Israel is considered “an international center for studying genetically modified organisms.” Research involving genetically modified organisms (GMOs) concentrates on the development of seeds and is conducted in Israeli universities, in government research institutions, and by the private sector. Funding for GMO research and testing in Israel derives from Israeli and foreign sources, including the United States.
Israeli subsidiary legislation defines a GMO as “[a]n organism, including a microorganism, virus, viroid, and any single-celled or multi-celled entity, that has undergone a modification by genetic engineering and is involved with plants in any way during its life cycle.” A commentator has noted that while GMO research in Israel has focused on “developing and improving plants’ resistance to pests, diseases, and herbicides[,] . . . the research can only reach the ‘proof of concept’ stage, because of regulations.”
Accordingly, although the growth of GMOs is generally permitted in Israel for research purposes, subject to conditions enumerated by law, it is not authorized for commercial purposes. Ingredients derived from GMOs may, however, be imported, sold, and used in the production of food in Israel. GMO products are also “widely used in the pharmaceutical industry” in Israel. There are currently no requirements for the labeling of GMOs in Israel.
II. Public and Scholarly Opinion
A. Government Policies
In a December 2011 hearing of the 18th Knesset (Israel’s Parliament) Science and Technology Committee, experts testified in favor of research and development (R&D) involving genetic engineering in agriculture. Projecting a rise in global population and food shortages, Professor Yoram Kapolnik, head of agricultural research at the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), testified on the need for Israel to prepare for 2050, by which time he expects central food components to be depleted. Professor Amnon Lars, a researcher at the Agriculture Research Organization’s Volcani Center, also testified that genetic engineering proposed alternatives to the use of pesticides by developing vegetables that would be resistant to various viruses.
The hearing concluded with a call by Ronit Tirosh, the Committee’s Chair, to remove “the stigmas regarding the low level of safety [associated with] genetically engineered products; because it was proved that they are unjustified.” Calling on MARD to allocate funding “for marketing and for educating the public” on this issue, Ms. Tirosh stressed the need for closer cooperation between the Ministry of Health and MARD’s research institutions. Such cooperation is necessary, she stated, “so that regulations and directives that are issued by the Ministry of Health will be considered in connection with every research project that is conducted, when the goal at the completion of the research is to open the products for wide distribution and trade.” Ms. Tirosh called for the introduction of a bill that would regulate the labeling of genetically engineered products and increase the number of inspectors to ensure compliance with quality standards.
A search for legislative developments since the December 2011 hearing has disclosed an amendment delaying the enforcement date of the Public Health (Food) (Nutritional Labeling) (Amendment) 5771-2011 Regulations to January 31, 2014. The text of these regulations, however, does not include reference to the labeling of GMO products. The absence of labeling requirements for GMO food components was criticized at a hearing conducted by the Knesset Committee for Labor, Welfare and Health on July 3, 2013.
B. Public Environmental Concerns
Environmental activists have expressed concerns regarding the quality and the potential harm that they believe would result from the use of GMOs. Activists argue that “GM seeds produce sterile crops, so cross-pollination with wild plants could bring rapid extinction to those wild varieties. . . . GM plants are very weak and ‘spoiled’.” They have also expressed concerns about the long-term ecological effects of GMOs breeding with other plants.
Israeli scientists, however, have generally support the development of GMOs. According to Professor Gad Galili of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, the development of genetically engineered crops can address “the global shortage of staple foods.” In response to concerns regarding the long-term impact of GMO use he opined that
C. Religious Concerns
Concerns have been raised both in Israel and among Jewish communities around the world regarding whether products that include GMO components are Kosher and thus fulfill strict Jewish dietary standards. The Epoch Times has reported that
In the United States, the Natural Food Certifiers (NFC) Organization, announced that its Apple K Kosher Certification Program would no longer accept applications for products that contain GMOs.
According to a press release issued by the NFC:
III. Structure of Pertinent Legislation
Israeli law currently does not include any primary legislation on GMOs. Responsibilities for GMO research, development, and use are shared by MARD and the Ministry of Health in accordance with regulations established by these ministries based on their respective authorities.
A. Regulation of GMO Research
The Seed Regulations (Genetically Modified Plants and Organisms) 5765– 2005 were issued in 2005 by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development based on general authorities provided under the Seeds Law, 5716-1956, and the Plant Protection Law, 5716-1956.
MARD oversees all experimentation with transgenic plants and organisms that are involved in the life cycle of plants in accordance with the regulations. In addition, MARD handles the importation and exportation, handling and commercialization of genetically modified propagation material.
MARD’s activities in these areas are managed by the following bodies:
1. The Plant Protection and Inspection Service (PPIS);
2. The National Committee for Transgenic Plants (NCTP); and
3. The Authorized Institutional Representative.
B. Regulation of GMO Use in Food
According to information posted on the Ministry of Health website,
Legislation specifically regulating labeling of GMO components in food does not appear to have been passed to date.
IV. Restrictions on Research, Production, and Marketing
A. Rules for Authorizing Research and for Research Laboratories
The Seed Regulations prohibit any experimentation with plants that have undergone a change by means of genetic modification without a permit issued by the Director of the PPIS. The regulations authorize the Director to grant experiment permits and to stipulate conditions and restrictions for their issue; including conditions for destroying plant material, organisms or regulated articles used during the experiment and requiring that testing be conducted in laboratories that have been approved by the Director. The Director may refuse to issue a permit for experiments that are to be carried out in a
The regulations authorize the Director to exempt applicants from needing to obtain an experiment permit if he or she is satisfied that the experiment will be conducted in a laboratory equipped with an autoclave facility and its operator and safety officer have ensured that “all experiment residues are destroyed in an incinerator or sterilized with material that the Director has approved.”
B. Marketing Rules
The sale of transgenic plants requires permission from the Director in consultation with the NCTP and compliance with all the conditions enumerated in the experiment permit. The sale or export of transgenic propagation material or organism similarly requires a valid registration certificate or an approved label.
The regulations require an applicant who requests authorization to sell transgenic propagation material or transgenic organisms to submit a registration application that includes the following information:
The Director is authorized to reject, restrict, or cancel a registration of transgenic propagation material or organisms for sale based on evidence that the plant material or organism may endanger plants, humans, or animals or have unacceptable negative impacts on the environment, or based on noncompliance with labeling requirements that have been authorized by the Director or deviation from the trait description that has been supplied at the time of registration application.
C. Labeling Requirements for Distributed Products
As discussed above, labeling requirements apply to the marketing of transgenic plants, propagation material, and organisms. Labeling requirements for distribution of processed food products containing GMO components do not apply at this time.
D. Agencies Involved in Implementation
According to the regulations, the role of the NCTP is to advise the Director, in accordance with the instructions prescribed by the regulations, and “to determine if genetically modified plants or organisms or their sale, pose any risk to humans or animals or have unacceptable negative impacts on the environment.”
The thirteen committee members are appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and include the following persons:
V. Restrictions on Releasing Organisms into the Environment
As explained above, GMOs may be produced in Israel only for research purposes subject to conditions enumerated by the relevant regulations. GMO growth is not authorized for commercial purposes.
VI. Restrictions on GMOs in Foodstuff
VII. Liability Regime
Israeli law does not contain a special liability regime in relation to the development, use, or release of GMOs.
VIII. Judicial Decisions / Prominent Cases
A search for case law concerning GMO research and use unconnected to patent rights has not identified any relevant court decisions.
 Marlene-Aviva Grunpeter, GMOs, A Global Debate: Israel a Center for Study, Kosher Concerns,Epoch Times (Aug. 5, 2013), http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/229556-gmos-a-global-debate-israel-a-center-for-study-kosher-concerns/.
 See Agricultural Research Organization (ARO), Volcani Center: Plant Pathology and Weed Research, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), http://www.agri.gov.il/en/departments/12.aspx (last visited Sept. 12, 2013). See, e.g., Hagai Amit, Homegrown Israeli Idea for Conquering the World Food Shortage, Haaretz (Apr. 12, 2012), http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/homegrown-israeli-idea-for-conquering-the-world-food-shortage-1.423959.
 Id. (stating, for example, that the US government was helping to fund pre-field trial tests conducted by an Israeli startup company). For general information on life sciences research in Israel, see Tova Cohen & Steven Scheer, Analysis: After Tech Success, Israel Seeks Life Sciences Growth, Reuters (June 6, 2013), http://www.reuters.com/ article/2013/06/06/us-israel-biomed-idUSBRE9550IU20130606.
 Seed Regulations (Genetically Modified Plants and Organisms) 5765-2005, Kovetz Hatakanot [KT] [Subsidiary Legislation] No. 6391 p. 782. An unofficial translation of the regulations is available on the MARD website at http://www.ppiseng.moag.gov.il/PPISENG/GeneticallyModifiedPlants/LicensingandanalysisofGMplants/
 Genetically Engineered Food, Ministry of Health, http://www.health.gov.il/unitsoffice/hd/ph/fcs/novelfood/ pages/engfood.aspx (last visited Sept. 12, 2012).
 The Knesset Committee for Science and Technology, The 18th Knesset, Use of Genetic Engineering in Agricultural Research in Israel (Hearing in the Committee, Protocol No. 112: Summary of the Committee’s Activity, Part B, p. 50 (Aug. 2011–Nov. 2012), http://www.knesset.gov.il/committees/heb/docs/ mada_18b.pdf (in Hebrew).
 For information on the Center’s research activities, see Agriculture Research Organization (ARO) Volcani Center, MARD, http://www.agri.gov.il/units/institutes/default.aspx (last visited Sept. 16, 2013).
 The Knesset Committee for Science and Technology, supra note 11, at 51.
 Public Health (Food) (Nutritional Labeling) (Amendment) 5771-2011 Regulations, KT No. 7019, p. 1198 (July 31, 2011), as amended by KT No. 7160, p. 1661 (Aug. 30, 2012).
 See The 19th Knesset Committee for Labor, Welfare and Health Meeting (Protocol No. 47, July 3, 2013) pp. 18–21, http://www.knesset.gov.il/protocols/data/rtf/avoda/2013-07-03.rtf (in Hebrew).
 Grunpeter, supra note1.
 Gal Tziperman Lotan, Scientists, Activists Debate if Genetically Modified Foods are Panacea or Plague, The Jerusalem Post (Apr. 30, 2008), http://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Sci-Tech/Science-And-Environment/Scientists-activists-debate-if-genetically-modified-foods-are-panacea-or-plague.
 See Natural Food Certifiers, GreenerChoices, http://www.greenerchoices.org/eco-labels/label.cfm? LabelID=198 (last visited Sept. 16, 2013).
 Grunpeter, supra note 1.
 The NFC has been certifying products as organic since 2002 and is accredited as an organic certifier by the USDA. See GreenerChoices, supra note 23.
 Daisy Luther, Kosher Certification Program Bans All GMO Ingredients, The Organic Prepper (Apr. 25, 2013), http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/kosher-certification-program-bans-all-gmo-ingredients-04252013.
 Seed Regulations (Genetically Modified Plants and Organisms) 5765–2005, KT No. 6391, p. 728.
 Seeds Law, 5716-1956, 10 Laws of the State of Israel [LSI] 99 (5716-1955/56), as amended.
 Plant Protection Law, 5716-1956, 10 LSI 75, as amended.
 Genetically Modified Plants & Organisms, MARD Plant Protection and Inspection Services, http://www.ppiseng.moag.gov.il/PPISENG/GeneticallyModifiedPlants/LicensingandanalysisofGMplants/ (click on “[l]earn more about the service . . . ”; last visited Nov. 1, 2013).  Id.
 Genetically Engineered Food, Ministry of Health, http://www.health.gov.il/unitsoffice/hd/ph/fcs/ novelfood/pages/engfood.aspx (last visited Sept. 18, 2012) (translated by author, R.L.).
 Seed Regulations (Genetically Modified Plants and Organisms) 5765-2005, § 3.
 The National Committee for Transgenic Plants is a committee appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for matters concerning experiments with transgenic plants and organisms and their sale. See id. § 2(a).
Israel: Israel is one of the most interesting places I’ve visited. However, its summers are very hot and it can be quite dusty. Despite the challenges inherent in its desert-like climate, the local fruits and veggies are spectacular. There are no GMOs commercialized in Israel even though the country is a hotbed for genetic engineering research, which comes as no surprise considering the interest that the nation has in drought-resistant crops. The absence of commercialized GMOs is due to the fact that a very large portion of Israel’s agricultural exports head to the EU, where they are slower and more cautious to approve transgenic crops for import (learn more on EU’s stance on GMOs here). As such, growing GMOs might have financial repercussions if the EU were to decide to be more wary of Israeli produce.
The Cornucopia Institute releases shopper’s guide red-flagging pro/con food brands involved with Colorado and Oregon Initiatives
“Many consumers will likely be surprised to learn that owners and management of some of their favorite organic and natural brands are fighting against the right of consumers to know what is in their food,” says Mark Kastel, Codirector of The Cornucopia Institute, a farm policy research group. “We want to spotlight this issue so that consumers can vote in the marketplace for manufacturers and brands that reflect their personal values.”
Jeffrey Smith 31December2010 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/throwing-biotech-lies-at_b_803139.html
Throwing Biotech Lies at Tomatoes – Part 1: Killer Tomatoes
Remember the pictures of the fish tomatoes? For years they were an unofficial emblem of the anti-GMO movement. They depicted how anti-freeze genes from an Arctic fish were forced into tomato DNA, allowing the plants to survive frost. Scientists really did create those Frankentomatoes, but they were never put on the market. (Breyers low-fat ice cream, however, does contain anti-freeze proteins from Arctic fish genes, but that’s another story.)
The tomato that did make it to market was called the Flavr Savr, engineered for longer shelf life. Fortunately, it was removed from the shelves soon after it was introduced.
Although there are no longer any genetically modified (GM) tomatoes being sold today, the FDA’s shady approval process of the Flavr Savr provides a lesson in food safety—or rather, the lack of it—as far as gene-spliced foods are concerned. We know what really went on during the FDA’s voluntary review process of the Flavr Savr in 1993, because a lawsuit forced the release of 44,000 agency memos.
(Those same memos, by the way, also showed that FDA scientists had repeatedly warned their superiors about the serious health risks of genetically modified organisms [GMOs]. They were ignored by the political appointees in charge, who allow GMOs onto the market without any required safety studies.)
Calgene, the tomatoes’ creator-in-chief (now a part of Monsanto), voluntarily conducted three 28-day rat feeding studies. Before I share the gory details, I must commend the Calgene scientists who were committed to transparency and full disclosure with the FDA. Unlike all other subsequent voluntary submissions from biotech firms to the agency, Calgene provided detailed feeding study data and full reports. Dr. Belinda Martineau, one of Calgene’s tomato makers, writes in First Fruit about their commitment to an open process while they attempted to introduce the world’s first GM food crop.
Calgene tested two separate Flavr Savr tomato lines. Both had the same gene inserted into the same type of tomato. The process of insertion and the subsequent cloning of the cells into GM plants can cause lots of unique and unpredicted consequences. The two lines, therefore, were not considered identical.
The rats that ate one of these Flavr Savr varieties probably wished they were in a different test group. Out of 20 female rats, 7 developed stomach lesions—bleeding stomachs. The rats eating the other Flavr Savr, or the natural tomatoes, or no tomatoes at all, had no lesions.
If we humans had such effects in our stomachs, according to Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a top GMO safety and animal feeding expert, it “could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who use aspirin to prevent thrombosis.”
The lab that performed the study for Calgene acknowledged that the results “did suggest a possible treatment related” problem. FDA scientists repeatedly asked Calgene to provide additional data in order to resolve what they regarded as outstanding safety questions. The director of FDA’s Office of Special Research Skills wrote that the tomatoes did not demonstrate a “reasonable certainty of no harm,” which is the normal standard of safety. The Additives Evaluation Branch agreed that “unresolved questions still remain,” and the staff pathologist stated, “In the absence of adequate explanations by Calgene, the issues raised by the Pathology Branch … remain and leave doubts as to the validity of any scientific conclusion(s) which may be drawn from the studies’ findings.”
Oh yeah, some rats died
The team that had obtained the formerly secret FDA documents sent the full Flavr Savr studies to Dr. Pusztai for review and comment. While reading them, he happened across an endnote that apparently the FDA scientists either did not see or chose to ignore. The text nonchalantly indicated that 7 of the 40 rats fed the Flavr Savr tomato died within two weeks. The dead rats had eaten the same tomato line as those that developed lesions. In the other groups, fed the other Flavr Savr line, a natural tomato control, or a water control, only one rat had died.
But the endnote summarily dismissed the cause of death as husbandry error, and no additional data or explanation was provided. The dead rats were simply replaced with new ones.
When I discussed this finding with Dr. Pusztai over the phone, he was beside himself. He told me emphatically that in proper studies, you never just dismiss the cause of death with an unsupported footnote. He said that the details of the post mortem analysis must be included in order to rule out possible causes or to raise questions for additional research. Furthermore, you simply never replace test animals once the research begins.
Questionable follow-up study
Calgene repeated the rat study. This time, one male rat from the non-GM group of 20, and two females from the GM-fed group of 15, showed stomach lesions. Calgene claimed success. They said that the necrosis (dead tissue) and erosions (inflammation and bleeding) were “incidental” and not tomato-related. The FDA staff pathologist, however, was not convinced. He responded that “the criteria for qualifying a lesion as incidental were not provided.” Further, he said that the disparity between the studies “has not been adequately addressed or explained.”
In reality, the new study was not actually a “repeat.” They used tomatoes from a different batch and used a freeze-dried concentrate rather then the frozen concentrate used in the previous trial. Dr. Martineau explained to me that by freeze-drying, it allowed them to put more of the concentrated tomato into each rat. But Dr. Pusztai said that altering the preparation of the food can lead to different results. He also pointed out that humans were more likely to consume frozen concentrate compared with freeze-dried.
In spite of the outstanding issues, the political appointees at the FDA concluded that the lesions were not related to the GM tomatoes. To be on the safe side, however, Calgene on its own chose not to commercialize the tomato line that was associated with the high rate of stomach lesions and deaths. The other line went onto supermarket shelves in 1994.
Faulty science rules the day
This was the very first GM food crop to be consumed in the US. It was arguably the most radical change in our food in all of human history. It was the product of an infant science that was prone to side-effects. Yet it was placed on the market without required labels, warnings, or post-marketing surveillance. One hopes that the FDA would have been exhaustive in their approval process, holding back approvals until all doubts were extinguished. But the agency was officially mandated with promoting biotechnology and bent over backwards to push GMOs onto the market. As a result, their evaluation was woefully inadequate.
Having discovered problems in the stomach, for example, Dr. Pusztai said they should have looked further down the digestive system at the intestines as well, but they didn’t. They should have increased the number of animals in the experiment to strengthen the findings, but they didn’t. And they should have used young (e.g. month-old) and pregnant animals as is done with pharmaceutical studies, but they didn’t.
They did, however, use rats with vast differences in starting weights. This invalidates any conclusions that there were no significant differences in weight gain, feed intake, or organ weights between GM- and non-GM-fed groups. The starting weights in the Flavr Savr experiment ranged from 130 to 258 grams for males, and 114 to 175 grams for females. Contrast that with the hundreds of rat feeding trials conducted by Dr. Pusztai, where the starting weights were within a range of 1 or 2 grams.
Dr. Pusztai also pointed out that the experimental tomatoes were grown at different locations and harvested at different times, which further increases the variability of results.
The FDA’s defense that the bleeding stomachs did not come from the Flavr Savr diet was also an exercise in faulty science. They blamed the lesions on mucolytic agents in the tomato (i.e. components that dissolves thick mucus); but according to Dr. Pusztai, tomatoes are not known to contain mucolytic agents. The FDA also claimed that it might be the food restriction in the rats’ diet—but the rats ate as much as they wanted. Or maybe it was the animal restraint—but the rats were not restrained.
The explanation that stuck to the wall was that the process of force-feeding the tomatoes through tubes was the reason for the stomach lesions. But as Dr. Pusztai and FDA scientists both observed, there was no adequate explanation as to why the rats fed GM tomatoes in the earlier study had the higher rate of lesions.
Dr. Pusztai said the “study was poorly designed and executed and, most importantly, led to flawed conclusions.” He warned, “the claim that these GM tomatoes were as safe as conventional ones is at best premature and, at worst, faulty.”
Fortunately, the Flavr Savr tomatoes lacked flavor. They also got mushy (unless they were handled in such a way that the company spent more money getting them to market than it could sell them for). They were taken off the market by the time Monsanto bought Calgene in 1997.
After the Flavr Savr’s superficial review and controversial approval, no subsequent GMO producer has ever presented such detailed safety test data to the FDA.
I write about the Flavr Savr in Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. Two biotech advocates, Drs. Chassy and Tribe, created a GMO disinformation site that allegedly discredits all 65 health risks highlighted in the work. I have already shown that their attack on the first risk, Dr. Pusztai’s potatoes, was based on pure PR spin and scientific sleight-of-hand. Below I respond to their accusations regarding the Flavr Savr.
1. (Chassy and Tribe) FDA records clearly show that experts stated that the process of introducing stomach tubes can damage the rats’ stomachs and/or end up placing test material in the lungs. . . The reader is not told that regulators approved the tomato because their concerns had been fully satisfied that the GM tomato was not toxic.
As indicated in Part 1, the actual scientists at the FDA wrote memo after memo declaring that the higher rates of lesions in the GM-fed group could not be explained away, and that they were not fully satisfied by the explanations. The discrepancy between what the political appointees at the agency stated publicly, and the concerns expressed in private memos by the scientific staff, has been clearly documented.
In fact, one memo reveals that during their Flavr Savr review, the FDA was making blatant and possibly illegal exceptions. One person wrote, “It has been made clear to us that this present submission [Flavr Savr] is not a food additive petition and the safety standard is not the food additive safety standard. It is less than that but I am not sure how much less.” According to attorney Steven Druker, who is an expert in US food safety law, the FDA’s own regulations clearly state that a lower standard should not have been applied in this instance.
As for the stomach lesions, without repeating the study with the same tomatoes, in the same concentration, with larger sample sizes, we can’t be confident that the GM line was the cause. But likewise, we can’t be confident that they were not. It’s another example of too few data.
2. No real differences were seen between groups of animals in the study. Contrary to Smith’s claims, expert pathologists stated that mild gastric erosions were seen at similar levels in both GM and non-GM fed rats.
This is quite a bizarre statement, given that seven female rats had stomach lesions in the first study, compared to none in the other feeding groups. Even the experimenters said that the results suggest a treatment-related effect. I guess if you completely ignore the main rat study in question, which apparently Chassy and Tribe would like us all to do, then you will not see significant differences. But putting blinders on to ignore inconvenient evidence does not prove safety or demonstrate good science.
3a. Rats might have been injured . . . by accidental administration of test material into the lung instead of the stomach.
3b. Gastric lesions can be caused by acidosis brought on by fasting.
Neither of these arguments address why 7 of 20 females fed GM tomatoes had lesions while the controls, reared under the same conditions, did not. Furthermore, since the rats did not fast but ate as much as they wanted, why would they throw in this irrelevant point (if not to obscure the truth)?
4. Smith is actually asking the reader to believe that the FDA would approve a lethal product.
Believe it! The FDA approves lethal products all the time. According to a report by the United States General Accounting Office, more than half of the drugs approved by the FDA between 1976 and 1985 had severe or fatal side-effects that had not been detected during the agency’s review and testing. In other words, after drug companies spent an estimated 12 years and $231 million dollars to research, test, and secure new drug approval through a very hands-on FDA approach, most of the drugs had to be taken off the market or required major label changes due to missed safety issues.
With GMOs, the situation is far more dangerous. The FDA doesn’t require a single study, the complex biology of GM crops may produce far more side-effects than drugs, GM foods are fed to the entire population, and they are not labeled or monitored, so symptoms are difficult or impossible to track.
5. There is no evidence of animal deaths. . . . Smith may have confused the words necrosis and dead cells with animal deaths. Careful reading reveals that the regulatory record does not mention any animal deaths which surely would have been of concern had they occurred. . . . This claim (in Pusztai and others 2003) appears to be blatantly untrue.
They would hope it was untrue. But just because they didn’t have access to the 44,000 documents made public from the lawsuit does not mean that the deaths did not occur. I can assure you they did, and that Dr. Pusztai, widely recognized as the world’s leading expert in his field and author of more than 300 studies, would not mistake dead cells for animal deaths.
The reason why the FDA scientists did not raise this issue is that they apparently either did not read the endnote, or simply accepted the unsupported conclusion on face value, which said that the necroscopy suggested that the deaths were due to a husbandry error and not test-article related. Even the Calgene scientists didn’t raise eyebrows at the finding. It wasn’t until a highly experienced animal feeding study expert like Dr. Pusztai reviewed the original papers that this oversight became apparent.
It is odd that Chassy and Tribe first claim that no rats died and then try to argue that if rats did die, tomato overdose could be the culprit. Since all the rats were fed under similar conditions, their killer-tomato argument fails to explain why 7 of 40 GM-fed animals died, compared to only 1 in the other groups.
7. These products are assessed carefully for safety before they are marketed, and—more importantly—there is no scientific reason to believe they pose and (sic) new or different risks.
To claim that there are no new potential health hazards from GMOs is absurd. Fran Sharples, the Director of the Board on Life Sciences at the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS), told me, “The academies have issued numerous reports on assessing the risks of transgenic plants. If the academy believed there were no such potential risks, why would we have delved into these matters in these reports?” One of those NAS reports even acknowledged that the current system of regulating GMOs might not detect “unintended changes in the composition of the food.”
The Royal Society of Canada stated that it is “scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GM foods are safe and that the “default presumption” is that unintended, potentially hazardous side-effects are present. A WHO spokesperson said that current regulations are not adequate to determine the health effects; the Indian Council of Medical Research called for a complete overhaul of existing regulations; and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium of GM foods altogether.
Since Chassy and Tribe are fond of using the FDA policy as support for their position, I am happy to quote Linda Kahl, an FDA compliance officer, who directly contradicts their ridiculous assertion. In a memo that summarized the position of FDA scientists about GMOs, she stated, “the processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.”
What’s Chassy and Tribe’s real motive?
Many of the arguments presented by Chassy and Tribe are easily and completely countered by the evidence. If one were feeling especially generous, one might guess that they simply weren’t aware of the strong concerns voiced in quotes by FDA scientists, the incidence of stomach lesions in the first study, or the fact that the rats didn’t fast. But these points were contained within the very passage of Genetic Roulette that they were supposedly critiquing. If they actually read the book, which we must assume they did, then they absolutely knew that their counter-arguments were directly contradicted by FDA memos and study reports, and thus were utterly false.
Why then did they construct their website in the first place? It appears that they are not really motivated to make cogent scientific counter-arguments, but instead are hoping that the readers blindly accept their baseless condemnation of Genetic Roulette and never actually read the book.
This tactic is similar to other techniques used by the biotech industry that I describe in Genetic Roulette. GMO advocates, for example, often write up lengthy studies or reports that hardly anyone ever reads in detail. Instead, people generally look at the abstract and/or conclusion and accept the authors’ declaration that the findings demonstrate GMO safety. But when an expert actually takes the time to go through the details, he or she discovers that the conclusions are entirely unsupported and unjustified. In some cases, they are in direct opposition to the data.
It took the biotech industry three years to create their so-called academic review of Genetic Roulette. The mere fact that after all that time they could not put together even the most basic scientific arguments is a tribute to the authenticity of the book. If they could have used science to counter it, they would have. But they didn’t. They used spin.
It will continue to be my delight to go through each of their pages to expose their “scientific” sleight-of-hand. But I am much more motivated to spend my time taking steps that will end the genetic engineering of the food supply, rather than trying to convince the handful of people who accidentally wander onto Chassy and Tribe’s disinformation site. So have patience.
International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. His first book, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating, is the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on GMOs. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, documents 65 health risks of the GM foods Americans eat everyday. Both are distributed by Chelsea Green Publishing. To help you choose healthier, non-GMO brands, use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.
http://www.cornucopia.org/2015/09/the-future-of-gmos-meat-safety-and-organics-under-the-influence-of-the-same-corrupt-corporate-lapdog-the-usda/Just when you thought getting REAL preservative- and additive-free organic food was hard enough, the Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports has downgraded the USDA Organic Seal from “highly meaningful” to “meaningful,” commenting that the organic program is notably slipping from its original mandate to serve as a gatekeeper for providing humanely raised, low-impact, truly clean food to the growing health movement in the United States.
What prompted this might you ask? One example was the swift dismissal without any real investigation by the enforcement division of the National Organic Program (NOP) of the formal legal complaint fillings by the Cornucopia Institute with the USDA against 14 giant poultry and dairy CAFOs. The filing included the submission of hundreds of high-resolution photographs, satellite imagery and state regulatory documents, which clearly warranted more than this blanket response: “The NOP has reviewed these complaints and has determined that investigation is unwarranted.”
With all that said, don’t fret, as the solution is not out of reach. Getting to know your local organic farmers and personally verifying their practices, or even simply growing your own food, is the natural solution to this dilemma.
October 08, 2013 by: L.J. Devon, http://www.naturalnews.com/042387_epa_corrupt_officials_money_laundering.html
(NaturalNews) The government agency entrusted to take care of the environment, the EPA, has become a center for corruption. The American people are learning that a governing body like the EPA cannot even responsibly manage tax dollars, let alone responsibly manage the environment. One corrupt EPA official has just been found guilty of fraud against the US and sentenced for wasteful money laundering schemes that would make any hard working American grit their teeth in disgust.
What do you get when you trust the EPA?
For one, you get more chemicals like glyphosate blasted into the environment.
Wait, wasn’t the EPA supposed to regulate chemicals and keep the public safe?
This can’t happen because the EPA works directly with corporations like Monsanto. Since 1970, the EPA has hired at least twelve high-level employees who had previously worked for chemical juggernaut Monsanto and Waste Management Inc.
The EPA consistently sells out to corporations like Monsanto. Earlier this year, the EPA raised the allowable levels of Monsanto’s pesticides used en masse on Monsanto’s genetically modified crops. What kind of environment are the people getting from the EPA? It seems as though the EPA’s standards continue to fall, giving the people more toxins in their soil, plants and water. The EPA welcomes Monsanto’s widespread use of glyphosate, which disrupts human gut bacteria, compromising immune system function.
What else happens when the people auction off their responsibilities, entrusting government agencies for their well being?
Millions of taxpayer dollars are wasted, go missing and are laundered, as the people’s hard work is squandered away in government fraud schemes. This couldn’t be truer than in the case arising from New Jersey.
EPA manager guilty on ten charges of fraud
The Justice Department has recently brought up ten charges on a former EPA project manager, Gordon McDonald. McDonald was initially responsible for cleaning up two New Jersey superfund sites, the Diamond Alkali in Newark and the Federal Creosote in Manville.
An EPA superfund site is set up when an environment is declared a hazardous waste site. The superfund cleanup is funded through taxes on petroleum and chemical industries, an environmental tax on corporations and other general tax revenues, including trust funds and hazardous waste superfunds.
After seven years of managing the sites, between 2000 and 2007, McDonald was investigated for laundering money and blowing taxpayer dollars, while he received kickbacks on the side. McDonald rigged bids, accepted kickbacks from subcontractors and awarded insiders with big money payoffs.
A New Jersey jury has returned guilty verdicts on all ten charges that were filed back in 2009. The kickbacks that McDonald received totaled over 1.5 million dollars. The convictions also revolve around a network of eight other individuals, including three companies who have pleaded guilty for co-conspiring.
Bill Baer, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice’s Antitrust Division, says, “Today’s guilty verdict sends a clear message that corrupt purchasing officials will be held accountable for engaging in fraudulent schemes designed to undermine the government’s competitive contracting practices.”
EPA manager guilty of accepting 1.5 million in kickbacks while accepting highest bids from companies he initially tipped off
McDonald and co-conspirators from his former company indulged in several kickbacks over a seven year period, awarding subcontractors big paying jobs at two EPA cleanup sites. McDonald went as far as tipping off Bennett Environmental Inc. from Canada about competitor’s bids. McDonald accepted Bennett’s kickbacks, which totaled in excess of 1.5 million dollars, and in return, McDonald accepted Bennett’s over-the-top bids, brushing off any low bids from competitors.
Furthermore, McDonald indulged in kickbacks from the owner of JMJ Environmental Inc., a waste water treatment and chemical supply company. The two of them rigged bids and designated subcontracts at bloated prices for services and treatment supplies provided at the federal cleanup site at Creosote.
Those involved are scheduled for sentencing on January 6, 2014. Five individuals have already been sentenced, which includes over 6 million dollars in fines and ten years of prison time.
Sources for this article include
by Christina Sarich February 26th, 2014 http://naturalsociety.com/breaking-new-usda-report-proves-environmental-impact-gmo-questionable/
US farmers are on the front lines of the GMO debate, and while they may have seen some benefits from using GMO corn, soy, and sugar beets in the beginning, those ‘benefits’ are dwindling. Dwindling so much so that numerous other nations and communities have banned GMOs altogether, Now, even the U.S. Department of Agriculture admits that one of the herbicides in use to support GM farming is an ‘ongoing cause for concern.’
The report prepared by the Economic Research Services (ERS) arm of the USDA, states, “We are not characterizing them (GMO crops) as bad or good. We are just providing information.” That ‘information’ is mounting, and it looks as if even US government agencies can no longer ignore it.
Financial and Legal Liability isn’t Enough: GMO Dangers
This report, released online February 20th, comes at a pivotal time in the genetically modified crop debate. Mandatory labeling would force corporations who ruin our food supply to be liable for the damage they cause. But even beyond legal and monetary liability- can you really replace millions of butterflies, or repopulate bee colonies? Can you undo the cross-pollination of organic crops once they’ve been polluted with GM seed? Or can we undo the bodily damage we’ve induced on animals and ourselves?
Weeds are becoming more resistant, not less, creating super weeds, and insects are following the same pattern – becoming super-mutated super-bugs. Biotech’s tactic of trying to kill everything is coming back to haunt us like a bad sci-fi blockbuster. Our over-sterilization of Mother Nature is causing the ‘pests’ to become worse. There are deep ramifications for allowing this juggernaut to keep crushing our voices, and ruining our planet.
Fortunately, the collective cries for food justice have forced authorities to look more closely at GM, Big Ag, and Biotech. If you ask the right questions, you can get the right answers. If you ask nothing at all – well – you just stay ignorant and uniformed. At least the new USDA report admits genetically modified crops should be examined more closely. It seems that the scientific reports proving GM crops are linked to increased disease and illness are helping.
The USDA and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have also released this report as they are trying to approve the commercialization of a new GMO crop and chemical product created by Dow AgroScience, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical – as if unleashing more toxic stuff on our plants and animals would be an intelligent thing to do. It is notable to observe the word ‘chemical’ in Dow’s company name. It isn’t a true farmer’s, or food-grower’s company. It is a business that makes millions off of polluting everything they touch – just like Monsanto. These companies have a long history of global irresponsibility, yet they lie – outright – to us all, and have been for years:
GMOs are Failing
Since the mid-1990s, through Monsanto’s propaganda campaign to farmers promising higher yields and insect-resistant crops, RoundUp Ready soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, and other crops have been sewn across our nation.
About half the total land in the United States was planted with GMO crops just last year – about 169 million acres, according to the USDA report. Patented seeds were sewn the most often – that is, seeds with planned obsolescence – so that farmers have to keep buying more seed, and more RoundUp chemicals to grow them. The price for these seeds – those which cannot be saved for future plantings, have risen in price by more than 50% in the last decade. The report points out one glaringly obvious fact – GMO seeds have not increased potential crop yields:
“. . .in fact the yields of herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant seeds may be occasionally lower than the yields of conventional varieties.” Many researchers have found no difference between the yield from a GMO herbicide tolerant farm and an organic one. Some researchers have even proven that organic farms are not only higher yielding, but also more bio-diverse and less environmentally damaging.
The report also states that while insecticide use is down, herbicide use is through the roof. Our over-reliance on Monsanto’s favorite poison – glyphosate, has actually caused us to become dependent upon them for any ‘food,’ though it shouldn’t be called that in the least. It makes crop production harder, not easier, and much more expensive. Along with causing monetary insolvency, it causes absolute havoc on our ecosystem. We now have 14 different weed species that are supposedly ‘glyphosate resistant,’ but what of all the super weeds that are still becoming apparent? I guess quadrupling our herbicide use from 100 million to over 400 million pounds annually isn’t helping – it is only making problems worse.
The ERS reports thousands of possible new strains of GMO crops. Tests are already under way for: 7,800 approved releases for genetically engineered (GE) corn, more than 2,200 for GE soybeans, more than 1,100 for GE cotton, and about 900 for GE potatoes. Of those releases, 6772 were for GE varieties with herbicide tolerance, 4,809 for insect resistance, and 4,896 for product quality such as flavor or nutrition, and 5,190 for drought resistance.
Monsanto has the most authorized field releases with 6,782, followed by DuPont Pioneer, with 1,405.
What the report failed to say is that this obvious disregard for public health and environmental vigor will be stopped. It is you who has forced the USDA, FDA and Grocery Manufacturer’s Association to step up their game.
Don’t stop. We will succeed if we stand and win together.
April 02, 2014 by: Ethan A. Huff, http://www.naturalnews.com/044552_all_natural_organic_food_deceptive_labeling.html
(NaturalNews) Thanks to lax enforcement by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of regulations guiding the proper use of the word natural on food product labels, many organic pretender brands are now shamelessly using the trendy term to sell junk food disguised as healthy. But one organic advocacy group is trying to change this with a new awareness campaign, exposing these pretenders and helping the public make better food purchasing decisions.
Advocating organic as the real natural, the non-profit group Only Organic is on a mission to lift the veil of deception covering much of the natural products industry. All sorts of products labeled as “natural,” explains the group, contain harmful toxins like chemical pesticides, antibiotics, growth hormones and genetically modified (GM) ingredients like corn and soy. And regulatory authorities have yet to take action to protect the public from this blatant duplicity.
“Food labels that claim a food is ‘natural’ may not guarantee that food is good for you or for nature,” notes the group. “FDA considers ‘natural’ food to mean ‘nothing artificial or synthetic (including colors regardless of source) is included in, or has been added to, the product that would not normally be expected to be there.’ But, federal regulators do not enforce the policy. And, many heavily processed foods containing ‘unnatural’ ingredients designed to make food look better or last longer carry the ‘natural’ label.”
Many ‘natural’ dairy products made with milk from cows fed GMOs
Yogurt is one example of a health food item that, depending on the brand, may not actually be all that healthy. As you may recall, Whole Foods Market recently pulled the Chobani brand of Greek yogurt from its shelves because the milk used to make it appears to come from cows fed GM corn and soy, which is anything but natural. The same is true for other brands like Dannon and Yoplait, both of which are likely getting their milk from cows fed GMOs, not to mention adding processed sugar from GM sugar beets to their flavored varieties.
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has actually filed a lawsuit against Chobani and a number of other “natural” brands for violating the law and deceiving consumers. Not only is this blatant mislabeling harming the organics industry, which is required to abide by enforceable standards for clean food production, but it is also tainting the reputations of other natural food producers that actually avoid chemical toxins and GMOs.
“The real threat to organic comes not from non-GMO claims but from ‘natural’ claims that confuse consumers into thinking foods made with GMOs — and lots of other things you wouldn’t find in nature — are the same as organic food,” explains a report by Only Organic’s Gary Hirshberg. “In the case of organic, tough environmental and animal welfare standards are backed by the USDA and subject to inspections.”
“By contrast, there is no official definition for ‘natural’ and companies routinely include GE ingredients in foods labeled as ‘natural,'” Hirshberg adds.
Other ‘all natural’ pretenders include vegetable oils, snack chips and granola
Some other examples of this include so-called “all natural” vegetable oils, which more often than not are derived from GM soy, canola, corn, cottonseed and other unhealthy oils. Granola bars and snack chips from many “natural” brands are also often tainted with GM ingredients, including the infamous high-fructose corn syrup, or HFCS, which is typically derived from GM corn.
To learn more, be sure to check out Only Organic:
Sources for this article include:
Organic food vastly more nutritious than genetically modified food: huge new science study reveals the differences
March 24, 2016 by: S. Johnson http://www.naturalnews.com/053416_GMO_food_organic_nutritional_comparison.html
The study reviewed more than 200 scientific papers, which examined the difference between organic and non-organic milk and meat products. The researchers found that organic meat and milk products had far higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids in comparison to non-organic contenders.
The human body can produce most fats from raw ingredients and other fat. This isn’t true with respect to omega-3 fatty acids, however. They are essential fats, meaning the body cannot produce them by itself but must obtain them from food. The human brain is largely made up of omega-3 fatty acids, meaning organic food is literally brain food.
It is of course no secret that organic food has better nutritional quality than non-organic food. For years, however, GMO proponents have purported that there is no real difference between the two. Those who peddle this tired argument will have to resort to other lines of reasoning to justify their eating habits, as it flies in the face of the most current scientific research.
“People choose organic milk and meat for three main reasons: improved animal welfare, the positive impacts of organic farming on the environment, and the perceived health benefits,” said Carlo Leifert from Newcastle University, who headed the study. “But much less is known about impacts on nutritional quality, hence the need for this study.”
Comparing apples to plastic oranges
To analyze the difference between the two products, the researchers examined 170 peer reviewed papers on a host of animal products, like cheese, butter and milk, as well as 67 papers on various meats, making it unprecedented in this respect. The results of the study were published in the British Journal of Nutrition.
The team found that organic meats had on average 47 percent more omega-3 fatty acids than non-organic meats; and organic milk products had on average 56 percent more omega-3 fatty acids than non-organic milk products.
What is responsible for this difference? The researchers did not look for a specific cause, but suggest the way in which organic animals are raised and the amount of grass they consume bear some responsibility. It should be emphasized that these results were not bound to organic food, however, but encompassed any products grown without pesticides and fertilizers.
“Differences in content such as fatty acids or iodine occur primarily because organic animals are fed more of a forage-based diet, such as grass, than their non-organic counterparts,” Ian Givens, a professor of nutrition at the University of Reading, who wasn’t involved in the research, told sources. “You get the same kind of changes in food composition if non-organic animals are fed forage-rich diets too. It’s the choice of feed, not the organic farming method, which makes the difference.”
It should also be noted that organic milk had 14 percent less of the adult daily iodine requirement than non-organic milk. Those who choose to consume only whole organic products should make sure that they meet their daily iodine needs. High quality iodine supplements are available here.
Although the analysis focused on the abundance of omega-3 fatty acids, a separate comprehensive scientific analysis found that organic food has more antioxidants associated with better health than conventional food, as well as lower levels of toxic metals and pesticides.
Teeming with antioxidants
The latter study was published in the same respected scientific journal, the British Journal of Nutrition, which analyzed 343 peer-reviewed studies from across the globe. At the time, it was the largest study to analyze the difference between organic and non-organic fruits, vegetables and cereals.
Professor Carlo Leifert at the Newcastle University, who led the study, found that there is a, “statistically significant, meaningful” difference between organic and non-organic food, the former of which had 19 to 69 percent more antioxidants than the latter.
According to the team, the increased levels of antioxidant are on par with, “one to two of the five portions of fruits and vegetables recommended to be consumed daily and would therefore be significant and meaningful in terms of human nutrition, if information linking these [compounds] to the health benefits associated with increased fruit, vegetable and whole grain consumption is confirmed.”
Once again, researchers proposed that the superior nutritional content of organic food is thanks to how it is grown. Plants already produce antioxidant compounds that combat pest infestation. Since organic crops do not use chemical sprays, their antioxidant levels tend to be higher. In addition, organic food is bred for toughness and is not drowned in artificial fertilizers.
The researchers also found higher concentrations of cadmium, a toxic heavy metal, in standard crops. In particular, pesticide residues were four times higher in conventional crops compared to organic crops. The study received funding from the EU and an organic farming charity.
Unfortunately, the EU food standards are not reflected in the US. Approximately 80 percent of all packaged food in the U.S. contains genetically modified ingredients. This is one of the few places in the developed world where food producers are not required to disclose whether their products have been laced with genetically modified ingredients.
That is why Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, personally tests all the products sold at the Natural News store. Although consumers cannot be sure where all their food comes from, they can rest assured that all the products that make their way to the Natural News store have passed meticulous testing for toxic heavy metals, microbiology, pesticides and more.
The science is in and the results are clear. The nutritional difference between organic and non-organic food is not a fiction found only in the imagination of the new food movement. The difference is real. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
June 01, 2012 by: J. D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) We here at NaturalNews.com pride ourselves in providing our readers with the most valuable, up-to-date news and information on a wide range of health-related issues, but we especially like to discuss nutrition because so much of our health depends on what we put in our bodies – and what we don’t put in them.
See the NaturalNews infographic at:
Be aware and beware
With that latter thought in mind, we’ve developed an infographic to highlight the top 10 GMO (genetically modified organism) foods to avoid, in no particular order:
1. Zucchini: It goes without saying that many biotech companies say genetically modified foods are safe for you, but as GMO science expands, reseachers are finding more evidence that such foods can harm your health. One of those is zucchini. While not as potentially harmful as other GM foods, zucchini is nonetheless “engineered” to resist some strains of virus.
2. Cotton: Considered a food item because its oil can be consumed, cotton – in particular, genetically modified Bt cotton, common to India and China – has damaging consequences. According to recent Chinese research, while Bt cotton is capable of killing bollworms without the use of insecticides, its decreased use has increased the presence of other crop-harming pests. Also, Bt cotton production has been linked to drastic depletion of soil nutrients and lower crop yields, as well as much higher water requirements.
3. Canola: This is probably one of the most misunderstood, misguided “healthy” food choices out there right now, but there is little about canola – and similar oils – that is good for you. Extracted from rapeseed, canola oil and others must be chemically removed from the seeds, then deodorized and altered, in order to be utilized in foods. They are among the most chemically altered foods in our diets.
4. Aspartame: An artificial sweetener found in a number of products, aspartame – discovered by accident in 1965 by a chemist testing an anti-ulcer drug – accounts for as many as 75 percent of adverse reactions to food additives reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), according to some reports. Some seizures and even some deaths have been blamed on aspartame.
5. Dairy: A disturbingly high number – as many as one-fifth – of dairy cows in the U.S. today are given growth hormones to increase milk production, a figure that has been rising since the FDA approved a genetically engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone known as rbGH or rbST for use in dairy cows in 1993. While said to boost production by 5-15 percent, scientists have expressed concern that the increased levels of IGF-1 (insulin growth factors-1) from hormone-treated cows may boost the risks of colon and breast cancer. Since 2008, Hiland Dairy has stopped using milk from dairy farmers who inject their cows with growth hormone.
6. Corn: Modified now to create its own insecticide, as many as half of all U.S. farms growing corn for Monsanto are using genetically modified corn, with tons of it now being introduced for human consumption, according to the FDA. Doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec recently found Bt toxin from modified corn in the blood of pregnant women and their babies, as well as in non-pregnant women.
7. Papayas: Genetically modified papayas have been grown in Hawaii commercially since 1999, designed to combat the Papaya Ringspot Virus. Approved for sale and consumption in the U.S. and Canada, GM papayas cannot be imported or sold in the European Union.
8. Sugar: Sugar from genetically modified sugar beets hit the market in the U.S. in 2009. They were modified by the Monsanto Corporation to be resistant to the company’s Roundup herbicide. In 2010 a group of Oregon farmers sued to stop planting that year of Monsanto’s genetically altered sugar beets over fears the crops could cross-contaminate other nearby fields.
9. Soy: Like other foods, soy, too, has been genetically modified to resist herbicides. Soy is included in soy flour, tofu, soy beverages, soybean oil and scores of other products, especially baked goods and pastries. According to one report, “[a]fter feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.”
10. Yellow squash Like zucchini, yellow squash is also a fast-rising GMO crop in the U.S., and as such, should cause you concern. If you like squash – and scores of Americans do – check out a farmer’s market that doesn’t sell GMO squash or grow your own using non-modified seed.
Sources for this article include:
Posted on June 9, 2013 by Public Awareness Network – by lesmoore http://altnewschannel.com/codex-alimentarius/
The Codex Alimentarius (Latin for “food book”) is a collection of internationally recognized standards, codes of practice, guidelines and other recommendations relating to food production and food safety. Its texts are developed and maintained by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a body that was established in 1963 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The main aims of the Commission concern the health of consumers and to ensure fair practices in the international food trade. The Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference point for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection. Codex Alimentarius exemplifies the type of pressure brought to bear upon weaker nations by the United Nations.
It was reported that in 1996 a German delegation put forward a proposal that no herb, vitamin or mineral should be sold for preventive or therapeutic reasons, and that supplements should be reclassified as drugs. The proposal was agreed upon, but protests halted its implementation. The United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have stated that the guidelines are intended as a safeguard against vitamin and mineral food supplements overdose. The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) has said that the guidelines call for labeling that contains information on maximum consumption levels of vitamin and mineral food supplements. The World Health Organization has also said that the guidelines ensure that consumers receive beneficial health effects from vitamins and minerals.
Codex Alimentarius was revived by president for IG Farben – a huge German pharmaceutical company under the Rockefeller umbrella. During the Nuremberg trials, the president of IG Farben was convicted of war crimes. After serving out his sentence he pitched his ideas on food control to the United Nations control, claiming that those who control food, control the world. The history of the United Nations is really a history of a bunch of rich men who have formulated a globalist plan to control major sectors like intelligence (CIA) banking (The World Bank), trade agreements (WTO), drugs, mental and physical health monopolies (WHO) and dozens of other agencies in an effort to control every aspect of human life planet wide.
Any country that is Codex compliant automatically wins in the World Courts; so there is a race for each country to become Codex complaint. Codex Alimentarius is a trade organization not a health organization. Nutrients are considered foods in Shays yet Codex classified vitamins and minerals as poisons. In 23 years 10 people have died from vitamins and in the same time period drugs that are not limited or regulated kill over 10,000 people a year.
Codex has raised the limits of toxins in foods – veterinary chemicals are now allowed. Codex has allowed 7 of the 9 most dangerous Persistent Organic Pollutants that were banned by the United States and 176 other countries. With Codex these toxins and the foods that contain these (mostly pesticides) will be forced on all countries worldwide and considered a trade violation if stopped.
Codex Alimentarius And Depopulation
According to the UN, initiating Codex will result in 3 billion deaths, one billion through starvation and the other 2 billion will die through preventable diseases. Those that have the money to afford clean food and medical treatment will live longer and they will experience a far greater quality of life. The United States failed to get the mandated two thirds majority to join the World Health Organization, mandated by US law, instead it was decided by Bill Clinton.
Countries need to take back their sovereignty from the United Nations which is moving ahead with its plans for globalization and the New World Order. An order that is built on the backs of the most economically oppressed populations on the planet while a small sliver at the top of the economic pyramid rake in fortunes.
Another example of the effects of Codex concerns a milk additive called Prosilac (Bovine Growth Hormone). Monsanto is the manufacturer of this additive and although it has been used in diary products in the U.S. Canada would not allow the chemical in their countries food supply. The dangers of Prosilac was written but never published due to pressures from Monsanto and owner of FOX News Rupert Murdock. The FOX reporters that did attempt to air the story were bribed but refused to compromise their integrity, which lead to their termination. Codex Alimentarius has included the Bovine Growth Hormone, which has clearly been proven to be destructive to an individuals health yet it continues to be added to all milk worldwide by international law at least in those countries that are Codex compliant.
The National Nutritional Foods Association and Council from National Nutrition members include Pfizer, Merck, Monsanto, Bayer, BASF, ADM, Eastern Chemical, Glaxo. These huge transnational chemical corporations bought into the nutrient business. Whether there is any interest in food or nutrients the rights of man, freedom and liberty are what is at stake here.
Author Daisy Luther 25April2013 http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/kosher-certification-program-bans-all-gmo-ingredients-04252013
One group after another is denouncing the genetically modified poison on grocery store shelves, adding to the chorus of voices demanding real untainted food.
Natural Food Certifiers has announced today that any food product that contains GMOs is no longer eligible to be certified as kosher under their “Apple K” kosher certification program. A press release stated:
Over the next 12 months, the company will phase out the certification of any product that contains GMO ingredients, and will no longer accept applications for certification of products that contain GMOs.
NFC has numerous natural food certification programs, including USDA Organic certification, Kosher
Each product submitted by a manufacturer for approval is carefully analyzed. The press release explains the process for all of the certification categories. ”The process may include, but is not limited to, a request and review of the ingredient deck including country of origin and certificate of analysis, product testing, as well as inspection of manufacturing facilities.”
Whether or not your faith requires you to follow the Kosher food laws, this news should be celebrated by anyone who hopes to see the demise of Monsanto and the products created by their mad scientists. While countries across the world are banning GMOs, the wheels are moving slowly in North America to even have GMOs labeled so that consumers can make an informed decision. To have a large demographic refuse to allow genetically modified material in their food is yet another volley against the corruption that is evident in the unholy alliance of the FDA and Monsanto.
About the author:
Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor. Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at firstname.lastname@example.org
|So how can you avoid GMO foods? Four steps you can take are: 1. Buy organic, since organic foods cannot contain GMO’s.2. Look for products labeled “GMO free.”3. Avoid the “big four” ingredients most likely to be GMO: corn, soybeans, cottonseed and canola unless they are marked organic or GMO free.4. Download the Non-GMO Shopping Guide here. TOP|
by Christina Sarich June 17th, 2013 Updated 05/07/2014
With all the controversy circling in the mainstream media about the necessity of GMO farming due to world population explosions and a diminishing global food supply, it is time to debunk some of the biggest myths about GMO foods. Don’t be fooled by the propaganda being fed to you by Monsanto and other corporate industrialists who want to keep you on their fishing line with lies about the ‘importance’ of genetic modification. Natural Society is here to bust the myths with solid proof:
1. GMO seeds are sterile. FALSE. However, GMO seeds have been called suicide seeds or terminator seeds because they have an approximate termination date so that farmers have to keep purchasing new seed from the companies that make them, like Monsanto. This, in turn, allows those companies to maintain a monopoly on the world food supply. Once all our major crops are sewn with patented seeds with specific termination dates, Monsanto and its cohorts will be able to collect royalties just like Michael Jackson’s family does on the song ‘Thriller.’
2. GMO foods taste as good or better than organics. FASLE. Most people can taste the difference between an organic apple and a poison one. Even squirrels can taste the difference in organic vs. non-organic food.
3. Monsanto can sue farmers who grow organic crops but later grow ‘contaminated’ or GMO cross-bred plants – FALSE. However, organic farmers recently lost a federal court battle with Monsanto when they tried to sue the company for contaminating their organic fields. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a previous ruling that found ‘organic growers had no reason to try to block Monsanto from suing them as the company had pledged it would not take them to court if biotech crops accidentally mix in with organics.” This still makes Monsanto-crops a concern for farmers who don’t trust that Monsanto will be good for their word. Monsanto, is after all, suing farmers who save seed, claiming they are violating patents.
4. You can keep bio-tech seeds and organic or heirloom seeds separate. FALSE. Mother nature will always blend seed. Wind, rain, storms, bees, etc. can’t be controlled. Recently two organic farmers in Australia talked about how easily their crops were cross-contaminated with GMO seed after a big storm. The more GMO seed that is planted, the more acreage it covers, the more we need to worry about a non-GMO seed supply.
5. We need GMO seed to feed the world. FALSE. Consider this statement from 24 delegates from 18 African countries who addressed the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization:
Also consider one March, 2012 report by Anthony Gucciardi that reveals over 900 scientists working under the United Nations were forced to admit that traditional farming actually outperformed GMO crops following their research.
6. GMO foods are good for our health. FALSE. There is so much proof in this department, it is insulting that Monsanto would tell us otherwise. The French have proven GMO causes cancer. Other scientific research proves that GMOs cause birth-defects and miscarriage. GMO corn has been linked to organ failure. The list of genetically modified foods’ damaging effects is long, and the evidence is continually mounting against it. GMO even changes our DNA via interference with our micro RNA!
7. GMO foods are good for the planet. FALSE. Billions of dollars have been spent to convince us that GMO seed is good for the planet, but the real science tells a different story. It hurts the planet, wildlife and even microorganisms.
Monsanto and their biotech buddies would have you believe that they are super-heroes, set on saving hungry children from starvation wearing a dazzling fake-green cape.
Monsanto and their biotech buddies would have you believe that they are super-heroes, set on saving hungry children from starvation wearing a dazzling fake-green cape. In fact, in a recent attack on activists, Monsanto’s CEO Hugh Grant said that because critics “can afford” organic food, we don’t care about the plight of those who can’t afford it. “There is this strange kind of reverse elitism: If I’m going to do this, then everything else shouldn’t exist,” said Grant. “There is space in the supermarket shelf for all of us.”
Even Monsanto’s website is on the defense, with page after page attempting to justify what the biotech industry is doing to our food supply. It must be true if even leading “philanthropists” (and I use this term loosely) like Bill and Melinda Gates are behind the distribution of Monsanto crops across the globe. Right?
Actually, it’s all about the public’s perception. The push for acceptance of GMO foods has, thus far, been all about which team has the most money. Monsanto and their ilk can afford more television ads and more PR than anti-GMO activists can. Because the biotech companies, Big Food, and Big Agri can pay to spread their message, many people are convinced by their pure propaganda that GMOs are a necessary evil if the Third World is to avoid millions of slow, agonizing deaths by starvation. Because biotech is able to afford to blanket the media with their perspective, their view point is accepted as the correct one because that is the only perspective that many people ever hear.
But just because they shout the loudest, that doesn’t make it true.
How we address these misconceptions can mean the difference between swaying people to examine these claims more closely or causing them to stick their fingers in their ears and sing, “lalalalala…” to block us out. Here are some of the most common myths that Monsanto and friends would like you to believe about the wonderful world of GMOs.
Myth #1: No one has ever proven that GMOs are harmful to people.
Monsanto mouthpieces have been quoted time, time, and time again stating the untruth that genetically modified organisms have never been proven to harm people. It seems that they believe, like Joseph Goebbels, the uncontested King of Propaganda, that if you repeat a lie often enough, and with enough conviction, that it becomes the accepted truth.
The reality: Just a few of the results of a GMO diet (based on peer-reviewed studies) are: grotesque tumors, premature death, organ failure, gastric lesions, liver damage, kidney damage, severe allergic reactions, a viral gene that disrupts human functions…you can read more HERE.
Myth #2: GMO crops are the only way to solve world hunger.
The most common pro-GMO argument that you will hear these days is that genetically modified crops are the only way to feed the worlds burgeoning population. Without them, proponents claim that hunger will claim the lives of millions over the next decade. In the gospel of biotech, GMOs are the answer to world hunger. If you protest against GMO technology, you are cast as a cold-hearted elitist and the deaths of all of those suffering children in ***** (pick-a-3rd-world-country) rest firmly on your doorstep.
The reality: Sustainable agricultural practices are the answer to world hunger. GMO farming practices are not sustainable. Farmers who plant GMOs are not able to save their seeds from year to year due to patent infringement and poor fertility in the seeds. Therefore, after getting the first year of good harvests, the following year they must continue buying seeds, leading to perpetual debt and enough financial despair in India (the Bt Cotton scandal) that an Indian farmer took his own life every 30 minutes, after becoming the indentured servant of Monsanto and drowning in insurmountable debt. Well over a quarter of a million farmers died by suicide before the country banned the sale of Bt cotton seeds.
Real Change News agrees that biotech farming methods are not the answer to world hunger. They recommend “agroecology”:
Myth #3: GMOs need less pesticide spraying.
Monsanto claims that their Bt products require less spraying. It’s right HERE on their website (emphasis mine):
Crops with a Bt trait have been modified to produce a protein that is toxic to various forms of insect larvae. Bt proteins have long been used as topical sprays in conventional and organic agriculture because they are effective and can be used safely. Crops that are genetically engineered to carry the Bt trait allow farmers to protect their crops while eliminating or significantly decreasing the amount of pesticides sprayed.
The reality: Unfortunately, the best laid schemes of mice, men, and Monsanto often go awry. The Cornucopia Institute reports that was true for the first couple of years, but then use of pesticides and herbicides increased dramatically. (This, of course, resulted in a hefty profit for the producers of those chemicals who are…yep, you guessed it, Monsanto and the other biotech companies who produce the seeds.)
Other organizations concur and even the mainstream media has been forced to report that pesticide and herbicide usage is on the rise. Check out these recent articles from Huffington Post and Reuters for more information.
Myth #4: GMO technology is comparable to the cross-breeding that our ancestors did to create hardier versions of heritage crops.
Check out this condescending blurb, straight from the horse’s …ummm….mouth (the Monsanto website):
The reality: What our ancestors did, and what responsible farmers do, is cross-pollination of different varieties of the same plant. It is a low tech method that can occur naturally – but they just gave it a little bit of help in order to bring forth the desirable characteristics, like the drought-hardiness of one type of wheat combined with the shorter growing season required for another type of wheat. This is selective breeding. Genetically modifying seeds is a whole different ballgame, however. Here’s a great explanation from the Food Renegade website:
What’s even worse is that biotech has the ability to produce their seeds with a built in “terminator technology.” This means that the seeds cannot be saved from one year to the next (unlike the cross-pollinated seeds with which they try to claim kinship). Monsanto has patented the technology (called gene use restriction technology) but claims not to use it. This would produce sterile, lifeless seeds that could not be reused, leaving the farmers utterly dependent on the biotech companies for future crops while providing an ongoing stream of income for those companies. At this point they maintain their monopoly through a series of contracts and patents that require the repurchase of seeds annually.
Myth #5: If the FDA and the USDA allow GMO’s, they must be safe to consume.
Organizations like the FDA, the EPA, and the USDA all wear a shiny halo. They receive their power and influence from the mere fact that the public believes that their number one priority is the health and safety of the citizens they are supposed to be serving. All of the agencies vow that they are there to protect the public on their websites:
The reality: All of the above is just feel-good, warm and fuzzy rhetoric. Perhaps there are employees that truly believe in what they’re doing, but the leadership is as sickeningly tainted as Bt Corn.
Part of the reason Monsanto has been so successful in the courtroom has been the company’s incestuous ties to the US de facto government. Despite the blatant conflicts of interest, Monsanto executives have held Cabinet, judicial and policy-making positions in the Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations. When you’re sleeping with the enemy, the enemy tends to get away with all manner of crimes.
Make no mistake, the commissioners, directors, and secretaries of these agencies are put in place for a reason. That reason is to grease the wheels for the wealthy biotech firms (and drug companies and Big Food companies and…well, you get the idea). Through an abuse of trust placed in them by the American people, they abuse their power and practice deception on the grandest scale imaginable.
If the FDA, USDA, or the EPA approve something, you might want to view it with more suspicion than acceptance. If they can say that radiation and pesticides are acceptable in your food, but that raw milk isn’t acceptable for consumption…well, there’s something incredibly wrong here.
Myth #6: There is no nutritional difference between GMO’s and non-GMO’s.
Biotech will tell you that there is absolutely no nutritional difference between genetically modified food and its organic counterpart. They will cite the calories, the fiber, and all of the macronutrients, pointing out that they are identical. They will scoff and roll their collective eyes at the “ignorance” of people who pay double to triple the price to avoid GMOs in their kitchens. Even television’s Dr. Oz came out on his show in support of the nutritional equality of GMO foods, saying that organic food was “undemocratic”.
The reality: A shocking report released on the blog Moms Across America last March revealed that the nutritional differences in GMO vs non-GMO corn were astounding. The report was from the non-GMO corn company De Dell, in Canada. Not only are the nutritional values different, but the levels of poison in the corn are toxic:
There is more evidence of higher nutrient levels in non-GMO, organic foods:
Myth #7: GMOs are impossible to avoid.
It’s true that GMOs lurk in over 70% of the processed foods that line the grocery store shelves. Even the mainstream media has reported on the omnipresence of genetically modified ingredients. This makes it very difficult to avoid them. The biotech companies have spent millions and millions of dollars in the fight against GMO labeling in an attempt to convince the public that the grocery costs will go up without their seeds.
The reality: It’s difficult but not impossible! Here are some tips to banish GMOs from your kitchen once and for all:
Myth #8: Monsanto has our best interests in mind.
All you need to do is read Monsanto’s website and it becomes clear. These people are the benevolent saviors of all mankind and their genetically modified seeds are the vehicle with which all of the world will be fed. Monsanto’s CEO Hugh Grant writes:
At the risk of your breakfast, click HERE to learn more about Monsanto’s commitment to integrity, dialogue, transparency, sharing, benefits, respect, acting as owners to achieve results, and creating a great place to work.
The reality: A German magazine, Sustainable Pulse, views it a little differently. Last week they came out with an article that outlined the mysterious mishaps that have been befalling activists and researchers across Europe. Here’s a link to the enlightening article (English version). Last month, just days before researchers were to present a damaging study, their computers were attacked by sophisticated hackers. The scheduled press conference had to be cancelled.
The article above also speculates that the US government itself is on board with spying on anti-Monsanto activists…it’s a must-read.
There’s more. This do-good company has hired the notorious mercenaries from the former Blackwater to help deal with activists. An article by Jeremy Scahill of the Nation explains that Monsanto has already given them over half a million dollars to help deal with activists:
Monsanto is taking surreptitious action against the movement, whether on their own or through the use of “contractors”. They have engaged in a social media war against activists. Mysterious things have been occurring on the social networks: posts have disappeared, some posts are hidden from the timelines of readers, and trolls abound on pages like March Against Monsanto and Occupy Monsanto. Readers often have difficulty sharing pertinent anti-GMO articles on social media. The internet war is ON.
Myth #9: GMOs are not harmful to the environment.
Biotech would have you believe that the farming of GMOs is as green an industry as organic farming, bringing prosperity and abundance to all.
The reality: We need look no further than the island of Molokai in Hawaii to see the horrible environmental damage wrought by Monsanto. Air quality and water quality are deadly because of Monsanto’s almost-2000 acre test facility. The story of the island is heartbreaking: people are dying horrible deaths, infertility is rampant, and other farms are being tainted by cross pollination from the frankencorn growing there. Workers wear head to toe protective gear during spraying, including respirators. Nearby residents, however, are not provided with such equipment and have no option but to breathe in the toxic dust that comes from the fields. This is not merely anecdotal to the small island – worldwide, many areas around GMO farms report horrific bloody skin rashes, an uptick in asthma, and toxic pesticides that leach into the groundwater.
Myth #10: Get used to it. GMOs are here to stay.
Biotech wants you to believe that there is no sense in fighting them. They want you to just accept what they have to say and eat their tainted products. They hope that people feel like they are too powerful to fight and like the battle has already been won.
The reality: There is a war against GMOs and we, the resistance, are gaining ground. By sharing information like this and informing the public of the poisons that are being grown in our own back yard, we can fight back against biotech. By using the power of social media, by organizing and demonstrating like millions of people did during the March Against Monsanto, we can say no.
By refusing to purchase any products that contain GMOs , by refusing to consume GMOs at restaraunts, and by spreading the word about the dangers, we can make a difference. By educating the public and letting them know that we have been deceived by the biotech industry, by Big Agri, and by Big Food, and that we have been betrayed by the elected officials and the agencies of our own government, we can stand united against these monolithic companies. We can remind them that the only way they will stay in business is if we, the consumers, purchase their products, and that we, the consumers, will not allow them to poison our families and our environment anymore.
Become a grocery store revolutionary.
This is war. If something could mean the difference between life and death for your children, between health and disease, between fertility or barrenness, wouldn’t you do anything to keep them safe? That’s why we can’t just sit there and watch this go on from the sidelines, shaking our heads.
It really is as simple as just saying no to GMOs but we all have to do it. We have to refuse to eat these so-called foods and we have to let people know why. We have to publicly expose these myths for the fiction that they are. We have to use social media, talk to our friends, demonstrate, write letters to the editor…we have to shine the light on the lies. Education and information are the weapons for this fight.
Make no mistake – the encroaching takeover of our food supply is an extinction level event. Will you just watch it happen?
Credit: Thank you to the wonderful social media community that generously contributed to this article! Your activism makes the fight possible!
Excellent resource: Earth Open Source offers a deeply scientific analysis in their own report, GMO MYTHS AND TRUTHS REPORT
About the author:
Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor. Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at email@example.com
– See more at: http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/the10-gmo-myths-that-monsanto-wants-you-to-believe-07202013#sthash.7pri8O0I.dpuf
Kalina Androlova – “Monsanto: Control by starvation,” commentary on “Deconstruction” on National Radio
This is a Google Translation of the original post at http://freeoldmen.blog.bg/politika/2013/05/28/monsanto-kontrol-chrez-glada.1114541 I apologize for the translation. Please visit the site and give the artist and author proper credit
One of the greatest minds of Germany, Goethe said something very profound and meaningful indeed true: “A man sees as much as he knows.” Modern political elites superb understand this, so now do not need masses of people to be held as serfs, it is sufficient to control the information. So benighted many people and nations are bound to obedience. Through ignorance gradually become literally owned by large corporations and supranational capital. For example, the company “Monsanto” is practically fascist corporation. “Monsanto” destroys the normal genetic condition of certain crops and also protects the invasion in his own private investigators, private army and so on.
|Since centuries ago, farmers are simply priced out the best seeds from the harvest to have a seed. So naturally evolved better crops. In the 80s, however, the court allows “Monsanto” to patent the form of life – the gene. Specificity of genetically modified crops is that their seeds are not suitable for sowing next year if they want to plant, farmers are required to re-purchase by “Monsanto”. As said Bob Shapiro, former CEO of “Monsanto”, “It’s easy to make huge money from the basic human needs – food, clothing, housing.”|
|Is not that ingenious, by greed to invent fruitless crops!! Sounds like a grim dystopia. Sterile plants, which can not remain seed for sowing, due to the presence of a gene causing his death. But if the grain self-destruction, then what happens to the human oganizam. “Monsanto” is a chemical company. She poisoned with chemicals around 3 million peaceful Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. It produces toxic aspartame, an artificial sweetener that is found in all chewing gum and mints, you know, and in many|
|Factor in the substantial period in its history, “Monsanto” creates different products, including pesticide Round Up, and genetically modified soybeans, which is resistant to Round Up. When posipesh farmland with Round Up this substance destroys everything but the GMO soybeans. In 1996, when “Monsanto” began selling transgenic soybeans, only 2% of the seeds of soybeans in the U.S. contain patented “Monsanto” gene. 2012 to more than 90% of seeds of soybean America contain the genetic modification of “Monsanto” and in Canada organic, natural seed stock is virtually completely destroyed. It is the property of “Monsanto”.|
|Once occurring genetically modified crop contaminates, that is to say, all other cultures. Through cross-pollination gene runs in neighboring cultures, and as a result – all become GM. However, where the gene appears, “Monsanto” legally owns the production. The company blames the free farmers of stealing their patent and forcing them to buy seeds only from her. Special department of 75 people in “Monsanto” deals with the investigation and prosecution of farmers, anyone can be accused of patent infringement. People are frightened, beaten and bullied. Today in Canada, there is no more organic soy, corn, canola. Many of the products we buy contain soy. A GMO contamination in feed and fall in milk and meat of animals which we then happily eat. Gradually “Monsanto” gains control of food in the world at all.|
|Judge for yourself! If “Monsanto” decided to destroy Canada will simply leave the country without an ounce of grain. Is this an independent Canada! Otherwise we love the word diversification. But when it comes to American control, it immediately eliminated. World is coming to a near future, which we may call “opportunity for full control of hunger.”How “Monsanto” occupied territories! In every way. Here’s one of them – in 1998 the IMF, an organization with very different goals than simply funding literally impose the agenda of India for structural changes to open grain market to international corporations. Then quickly arrives in India “Monsanto” and tens of thousands of Indian farmers sow their trusting GMO grains. Tomorrow or the day after, the huge India can not say gak, whether a nuclear weapon since it would be forced to buy grain only from “Monsanto”. Until recently, France, Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Hungary and several other countries in Europe is resisting growing genetically modified corn “Monsanto”. These days, however, the European Authority for Food Safety concluded that there is no danger to human health. Words “Monsanto” managed to buy and the EU. Did you know the greatest danger is not just about health. Biggest threat is related to the possibility of full control over feed the world. Therefore fight GMOs will continue to be one of the most important battles of postmodern life. There is a cause worth fighting, we, the regular inhabitants of planet Earth. The point is that we see as much as we know. And we know too little.|
by Mike Barrett June 13th, 2013 Updated 05/07/2014
A groundbreaking new study has found that the active ingredient in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup is responsible for fueling breast cancer by increasing the number of breast cancer cells through cell growth and cell division. The effects are so potent, in fact, that the cancer cell proliferation is driven even when we’re talking about Roundup in the parts-per-trillion (PPT) range.
The study, which is to be published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, focused on glyphosate, the main chemical ingredient within the most widely used herbicide today – Monsanto’s Roundup. After comparing how hormone-dependent and hormone-independent breast cancer cell lines were affected by glyphosate, the researchers found that glyphosate fuels cancer cell lines that are hormone dependent.
Additionally, the researchers concluded that due to glyphosate’s estrogenic properties, the chemical is likely considered what is known as a “xenoestrogen“. As NaturalSociety has covered before, xenoestrogen is foreign estrogen which mimics real estrogen in our bodies. This type of xenohormone can cause numerous problems, including increased risk of various cancers, infertility, thyroid issues, early onset puberty, and more.
But of course this is far from the only nasty effect Roundup has on the human body. Scientists have found in some research that Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup causes toxicity to human cells, and actually kills human kidney cells at low doses.
What’s more, other researchers testing Roundup on rats found that within 1 to 48 hours of exposure, testicular cells of the mature rats were either damaged or killed. The study is yet another reminder that ingredients used in pesticides and herbicides have detrimental effects on the human body and should be avoided whenever at all possible. We need to raise awareness on how Monsanto’s chemical creations and herbicides at large are poisoning the mass population.
by Mike Barrett June 12th, 2013 Updated 05/07/2014
According to a new groundbreaking report analyzing the effects of GM feed on animals, scientists have found that pigs fed a diet of GM corn and soy experienced numerous adverse health effects, including sever stomach inflammation and an enlarged uterus. The results “are both biologically significant and statistically significant.”
Published in the Organic Systems Journal, the peer-reviewed study analyzed 168 just-weaned commercial pigs for 22.7 weeks, or just over 5 months. Half of the pigs were fed popular GM corn and soy varieties, while the other half were fed the same foods, only not GM (though it must have been difficult to find non-GM corn and soy since the vast majority of these two crops are indeed GM).
What the researchers found was startling:
Lead researcher Dr. Judy Carman, adjunct associate professor at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, noted numerous reasons why this study and the findings are important.
Interestingly, and not surprisingly, this is not the first piece of research to find complications arising from GM food consumption. One French GMO study concluded that rats fed a lifelong diet consisting of genetically modified corn suffered serious consequences, including tumor development, heavy amounts of damage to multiple organs, and premature death. This isn’t surprising, seeing as one analysis found Monsanto’s GM corn to be nutritionally dead and highly toxic.
Another study found that feeding hamsters GMO soy results in higher rates of infant mortality and causes fertility problems.
by Mike Barrett April 28th, 2013 Updated 05/08/2014
Is GMO corn nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO corn? Monsanto will tell you the answer is a big ‘yes’, but the real answer is absolutely not. And the simple reality is that they are continuing to get away with their blatant misinformation. In fact, a 2012 nutritional analysis of genetically modified corn found that not only is GM corn lacking in vitamins and nutrients when compared to non-GM corn, but the genetic creation also poses numerous health risks due to extreme toxicity.
With the recent passing of the Monsanto Protection Act, there is no question that mega corporations like Monsanto are able to wield enough power to even surpass that of the United States government. The new legislation provides Monsanto with a legal safeguard against federal courts striking down any pending review of dangerous GM crops. It is ironic to see the passing of such a bill in the face of continuous releases of GMO dangers.
Non-GMO Corn 20x Richer in Nutrition than GMO Corn
The 2012 report, entitled 2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn, found numerous concerning and notable differences between GMO and non-GMO corn, none of which are particularly surprising. First, the report found that non-GMO corn has considerably more calcium, magnesium, manganese, potassium, iron, and zinc.
Non-GMO corn has 6130 ppm of calcium while GMO corn has 14 – non-GMO corn has 437 times more calcium.
As far as energy content goes, non-GMO corn was found to ‘emit 3,400 times more energy per gram, per second compared to GMO corn’, as reported by NaturalNews. Overall, the paper found that non-GMO corn is 20 times richer in nutrition, energy and protein compared to GMO corn.
Image from www.momsacrossamerica.com.
GMO Corn Also Found to be Highly Toxic
Not surprisingly, the report found what many of us already know – that GMO corn is highly toxic. While non-GMO corn was found to be free of chlorides, formaldehyde, glyphosate (active ingredient in Monsanto’s best selling herbicide Roundup), and other toxic substances, GMO corn is riddled with these toxins.
Based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations, the maximum amount of glyphosate allowed in drinking water is 700 parts per billion, which equates to .7 ppm. The amount is a set “level of protection based on the best available science to prevent potential health problems”. Europe allows even less glyphosate in water, at .2 ppm. The report found that GMO corn contains 13 ppm – that’s 18.5x the “safe amount” set by the EPA.
Similarly, GMO corn contains concerning levels of toxic formaldehyde, at 200 ppm. According to Dr. Don Huber, a respected expert on GMOs, at least one study found that 0.97 ppm of ingested formaldehyde was toxic to animals. The GMO corn was found to contain 200 times more formaldehyde than this ‘maximum’ safety amount.
Image from www.momsacrossamerica.com.
Biotech Giants Like Monsanto Caught Lying Again
Monsanto has been making the claim for years that genetically modified foods are equivalent or even of higher quality than non-GMOs, but nothing could be further from the truth. Numerous studies have shown us the dangers of GMO foods such as GMO corn, along with the dangers of the massive amount of pesticides that accompany GMO crops. This 2012 report reminds us once again that corporations like Monsanto simply can not be trusted, and that the company will continue making false claims until the end of days in order to profit and slowly genetically engineer the world.
The 2012 report 2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn, was reportedly shared with the owners of MomsAcrossAmerica.com by De Dell Seed Company, the only non-GMO seed supplies in Canada. De Dell Seed Company received the document from a company called ProfitPro, based in Minnesota.
New Study links
Sunday, May 12th 2013 at 8:00 am
Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder
Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases Study: Hematotoxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis as Spore-crystal Strains Cry1Aa,Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2Aa in Swiss Albino Mice GMO_Bt-Corn_Hematotoxicity-of-BT-JHTD-1-104
A groundbreaking new study published in the current issue of the Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases reveals the potential “leukemogenic” properties of the Bt toxin biopesticides engineered into the vast majority of GMO food crops already within the US food supply. Last September, the causal link between cancer and genetically modified food was confirmed in a French study, the first independent long-term animal feeding study not commissioned by the biotech corporations themselves. The disturbing details can be found here: New Study Finds GM Corn and Roundup Causes Cancer In Rats Now, a new study published in the Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases indicates that the biopesticides engineered into GM crops known as Bacillus Thuringensis (Bt) or Cry-toxins, may also contribute to blood abnormalities from anemia to hematological malignancies (blood cancers) such as leukemia.[i] [wpex Read more] A group of scientists from the Department of Genetics and Morphology, Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasilia/DF, Brazil set out to test the purported human and environmental biosafety of GM crops, looking particularly at the role that the Bt toxin found within virtually all GM food crops plays on non-target or non-insect animal species.The research was spurred by the Brazilian Collegiate Board of Directors of the National Sanitary Surveillance Agency (ANVISA), who advocated in 2005 for evaluations of toxicity and pathogenicity of microbiological control agents such as Bt toxins, given that little is known about their toxicological potential in non-target organisms, including humans.While Bacillus Thurigensis spore-crystals have been used since the late 1960’s in agriculture as a foliar insecticide, it was only after the advent of recombinant DNA biotechnology that these toxin-producing genes (known as delta endotoxins) were first inserted into the plants themselves and released into commercial production in the mid-90’s, making their presence in the US food supply and the bodies of exposed populations ubiquitous. What the new study revealed is that various binary combinations and doses of Bt toxins are capable of targeting mammalian cells, particularly the erythroid (red blood cell) lineage, resulting in red blood cell changes indicative of significant damage, such as anemia. In addition, the study found that Bt toxins suppressed bone marrow proliferation creating abnormal lymphocyte patterns consistent with some types of leukemia. The researchers also found that one of the prevailing myths about the selective toxicity of Bt to insects, the target species, no longer holds true:
The study also found:
1) That Cry toxins are capable of exerting their adverse effects when suspended in distilled water, not requiring alkalinization via insect physiology to become activated as formerly believed. 2) That a dose of Cry1Ab as low as 27 mg/kg, their lowest tested dose, was capable of inducing hypochromic anemia in mice – the very toxin has been detected in blood of non-pregnant women, pregnant women and their fetuses in Canada, supposedly exposed through diet. 3) Whereas past reports have found that Bt toxins are generally nontoxic and do not bioaccumulate in fatty tissue or persist in the environment, the new study demonstrated that all Cry toxins tested had a more pronounced effect from 72 hours of exposure onwards, indicating the opposite is true. 4) That high-dose Cry toxin doses caused blood changes indicative of bone marrow damage (damage to “hematopoietic stem cell or bone marrow stroma”). The authors noted their results “demonstrate leukemogenic activity for other spore-crystals not yet reported in the literature.”
Did you get that? Their conclusion is that it is premature to consider GM toxins to be safe in mammals. Billions have already been exposed to Bt toxins, in combination with glyphosate-based herbicide formulations such as Roundup, and yet, most biotech research scientists and industry regulators still claim they are unequivocally safe. This has much to do with the well-known relationship that biotech corporations like Monsanto have with so-called ‘check book’ science firms who are basically paid to obfuscate adverse health outcomes of their products, such as the GMO-Cancer link. [see: Monsanto-Funded Science Denies Emerging Roundup Cancer Link] Consider also that the question of combined toxicity of Cry toxins and glyphosate-based residues within plants have not been sufficiently explored, and that glyphosate exposure has already been linked to non-Hodgkins lymphoma and hairy cell leukemia in the biomedical literature.[ii] The reality is that we no longer have time to wait around for additional research to accumulate on the adverse health effects of GMOs, especially considering the biotech industry has far more capital to infuse into their own faux research on the topic. Some, in fact, argue that we should not be waiting around for the corrupt legislative process to compel manufacturers to label GMOs, rather, we should be fighting to ban them altogether, advocating for the precautionary principle before it is too late to undo the damage to our biosphere. In the meantime, you can join the growing movement to March Against Monsanto, occurring world wide on May 25th, as a way of expressing your desire for real change, as well as vote with your forks, the only immediately effective tool we have against biological and environmental harms caused by the dominant GMO-based food system.
Additional important research resources on GreenMedInfo.com
Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the National Health Federation. He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is internationally recognized as the largest and most widely referenced health resource of its kind. [/wpex]
[wpex Read more] by Anthony Gucciardi January 8th, 2013 | Updated 01/08/2013 at 6:52 pm It’s ‘McRib season’, and thousands across the nation are scrambling to use online websites like the ‘McRib locator‘ to stuff the McDonald’s McRib sandwich down their throats. A sandwich that is not only full of genetically modified ingredients, a medley of toxic fillers and preservatives, but also some ingredients that are actually banned in other nations around the world. But honestly, are you surprised? The McRib is the result of intensive marketing by McDonald’s. Utilizing the basics of supply and demand through creating scarcity over the McRib by only unleashing the culinary abomination for a fraction of the year that is only known once it is released, McDonald’s fans have been known to ‘hoard’ McRib sandwiches and eat them in extreme excess. It’s even a topic of the popular documentary Super Size Me, where filmmaker Morgan Spurlock (who gorges himself with McDonald’s for 30 days only to find serious health consequences) encounters ‘McRib hunters’ who actually travel the country eating McRib sandwiches. Related: 3 Fast Food Secret Ingredients McDonald’s even made McRib fans sign a petition to ‘save the McRib’ online, bringing out a conglomerate of fans to bring back their favorite franken sandwich.
What’s Inside a McDonald’s McRib Sandwich?
But what’s really inside the McRib specifically that makes it such a food abomination? Containing over 70 ingredients, the McRib is full of surprises — including ‘restructured meat’ technology that includes traditionally-discarded animal parts brought together to create a rib-like substance. Here’s some of the disturbing substances found within the McDonald’s McRib sandwich:
A flour-bleaching agent used in yoga mats
Out of the 70 ingredients that make up the ‘pork’ sandwich, a little-known flour-bleaching agent known as azodicarbonamide lies among them. At first glance, this strange ingredient sounds concerning enough to look into. After a little research, you will find that even mainstream media outlets have generated content revealing how azodicarbonamide is actually used in the production of foamed plastics. Foamed plastics like yoga mats and more. What’s more? In Australia and Europe, the use of azodicarbonamide as a food additive is banned. In Singapore specifically, use of this substance in food can result in a $450,000 fine and 15 years in jail. Thank you McDonald’s for supplying the nation with such healthful ingredients.
‘Restructured Meat’ from Pig Heart, Tongue, Stomach
McDonald’s McRib is famous in some circles for utilizing what’s known as ‘restructured meat’ technology. Since McDonald’s knows you’d never eat a pig heart, tongue, or stomach on your plate, they decided instead to grind up these ingredients and put them into the form of a typical rib. That way, consumers won’t know what they’re putting into their mouths. As the Chicago Mag reported, the innovator of this technology back in 1995 said it best:
So in other words, it’s not actually a rib. Instead, it’s a combination of unwanted animal scraps processed down in major facilities and ‘restructured’ into the form of a rib. Then, 70 additives, chemicals, fillers, and GMO ingredients later, you have a ‘meat’ product that tastes like ribs. [/wpex] TOP
May 20, 2014
Two years ago, a free report was published by the following genetic engineers and one researcher (respectively): Dr. John Fagan, Dr. Michael Antoniou and Claire Robinson. GMO Myths and Truths delved deep into the available research about the bigger picture of genetic modification.
It showed why consumer concern over the health and environmental effects of consuming GMOs were not the result of ignorant activist-stoked wrath. Perhaps more importantly, it showed that it was never correct to say the entire society of science backed this rogue corporate creation. Furthermore, it annihilates the myth that genetic modification is the only way to feed the world.
Fast forward to present day and you can have a free, fully loaded new addition that features important updates like getting the real scoop on the French GMO-fed rat study led by Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini. Think: pictures all over the internet of tumor-bloated lab rats. The PDF book features summaries of many studies that were recently conducted on the results of GMO proliferation.
Here is Earth Open Source’s annotated list of important additions in the new report, and their page numbers:
Author Claire Robinson added:
As Earth Open Source points out, the authors and their featured researchers are not alone in exposing the detrimental nature of GMOs – late last year, almost 300 scientists and legal experts signed a statement affirming that there was “No scientific consensus on GMO safety.”
Would you like a free copy of this report? Be forewarned, it is 330 pages, nearly three times as large as the first edition, but it’s hard to pass up all that valuable information. You can head over to Earth Open Source where the press release first appeared and submit a form for a free download link.
Here is a video by them, two years ago, when their first report was published:
May 31, 2013 17:28
Monsanto plans to halt lobbying for its genetically modified plant varieties in Europe due to low demand from local farmers, a representative from the US agricultural giant told a German daily. “We are no longer working on lobbying for more cultivation in Europe,” Brandon Mitchner a representative for Monsanto’s European branch, Tageszeitung, said in an interview set to be published on Saturday. “Currently we do not plan to apply for the approval of new genetically modified crops. The reason is, among other things, low demand of the farmers,” he continued. [wpex Read more] A spokeswoman for Monsanto Germany, Ursula Luttmer-Ouazane, admitted that Monsanto recognizes that GMO crops were currently not embraced on the European market. “We’ve understood that such plants don’t have any broad acceptance in European societies,” Luttmer-Ouazane said. “It is counterproductive to fight against windmills,” she added. A spokesperson for the German Ministry of Economy and Technologies described the move as an “entrepreneurial decision” which needed no further comment. The ministry added, however, it has long made its opposition to gene modification technologies known. “The promises of the GM industry have not come true for European agriculture, nor have they for the agriculture in developing and emerging economies,” the ministry said in a statement. Eight national governments in the European Union have already banned Monsanto’s MON810 maize and other forms of GMO cultivation in their countries under an environmental protection provision known as the ‘Safeguard Clause’. Particularly fierce protests in Germany prompted the government to introduce the measures in 2009 due to concerns that such cultivation could lead to ecological degradation. Monsanto’s rivals, such as Bayer CropScience, BASF and Syngenta, had by and large pulled out of the German market because of large-scale public opposition, the German daily reported. Austria, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg and most recently Poland are among other EU member states enforcing the ban. In April, Italy joined the ranks of EU states looking to ban the cultivation of GM crops on its soil.
The announcement comes amidst a series of recent public relations battles that have brought the US firm considerable worldwide attention. On Wednesday, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) said it had conducted genetic tests on wheat from an 80-acre farm in Oregon this past April. The tests revealed the wheat was an experimental variety created by Monsanto that had never been approved for sale. The discovery prompted Japanese authorities to cancel part of a tender offer to buy US western white wheat and have suspended imports of both that variety and feed wheat, while several other large importers of US-wheat throughout Asia said they were closely monitoring the situation. The European Union for its part said it will test any incoming shipments, with plans to block those containing GMO wheat. The USDA announcement followed a massive, global “March Against Monsanto” held on Saturday that saw demonstrations against the Missouri-based firm in 52 countries. Organizers for the global protest said around 2 million protesters showed up at rallies being held in 436 cities to protest against the seed giant and the genetically modified food.
Jon Rappoport Activist Post
It’s a scandal. Monsanto has just announced it’s giving up on most of Europe: people there don’t want GMO food. In America, the struggle is for labeling GMOs. This is some kind of “fairness doctrine.” Let the US consumer decide what kind of food to buy. Choice. It’s the American way, right? No, actually it isn’t. The evidence gathered over the last 10 years is staggering. GMO food and the herbicides sprayed on them constitute a major health hazard, to say the least. And this doesn’t begin to cover the lying business practices of Monsanto, who promised farmers that Roundup would kill weeds in the fields. Instead, the weeds have proliferated to the point where the farmers have to kill everything growing with stronger, more dangerous herbicides, like Paraquat. In the US, laws exist to prosecute crimes involving endangerment of health and crimes related to false marketing practices. These laws are on the books. When it comes to Monsanto, they’re gathering dust on the shelves. Choice and fairness apply to competitive products that are safe. The consumer picks one type of tomato over another. The consumer buys walnuts rather than pecans. The consumer chooses black olives over green olives. Choosing non-GMO corn instead of GMO corn still leaves dangerous GMO corn in produce bins. Should a bottle of cyanide sit on a store shelf next to a bottle of salt, just to be fair to the consumer? To give him a choice? Three or four federal law-enforcement agencies would arrest and prosecute the store owners who sell cyanide, as well as the distributors, and the packagers. But in the case of GMO food, the FDA and USDA, the relevant agencies, do nothing. Neither does the Dept. of Justice. Aside from several counties in America that have banned the growing of GMO crops, the big push is for labeling of GMO food in stores. That’s it. The theory is, when consumers have a choice, they’ll overwhelmingly reject GMOs and put a serious crimp in Monsanto’s business. That may or may not happen (if labeling is widespread), but the theory doesn’t directly address Monsanto’s crimes. The “kinder, gentler” approach is based on two assumptions. One, American consumers need soft activism. They won’t demand legal rejection of GMO food. They will, however, choose the right food. And two, Monsanto has made such a powerful inroad on food-crop farming, it’s too late to take it back. It’s too late to declare all the GMO crops illegal. “You see, so many people are taking Vioxx, we can’t go to court over it. It’s a done deal, even though patients are dropping like flies.” It wasn’t a done deal. Neither are GMOs. In a previous article, “Meet Monsanto’s number-one lobbyist: Barack Obama,” I detailed Obama’s horrendous record when it comes to allowing new GMO crops to enter the food chain, and his outrageous appointments of ex-Monsanto stalwarts to important and key positions in his administration. But Obama is “a good man.” He must be doing the right thing. He’s popular, so it wouldn’t be wise to attack him on the issue. Better to lay back, paste a smile on our faces, and try to secure labeling for GMOs. Of course, that’s exactly the wrong strategy. But as in all campaigns, the longer people wait and do nothing and remain timid, the less likely it is they can succeed, if and when they decide to move. That’s why Monsanto now has so many acres of GMO food growing in the United States. That’s why Monsanto has been able to push its unconscionable propaganda down the throat of the American consumer. That’s why Whole Foods and other major health-food companies decided to surrender the real battles and opt for co-existence with Monsanto. When there is continuing crime in a community, the people, the citizens have to go after and expose the public officials who are doing nothing about it, who are indeed profiting from it. In the case of Monsanto, the officials are, among others, President Barack Obama, Tom Vilsack, head of the USDA, and Michael Taylor, food czar at the FDA. But health-food companies, who should be leading the battle, are either friendly or neutral toward these bad actors. They’re hedging their bets. They’re saying, “We’ll inform consumers so they can make good choices, we’ll do labeling, but don’t expect us to be more aggressive than that. Don’t expect us to get mad.” Neutrality is apparently the American way. First and foremost, the business of America is business. And the idea of consumers staging a full-bore boycott against Whole Foods? Out of the question. No, consumers are too busy loading up bags with groceries. Monsanto relies on that. Monsanto knows Americans are tuned up to buy, buy, and consume, and then buy more. Americans consider it their right not to be distracted from that obsession. Obama, like Bush and Clinton before him, are silent on the GMO issue. They all pretend it doesn’t exist. They sell out the people at the drop of a hat, and they don’t lose any sleep over it. Conscience? Never heard of it. Ditto for major mainstream news outlets. “We don’t cover the Monsanto story in depth because it’s a he-said he-said thing. The scientific issues are complex. People on both sides make interesting points. But there’s no traction…” That’s a bunch of crap. Make me the managing editor of the Washington Post for a year and I’ll send sales of the paper through the roof. I’ll let the hounds loose on Monsanto 24/7 and pound on the story day after day. The bottom line of the Post will look healthier than it has since Watergate, a minor topic compared to GMOs. But the Post doesn’t really care about their bottom line. They would go bankrupt before they’d venture into these waters. They’re sold out from the top down. They’re part of the cover-up. I’ve written about this before, but here it is again. In the early 1990s, when the US health freedom movement was at a fever pitch, when people were going after the FDA for raiding natural practitioners’ offices and trying to limit access to nutritional supplements in stores, I sat in on several significant meetings of activists. People who controlled those meetings, who were connected to supplement companies, wanted a bill in Congress to protect the consumer. To give the consumer choice and access to supplements. That’s all they wanted. I told them, in no uncertain terms, that this wouldn’t work over the long term. We had to go after the FDA. We had to attack. I had a dossier on the FDA. I, like others, knew a lot about their crimes going back a long way. I was told this was the wrong strategy. “First,” they said, “let’s get a good bill passed in Congress. Then we can attack the FDA.” They had no such intention, and I told them so. They were never going to support going after the FDA and exposing it down to the ground as a criminal agency. They had no stomach for it, and they were sold out themselves. They had a confined agenda, which had to do with helping to guard supplement companies’ profits. They were slick operators. They knew how to present themselves as neutral and rational. They could spout New Age garble at appropriate moments. “Anger can be self-defeating.” “You achieve your aims when you come from a place of doing service.” The same thing is happening now. “Give people the right to know, the right to choose what’s in their food.” It plays well, because it caters to the wholly absorbed self-interest of the health-food consumer with discretionary income. It doesn’t work in the long run. It papers over the fact that corporate criminals, in partnership with the highest government officials, are committing RICO crimes against the health of the American people. The appropriate emotion is outrage. In case you hadn’t noticed, for the past 40 years there has been a major psyop in progress against righteous outrage and on behalf of Nice. Be nice. Be friendly. Be happy. Be self-contained. Don’t make waves. Anger is a sign of a mental disorder. Outrage isn’t Spiritual. You’ll injure your Karma. Karma was invented to prop up a caste system. It was used to promote passivity. Silence is not golden. Profits are. Labeling food that isn’t poisonous, while permitting the sale of poison, is let’s-pretend virtual reality. I’ve met so-called health entrepreneurs who’ve adopted squeaky clean New Age cover-personalities to obscure their sleazebag cynical motives. They’re very slippery characters. They do their real work in conference rooms where they look at spread sheets. The chance of them going after GMO criminals is zero. Once in a while, if you wait for it, or if you push them a little, you’ll see something come into their eyes. A dead cold nothing. It’s a sign of the personal Arctic region where they really live. They don’t till, they don’t plant, they don’t harvest. They sell. They’re very much like the Sunday television preachers who are there to hustle dollars. Only they take a kinder, gentler approach. They’re all about “consciousness” and saving the planet. If the planet were alive in the way they claim it is, the planet would have long ago consigned them to a desert island under a blazing sun. Jon Rappoport is the author of two explosive collections, The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com[/wpex] TOP
Japan recently cancelled a contract to purchase U.S. wheat due to the fact that it is polluted with GMOs, and now South Korea has done the same. GMOs found its way into commercial wheat fields in approximately 16 states, most notably in Oregon. This created self-replicating genetic pollution that now has its grip on the entire wheat industry, which helps to make the food industry that’s dominated by biotech companies like Monsanto more transparent everyday.
[wpex Read more] Last friday, South Korea announced that it is halting all imports of U.S. wheat due to the USDA’s recent announcement that commercial wheat grown in the USA is contaminated with genetically engineered wheat from Monsanto until further tests are conducted. The European Union has also urged its 27 nations to increase testing. Seoul also raised quarantine measures on wheat for livestock feed, while Thailand put ports on alert. The European Union said that any shipments that tested positive for GMOs would not be sold, and South Korea is doing the same. Although S.Korea has not yet detected any GMO wheat in their preliminary testing, they still have yet to release their final test results which are due on Wednesday. It’s good to see nations stand up and take the proper precautions to ensure that no GMO wheat enters into the country. Hopefully this will lead to more precautions in the near future. The issue still remains that the United States and Monsanto will be helping in developing reliable tests for the detection of the GMO strain, this isn’t good information as trust for this giant biotech company is extremely low, almost zero. South Korea was given the DNA sequences of the rogue GM strain by the United States in order for them to effectively conduct tests. Can South Korea really trust this? What if they were given the wrong strain? That would make it extremely difficult for them to detect the proper GMO strain. It seems that the masses no longer have any trust at all. The consumers that continue to purchase GMOs are simply unaware, once one becomes aware they will undoubtedly stop. Unfortunately there are those that turn a blind eye and give out blind faith to these corporations without ever researching or looking into the subject further. A simple statement by someone on CNN can easily persuade someone instantly. Not to long ago, Monsanto was found guilty of chemical poisoning in France, you can read more about that here. Scientists also discovered that the Bt toxins found in Monsanto crops can damage red blood cells in mammals, you can read more about that here. Monsanto’s roundup was also linked to Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, which you can read more about that here. Do Genetically Modified Organisms prepared for consumption really resonate with your inner most being? Personally, even without evidence my intuition alone tells me otherwise. With a little research, investigation and critical thinking it is not hard to put two and two together as there is a tremendous amount of evidence available that show GMOs should be a no go. Our food industry and the corporations that govern it are becoming more transparent by the day, awareness is increasing exponentially. World hunger is a problem that can easily be eradicated. The money we spend on war in less than one year could eradicate poverty word wide. There are so many ways we could feed the world, and it is evident that there is no ‘food crises.’ That is just an excuse to justify the production of GMOs. [/wpex] TOP
What’s considered the most respected newspaper in the world today published the Kraft warning label that a Food Babe reader found in the UK on an imported US box of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese. I want to thank the NY Times for investigating and broadcasting this label to the world and millions of Americans in their newspaper and online for everyone to see. This is a huge victory in food awareness! Given all the media coverage since March, it is now becoming blatantly apparent that there are serious concerns with the ingredients in Kraft Mac & Cheese. Everyone who reads the NY Times today will see the 2 warnings: Warning #1: This Product May Cause Adverse Effects On Activity And Attention In Children (This warning label is required because The US version of Kraft Mac & Cheese has artificial food dyes yellow #5 and yellow #6 which are proven to be linked to hyperactivity in children.) Warning #2: GMO Declaration: Made from genetically modified wheat. (May contain GMO) (This warning label is required because the US version of Kraft Mac & Cheese contains GMOs.)[wpex Read more]
There was quite a bit of speculation about this label last week. Many people on the internet questioned if it was real and where it came from. According to the report in the NY Times, in video evidence I posted, and in two other videos here and here, we can now conclude the following: The NY Times verified that this is in fact a real label on US Kraft Mac & Cheese sold in the UK. We know that Kraft does not label, distribute or export the US version of Mac & Cheese officially. (To echo my quote in The NY Times, I find it extremely bizarre that Kraft had no knowledge of their products being sold and widely available in one of the largest retailers in the world (Tesco) and are trying to pass this off as a black market supply.) Kraft has confirmed they do not use GMO wheat. (However, no one to my knowledge has tested the product to verify this 100%, which is important considering the contamination of GMO wheat in Oregon.) Kraft customer service confirmed use of other GMOs in their products (see video evidence here). Given all the public statements that Kraft has made to the media about this label so far – they have not attempted to refute one important fact – Their product “May Cause Adverse Effects On Activity And Attention In Children.” This is truth they can’t deny. Tesco who sells the US version of Kraft Mac & Cheese in their “World Foods” section confirmed the label is placed on by the distributor – Innovative Bites. The case is still not solved. THERE IS STILL A MAJOR QUESTION UNANSWERED. No one has been able to get in touch with distributor Innovative Bites (including me) to find out why they used the words “made with genetically modified wheat” on the label. Lynne Galia, the spokeswoman I met at Kraft headquarters when I delivered thousands of signatures, has still not responded to me directly. She will not answer my emails or my phone calls. She will gladly talk to the NY Times and other news agencies, but not to me or the other 290,000 people I represent who signed a petition asking Kraft to remove artificial food dyes. I find it bizarre that Kraft wouldn’t genuinely want to answer basic questions about their product – especially after I posted this concerning information that could have health implications to millions of people and children. How can we continue to trust a company like Kraft that is more concerned about making greedy business decisions to keep their market share and paying their executives millions of more dollars year after year, while neglecting enormous public outcry regarding their flagship product? How can we continue to trust a company that continues to not take responsibility for their product containing petroleum based dyes and GMOs? How can we continue to trust an American company that reformulates their products without harmful ingredients to our friends overseas but not to us?
I want to leave you with a clarification note I received from Flo (who is definitely a hero for finding this label!) She would like to share her unedited thoughts about Kraft Mac & Cheese here: I’ve been eating Kraft Macaroni and Cheese for a long time now and have grown to enjoy the product, much like many others I’m sure. However with these recent discoveries of the yellow dyes and their effects as well as the GM wheat and GMOs, I’ve become very concerned. I have continued to eat Kraft macaroni and cheese in moderation knowing the effects it may have, however I’m certainly considering stopping if the ingredients aren’t changed. I’m worried about the long term effects it may have and really hope that Kraft can find a way to alter the ingredients, making them safer and healthier, without it having an effect on the taste of the product. Mainly, I’m concerned that children around the world may be eating this without knowing the effects it could have. Also, I would like to thank the New York Times for publishing the photo and not dismissing it as fake. ~ Flo Wrightson Cross Source: foodbabe.com [/wpex] TOP
|If you want REAL Food with the same amount of time and half the price try:
By Marie Total Time:30 mins Prep Time:15 mins Cook Time:15 mins Marie’s Note: An easy way to do macaroni and cheese when there is little time until dinner. No baking required. Ingredients:Servings: 4 8 ounces elbow macaroni 1/4 cup butter 1/4 cup flour 1/2 teaspoon salt 1 dash black pepper 2 cups milk 2 cups cheddar cheese, shredded (8oz) Directions: 1) Cook macaroni according to package directions. 2) In medium saucepan, melt butter over medium heat; stir in flour, salt and pepper; slowly add milk. 3) Cook and stir until bubbly. 4) Stir in cheese until melted. 5) Drain macaroni; add to cheese sauce; stir to coat. TOP
by Elizabeth Renter July 17th, 2013 Updated 07/17/2013 at 3:01 pm Twenty-two children are dead so far in the village of Dharmasati Gandaman, in India’s Bihar state. The cause is not some communicable disease or strange virus, but their school lunch. According to the BBC, the children all ate from the school’s free mid-day meal. Forty-seven fell ill and 28 had been taken to area hospitals. The free-lunch program is designed to both combat hunger and increase school attendance in the poverty-stricken village. It’s referred to as the Mid-Day Meal and was started in 1925. But, critics say, it’s plagued by poor hygiene.[wpex Read more] Following the deaths, protests broke out. Parents joined with protestors and at least four police vehicles were set on fire.
Organophosphorus is a type of insecticide. According to MedIndia.net, they are also used in chemical warfare and commonly associated with suicide in the area. Versions, like sarin, have been developed into nerve gases and are used in chemical attacks. Interestingly, nearly all people are exposed to organophosphorus (OP) pesticides in their daily diet. Although one study published in Environmental Health Perspectives indicated organic produce could reduce exposure, it is one of those toxins that the EPA has set “acceptable limits” on. Obviously, the schoolchildren were delivered a far higher dosage than what would be deemed “acceptable” in a normal diet. A senior education official surmises the contamination may have come from vegetables or rice in the lunch. A doctor treating some of the children says it could have been vegetable oil. In other words, no one quite knows. Bihar is one of the poorest and simultaneously most-populated states in the country. The Mid-Day Meal program is the largest of its kind, serving about 120 million children. Unfortunately, this isn’t the first case of illness or food-poisoning to come from the program.
Saturday, July 20, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer (NaturalNews) At least 22 children in India have died as a result of eating soy-based school lunches served to them in the country’s Bihar state, according to new reports. The tainted lunches, which were loaded with genetically-modified (GM) soybeans and pesticide chemical residues, were given to the student victims as part of a U.K.-based government meal program similar to the one currently being implemented in the U.S. by Michelle Obama for American public schoolchildren. The U.K.’s Independent reports that the culprit meals contained a blend of rice, soybeans and potatoes, and had apparently been doused with an unidentified new cooking oil that was later determined to be tainted with toxic crop insecticides. Early on, the school’s cook warned her superiors that the new oil appeared “discolored and dodgy,” but her concerns were ignored when school officials insisted that the oil was safe. Not long after students ate the first meal served with the new oil, dozens of them began to vomit profusely and some developed severe diarrhea. Several of them had to be immediately rushed to the hospital for emergency care, which sent the school’s headmaster running for the hills — according to reports, she literally fled the school after first learning that students were becoming ill from eating the food. “We feel that some kind of insecticide was either accidentally or intentionally mixed in the food, but that will be clear through investigations,” said R.K. Singh, the medical superintendent at the local children’s hospital in Patna, Bihar’s capital. “We prepared antidotes and treated the children for organic phosphorus poisoning,” he added, noting that early tests identified the presence of a toxic organophosphate chemical in the tainted food. But the school itself appears to have dropped the ball in helping its sick children in the immediate aftermath of the poisoning. Reports indicate that it took about 15 hours after the first child fell ill to evacuate the rest. It was only after 17 children died that school officials began to take the situation seriously by trying to actually help the children. After learning about the school’s mismanagement of the situation, many parents began rioting in the streets and demanding answers. Protesting villagers reportedly set ablaze four police vehicles out of anger, and police reinforcements had to be sent in from elsewhere to quell the unrest. In the aftermath of the disaster, Bihar has offered to provide compensation of 200,000 rupees, or about $3,500, per dead child to affected families.
All government food programs, including those in US, a threat to children
Though this incident took place in one of India’s poorest regions, where corruption is rampant, the moral of the story is that this type of situation could happen anywhere. In the U.S., for instance, where the federal government is currently seizing control of school lunch programs nationwide, children are being fed some of the very same soy- and chemical-laden garbage for lunch. Just last year, prisoners in Illinois actually filed a lawsuit against the state for serving them too much soy, which was causing them to become seriously ill. And a district court judge has since acknowledged the merits of the case, recognizing that high amount of soy, and particularly GM soy, can lead to severe gastrointestinal problems, hypothyroidism, infections, and even death. “In the U.S., we allow Big Agra to provide insecticide laced GMOs for our children everyday,” wrote one concerned and insightful commenter on a piece published by The New York Times (NYT). “We have no idea how much damage this stuff is doing to our children or the rest of the humans who are being slowly poisoned for the benefit of high profits and obscenely paid CEOS.” “At least the Indian government intends to prosecute the ones who did this. We (in the U.S.) put them at the head of the FDA and give them complete immunity through specially drafted legislation. This is our shame and our tragedy.” Sources for this article include: http://www.independent.co.uk http://india.blogs.nytimes.com http://www.naturalnews.com/034800_prisoners_lawsuit_soy.html [/wpex] TOP
Todd Woody Quartz 24 Jul 2013
As we’ve written before, the mysterious mass die-off of honey bees that pollinate $30 billion worth of crops in the US has so decimated America’s apis mellifera population that one bad winter could leave fields fallow. Now, a new study has pinpointed some of the probable causes of bee deaths and the rather scary results show that averting beemageddon will be much more difficult than previously thought.
Scientists had struggled to find the trigger for so-called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) that has wiped out an estimated 10 million beehives, worth $2 billion, over the past six years. Suspects have included pesticides, disease-bearing parasites and poor nutrition. But in a first-of-its-kind study published today in the journal PLOS ONE, scientists at the University of Maryland and the US Department of Agriculture have identified a witch’s brew of pesticides and fungicides contaminating pollen that bees collect to feed their hives. The findings break new ground on why large numbers of bees are dying though they do not identify the specific cause of CCD, where an entire beehive dies at once.[wpex Read more]
When researchers collected pollen from hives on the east coast pollinating cranberry, watermelon and other crops and fed it to healthy bees, those bees showed a significant decline in their ability to resist infection by a parasite called Nosema ceranae. The parasite has been implicated in Colony Collapse Disorder though scientists took pains to point out that their findings do not directly link the pesticides to CCD. The pollen was contaminated on average with nine different pesticides and fungicides though scientists discovered 21 agricultural chemicals in one sample. Scientists identified eight ag chemicals associated with increased risk of infection by the parasite.
Most disturbing, bees that ate pollen contaminated with fungicides were three times as likely to be infected by the parasite. Widely used, fungicides had been thought to be harmless for bees as they’re designed to kill fungus, not insects, on crops like apples.
“There’s growing evidence that fungicides may be affecting the bees on their own and I think what it highlights is a need to reassess how we label these agricultural chemicals,” Dennis vanEngelsdorp, the study’s lead author, told Quartz.
Labels on pesticides warn farmers not to spray when pollinating bees are in the vicinity but such precautions have not applied to fungicides.
Bee populations are so low in the US that it now takes 60% of the country’s surviving colonies just to pollinate one California crop, almonds. And that’s not just a west coast problem—California supplies 80% of the world’s almonds, a market worth $4 billion.
In recent years, a class of chemicals called neonicotinoids has been linked to bee deaths and in April regulators banned the use of the pesticide for two years in Europe where bee populations have also plummeted. But vanEngelsdorp, an assistant research scientist at the University of Maryland, says the new study shows that the interaction of multiple pesticides is affecting bee health.
“The pesticide issue in itself is much more complex than we have led to be believe,” he says. “It’s a lot more complicated than just one product, which means of course the solution does not lie in just banning one class of product.”
The study found another complication in efforts to save the bees: US honey bees, which are descendants of European bees, do not bring home pollen from native North American crops but collect bee chow from nearby weeds and wildflowers. That pollen, however, was also contaminated with pesticides even though those plants were not the target of spraying.
“It’s not clear whether the pesticides are drifting over to those plants but we need take a new look at agricultural spraying practices,” says vanEngelsdorp. [/wpex] TOP
By Brandon Keim 17March2014
After years of predicting it would happen — and after years of having their suggestions largely ignored by companies, farmers and regulators — scientists have documented the rapid evolution of corn rootworms that are resistant to Bt corn.
Until Bt corn was genetically altered to be poisonous to the pests, rootworms used to cause billions of dollars in damage to U.S. crops. Named for the pesticidal toxin-producing Bacillus thuringiensis gene it contains, Bt corn now accounts for three-quarters of the U.S. corn crop. The vulnerability of this corn could be disastrous for farmers and the environment.
“Unless management practices change, it’s only going to get worse,” said Aaron Gassmann, an Iowa State University entomologist and co-author of a March 17 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study describing rootworm resistance. “There needs to be a fundamental change in how the technology is used.” [wpex Read more]
First planted in 1996, Bt corn quickly became hugely popular among U.S. farmers. Within a few years, populations of rootworms and corn borers, another common corn pest, had plummeted across the midwest. Yields rose and farmers reduced their use of conventional insecticides that cause more ecological damage than the Bt toxin.
By the turn of the millennium, however, scientists who study the evolution of insecticide resistance were warning of imminent problems. Any rootworm that could survive Bt exposures would have a wide-open field in which to reproduce; unless the crop was carefully managed, resistance would quickly emerge.
Key to effective management, said the scientists, were refuges set aside and planted with non-Bt corn. Within these fields, rootworms would remain susceptible to the Bt toxin. By mating with any Bt-resistant worms that chanced to evolve in neighboring fields, they’d prevent resistance from building up in the gene pool.
But the scientists’ own recommendations — an advisory panel convened in 2002 by the EPA suggested that a full 50 percent of each corn farmer’s fields be devoted to these non-Bt refuges — were resisted by seed companies and eventually the EPA itself, which set voluntary refuge guidelines at between 5 and 20 percent. Many farmers didn’t even follow those recommendations.
Fast forward to 2009, when Gassmann responded to reports of extensive rootworm damage in Bt cornfields in northeast Iowa. Populations there had become resistant to one of the three Bt corn varieties. (Each variety produces a different type of Bt toxin.) He described that resistance in a 2011 study; around the same time, reports of rootworm-damaged Bt corn came in from parts of Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska and South Dakota. These didn’t represent a single outbreak, but rather the emergence, again and again, of resistance.
‘A widespread increase in trait failure maybe just around the corner.’
In the new paper, Gassmann describes further incidents of Bt resistance in other parts of Iowa. He also found rootworms resistant to a second variety of Bt corn. Moreover, being resistant to one variety heightened the chances of resistance to another. That means corn engineered to produce multiple Bt toxins — so-called stacked varieties — won’t do much to slow the evolution of rootworm resistance, as was originally hoped.Farmers likely won’t stop using Bt corn, as it’s still effective against other pests — but as rootworms become more resistant, said Gassmann, farmers will turn to insecticides, thus increasing their costs and losing the ecological benefits originally gained by using Bt corn. As entomologists concerned by rootworm resistance wrote to the EPA in 2012, “When insecticides overlay transgenic technology, the economic and environmental advantages of rootworm-protected corn quickly disappear.”
Entomologist Bruce Tabashnik of the University of Arizona called Bt resistance “an increasingly serious problem,” and said that refuge sizes need to be increased dramatically and immediately. He and other scientists have pushed the EPA to double current refuge requirements, but so far without success.
“Biotech companies have successfully lobbied EPA for major reductions in refuge requirements,” said Tabashnik.
Entomologist Elson Shields of Cornell University agrees. “Resistance was caused because the farmers did not plant the required refuges and the companies did not enforce the planting of refuges,” said Shields, who has written that “a widespread increase in trait failure may be just around the corner.”
In addition to increasing refuge sizes, farmers also need to vary the crops planted on their fields, rather than planting corn season after season, said Gassmann. Breaks in the corn cycle naturally disrupt rootworm populations, but the approach fell from favor as the high price of corn made continuous planting appealing. “Continuous corn is the perfect habitat for rootworm,” said Gassmann.
Shields also lamented the difficulty he and other academic scientists long experienced when trying to study Bt corn. Until 2010, after organized objections by entomologists at major agricultural universities forced seed companies to allow outside researchers to study Bt corn, the crop was largely off-limits. Had that not been the case, said Shields, resistance could have been detected even earlier, and perhaps stalled before it threatened to become such a problem.
“Once we had legal access, resistance was documented in a year,” Shields said. “We were seeing failures earlier but were not allowed to test for resistance.”
There’s a lesson to be learned for future crop traits, Shields said. Rootworm resistance was expected from the outset, but the Bt seed industry, seeking to maximize short-term profits, ignored outside scientists. The next pest-fighting trait “will fall under the same pressure,” said Shields, “and the insect will win. Always bet on the insect if there is not a smart deployment of the trait.”
Submitted by George Washington on 03/26/2014 15:52 -0400
Risk analyst Nassim Nicholas Taleb predicted the 2008 financial crisis, by pointing out that commonly-used risk models were wrong. Distinguished professor of risk engineering at New York University, author of best-sellers The Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness, Taleb became financially independent after the crash of 1987, and wealthy during the 2008 financial crisis.
Now, Taleb is using his statistical risk acumen to take on genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Taleb’s conclusion: GMOs could cause “an irreversible termination of life at some scale, which could be the planet.”
Sure it does … but only because we don’t understand statistics, and so we have no handle on what’s risky and what’s not.
Taleb shreds GMO-boosters – including biologists – who don’t understand basic statistics:
In other words, lack of knowledge of basic statistical principles leads GMO supporters astray. For example, they don’t understand the concept that “interdependence” creates “thick tails” … leading to a “black swan” catastrophic risk event:
(This concept is important in the financial world, as well.)
As Forbes’ Brian Stoffel notes:
1. The Risk of Famine If We Don’t Use GMOs. Taleb says:
2. Nothing Is Totally Safe, So Should We Discard All Technology? Taleb says this is an anti-scientific argument. Some risks are small, or are only risks to one individual or a small group of people. When you’re talking about risks which could wipe out all life on Earth, it’s a totally different analysis.
3. Assuming that Nature Is Always Good Is Anti-Scientific. Taleb says that statistical risk analysis don’t use assumptions such as nature is “good” or “bad”. Rather, it looks at the statistical evidence that things persist in nature for thousands of years if they are robust and anti-fragile. Ecosystems break down if they become unstable.
GMO engineers may be smart in their field, but they are ignorant when it comes to long-run ecological reality:
4. People Brought Potatoes from the Americas Back to Europe, Without Problem. Taleb says that potatoes evolved and competed over thousands of years in the Americas, and so proved that they did not disrupt ecosystems. On the other hand, GMOs are brand spanking new … created in the blink of the eye in a lab.
GMOs Also INCREASE Pesticide Use, DECREASE Crop Yield, And May Be VERY Dangerous to Your Health
As if the risk of “ecocide”isn’t enough, there are many other reasons to oppose GMO foods – at least without rigorous testing – including:
On the plus side? A few companies will make a lot of money.
by Jon Rappoport June 4, 2014 www.nomorefakenews.com
Worldwide sentiment is shifting against Monsanto and GMO food crops. And China is making major moves.
At sustainablepulse.com, we have this May 14, 2014, article: “Chinese Army Bans All GMO Grains and Oil from Supply Stations”:
“The Chinese army has ordered all military supply stations to only allow the purchase of non-GMO grain and food oil due to health safety concerns over GMOs.
“This move by the Chinese army is being seen as yet another step towards the Chinese government’s expected ban on the import of all GMO grains and oilseeds within the next 2 years, due to growing public concern over GMOs. The expected ban would be a huge blow to the Biotech industry worldwide.
“The Hubei Province Xiangyang City Grain Bureau’s website announced on May 6, 2014:
“’During recent years, as China’s grain and oil market has continuously developed, certain GMO grain and GMO food oil products have entered the market. In view that the safety concerns about GMO grain and oil products in China at present has not yet been determined, in order to overall assure the health of military members residing in our city and safety of their drinks and food, in accordance to the request from the Guangzhou Military Command Joint Logistics Department and the Provincial Military Grain & Food Oil Supply Center, from this date all military supply stations are allowed to only purchase non-GMO grain and food oil products from the designated processing enterprises. It is forbidden to supply GMO grain and food oil products to military units within their administration areas.
“’Chen I-wan, an Advisor to the Committee of Disaster History to the China Disaster Prevention Association has stated: “The army has established [an] excellent model for people of the whole nation: No GMO staple food and GMO food oil should enter the army food supply.”
China—protecting its Army from GMOs. And soon, perhaps the entire population of the country.
Apparently, Chinese GMO science differs from American GMO science, where a mere nod and a wink between the FDA and Monsanto, 20 years ago, launched a big Ag revolution that continues to contaminate US lands.
China, by the way, is home to 20% of the world’s population. “GMO-free China” has an interesting ring. Which domino will fall next? India, where 17% of the Earth’s people live, where farmers who have been duped and bankrupted by Monsanto, have been committing suicide in large numbers?
Then there is Russia. Putin recently declared, in reference to a possible ban on GMOs: “We need to properly construct our work so that it is not contrary to our obligations under the WTO. But even with this in mind, we nevertheless have legitimate methods and instruments to protect our own market, and above all citizens.”
Likewise, groups in Africa are pushing back against the US/Monsanto/Bill Gates plan to flood the continent with GMO crops.
In all these cases, world leaders outside the US are seeing the GMO sell-job as an attempt to extend American hegemony, through what amounts to an act of war.
Well, what else would you call artificial gene-contamination and poisoning by herbicides?
Monsanto’s talk of ‘technology’ tries to hide its real objectives of control over seed where genetic engineering is a means to control seed,
These are the promises Monsanto India’s website makes, alongside pictures of smiling, prosperous farmers from the state of Maharashtra. This is a desperate attempt by Monsanto and its PR machinery to delink the epidemic of farmers’ suicides in India from the company’s growing control over cotton seed supply — 95 per cent of India’s cotton seed is now controlled by Monsanto.
Control over seed is the first link in the food chain because seed is the source of life. When a corporation controls seed, it controls life, especially the life of farmers.
Monsanto’s concentrated control over the seed sector in India as well as across the world is very worrying. This is what connects farmers’ suicides in India to Monsanto vs Percy Schmeiser in Canada, to Monsanto vs Bowman in the US, and to farmers in Brazil suing Monsanto for $2.2 billion for unfair collection of royalty.
Through patents on seed, Monsanto has become the “Life Lord” of our planet, collecting rents for life’s renewal from farmers, the original breeders.
Patents on seed are illegitimate because putting a toxic gene into a plant cell is not “creating” or “inventing” a plant. These are seeds of deception — the deception that Monsanto is the creator of seeds and life; the deception that while Monsanto sues farmers and traps them in debt, it pretends to be working for farmers’ welfare, and the deception that GMOs feed the world. GMOs are failing to control pests and weeds, and have instead led to the emergence of superpests and superweeds.
The entry of Monsanto in the Indian seed sector was made possible with a 1988 Seed Policy imposed by the World Bank, requiring the Government of India to deregulate the seed sector. Five things changed with Monsanto’s entry: First, Indian companies were locked into joint-ventures and licensing arrangements, and concentration over the seed sector increased. Second, seed which had been the farmers’ common resource became the “intellectual property” of Monsanto, for which it started collecting royalties, thus raising the costs of seed. Third, open pollinated cotton seeds were displaced by hybrids, including GMO hybrids. A renewable resource became a non-renewable, patented commodity. Fourth, cotton which had earlier been grown as a mixture with food crops now had to be grown as a monoculture, with higher vulnerability to pests, disease, drought and crop failure. Fifth, Monsanto started to subvert India’s regulatory processes and, in fact, started to use public resources to push its non-renewable hybrids and GMOs through so-called public-private partnerships (PPP).
In 1995, Monsanto introduced its Bt technology in India through a joint-venture with the Indian company Mahyco. In 1997-98, Monsanto started open field trials of its GMO Bt cotton illegally and announced that it would be selling the seeds commercially the following year. India has rules for regulating GMOs since 1989, under the Environment Protection Act. It is mandatory to get approval from the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee under the ministry of environment for GMO trials. The Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology sued Monsanto in the Supreme Court of India and Monsanto could not start the commercial sales of its Bt cotton seeds until 2002.
But it had changed Indian agriculture already.
Monsanto’s seed monopolies, the destruction of alternatives, the collection of superprofits in the form of royalties, and the increasing vulnerability of monocultures has created a context for debt, suicides and agrarian distress which is driving the farmers’ suicide epidemic in India. This systemic control has been intensified with Bt cotton. That is why most suicides are in the cotton belt.
An internal advisory by the agricultural ministry of India in January 2012 had this to say to the cotton-growing states in India — “Cotton farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting to Bt cotton. The spate of farmer suicides in 2011-12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton farmers.”
The highest acreage of Bt cotton is in Maharashtra and this is also where the highest farmer suicides are. Suicides increased after Bt cotton was introduced — Monsanto’s royalty extraction, and the high costs of seed and chemicals have created a debt trap. According to Government of India data, nearly 75 per cent rural debt is due to purchase inputs. As Monsanto’s profits grow, farmers’ debt grows. It is in this systemic sense that Monsanto’s seeds are seeds of suicide.
The ultimate seeds of suicide is Monsanto’s patented technology to create sterile seeds. (Called “Terminator technology” by the media, sterile seed technology is a type of Gene Use Restriction Technology, GRUT, in which seed produced by a crop will not grow — crops will not produce viable offspring seeds or will produce viable seeds with specific genes switched off.) The Convention on Biological Diversity has banned its use, otherwise Monsanto would be collecting even higher profits from seed.
Monsanto’s talk of “technology” tries to hide its real objectives of ownership and control over seed where genetic engineering is just a means to control seed and the food system through patents and intellectual property rights.
A Monsanto representative admitted that they were “the patient’s diagnostician, and physician all in one” in writing the patents on life-forms, from micro-organisms to plants, in the TRIPS’ agreement of WTO. Stopping farmers from saving seeds and exercising their seed sovereignty was the main objective. Monsanto is now extending its patents to conventionally bred seed, as in the case of broccoli and capsicum, or the low gluten wheat it had pirated from India which we challenged as a biopiracy case in the European Patent office.
That is why we have started Fibres of Freedom in the heart of Monsanto’s Bt cotton/suicide belt in Vidharba. We have created community seed banks with indigenous seeds and helped farmers go organic. No GMO seeds, no debt, no suicides.
Vandana Shiva is a philosopher, environmental activist, and eco feminist.Shiva, currently based in Delhi, has authored more than 20 books and over 500 papers in leading scientific and technical journals.She was trained as a physicist and received her Ph.D. in physics from the University of Western Ontario, Canada. She was awarded the Right Livelihood Award in 1993. She is the founder of Navdanya http://www.navdanya.org/