+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 80

Thread: GMO And Related Stuff

  1. Link to Post #1
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,899 times in 15,481 posts

    Default GMO And Related Stuff

    Truvia sweetener a powerful pesticide; scientists shocked as fruit flies die in less than a week from eating GMO-derived erythritol




    by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
    Thursday, June 05, 2014

    (NaturalNews) Truvia sweetener is made from about 99.5% erythritol (a sugar alcohol), and 0.5% rebiana, an extract from the stevia plant (but not at all the same thing as stevia). A shocking new study published in the journal PLOS ONE (1) has found that Truvia, an alternative sweetener manufactured by food giant Cargill, is a potent insecticide that kills fruit flies which consume it.

    The study is titled, Erythritol, a Non-Nutritive Sugar Alcohol Sweetener and the Main Component of Truvia, Is a Palatable Ingested Insecticide.

    The study found that while fruit flies normally live between 39 and 51 days, those that ate the Truvia ingredient erythritol died in less than a week.


    Erythritol made from yeast fed genetically modified corn derivatives

    Erythritol is often indirectly derived from genetically modified corn, by the way. Cargill was forced to settle a class action lawsuit last year (2) for labeling Truvia "natural" when it's actually made from a fermentation process whereby yeast are fed GM corn maltodextrin.

    Cargill plays word games with this process, insisting that "erythritol is not derived from corn or dextrose feedstock; it is derived from the yeast organism."

    Yeah, okay, but the yeast are fed GMOs. So they're playing mind games with their explanations.

    There is a verified non-GMO erythritol available today, by the way, and it's made by Pyure Brands, based in Florida.

    Pyure Brands offers alternative sweeteners for the health-conscious marketplace, and their product is USDA Organic certified and Non-GMO Project Verified.

    Truvia a really amazing insecticide

    This story on Truvia's insecticidal properties has really caught the attention of the public. Even CBS News (3), a mainstream media outlet that rarely covers the dangers of food additives, covered this story, reporting:

    Erythritol, the main component of the sweetener Truvia, has a new, unexpected application -- it may be used as an insecticide. ...Researchers found that fruit flies fed with food that included erythritol or the erythritol-containing sweetener Truvia died much sooner than flies fed with food containing other types of sweeteners.

    "The more you get [fruit flies] to consume erythritol, the faster they die," Sean O'Donnell, a professor of biology at Drexel University in Philadelphia, told CBS News.


    "We are hoping to develop it into a human-safe insecticide," O'Donnell later says in the story.

    The abstract of the published study concludes, "Here we show that Erythritol, a non-nutritive sugar alcohol, was toxic to the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster."

    No other sweetener killed the fruit flies

    Fruit flies were also subjected to feeding tests with sucrose and corn syrup, but those sweeteners didn't kill them. Only erythritol had this effect, as it shown in the chart below:



    Erythritol also interfered with the flies' motor coordination, as stated in the study text:

    ...adult flies raised on food containing Truvia displayed aberrant motor control prior to death. We therefore assayed motor reflex behavior through climbing assays. Flies raised on food containing Truvia showed a significantly decreased ability to climb.

    Researchers were also able to determine that stevia was not the cause of the problem. They also tested Purevia and found it was safe for fruit flies. Only erythritol, the main component of Truvia, replicated the toxic effects on fruit flies.

    Erythritol also exhibited a dose-dependent death response, meaning the more that was consumed by the flies, the more quickly they died.

    What to make of Truvia's usefulness as a pesticide?

    The FDA has declared Truvia to be safe for human consumption. Then again, the FDA has also declared aspartame to be safe for human consumption, so that doesn't carry any real credibility.

    Sugar alcohols are widely consumed by millions of people, but that also isn't any guarantee of their safety because Vioxx was also widely consumed by millions of people (while killing tens of thousands of them via heart attacks).

    Most people believe sugar alcohols are safe to consume, and perhaps they're right. But maybe there's some yet-unknown contaminant in erythritol that's causing these toxic effects. Or perhaps it's the GMO connection, since most erythritol comes from genetically modified corn. A really interesting study on this would test GMO-derived erythritol vs. non-GMO erythritol to determine if there's any difference.

    Many scientists might also argue that perhaps erythritol is perfectly safe for humans and only selectively toxic to insects because of their different physiology. That would be the best-case scenario.

    If true, it opens up a positive conclusion to all this: What if erythritol could be used as a natural pesticide that replaces the toxic chemical pesticides sold by companies like Monsanto and DuPont?

    Imagine, if you will, a natural, plant-based pesticide that could be sprayed on crops to kill insects, yet still eaten by humans in trace amounts with no ill effects. That's the hope of this discovery: maybe sugar alcohols can be sprayed on crops or used in organic food production.

    By the way, the idea for this research came from a sixth-grader named Simon D. Kaschock-Marenda, once again proving that science is available to everyone, including children. This is why I have openly called for enhanced science education in America -- in the hope that more children can learn about scientific investigations and use their knowledge to help achieve a safer, less toxic world.

    Sources for this article include:
    (1) http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F...

    (2) http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Regulation/...

    (3) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/truvia-sweetener...
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  2. The Following 26 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    angelichuman (27th August 2014), Blacklight43 (7th June 2014), Bob (29th August 2014), Cara (7th June 2014), Chrononaut (19th March 2015), conk (9th June 2014), Daughter of Time (29th July 2014), fourty-two (25th June 2014), Kristin (3rd July 2014), linksplatinum (8th June 2014), Matt P (7th June 2014), NancyV (7th June 2014), raregem (7th June 2014), RunningDeer (6th August 2014), SabreToothMom (5th May 2015), sandy (8th June 2014), Sidney (7th June 2014), Sierra (27th July 2014), skyflower (8th June 2014), soleil (8th June 2014), Sophocles (7th April 2015), Spirithorse (7th June 2014), spiritwind (7th June 2014), the_real_dave-id (8th June 2014), william r sanford72 (7th June 2014), yelik (7th June 2014)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Avalon Member genevieve's Avatar
    Join Date
    10th May 2012
    Age
    74
    Posts
    533
    Thanks
    23,148
    Thanked 1,998 times in 449 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    When ants invade my house every couple years, I sprinkle one of the fake sugars (found on every restaurant table in America) on their path.

    Within one week I no longer have invading ants. And they don't come back for a couple years. No kidding. Been doing this for years.

    If it's true that "they" are trying to get rid of us, what easier way is there than to give us something for FREE that's SWEET and LOW CALORIE? Vewwwy clever.

    Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
    genevieve

  4. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to genevieve For This Post:

    awakeningmom (25th March 2015), Bob (29th August 2014), Cara (7th June 2014), conk (9th June 2014), fourty-two (25th June 2014), Hervé (7th June 2014), Kristin (3rd July 2014), Matt P (8th June 2014), Sidney (11th June 2014), Sierra (27th July 2014), skyflower (8th June 2014), Spirithorse (7th June 2014), StandingWave (6th August 2014), william r sanford72 (11th June 2014)

  5. Link to Post #3
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,899 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Agricultural Pesticides Linked to Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

    June 03, 2014 | 200,132 views
    | Disponible en Español


    By Dr. Mercola

    The United States uses about 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides each year.1, 2 Worldwide pesticide use amounts to approximately 5.2 billion pounds annually. There's little doubt that the current pesticide load is taking a toll, as mounting research has linked pesticides to an array of serious health problems.

    Processed foods form the basis of nearly everyone's diet, as 95 percent of the food Americans buy is processed. If this is you, then you can consider yourself in the highest risk category, as such fare tends to contain the greatest amounts of hidden genetically engineered (GE) ingredients, and hence the highest pesticide load.

    Avoiding pesticide exposure – around your home, in your community, and via the food you eat – is important for reducing your risk for a number of chronic and devastating diseases, including Parkinson's and DNA damage indicative of early-stage cancer.3, 4

    Now, with the publication of a new meta-analysis,5 the evidence linking pesticides to cancer is stronger than ever. The analysis, which included 44 papers exploring the impacts of pesticide exposure on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, concluded there appears to be a strong link between the two.

    The study, which was done by a team at the International Agency for Research on Cancer in France, covering nearly three decades' worth of epidemiologic research, will likely be taken seriously worldwide.

    Phenoxy Herbicides Linked to Lymphoma
    Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), or sometimes simply referred to as lymphoma, is a type of blood cancer that originates in your lymphatic system. It's the sixth most common type of cancer in the US, with an estimated 69,000 Americans diagnosed each year. Worldwide, NHL accounts for an estimated 37 percent of all cancers.

    According to the featured research,6 phenoxy herbicides, including 2,4-D and dicamba, are clearly associated with three distinct types of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Besides cancer, other documented health hazards associated with phenoxy herbicides include developmental and reproductive problems.

    This is particularly chilling considering the fact that use of these herbicides have risen several-fold since the early 2000s, and their use will increase even further if 2,4-D and dicamba-tolerant crops are approved.

    Carbamate insecticides, organophosphorus insecticides, and the active ingredient lindane—an organochlorine insecticide also used to treat head lice—were also positively associated with NHL. The strongest evidence however, is reported for glyphosate and B cell lymphoma. According to the authors:
    "The United States Environmental Protection Agency defines pesticides as substances intended to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate a pest. Within this broad category, pesticides are often grouped according to the type of pests that they control; for example, fungicides are used to kill fungi, insecticides to kill insects, and herbicides to kill weeds and plants...

    Because pesticides are thought to have different toxicologic and immunologic effects, identifying the chemicals and chemical groups that are most dangerous to humans and non-target living organisms is important. From a research perspective, the decision about what chemicals to investigate has implications for disease prevention...

    Despite compelling evidence that NHL is associated with certain chemicals, this review indicates the need for investigations of a larger variety of pesticides...."

    The Toxic Legacy of Our Most Widely Used Pesticides
    If you've been regularly reading this newsletter you're already aware of the evidence building against glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, and other formulations.

    For example, groundbreaking research7 published just last summer revealed a previously unknown mechanism of harm from glyphosate, prompting its authors to conclude that glyphosate residues—found in most processed foods in the Western diet courtesy of GE sugar beets, corn, and soy8 -- "enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease."

    Evidence also suggests glyphosate may be a key player in Argentina's growing health problems, where birth defects and cancer rates have skyrocketed among GE corn and soya farming communities.

    In the province of Chaco, birth defects have quadrupled in the decade following the introduction of GE crops,9 and in the village of Malvinas Argentinas, which is surrounded by GE soy plantations, the rate of miscarriage is 100 times the national average. According to experts, rates of cancer, infertility and endocrine dysfunction could reach catastrophic levels in Argentina over the next 10-15 years.

    A toxic combination of Roundup and fertilizers has also been blamed for tens of thousands of deaths among farmers in Sri Lanka, India, and Central America's Pacific coastline (El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica).


    Modern Agriculture Methods Have Turned Food Into Poison
    While nearly one billion pounds of glyphosate alone is doused on both conventional and GE crops worldwide each year, genetically engineered (GE) crops receive the heaviest amounts. Farmers everywhere are also progressively increasing their usage of the chemical due to the proliferation of glyphosate-resistant weeds—a logical side-effect that pesticide makers said would be highly unlikely.

    Farmers are also resorting to using multiple chemicals on their fields, and harsher varieties, in an effort to stay ahead of resistant weeds and pests. The phenoxy herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is one of them. This chemical, which Dow touts as a solution to the glyphosate-resistant weed problem, was actually one of the active ingredients in the now infamous Agent Orange, used during the Vietnam War.

    Many veterans suffered permanent side effects from their exposure to this potent defoliant, and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese children have been born with serious birth defects as a result of its use during the war. Despite that, 2,4-D is still one of the most widely used herbicides in the world, and 2,4-D-resistant crops are now under development, which would increase its use even further. If that's not a frightening proposition, I don't know what is.

    Part of the original rationale for using GE crops was that they could be sprayed with less toxic herbicides, such as Roundup—which was falsely marketed as "harmless" and "biodegradable."

    Now, mounting research reveals that Roundup may actually be one of the most toxic chemicals ever to enter our food supply! Some scientists, like Dr. Don Huber, believe it may be even more toxic than DDT. Mounting research also reveals how glyphosate and other pesticides destroy soil microbes, thereby inhibiting the fertility of the soil. This in turn means fewer nutrients in the food.


    The Biological Effects of Glyphosate
    Glyphosate, which systemically contaminates the plant and cannot be washed off, has been found to have a number of devastating biological effects, including the following:

    Nutritional deficiencies, as glyphosate immobilizes certain nutrients and alters the nutritional composition of the treated crop Disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids (these are essential amino acids not produced in your body that must be supplied via your diet) Increased toxin exposure (this includes high levels of glyphosate and formaldehyde in the food itself) Impairment of sulfate transport and sulfur metabolism; sulfate deficiency Systemic toxicity—a side effect of extreme disruption of microbial function throughout your body; beneficial microbes in particular, allowing for overgrowth of pathogens Gut dysbiosis (imbalances in gut bacteria, inflammation, leaky gut, and food allergies, such as gluten intolerance) Enhancement of damaging effects of other foodborne chemical residues and environmental toxins as a result of glyphosate shutting down the function of detoxifying enzymes Creation of ammonia (a byproduct created when certain microbes break down glyphosate), which can lead to brain inflammation associated with autism and Alzheimer's disease


    Food Isn't the Only Source of Toxic Pesticides
    While pesticide residues in food are certainly a primary health concern, you may also be unnecessarily exposed to these toxins while working in your own garden. Children and pregnant women are particularly vulnerable, and should be protected against any and all exposures. Unfortunately, according to a previous survey by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), many Americans fail to take proper precautions when it comes to these toxic chemicals:10
    • Almost half of all households with children under the age of five had at least one pesticide stored in an UNLOCKED cabinet less than four feet off the ground, which was within a child's reach.
    • Bathrooms and kitchens were cited as areas most likely to have improperly stored pesticides -- for example, common household pesticides such as roach spray, insect repellents, pet shampoo, and flea and tick products.
    I strongly recommend eliminating pesticides from your home, as there are many non-toxic ways to address pests and weeds. Furthermore, a number of pesticides have been implicated in the mass death of critical pollinating insects like bees and the Monarch butterfly. In the case of bees, the die-offs are now happening at a scale that is threatening our food supply.

    When planting your garden, please bear in mind that more than half of so-called "bee friendly" garden plants sold at Lowe's and other garden centers —i.e. plants that attract bees—have been pre-treated with pesticides that could be lethal to the bees. So be sure to ask whether the plants have been pre-treated, and please do not buy pre-treated varieties. Keep in mind that you also help protect the welfare of honey bees11 every time you shop organic. This way, you can actually "vote" for less pesticides and herbicides with each and every meal you make.


    Pet Cancer Is Also on the Rise—and It Too Is Linked to Pesticide Exposure
    To really bring home the importance of ridding your home and garden of pesticides, I also want to bring your attention to the compelling links between pesticide exposure and cancer in pets. One six-year long study conducted at Tufts University's Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine has linked lawn pesticides to canine malignant lymphoma (CML). The risk for CML increased by as much as 70 percent in some dogs.

    Another study12 published last year found that dogs exposed to garden and lawn chemicals such as 2,4-D, dicamba, and 4-chloro-2-methylphenoxypropionic acid (MCPP), have higher incidence of bladder cancer. Breeds with a genetic predisposition for bladder cancer, including Beagles, Scottish Terriers, Shetland Sheepdogs, West Highland White Terriers, and Wire Hair Fox Terriers are at particularly high risk. According to lead study author Deborah Knapp of Purdue University's Department of Veterinary Clinical Services, in an interview with Discovery News:
    "The routes of exposure that have been documented in experimental settings include ingestion, inhalation and transdermal exposures. In the case of dogs, they could directly ingest the chemicals from the plant, or they could lick their paws or fur and ingest chemicals that have been picked up on their feet, legs or body."
    Needless to say, once your dog gets the chemicals on its coat and paws, it can spread them throughout your house, contaminating floors and furniture. You and your children can also be exposed by petting or holding your dog. Ideally, you'll want to avoid lawn chemicals if you have pets, and should your pet roam around on treated grass, make sure to bathe him as soon as possible.


    How to Protect Yourself and Your Family from Toxic Pesticides
    As you can see, pesticides are all around you. They may have been developed to kill certain bothersome insects or intrusive weeds, but we're now at a point where these chemicals are used in such massive quantities that they threaten human life on multiple fronts—through ingestion, topical exposure, pollinator die-offs, and the destruction of soil fertility! While you may not be able to eliminate exposure entirely, it would be sensible to take certain common-sense precautions to avoid the most common sources of exposure:
    • Stop using Roundup and other lawn and garden pesticides, as children and pets can come into contact with it simply by walking across the area.
    • Avoid commercial bug killers, such as mosquito, tick, and flea sprays. To learn how to repel such pests without hazardous chemicals, please see my previous article "How to Prevent and Treat Insect Bites Without Harsh Chemicals." When it comes to head lice, avoid using the pesticide lindane. Instead, use an old-fashioned nit comb, plus the oils of anise and ylang ylang combined into a natural spray. This has been found to be highly effective in eliminating more than 90 percent of head lice. Coconut oil is another effective alternative.
    • Avoid processed foods, as they're typically loaded with GE ingredients, which are most heavily contaminated with pesticides and herbicides like glyphosate. Ideally, you'd be best off opting for products bearing the USDA 100% organic label when buying processed foods in order to avoid exposure to agricultural chemicals, which certainly are not limited to Roundup. Meats need to be grass-fed or pastured to make sure the animals were not fed GE corn or soy feed. That said, I urge you to consider boycotting every single product owned by members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), including natural and organic brands. For more information on this historic boycott, please see my recent article, "When You Learn What They're Up to Now, You Too Will Want to Boycott Monsanto and GMA."


    Vote with Your Pocketbook, Every Day
    The food companies on the left of this graphic spent tens of millions of dollars in the last two labeling campaigns—in California and Washington State–to prevent you from knowing what’s in your food. You can even the score by switching to the brands on the right; all of whom stood behind the I-522 Right to Know campaign. Voting with your pocketbook, at every meal, matters. It makes a huge difference. By boycotting GMA member Traitor Brands, you can help level the playing field, and help take back control of our food supply.


    I encourage you to continue educating yourself about genetically engineered foods, and to share what you’ve learned with family and friends. Remember, unless a food is certified organic, you can assume it contains GMO ingredients if it contains sugar from sugar beets, soy, or corn, or any of their derivatives.

    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  6. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    angelichuman (27th August 2014), Cara (15th December 2015), Daughter of Time (29th July 2014), genevieve (26th June 2014), kirolak (28th August 2014), Kristin (3rd July 2014), Sidney (11th June 2014), Sierra (27th July 2014), william r sanford72 (11th June 2014)

  7. Link to Post #4
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,899 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Pesticides linked to honeybee decline are affecting other species, scientists say

    Published time: June 24, 2014 19:50
    Get short URL


    AFP Photo / Denis Charlet

    Neurotoxic pesticides blamed for the decline of honeybees is also harming butterflies, worms, fish, and birds, and contaminating habitats worldwide which are crucial for food production and wildlife, scientists have concluded after a four-year assessment.

    Societal regulations have not stopped habitats from being poisoned, said the analysis, despite neurotoxic pesticides already being held responsible for the global collapse in the bee population.

    “Undertaking a full analysis of all the available literature (800 peer reviewed reports) the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides – a group of global, independent scientists has found that there is “clear evidence of harm sufficient to trigger regulatory action,”
    a press release accompanying the report noted.

    Twenty-nine scientists from four different continents conducted the study, which found the unmistakable evidence of the link.

    “I think the only acceptable dose of this systemic pesticide is just nothing – zero,” said Dr. Jean Marc Bonmatin, a researcher at CNRS-CBM lab in France. “We are able, in this laboratory, to detect very, very small amounts of these neurotoxins. And as toxicologists, we are able to test these toxicants on drosophila – on bees – and so on. So we are able to see the effect of such tiny amounts of neurotoxins.”

    The pesticides referred to in the report are neonicotinoids (neonics) and fipronil. Farmers spend some US$2.6 billion on neonicotinoids worldwide every year. They are used as a general practice rather than a response to a pest problem.

    “The majority of the pesticide doesn't go into the crop at all,” said Professor Dave Goulson from the UK’s University of Sussex, who contributed to the study. “More than 90 percent of it goes elsewhere into the environment and they're really persistent in the environment.”

    Goulson said that cumulatively, we as humans are “contaminating the global environment with highly toxic, highly persistent chemicals.”

    “If all our soils are toxic, that should really worry us, as soil is crucial to food production,”
    he added.

    Butterflies, bees, birds suffering...humans next?

    In Marinduque, a province of the Philippines, the rural population practices butterfly farming to encourage the sustained pollination growth of local vegetation. “All the people here in the rural areas depend on the butterflies, and continued use of pesticides could destroy their livelihood,” said Elizabeth Lumawig-Heitzmann, director of Romeo Lumawig Memorial Museum.

    In addition to butterflies, maintaining bee and insect populations are necessary for the pollination of crops. “These days many people are completely detached from nature – they buy their food in a supermarket, they live in a city...biodiversity is vitally important for us,” said Bonmatin.

    Bees are affected because chemicals hurt their ability to both navigate and learn. Neonics can be 5,000 to 10,000 times more toxic to bees than DDT – which itself has been banned in agriculture.

    “The classic measurements used to assess the toxicity of a pesticide (short‐term lab toxicity results) are not effective for systemic pesticides and conceal their true impact. They typically only measure direct acute effects rather than chronic effects via multiple routes of exposure,” the report found.

    However, bees are not the only ones affected by the pesticides; birds and mammals which feed on the insects, as well as worms, are also harmed. Worms aerate soil, and chemicals can disrupt their ability to tunnel properly.

    Because birds eat insects and worms, declines in their populations can also lead to a loss in the birds feeding on them. The report also postulates that even eating only a few contaminated seeds may kill birds directly.

    Insecticides and pesticides seep into rivers and streams from the fields they are used on. "Microbes, fish and amphibians were found to be affected after high levels of or prolonged exposure," the report said.

    “Overall, a compelling body of evidence has accumulated that clearly demonstrates that the wide-scale use of these persistent, water-soluble chemicals is having widespread, chronic impacts upon global biodiversity and is likely to be having major negative effects on ecosystem services such as pollination that are vital to food security,” the study concluded.

    The report is part of a special edition of thepeer-reviewed journal 'Environmental Science and Pollution Research.'

    The EU has already placed a three-year ban on using three neonicotinoids (clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiametoxam) on flowering crops which bees feed on. However, they can still be used on winter crops.

    Pesticide manufacturers were critical of the study’s findings. “It is a selective review of existing studies which highlighted worst-case scenarios, largely produced under laboratory conditions,” said Nick von Westenholz, chief executive of the Crop Protection Association, before reiterating the need to “protect pollinator health.”

    According to Goulson, the focus has so far only been on honeybees. “It’s clear that the impacts of neonics are more profound than that,” he said, adding that the story stretches beyond bees “to all wildlife that lives on farmland.”
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  8. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Cara (15th December 2015), Daughter of Time (29th July 2014), genevieve (26th June 2014), Kristin (3rd July 2014), Sierra (27th July 2014), william r sanford72 (25th June 2014)

  9. Link to Post #5
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    2nd January 2011
    Posts
    691
    Thanks
    187
    Thanked 2,381 times in 527 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Great Thread, Amzer Zo. Instread of just talking about " sugar" making people sick and causing nasty diseases like cancer. the population needs to be talking about progressed food and what is in processed food that is causing all this disease that is on the rise.
    Herbicides, pesticides.... yup..... if you go out to dinner you are probably eating them...buy a birthday cake from the delicious bakery and you are probably eating posions that is buiding up in your system just waiting to burst into cancer, eating frozen food, yup, you are probably eating the herbicide of round up too. The question is what is the reader's toxic load before cancer or some other nasty disease, surfaces and maybe the reader is already and sick with some dreaded disease like Lymphoma and don't know it. Lymphoma. Often people don't know they have it until they are in stage 3 or stage 4, that is how quiet of a cancer it is. And farmers and gardeners seem to get it even more than the rest of the population. Of course, it wasn't always that way, but now since they have been poisoning our food and environment for so long, the disease is rapidly showing up. Here is one quote that pretty much sums it up

    "When the diagnosis is non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, though, researchers can offer only guesses. The incidence of the disease, which occurs when immune cells become malignant, has doubled since the beginning of the 1980s. Once relatively uncommon, non-Hodgkin’s is now the fifth leading cause of cancer in the United States.

    That is thanks to poisoning the environment and our food!


    So in the 1950 and 60s when one parent working could support the house hold and food was not making us sick. nasty diseases like lymphoma were a lot rarer than they are today. I don't know the statistics but I believe one doctor said 1 out of 2 people will get cancer now. So what happened? Our food was poisoned.


    "When the diagnosis is non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, though, researchers can offer only guesses. The incidence of the disease, which occurs when immune cells become malignant, has doubled since the beginning of the 1980s. Once relatively uncommon, non-Hodgkin’s is now the fifth leading cause of cancer in the United States."

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to blake For This Post:

    Cara (15th December 2015), Hervé (25th June 2014), Kristin (3rd July 2014), Sierra (27th July 2014), william r sanford72 (11th July 2014)

  11. Link to Post #6
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,899 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Biosafety and the 'Seralini affair' - scientific and regulatory reform are essential

    Gilles-Eric Séralini, Robin Mesnage, Nicolas Defarge & Joël Spiroux de Vendômois
    25th June 2014

    The forced retraction of a study that identified serious harm to rats fed on GMO maize and Monsanto's 'Roundup' reveals a deep and systemic corruption of science and regulation, writes Gilles-Eric Séralini. Urgent and far reaching reforms must now take place.

    Quote Censorship on research into the risks of a technology so critically entwined with global food safety undermines the value and the credibility of science.
    There is an ongoing debate on the potential health risks of the consumption of genetically modified (GM) plants containing high levels of pesticide residues.

    Currently, no regulatory authority requests mandatory chronic animal feeding studies to be performed for edible GMOs and formulated pesticides. This fact is at the origin of most of the controversies. Only studies consisting of 90-day rat feeding trials have been conducted by manufacturers for GMOs.

    Statistical differences in the biochemistry of treated rats versus controls may represent the initial signs of long-term pathologies, possibly explained at least in part by pesticide residues in the GM feed.

    This is why we studied the long-term toxicity of a Roundup-tolerant GM maize (NK603) and a whole Roundup pesticide formulation at environmentally relevant levels from 0.1 ppb.

    We first published these results in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) on 19 September, 2012 after a careful and thorough peer review.

    However, 1 year and 2 months later, in an unusual step, the editor-in-chief requested the retraction of our study, while conceding that the data were not incorrect and that there was no misconduct and no fraud or intentional misinterpretation.

    According to him, some data were inconclusive, but for reasons already known at the time of submission of the paper. This artiocle summarises the debate resulting in this retraction - which in our view is a historic example of conflicts of interests in the scientific assessments of products commercialized worldwide.

    The long-term toxicity study of the NK603 maize and Roundup
    An initial study on NK603 maize was submitted by Monsanto Company in support of commercial authorization of the maize. NK603 maize was fed to 4 groups of 20 Sprague Dawley rats (2 doses of 11% and 33% in the diet of both sexes) for 90 days. The blood analyses were performed on 10 rats per group.

    The re-analysis of the raw data resulted in a debate on the biological relevance of admitted statistical differences versus controls as the first signs of hepatorenal toxicities.

    To solve the problem, a 2-year-long study was carried out using two hundred Sprague Dawley rats to which the following treatments were administered:
    • NK603 maize treated or not with Roundup at three different levels in their feed (11%, 22%, and 33% of the total diet)
    • and Roundup alone, administered via drinking water at three different concentrations, from the admitted residual level in regular tap water (0.1 ppb), to the maximum level authorized in GMOs (400 ppm), up to half of the agricultural dose (0.5%).

    They were divided into ten groups, each containing ten males and ten females. No other long-term study has examined the effects of regular consumption of Roundup-tolerant GM maize and of a pesticide formulation, in any dilution, on blood parameters, sexual hormones, and multiple organs.

    Statistically discriminant disturbances
    We found that these products provoked statistically discriminant disturbances in biochemical markers of livers and kidneys in females at the 15th month, when most of the rats were still alive. At the same time, testosterone and estradiol levels were also disturbed.

    At the end of the experiments, these disrupted biochemical markers corresponded to pathologies evidenced in a blinded manner: notably hepatorenal deficiencies, more severe in males, and female mammary tumors, which led to premature deaths.

    For instance, after around 700 days, there were up to 3.25 more mammary tumors (the highest rate was observed in females consuming 0.1 ppb of Roundup in water). This could be associated with a 2.4-time increase in pituitary dysfunctions noticed by the end of the experiment (2 years).

    Then the attacks began
    These findings were immediately dismissed by persons involved in the products' authorizations, or in collaboration with biotech industries.

    A number of them wrote to FCT to nourish a controversy, including Richard Goodman, a former Monsanto employee in charge of the immunotoxicity files of GMOs, and Paul Christou, a patent holder of the methods used to create transgenic plants.

    This was rapidly followed by a coordination of national regulatory agencies organized by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), released on 4 October, 2012. The EFSA had previously assessed NK603, and glyphosate, the declared active principle of Roundup, as safe on the basis of regulatory data, which they never fully published.

    The EFSA has since published Monsanto's safety data on NK603 maize, but not on glyphosate. The NK603 data are in a pdf format preventing an easy statistical re-analysis. However, there was no long-term toxicological assessment for NK603, or for Roundup.

    Moreover, we demonstrated in several studies that Roundup is far more toxic than glyphosate because of non-inert adjuvants. On 10 October, 2012, the Monsanto Company also sent its criticisms to FCT but did not release its safety data, claiming commercial confidentiality.

    Serious yet undisclosed conflicts of interest
    Overall, the first wave of criticisms arrived within a week, mostly from plant biologists. We answered all criticisms in FCT on 9 November, 2012. The debate then encompassed scientific arguments.

    A second wave of ad hominem and potentially libelous comments appeared in different journals [13-16]. Regrettably, there were no invitations to respond to these exacerbated attacks, which we discovered only by our literature survey. Some of the authors of these articles had serious yet undisclosed conflicts of interest.

    The scientific remarks concentrated on the supposedly inadequate choice of the Sprague Dawley rat strain, which is, however, a classic model for toxicology. The Sprague Dawley strain was also used by Monsanto in its 90-day test on the same maize.

    In addition, Monsanto measured biochemically the same number of rats per group as in our experiment. Thus, with regard to blood and urine biochemistry, Monsanto gathered data from the same number of rats that we did.

    Unsubstantiated allegations of fraud or errors
    Paul Christou, the lead author of Arjo et al., demanded that our paper be retracted and insulted us personally. He claimed first in a letter addressed to the editor-in-chief that the publication of our study "does not meet minimal acceptable standards of scientific rigor" and "will damage an entire scientific discipline due to flawed conclusion".

    Then, he attacked us in an article published in the journal Transgenic Research on 20 December 2012.

    The quantity of insults and defamations in this paper, authorized and co-authored by the editor-in-chief in a supposedly serious Journal, is excessive. They include:
    • "abject failure to treat the experimental animals in a humane manner",
    • "inability to formulate a valid hypothesis",
    • "media fanfare",
    • "fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements",
    • "unethical behavior",
    • "transparent attempt to discredit regulatory agencies",
    • "ammunition for extremists",
    • "flawed science",
    • "disingenuous or inept", and
    • "unjustified waste of animals" (while at the same time asking for more animals in the groups).

    Christou and co-authors suggest that by practising "flawed science", we are working against "progress towards a better quality of life" and in fact are "actively working to make life worse". We were not invited to reply.

    Christou - further undisclosed conflicts of interest
    This behaviour can be explained, though not justified, by the undisclosed conflicts of interests. Christou is not only the editor-in-chief of Transgenic Research, the journal in which he published his article, but is also linked to Monsanto.

    He is named as the inventor on several patents on GM crop technology, for most of which Monsanto owns the property rights. These include patents on the plant transformation process used to make glyphosate-tolerant transgenic corn plants.

    He worked as a researcher at Agracetus Inc. (later acquired by Monsanto) for 12 years. Then, from 1994 to 2001, Christou worked at the John Innes Centre in the UK, which is heavily invested in GM crop technology. He thus has no mammalian toxicology background.

    However, in his published article, Christou only gave as his affiliation his publicly funded position at a research institute.

    Christou's failure to declare his current interests - his inventor status on patents concerning the company that developed the products we tested - could be considered grounds for retraction of a paper in a scientific journal, according to ethical guidelines for scientific publishing.

    The Arjo et al article was co-authored by Wayne Parrott, an active member of the Biotechnology Committee at the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI).

    ILSI is funded by multinational food, agribusiness, and biotechnology companies, including Monsanto and Syngenta. ILSI has proved highly controversial in North America and Europe due to its influence on risk assessment methodologies for chemicals, pesticides, and GM foods.

    Wayne Parrott also has an inventor status in patents on materials and methods for selecting transgenic organisms and transformation vector systems.

    False assertions, misrepresentations and defamation
    In addition, Christou and his co-authors made numerous mistakes, false and unsubstantiated assertions, and misrepresentations of our data.

    The title of Arjo et al's paper includes defamation and a misrepresentation of our research, implying that it is "pseudoscience" and alleging that it claimed Roundup Ready maize and Roundup herbicide caused "cancer" in rats - a claim we never made.

    We did not even use the word 'cancer' in our paper although this argument was reiterated in the final letter of the editor-in-chief of FCT when explaining his decision to retract our paper. Tumors do not always lead to cancer, even if they can be more deleterious in a shorter time because of their size or body position, by hurting internal functions.

    Arjo et al's paper begins with a false assertion that is not evidenced in the paper or in the cited source: "It started with a press conference in which journalists agreed not to engage in fact-checking". The authors made other false assertions about our study, for example, alleging that "the water consumption was not measured".

    In fact, we measured both the water and food consumption, and the stability of the Roundup solution over time. This was indicated in the paper, in which we explained that all the data cannot be shown in one paper and that we concentrated on the most important data; these parameters were only part of a routine survey.

    They also falsified the reporting of the data, compiling the mortality data only at the end of the experiment and ignoring the originality and the major findings of the differential chronological effects between treated rats and controls, which we established by measuring tumor size twice a week over 2 years.

    Moreover, we respected legal requirements and ethical norms relating to animal experiments, and Arjo et al. present no evidence of the contrary, so their allegation of inhumane treatment of the rats is without substance.

    Our responses were simply ignored
    Importantly, we had already answered many of the criticisms of our paper made by Arjo et al in a paper that was published before that of Arjo et al.. Their publication was received on 20 December 2012, when our paper was published on 9 November 2012. Our published answers were simply ignored.

    Christou and Parrott were not alone in failing to declare conflicts of interest in their criticism of our paper. Since we underlined that 75% of the comments addressed to FCT within a week after our study was published came from plant biologists, it was discovered that several had developed patents on GMOs.

    Some authors were employees of Monsanto Company, which owns NK603 GM maize and sells Roundup herbicide. Other more recent papers, published by plant biologists and/or affiliates of the industry-funded group ILSI [15,16], repeated the arguments.

    Forbes magazine - false and unsubstantiated fraud allegation
    The author of a separate article criticizing our study expressed concern that our results could damage public opinion about GM crops - a sentiment that gives precedence to economic interests over public health. An article in Forbes magazine even alleged, without presenting any evidence, that we had committed fraud.

    Surprisingly, even Monsanto authors declared that they had "no conflicts of interest" in their first draft published online on FCT website.

    Investigative reports evidenced that many authors of these opinions had failed to disclose their conflicts of interest, including Henry Miller, Mark Tester, Chris Leaver, Bruce Chassy, Martina Newell-McGloughlin, Andrew Cockburn, L. Val Giddings, Sivramiah Shantharam, Lucia de Souza, Erio Barale-Thomas, and Marc Fellous.

    The undisclosed conflicts of interest included links with biotechnology companies that develop GMOs and with industry-backed lobbying organizations.

    Huge implications for public health
    All of this has huge implications for public health. We observed an intense lobbying in parliaments, as well as proofs of conflicts of interests for persons involved in the regulatory decisions for the commercialization of these products.

    A series of high-profile conflict-of-interest revelations (not restricted to GMOs and pesticides) led to the resignations of leading administrators involved in decisions affecting the assessment of these products - including:
    • the European Commissioner John Dalli;
    • and the former chair of the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) management board Diana Banati.

    In February of 2013, a strange occurrence following the publication of our paper raised questions about the connections of industry to scientific publishing, described below.

    Conflicts of interests in the editorial board
    In February 2013, FCT acquired a new assistant editor for biotechnology, Richard E. Goodman. The editor-in-chief has admitted that Goodman was introduced into the editorial board after he sent a letter to FCT to complain about our study.

    In his letter, Goodman appears worried about economic consequences but not so much about potential public health consequences. He wrote:
    "The implications and the impacts of this uncontrolled study is having HUGE impacts, in international trade, in consumer confidence in all aspects of food safety, and certainly in US state referendums on labelling."
    Further in his letter, Goodman asked for "an evaluation by an independent set of toxicologists". This is particularly why the Publishing Assistant for FCT asked for our raw data on 15 March 2013.

    In fact, we can question the independence of this re-evaluation. After his appointment at FCT, Goodman was a member of the subcommittee that requested our raw data, until we complained to Elsevier publishing group.

    Goodman is far from being independent. He previously worked for Monsanto for 7 years. He also has a long-standing affiliation with ILSI. Yet Goodman will now deal with all biotechnology papers submitted to FCT.

    Another scientific paper on GMO risks was withdrawn from FCT, without explanation shortly after it had been accepted and published by the journal. The paper was immediately published by another journal according to the authors' initiative.

    The retraction notice
    We received a letter from the editor-in-chief of FCT, A. Wallace Hayes, asking us to retract our paper on 19 November 2013, more than 1 year after its publication.

    In his retraction notice, the editor-in-chief certifies that "no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data" was found in the investigation, that the results are "not incorrect", "there was no misconduct", and that the sole reason for retraction is the "inconclusiveness" of the paper.

    He argued that no conclusions could be drawn because we studied 10 rats per group over 2 years, because they were Sprague Dawley rats, and because we could not conclude on cancer. In fact, the Sprague Dawley is a standard choice for 2-year studies performed by industry and independent scientists alike.

    We also measured 10 animals per sex per group according to OECD 452 guideline on chronic toxicity studies because our study is a chronic toxicity study that was never intended to be a carcinogenicity study.

    A violation of official retraction guidelines
    We wish to point out that Dr Hayes' decision is in violation of the retraction guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), of which FCT is a member. 'Inconclusiveness' is not a valid reason for a journal to retract a paper. Lack of conclusiveness (which can be discussed) and error are not synonymous.

    COPE criteria for retraction included scientific misconduct / honest error, prior publication, plagiarism, or unethical research. None of these criteria applied to our study.

    On the contrary, numerous published scientific papers contain inconclusive findings. It is for further studies to build on the reported findings and arrive at a more conclusive position.

    In contrast with our study measuring toxicity, the Monsanto study reporting safety with the same number and the same strain of rats, but limited to 90 days, is not subject to the same controversy.

    The data in the Monsanto study show statistically significant differences in multiple-organ functions between the GM and non-GM feeding groups - which the authors dismissed as not "biologically meaningful", using a set of questionable criteria.

    The significant effects observed do not have to be linear to the dose to be taken into consideration; otherwise, endocrine effects will be dismissed. In addition, biochemical disturbances do not have to correlate simultaneously with organ lesions, in contrast to the claims of Doull et al in defence of Monsanto.

    Concepts invalid for endocrine disruption
    These outdated concepts coming from the toxicology of poisons, and are not valid for endocrine disruption. If 10 rats/sex/group are too few to demonstrate a toxic effect, then this number of rats is certainly too small to demonstrate safety.

    Overall, in the current system of assessment, any toxic effect is first suspected to be a false positive, arising by chance, rather than questioning whether no evidence of effect is a false negative result. The Monsanto data as presented are thus inconclusive and should also be retracted.

    Following the retraction of our paper, many letters were sent to the editor-in-chief of FCT. On 10 December 2013, he published a defence of the retraction, which raised many doubts as to his understanding of our data.

    He claimed that we concluded on cancer, although ours was a long-term toxicity study with a detailed statistical analysis of blood and urine parameters.

    He also defended the study done by Monsanto claiming that they used 20 rats/sex/group while we only used 10 rats/sex/group. In fact, despite the fact that the Monsanto study used twice our sample size, the Monsanto authors only analyzed blood and urine from half of the animals (10), the same number of sampled animals as in our study.

    According to an editorial in Environmental Health Perspectives,
    "the decision to retract a published scientific work by an editor, against the desires of the authors, because it is 'inconclusive' based on a post hoc analysis represents a dangerous erosion of the underpinnings of the peer-review process, and Elsevier should carefully reconsider this decision."
    Confidentiality and censorship erode the value of science
    Recent reviews of the GM food safety literature have found that research concluding that GM products were safe tended to come from industry and that research conducted by those with either financial or professional conflicts of interest was associated with outcomes favorable to the GM sector.

    In fact, it appears in our case that consequences of conflicts of interests in science go beyond divergence in scientific interpretations and also rely on unscientific practices: confidentiality and censorship.

    Transparency of, and access to, all the raw data obtained by companies and accepted by regulatory agencies (overall blood analyses of rats) as proof of safety for products, is an unavoidable first step to move forward in this debate. It is the only way in which the scientific community can enter the scientific discussion.

    This is why we republish our paper in an open access way, together with its raw data allowing debate about our results.

    This is not possible for the data used as a proof of safety for commercial authorizations. The Monsanto toxicological data on NK603 maize recently made public by EFSA is not in a statistically usable format and an agreement with Monsanto is requested before use.

    Authorization data 'clearly inadequate'
    Moreover, the data examined for Roundup authorizations are clearly inadequate.

    For instance, ANSES (French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety), confirmed to us in writing (January 2013) that there were no 2-year studies of Roundup in its whole formulation on animals, adding that there are a few studies of acute toxicity (a few days up to 3 weeks) without any blood tests.

    Instead, glyphosate, which is much less toxic than Roundup, is tested alone by Monsanto, in its reports to regulatory authorities.

    We strongly emphasize that data with implications for public health are not related to manufacturing patents and should not be kept confidential.

    A program of regulatory reform
    Removal of confidentiality claims on biosafety data is necessary to adhere to standard scientific procedures of quality assurance, to increase transparency, to minimize impacts of conflicts of interests, and ultimately to improve public confidence in GMOs.

    Moreover, in the regulatory assessment of GMOs, chemicals, and medicines, confidential tests are conducted by the applicant companies themselves, often in their own laboratories or in those of subcontractors.

    So the second step must be the building of new experiments for new or the most important products, by laboratories independent of the companies. They will be recruited by public tender, with compulsory transparency of the results.

    This public research will be funded by companies, at a level corresponding to their previous budget for regulatory testing, but managed independently of the companies. The protocols and results will be submitted to open and contradictory assessments. Thus, there will be no additional financial cost or time delay to the current system.

    At stake: public health, the environment, and the scientific process itself
    Such reforms will not only radically transform the understanding and knowledge of toxicology and science in general, but will radically reduce public health costs and promote trust in companies and science.

    This will move the world towards a sustainable development of products with low, if any, impacts on health and environment.

    The reason given to retract our paper - "inconclusiveness" - is unprecedented and violates the norms of scientific publishing. The decision to retract cannot be rationalized on any discernible scientific grounds.

    Censorship on research into the risks of a technology so critically entwined with global food safety undermines the value and the credibility of science.


    This article is a minimally edited version of the original paper published in the peer-reviewed, public access Journal Environmental Sciences Europe: 'Conflicts of interests, confidentiality and censorship in health risk assessment: the example of an herbicide and a GMO' by Gilles-Eric Séralini, Robin Mesnage, Nicolas Defarge and Joël Spiroux de Vendômois.

    References: Please refer to the original article for references which have been removed from this version.

    Also on The Ecologist:

    This is an Open Access article
    distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  12. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (30th June 2014), Cara (15th December 2015), Daughter of Time (29th July 2014), Deborah (ahamkara) (3rd July 2014), fourty-two (15th December 2015), Kristin (3rd July 2014), Sierra (27th July 2014), william r sanford72 (11th July 2014)

  13. Link to Post #7
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,899 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    GMO Insulin Causes Type 1 Diabetes in Type 2 Diabetics, Study Finds

    Posted on: Saturday, June 28th 2014 at 7:00 am
    Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder



    A groundbreaking new study finds synthetic (GMO) insulin is capable of rapidly producing type 1 diabetes in type 2 diabetics.

    Last year, we reported on the dangers of insulin therapy for type 2 diabetics, following the publication of a study comprised of almost 85,000 type 2 diabetic patients that found insulin monotherapy doubled their risk of all-cause mortality, in addition to significantly increasing their risk for diabetes-related complications and cancer. Insulin monotherapy resulted in:
    • 2.0 times more myocardial infarctions.
    • 1.7 time more major adverse cardiac events
    • 1.4 time more strokes
    • 3.5 times more renal complications
    • 2.1 time more neuropathy
    • 1.2 times more eye complications
    • 1.4 times more cancer
    • 2.2 times more deaths
    Now, a new study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism titled, "Insulin administration may trigger type 1 diabetes in Japanese type 2 diabetes patients with type 1 diabetes high-risk HLA class II and the insulin gene VNTR genotype," is shedding light on a possible explanation for why insulin treatment may accelerate morbidity and mortality in type 2 diabetics. The study revealed that giving genetically susceptible type 2 diabetes patients recombinant insulin can trigger their bodies to target their own insulin producing cells for autoimmune destruction, effectively producing 'double diabetes': type 1 and type 2, as a result.

    The Japanese study took 6 patients (4 men and 2 women) with type 2 diabetes, none of whom had previously received insulin therapy nor had markers for autoantibodies to their own insulin (e.g. GAD65). All patients were found to have the type 1 diabetes susceptibility gene known as type 1 diabetes high risk HLA class II (IDDM1), which is considered to play a role in up to 50% of type 1 diabetes cases, and the insulin gene VNTR genotype (IDDM2), believed to play a key role in susceptibility to type 2 diabetes.

    After recombinant insulin administration their blood glucose control deteriorated, and their own insulin producing beta cells – as measured by declining C-peptide levels (a marker for the production of natural insulin) – decreased insulin production to a deficiency levels commonly found in type 1 diabetes patients. The average time it took for the patients to develop full blown type 1 diabetes was 7.7 months, with one patient developing the condition within 1.1 months.

    Further tests revealed that the patients had antibodies against their own pancreatic islet cells (the cells responsible for producing insulin), insulin allergy or increased levels of insulin antibody. Additionally, 2 of 4 cases were found to have GAD-reactive and insulin peptide reactive Th1 cells, typical markers of autoimmunity induced type 1 diabetes.

    The researchers concluded from their findings:
    "The findings suggest that insulin administration may have triggered TIDM in patients with T2DM. IDDM1 and IDDM 2 as well as autoreactive T cells may contribute to the development of T1DM. Developing insulin-triggered T1DM if a patient's blood glucose control acutely deteriorates after insulin administration should be carefully considered."
    The researchers also pointed out that there are a number trials underway to produce vaccines containing insulin intended to induce a 'tolerogenic immune response' and therefore ameliorate autoimmune type 1 diabetes.[1] Clearly, however, their findings run contrary to this expectation, revealing that it is possible that introducing exogenous forms of insulin may stimulate the opposite reaction and induced autoimmunity against the hormone, or the cells in the pancreas responsible for producing it.


    Discussion: GMO Insulin Not the Same As Animal Derived Insulin

    A possible explanation for these results lies in the difference between today's synthetic insulin and insulin purified from animals such as pigs (porcine insulin), which is no longer available in countries like the U.S.

    Insulin was actually the first protein to be synthesized with recombinant DNA (GMO) technology in the late 1970s,[2] and today, products like Lantus (insulin glargine [rDNA origin] injection) dominate the market. According to Sanofi, Lantus' manufacturer their form is produced "by recombinant DNA technology utilizing a non-pathogenic laboratory strain of Escherichia coli (K12) as the production organism." Synthetic insulin is classified as an insulin analog that differs significantly from human insulin in its primary amino acid structure: "Insulin glargine differs from human insulin in that the amino acid asparagine at position A21 is replaced by glycine and two arginines are added to the C-terminus of the B-chain." Lantus' formulation also contains various 'inactive ingredients,' such as:
    • hydrochloric acid
    • sodium hydroxide (lye)
    • zinc
    • m-cresol (a coal tar derivative)
    • glycerol
    • polysorbate 20
    The simultaneous injection of these antigenic ingredients along with synthetic insulin could be responsible for hypersensitizing the immune system against insulin in the same way that inactive and adjuvant ingredients in vaccines induce exaggerated immune reactions against the 'active' vaccine antigen (e.g. the viral or bacterial antigen) which sometimes results in the immune system attacking self-structures (autoimmunity).

    Furthermore, synthetic insulin does not have the same conformational state – i.e. it does not assume the same complex folded form – of natural human insulin, or more closely related pig insulin. This presents a 'recognition' problem from the perspective of the immune system which may identify the foreign protein as 'other' generating acute or sustained autoimmune reactions to it as a result.

    [The structure of insulin.The left side is a space-filling model of the insulin monomer. On the right side is a ribbon diagram of the insulin hexamer (6 insulin molecules conjoined), believed to be the stored form. Source: Wikipedia]

    According to a 1993 paper on recombinant human insulin, "Bacterially expressed proteins normally lack any secondary structure or post-translational modifications" – a highly significant fact, considering that complex proteins such as hormones actually have four levels of folding complexity: primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary, all of which together determine the protein's natural structure and therefore its function. In fact, this complexity is so immense that Levinthal's paradox states a fully folded protein (i.e., one that has attained its native conformation) must pass through such a large number of degrees of freedom to reach its native state that there is not enough time in the universe for it to move through all possible configurations to the one it was designed by nature to assume. Obviously, if synthetic insulin is not capable of obtaining the same 3-dimensional structure as natural insulin, nor is modified post-translationally through epigenetic regulatory processes, it cannot behave in the same way as natural insulin in the body, and would likely be identified as 'other' by the immune system, if not also cellular insulin receptors.

    Research dating back to the early 1980s compared synthetic E. Coli derived insulin with porcine (pig) derived insulin in diabetic children and found that porcine insulin was more effective at lowering HbA1 values (a marker of damage associated with elevated blood sugar), superior at reducing fasting glucose concentrations, and less antibody reactive to insulin than synthetic insulin. [3] While pig derived insulin has its limitations, especially considering there are limits to how much can be produced, clearly it is more appropriate than synthetic versions if it is true that the latter is incapable of reproducing the same therapeutic outcome for diabetics.

    Natural Approaches To Diabetes Prevention and Treatment are the Future
    In a previous article on natural interventions for type 1 diabetes, 10 Natural Substances That Could Help Cure Type 1 Diabetes, we focused on the biomedical literature supporting the role of beta cell (insulin producing cell) regenerating foods and natural substances in addressing one of the root causes of type 1 diabetes.

    The future of medicine will look to identifying and removing the causes of conditions like diabetes, instead of employing patented synthetic drugs and synthetic replacement therapies (which feed the deficiency), palliatively -- especially considering the new research indicating they actually make the patient far worse. Also, diet is the #1 factor in the pathogenesis of most chronic conditions that afflict the modern world; more specifically, the consumption of foods or food-like products that deviate from our ancestral diets generate the physiological conditions that produce disease in the first place. Addressing the dietary causes and incompatibilities and many 'diseases' decelerate and may even regress.

    For additional research on the topic of regenerative medicine and diabetes you can consult the articles 6 Bodily Tissues that Can Be Regenerated Through Nutrition and Diabetes: An Entirely Preventable and Reversible Disease. Or, visit our Health Guide on Blood Sugar Disorders.

    Also, if you missed the author's presentation on "What Medical Science Says About Reversing Diabetes" for the Reversing Diabetes World Summit, the all access digital package is still available here.


    REFERENCES
    [1] Harrison LC, et al Antigen-based vaccination and prevention of type 1 diabetes. Curr Diab Rep . 2013;13:616–623.

    [2] Beta Cell Biology Consortium, The Structure of Insulin

    [3] N P Mann, et al Human insulin and porcine insulin in the treatment of diabetic children: comparison of metabolic control and insulin antibody production. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). Nov 26, 1983; 287(6405): 1580–1582.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  14. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (30th June 2014), Cara (15th December 2015), conk (30th June 2014), Daughter of Time (29th July 2014), fourty-two (15th December 2015), Ikarusion (28th May 2015), Kristin (3rd July 2014), Sierra (27th July 2014)

  15. Link to Post #8
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,899 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    The Gluten Intolerance Epidemic: Monsanto’s Hegelian Dialectic Dream Come True

    Melissa Melton
    The Daily Sheeple
    June 30th, 2014


    Just last month, researchers published a new research paper in the Journal of Cereal Science (tagline: “Cereal Science for Food Security, Nutrition and Sustainability”) all about how genetic engineering could save the millions of people suffering daily from gluten intolerance. Gluten-free foods have now become a $4 billion dollar industry.

    More and more people are realizing every day that they aren’t as sick as they thought they were — that a reaction to the gluten from wheat found in thousands of products on their grocery store shelves is actually damaging the lining of their intestine, rendering them unable to absorb nutrients properly, which manifests all sorts of horrible health issues.

    Gluten intolerance and celiac disease can actually present as over 200 different symptoms. For example, did you know that gluten sensitivities can show up as:
    • Abnormal Blurry Vision
    • Abdominal Pain and Distention
    • Abortion (Spontaneous)
    • Addison’s Disease
    • Adenocarcinoma of the Intestines
    • ADHD
    • Alopecia (hair loss)
    • Anemia (caused by nutrient deficiencies – Iron, Folate, B-12, B-6, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Copper)
    • Angina Pectoris (chest pain/ pressure)
    • Anorexia
    • Antiphospholipid Syndrome
    • Anxiety
    • Aortic Vasculitis
    • Apathy
    • Apthous Ulceers and Canker Sores
    • Arthritis – Juvenile Rheumatoid, Enteropathic, Psoriatic, Rheumatoid
    • Asthma
    • Ataxia
    • Atherosclerosis
    • Autism and other learning disorders
    • Autoimmune Hepatitis
    • Biliary Cirrhosis
    • Bitot’s Spots
    • Bleeding Gums
    • Blepharitis
    • Blood in the Stool
    • Bone Fractures
    • Bone Pain
    • Bronchiectasis
    • Bronchoalveolitis
    • Cachexia
    • Cataracts
    • Cardiomegaly
    • Cardiomyopathy
    • Cerebral Perfusion Abnormalities
    • CFS
    • Cheilosis
    • Cholangitis (gall bladder)
    • Chronic Constipation
    • Chorea
    • Coagulation Abnormalities
    • Coronary Artery Disease
    • Crohn’s Disease
    • Cutaneous Vasculitis
    • Cystic Fibrosis
    • Delayed Puberty
    • Dementia
    • Depression
    • Dermatitis
    • Dermatitis Herpetiformis
    • Dermatomyositis
    • Diabetes Mellitus Type 1
    • Diarrhea
    • Down Syndrome
    • Dysmenorrhea
    • Epilepsy
    • Erythema Nodosum
    • Failure to Thrive
    • Gastric Bloating
    • Glossitis
    • Grave’s Disease
    • Growth Retardation
    • H. Pylori Infection
    • Heartburn
    • Hives
    • Hypoglycemia
    • Hypogonadism
    • Hypospenism
    • Infertility
    • IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome)
    • Impotence
    • Insomnia
    • Keratomalacia
    • Lactose Intolerance
    • Loss of Smell
    • Lymphoma
    • Malnutrition and Nutritional Deficiencies
    • Melanoma
    • Mental Retardation
    • Menopaus (early)
    • Migraine Headaches
    • Multiple Sclerosis
    • Muscle Wasting
    • Myopathy
    • NAFL
    • Non Hodgkin Lymphoma
    • Nose Bleeds (Spontaneous)
    • Obesity
    • Osteomalacia
    • Osteoporosis
    • Osteopenia
    • Pancreatic Insufficiency
    • Parkinson’s Disease
    • Parathyroid Carcinoma
    • PMS
    • Polyglandular Syndrome
    • Polymyositis
    • Psoriasis
    • Scleroderma
    • Secondary Food Allergy Response
    • Short Stature
    • Sjogren’s Syndrome
    • SLE
    • Small Cell Esophageal Cancer
    • Spina Bifida
    • Steatorrhea
    • Thrombocytopenia
    • Thyroiditis (Hypothyroidism)
    • Tremors
    • Ulceractive Colitis
    • UTI
    • Vaginitis
    • Vomiting
    • Vitiligo
    And no, that’s sadly not all.

    Due to gluten’s ability to render a sensitive person unable to properly absorb their nutrients, it’s also been tagged for a multitude of reproductive issues and cancer which is on the rise.

    While organizations such as one in 133 have sprung up around this issue, figures show that at least 18 million Americans are sensitive to gluten (meaning they experience negative health symptoms when they eat it) and another 3 million suffer from full-blown Celiac’s Disease, which is an extreme form of gluten sensitivity that can be deadly (although all of it can ultimately be deadly).

    Those numbers are conservative at the very best, however, considering

    a) they are from 2011 and;

    b) it’s a fact that some people don’t show any hardcore symptoms at all

    ... totally leading them to believe they suffer from something other than gluten intolerance and the resultant nutrient deficiency that follows.

    Recently, research has come forward to suggest that it’s the main ingredient glyphosate in Big Agra giant Monsanto’s worldwide best-seller Roundup that is potentially behind the gluten intolerance epidemic we’re seeing today:
    Quote “Here, we propose that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide, Roundup®, is the most important causal factor in this epidemic.

    “Fish exposed to glyphosate develop digestive problems that are reminiscent of celiac disease. Celiac disease is associated with imbalances in gut bacteria that can be fully explained by the known effects of glyphosate on gut bacteria.

    “Characteristics of celiac disease point to impairment in many cytochrome P450 enzymes, which are involved with detoxifying environmental toxins, activating vitamin D3, catabolizing vitamin A, and maintaining bile acid production and sulfate supplies to the gut.

    “Glyphosate is known to inhibit cytochrome P450 enzymes. Deficiencies in iron, cobalt, molybdenum, copper, and other rare metals associated with celiac disease can be attributed to glyphosate’s strong ability to chelate these elements…

    “Glyphosate residues in wheat and other crops are likely increasing recently due to the growing practice of crop desiccation [drying] just prior to the harvest. We argue that the practice of “ripening” sugar cane with glyphosate may explain the recent surge in kidney failure among agricultural workers in Central America. We conclude with a plea to governments to reconsider policies regarding the safety of glyphosate residues in foods.” (source)
    Monsanto also began producing genetically modified glyphosate tolerant sorghum in the last decade, which is used in many of the gluten-free foods that make up that $4 billion gluten-free food market and which Monsanto mentions on its website “is an excellent substitute for wheat for those who cannot tolerate gluten.” So what now?

    Gluten sensitivities are spreading throughout modern society like cancer, and glyphosate is everywhere these days. We’re using more glyphosate now than at any other time since it was invented, and that figure is not set to lessen any time soon with the continued proliferation of Monsanto’s glyphosate-resistant crops all over the world.

    Well, the “answer” the scientific community has come up with is…you guessed it…more GMO. One of the key components of the research paper first mentioned above is the creation of a transgenic approach:
    Quote Their report acknowledges that creating strains of wheat with reduced gluten toxicity is difficult using conventional breeding methods, and that genetic modification, in particular a technology called RNA interference (RNAi), hold the greatest promise in reducing or ‘silencing’ the gluten proteins in wheat and other cereals.

    Such technology allows researchers to develop gluten-free wheat strains by adjusting the gluten fractions toxic to those with celiac disease. They acknowledge that their efforts could face resistance fueled by global concerns around genetically modified foods.

    They also note that current and prior genetic modification efforts have not produced products with tangible benefits to the consumer. Rather, the main beneficiaries of such efforts have been large companies and/or farmers. (source)
    So you see, we need genetic modification to save us from the burgeoning gluten intolerance issue! Well, who better to save us than global genetic modification giant Monsanto who is already in the process of testing a genetically modified strain of wheat as we speak?
    Quote Indeed, Monsanto has actually spent the better part of a decade-and-a-half researching GMO wheat. The company began field testing a variety starting in 1998, but suspended operations in 2005 after determining that a super-wheat strain wasn’t quite ready to be launched.
    See how that works?
    Problem: glyphosate proliferation.
    Reaction: widespread gluten-intolerance.
    Solution: GMO wheat.
    Diabolical, no?


    Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

    Contributed by Melissa Melton of The Daily Sheeple.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Cara (15th December 2015), Daughter of Time (29th July 2014), Kristin (3rd July 2014), Sierra (27th July 2014), william r sanford72 (11th July 2014)

  17. Link to Post #9
    United States Moderator (on Sabbatical) Deborah (ahamkara)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd May 2010
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    461
    Thanks
    4,038
    Thanked 2,795 times in 417 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Thanks for the info on this thread. The GMO infiltration into the American diet is proceeding at an alarming rate. When communities try to put initiatives in place to label GMO foods, millions of dollars flood in from Monsanto et.al. to defeat labeling attempts. It is possible to avoid GMO foods but it takes diligence. It's nearly impossible to eat at restaurants, or while traveling. It is also awkward at friend's houses, barbecues, social functions, etc. I avoid ALL soy, corn, canola, wheat and non organic fruits and vegetables. I do not eat factory farmed (GMO fed) beef, chicken or pork as well as dairy or eggs from factory farmed animals.( I'm not a vegetarian). It takes a bit of time and energy, but the results in terms of health and well being are more than worth it. It is one battle that I think many of us can fight and win - keep talking and spreading information, such as on this thread and eventually, many (not all) people will recognize threat. Thanks.

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Deborah (ahamkara) For This Post:

    Cara (15th December 2015), Hervé (3rd July 2014), Kristin (3rd July 2014), william r sanford72 (22nd August 2014)

  19. Link to Post #10
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    22nd April 2014
    Age
    34
    Posts
    84
    Thanks
    108
    Thanked 375 times in 74 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Pesticides is hardly a problem that only extends to GMO's and processed food...

    Take it from someone who has a legitimate Chemical sensitivity, I can no longer eat Organic food without an apparent reaction becoming obvious shortly thereafter. It was not always so even a few years ago.

    I'm not sure what exactly they're spraying on the food, but it isn't much better than what's being sprayed on conventional crops. Interestingly enough, Big-agri. corps continually buy up all the Organic farms which I'm sure ties into the continued adulteration of what was once a much more preferable option. It is still preferable, but one questions how much it's worth with the extra price tag and continuing lessening of quality.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BlueMuffin For This Post:

    Cara (15th December 2015), Hervé (4th July 2014)

  21. Link to Post #11
    Avalon Member Sidney's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th April 2010
    Location
    down the Rabbit Hole
    Posts
    5,040
    Thanks
    14,238
    Thanked 20,922 times in 4,417 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    It is becoming a reality that only those who are able to grow their own food will life a long prosperous life.

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sidney For This Post:

    Cara (15th December 2015), Hervé (4th July 2014)

  23. Link to Post #12
    United States Moderator (on Sabbatical) Deborah (ahamkara)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd May 2010
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    461
    Thanks
    4,038
    Thanked 2,795 times in 417 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    The control of food is one of the critical pillars of a controlled, global fascist society. Being healthy and clear is already a challenge - food, water, fluoride, chemtrails and electronic pollution all serve to dull and stupefy the population, leading to extreme apathy and depression. Add this to the media and screen time (just take a look at any public space, humans are unable to resist the urge to stare at their cell phones - which has become another form of mental enslavement). In the past, personal enlightenment was seen as a noble quest and understood to be a worthwhile goal. Now, I fear, simply being healthy and alert requires constant effort. I am glad to read hear that others are working to regain their natural birthright. My own natural vitality and energy as well as discernment is much higher when I control what I eat and consume. The next step, is indeed, my own personal garden, although in the northern climates this is a problem. Peace.

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Deborah (ahamkara) For This Post:

    Cara (15th December 2015), Hervé (4th July 2014), Sierra (27th July 2014), william r sanford72 (22nd August 2014)

  25. Link to Post #13
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,261
    Thanks
    47,755
    Thanked 116,543 times in 20,693 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Why Monsanto Will Never Rule the Food World
    http://nutiva.com/monsanto-will-never-rule-food-world/
    Quote published by THE NUTIVA TEAM on JUNE 26, 2014 ·
    The Three-Prong Movement That’s Stopping the Beast in Its Tracks
    by John W. Roulac

    [Originally published in Green Money Journal]

    john_lake-webThe issue of how we grow and process our food, while it’s always been important, is now a hot topic both at the kitchen table and on Wall Street. From the recent scandal about a chemical used in yoga mats being found in Subway bread to the rising awareness of GMOs and demands to label their presence in foods, the public is fast awakening to the need for safe, whole, natural nourishment.

    In early May 2014, the stock price of Whole Foods Market (WFM) dropped about 20 percent in 24 hours, based largely on fears that Walmart and other grocery giants will overtake WFM’s share of organic food sales. The number of equity funds looking to invest in the next Annie’s or Clif Bar is astounding. Astute investors now understand that food impacts not just waistlines but bottom lines.

    The elephant in the room is that agriculture, not transportation, is globally the greatest contributor to greenhouse gases—an issue that gets glossed over by Al Gore and 350.org alike. The media, whether in the recent New York Times food reportage or in the May 2014 National Geographic cover story on “The New Food Revolution,” all fail to mention the three most pressing food issues: the climate change connection; the vast subsidies to corn, soy, and wheat; and the massive increase in the use of Monsanto Roundup with its human health and ecosystem impacts.

    Central to the conversation are the questions How do we grow our food in a more sustainable way? and Who decides? Should America lead the world in turning over our heritage of ancestral seeds to Monsanto or DuPont for them to patent as intellectual property? It’s becoming ever more widely known that each firm has a long history of making lethal war chemicals, creating toxic manufacturing sites that leak carcinogens into disadvantaged communities everywhere, and influencing the EPA, USDA, Congress, and the White House so that decisions made—such as the recently passed Farmer Assurance Provision (widely called by its critics the “Monsanto Protection Act”)—favor biotech.

    The recent good news is that, on May 8, 2014, per a law signed by Governor Peter Shumlin, Vermont became the first U.S. state to mandate the labeling of foods made with genetically modified organisms. The Grocery Manufactures Association (GMA) has challenged the new law in court in what is expected to be an epic legal battle of the people vs. corporations. Supporting members of GMA include Starbucks, Kellogg’s, and General Mills.

    The Three Ways That Monsanto Is Being Defeated

    In spite of Monsanto’s death grip on the food system, important progress is being made in three key areas: (1) public education via social media, leading to (2) wiser food choices and(3) more sustainable investments.

    All great movements begin at a grassroots level. Think of the civil rights sea change in the 1960s: the government acted to pass the civil rights bill only after the people had reached a tipping point about racial injustice. Having started in a similar grassroots fashion, the organic food movement is now well on its way to changing the food system worldwide.

    Yet Monsanto and Big Ag are much better at crafting propaganda than were the bigots of the 1960s. The three biggest lies: that GMOs will feed the world, that organic agriculture can coexist with GMOs, and that Roundup-tainted GMO foods have been proven safe.

    Although tens of millions of Americans might not understand all the complexities, they have a gut sense that something is very wrong with our food system, and little faith that Monsanto should be in charge of a baby’s nourishment. They can’t help but wonder how much Monsanto herbicide content in a mother’s breast milk is safe.

    Cheerios Go Non-GMO
    Cheerios Go Non-GMO

    Some of the biggest news in the food industry this year is the General Mills conversion of Cheerios to a non-GMO cereal. This cultural milestone signals not only the swelling consumer exodus from industrial GMO foods, but also the rise in the use of social media by foodies to educate the public.

    The Cheerios conversion is representative of a broad and radical trend in the entire North American food industry, as exemplified by last year’s announcement from Whole Foods Market that GMO foods and supplements must be labeled by 2018—a revelation that the non-GMO movement was becoming big business.

    The GMO Inside coalition (of which I’m co-founder and co-chair) had begun to target Cheerios, in part because General Mills, was a big funder of “no” on California’s Prop 37, the failed right-to-know labeling campaign. In subsequent months, GMO Inside got 50 thousand anti-GMO comments placed on the Cheerios Facebook wall.

    The startling General Mills announcement was the result of the strongest adverse media coverage in the history of GMOs. And in early 2014, Post Foods announced it was rolling out a non-GMO Grape-Nuts cereal.

    Tens of millions are now realizing the stakes of turning over the food supply to a cabal of war-chemical giants that also includes Bayer and Syngenta. In the wake of the Cheerio’s changeover, Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, Smuckers Jam, Land O’Lakes, and even Starbucks lattes are caught up in an epic fight for public opinion, with Monsanto and friends on one side and the real food movement on the other.

    Rain
    How alarmingly efficient our industrialized food system has become! Roundup is now in the rainwater that falls from the heavens, and in the blood and urine of newborn babies. Not a moment too soon, our society is waking up, smelling the Roundup, and choose life-affirming foods grown in a way that honors all the generations to come.

    The hippy roots of the nascent organic food movement in the 1970s and ’80s held a vision of a revitalized food system—one that devoutly honors the health of the soil. Today’s devoted organic farmers realize that a healthy society must start with healthy soils.

    Americans vote at every meal for their preferred version of a food system. Cost is an issue, largely due to the giant subsidies paid to the GMO industrial-ag corn, soy, wheat, and sugar beets used for cheap junk foods.

    GMO Inside’s latest campaign targets Starbucks’ “Monsanto Latte,” due to the fact that their milk is sourced from cows fed GMOs and injected with antibiotics on factory farms. GMO Insiders are also directing their efforts against the factory-farmed “Monsanto butter” produced by Land O’Lakes and Alta Dena Dairy.

    Social media has become an effective tool in the creation of a better food system.

    A Monsanto Stock Plunge

    An Iowa-based group, Food Democracy Now, is calling for all citizens who invest in mutual foods to close their account if their fund is invested in Monsanto. More details at http://bit.ly/1ozgKJo.

    “Already, the phone lines at Fidelity, Vanguard, and State Street have been ringing off the hook as thousands have reported calling their financial advisors and discovering that they have inadvertently owned shares of Monsanto’s stock,” comments Dave Murphy at Food Democracy Now. “Unfortunately, if you have a retirement fund, a 401K, or mutual funds you could be profiting from Monsanto’s toxic products.” The movement is aiming for an unprecedented stock plunge for Monsanto.


    According to Murphy, Food Democracy Now’s prime reasons for targeting Monsanto include the following: “As the manufacturer of Agent Orange, DDT, PCPs, and dioxin, Monsanto’s toxic legacy of harm to the environment and human health is without parallel. Now Monsanto owns patents on life and is genetically engineering the food that we eat. In the past two years alone, Monsanto has helped fund massive misinformation campaigns to the tune of $70 million to defeat GMO labeling.”

    Connecting Carbon, Climate Change, and Food

    In our efforts to reduce carbon emissions, it’s vital that we reduce the demand for coal, oil, and fracking via wind and solar systems and plug-in hybrids. From the Tesla Company to First Solar, exciting work is being done.

    What’s not well understood about climate change is how agriculture is both the number one problem and the number one solution. As we race past carbon dioxide concentrations of 380 parts per million, not only is our atmosphere being overloaded with CO2. The dirty little secret is that the oceans are becoming the carbon sink.

    While people debate whether the planet is getting hotter or storms stronger due to climate change, we know for a fact that the oceans are getting very acidic. Not one scientist—not even one on the payroll of the Koch brothers—can refute the fact of the oceanic pH fall. Fast-forward another two or three decades and this will have led to a massive fish and coral reef die-off.

    The solution is simple, and already at our fingertips. We need to become carbon farmers, or the customers of carbon farmers. This means ending the use of synthetic fertilizers and toxic pesticides and growing via the organic methods that build healthy soils. Mainly it means moving from CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) to pasture-based systems for raising chickens, pigs, and cows. In the process, we’ll lock the massive amounts of atmospheric carbon atoms into the top six inches of our planet’s soil.

    This is no pipe dream, but it will require continuance of the major shift in consumer habits that’s already gaining speed. That is, choosing grass-fed meats, with their much healthier omega-3 levels, over CAFO meats. And reducing our overall meat consumption by 50 percent or more is vital. Already many meat eaters are cutting back their total consumption by half or two-thirds and choosing to eat only pastured meats. We need to keep moving away from the carbon-centric, GMO-based industrial farming that releases vast amounts of greenhouses gases into the environment.

    The United States also needs to restore the domestic farming of hemp, which locks carbon from the air into its fibrous stalks. Hemp fiber can be grown for construction (it’s more energy-efficient in walls than are wood–based walls), auto parts (it’s lighter in weight than fiberglass, and thus more fuel-efficient), and many other uses.

    Another resource is Biochar, a name for charcoal when it’s used for particular purposes, especially as a soil amendment and it also holds great promise as a new tool for carbon farmers. Biochar is being seen as a possible approach to carbon sequestration to produce negative carbon dioxide emissions.

    Finally, I am including this link to a recent article from Judith Schwartz on Yale’s Environment 360 website “Soil as a Carbon Storehouse: A New Weapon in the Climate Fight?” It looks at the degradation of soils from unsustainable agriculture and other development, which has released billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere. But new research shows how effective land restoration could play a major role in sequestering CO2 and slowing climate change. Read more at http://bit.ly/1j4lTZv.

    In closing, to secure and ensure a vital and livable world, we need to keep shifting from Monsanto-style industrialized farming to the wisdom and foresight of such positive approaches as Biochar. Central to the implementation of this new food system will be the crop rotation, soil-building practices, and pasture systems that are the basis of sustainable organic foods.

    ABOUT JOHN
    John W. Roulac founded Nutiva in 1999 to create a food system that nourishes people and the planet. As a challenger of the industrial food system, he is a strong advocate for hemp agriculture, GMO labeling, organic farming, and healthy food for all. Through his leadership, Nutiva has been named one of Inc. Magazine’s fastest-growing food companies in America for five consecutive years. He has founded four nonprofit groups, including GMO Inside and the Nutiva Nourish Foundation, which donates 1 percent of Nutiva’s sales to support sustainable agriculture and other environmental programs. John is the author of four books, including Backyard Composting and Hemp Horizons: The Comeback of the World’s Most Promising Plant.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  26. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Cara (15th December 2015), fourty-two (15th December 2015), Hervé (6th July 2014), Sierra (31st July 2014), william r sanford72 (6th July 2014)

  27. Link to Post #14
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,261
    Thanks
    47,755
    Thanked 116,543 times in 20,693 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Monsanto's Herbicide Linked to Fatal Kidney Disease Epidemic: Could It Topple the Company?
    Truthout | News Analysis
    Thursday, 10 July 2014
    By Jeff Ritterman, M.D.,
    http://truth-out.org/news/item/24876...lBSek.facebook

    Quote Also see: Dahr Jamail |
    Salvadoran Farmers Successfully Oppose the Use of Monsanto Seeds
    Monsanto's herbicide Roundup has been linked to a mysterious fatal kidney disease epidemic that has appeared in Central America, Sri Lanka and India.
    For years, scientists have been trying to unravel the mystery of a chronic kidney disease epidemic that has hit Central America, India and Sri Lanka. The disease occurs in poor peasant farmers who do hard physical work in hot climes. In each instance, the farmers have been exposed to herbicides and to heavy metals. The disease is known as CKDu, for Chronic Kidney Disease of unknown etiology. The "u" differentiates this illness from other chronic kidney diseases where the cause is known. Very few Western medical practitioners are even aware of CKDu, despite the terrible toll it has taken on poor farmers from El Salvador to South Asia.
    Dr. Catharina Wesseling, the regional director for the Program on Work and Health (SALTRA) in Central America, which pioneered the initial studies of the region's unsolved outbreak, put it this way, "Nephrologists and public health professionals from wealthy countries are mostly either unfamiliar with the problem or skeptical whether it even exists."
    Dr. Wesseling was being diplomatic. At a 2011 health summit in Mexico City, the United States beat back a proposal by Central American nations that would have listed CKDu as a top priority for the Americas.
    David McQueen, a US delegate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who has since retired from the agency, explained the US position.
    "The idea was to keep the focus on the key big risk factors that we could control and the major causes of death: heart disease, cancer and diabetes. And we felt, the position we were taking, that CKD was included."
    The United States was wrong. The delegates from Central America were correct. CKDu is a new form of illness. This kidney ailment does not stem from diabetes, hypertension or other diet-related risk factors. Unlike the kidney disease found in diabetes or hypertension, the kidney tubules are a major site of injury in CKDu, suggesting a toxic etiology.

    CKDu is now the second leading cause of mortality among men in El Salvador. This small, densely populated Central American country now has the highest overall mortality rate from kidney disease in the world. Neighboring Honduras and Nicaragua also have extremely high rates of kidney disease mortality. In El Salvador and Nicaragua, more men are dying from CKDu than from HIV/AIDS, diabetes, and leukemia combined. In one patch of rural Nicaragua, so many men have died that the community is called "The Island of the Widows."
    In addition to Central America, India and Sri Lanka have been hit hard by the epidemic. In Sri Lanka, over 20,000 people have died from CKDu in the past two decades. In the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, more than 1,500 have been treated for the ailment since 2007. Given the rarity of dialysis and kidney transplantation in these regions, most who suffer from CKDu will die from their kidney disease.

    In an investigation worthy of the great Sherlock Holmes, a scientific sleuth from Sri Lanka, Dr. Channa Jayasumana, and his two colleagues, Dr. Sarath Gunatilake and Dr. Priyantha Senanayake, have put forward a unifying hypothesis that could explain the origin of the disease. They reasoned that the offending agent had to have been introduced into Sri Lanka within the last 30 years, since the first cases appeared in the mid-1990s. The chemical also needed to be able to form stable complexes with the metals in hard water and to act as a shield, protecting those metals from metabolism by the liver. The compound would also need to act as a carrier and be able to deliver the metals to the kidney.
    We know that political changes in Sri Lanka in the late 1970s led to the introduction of agrochemicals, especially in rice farming. The researchers looked for likely suspects. Everything pointed to glyphosate. This herbicide is used in abundance in Sri Lanka. Earlier studies had shown that once glyphosate binds with metals, the glyphosate-metal complex can last for decades in the soil.
    Glyphosate was not originally designed for use as an herbicide. Patented by the Stauffer Chemical Company in 1964, it was introduced as a chelating agent. It avidly binds to metals. Glyphosate was first used as a descaling agent to clean out mineral deposits from the pipes in boilers and other hot water systems.
    It is this chelating property that allows glyphosate to form complexes with the arsenic, cadmium and other heavy metals found in the groundwater and soil in Central America, India and Sri Lanka. The glyphosate-heavy metal complex can enter the human body in a variety of ways. The complex can be ingested, inhaled or absorbed through the skin. Glyphosate acts like a Trojan horse, allowing the bound heavy metal to avoid detection by the liver, since the glyphosate occupies the binding sites that the liver would normally latch onto. The glyphosate-heavy metal complex reaches the kidney tubules, where the high acidity allows the metal to break free of the glyphosate. The cadmium or arsenic then damages the kidney tubules and other parts of the kidneys, ultimately resulting in kidney failure and, most often, death.
    At this point, this elegant theory advanced by Dr. Jayasumana and colleagues can only be considered hypothesis-generating. Further scientific studies will need to confirm the hypothesis that CKDu is indeed due to glyphosate-heavy metal toxicity to the kidney tubules. For the present, this may be the best explanation for the epidemic.
    Another explanation is that heat stress may be the cause, or a combination of heat stress and chemical toxicity. Monsanto, of course, is standing behind glyphosate and disputing the claim that it plays any role whatsoever in the genesis of CKDu.
    While the exact cause of CKDu has not been proven conclusively, both Sri Lanka and El Salvador have invoked the precautionary principle. El Salvador banned glyphosate in September 2013 and is currently looking for safer alternatives. Sri Lanka banned glyphosate in March of this year because of concerns about CKDu.

    Glyphosate has had an interesting history. After its initial use as a descaling agent by Stauffer Chemical, scientists at Monsanto discovered its herbicidal qualities. Monsanto patented glyphosate as an herbicide in the 1970s, and has marketed it as "Roundup" since 1974. Monsanto retained exclusive rights until 2000, when the patent expired. By 2005, Monsanto's glyphosate products were registered in more than 130 countries for use in more than 100 crops. As of 2013, glyphosate was the world's largest selling herbicide.
    Glyphosate's popularity has been due, in part, to the perception that it is extremely safe. The Monsanto website claims:
    Glyphosate binds tightly to most types of soil so it is not available for uptake by roots of nearby plants. It works by disrupting a plant enzyme involved in the production of amino acids that are essential to plant growth. The enzyme, EPSP synthase, is not present in humans or animals, contributing to the low risk to human health from the use of glyphosate according to label directions.
    Because of glyphosate's reputation for both safety and effectiveness, John Franz, who discovered glyphosate's usefulness as a herbicide, received the National Medal of Technology in 1987. Franz also received the American Chemical Society's Carothers Award in 1989, and the American Section of the Society of Chemical Industry's Perkins Medal in 1990. In 2007, he was inducted into the United States' Inventor's Hall of Fame for his work on the herbicide. Roundup was named one of the "Top 10 Products That Changed the Face of Agriculture" by the magazine Farm Chemicals in 1994.
    Not everyone agrees with this perception of glyphosate's safety. The first "Roundup resistant" GMO crops, soybeans, were introduced by Monsanto in 1996. The same year, the first glyphosate resistant weeds began to emerge. Farmers responded by using increasingly toxic herbicides to deal with the new super weeds that had developed glyphosate resistance.
    In addition to the concern about the emergence of super weeds, a study in rats demonstrated that low levels of glyphosate induced severe hormone-dependent mammary, hepatic, and kidney disturbances. Recently two activist groups, Moms Across America and Thinking Moms Revolution, asked the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to recall Monsanto's Roundup, citing a host of adverse health impacts in their children from the herbicide, including failure to thrive, leaky gut syndrome, autism and food allergies.
    Glyphosate is no ordinary herbicide. Besides being the most used herbicide on earth, it is also the central pillar of Monsanto's temple. Most of Monsanto's seeds, including soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, cotton, sugar beets and sorghum, are glyphosate resistant. As of 2009, Monsanto's Roundup (glyphosate) products, which include its GMO seeds, represented about half of Monsanto's yearly revenue. This reliance on glyphosate products makes Monsanto extremely vulnerable to research challenging the herbicide's safety.
    Glyphosate-resistant seeds are engineered to allow the farmer to drench his fields in the herbicide to kill off all of the weeds. The glyphosate resistant crop can then be harvested. But if the combination of glyphosate and the heavy metals found in the groundwater or the soil destroys the farmer's kidneys in the process, the whole house of cards falls apart. This may be what is happening now.
    An ugly confrontation has been unfolding in El Salvador. The US government has been pressuring El Salvador to buy GMO seeds from Monsanto rather than indigenous seeds from their own farmers. The US has threatened to withhold almost $300 million in aid unless El Salvador purchases Monsanto's GMO seeds. The GMO seeds are more expensive. They are not adapted to the Salvadoran climate or soil.
    The only "advantage" of Monsanto's GMO seeds is their glyphosate resistance. Now that glyphosate has been shown to be a possible, and perhaps likely, cause of CKDu, that "advantage" no longer exists.

    What is the message from the United States to El Salvador exactly? Perhaps the kindest explanation is that the United States is unaware that glyphosate may be the cause of the fatal kidney disease epidemic in El Salvador and that the government sincerely believes that the GMO seeds will provide a better yield. If so, a sad mixture of ignorance and arrogance is at the heart of this foreign policy blunder. A less kind interpretation would suggest that the government puts Monsanto's profits above concerns about the economy, environment and health of the Salvadorans. This view would suggest that a tragic mix of greed and callous disregard for the Salvadorans is behind US policy.
    Unfortunately, there is evidence to support the latter view. The United States seems to be completely behind Monsanto, regardless of any science questioning the safety of its products. Cables released by WikiLeaks show that US diplomats around the world are pushing GMO crops as a strategic government and commercial imperative. The cables also reveal instructions to punish any foreign countries trying to ban GMO crops.
    Whatever the explanation, pressuring El Salvador, or any country, to buy GMO seeds from Monsanto is a tragic mistake. It is foreign policy not worthy of America. Let's change it. Let's base our foreign and domestic policies on human rights, environmental stewardship, health and equity.
    Post script: After articles about the seed dispute appeared in the media, The New York Times reported that the United States has reversed its position and will stop pressuring El Salvador to buy Monsanto's seeds. Thus far, the aid money has not been released.
    Copyright, Truthout.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  28. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Cara (15th December 2015), fourty-two (15th December 2015), Hervé (14th July 2014), Sierra (31st July 2014), william r sanford72 (11th July 2014)

  29. Link to Post #15
    Avalon Member Sidney's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th April 2010
    Location
    down the Rabbit Hole
    Posts
    5,040
    Thanks
    14,238
    Thanked 20,922 times in 4,417 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Ultimately.......MonSatan not monsanto. Nothing else makes sense.

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to Sidney For This Post:

    Hervé (14th July 2014)

  31. Link to Post #16
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,899 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Monsanto/FDA: 2 crime families, trillion-dollar hustle

    Jul22, 2014 by Jon Rappoport
    www.nomorefakenews.com
    Quote “The propagandists who actually decide the content of mainstream news have done a bang-up job on Monsanto. They’ve made it seem that the science for and against GMO crops is a swamp of uncertainty no one can decipher. Therefore, leave it alone. Don’t step into it. This omits one stunning circumstance: exactly how GMO crops were permitted into the US food supply in the first place.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
    Perhaps you remember the Just-Label-It campaign. A number of activist groups petitioned the FDA for a federal regulation that would make labeling GMO food mandatory all across America.

    The petition amassed over a million signatures. But the FDA decided only 394 of these were legitimate, because all the others were electronically submitted in one document.

    Infuriating? Of course. But that was nothing.

    Imagine this. A killer is put on trial, and the jury, in a surprise verdict, finds him not guilty. Afterwards, reporters interview this killer. He says, “The jury freed me. It’s up to them. They decide. That’s what justice is all about.”

    Then the press moves along to members of the jury, who say: Well, we had to take the defendant’s word. He said he was innocent, so that’s what we ruled.

    That’s an exact description of the FDA and Monsanto partnership.

    When you cut through the verbiage that surrounded the introduction of GMO food into America, you arrive at two key statements. One from Monsanto and one from the FDA, the agency responsible for overseeing, licensing, and certifying new food varieties as safe.

    Quoted in the New York Times Magazine (October 25, 1998, “Playing God in the Garden”), Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, famously stated: “Monsanto shouldn’t have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

    From the Federal Register, Volume 57, No.104, “Statement of [FDA] Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” here is what the FDA had to say on this matter:

    “Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”

    The direct and irreconcilable clash of these two statements is no accident. It’s not a sign of incompetence or sloppy work or a mistake or a miscommunication. It’s a clear signal that the fix was in.

    No real science. No deep investigation. No convincing evidence of safety. Passing the buck back and forth was the chilling and arrogant strategy through which Pandora’s Box was pried opened and GMO food was let into the US food supply.

    In order for this titanic scam to work, the media had to cooperate. Reporters had to be a) idiots and b) sell-outs.

    With few exceptions, reporters and their editors let the story rest there, as a “he said-he said” issue. No sane principled journalist would have cut bait at that point, but who said mainstream reporters are sane or principled?

    Underneath the Monsanto-FDA buck-passing act, there was a conscious deal to give a free pass to GMO crops. This had nothing to do with science or health or “feeding the world.” It was about profits. It was also about establishing a new monopoly on food.

    Not only would big agribusiness dominate the planet’s food supply as never before, it would strengthen its stranglehold through patents on novel types of seeds which were technologically engineered.

    It’s very much like saying, “A cob of corn is not a plant, it’s a machine, and we own the rights to every one of those yellow machines.”

    How was Monsanto able to gather so much clout?

    There was one reason and one reason only. Putting the world’s food supply into fewer hands was, and is, a major item on the Globalist agenda. If it weren’t, the FDA-Monsanto scam would have been exposed in a matter of weeks or months.

    Major newspapers and television networks would have attacked the obvious con job like packs of wild dogs and torn it to pieces.

    But once the scam had been given a free pass, the primary corporate-government tactic was to accomplish a fait accompli, a series of events that was irreversible.

    In this case, it was about gene drift. From the beginning, it was well known that GMO plants release genes that blow in the wind and spread from plant to plant, crop to crop, and field to field. There is no stopping it.

    Along with convincing enough farmers to lock themselves into GMO-seed contracts, Monsanto bought up food-seed companies in order to engineer the seeds…and the gene-drift factor was the ace in the hole.

    Sell enough GMO seeds, plant enough GMO crops, and you flood the world’s food crops with Monsanto genes.

    Back in the 1990s, the prince of darkness, Michael Taylor, who has moved through the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto several times, and is now the czar of food safety at the FDA—Taylor said, with great conviction, that the GMO revolution was unstoppable; within a decade or two, an overwhelming percentage of food grown on planet Earth would be GMO.

    Taylor and others knew. They knew about gene drift, and they also knew that ownership of the world’s food, by a few companies, was a prime focus for Globalist kings who intended to feed the population through Central Planning and Distribution.

    –“We feed these people; we hold back food from those people; we send food there; we don’t send food here.”–

    Control food and water, and you hold the world in your hand.

    Here is evidence that, even in earlier days, Monsanto knew about and pushed for the Globalist agenda. Quoted by J. Flint, in his 1998 “Agricultural Giants Moving Towards Genetic Monopolism,” Robert Fraley, head of Monsanto’s agri-division, stated:
    Quote “What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of [Monsanto-purchased] seed companies. It’s really a consolidation of the entire food chain.”
    And as for the power of the propaganda in that time period, I can think of no better statement than the one made on January 25th, 2001, by the outgoing US Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman. As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Glickman said:
    Quote “What I saw generically on the pro-biotech [GMO] side was the attitude that the technology was good and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department [USDA]. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of these issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches.”
    Glickman reveals several things in these remarks: he was spineless; people at the Dept. of Agriculture were madly buying into the Monsanto cover story about feeding the world; and there had to be a significant degree of infiltration at his Agency.

    The last point is key. This wasn’t left to chance. You don’t get a vocal majority of Dept. of Agriculture personnel spouting the Monsanto propaganda merely because the fairy tale about feeding the world sounds so good. No, there are people working on the inside to promote the “social cause” and make pariahs out of dissenters.

    You need special background and training to pull that off. It isn’t an automatic walk in the park. This is professional psyop and intelligence work.

    I’ve done some investigation of various groups on both the left and the right, and I’ve seen some pros in action. They’re good. They know how to leverage ideas and slogans and ideals. They know how to defame opponents and find the right words to sink them. They know how to turn high-flying but vague words about “humanity” into moral imperatives.

    This isn’t rinky-dink stuff. To tune up bureaucrats and scientists, you have to have a background in manipulation. You have to know what you’re doing. You have to be able to build and sustain support, without giving your game away.

    Truth be told, governments are full of these pros, who will take any number of causes and turn them into what falsely sounds like good science, good government, good morality, all the while knowing that, on the far shore, sits the real prize: control.

    These psyop specialists are hired to help make overarching and planet-wide agendas come true, as populations are brought under sophisticated and pathological elites who care, for example, about feeding the world as much as a collector cares about paralyzing and pinning butterflies on a panel in a glass case.

    Here is David Rockefeller, writing in his 2003 Memoirs:
    Quote “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
    The Globalists play for keeps.

    Owning the food of the world is part of their strike-force action plan, and Monsanto is the technocratic arm of that plan.

    Meanwhile, the controlled press treats the whole sordid Monsanto/FDA story with its time-honored policy of “he said-he said.” This policy dictates that stories merely present both sides of a conflict without drawing conclusions.

    It applies across the board—except when it doesn’t. For example, for reasons too complex to go into here, the Washington Post decided to suspend its policy in the Watergate case. Woodward and Bernstein were assigned to investigate what was going on behind White House denials and obfuscations.

    The same thing could be done with Monsanto, and it would be far easier. The lies and crimes and cover-ups are everywhere. You could wear sunglasses and find them in the dark.

    The NY Times and the Washington Post could sell millions more papers on the back of the Monsanto story alone. It would be a bonanza for them. But no. They don’t care. They’d rather keep declining and losing readers. They’d rather die.

    Normally, a business doesn’t commit suicide, especially when it sees exactly how to resuscitate itself. But here we are dealing with an agenda which can’t be disturbed. Globalism, and its agri-techno partner, Monsanto, are creating a planetary future. Major media are part and parcel of that op. They are selling it.

    Even as their bottom lines erode, these newspapers and television networks have to stay on their present course. By pretending they’re reporting the real news, they’re giving the impression that Monsanto and the FDA are home free.

    Again, we aren’t talking about sloppy reporting or accidental omissions of fact or boggling incompetence or ignorance about science. We are talking about conscious intent to deceive.

    Yes, now and then the controlled media will release a troubling piece about Monsanto. But placement and frequency are everything. How often do these stories run? Do they run as the lead or do we find them on page 7? Are reporters assigned to keep pounding on a basic story and reveal more and more crimes? Does the basic story gather steam over the course of weeks and months?

    These are the decisions that make or break a story. In the case of Monsanto and the FDA, the decisions were made a long time ago.

    Part of every reporter’s training in how the real world works, if he has any ideals at all, is marching into his editor’s office with his hair on fire demanding to be given an assignment to expose a crime. The editor, knowing the true agenda of his newspaper or television network, tells the reporter:

    “We’ve already covered that.”

    “It’s old news.”

    “People aren’t interested in it.”

    “It’s too complicated.”

    “The evidence you’re showing me is thin.”

    “You’ll never get to the bottom of it.”

    “The people involved won’t talk to you.”

    And if none of those lies work, the editor might say, “If you keep pushing this, it would be bad for your career. You’ll lose access for other stories. You’ll be thought of as weird…”

    This is how the game works at ground level. But make no mistake about it, the hidden agenda is about protecting an elite’s op from exposure.

    If NBC, for example, gave its golden boy, Brian Williams, the green light, he would become an expert on Monsanto in three days. He’d become a tiger. He’d affect a whole set of morally outraged poses and send Monsanto down into Hell.

    Don’t misunderstand. Brian hasn’t been waiting to move in for the kill. But wind him up and point to a target and he’ll go there.

    However, no one at NBC in the executive offices will point him at Monsanto or the FDA.

    All the major reporters at news outlets and all the elite television anchors are really psyop specialists. It’s just that most of them don’t know it.

    One outraged major reporter who woke up and got out of the business put it to me this way: When he was in the game, he looked at the news as a big public restroom. His one guiding principle was: Don’t piss on your shoes. Pissing on your shoes was covering a story that was considered out of bounds. If you walked into the boss’s office, he’d look you up and down and see the telltale sign. He’d say, “Hey, you pissed on your shoes. Get out of here. You’re fired.”

    Jon Rappoport
    Last edited by Hervé; 23rd July 2014 at 09:47.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  32. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Cara (15th December 2015), Daughter of Time (29th July 2014), fourty-two (15th December 2015), Ikarusion (28th May 2015), Sierra (31st July 2014), StandingWave (6th August 2014), william r sanford72 (22nd August 2014)

  33. Link to Post #17
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,261
    Thanks
    47,755
    Thanked 116,543 times in 20,693 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Monsanto Ordered to Pay $93 Million to Small Town for Poisoning Citizens

    http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-o...ned-herbicide/

    Quote Monsanto Ordered to Pay $93 Million to Small Town for Poisoning Citizens
    by Christina Sarich
    July 25th, 2014


    Big wins can happen in small places. The West Virginia State Supreme Court finalized a big blow to the biotech giant Monsanto this month, finishing a settlement causing Monsanto to pay $93 million to the tiny town of Nitro, West Virginia for poisoning citizens with Agent Orange chemicals.

    The settlement was approved last year, but details were worked out only weeks ago as to how the funds were to be spent.

    The settlement will require Monsanto to do the following:



    $9 million will be spent to clean dioxin contaminated dust from 4500 homes.
    $21 million will be spent to test to see if people have been poisoned with dioxin.
    Citizens will be monitored for such poisoning for 30 years, not just a few months.
    An additional $63 million is to be allotted if additional tests for dioxin contamination testing is necessary.
    Anyone who lived in the Nitro area between Jan. 1, 1948, and Sept. 3, 2010 will be tested for dioxin. Although they must show proof they lived in the area, they will be eligible for testing even if they no longer live in Nitro.
    Former or present employees of Monsanto are not eligible for any of these benefits.
    An office will be set up to organize testing for Nitro citizens. The registration of participants is to be overlooked by Charleston attorney Thomas Flaherty, who was appointed by the court.
    Residents have a right to file individual suits against Monsanto if medical tests show they suffered physical harm due to dioxin exposure.
    Monsanto Produced Toxic Chemicals in Nitro

    Just how were Nitro citizens exposed to dioxin? Monsanto was producing the toxic herbicide Agent Orange in Nitro, and dioxin is a chemical byproduct of the substance. It is known to cause serious health conditions. The factory which produced Agent Orange was opened in Nitro in 1948 and remained in operation until 2004, even though usage of this herbicide in the past (in Vietnam and other Asian countries) was fatal to millions of citizens and the war veterans who were exposed to it.

    “There is no doubt that during and after the war, many Vietnamese absorbed this very toxic material [dioxin]. It is our belief from toxicological research and epidemiologicalstudies from many countries that this dioxin probably resulted in significant health effects in Vietnam.” – Arnold Schecter and John Constable

    “It’s been a real long haul,” attorney Stuart Calwell told The Charleston Gazette. Calwell represented Nitro area residents in a class action suit that prompted Monsanto to make the settlement.

    “The politics of dioxin has been bitterly debated since the Vietnam War, but … we know that there is a health issue there and hopefully people will get their houses cleaned and the risk will come to an end and those exposed in the past will have the benefit of keeping an eye on their health.”

    The people of Nitro still need to fill out a register to receive the benefits outlined in the settlement. Due to the pivotal nature of this landmark settlement, Nitro citizens need to participate as fully as possible to set a precedent for other class action suits that farmers and consumers of GMO foods around the world might wage against Monsanto in the future to finally take them down. If enough of us do it at once, then even their bloated coffers will finally be depleted, and we can enjoy a world without being poisoned to death.

    While this case did not involve glyphosate, another deadly toxin used in Monsanto herbicides such as RoundUp, its time will come soon.



    Other Popular Stories:
    Monsanto Pays 93 Million to Victims In Settlement
    Above the Law: Supreme Court Sides with Monsanto over Farmers in Patent Case
    Brief History: Monsanto Has Been A Merchant of Death for Decades
    Ingesting Poison – Dioxin Found to Cause Disease for over Three Generations
    White House, US Courts & EPA Shaft Veterans to Protect Monsanto
    Take Action: How to Deprive Monsanto of their $70 Million GMO Campaign Money


    Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-o...#ixzz38dGO9kBW
    Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  34. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Cara (15th December 2015), Hervé (29th July 2014), Sierra (31st July 2014), william r sanford72 (22nd August 2014)

  35. Link to Post #18
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,899 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    U.S. Government To Pull Foreign Aid In El Salvador For Refusing Monsanto Seeds

    July 26, 2014 by Arjun Walia.



    Governments do not dictate major policy, major multinational corporations do. We’ve seen this time and time again, and one of the best examples out there is Monsanto. This time, the United States government wants to force GMO seeds on El Salvadorian farmers.

    Encouraged by the U.S. Embassy, the Millennium Challenge Corporation had “granted” El salvador 277 million dollars to “improve El Salvador’s competitiveness and productivity in international markets.” This, however, would not come without certain commitments and obligations, which included a commitment to ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture’s procurement of corn and bean seed would “be consistent with the provisions of the CAFTA-DR( Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement).” (1)
    “We are asking the Government of EL Salvador to implement the procurement program for corn and bean seeds in a competitive, objective, and transparent manner that demonstrates to all stakeholders both EL Salvador’s commitment to the CAFTA-DR, as well as its commitment to good governance. Such principles are inherent in the provisions of the CAFTA-DR.” (1)
    Again, without these specific economic reforms the U.S. government will not provide El Salvador with the 277 million dollars in aid money through the MCC. What is happening here? The U.S. is seeking to spark economic growth in El Salvador through various policy reforms created and set up by Washington.What will this lead to? More pollution? More environmental degradation?

    Farmers across the country have united in order to stop this stipulation within this US aid package. Which again, indirectly requires the purchase of Monsanto genetically modified (GM) seeds.
    “Transnational companies have been known to provide expired seeds that they weren’t able to distribute elsewhere. We would like the US embassy and the misinformed media outlets to know more about the reality of national producers and recognize the food sovereignty of the country.” - Juan Joaquin Luna Vides, 45 year old Salvadoran farmer (2)
    Hundreds of other farmers have successfully produced high-quality seed that is adapted to the specific soil and climate conditions of their country. Using indigenous seeds simply makes more sense.

    If you didn’t know, Monsanto controls the majority of seeds all over the world. In India alone, thousands of farmers lost their livelihoods, and many farmers all over the world have filed lawsuits against Monsanto.
    “In defining seed as their creation and invention, corporations like Monsanto shape the Global Intellectual Property and Patent Laws so that they can prevent farmers from seed saving and sharing, forcing them into dependence on their patented GMO seeds.” - Dr. Vandana Shiva (source)
    The president of the El Salvadorian Center for Appropriate Technologies (CESTA) criticized the US negotiating position and says the country should back away from its demand.

    CESTA President Ricardo Navarro said that:
    “I would like to tell the U.S. Ambassador to stop pressuring the Government (of El Salvador) to buy ‘improved’ GM seeds. There is a harmful corporation on the planet called Monsanto…it is truly disturbing that the U.S. is trying to promote them.” (source)
    El Salvador has been taking leaps that other countries in South America have been taking, in September of 2013 they completely banned glyphosate, a chemical used in Monsanto’s Roundup pesticides along with dozens of other agricultural chemicals. Sri Lanka also recently banned it after citing a link to a deadly kidney disease (you can read more about that HERE). It’s also been linked to various diseases, including cancer. You can find out more about Glyphosate and links to studies HERE.

    In 2013, a Washington, DC-based watchdog group called “Food & Water Watch” released a report detailing how the US State Department issued directives to US embassies to promote biotech products and to be responsive to the concerns of the biotech industry. The report said:
    “Between 2007 and 2009, the State Department sent annual cables to ‘encourage the use of agricultural biotechnology,’ directing every diplomatic post worldwide to ‘pursue and active biotech agenda’ that promotes agricultural biotechnology, encourages the export of biotech crops and foods and advocated for pro-biotech policies and laws.” (source)
    WikiLeaks Cables
    Something like this might be considered economic warfare, it’s happened before. There are cables released by WikiLeaks that reveal the Bush administration developed ways to retaliate against Europe for refusing to use genetically modified seeds. (source 1) (source 2) (source 3) The US embassy in Paris advised Washington to start a military-style economic war against any European Union country that opposed GM crops.
    “The United States has aggressively pursued foreign policies in food and agriculture that benefit the largest seed companies. The U.S. State Department has launched a concerted strategy to promote agricultural biotechnology, often over the opposition of the public and government, to the near exclusion of other more sustainable, more appropriate agricultural policy alternatives. The U.S. State Department has also lobbied foreign governments to adopt pro-agricultural biotechnology policies and laws, operated a rigorous public relations campaign to improve the image of biotechnology and challenged common sense biotechnology safeguards and rules – even including opposing laws requiring the labelling of genetically engineered (GE) foods.” (source) (referenced by wikileaks on twitter, see rt news link)
    Final Comments
    As you can see, it’s not just the studies coming out year after year indicating that GM foods can be harmful to human health, it’s shady politics and other meanderings that clearly indicate something is up here. It’s great to see the power of activism working, as multiple countries around the world have banned GMOs and the pesticides that go with them. The Marches Against Monsanto the past two years have seen millions gather all over the world to oppose the major biotech giant.

    There are better ways to feed the world, organically. It’s possible and we have the resources to do so. Ask yourself, why aren’t we doing it?

    For more on this story, please read THIS article, written by award winning investigative journalist Dahr Jamail from truth-out.org.

    Sources:
    (1)http://sansalvador.usembassy.gov/news/2014/06/19.html

    (2)http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24811-el-salvadoran-farmers-successfully-oppose-the-use-of-monsanto-seeds

    http://rt.com/usa/165128-us-pressure...-monsanto-gmo/

    http://www.ibtimes.com/us-wants-forc...report-1623064

    All other sources are highlighted throughout the article.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  36. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Cara (15th December 2015), Daughter of Time (29th July 2014), fourty-two (15th December 2015), william r sanford72 (22nd August 2014)

  37. Link to Post #19
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,899 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    “Agri-terrorism”? Feds Shut Down Seed Library in Pennsylvania

    War on self-sufficiency intensifies
    By Paul Joseph Watson
    Global Research, August 04, 2014
    InfoWars



    In yet another example of the federal government’s war on self-sufficiency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture shut down a seed library in Pennsylvania, claiming that a system whereby residents could borrow heirloom seeds and then replace them at harvest time was a violation of the 2004 Seed Act, while a commissioner warned that such behavior could lead to “agri-terrorism.”

    When the Cumberland County Library System set up the facility at Mechanicsburg’s Joseph T. Simpson Public Library back in April, they thought it would be a useful way for locals to borrow seeds and replace them at the end of the growing season, encouraging residents to learn more about growing their own food and acquiring key self-sufficiency skills.

    Following in the footsteps of similar initiatives across the state, the library system was careful to check that they were doing everything by the book and not breaking any laws as well as meeting with the county extension office.

    However, the deadly threat posed by the seed library was soon made clear when the U.S. Department of Agriculture sent a letter telling the library system that they were in violation of the 2004 Seed Act, which regulates the selling of seeds (the library was not selling them), under the justification of preventing the growth of invasive plant species, cross-pollination and poisonous plants.

    “The commissioners were equally flabbergasted by the change of events, as well as with how the agriculture department handled the investigation — sending a high-ranking official and lawyers to a meeting with the library,” reports the Cumberlink Sentinel.

    Feds told the library system that they would have to test each individual seed packet in order for the facility to continue, an impossible task, which meant that the seed library was shut down.

    Cumberland County Library System Executive Director Jonelle Darr was told that the USDA would, “continue to crack down on seed libraries that have established themselves in the state.”

    Cumberland County Commissioner Barbara Cross applauded the USDA’s decision, warning that allowing residents to borrow seeds could have led to acts of “agri-terrorism.”

    The library has abandoned the seed system and instead can only promote events where residents are encouraged to directly swap seeds with each other.

    “Gosh, this makes me wonder when they are going to crack down on all of those GMO fields, with their grave concerns about cross-pollination,” writes Daisy Luther. “Look out, Monsanto…oh, wait. This only applies to regular people growing vegetables. GMOs aren’t considered an invasive species.”

    While the USDA is busy cracking down on local seed libraries in the name of preventing cross-pollination, many accuse the federal agency of being completely in the pocket of biotech giant Monsanto, which itself has been responsible for cross-pollinating farmers’ crops with genetically modified seeds on an industrial scale.

    Monsanto is also responsible for creating Agent Orange and PCBs, neither of which can be considered to have had a positive environmental impact.

    David Swanson goes further, arguing that Monsanto is, “responsible for environmental disasters that have destroyed entire towns, and a driving force behind the international waves of suicides among farmers whose lives it has helped ruin,” and that the company, “has monopolized our food system largely by taking over regulatory agencies like the U.S. Department of Agriculture.”

    The Obama administration has also appointed numerous former Monsanto executives to key roles within the USDA, leading to accusations that the federal agency is merely a water carrier for Monsanto which acts to eliminate its competition, no matter how small scale.

    It seems that while the U.S. government, via USAID, as well as huge corporations like DuPont and the Rockefeller Foundation, fund the creation of monolithic ‘doomsday’ seed vaults in the event of an environmental catastrophe, any attempt by ordinary Americans to become self-sufficient by obtaining their own heirloom seeds will be countered with the full legal force of the federal bureaucracy.

    Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  38. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Cara (15th December 2015), Daughter of Time (17th September 2014), fourty-two (15th December 2015), william r sanford72 (22nd August 2014)

  39. Link to Post #20
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,899 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Double barreled gun aimed at humanity's head: The pair GMO-Roundup/Glyphosate:

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Quote Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
    More from Dr. Seneff:

    Meet the controversial MIT scientist who claims she discovered a cause of gluten intolerance

    Ari LeVaux
    Alternet
    ...

    In recent months, Seneff co-authored two papers proposing a connection between the herbicide glyphosate and gluten sensitivity. I spoke with Seneff by phone about this hypothesis, her transition from computer science into biology, and her reputation in the scientific community.
    ~~~~~~~~~

    Mel Fabregas has just posted an interview with Stephanie Seneff on Sanitas Radio: Glyphosate [Roundup]: The GMO Pathway to Disease & Cellular Death (Audio at this link).
    The (lengthy) description of the includes:
    Celiac disease, and, more generally, gluten intolerance, is a growing problem worldwide, but especially in North America and Europe, where an estimated 5% of the population now suffers from it. Symptoms include nausea, diarrhea, skin rashes, macrocytic anemia and depression. It is a multifactorial disease associated with numerous nutritional deficiencies as well as reproductive issues and increased risk to thyroid disease, kidney failure and cancer. Here, we propose that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide, Roundup®, is the most important causal factor in this epidemic.
    Last edited by ThePythonicCow; 6th August 2014 at 12:46.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  40. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Cara (15th December 2015), Daughter of Time (17th September 2014), fourty-two (15th December 2015), ThePythonicCow (6th August 2014), william r sanford72 (22nd August 2014)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts