all of its US wheat imports, and the EU urging its members to test some of its US wheat imports.

The extent of contamination from Monsanto’s GM wheat seeds in Oregon, let alone Hawaii and North Dakota, remain unknown.

_______________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
Related articles
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comment
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 842 other followers