Russian scientists to broadcast GMO-rat experiment to expose Monsanto

Russian scientists to broadcast GMO-rat experiment to expose Monsanto

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb...2leo1_1280.jpg

September 29, 2012

After a French study suggested that rats fed on Monsanto GMO corn suffered tumors, Russian researches plan their own, this time public, experiment. The unique reality show with rats is expected to prove or deny GMO’s health-threatening influence.

The Russian scientists, who oppose genetically modified organisms (GMO) in food, expect that their year-long experiment will show whether the controversial cultivation process has effects as dangerous as French revelations claimed on September 19.

Scientists from France’s University of Caen made public the results of their classified study, publishing the images of rats with tumors after they were fed a diet of genetically modified (GM) maize produced by American chemical giant Monsanto.

The revelation stirred fear across Europe and in Russia, where authorities temporarily suspended the import and sale of Monsanto’s genetically modified corn.

Russian researches from the National Association for Genetic Safety (NAGS) believe such experiments should be conducted publicly, so that people can see the process with their own eyes, and thus trust, or not, the study.

So they came up with the idea of public experiment. Web cameras, installed in cages with rats, will broadcast all stages of the experiment online. The unique reality show will be available on the Internet 24/7 worldwide.

“This is a unique experiment,” project author Elena Sharoykina told RT. “There hasn’t been anything like it before – open, public research by opponents and supporters of GMO.”

The idea behind the test is to feed several groups of rats with different food. One group will be fed with soybeans and corn with a high content of GMOs, while the other gets the same products, but with low GMO levels. The third will be given food with no GMO whatsoever, and the fourth with standard rat food.

For the sake of the purity of the experiment, employees who feed the rats will not know what kind of food they are giving.

Scientists expect to observe five generations of rats, if the rodents survive.

“It is hard to predict how animals will react,” Sharoykina said.

Such an experiment was initially planned to be held in 2006, but back then researchers failed to find financial support. So, they initiated another study, using hamsters. The scientists oversaw a few generations of the rodents and concluded that by the third generation, some of the animals became infertile.

To make the experiment objective, the group of scientists will also include supporters of GMOs and foreign experts.

The research is to be launched in March 2013, because the scientists still have to work out their methods, form a team and find funding.

The current project may cost up to $1 million. Scientists hope to find commercial sponsors, get grants from the government, or even raise some funds through public financing, for example, through the Internet.

Sharoykina says that if the experiment does prove the destructive influence on animals, it should be the pretext to banning GMOs in Russia.

“But we will have a chance to understand in what direction we should move,” she said. “If this research proves negative influence, and supporters of GMOs accept it, the next step should be a moratorium on products with GMOs in Russia.”

Source

Photo Source

The People's Record • Russian scientists to broadcast GMO-rat experiment...

Are You Concerned Over Genetically Modified Vaccines?

October 02 2012 | 28,503 views

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...;v=kbMAlKDrj38

By Dr. Mercola

If you've ever had qualms about eating genetically modified (GM) foods, you'd likely be deeply concerned about receiving a GM vaccine as well.
Such vaccines are already being produced – some are even on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) recommended vaccine schedule – even though, as is the case with GM foods, we know very little about their long-term effects.

In the interview above, Vicky Debold, PhD, RN, director of research and patient safety with the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), spoke with me about the many reasons to be very wary of this new technology, which is far more intertwined with other biotech "innovations," like GM food, than you might think.

Nobody Knows What Happens When You Inject People with GM Vaccines

There have been some fair warnings, though. In 2006, researchers wrote in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health:¹

"Genetically modified (GM) viruses and genetically engineered virus-vector vaccines possess significant unpredictability and a number of inherent harmful potential hazards... Horizontal transfer of genes... is well established. New hybrid virus progenies resulting from genetic recombination between genetically engineered vaccine viruses and their naturally occurring relatives may possess totally unpredictable characteristics with regard to host preferences and disease-causing potentials.

...There is inadequate knowledge to define either the probability of unintended events or the consequences of genetic modifications."

Though this was six years ago, little has changed even as the technology has advanced. Today we have several different types of GM vaccines in production, development or research phases, such as:

• DNA vaccines: DNA for a microbe's antigens are introduced into the body, with the expectation that your cells will take up that DNA, which then instructs your cells to make antigen molecules. As the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (a division of the National Institutes of Health) put it, "In other words, the body's own cells become vaccine-making factories."²
• Naked DNA vaccines: A type of DNA vaccine in which microscopic particles coated with DNA are administered directly into your cells.
• Recombinant Vector vaccines: Similar to DNA vaccines, but they use a virus or bacteria to act as a vector (or "carrier) to introduce microbial DNA into your cells.

There are experimental GM vaccines being developed that use tumorigenic cancer cells and cells from humans, dogs, monkeys, cows, pigs, rodents, birds and insects. What happens when foreign DNA is inserted into the human body is a mystery. Will it trigger undesirable changes in human cells or tissues? Will it combine or exchange genetic material with human DNA? Will it transfer to future generations? No one knows...

"We don't know what portion of the [GM] DNA can be incorporated into our own genome, we don't know what portion could be inheritable to our children, we also don't know what happens when the immune system is exposed to DNA that has been recombined in lots of ways that the human body, through the course of time, has never had any exposure to... what diseases of the immune system may occur because of these exposures," Debold said.

"Use of foreign DNA in various forms has the potential to cause a great deal of trouble, not only because there is the potential for it to recombine with our own DNA, there is the potential for it to turn the DNA 'switches,' the epigenetic parts of the DNA, on and off."

Vaccine Adjuvants Used in GM Vaccines May be Even More Toxic Than Usual

An adjuvant is added to a vaccine in order to boost the body's immune reaction to the viral or bacterial antigen contained in a vaccine. Under ideal circumstances, the antigen is what your body responds to and makes antibodies against (e.g. the lab altered viral or bacterial organisms being injected). By boosting your body's immune response in this artificial way, the vaccine manufacturer can use a smaller amount of antigen, which makes production less expensive and the product more profitable (although definitely not safer, as adjuvants are usually foreign substances, metals or chemicals which can cause the immune system to overreact and attack the host body.)

Aluminum is a common vaccine adjuvant and also a well-known neurotoxin that can cause chronic inflammation in the body, including the brain. Although aluminum adjuvants have been added to inactivated vaccines used for decades in the U.S., aluminum-based adjuvants are not strong enough for GM vaccines, according to Debold, so drug companies are primarily interested in using oil-based adjuvants, like squalene, and other substances that can hyper-stimulate the body's immune response.

While oil-based vaccine adjuvants like squalene have been proven to generate powerful acute inflammatory immune responses that stimulate increased production of antibodies, they have also been associated with unresolved, chronic inflammation in the body that can cause brain and immune system dysfunction, including autoimmune diseases.³ While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has so far not licensed any vaccines distributed in the U.S. that contain squalene as an adjuvant, squalene adjuvants are used in some vaccines sold in Europe and other countries.

GM Vaccines You May Have Given to Your Kids...

Many are unaware that, despite the completely unknown long-term health consequences, GM vaccines are already in use and have been administered to American infants, children and adults for many years. Among them:

• Hepatitis B vaccine: An inactivated recombinant DNA vaccine licensed for newborn infants and children in 1991, in which parts of the hepatitis B virus gene are cloned into yeast
• Rotavirus vaccine: Live attenuated vaccines first licensed for infants and children licensed in 2006, which either contain genetically engineered human rotavirus strains or human-bovine hybridized reassortment rotavirus strains⁴
• HPV vaccine (Gardasil or Cervarix): A recombinant vaccine licensed in 2006, which is prepared from virus-like particles (VLP's) and may also include use of an insect-cell Baculovirus expression vector system for production

Then there are those "hybrid" vaccines that cross the (very narrow) threshold into the GM food realm... for instance, goats are being genetically engineered to become "pharm animals" that carry vaccines in their milk. If the experiments being conducted by researchers from Texas A&M are successful, they will produce an "edible" malaria vaccine, with the ultimate goal being that children drinking the milk will become vaccinated in the process. If vaccines in your milk sounds a bit to "out there," it shouldn't, as there are many connections between the companies that make GM food and those that make GM vaccines.

The Close Ties Between GM Foods and GM Vaccines

The companies that make vaccines and GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are deeply intertwined, only recently spinning off or merging to specialize in one or the other. Most vaccine revenues are earned by five companies that together held nearly 80 percent of the market in 2010:⁵

• Sanofi Pasteur
• GlaxoSmithKline
• Merck & Co.
• Pfizer
• Novartis

These companies, which use genetic engineering to produce vaccines, are also primarily responsible for the introduction of genetic engineering into the food supply. For instance:

• Genetic engineering giant Syngenta (third in total sales in the commercial agricultural seeds market) is the progeny of parent companies Novartis and AstraZeneca.
• In 2001, Bayer CropScience became a leading genetically engineered crop producer with its purchase of Aventis' agribusiness division.⁶
• In 2004, Aventis merged with and into Sanofi. The new Sanofi-Aventis Group became the world's 3rd largest pharmaceutical company. Aventis Pasteur, the vaccine division of Sanofi-Aventis Group, changed its name to Sanofi Pasteur. Sanofi Pasteur is the vaccines division of Sanofi Group. It is the largest company in the world devoted entirely to vaccines.
• Prior to splitting its genetically engineered crop business from its vaccine business, Aventis was known primarily for the StarLink corn debacle (a type of GM corn grown for use in animal feed that contaminated the U.S. food supply in 2000). Bayer now sells Aventis's Liberty Link crops, engineered to tolerate high doses of the company's toxic herbicide called Liberty (glufosinate).⁷
• Stauffer Seeds was a spin-off of Stauffer Chemical, formerly a division of Novartis.⁸ Stauffer Seeds and Prodigene conducted clinical trials on pigs using an edible vaccine for transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) expressed in corn.⁹
• Prodigene was caught contaminating the food supply with its edible vaccine and the company went out of business, but not before it received a $6-million investment from the Governors Biotechnology Partnership, chaired by Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. Vilsack, now the Obama Administration's USDA Secretary, didn't want any restrictions placed on experimental pharma crops. In reaction to suggestions that pharma crops should be kept away from food crops, Vilsack argued that 'we should not overreact and hamstring this industry.'¹⁰
• Prior to 1997, Monsanto (the world leader in GM crops) operated under three parts, the Ag Business (for agricultural products), the Chemicals Business, and the Pharmaceuticals Business, which is now Pharmacia, a subsidiary of Pfizer, the biggest pharmaceutical company in the world and the largest manufacturer of vaccines for food animals.^{11, 12}
• GlaxoSmithKline, while producing few products for food or agriculture, has been genetically engineering plants, animals and microorganisms for use in vaccines, pharmaceuticals and medical research.¹³

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet Supporting Propagation of Both Vaccines and GMOs

The most influential, and, of course, richest advocates for genetic engineering and vaccines are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. They have business as well as philanthropic interests in these technologies and their Gates Foundation (Buffet has donated over $1.5 billion to the Foundation) allows them to mix business with philanthropy.

They – and the corporations they invite to join them – use the tax shelter of a non-profit organization to invest in for-profit enterprises. Gates & Buffet get tax write-offs for putting money in their foundation, but their foundation can give money (both as grants & investments) directly to for-profit corporations creating for-profit products.

This, obviously, creates huge conflict of interests.

For instance, Monsanto and other biotech companies have collaborated with the Gates Foundation via the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to promote the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa. The Gates Foundation has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to AGRA, and in 2006 Robert Horsch was hired for the AGRA project.

Horsch was a Monsanto executive for 25 years. In a nutshell, the project may be sold under the banner of altruism and 'sustainability,' but in reality it's anything but. It's just a multi-billion dollar enterprise to transform Africa into a GM-crop-friendly continent. The Foundation has also invested heavily in Monsanto stock, purchasing over $23 million worth in 2010.¹⁴

The Gates Foundation is also closely partnered with Big Pharma, to whom Bill Gates pledged $10 billion to distribute and administer multiple vaccines to children around the world. This, too, is billed as a humanitarian effort to save lives, but what children living in poverty in developing countries need most is healthy, plentiful food, clean water, better sanitation and improved living conditions. These are the keys to preventing the spread of infectious disease, and they appear to be wholly ignored by Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and non-profit organizations with financial ties to Big Pharma – at the children's expense.

The Gates Foundation is even funding surveillance of anti-vaccine groups, and the following vaccine companies are supported by the Foundation through both investments and philanthropic projects:

• Sanofi
• GlaxoSmithKline
• Merck
• Pfizer
• Novartis

Important Movements on the Horizon for Both GM Foods and Vaccines

It's important to get all the facts before making your decision about vaccination; and to understand that in many state public health laws you still have the legal right to opt out of using a vaccine that you or your child do not want to receive. At present, all 50 states allow a medical exemption to vaccination (medical exemptions must be approved by an M.D. or D.O.); 48 states allow a religious exemption to vaccination; and 17 states allow a personal, philosophical or conscientious belief exemption to vaccination.

However, Washington state now requires parents to obtain the signature of a medical doctor or state-designated medical worker to obtain a philosophical exemption to vaccination. That is because non-medical vaccine exemptions have been restricted in Washington and Vermont and are under attack in California and New Jersey, while there is evidence that medical trade association lobbyists will be working to eliminate or severely restrict vaccine exemptions in Arizona, Connecticut, New York, Colorado and many other states.

Health liberty in America is being threatened by forced vaccination proponents employed by federal and state health departments, who are working with pharmaceutical companies and with Pharma-funded non-profit organizations to encourage government-enforced implementation of "no exceptions" one-size-fits-all vaccine laws. If you want to protect YOUR freedom to make informed, voluntary vaccination decisions in America, you need to take action today. (National vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level, and it is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights will have the greatest impact).

Signing up to be a user of NVIC's free online Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you access to practical, useful information to help you communicate with your elected state legislators and become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. You will get real-time Action Alerts about what you can do if there are threats to vaccine exemptions in your state. With the click of a mouse or one touch on a Smartphone screen, you will be put in contact with YOUR elected representatives so you can let them know how you feel and what you want them to do. Plus, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have all the information you need to make sure your voice is heard.

I also recommend that you join NVIC on facebook, and if you can contribute monetarily, doing so at NVIC.org.

As for GM foods, you can help to pass the United States' first GMO labeling law – Proposition 37 – that will require labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods and food ingredients – and ban the routine industry practice of labeling and marketing such foods as "natural." Prop 37 is the best chance we have of defeating the corporate agri-giants, and of forcing food manufacturers to stop hiding dangerous ingredients in our food, without our knowledge.

The Close Ties Between GM Foods and GM Vaccines

EU sides with Monsanto in 'GMO Cancer Corn' word war

Published: 05 October, 2012, 17:02
TAGS: Scandal, Biology, Science

http://rt.com/files/news/corn-study-...monsanto.n.jpg Anti-GMO activists rip open bags containing "MON 810", a variety of genetically modified maize (corn) developed by Monsanto Company after entering a Monsanto storehouse (AFP Photo/Eric Cabanis)

The European Food Safety Authority has rejected a controversial study by French scientists linking GM corn to cancer. Many in Europe are already calling for stricter controls on GMOs, as farmers weigh the lucrative crops against health concerns.

­In September, French scientists from the University of Caen released a study claiming that rats fed on a diet containing NK603 – a corn seed variety made tolerant to amounts of Monsanto's Roundup weed-killer – or given water mixed with the product at levels permitted in the United States died earlier than those on a standard diet.

The study elicited calls for stricter controls on already unpopular genetically modified (GM) crops in Europe. France had already issued a temporary ban on another Monsanto corn seed (MON810) in May due to a similar study.

However, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) claimed the study lacked enough specific information on Friday, and asked the scientists who conducted it to provide more details on their testing methods. The move adds to the constant back and forth in the debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The "design, reporting and analysis of the study … are inadequate," the EFSA said in its review, concluding that it could not "regard the authors' conclusions as scientifically sound."

The EFSA took issue with the type of rat used in the study, specifically the albino Sprague-Dawley strain of rat. Sprague-Dawley rats have a tendency to develop cancers naturally over the course of their two-year life span, which was also the duration of the study.

"This means the observed frequency of tumors is influenced by the natural incidence of tumors typical of this strain, regardless of any treatment. This is neither taken into account nor discussed by the authors," the EFSA said.

Gilles-Eric Seralini, the French researcher who conducted the study with his colleagues and published the results in the journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology in London was incredulous at the EFSA’s decision, and stated that he would not release any more information to the EFSA unless it provided justification for its conclusion.

"It is absolutely scandalous that [the EFSA] keeps secret the information on which they based their evaluation [of NK603],” he said.

"In any event, we will not give them anything. We will put the information in the public domain when they do," Seralini said in an AFP report.

Please pass the GMO?

The French study caused waves of alarm across Europe, and even prompted a ban on the NK603 corn in Russia. A group of Russian scientists who oppose GMOs are hoping to conduct their own rat experiment, set to begin in March of 2013. They expect that their year-long experiment will show whether the controversial cultivation process has effects as dangerous as the French study claims.

In an effort to conduct their study as publicly as possible, Russian researchers from the National Association for Genetic Safety (NAGS) came up with the idea of web cameras installed in cages with the test rats, which will broadcast all stages of the experiment online. The unique reality show will be available on the internet 24/7 worldwide.

“This is a unique experiment,” project author Elena Sharoykina told RT. “There hasn’t been anything like it before – open, public research by opponents and supporters of GMO.”

Many GM crops are banned or controversial throughout Europe. France has strict regulations of GM crops, while GMOs are completely banned in Germany, Greece, Austria, Luxembourg, Hungary, and the UK over health concerns. GM crops are altered to be resistant to pesticides, a development which has caused an increase in the use of chemicals that have been linked to cancer and birth defects.

Still, the crops are attractive to farmers, Arkady Zlochevsky, president of the Russian Grain Union, told RT. For example, the Monsanto GMO NK603 corn in question has been modified to be resistant to Monsanto's “Roundup” weed-killer, making the product easier and cheaper to grow with delivering better yields.

“The seed may be more expensive, but the development is significantly cheaper,” he said, stating that European GMO farmers find a 20 per cent increase in profit combined with a highly-marketable, top-quality product.

Study versus study

The EFSA’s criticism of the French study echoed that of numerous other experts across Europe that refuted the results. But as more and more studies emerge on both sides of the issue, the harder it becomes to identity where fact meets fiction.

Zlochevsky told RT that “There is no reliable proof of the ills of GMO; so far there have only been attempts to prove it.”

Monsanto’s study published in 2002 on corn strain NK603 concluded that “NK603 is as safe and nutritious as conventional corn currently being marketed,” and the specific proteins in the corn genetically altered to make the corn pesticide resistant “are not toxic to non-target organisms, including humans, animals and beneficial insects.”

But a study published recently in the UK by a genetic engineer from London’s King’s College of Medicine signaled that GM foods pose a more serious threat than advocates of research would have the public believe.

“GM crops are promoted on the basis of ambitious claims – that they are safe to eat, environmentally beneficial, increase yields, reduce reliance on pesticides and can help solve world hunger," said Dr. Michael Antoniou, author of the report, which claims that research into GM crops is incomplete and tests on the effect of their consumption are not comprehensive enough.

Regulatory industries worldwide rely on companies selling GM products rather than independent testing, stipulates the paper.

Director of corporate communications for Monsanto, Phil Angell, summed up his company’s take on the issue in a report by food author Michael Pollan for New York Times Magazine in 1998: "Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."

EU sides with Monsanto in 'GMO Cancer Corn' word war — RT

http://www.newswithviews.com/Hannes/...es_com_hdr.jpg

EVIL GENIUSES AT YOUR DINNER TABLE

By Doreen Hannes
October 9, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Proposition 37 in California, billed as “The Right to Know” ballot initiative to label products that contain genetically modified organisms in that state, has drawn an intensive amount of interest from the country at large, and ire from biotech corporations and their employees in the science.

A recent peer reviewed long term feeding study by Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini from France caused Russia to immediately ban all US grain imports on concern that they likely contain GMO (genetically modified) product. The study also spawned a wealth of criticism from biotech scientists all across the US. It seems like debunking Seralini’s study is the new favorite pastime of many employed in the biotechnology field, and we’ll look at some of those detractors later in this article.

But we’ve been genetically modifying for millennia!

Before going any further, there appears to be an awful lot of confusion out there about what genetic modification/engineering is, and how long it has actually been around. When something is genetically engineered, it contains the genes of a different species in it, not just particular traits of various breeds of the same species.

For instance, in plants, there are two primary types of modification, the introduction of a virus or bacterium within the DNA of a plant, and the mixing of plant DNA with animal DNA. The first method creates a plant resistant to an otherwise plant killing substance or pest. The introduction of animal genes and/or viruses into plants, are supposed to aid in frost tolerance, lengthen shelf life, or enable “non-invasive” vaccination of a population. These new life forms are patented and may only be planted for one season by the farmer.

If a farmer saves the seed and replants, he is in violation of the contract he accepted with the biotech company owning the patent by simply planting their seed to start with.

Then there are hybrid plants. These plants are not patented, but varieties developed by crossing different varieties of plants together. Hybrids do not usually reproduce truly from saved seed, but they do not pose any real danger to the environment through cross-pollination.

Finally, there are open pollinated and heirloom seeds. Open pollinated seeds will reproduce truly and can be hybridized through cross pollination with other plants of the species.

Heirloom seeds are open pollinated seeds that have been bred and kept true in reproduction for more than 50 years.

When people say we have been “genetically modifying” plants and animals for thousands of years, they misconstrue modification (unnatural alteration of the genes) with breeding for particular traits and hybridization. Genetic modification is done in a laboratory, by smashing or splicing the DNA of one species into a different species.

Never in nature has a spider or a human crossed with a goat, a human with a cow, nor has a mouse coupled with a pig, or a fish combined with a cat. Nor has a bacterium inserted itself into a plant or a chemical herbicide entered the germplasm of a plant and propagated itself.

It’s like the “Island of Doctor Moreau” has come to life. The problem is that these life forms can get out and ‘blend’ with the naturally occurring species they appear to be, both in plant or animal form. And as Prop 37 should indicate, in the US, there is no labeling required of food containing GM products.

Why aren’t these GMO products labeled?

In about 40 countries around the world, labeling of genetically modified food is required. But in the US, it is SOP to put the cronies of the biotech industry into positions of top authority in the agencies that are supposed to regulate these things. Biotech has nothing to fear from the regulators, because they effectively own them. Not only that, they also pay for the research conducted by universities that usually find GMO’s to be “generally recognized as safe (GRAS)” because the natural variety of the species is safe for human consumption.

Michael Pollan wrote a very good essay on his experiment with Monsanto’s New Leaf potato in 1998. He accurately and succinctly describes the process followed by the FDA and the EPA in regulating GM products (please read the article here) while trying to find out from an FDA representative (Maryanski) if it is safe to eat these New Leaf potatoes he grew.

Here is the excerpt:

''That's easy,'' Maryanski said. ''Bt is a pesticide, so it's exempt'' from F.D.A. regulation. That is, even though a Bt potato is plainly a food, for the purposes of Federal regulation it is not a food but a pesticide and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the E.P.A.

Yet even in the case of those biotech crops over which the F.D.A. does have jurisdiction, I learned that F.D.A. regulation of biotech food has been largely voluntary since 1992, when Vice President Dan Quayle issued regulatory guidelines for the industry as part of the Bush Administration's campaign for ''regulatory relief.'' Under the guidelines, new proteins engineered into foods are regarded as additives (unless they're pesticides), but as Maryanski explained, ''the determination whether a new protein is GRAS can be made by the company.''

Companies with a new biotech food decide for themselves whether they need to consult with the F.D.A. by following a series of ''decision trees'' that pose yes or no questions like this one: ''Does. . .the introduced protein raise any safety concern?''

Since my Bt potatoes were being regulated as a pesticide by the E.P.A. rather than as a food by the F.D.A., I wondered if the safety standards are the same. ''Not exactly,'' Maryanski explained. The F.D.A. requires ''a reasonable certainty of no harm'' in a food additive, a standard most pesticides could not meet. After all, ''pesticides are toxic to something,'' Maryanski pointed out, so the E.P.A. instead establishes human ''tolerances'' for each chemical and then subjects it to a risk-benefit analysis.

When I called the E.P.A. and asked if the agency had tested my Bt potatoes for safety as a human food, the answer was. . .not exactly. It seems the E.P.A. works from the assumption that if the original potato is safe and the Bt protein added to it is safe, then the whole New Leaf package is presumed to be safe....

So there it is in a nutshell. The ones responsible for assuring that these genetically engineered products are safe for consumption are the ones developing them and selling them into the food supply. It’s “recommended by owner” at it’s best, and the result of the revolving door between agency headship and corporate executive positions.

So who wants their food labeled?

According to polls, more than 90% of Americans believe they are entitled to know if there are genetically modified organisms in their food.

My research shows that there are at least 20 states that have attempted legislation to label GMO products. This spring, Monsanto et al put on a blanket party for Connecticut and Vermont, and now, California looks quite likely to actually succeed in their endeavor to label these products.

Earlier this year, there was a petition with well over 1 million signatures submitted to the FDA requesting that they require labeling of GM ingredients in the food supply. When the FDA received the petition, they effectively erased all but one of those signatures by counting each petition as a single request.

The question is, since the creators of these products are so keen on protecting their patent, so proud of their mutation of DNA, and so certain that there is no potential danger linked to consumption or growing habitats of these new life forms, why not label it?

How can we know this stuff is safe to feed to our children? Who claims there is no difference between these organisms and the natural varieties?

The answer to theses questions are found by looking at the scientists who promote GMO’s and claim they are safe for us to eat and following the money attached to their affiliations.

Science for Sale?

Chief among these is Henry I. Miller, who birthed the Biotechnology Division of the FDA and wrote guidance for the approval of genetically modified drugs. He writes for Forbes and other journals and apparently is quite adept at selling his knowledge of the regulatory processes to those who benefit from getting their biotech products into the market with the least amount of headache possible.

Miller wrote a scathing piece for Forbes attacking the credibility of the recent French study by Gilles-Eric Seralini that caused shockwaves across the world. His cohort, David Tribe linked to the Forbes piece on his blog promoting GMO foods as a great aid to production agriculture and world hunger overall. Tribe is co-founder of Academics Review with Miller’s friend, Bruce Chassey (microbiologist professor at University of Illinois Urbana) co-author of the Seralini attack piece linked above. David Tribe says he only is employed by the University of Melbourne, yet an article he wrote claiming that GMO food is at least as safe as conventional varieties is posted on a site funded by CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization of Australia), who have developed genetically modified wheat and barley. In the comment section of his article there Tribe is asked repeatedly if he favors labeling of GMO products, he finally answers and says that if it has nutritional differences he would support labeling. So, if the GM barley and wheat containing Omega 3 fatty acids from CSIRO is approved, he would support labeling it....Tribe doesn’t say he would support stating on the label that the Omega 3 is available because of genetic engineering.

Others in academia who have taken public stands against California’s Prop 37 are Colin Carter of UC Davis, and some of his colleagues did a piece for the “No on 37” group claiming massive costs if Prop 37 is implemented. These are professors Julian Alston and Daniel Sumner. According to the Los Angeles Times, these gentlemen received $30,000 for their paper for the “No on 37” coalition. Here is the pertinent excerpt from the Times article as it is rather difficult and aggravating to navigate:

“On the other side of the ballot campaign is, big surprise, the food processing and agribusiness industries. Biggest donors to "No on 37" (as of Aug. 15): Monsanto ($4.2 million), DuPont ($4 million) and PepsiCo ($1.7 million).

They contend, among other things, that the measure would increase California farmers' costs by $1.2 billion a year.

Their source? A study for which they paid two UC Davis agriculture professors, Julian M. Alston and Daniel A. Sumner, at least $30,000. Their paper acknowledges that the direct implications of the initiative for California agriculture "are very difficult to assess," a disclaimer you won't find in the No on 37 advertising.

The study assumes that food producers will respond to Proposition 37 by removing genetically engineered ingredients to avoid the labeling. The authors don't devote much attention to the possibility that producers will respond to the labeling mandate by simply relabeling, which seems the easiest course since as much as 70% of the food in our groceries contains some genetically engineered ingredient.”

UC Davis is one of the universities taking the most corporate funding for research in agribusiness and particularly in food science and safety. When you weigh all of this out, the biotech companies usually get the best science they can buy from the pool of scientists for sale. This somewhat dated paper by Food and Water Watch is an excellent resource on the subject of buying the science to back up your product.

Corporations and their Elected Servants

When looking at a list of donors for the “No on 37” campaign, there are a great deal of companies that one would automatically expect to be there, like Monsanto, Syngenta, BASF, Bayer Crop Science, Dupont. But then there are many one wouldn’t think of at first blush, like Nestle and Sunny Delight, BumbleBee Tuna and others.

Most people are unaware that high fructose corn syrup and soy in many different guises are in almost all packaged products. Mars and the USDA have also joined together in a venture to genetically modify cacao. Ostensibly, this is because they perceive some kind of a shortage of chocolate in the future. More likely because they can see the potential for great financial gain by patenting not only the modified plant, but the gene sequence, and then corner the market on chocolate worldwide.

In July, the US Senate passed their version of the every five year Farm Bill. There was an amendment offered to “allow” states to label GE products. It lost by a huge amount, and you can see the votes here. As of this writing, the 2013 Farm Bill has not yet passed through Congress. In the 2013 Farm Bill there is Section 733 known as the “Monsanto Rider”. It would limit the ability to regulate biotech products among other things.

A Rueters article on the Monsanto Rider gives viewpoints from both sides of the issue. Here is an excerpt:

"Litigation from anti-biotechnology groups has caused uncertainty for growers and has been a drain on USDA resources for several years," said Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher. "This provision provides an important assurance for farmers planting crops which have completed the U.S. regulatory process."

Monsanto, the world's largest seed company spent $6.37 million on Washington lobbying last year and $1.4 million so far this year, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics....

Few people know that Monsanto is actually 85% owned by the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. Monsanto and Upjohn joined together to form Pharmacia and Pfizer bought majority in that company. Then There is the Novartis/Syngenta complex, Bayer Pharmaceuticals and Crop Science. Big Pharma is in bed with Big Pharm and the agencies of the US Federal Government are complicit in approving their products for our consumption. Yet there has only been one long term feeding study done, and the results of that study are frightening and have drawn criticism from the scientists paid by the creators of GMO listed above.

Let’s look at the Seralini Study

Seralini’s study was the first actual long term feeding study conducted on Monsanto’s genetically modified “Round Up Ready” corn (NK603) and “Round Up” together.

Seralini followed standard internationally accepted protocols for long term feed testing on 200 rats divided into four groups for their entire lifespan of two years. One group was fed NK603 that had been sprayed with Round Up. The second was fed NK603 that had not been sprayed with Round Up and a third was fed only “acceptable” levels of Round Up in their water, while the control group was fed no Round Up and no Round Up corn. The findings are pretty jarring to say the least. Here is the abstract from the study which you can download and read for yourself here.

• The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats.
• In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly.
• This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs.
• All results were hormone and sex dependent, and the pathological profiles
were comparable.
• Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and
before controls, the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments.
• In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5
times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy.
• Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater.
• Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls which occurred up to 600 days earlier.
• Biochemistry data confirmed very significant kidney chronic deficiencies; for all treatments and both sexes, 76% of the altered parameters were kidney related. These results can be explained by the non linear endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, but also by the overexpression of the transgene in the GMO and its metabolic consequences.

There has been a great deal of criticism of Seralini’s methods by those in the biotech scientific community, yet they fail to address the fact that all of the studies claiming GMO are safe have followed the same recommended protocols as Seralini, but for a much shorter time. Also, rarely mentioned by detractors of Seralini’s study, is the fact that consumption of “Round Up” itself has not been previously studied over any length of time.

The accepted science based opinion on Round Up is that it evaporates before we consume it. However, it has been found to be present in the drinking water of many municipalities in the levels Seralini used in his study, so it doesn’t appear to be evaporating as quickly as Monsanto would like you to believe.

There are some very serious questions about the safety of Round Up as even a USDA scientist, Dr. Huber, found a new pathogen had developed and caused 40% mortality in cattle fed Round up fodder. There was another study done that linked Round Up to birth defects. Yet we, the American public, are supposed to be content eating plants that are heavily sprayed with this herbicide without our knowledge or consent.

It is clear that even if Seralini’s study leaves some questions that need to be answered, the door is now open for legitimate studies on the GM “food” and the chemicals created to go along with these engineered plants.

It seems to me that the American people should at least be afforded a choice between consuming genetically engineered food or not. Considering that more than 90% of soy and at least 85% of corn is genetically engineered in this country, it is certainly pervasive enough that a label shouldn’t cause much concern.....unless they have something to hide. And if they have something to hide, I think they are the ones who should be the subjects of the human experimentation, and we can be the control group.

Additional sites:

1- Syngenta
2- University of California at Davis Reports Make Dubious Claims on Prop 37
3- Institute for Responsible Technology

© 2012 Doreen Hannes - All Rights Reserved

Doreen Hannes has been an avid student of the effects of World Trade Organization Free Trade Agreements on the livelihoods of citizens of the United States since the establishment of the WTO and ratification of NAFTA in 1994-95. Her dominant area of interest has been the impact on independent agriculture and the ramifications of these agreements upon food freedom and consolidation of access to market for independent growers.

She has been a full time volunteer advocate for independent agriculture since 2005 and is a well-respected leader in the national movement to halt the National Animal Identification System, now known as ADT (Animal Disease Traceability). Doreen has written extensively on the topic of NAIS as well as authored and co-authored several white papers on NAIS and other topics affecting the consolidation of agriculture. She is a regular guest on The Power Hour and Derry Brownfield Show and frequently does guest spots on many other talk radio shows. One of her major operating principles is that there are two kinds of people….Those who want to be left alone, and those who won’t leave them alone. She has participated in many agricultural forums in her home state of Missouri and surrounding states. Doreen has served on the R-CALF USA Animal ID Committee for several years and was appointed the position of Director of Research for the National Independent Consumer and Farmers Association because of her dedication to the mission statement of the group and her ability to relate complex and unfamiliar material in a concise and meaningful manner.

E-Mail: animalwaitress@yahoo.com

Doreen Hannes -- Evil Geniuses At Your Dinner Table

Dont even bother to show these photo's to your state / Federal politicians.... they will convince you these are just love bumps

And a majority of Dumbed Down Americans will believe them

So eat up America

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...19547087_n.jpg

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile...57382301_q.jpg Rawforbeauty

Top ten genetically modified foods

Natural News ♥

1. Corn - Corn has been modified to create its own insecticide. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared that tons of genetically modified corn has been introduced for human consumption. Monsanto has revealed that half of the US's sweet corn farms are planted with genetically modified seed. Mice fed with GM corn were discovered to have smaller offspring and fertility problems.

2. Soy - Soy has also been genetically modified to resist herbicides. Soy products include soy flour, tofu, soy beverages, soybean oil and other products that may include pastries, baked products and edible oil. Hamsters fed with GM soy were unable to have offspring and suffered a high mortality rate. Canola

3. Cotton - Like corn and soy, cotton has been designed to resist pesticides. It is considered food because its oil can be consumed. Its introduction in Chinese agriculture has produced a chemical that kills cotton bollworm, reducing the incidences of pests not only in cotton crops but also in neighboring fields of soybeans and corn. Incidentally, thousands of Indian farmers suffered severe rashes upon exposure to BT cotton.

4. Papaya - The virus-resistant variety of papaya was commercially introduced in Hawaii in 1999. Transgenic papayas comprised three-fourths of the total Hawaiian papaya crop. Monsanto bestowed upon Tamil Nadu Agricultural University in Coimbatore technology for developing papaya resistant to the ringspot virus in India.

5. Rice - This staple food from South East Asia has now been genetically modified to contain a high amount of vitamin A. Allegedly, there are reports of rice varieties containing human genes to be grown in the US. The rice will create human proteins useful for dealing with infant diarrhea in the 3rd world. China Daily, an online journal, reported potential serious public health and environment problems with genetically modified rice considering its tendency to cause allergic reactions with the concurrent possibility of gene transfers.

6. Tomatoes - Tomatoes have now been genetically engineered for longer shelf life, preventing them from easily rotting and degrading. In a test conducted to determine the safety of GM tomatoes, some animal subjects died within a few weeks after consuming GM tomatoes.

7. Rapeseed - In Canada, this crop was renamed canola to differentiate it from non-edible rapeseed. Food stuff produced from rapeseed includes rapeseed oi (canola oil) l used to process cooking oil and margarine. Honey can also be produced from GM rapeseed. German food surveillance authorities discovered as much as a third of the total pollen present in Canadian honey may be from GM pollen. In fact, some honey products from Canada were also discovered to have pollen from GM rapeseed.

8. Dairy products - It has been discovered that 22 percent of cows in the U.S. were injected with recombinant (genetically modified) bovine growth hormone (rbGH). This Monsanto created hormone artificially forces cows to increase their milk production by 15 percent. Milk from cows treated with this milk inducing hormone contains increased levels of IGF-1 (insulin growth factors-1). Humans also have IGF-1 in their system. Scientists have expressed concerns that increased levels of IGF-1 in humans have been associated with colon and breast cancer.

9. Potatoes - Mice fed with potatoes engineered with Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki Cry 1 were found to have toxins in their system. Despite claims to the contrary, this shows that Cry1 toxin was stable in the mouse gut. When the health risks were revealed, it sparked a debate.

10. Peas - Peas that have been genetically modified have been found to cause immune responses in mice and possibly even in humans. A gene from kidney beans was inserted into the peas creating a protein that functions as a pesticide.

http://www.celestialhealing.net/

Related: http://www.alipac.us/f19/biotech-sci...5/#post1307440

Why We Should Label GMO Foods

Posted on October 10, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9v2aCmHVQM&feature=player_embedded

Continued Below

Background here, here and here.

Right to Know: Vote Yes on Prop 37

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB1xHFwSYIg&feature=player_embedded

Continued Below