Category: Corporate Assault on Our Lives And Our Health


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

About these ads

- 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.

_______________________

Nestle and Mars may face $10mn fine for ‘chocolate conspiracy’

Published time: June 07, 2013 11:37

AFP Photo / Olivier Morin

AFP Photo / Olivier Morin


Two food giants and a network of independent wholesalers have been blamed for the price-fixing of popular chocolate bars in Canada. A third company, Hershey’s Canada, could avoid fines for pleading guilty and cooperating with an investigation.
The alleged price-fixing involved chocolate bars sold across Canada from 2002 to 2008, including Kit Kat, Coffee Crisp, Aero, Twix, Snickers, Bounty and M&Ms,  a spokesman for the Competition Bureau, Pierre Yves Guay, told AFP.

“It’s difficult, however, to estimate the amount of the overcharging because of the complexity of the pricing in that market,” he said.

Competition Commissioner John Pecman called their alleged actions “egregious anti-competitive behavior that harms Canadian consumers” and “a serious criminal offense”, according to reports.

Three individuals were also charged: Robert Leonidas, former President of Nestle Canada; Sandra Martinez, former President of Confectionery for Nestlé Canada; and David Glenn Stevens, President and CEO of ITWAL, Reuters reports.

 

Read Full Article Here

 

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

Financial Post

Criminal charges laid against Nestle Canada, other companies for chocolate price fixing

Armina Ligaya | 13/06/06 | Last Updated: 13/06/07 12:51 PM ET
More from Armina Ligaya | @arminaligaya

Nestle Canada is facing criminal charges for price fixing chocolate, along with Mars Canada.

Jason Adlen/BloombergNestle Canada is facing criminal charges for price fixing chocolate, along with Mars Canada.

 

 

Two of the world’s largest chocolate companies are among those facing criminal charges for allegedly conspiring to fix the price of chocolatey treats across Canada.

 

The charges, laid Thursday, come six years after Canada’s Competition Bureau launched an investigation into the allegations, and found evidence suggesting that a price-fixing cartel collaborated, agreed or arranged to set the prices of chocolate products.

 

Criminal charges have been laid against candy makers Nestlé Canada Inc. and Mars Canada Inc., and ITWAL Limited, a national network of independent wholesale distributors, after the competition bureau referred its evidence to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

 

Price-fixing is a serious criminal offence and today’s charges demonstrate the competition bureau’s resolve to stop cartel activity in Canada

 

“We are fully committed to pursuing those who engage in egregious, anti-competitive behaviour that harms Canadian consumers,” said John Pecman, interim commissioner of competition, in a statement. ”Price-fixing is a serious criminal offence and today’s charges demonstrate the competition bureau’s resolve to stop cartel activity in Canada.”

 

Read Full Article Here

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

 

TRUTHstreammedia TRUTHstreammedia

Published on Jun 5, 2013

http://truthstreammedia.com/kraft-foo
FoodBabe.com: Illegal GMO Wheat in Mac & Cheese?
http://foodbabe.com/2013/05/30/illega…

Truthstream Media followed up on a report a report by Vani Hari at Foodbabe.com that boxes of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese imported to the U.K. were showing up with a label warning the product contained genetically modified wheat. As no forms of GMO wheat are legally approved for cultivation or sale anywhere in the world, we investigated further, contacting both Kraft and the distribution company that placed the label to get the bottom of it.

We started by contacting the company’s customer service number. Listen as the representative admits their products have been ‘enhanced by biotechnology’ so some of their products ‘do contain ingredients from these crops’.

Although Kraft’s spokesperson responded to us in an official statement claiming there is no GMO wheat in their flagship Macaroni & Cheese product, the fact that the company refuses to remove potentially cancer-causing artificial dyes from the U.S. version of their product (dyes already absent from their international versions), in addition to the admitted presence of GMO in their food further proves that people need to take back control of what they are eating from these giant corporations who appear to be putting profits above people.

OregonLive.com

 

The Associated Press By The Associated Press

on June 04, 2013 at 12:09 PM

 

 

genetically modified food

 

wheat.JPGView full sizeA wheat field in Moro, Ore.

WICHITA, Kan. — A Kansas farmer has sued seed giant Monsanto over last week’s discovery of genetically engineered experimental wheat in an 80-acre field in Oregon, claiming the company’s gross negligence hurt U.S. growers by driving down wheat prices and causing some international markets to suspend certain imports.

 

The federal civil lawsuit, filed Monday by Ernest Barnes, who farms 1,000 acres near Elkhart in southwest Kansas, seeks unspecified damages to be determined at trial.

U.S. Agriculture Department officials said last Wednesday that the modified wheat was the same strain as one designed by Monsanto to be herbicide-resistance that was tested in Oregon and several other states through 2005 but never approved. The USDA has said the Oregon wheat is safe to eat and there is no evidence that modified wheat entered the marketplace.

It’s believed to be the first lawsuit stemming from the discovery. Similar lawsuits are in the works, Barnes’ attorney said, and the cases will likely be consolidated for the purposes of discovery, a process where evidence is investigated and shared among parties.

No genetically engineered wheat has been approved for U.S. farming. Many countries will not accept imports of genetically modified foods, and the United States exports about half of its wheat crop. Since the announcement, Japan — one of the largest export markets for U.S. wheat growers — suspended some imports. South Korea said it would increase its inspections of U.S. wheat imports.

Barnes referred all calls to his attorneys. One of them, Warren Burns, said that the scope of the damage is potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars. He said the lawsuit seeks to make sure their client is compensated for his losses.

“These types of suits serve the purpose of helping police the agricultural system we have in place and make sure farmers are protected,” Burns said in a phone interview Tuesday from Dallas.

 

Read Full Article Here

 

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

It’s on! Farmers begin suing Monsanto over genetic pollution of wheat crops

Monsanto

Wednesday, June 05, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) The next wave of farmer backlash against Monsanto has just been unleashed by Ernest Barnes, a wheat farmer in Morton County, Kansas. He filed suit this week in the U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas, alleging that Monsanto’s genetic pollution has financially damaged himself and other farmers.

Barnes’ case appears to be well supported by the facts: Last week the USDA announced the shock discovery that genetically engineered wheat strains from Monsanto’s open-field experiments had escaped and spread into commercial wheat farms. Almost immediately, Japan and South Korea cancelled wheat purchase contracts from the United States, and more cancellations are expected to follow. The more countries reject U.S. wheat due to GMO contamination (genetic pollution), the lower wheat prices will plunge and the more economic damage will be felt by U.S. farmers.

Monsanto now a confirmed genetic polluter

GMO wheat (i.e. “GE wheat”) has never been commercially grown in the United States… at least not on purpose. Experimental fields were approved by the USDA and planted across 16 U.S. states. Until now, it was not known that these GE wheat experiments escaped their designated field plots and began to spread as a form of self-replicating genetic pollution.

For the record, Natural News openly warned about this possibility in a 2012 article called, “Stop Out-of-Control Science.” There, I wrote:

Humanity has reached a tipping point of developing technology so profound that it can destroy the human race; yet this rise of “science” has in no way been matched by a rise in consciousness or ethics. Today, science operates with total disregard for the future of life on Earth, and it scoffs at the idea of balancing scientific “progress” with caution, ethics or reasonable safeguards. Unbridled experiments like GMOs have unleashed self-replicating genetic pollution that now threatens the integrity of food crops around the world, potentially threatening the global food supply.

Those words, it turns out, were prophetic. We are now faced with precisely this situation in the U.S. agricultural sector, and farmers are starting to feel the economic losses. GMOs are just one of several areas where so-called “science” actually threatens humanity with total destruction.

See my infographic of all 12 dangerous sectors of science with this infographic:
http://www.naturalnews.com/Infographic-SOS-Stop-Out-of-Control-Scienc…

Monsanto engaged in genetic contamination

As Yahoo News reports:

The petition filed by Barnes claims Monsanto knew there was a high risk the genetically modified wheat it was testing could contaminate other varieties of wheat, and the company failed to follow proper procedures to keep the wheat contained.

Monsanto tested the wheat in many states, including Kansas, the top U.S. wheat-producing state, but did not disclose to farmers in those states that it was testing the controversial wheat there, the petition states.

Monsanto to sue the farmers?

Monsanto claims it will mount a “vigorous defense” against the lawsuit, expressing that it takes no responsibility whatsoever for all the genetic pollution it spews across America’s farm lands. If Monsanto’s genetically modified, toxin-producing crops just happen to infect your commercial crops, then that’s your fault!

In fact, I’m surprised Monsanto hasn’t announced plans to sue all these farmers for “stealing” its “intellectual property.” That’s what the company has done before, of course: sued farmers whose fields were contaminated by Monsanto’s genetic pollutants.

Is this not the height of corporate evil? When British Petroleum spills billions of gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, it at least pretends to be sorry about it. But when Monsanto spews its genetic pollution all over the planet, it blames the farmers! It would be like if BP drove an oil tanker right into your front yard, dumped a thousand gallons of oil on your lawn, then sued you for stealing their oil.

That’s the Monsanto model. And it’s yet another example of the total runaway criminality of this evil corporation that frankly should have its corporate charter yanked. This is one business that deserves to be permanently put out of business and never allowed to operate again. When corporations become such arrogant, destructive and threatening monsters that stomp on our farmers and spew their genetic jizz all across the planet like a bunch of sicko ag perverts, something has gone terribly wrong and needs to be stopped.

The recent March Against Monsanto was only the beginning. I even foresee a day when millions of citizens from around the world engage in a far more aggressive march on the Monsanto headquarters and literally tear the place apart brick by brick until this corporate demon is permanently excised from our planet.

We are winning the war against Monsanto

I also predict — but do not condone this violence — that if Monsanto continues to engage in its crimes against farmers, nature and humanity, we are going to start seeing well-planned “acts of justice” against Monsanto executives, employees and scientists. I literally had a bizarre, disturbing dream the other night where a band of activists had kidnapped a Monsanto executive, tied him to a chair, and forced him to admit to all the crimes Monsanto has committed while being filmed on camera. The videos were then released on the internet. I realize this sounds a lot like the plot of a major motion picture, but I believe this could become reality if Monsanto continues on its current path.

Again, for the record, I do not condone the kidnapping of Monsanto executives. Kidnappings and executions are no way to resolve problems in a civilized society. If such an act actually takes place, it would actually hurt the anti-GMO movement and allow the government to paint all GMO protesters as “potential terrorists.” So if anyone out there is actually thinking of doing this, please redirect your energy and focus into non-violent protests and other similar actions that are already making tremendous progress. As I said recently on Natural News, I believe we have reached a tipping point of success against Monsanto. Let’s continue to pressure Monsanto in a grassroots, non-violent way, okay?

After all, we are winning this war against Monsanto and GMOs. They are in full retreat and completely surrounded… by the truth.

 

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

Genetically engineered wheat discovered on an Oregon farm should be a wake-up call for Ottawa because similar contamination could have crippling market effects in Canada, says a consumer group.

Genetically engineered (often referred to as GE or GM) wheat, which is not legal anywhere in the world, was found by an Oregon farmer in his crops in April. Scientists tested the sample and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) confirmed last week that the wheat was a GM experimental strain developed and field-tested by seed giant Monsanto Co. more than a decade ago.

How the GM wheat ended up on the farm is under investigation by U.S. officials.

Lucy Sharratt, spokesperson for the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN), says Canadians should be concerned, since GM wheat has also been field-tested in Canada.

“It’s alarming, because this has the potential for a huge market impact on farmers, and we actually right now have no idea where this contamination came from,” she says.

“It’s alarming because we predicted that something like this would happen, and yet genetically modified crops continue to be field-tested and approved.”

Consumer Confidence on Shaky Ground

The USDA and Monsanto say the GM wheat does not pose a food safety concern. The market reacted nervously, however, and some importers were quick to shy away from U.S. wheat. Japan rejected nearly 25,000 tons of U.S. white wheat and countries in Asia and Europe have demanded further testing before allowing imports—making it clear that many consumers oppose GM foods.

“We are taking this situation very seriously and have launched a formal investigation,” Michael Firko, with the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, said in a statement.

“Our first priority is to as quickly as possible determine the circumstances and extent of the situation and how it happened. … USDA will put all necessary resources towards this investigation.”

Read Full Article Here

According to the USDA, 2005 was the last year GM wheat was tested in fields in the U.S. The last year Monsanto field-tested GM wheat in Canada was 2004.

If the contamination is found to originate from field-testing, the same dangers are present in Canada, where regulations are similar to the U.S., says Sharratt. Since wheat is one of Canada’s top exports—worth nearly $6 billion—a blow to the market would be deeply felt.

Monsanto can’t explain how GMO wheat survived

Published time: June 04, 2013 17:10
Edited time: June 05, 2013 14:13

An examiner demonstrates the process of analyzing a genetically modified wheat sample (Reuters / Lee Jae-Won)

An examiner demonstrates the process of analyzing a genetically modified wheat sample
(Reuters / Lee Jae-Won)

Monsanto claims it has no idea how its herbicide-resistant strain of wheat made its way onto an Oregon field. The global biotech giant based in Missouri says it abandoned research on it in 2004 and is mystified by its emergence nearly a decade later.

Monsanto tested the GMO varieties in 17 US states between 1998 and 2004. Although it also tested the GM wheat in Oregon, the company claims it destroyed all of the material upon the conclusion of the program and that it never grew the wheat strain on the farm where it was found last month.

“The company’s internal assessments suggest that neither seed left in the soil nor wheat pollen flow serve as reasonable explanations behind this reported detection,” the biotech giant said in a news release Friday.

The company claims that even if the wheat seed had been left in the ground, it would not have survived longer than one or two years in the soil. Monsanto also states that its seed varieties could not have possibly traveled across the state, since 99 percent of wheat pollen is deposited within 10 meters of the plant.

This report is unusual since our program was discontinued nine years ago, and this is the only report after more than 500 million acres (200 million hectare) of wheat have been grown,” the company said in its statement.

Demonstrators hold up posters during a protest against U.S.-based Monsanto Co. and genetically modified organisms (GMO), in New York May 25, 2013 (Reuters / Eduardo Munoz)

Demonstrators hold up posters during a protest against U.S.-based Monsanto Co.
genetically modified organisms (GMO), in New York May 25, 2013
(Reuters / Eduardo Munoz)

Since May 29, the US Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has conducted a multi-state investigation to determine how the GM wheat reached the Oregon farm.

A local farmer discovered it after dousing his field with Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” pesticide and realizing that some of the wheat plants were resistant to it. He alerted the USDA, which soon determined that the herbicide-resistant wheat crop was the same variety Monsanto tested nearly a decade ago.

 

Read Full Article Here

 

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

Renegade GM wheat confined to single Oregon field says agriculture secretary

Tom Vilsack said no indication that GM wheat had entered greater food supply with no threat to public health in US

A wheat field.

Monsanto carried out field trials of GM wheat in Oregon between 1998-2005. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian

The agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, moved to steady Asian and European nerves about US wheat exports on Wednesday, saying there was no indication that rogue GM wheat had entered into the greater food supply.

Vilsack said investigations so far suggested the renegade wheat, which was discovered last week, was confined to a single field in Oregon.

There was no threat to public health, he said. “This was a finding of a very small number of plants on 123 acres of land. There is no indication it has found its way into commerce, into flour or wheat that has been sold,” Vilsack said during an appearance at the National Press Club in Washington. “It has been limited at this point in time to this particular field.”

Nearly all of the soft white wheat grown in Oregon is sold for export, mainly to Asia, and the discovery of the GM seeds, which were developed by Monsanto, sent wheat prices falling and could imperil billions of exports.

Japan and South Korea immediately suspended shipments.

Vilsack, in his remarks to the press club, said he hoped investigations by the US Department of Agriculture would make sufficient progress to reopen those markets in a matter of weeks.

 

Read Full Article Here

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

 

U.S. discovery of rogue GMO wheat raises concerns over controls

 

 

 

Fri May 31, 2013 1:27am EDT

(Reuters) – For global consumers now on high alert over a rogue strain of genetically modified wheat found in Oregon, the question is simple: How could this happen? For a cadre of critics of biotech crops, the question is different: How could it not?

The questions arose after the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Wednesday that it was investigating the mysterious appearance of experimental, unapproved genetically engineered wheat plants on a farm in Oregon. The wheat was developed years ago by Monsanto Co to tolerate its Roundup herbicide, but the world’s largest seed company scrapped the project and ended all field trials in 2004.

The incident joins a score of episodes in which biotech crops have eluded efforts to segregate them from conventional varieties. But it marks the first time that a test strain of wheat, which has no genetically modified varieties on the market, has escaped the protocols set up by U.S. regulators to control it.

“These requirements are leaky and there is just no doubt about that. There is a fundamental problem with the system,” said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists who served on a biotech advisory subcommittee for the Food and Drug Administration from 2002 to 2005.

The discovery instantly roiled export markets, with Japan canceling a major shipment of wheat, a quick reminder of what is at stake – an $8 billion U.S. wheat export business.

Many fear the wheat most likely has been mixed in with conventional wheat for some time, but there are no valid commercial tests to verify whether wheat contains the biotech Roundup Ready gene.

“A lot of people are on high alert now,” said Mike Flowers, a cereal specialist at Oregon State University. “We can’t really say if it is or isn’t in other fields. We don’t know.”

A month has passed since U.S. authorities first were alerted to the suspect plants in Oregon, yet it remains unclear how the strain developed. Monsanto officials said it is likely the presence of the Roundup Ready genetic trait in wheat supplies is “very limited.” The company is conducting “a rigorous investigation” to find out how much, if any, wheat has been contaminated by their biotech variety. U.S. regulators are also investigating.

Bob Zemetra, one of the Oregon State University wheat researchers who first tested the mystery wheat when an unnamed farmer mailed a plant sample, said there is no easy way to explain the sudden appearance of the strain years after field tests ended.

Cross-pollination seems unlikely, Zemetra said, because the field where the plants were discovered was growing winter wheat, while Monsanto had field tested spring wheat. There hadn’t been any test sites in the area since at least 2004, making it unlikely the new genetic strain would have been carried on the wind.

“I don’t know that we are ever going to get a straight answer, or a satisfactory answer, on how it got there,” Zemetra said.

‘RIGOROUS TESTING PROTOCOL’

Government records show Monsanto conducted at least 279 field tests of herbicide-resistant wheat on over 4,000 acres in at least 16 states from 1994 until the company abandoned its field testing of wheat in 2004.

Zemetra participated in Monsanto wheat trials a decade ago, while working as a wheat breeder at the University of Idaho. When Monsanto decided to halt the testing, he said, the company had strict rules about handling test materials.

“Pretty much all that seed, and any program that was using it, either buried it, burned it or shipped it back to Monsanto, as part of the instructions for doing the field testing,” he said. “It was a very rigorous testing protocol.”

Researchers were requested to watch the plots for “volunteer” growth for at least two years after conclusion of the tests, Zemetra added.

Zemetra first became aware of the wheat found in Oregon when a farmer brought in what he described as several isolated wheat plants that had emerged after he sprayed Roundup on a fallow field in eastern Oregon. The farmer had last harvested a crop of white winter wheat from the field in 2012.

 

Read Full Article Here

 

 

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

 

TheRealNews TheRealNews

Published on May 31, 2013

Jeannette Wicks-Lim: According to official figures 15 percent of Americans live in poverty, real numbers are over 33 percent of Americans cannot meet basic needs

See more videos at http://therealnews.com

Published on May 30, 2013

http://www.democracynow.org – Filmmakers Tia Lessin and Carl Deal say plans for their new documentary to air on public television have been quashed after billionaire Republican David Koch complained about the PBS broadcast of another film critical of him, “Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream,” by acclaimed filmmaker Alex Gibney. Lessin and Deal were in talks to broadcast their film, “Citizen Koch,” on PBS until their agreement with the Independent Television Service fell through. The New Yorker reports the dropping of “Citizen Koch” may have been influenced by Koch’s response to Gibney’s film, which aired on PBS stations, including WNET in New York late last year.

Watch Part 2 of this interview: http://youtu.be/8UPT_yj9S-U

“Citizen Koch” tells the story of the landmark Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court that opened the door to unlimited campaign contributions from corporations. It focuses on the role of the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity in backing Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has pushed to slash union rights while at the same time supporting tax breaks for large corporations. The controversy over Koch’s influence on PBS comes as rallies were held in 12 cities Wednesday to protest the possible sale of The Tribune newspaper chain, including the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune, to Koch Industries, run by David Koch and his brother Charles.

….

Did Public Television Commit Self-Censorship to Appease Billionaire Funder David Koch? (2 of 2)

democracynow democracynow


….

Published on May 30, 2013

http://www.democracynow.org – Filmmakers Tia Lessin and Carl Deal say plans for their new documentary to air on public television have been quashed after billionaire Republican David Koch complained about the PBS broadcast of another film critical of him, “Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream,” by acclaimed filmmaker Alex Gibney. Lessin and Deal were in talks to broadcast their film, “Citizen Koch,” on PBS until their agreement with the Independent Television Service fell through. The New Yorker reports the dropping of “Citizen Koch” may have been influenced by Koch’s response to Gibney’s film, which aired on PBS stations, including WNET in New York late last year.

Watch Part 1 of this interview: http://youtu.be/6ljSr7cqNKg

“Citizen Koch” tells the story of the landmark Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court that opened the door to unlimited campaign contributions from corporations. It focuses on the role of the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity in backing Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has pushed to slash union rights while at the same time supporting tax breaks for large corporations. The controversy over Koch’s influence on PBS comes as rallies were held in 12 cities Wednesday to protest the possible sale of The Tribune newspaper chain, including the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune, to Koch Industries, run by David Koch and his brother Charles.

Image Source

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

Reblogged from: Blavatar Sheeple: People unable to think for themselves

The old saying, “You are what you eat,” poses troubling implications for public health in light of a new study on chicken meat, which found that most of it contains dangerously high levels of toxic arsenic. And the worst part is that industrial chicken producers are directly responsible for causing this, as they intentionally add arsenic-based pharmaceutical drugs to chicken feed in order to bulk them up quickly and improve the color of their meat, which in turn poisons you and your family.

You can thank researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future in Maryland for exposing this little-known fact in a recent paper published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. As it turns out, virtually all commercial chicken, including certified organic and “antibiotic-free” varieties, contain some level of inorganic arsenic. But it is the conventional chicken fed arsenic-based drugs that have the highest levels.

As reported by GRACE Communications Foundation Senior Policy Advisor Chris Hunt, writing forEcocentricJohns Hopkins researchers collected a variety of chicken samples from grocery stores in 10 cities across the U.S. Some of the meat samples came from conventional sources, while others were U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) certified organic or “antibiotic-free.” All the samples were tested side-by-side with each other, including in both raw and cooked form.

Upon analysis, the team discovered that the conventional chicken meat samples had the highest levels of inorganic arsenic overall, containing up to four times as much arsenic as the organic chicken samples. These same conventional chicken meat samples contained up to three times more arsenic than the maximum levels proposed, but later retracted, as a safety standard by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) back in 2011.

“The levels of inorganic arsenic discovered in chicken are cause for concern, especially since many of us are already exposed to the carcinogen through additional dietary and environmental paths,” writes Hunt. “But unlike these other sources of exposure, which typically result from natural arsenic deposits, industry or residual contamination from the days of widespread arsenical pesticide use, as noted in the study, ‘arsenical poultry drugs are deliberately administered to animals intended for human consumption.’”

FDA currently allows Big Pharma to lace chicken feed with arsenic to boost profits

 

Read More Here

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 830 other followers