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

Just Label It - the GMO labeling song by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEVw5Jl4c2g&feature=player_embedded

Why We Should Label GMO Foods - Washington's Blog

Portland Fluoride Issue is Going to a Public Vote!

Today is a great day for our city! We needed 19,858 signatures to bring the city counsel's fluoridation mandate to a pubic vote. We ended up getting 43,236, and they were delivered one day ahead of the deadline!

More: Local events in Portland, OR - OregonLive.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/d...Corn-Field.jpg Russia bans all GM corn imports; EU may also ban Monsanto GMO in wake of shocking cancer findings

http://www.naturalnews.com/images/authors/MikeAdams.jpgWednesday, September 26, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)

(NaturalNews) Russia has now officially banned all imports of genetically modified corn, citing concerns from a recent study by French researchers showing rats grew massive cancer tumors when fed a lifetime of Monsanto's genetically modified corn.

Russia's consumer protection group, Rospotrebnadzor, said it was halting all imports of GM corn while the country's Institute of Nutrition will be evaluating the results of the study.

The Russian ban is the latest blow to Monsanto, a company desperately clinging to the myth that its genetically modified crops are "no different" than traditional crops and therefore long-term safety testing is completely unnecessary. Monsanto has assaulted the French study, claiming it did not use enough rats and that the duration of the study was too short -- an absurd claim, given that Monsanto's own studies on animals are only 90 days in duration, while the French study looked at the effects of rats eating GM corn (and drinking trace levels of Roundup herbicide) for two years.

Notably, the large cancer tumors did not begin to appear until after the rats reached adulthood. Monsanto's GM corn has been in the U.S. food supply for more than a decade, and its corn is found in many popular breakfast cereals.

A European ban, too?

In addition to the Russian ban, Monsanto may also soon be facing a European ban. France is reported asking for a European-wide ban on GM corn if its national health agency confirms the findings of French scientists.

On top of that, if Proposition 37 passes in California, food producers will be required to label GMO on foods sold in that state. This is widely expected to cause U.S. food producers to abandon to use of GMO in foods, since virtually all consumers who know anything about GMO would refuse to buy items labeled as containing genetically engineered ingredients.

Toxicity of GMO now scientifically established

CRIIGEN.org has issued a statement summarizing its findings of the recent rat study, saying:

The implications are extremely serious. They demonstrate the toxicity, both of a GMO with the most widely spread transgenic character and of the most widely used herbicide, even when ingested at extremely low levels, (corresponding to those found in surface or tap water). In addition, these results call into question the adequacy of the current regulatory process, used throughout the world by agencies involved in the assessment of health, food and chemicals, and industries seeking commercialization of products.

Here's one of the photos released by researchers in the recent study, demonstrating the massive cancer tumors found in rats who were fed GM corn:

http://www.naturalnews.com/images/Ra...udy-3-Wide.jpg

Government regulators have been infiltrated by Monsanto; scientists bought off

In truth, Monsanto has managed to influence food regulators all around the world. It has paid money to numerous scientists in the USA, and it has essentially "placed" GMO-pushing individuals such as Michael Taylor into influential positions in government.

The European Union's Food Safety Agency (FSA) is also staffed by decision makers with financial ties to genetic engineering seed companies.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich has called for a national GMO labeling law. He says: "The FDA has received over a million comments from citizens demanding labeling of GMOs. Ninety percent of Americans agree. So, why no labeling? I'll give you one reason: The influence and the corruption of the political process by Monsanto. Monsanto has been a prime mover in GMO technology, a multi-million dollar GMO lobby here and a major political contributor."

Video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4J_YvtbSSqg

Sources for this story include:
FoxBusiness.com' http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012...ussia-suspends

Learn more: Russia bans all GM corn imports; EU may also ban Monsanto GMO in wake of shocking cancer findings

Related: http://www.alipac.us/f19/don%92t-cel...7/#post1308245

http://rense.com/1.imagesH/monsantosuitsplash.jpg



SOURCE UNKNOWN

October 16, 2012

California Prop 37 GMO labelling Turns into Major Fight


http://www.sustainableisgood.com/.a/...29060c1970b-pi


Corporations opposed to California's Prop 37 which requires labelling of GMO ingredients in food products have donated more than $34 Million to defeat the measure which could have nationwide implications in terms of food labelling and packaging.

According to KCET's election 2012 site and other sources the companies/grups leading the charge in favor of Prop 37 are

• Consumers Union
• Sierra Club
• Organic Consumers Fund
• Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps
• Nature's Path Foods
• Lundberg Family Farms

And those most strongly against it are:

• Monsanto donated over $7million to fight
• DuPont
• BASF
• DOW
• Council for Biotechnology Information
• Grocery Manufacturers Association
• PepsiCo
• Coca-Cola
• Kellogg Company

More info is available from the Cornucopia Institute

Sustainable is Good | Where design, lifestyle and packaging meet : California Prop 37 GMO labelling Turns into Major Fight

Monsanto’s New Slogan: Our Corn Won’t Give You Cancer!

by Rick Banfield
01Oct2012
By coto2admin


https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif
Keith Kloor, writing at Slate, jumped in to try to stop the tidal wave of negative publicity about Monsanto set off by major study in France by Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, proving Monsanto’s corn causes cancers and rapid death. But Kloor made things 1000 times worse.

In his article “GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left,” Kloor goes through all kinds of breath-taking, logic-defying contortions to try to convince the left, somehow, that GMO-opponents aren’t …. themselves.

Doesn’t he know the whole left detests Monsanto and what they are doing to corrupt food and democracies around the world, and there is no division about it? While he made a stab at creating a internecine battle between left and left, it was a hopeless (albeit perhaps very well-paid) task.

And the reality is there is not only unity between lefties about Monsanto.

The entire left abhors Monsanto. But the right does, too, including climate skeptics. Also the middle detests them. Also, non-political people. Also anarchists. Also militias. Also sewing circles. Even family pets can’t stand them. Monsanto has been a gift to everyone in that way, bringing the whole country together as one big ticked off family.

Kloor failed in his impossible effort to divide the undividable. But he came up a winner with his subtitle, which gives Monsanto a fabulous food slogan.

“Don’t worry. Genetically modified corn isn’t going to give you cancer.”

Kloor may not be very savvy politically but he is a PR whiz. “Monsanto’s GM-corn doesn’t cause cancer!” is even catchier than “pink slime,” which has caught hold like glue with the public.

It’s a great slogan and Monsanto could even put the images of the rats in Seralini’s study on packages containing their GM-corn and say “See, no cancer!”

http://sustainablepulse.com/wp-conte...mors-Rats1.jpg

Or maybe Monsanto might prefer a more general slogan “Buy our food, it won’t kill you!” and apply it to all their products. Then they could use the rat’s photos and to proclaim, “See, they’re not dead!”

http://sustainablepulse.com/wp-conte...mors-Rats1.jpg

People would be rushing out for Monsanto’s GM-corn, GM-soy, GM-canola, GM-sugar, GM-high-fructose-GM-corn-syrup, GM-papaya, GM-crook-neck squash, GM-Nutrasweet, GM-Equal, etc.In his article, Kloor tore into Professor Seralini, but didn’t bother to mention that Professor Seralini had already had to go to court to stop defamation, and he won. That being the case, Kloor might like to go after other scientists who are also saying there are dire consequences to GMOs. The latest warnings are about GM-wheat which is proving itself as much of a winner as GM-corn. Parents who eat GM-wheat could have children who diefrom it by the age of 5. Perhaps Kloor’s slogan for GM wheat could be “GM-wheat doesn’t kill your children!”

But that’s jumping ahead. One catchy phrase at a time.

Thanks to Keith Kloor, left and right have been brought together and Monsanto now has an unforgettable advertising slogan.

Monsanto’s New Slogan: Our Corn Won’t Give You Cancer! by Rick Banfield | Food Freedom News.

October 20th, 2012

The Progressive Mind » Monsanto

http://rense.com/1.imagesH/prop37labeldees.jpg

Good crop, bad crop: French scientists dismiss Monsanto 'cancer corn' study

Published: 23 October, 2012, 04:05
Edited: 23 October, 2012, 18:25

http://rt.com/files/news/seralini-co...e-huguen.n.jpg NK 603: The corn cob of contention (AFP Photo/Philippe Huguen)

Six leading French academies have condemned last month’s controversial study that linked genetically-modified corn and weedkiller produced by agri-giant Monsanto with cancer. The verdict was backed by two government-commissioned scientific reviews.

The national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies issued a joint statement condemning the findings on Monsanto’s NK603 corn, which were published last month by molecular biologist Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen.

"Given the numerous gaps in methods and interpretation, the data presented in this article cannot challenge previous studies which have concluded that NK603 corn is harmless from the health point of view, s are, more generally, genetically modified plants that have been authorised for consumption by animals and humans,” the statement read.

Séralini, a longtime and vocal opponent of genetically-modified crops, tested several groups of rats by feeding them Monsanto’s NK603 corn, which was genetically modified to be resistant to Roundup, a popular pesticide also sold by the US company. The study lasted for two years and showed how rats that ate NK603, both untreated and treated with Roundup, developed cancer at higher rates than the control group.

NK603 was approved for sale in the EU in 2003, but is not grown on a commercial scale. (France outlawed the cultivation of genetically modified [GM] crops.) Most of the modified corn reaches the food chain as livestock feed imported from major producers abroad.

Séralini’s study – whose findings contradicted dozens of previous safety reviews – made its way to the front pages of European newspapers. The report sparked widespread calls for a Europe-wide ban on GM foods, which are already subject to severe restrictions.

In their statement, the academies questioned Séralini’s integrity. His study, co-authored with Dr. Spiroux, a homeopathy and acupuncture specialist, was largely financed by anti-GM activists and organic food supermarkets. The findings were then disseminated through a group of handpicked sympathetic journalists, who signed a confidentiality clause forbidding them to show the paper to other scientists prior to publication.

http://rt.com/files/news/seralini-co...er-release.jpg

On the defensive. Gilles-Eric Seralini (C) with Dr Joel Spiroux (R) and MEP Corinne Lepage (AFP Photo/Kenzo Tribouillard)

With just a few articles, these journalists set off a media firestorm that renewed concerns about GM foods and forced the mainstream scientific establishment onto the defensive.

"Hyping the reputation of a scientist or a team is a serious misdemeanor when it helps to spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion,” the academies’ statement said.

A statement last week from the French National Centre for Scientific Research criticized Séralini’s media onslaught on ethical grounds, claiming it misled the public on major and sensitive issues.

The censure was backed by the simultaneous verdicts of the Higher Biotechnologies Council (HCB) and the National Agency for Food Safety (ANSES), two leading government agencies charged with reviewing the concerns raised in Séralini’s study. Both bodies dismissed the report, saying it was not comprehensive enough to be a wholesale review of GM crop suitability.

"The data is insufficient to establish scientifically a causal link… or to support the conclusions or pathways suggested by the authors," ANSES said.

The paper also earned widespread criticism for its methodology. Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King's College London, saying the study was a “statistical fishing trip,” manipulated from the start to achieve a specific result.

Séralini used Sprague-Dawley rats for the study. This sub-species is highly susceptible to developing tumors, with two-thirds of males and more than half of females expected to die from cancer during the course of a two-year experiment regardless of what they ingested.

This ubiquity of tumors makes them an unusual choice for a study about carcinogenic effects of a certain food, as it can be difficult to discern from an already astronomically high cancer rate. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recommends that only rats with a survival rate of more than 50 percent, which are easily available, be used in two-year studies.

The second major criticism of the study was its small sample size. The OECD recommends that 50 rats of each sex be used in any test group. Séralini used test groups of ten, meaning the control group for two years was only twenty rats in total. The difference between the groups fed NK603 corn and the control group was one or two dead rats over a period of two years.

In some cases, the results direct contradicted the study’s claims: some rats subjected to a diet of Roundup corn had a better survival rate over the two-year period than ones fed an organic diet. Rather than believing that drinking water contaminated with pesticides helps to decrease cancer, critics say that in such a small sample size noticeable differences in results can be explained by chance.

Séralini, who has caused several similar controversies with other anti-GM studies since 2004, responded to the criticism by saying he stands by his conclusions. However, he has refused to share the detailed the observation records that formed the foundation of his paper until genetically-modified foods are banned by European authorities.

The rejection of the study’s findings is unlikely to dampen the resolve of other anti-GM advocates.
Michael Antoniou, a molecular geneticist from King’s College London, recently published an extensive review of several hundred previous GM food studies.

He concluded that the technologies used to produce GM foods were imprecise, and despite assurances of total safety, the current licensing mechanisms – even in the EU – are perfunctory, with much research funded by the producers themselves using only short-term studies that gave no insight into the long-term effects. He also noted the lack of large-scale human trials.

Meanwhile, many of the animal studies he listed demonstrated possible adverse effects from GM foods such as liver and kidney toxicity and possible allergenic effects.

Now, despite the recent dismissal of Séralini’s study by authorities in France, Germany, Australia and the European Food Safety Authority, apprehension over these issues in so-called ‘Frankenfoods’ has come back to life in Europeans, a group that has traditionally been staunchly anti-GM.

The latest 2010 ‘Eurobarometer’ survey on the issue showed that 59 percent of all EU citizens believe that genetically modified food is unsafe. Ten percent of the world’s agricultural land is used for GM crops, but only 0.06 percent in Europe.

Following this latest crisis of confidence, HCB and ANSES have called for further follow-up studies into the safety of GM crops.

­Igor Ogorodnev, RT

Good crop, bad crop: French scientists dismiss Monsanto 'cancer corn' study — RT

http://rense.com/1.imagesH/monsanskull_dees.jpg

GM Cancer Warning Can No Longer Be Ignored

http://www.encognitive.com/files/ima...%20pyramid.jpg


ISIS
Prof Peter Saunders
Dr Mae-Wan Ho

The latest findings of cancers and deaths from GM maize and Roundup herbicide are the result of the most in-depth long-term toxicology study ever done on GM food; we ignore them at our peril.

In the Vatican Museums in Rome stands a statue of La0coön and his sons. Legend has it that Laocoön tried to warn his fellow citizens against taking in the wooden horse that the Greeks had left outside their gates. It was not a gift, but a ruse designed to allow Greek soldiers to enter the city. The Greek gods, who wanted to see Troy destroyed, sent sea serpents to kill Laocoön. This convinced the Trojans that the horse was indeed sacred; so they opened the gates and dragged it into the city. The result was the total destruction of Troy and its empire.

The biotech industry is doing its best to convince us that GMOs are the key to feeding a hungry world, when all the evidence is that they profit only the companies. Whenever anyone tries to warn of the dangers of GMOs, the industry responds by doing its utmost to discredit the whistle blower and prevent the warning from being heard. We have already witnessed what happened to Arpad Pusztai ([1] Pusztai Publishes Amidst Fresh Storm of Attack , ISIS News 3), David Quist and Ignacio Chapela ([2] Who’s Afraid of Horizontal Gene Transfer?, SiS 15) and Irina Ermakova ([3] Science and Scientist Abused, SiS 36) to name but a few; also Nancy Oliviera ([4] Big Business = Bad Science? ISIS News 9/10) and David Healy ([5] The Depressing Side of Medical Science, SiS 39) with the pharmaceutical industry no less corrupt than biotechnology.

GM maize and herbicide link to cancer “a bomb”

The latest warning – perhaps the most dramatic to-date – comes in a paper published online 19 September 2012 in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology reporting high rates of death and cancers in rats fed Monsanto’s GM maize NK603 and/or Roundup herbicide compared with controls [6]. The study carried out by Gilles-Eric Séralini and his group at the University of Caen involved the largest number of rats followed for their entire lifespan of two years. By all accounts, it was the most in-depth long-term toxicology study ever done on GM food [7]. Séralini reported the results in the European Parliament.

France’s former Environment minister Corinne Lepage MEP said the study was “a bomb” calling into question all existing regulatory authorizations of GMOs.

GMOs are approved in the European Union and elsewhere on the basis of a 90-day toxicology study at best, carried out by the biotech companies. The key finding of the new study is that tumours and other serious health impacts appeared at 4-7 months, which would have been missed in all previous tests.

On the same day the study was published, the French government asked a health watchdog, The National Agency for Health Safety to investigate the new findings [8]. The next day, Austria called for EU to review its approval process for GM food [9]. Within a week, Russia suspended import and use of GM corn from the USA [10]. On 10 October, the company Vilmorin, the world’s fourth largest seed group and a holding of Limagrain dropped its planned GM field trials in France [11].

The response from the pro-GM lobby was equally dramatic and immediate. The UK industry-funded Science Media Centre (SMC) issued quotes from “experts” (with undisclosed conflict of interest) in an attempt to discredit the study. This was followed by a deluge of attacks and off the cuff and largely irrelevant criticisms from the scientific establishment and official regulatory bodies around the world (see later).

The notorious European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which authorized the GM maize, issued its initial review of the study – pending a detailed review – claiming, unsurprisingly, that there is no need to re-evaluate the safety because the study is of “insufficient scientific quality”. Lepage expressed serious concerns about EFSA’s initial review, which did not read like carefully considered opinions but hastily put-together points circulated by the pro-GM lobby. She highlighted the conflict of interest in Andrew Chesson, one of the only two people appointed by EFSA to review the study, who was on the panel that originally approved the GM maize NK603 and actually helped prepare the draft document recommending its approval. Thus, Chesson is acting as “both judge and jury” [7]. Chesson, it turns out, was also involved in discrediting his former colleague Arpad Pusztai; he chaired the audit committee that found fault with Pusztai’s research.

EFSA has since been criticized by the European Court of Auditors for inadequate management of conflicts of interest [12]. This came as no surprise as conflicts of interests are rife within EFSA. Earlier in May 2012, the Chair of EFSA’s Management Board was forced to quit because of her industry links. Just a month earlier, EFSA admitted to the European ombudsman that it had not properly responded to the case of Suzy Renckens, the former head of EFSA’s GM unit, who left EFSA and moved to a lobbying job with the biotech giant Syngenta. And GMO panel chair Harry Kuiper clearly used his position to influence the work of the panel in a pro-industry direction.
Friends of the Earth condemned EFSA for having consistently sided with the biotech industry and disregarded health or environmental concerns about GM crops. It called on national governments and EU safety authorities to immediately suspend all Roundup-t0lerant GM crops from market, the European Commission to suspend all new GMO approvals and to start and root-and-branch reform of how the risks of GM foods are to be assessed, and for the EU to review the safety of the herbicide Roundup (glyphosate), including the link between GM crops and the use of the herbicide. Greenpeace too, called for immediate freeze on approvals of new GM crops and a redesign of safety testing over the long term. They should both call for banning glyphosate as the damning evidence on glyphosate is even stronger than for GMOs, and the maximum permitted levels of glyphosate are set to rise by 100-150 times in the European Union if Monsanto has its way (see [13] Why Glyphosate Should Be Banned, ISIS Report).

The most thorough and long-term toxicology test to-date

The findings reported by Séralini’s group are not those of an isolated study suddenly to reveal that GM feed and the most widely used herbicide in the world may be toxic or carcinogenic. They are the latest of similar findings from laboratory experiments backed up by the experience of farmers and farm workers around the world [13].

In 2007, EFSA gave approval for Monsanto’s MON 863, MON 810 and NK603 maize, all genetically engineered to be tolerant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, on the basis of evidence from the company’s feeding trials on rats.

Differences showed up between rats fed GM maize and the controls, but were dismissed as “not biologically significant” [6].

Séralini and his group at Caen brought a Freedom of Information suit in the European Court to obtain the raw data from Monsanto. On re-analyzing the data, they found that contrary to what the company had claimed and the regulator had accepted, there were indeed statistically and biologically significant differences.

But EFSA analysed the data again, and reported that they were still satisfied that none of the differences was biologically significant. Séralini and his group decided that the best way to settle the issue would be to conduct their own experiment.

It turned out to be difficult to arrange the trials because the stewardship agreements farmers have to sign forbid not only saving seeds but also their use for research without specific permission [14]. This effectively prevents anyone else to learn anything about GM crops beyond what the company wants them to hear.

After some effort, the group in Caen were able to get hold of suitably grown GM maize, NK 603, and a near equivalent non-GM variety [6]. They used 200 animals (100 males and 100 females) in their experiment, which lasted for two years; in contrast, regulatory tests usually last only up to three months and may involve as few as 10 animals. They ran the experiment following Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and the OECD protocol for toxicity trials, and measured more parameters and more frequently than the OECD protocol requires.

In order to distinguish effects caused by the GM maize, or the herbicide, or both, Séralini and his colleagues divided the male and female rats separately into nine treatment groups,each with ten rats. Three were given in their feed different proportions of GM maize that had been sprayed with Roundup herbicide, three were given the same proportions of GM feed that had not been sprayed, and three were given the closest isogenic (i.e. non-GM) maize but had different amounts of Roundup added to their water. The tenth group was given only non-GM maize with standard feed and plain water.

The amounts of Roundup that were added were (a) the amount often found in tap water, 50ng/L glyphosate, (b) the US maximum residue limit (MRL) for glyphosate in some feeds, 400 mg/kg, and 2.25 g/L, half the minimal agricultural working dilution. They used Roundup in the experiments, whereas most trials have been conducted using only glyphosate. The difference is that like most proprietary formulations, Roundup contains adjuvants, substances added to enable the active principle (i.e. glyphosate) to penetrate the target plant organism efficiently, and it seems reasonable to suppose that these might alter its effect on non-target organisms as well.

As they expected from their analysis of Monsanto’s results, Séralini and his team found signs of toxicity in the livers and kidneys of the treated rats. The most worrying effect, however, and one that had not been anticipated when the experiment was designed, was the increase in the number of early deaths and of tumours. Among females, there were 2-3 times as many deaths in all treated groups compared to controls by the end of the experiment. By the beginning of the 24^th month, 50-80 percent of female animals had developed tumours in all treated groups, whereas only 30 per cent of controls were affected.

In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5-5.5 times controls, with marked and severe kidney disease 1.3-2.3 times controls. Males also presented 4 times as many large tumours than controls and up to 600 days earlier.

Biochemical data confirmed “very significant” kidney chronic deficiencies for all treatments and in both sexes; as 76 % of the altered parameters were related to the kidney.

A summary of the most striking observations are given in Table 2. For the six most frequently observed anatomical pathologies, in all but 3 of the 54 cases (i.e., 9 differently treated groups for each of the 6 pathologies) the number of rats affected was greater than in the corresponding control. The results were backed up with photographs of the afflicted rats and histological changes in the tissues, as well as biochemical analyses, which gave strong indications of kidney deficiency in both sexes. The results clearly cannot be dismissed as being due to chance.

The anatomical pathologies are so striking that the team did not bother to carry out any of the standard tests that could have been used, as pointed out by a former research analyst with a major government agency, who defended the study against critics but wishes to remain anonymous [15, 16]. He commented [15]: “Table 2 stood out, with the doubling and tripling of pathologies in treatment groups compared with controls, with as many as 8, 9, or even all 10 treatment rats in a group affected. This made me question how a study in which such high numbers of rats were affected, could be dismissed.”

The criticisms do not stand up

As collated and reviewed by UK group GMWatch [7], most if not all the criticisms are irrelevant or ill-considered, being hastily put together to confuse the public, and have been answered in full, by Seralini’s group and a host of other scientists. For example, they complained that the Sprague-Dawley rats were the wrong animals to use; that strain happens to be the standard for routine toxicology tests. Monsanto dismissed the findings, in that they “fall within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats, which is known for a high incidence of tumours”. Monsanto meant by ‘historical norm’ control data cobbled from various other studies in the scientific literature or elsewhere, a thoroughly unscientific and non-standard practice designed to explain away undesirable results. Controls are specific to experiments and precise conditions of rearing, and it is totally unacceptable to lump data from different controls together to compare them with any one specific experiment.

Another complaint was that Séralini and his team did not follow the OECD protocol for tests for carcinogenesis, which would have required groups of 50 animals instead of 10. In fact, they used the toxicity protocol because that was what the experiment had been designed to do, and which actually made it less likely to detect carcinogenesis. The fact that high rates of cancer were detected with far fewer animals makes the findings all the more serious (see [17, 18] Excess Cancers and Deaths with GM Feed: the Stats Stand Up, SiS 56).

The dust had hardly settled when another attack was launched; one purporting to be from the six French Academies (science, technologies, medicine, veterinary science, agricultural sciences, pharmacy) [19]. In fact, it was put together in great haste by a group of two representatives from each of the Academies. It is not known who the members are or who appointed them or by what process. The group specifically did not include or consult Paul Deheuvel, the only member of the Academy of Sciences who represents statistics. Deheuvel has since issued his own favourable comments on Séralini’s work, which he judges to be of high quality and to have used statistics appropriately [20]. He points out in particular that the critics have concentrated on the carcinogenesis part of the results, which are the most dramatic but which the experiments had not been designed for, and largely ignored the toxicology, which is still very important.

The citizens of Troy came to bitterly regret their decision to ignore Laocoön’s warnings and allow the Trojan horse to enter their city. The citizens of the world can no longer afford to ignore Seralini’s warnings and allow GMOs and Roundup herbicide to continue devastating people and planet.

A fully referenced version of this report is posted on ISIS members website and is otherwise available for download here.

If you find this report useful, please support ISIS by subscribing to our magazine Science in Society, and encourage your friends to do so. Or have a look at the ISIS bookstore for other publications.

GM Cancer Warning Can No Longer Be Ignored | Farm Wars

Related: Controversy flares over "Agent Orange corn" - CBS News

GM Wheat May Permanently Alter Human Genome, Spark Early Death

Lisa Garber
Infowars.com
Oct 25, 2012

Experts say that the GM wheat currently in development by an Australian governmental research agency could, if ingested, shut down certain genes, leading to premature death or risk thereof to multiple generations.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rt_Project.jpg The GM wheat developed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) using public funds is engineered to turn off genes permanently. The organization’s intent to turn off wheat genes, however, could affect human and animal genes.

“Through ingestion, these molecules can enter human beings and potentially silence our genes,” says Professor Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury’s Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety. His report was published in Digital Journal.

DNA Matches in GM Wheat and Humans

The wheat genes intended to be silenced are known as SEI, the sequence of which are classified by CSIRO. What experts know about SEI is that parts of it match the human GBE gene sequence. GBE dictates glycogen storage, without which the liver scars and causes death in children. Adults with malfunctioning GBE genes can experience cognitive impairment, pyramidal quadriplegia, peripheral neuropathy, and neurogenic bladder.

“The findings are absolutely assured,” insists Heinemann. “There is no doubt that these matches exist.”

Survives Digestion, Cooking, Generations

Moreover, Heinemann describes the double stranded RNA (dsRNAs) present in GM wheat as “remarkably stable in the environment.” It is able to withstand digestion (even after cooking) and thereafter circulates through the body, where it amplifies into more and different dsRNAs and “alters gene expression in the animal.” These altered genes are passed to later generations, assuming the consumer doesn’t die of cancer or liver damage before procreating – seen in the recent GMO french study.

Dangers Well-Known by Agribusiness

No doubt, agribusiness will swoop to CSIRO’s rescue and claim that Heinemann’s findings are irrelevant. Monsanto, however, uses this same tactic in its genetically modified plants. The plants are engineered to produce dsRNA that survives digestion in the insect, shuts down genes, stunts growth, and kills it. This may be welcome news for some, given one biotech scientist’s email not only acknowledging the risks of disease and reproductive difficulties inherent in GMO consumption but also praising it as a ‘remedy’ for global over-population.

Agribusiness has gone to great lengths to silence skeptics of GMOs The Food and Drug Administration—which abounds in ties to agribusiness—deleted 1 million signatures for a GMO labeling campaign. Monsanto has been burning millions of dollars to campaign against GMO labeling. Depending on the poll, about 93% of Americans advocate GMO labeling.

Additional Sources:
Green Med Info
GE Food Labels
The Huffington Post
Chicago Tribune

This post originally appeared at Natural Society

» GM Wheat May Permanently Alter Human Genome, Spark Early Death Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!


Similar/Related Articles

1. The Threat of CSIRO’s GM Wheat Revealed at Press Conference
2. Children born to parents who eat GM wheat may DIE before age five, warn scientists
3. Genetically Modified Babies Already Born – How Will They Alter Human Species?
4. Genome breakthrough heralds new dawn for agriculture
5. Monsanto wants to start testing GM wheat
6. 150 human animal hybrids grown in UK labs
7. Modern wheat a “perfect, chronic poison,” doctor says
8. GM Human-Animal Hybrids Emerging Market for Organs, Babies, Pharma
9. Wheat Crisis Threatens Inflationary Timebomb, Food Riots
10. They’re Genetically Modifying Goats to Create Human Breast Milk Substitute
11. Genome project leader is selected to head NIH
12. Vitamin D insufficiency promotes chronic disease and increases risk of early death by 50 percent

Related: http://www.alipac.us/f19/label-gmo%9...-larry-266013/

Monsanto-funded ‘No on 37′ campaign fabricates FDA quote, engages in criminal misconduct

Ethan A. Huff
Natural News
October 26, 2012
The No on 37 campaign trying to prevent Californians from knowing whether or not the foods they eat contain genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) has sunk to a new moral and ethical low, having recently forged a quote from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in supposed opposition to the labeling law.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...dbefreiung.jpg According to the California Right to Know campaign working towards mandatory GMO labeling in the Golden State, No on 37 deliberately fabricated a quote insinuating that the FDA opposes GMO labeling. The quote, which bears the official FDA logo, states:
“The US Food and Drug Administration says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be ‘inherently misleading.’”

The FDA never actually issued such a statement, of course, as the law prohibits the agency from taking an official position on the matter. But for its own malicious purposes, the No on 37 campaign decided to affix both the quote and the FDA seal on its campaign propaganda in an attempt to sway public opinion against the measure.

Since knowingly falsifying quotes and counterfeiting logos for campaign purposes directly violates Section 506 of the U.S. Criminal Code, Right to Know has notified the U.S Department of Justice (DOJ) via letter that No on 37 has flagrantly violated the law.

In the letter, Right to Know explains that No on 37 disseminated a direct mail piece containing the fraudulent quote, which was apparently parsed from an unrelated and out of context statement the FDA made more than 20 years ago. It adds that the mailer violates not only Section 506 but also Section 1017 of the U.S. Criminal Code.

You can read the full Right to Know letter to DOJ here: Letter to U.S. Dept. of Justice

Beyond simply forging an FDA quote, the No on 37 campaign also apparently submitted a fraudulent “Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 37″ that was published in the official California voter guide.
According to Right to Know, a certain Dr. Henry I. Miller, who is identified solely as “Founding Director, Office of Biotechnology of the Food & Drug Administration” in the guide, does not actually work for the FDA in any capacity. Thus, his listing in the guide blatantly violates U.S. Criminal Code 912, which prohibits individuals from assuming or pretending to be federal employees.

None of this is surprising since the primary forces fueling the No on 37 campaign include Monsanto and various other biotechnology and chemical giants with a sordid history of lies and deceit. Even so, these companies and their front campaign still need to be held criminally responsible for violating the law in an attempt to illegally thwart an election.

Sources for this article include:
Right to Know Blog
http://www.naturalnews.com


» Monsanto-funded ‘No on 37′ campaign fabricates FDA quote, engages in criminal misconduct Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Similar/Related Articles

1. Monsanto Launches Massive Campaign to Stop GMO Labeling
2. AntiSec (Anonymous) engages in social justice hacking of Monsanto
3. California’s Prop 37 exposes Monsanto GMO agenda
4. Kucinich Calls Out Monsanto: Americans Demand GMO Labeling
5. FDA Deletes 1 Million Signatures for GMO Labeling Campaign
6. Surprise! Monsanto-Funded Research Finds Their Products Safe
7. Saif al-Qaddafi: We funded Sarkozy’s campaign and we want our money back
8. Monsanto, pesticide companies have now spent more than $19 million to kill Prop. 37
9. U.S. drug firm penalized $300M for criminal actions
10. Monsanto, pesticide companies have now spent more than $19 million to kill Prop. 37
11. Monsanto Launches Massive Campaign Against GMO Labeling
12. Whole Foods knowingly engages in massive GMO deception, says undercover video by ‘Organic Spies’

LA City Council Unanimously Endorses Yes on 37

Posted by Stacy Malkan 1565pc on October 24, 2012
For Immediate Release: October 24, 2012

http://www.carighttoknow.org/assets/...90/LArally.jpg

Los Angeles -- As supporters rallied in front of Los Angeles City Hall today, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously passed a resolution supporting Proposition 37, the Right to Know ballot measure that would label genetically engineered foods in California. California would join 61 other countries that already label genetically engineered foods, and Prop 37 would also prohibit such foods from being marketed as “natural.”

“It's not often that the LA City Council votes unanimously to support a measure, but Prop 37 was a no-brainer. We have the right to know what's in the food we're eating and feeding our families," said Councilmember Paul Koretz, the resolution's author. "I'm proud to be a part of this true grassroots campaign in our struggle against the biggest pesticide and junk food companies in the world."

“We’re thrilled that the Los Angeles City Council voted to join our people’s movement today,” said Tom Fendley, political director of the Yes on 37 California Right to Know campaign. “The Council joins millions of moms, dads, family farmers, doctors, scientists, and grocery store owners in saying, very simply, that we have the right to know what’s in our food.”

The Los Angeles City Council joins the California Democratic Party, Senator Barbara Boxer, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Congressmen Brad Sherman and Howard Berman, and dozens of other California city and town councils, elected officials and candidates in endorsing Prop 37.

“The Los Angeles City Council clearly did not believe the lies in our opposition’s widely discredited TV ads,” said Dave Murphy, co-chair of the California Right to Know and founder of Food Democracy Now! “They know Prop 37 won’t cost consumers a dime, because Prop 37 only requires a simple label. And they know Prop 37 won’t trigger lawsuits, because food companies will comply with this simple labeling law, just as they already do in 61 other countries.”
The world’s largest pesticide companies, led by Monsanto and DuPont, are the leading funders of the No on 37 campaign, which has raised more than $40 million to oppose Prop 37.

“Prop 37 won’t raise food costs, and most grocery store managers understand that it’s ridiculous to believe we’d be opening ourselves to lawsuits. Food companies will comply with this simple labeling law,” said Bruce Palma, general manager of Co-Opportunity Natural Foods in Santa Monica.

“As a family physician, I see patients trying to make the best food and exercise decisions for their families. At issue is the fundamental right to know what’s in our food,” said Dr. Sandra Salazar. “This is a commonsense measure, and we should promote personal empowerment of families to make healthy food decisions.”

Partial Resolution Text:
“WHEREAS, polls consistently show that more than 90 percent of the public want to know if their food was produced using genetic engineering;…”; and
WHEREAS, without disclosure, consumers of genetically engineered food can unknowingly violate their own dietary and religious restrictions; and
WHERAS the cultivation of genetically engineered crops can also cause serious impacts to the environment; for example, most genetically engineered crops are designed to withstand weed-killing pesticides known as herbicides; as a result hundreds of millions of pounds of additional herbicides have been used on U.S. farms….; and

WHEREAS, organic farming is a significant and increasingly important part of California agriculture. California has more organic cropland than any other state and has almost one out of every four certified organic operations in the nation; California’s organic agriculture is growing faster than 20 percent a year; and
WHEREAS, organic farmers are prohibited from using genetically engineered seeds; nonetheless, these farmers’ crops are regularly threatened with accidental contamination from neighboring lands where genetically engineered crops abound; this risk of contamination can erode public confidence in California’s organic products, significantly undermining this industry;

Californians should have the choice to avoid purchasing foods whose production could harm the state’s organic farmers and its organic foods industry;…”

Contact: Tom Fendley, 415-622-7843, tom@carighttoknow.org
-30-
Paid for by Yes on 37 For Your Right to Know if Your Food Has Been Genetically Engineered. Supported by Consumer Advocates, Makers of Organic Products and California Farmers. Major funding by Mercola.com Health Resources LLC and the Organic Consumers Fund. FPPC ID No. 1342851, www.carighttoknow.org
Video from Citizens for Health:

Press Release

http://rense.com/1.imagesH/barn_dees4.jpg

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Another Study Finds GMO Compounds in 100% of Pregnant Women and Fetuses

http://naturalsociety.com/wp-content...it-235x147.jpg

Elizabeth Renter

In many ways we are searching for real science, not funded by the GMO companies themselves, to tell us the truth about genetically modified organisms and their dangers. Because these companies control access to their chemicals and any related research, what we have is little. But from the little we know, there is much to fear concerning genetically modified organisms.

Most recently, scientists in Canada conducted a study on pregnant and non-pregnant women, looking for the chemicals found in pesticides related to genetically modified foods. What they found was frightening indeed.

100% of Women Had At Least 1 of These Toxins

According to GreenMedInfo.com, the scientists were looking for 5 basic toxins. Those include:

• Glyphosate (Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide)
• Gluphosinate (an herbicide)
• AMPA (a metabolite of glyphosate)
• 3-MMPA (a metabolite of gluphosinate)
• Cry1Ab (the Bt toxin of gluphosinate)

All women had at least one of the toxins present in their blood, but there were differences between the pregnant and non-pregnant women. A large percentage of non-pregnant study subjects had both glyphosate and gluphosinate in their blood, while the pregnant women did not. However, 100% of pregnant women studied had 3-MPPA in their blood and 93% had Cry1Ab. Even more troubling—100% of fetal cords studied had 3-MPPA and 80% had Cry1Ab

So, not only do all women likely have some of these GMO toxins in them, but they are passing it on to their children. This is similar to the research conducted by a German university finding glyphosate in all urine samples tested.

What does this all mean and what are the immediate dangers? That’s where more research is needed, though research is tightly controlled by the companies with the patents. We know that 3-MPPA is a propionic acid. According to GMI’s report, this means it is classified as a Bad Actor Chemical and has warnings of cramping, burning, nausea, shock, vomiting, and sore throat if ingested. As for Cry1Ab, Greenpeace reports that it is an immunogen, meaning it creates an immune system response and could possibly increase the existing problem of antibiotic resistant infections.

All five of these compounds that the researchers looked for in their study subjects are classified as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS). Yes, these chemicals that carry serious warnings when offered under other circumstances– the same ones that kill pests– our government assures us, are safe.

What can you do? Whenever possible, steer clear of products containing GMO ingredients. Also, support California’s Proposition 37, which will require the labeling of such ingredients and could pave the way for other states and even the nation to follow suit. Additionally, DE-support Monsanto, a company shelling out millions to go against Prop 37 and spreading lies about GMO labeling.RELATED ACTIVIST POST ARTICLE:
GMO Global Alert: The Truth Has Been Revealed

This article first appeared at Natural Society, an excellent resource for health news and vaccine information.

Activist Post: Another Study Finds GMO Compounds in 100% of Pregnant Women and Fetuses

Monday, October 29, 2012

GMOs: Trust Corporations to Decide What's Best PSA

YouTube

A sarcastic look at GMO and the kindhearted corporations behind them. Along the lines of the celebrities who lent their sarcasm for your right to know about GMO food.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfVVwFkreo0&feature=player_embedded

RELATED ACTIVIST POST ARTICLE/VIDEO:
GMO Global Alert: The Truth Has Been Revealed


Activist Post: GMOs: Trust Corporations to Decide What's Best PSA

Related: http://www.alipac.us/f19/public-serv...2/#post1311456

Related: Attention Californians: David vs. Monsanto Documentary

Every American Needs some of these GMO Love Bumps... It's Cool, It's the In Thing

http://rense.com/1.imagesH/Sheeple-11-(R)dees.jpg

---

Rense & Jeffrey Smith - GM Food Report & Prop 37 Loss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n69ZCRxmsEY&feature=youtu.be

Rense & Jeffrey Smith - GM Food Report & Prop 37 Loss - YouTube

Published on Dec 3, 2012 by JRense

More GM Bad News and Proposition 37 in California to label GM foods was suspiciously voted down.

Category: News & Politics

License: Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)

Cheerios Removes App During Anti-GMO Backlash

http://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/d...er-Study-2.jpg Shock findings in new GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow horrifying tumors, 70% of females die early


http://www.naturalnews.com/images/authors/MikeAdams.jpg Wednesday, September 19, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)

(NaturalNews) Eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto's Roundup chemical fertilizer caused rats to develop horrifying tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death. That's the conclusion of a shocking new study that looked at the long-term effects of consuming Monsanto's genetically modified corn.

The study has been deemed "the most thorough research ever published into the health effects of GM food crops and the herbicide Roundup on rats." News of the horrifying findings is spreading like wildfire across the internet, with even the mainstream media seemingly in shock over the photos of rats with multiple grotesque tumors... tumors so large the rats even had difficulty breathing in some cases. GMOs may be the new thalidomide.

"Monsanto Roundup weedkiller and GM maize implicated in 'shocking' new cancer study" wrote The Grocery, a popular UK publication. (http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/technology-and-supply-chain/monsant...)

It reported, "Scientists found that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, developed mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females."

The Daily Mail reported, "Fresh row over GM foods as French study claims rats fed the controversial crops suffered tumors." (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Fresh-fears-GM...)

It goes on to say: "The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group."

http://www.naturalnews.com/images/Ra...udy-3-Wide.jpg

The study, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, was the first ever study to examine the long-term (lifetime) effects of eating GMOs. You may find yourself thinking it is absolutely astonishing that no such studies were ever conducted before GM corn was approved for widespread use by the USDA and FDA, but such is the power of corporate lobbying and corporate greed.

The study was published in The Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal and was just presented at a news conference in London.

http://www.naturalnews.com/images/Ra...udy-225-v1.jpg Findings from the study

Here are some of the shocking findings from the study:

• Up to 50% of males and 70% of females suffered premature death.

• Rats that drank trace amounts of Roundup (at levels legally allowed in the water supply) had a 200% to 300% increase in large tumors.

• Rats fed GM corn and traces of Roundup suffered severe organ damage including liver damage and kidney damage.

• The study fed these rats NK603, the Monsanto variety of GM corn that's grown across North America and widely fed to animals and humans. This is the same corn that's in your corn-based breakfast cereal, corn tortillas and corn snack chips.

The Daily Mail is reporting on some of the reaction to the findings:

France's Jose Bove, vice-chairman of the European Parliament's commission for agriculture and known as a fierce opponent of GM, called for an immediate suspension of all EU cultivation and import authorisations of GM crops. 'This study finally shows we are right and that it is urgent to quickly review all GMO evaluation processes,' he said in a statement. 'National and European food security agencies must carry out new studies financed by public funding to guarantee healthy food for European consumers.' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Fresh-fears-GM...)

Read the study abstract

The study is entitled, "A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health." Read the abstract here:
A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

That abstract include this text. Note: "hepatorenal toxicity" means toxic to the liver.

Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded.

Here are some quotes from the researchers:

"This research shows an extraordinary number of tumors developing earlier and more aggressively - particularly in female animals. I am shocked by the extreme negative health impacts." - Dr Michael Antoniou, molecular biologist, King's College London.

"We can expect that the consumption of GM maize and the herbicide Roundup, impacts seriously on human health." - Dr Antoniou.

"This is the first time that a long-term animal feeding trial has examined the impact of feeding GM corn or the herbicide Roundup, or a combination of both and the results are extremely serious. In the male rats, there was liver and kidney disorders, including tumors and even more worryingly, in the female rats, there were mammary tumors at a level which is extremely concerning; up to 80 percent of the female rats had mammary tumors by the end of the trial." - Patrick Holden, Director, Sustainable Food Trust.

Spread the word: GMOs are toxic!

Share this story. Tweet it, Facebook it, post it.

See the "What is a GMO" video by Nutiva:
Nutiva - YouTube

Watch the new video on GMOs by Jeffrey Smith:
http://www.geneticroulettemovie.com

Watch the Health Ranger's music video:
GMOs news, articles and information:

Support Proposition 37:
www.CArighttoknow.org


Shock findings in new GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow horrifying tumors, 70% of females die early


Articles Related to This Article:

• Junk food-addicted rats chose to starve themselves rather than eat healthy food

• Rat study throws new light on animal consciousness - rats behave with empathy

• The link between aspartame and brain tumors: What the FDA never told you about artificial sweeteners

• Sexual Functioning in Men can be Fully Restored Naturally

• Monsanto fails at attempt to explain away tumors caused by GM corn

• Scientists' hopes for yacon leaf as a treatment for diabetes are crushed due to long-term toxicity

http://www.alipac.us/f19/authorities...9/#post1325579

http://www.alipac.us/f19/obama-signa...tivism-275073/

The Planned depopulation of America is now on cruise control

http://www.alipac.us/f19/monsanto-pl...espair-278751/

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...23781842_n.jpg


"New Analysis of Wikileaks Shows State Department's Promotion of Monsanto's GMOs Abroad"

Read the article: http://www.antigmofoods.com/2013/05/...ows-state.html