Thread: Russian scientists to broadcast GMO-rat experiment to expose Monsanto

GM Cancer Warning Can No Longer Be Ignored




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.

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.

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



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

Saturday, October 27, 2012

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

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.



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