Tag Archive: GMO


 photo FamilySurvivalProtocolColliseumBannergrayscale900x338_zpsb17c85d0.jpg

Health and Wellness Report Banner photo FSPLogoBannerHealthandWellness831x338Blogger_zps68b43460.jpg

…………………………………………………………………………………

 

143914222

 

The seven hundred years-old expression, “curses are like chickens; they always come home to roost,” rarely has been more appropriate than to describe what is happening to the world’s largest purveyor of gene-manipulated or GMO seeds and paired chemical toxins. It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of genocidal eugenicists. Monsanto Corporation of St Louis is apparently in a deep decline.

 

Ever since 1992 when that nasty US President George H. W. Bush conspired–yes, Virginia, conspiracies exist– with the leadership of Monsanto to unleash GMOs on an unwitting American population, Monsanto seemed unstoppable.

With the help of Bush, who made a decree that no US Government agency be allowed to independently test GMO seeds or their chemicals for health and safety–the fraudulent and totally unscientific Doctrine of Substantial Equivalence–Monsanto could make its own fraudulent doctored tests and give them to US or EU agencies as valid. As a result, GMO seeds took over American agriculture, based on a pack of lies to farmers that they would raise yields and decrease chemical use. Monsanto spread its GMO far around the world, through bribery as in Indonesia, and through the unusual machinations of the Government of the United States. Monsanto paid scientists to lie about its products safety.

It used the corrupt Brussels European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to back its position, even when alarming studies such as the famous September 2012 Food and Chemical Toxicology peer-reviewed study by Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini created shock waves around the world. The Seralini study, the first ever long term, two year study of GMO diet with a group of 200 rats found shocking effects. Among them that,”female rats fed Monsanto GMO maize died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly… Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than, and before, controls; the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments.”

Monsanto then set about to kill the messenger by pressuring the Food & Chemical Toxicology journal to hire a former Monsanto employee, Richard E. Goodman, who promptly declared Seralini’s study “unscientific” and deleted it, an act almost without precedent in science journals. A year later both Goodman and the journal’s editor-in-chief were forced to step down and Seralini’s article was republished in another scientific journal. But the scientific character assassination against Seralini had a chilling effect as Monsanto wanted.

Read More Here

Advertisements

Consumer alert: GMO labeling to be outlawed by ‘Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act’ introduced today in Congress

 

GMO

Thursday, April 10, 2014
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles…)

 

(NaturalNews) A proposed new federal law just introduced by Rep. G.K. Butterfield (a Democrat) and Rep. Mike Pompeo (a Republican) would outlaw state-enacted GMO labeling laws. The new law, ridiculously called the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, is actually an last-ditch, desperate effort by the biotech industry and the GMA to forever bury the truth about GMOs so that consumers don’t know they’re eating poison.

According to mainstream media reports (1), the bill would require the FDA to mandate GMO labeling only if those foods “are found to be unsafe or materially different from foods produced without biotech ingredients.”

Because the FDA and USDA have already decided, against all scientific evidence, that GMOs are “safe” and “not materially different” from other foods, this requirement is nothing but sheer sleight of hand and a pandering to idiocy. In truth, this new bill, if passed into law, would allow food companies to permanently and insidiously hide GMOs in all their products forever, nullifying the numerous state-based GMO labeling laws which are on the verge of passing.

The Environmental Working Group calls this proposed new law the “DARK Act” (Denying Americans the Right to Know), saying:

After two states have passed GE labeling bills and more than 30 others are poised to consider similar labeling bills and ballot initiatives, the food and biotech industry have goat-roped some members of Congress into introducing legislation to block state GE labeling laws.

Push for GMOs run by criminally-minded organizations

GMOs have already been restricted or banned in over 60 countries (2), and Americans are very close to achieving victory in state-based GMO labeling campaigns. The very idea that American consumers might find out they’ve been eating GMO poisons in most of their favorite foods is so horrifying to the biotech industry (and the processed food front groups) that its enforcers are now seeking this “nuclear option” to legally deceive consumers about GMOs with the complicity of the FDA.

 

Read More Here

 

…..

U.S. bill seeks to block mandatory GMO food labeling by states

April 9 Wed Apr 9, 2014 12:46pm EDT

(Reuters) – A Republican congressman from Kansas introduced legislation on Wednesday that would nullify efforts in multiple states to require labeling of genetically modified foods

The bill, dubbed the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act” was drafted by U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo from Kansas, and is aimed at overriding bills in roughly two dozen states that would require foods made with genetically engineered crops to be labeled as such.

The bill specifically prohibits any mandatory labeling of foods developed using bioengineering.

“We’ve got a number of states that are attempting to put together a patchwork quilt of food labeling requirements with respect to genetic modification of foods,” said Pompeo. “That makes it enormously difficult to operate a food system. Some of the campaigns in some of these states aren’t really to inform consumers but rather aimed at scaring them. What this bill attempts to do is set a standard.”

Consumer groups have been arguing for labeling because of questions they have both about the safety for human health and the environmental impacts of genetically modified foods, also called GMOs.

Ballot measures in California in 2012 and last year in Washington state narrowly lost after GMO crop developers, including Monsanto Co., and members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) poured millions into campaigns to defeat the measures.

The companies say the crops are safe and cite many scientific studies back those claims. Pompeo on Wednesday reiterated those claims, stating GMOS are safe and “equally healthy” and no labeling is needed.

“It has to date made food safer and more abundant,” said Pompeo. “It has been an enormous boon to all of humanity.”

But there are also many scientific studies showing links to human and animal health problems, and many indicating environmental damage related to GMO crops.

 

Read More Here

 

 

…..

Congress considers blocking GMO food labeling

Published time: April 09, 2014 20:10
Edited time: April 10, 2014 11:01
AFP Photo / Robyn Beck

AFP Photo / Robyn Beck

A new bill introduced in Congress looks to ban states from implementing their own labeling laws when it comes to food containing genetically engineered ingredients.

According to Reuters, US Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) introduced the legislation on Wednesday, which is intended to head off bills in about 24 states that would require companies to inform customers when their food is produced using genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Titled the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act,” the proposal would forbid states from enacting such proposals.

“We’ve got a number of states that are attempting to put together a patchwork quilt of food labeling requirements with respect to genetic modification of foods,” Pompeo told Reuters. “That makes it enormously difficult to operate a food system. Some of the campaigns in some of these states aren’t really to inform consumers but rather aimed at scaring them. What this bill attempts to do is set a standard.”

Supporters of GMO labeling argue that modified ingredients pose a threat to human health, and that as a result they should be clearly labeled in the marketplace so that consumers can make informed decisions. In addition to health concerns, they also point to the negative environmental consequences that could arise from widespread GMO use, since millions of acres of farmland and weeds are developing resistances to the pesticides used.

Opponents, however, point to their own studies, showing that GMO crops are safe and therefore do not need to be labeled differently than other products.

 

Read More Here

…..

Enhanced by Zemanta

Published time: April 04, 2014 04:00

(AFP Photo / Dieter Nagl)

(AFP Photo / Dieter Nagl)

Rep. Mike Pompeo will introduce legislation backed by powerful trade groups to prevent states from passing laws requiring the labeling of genetically-modified foods, according to reports. The bill is linked to biotech giant Monsanto and Koch Industries.

Pompeo will offer the bill in the US House before Congress leaves for Easter recess later this month, The Hill newspaper reported, citing industry sources. Politico also reported on the impending proposal. Pompeo’s office would not comment on the congressman’s intentions for a labeling restriction.

The bill includes a “prohibition against mandatory labeling,” according to The Hill, echoing powerful interest groups that have already declared war against such “right to know” labeling laws around the nation.

It was revealed in recent months that powerful farming and biotechnology interest groups like Monsanto were joining forces – under the name ‘Coalition for Safe Affordable Food‘ – to push a federal voluntary labeling standard for food made with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in an effort to stem the tide of state legislation seeking to mandate labeling.

In recent years, voters in states such as California and Washington have narrowly defeated ballot initiatives proposing mandatory GMO labeling, though not without dragging members of the new Coalition into expensive campaigns to defeat the measures. Many other states are now considering their own proposals to label GMO food.

A top member of the Coalition – the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a major food industry lobbying group – raised and spent the bulk of the overall $22 million that opponents of labeling sank into defeating Washington State’s ballot initiative on GMO labeling last year. That total number was three times the amount that proponents of labeling spent in the state. GMA was joined in its effort by allies such as biotech giants Monsanto, Bayer, and DuPont.

The Coalition said in February that it would seek to empower the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “to establish federal standards for companies that want to voluntarily label their product for the absence-of or presence-of GMO food ingredients.” In addition, the Coalition proposes the FDA mandate labels for GMO food or ingredients that the agency deems a “health, safety or nutrition issue,” though no consumables currently fall in such a category.

“The legislation we’re proposing would preclude state legislation that conflicts with the federal standards,” GMA president Pamela Bailey said of the Coalition’s aim, The Hill reported.

 

Read More Here

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

File:NRCSHI07018 - Hawaii (716072)(NRCS Photo Gallery).jpg

Image Source :  WIkipedia

Author Photo by Scott Bauer, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

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

Prevent Disease .com

Now that genetically-modified tomatoes are fairly common, the heirloom varieties have become more appealing. Lycopene in tomatoes can reduce heart disease by almost 30 percent and the phytochemical is as powerful as many classes of drugs commonly prescribed for cardiovascular disease. If you’re not already a tomato-lover, here are 10 reasons to start loving them now.

Recent evidence just two ounces of tomato paste or a pint of juice a day could be enough to help many patient avoid dangerous statins the class of drugs commonly prescribed for these conditions which can lead to heart problems.

According to Tufts and Boston University researchers, the highest average intakes of lycopene were linked to almost a 30% reduction in the incidence of cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease, respectively, according to findings published in the British Journal of Nutrition.

Earlier forms of this GM crop included the transgenic tomato (FlavrSavr) which had a “deactivated” gene. This meant that the tomato plant was no longer able to produce polygalacturonase, an enzyme involved in fruit softening. The premise was that tomatoes could be left to ripen on the vine and still have a long shelf life, thus allowing them to develop their full flavour. Normally, tomatoes are picked well before they are ripe and are then ripened artificially.

These GM tomatoes, however, did not meet their expectations. Although they were approved in the US and several other countries, tomatoes with delayed ripening have disappeared from the market after peaking in 1998.

Today, tomatoes are being genetically modified to produce a peptide that mimics the actions of HDL cholesterol that biotechnology groups are promoting to supposedly reduce heart disease.

Similar gene modification techniques were devised in GM crops that led to tumors in a long-term widely publicized study on GM corn fed rats.

If you do love your tomatoes, stick do organic heirloom varieties and support your local farm as they may offer some of the best organic tomatoes. Here’s 10 reasons to love them:

Read More Here

Enhanced by Zemanta
                                                                         Image Source

Prevent Disease .com

Amaranth Plants Are Now Succeeding Where GMO Activists Are Failing – They Are Resisting Monsanto’s Glyphosate

Nature has a funny way of always coming on top and the Amaranth plant is a perfect example. All anti-GMO activism has led to little resistance against the powerful lobbyists at Monsanto and their dominion over government policy. But Amaranth is showing the biotech giant you can’t mess with nature without consequences.

A Superstar of the Plant Kingdom

The Amaranth is a plant well known to our ancestors, since the Incas considered it a sacred plant. Ancient amaranth grains were cultivated on a large scale in ancient Mexico, Guatemala, and Peru. In a 1977 article in Science, amaranth was described as “the crop of the future.”

Approximately 60 species are recognized and each plant produces about 12,000 seeds per year, with the leaves containing an abundance of vitamins and minerals. It has been proposed as an inexpensive native crop that could be cultivated by indigenous people in rural areas for several reasons:

  1. It is easily harvested.
  2. Its seeds are a good source of protein. Compared to other grains, amaranth is unusually rich in the essential amino acid lysine and some dieticians have argued that amaranth protein in higher than that of cow’s milk and far richer than soy.
  3. The seeds of Amaranthus species contain about thirty percent more protein than cereals like rice, sorghum and rye.
  4. It is easy to cook. As befits its weedy life history, amaranth grains grow very rapidly and their large seedheads can weigh up to 1 kilogram and contain a half-million seeds in three species of amaranth.

Amaranth Is Fighting the GMO Battle Like No Other

Besides the incredible nutritional benefits which nature has bestowed upon the human race with Amaranth, it appears it also knows how to fight GMO manipulation.

Studies began documenting weed resistance several years ago but the problem continues to mount, with The New York Times warning of the “Rise of the Superweeds” analogous to that of the ‘superbugs’ in medicine. But nature only does what its designed to do.

Kept as a very secretive incident, in 2004 the first farmers noticed that some of amaranth seedlings were resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup ready technology as they generously generously sprayed their soybean plants.

It turns out the amaranth seed received a resistance gene for Roundup.

Since then, the phenomenon has spread to other states: South Carolina, and northern Arkansas, Missouri and  Tennessee.

“There’s no question, we have a lot of problems in the Southeast,” York said. “For us, the horse is already out of the barn. For the Mid-South, you don’t want to go down this path we’re on right now.”

On July 25, 2005, the Guardian published an article by Paul Brown, who revealed that the modified genes were passed to the natural plants, creating a seed resistant to herbicides.

Read More Here

Enhanced by Zemanta

Another win for Monsanto: US raises allowable levels of company’s pesticide in crops

Published time: July 23, 2013 17:14
Edited time: July 24, 2013 18:12

AFP Photo / Karen Bleier

AFP Photo / Karen Bleier

Biotech giant Monsanto has been awarded yet another victory by the federal government thanks to a recent Environmental Protection Agency decision to allow larger traces of the herbicide glyphosate in farm-grown foods.

Despite a number of studies linking exposure to the chemical with diseases including types of cancer, the EPA is increasing the amount of glyphosate allowed in oilseed and food crops.

The EPA announced their plans on May 1 and allowed critics two months to weigh in and object to the ruling. Following little opposition, though, the EPA is on path to soon approve of levels of glyphosate being found in crops several times over the current concentration.

Glyphosate, a weed-killing chemical developed by Monsanto in 1970, is the key ingredient in the company’s “Roundup” label of herbicides. In the decades since, Monsanto has created and patented a number of genetically-modified organisms and genetically-engineered crops resisted to glyphosate that are sold worldwide under the company’s “Roundup Ready” brand. Those GMO products are then planted in fields where glyphosate, namely Roundup, is used en masse to eliminate weeds from taking over harvest. With scientists linking that chemical to cancerous diseases, though, critics decry the EPA decision and caution it could do more harm than good.

Through the EPA’s new standards, the amount of allowable glyphosate in oilseed crops such as flax, soybeans and canola will be increased from 20 parts per million (ppm) to 40 ppm, which GM Watch acknowledged is  over 100,000 times the amount needed to induce breast cancer cells. Additionally, the EPA is increasing limits on allowable glyphosate in food crops from 200 ppm to 6,000 ppm.

Read More Here

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

The Alarming Truths About GMO

Published on May 13, 2013

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art… Watch this video and discover the hidden truths about GMO, and its potential harm to the environment and ecosystems.

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

Prevent Disease .com

EPA Allows Monsanto’s Glyphosate Herbicide At Levels 60 Times Higher Above Toxic Exposure For Canola, Soy, Sunflower, Flax and Peanuts

Are we starting to come full circle to the reality that we can no longer trust big agriculture or our food industry for responsible policies and procurement? Last month the EPA let Monsanto raise the allowable concentrations of glyphosate on food crops, animal feed, and edible oils. The new regulation lets farmers use more of the chemical, which is the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup. Oilseed crops such as canola, soy, sunflower, flax and peanuts can now contain up to 40,000 parts per billion (ppb) glyphosate which is almost 60 times the minimum containment level for drinking water which even the EPA admits causes organ damage and reproductive effects.

See EPA Allowable Limit Glyophosate PPB Chart Here

Glyphosate is an herbicide produced and marketed by Monsanto Corporation, the agrochemical and biotechnology giant. Monsanto claims that glyphosate is safe and has successfully lobbied the Environmental Protection Agency to raise the residue limits of this toxic chemical.

But independent scientists disagree with Monsanto: several recently published peer-reviewed studies point to serious health impacts from exposure to this toxic herbicide.

Glyphosate has been shown in several recent studies to be an endocrine disruptor. According to the National Institutes of Health, endocrine disruptors could have long-term effects on public health, especially reproductive health. And the “dose makes the poison” rule does not apply to endocrine disruptors, which wreak havoc on our bodies at low doses.

Even a quick search for scientific publications on glyphosate demonstrates its toxicity and carcinogenicity:

Glyphosate-Induced Carcinogenicity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20045496

Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes

http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cell Growth
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

Cytotoxicity of the herbicide glyphosate
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18320126

Biomonitoring of genotoxic risk in agricultural workers
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19672767

Technical Factsheet on: GLYPHOSATE
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pdfs/factsheets/soc/tech/glyphosa.pdf

Read More Here

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

Enhanced by Zemanta

Non-Compliance: A Spiritual Revolution

July 10, 2013 | By   

Flickr-non compliance-puroticoricoChris Bourne, Openhand Contributor
Waking Times

People of the world rise up
Right now, people around the world are speaking of rebellion against this unjust system that not only supports our lives, but controls them. Rioting is happening on the streets of Istanbul and in Brazil, the people are rallying against inequality and poverty. That’s not to mention the ongoing protests in Europe and other parts of the world about austerity cuts. On youtube and other social media there’s much blame for our political leaders and also the bankers. But who is to blame really? And can anyone really control us? If we bring this system down, what will we replace it with?…

Shouting at reflections in the mirror

In social media right now I’m constantly seeing new films about revolution, about bringing the unjust system in which we live down. There’s talk of taking to the streets in protest just as people around the world have begun to do. I feel for them greatly and my heart is with them: if it serves your soul to peacefully protest, if it is the highest expression of you, then you must do so. But there’s much more to it than just protesting at what we want to change. Unless we’ve truly changed ourselves and found a more equitable way of living for all life, we’ll simply re-create the same thing on the outside that we’re still holding on the inside.

The system we live in is one of exploitation. It is endemic, right through, from governments to the banks and corporations that effectively steal mother earth’s resources and then sell them back to us for labour. People of the world are caused to sell their labour cheaply and in so doing, transfer resource wealth from the many to a few. We’ve spoken consistently here on Openhand that such a system is not only lining the pockets of the world’s rich and powerful, it’s also dehumanising us and destroying our planet at an alarming rate.

But here’s the thing, the system is in place only because we continue to support it. So taking the streets and campaigning loudly – unless you’ve first changed within – it is simply like shouting into the mirror. We are the ones who have been buying the products produced by the companies that control us. We are the ones supporting huge agro-businesses which are destroying the oceans through GMO and non-organic food production. We are the ones who support the oil and drug companies by consuming stuff we simply don’t need. So campaign to change the government yes, but what will you do about the corporations that really control us?

All we need is “Non-Compliance”

In our recent video Transformation of Humanity, we spoke of confronting and changing the system through “non-compliance”. You and I could begin an absolutely unstoppable revolution that would change the world for the better of all life and we don’t even have to take to the streets to do it. As Gandhi fought for Indian independence through non-violence, we can take a leaf out of his book through “non-compliance”. He made personal choices that became an example to others. So he chose to wear a home-spun clothing in order to encourage self-sufficient village industries and thus help alleviate poverty in India. If we stopped buying clothes produced in globalized sweat-shop servitude, that creates wealth for the few who then control us with it, that would immediately start tugging and unraveling the threads of the controlling matrix in which we live.

Likewise, if we chose organic and not GM food, we’d stop contributing to the destruction of our oceans and our top soil eco-systems. In the process, we’d stop lining the pockets of big business who then buy the politicians that pull the wool over people’s eyes, plus we’d find ourselves more healthy in the bargain and our consciousness would expand through the reduction of internally polluting excito-toxins. If just a small percentage of us had the courage to do this, whatever the apparent extra cost might be, the financial system would collapse very quickly bringing with it globalised destructive business and many (if not all) of the corporations that control governments and us.

Right now, we are living not in one world but two. There is the old one of the old values, injustice and inequity. But we can also access another world through the choices that we make. If we choose non-compliance with the old system in everything that we consume, then we’ll find ourselves increasingly accessing a higher vibration. The new world becomes increasingly a reality for us. We’ll feel it in our hearts, our consciousness will expand and what’s more, as more people do this, we’ll accelerate the collapse of the old system around us.

Openhandway

So do you feel revolutionary? Do you feel it’s time for change, real change, non compliant change that serves the higher good of all life? If so, a way will reveal itself to you. When you find the will to change and be open in your heart, immediately choices will be presented to you, today. They’ll speak through the synchronicity surrounding your feelings. Is it right to buy this or that? If you expand through your desires and contractions to the moment, a surrendered openness arises from which “Right Action” simply yearns to happen.

No one is saying you have to give up everything of the old system immediately. Since the old system practically owns all of the natural resources, we’re going to have to compromise. We may still have to use the car, but how much? We may still fly but how often? From my experience the soul is compromising, but it simply doesn’t pay to compromise the soul!

Here at Openhand we call the approach “Openhandway” or “openway for short. It is a way that not only serves our own higher good, but also the higher interests of the planet too; we feel increasingly lighter, more expanded and joyful in the process. So do you wish to change the world for the better of all? Then I advocate ‘non-compliance’ with the current system, and instead, allowing this state of surrendered openness to guide you.

Now. And always.

Chris

About the Author

Chris Bourne – At the age of 40, I was involved in a life threatening car crash in which I thought I would certainly die. This precipitated total inner surrender and a rapid reconnection with the conscious life force through all things.

I found myself suddenly able to experience and contemplate through multiple dimensions of reality to see the deeper purpose of life itself. It was then I began to fully realise my true reason for being here.

During the crash, time seemed to slow right down and I was guided back through key moments of my life. I was realising that every moment in our lives has but one underlying purpose – to reveal an aspect of truth about ourselves to ourselves. I was beginning to dissolve every belief and value our society had conditioned within me.

This was my initial awakening to the magical unifying consciousness of the soul. Over the eight years that followed, I was guided through four other inner ‘Gateways’ of consciousness. I have since come to know the process as the five key expansions on our journey of Enlightenment and ultimate Ascension into multi dimensional living – our divine birthright.

My consciousness expansion however did not end there. It continued to blossom and expand. I became acutely aware of a highly evolved, benevolent presence, working through the weave of life since the dawning of time itself. I have come to know this Group of Nine intimately. It guides my life and is the basis of Openhand itself.

Enhanced by Zemanta

NATURAL SOCIETY

 

by
June 18th, 2013
Updated 06/18/2013 at 5:16 pm

 

chipotle label gmos 263x164 Chipotle First US Chain Restaurant to Label GMOs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a display of effective consumer activism, Chipotle Mexican Grill has become the first US restaurant chain to go ahead and label all GMOs sold through their locations on the menu. And unlike Whole Foods and other grocers, who are making similar strides but are actually years away from actual implementation, Chipotle has already launched the labeling initiative into existence.

 

In case you’ve never heard of Chipotle, it is a ‘natural’ Mexican food restaurant that you could say is essentially a fast food hybrid. The chain actually had a major investment from McDonald’s back in 1998, but the fast food titan ultimately divested from Chipotle in 2006. Subsequently, that’s when Chipotle really started to explode with over 500 locations — now hitting 1,400 chain locations with an income of $278 million. In other words, we’re talking about a major fast food chain that is highlighting the issue of GMOs in a way that’s really important.

 

Read: Target to Remove GMOs from Major Food Brand

 

Chipotle has always marketed itself as a ‘natural’ restaurant within the fast food dynasty of restaurant chains, but it still is serving up very unnatural GMOs and dangerous ingredients. That said, thanks to aggressive consumer activism, Chipotle has officially announced that it will not only be labeling GMOs on the ingredients list of food products, but phasing out all GMOs on the menu

 

Read More  Here

Reblogged from:   Blavatar   toolwielder

 

 

burnbeets

 

Though the controlled corporate media apparatus is suppressing the story, 40 tons of GMO crops were torched, prompting an FBI investigation. There has been a COMPLETE MEDIA BLACKOUT, outside of local circles has dared to mention it, perhaps because government fears that if the public learns that other people are getting fighting mad (literally), they might join in, and become an actual revolution. It was only reported locally live on KXL Radio and echoed by the Oregonian, where the ONLY web mention exists, hard to find because the headline wording is carefully avoids the most likely keywords for a search.

 

Here’s what happened — 40 Tons of GMO Sugar Beets were set ablaze in Eastern Oregon, yesterday. FORTY TONS — the entire acreage of two full fields of crops IN THE GROUND were set ablaze over a THREE NIGHT PERIOD OF TIME. That means ARSON.

 

Evidence is that 6,500 plants were destroyed BY HAND, ONE PLANT AT A TIME. That, in turn, implies A LOT OF PEOPLE were involved: would you want to stick around once a fire was going and wait to be discovered? No, someone (many someones) probably wanted to move as quickly as possible. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A MOVEMENT, a kind of ORGANIZED REVOLT — and this is exactly the kind of retribution that many have warned was coming; when lawmakers and corporations refuse to honor the Constitution and instead engage in ‘legalized’ criminal acts such as enabled by the ‘Monsanto Protection Act.’

 

More than decade ago, environmental saboteurs vandalized experimental crops across the country in a revolt against high-tech agriculture. Foes of genetic engineering also struck in 2000, when members of the Earth Liberation Front, with roots in Oregon, set fire to agriculture offices at Michigan State University. ELF’s position was that genetic engineering was “one of the many threats to the natural world as we know it.”

 

Read More  Here

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