+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 80

Thread: GMO And Related Stuff

  1. Link to Post #21
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Why Monsanto's 'Cure' For World Hunger Is Cursing The Global Food Supply

    Posted on: Sunday, August 3rd 2014 at 11:15 am
    Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder



    What if the very GM agricultural system that Monsanto claims will help to solve the problem of world hunger depends on a chemical that kills the very pollinator upon which approximately 70% of world's food supply now depends?


    A new study published in the Journal of Experimental Biology titled, "Effects of field-realistic doses of glyphosate on honeybee appetitive behavior," establishes a link between the world's most popular herbicide – aka Roundup – and the dramatic decline in honeybee (Apis mellifera) populations in North American and Europe that lead to the coining of the term 'colony collapse disorder' (CCD) in late 2006 to describe the phenomena.[1]

    The researchers found that concentrations of glyphosate (GLY) consistent with the type of exposures associated with standard spraying practices in GM agricultural- and neighboring eco- systems reduced the honeybee's sensitivity to nectar reward and impaired their learning abilities – two behavioral consequences likely to adversely affect their survival abilities. Moreover, while sub-lethal doses were not found to overtly affect their foraging behavior, they hypothesized that because of their resilience, "..forager bees could become a source of constant inflow of nectar with GLY traces that could then be distributed among nest mates, stored in the hive and have long- term negative consequences on colony performance."

    A Deeper Look at the New Study: Roundup Interferes with Bee Appetite and Learning
    Roundup herbicide is a ubiquitous toxicant, with an accumulating body of research now showing it is a common contaminant in our air, water, rain, soil and food, and in physiologically relevant concentrations (even the part-per-trillion concentration range demonstrates endocrine disruptive and potentially carcinogenic properties) to microbial, insect, animal and human life.

    When Roundup herbicide was first evaluated for toxicity to the honeybee, the focus was on acute toxicity of the 'active ingredient' and not sub-lethal and prolonged exposure effects; and certainly not the amplified toxicological synergies present in glyphosate formulations like Roundup, which when the so-called 'inert' adjuvant ingredients (e.g. surfactants) are taken into account, have been found to be at least 125 times more toxic than glyphosate alone. By only taking into account acute toxicity – as measured by the so-called LD50 (lethal dose, 50%) – on the 'active' ingredient, government regulators approved glyphosate as relatively harmless to honeybees prematurely.

    The researchers expanded on the topic:
    Quote "Glyphosate [GLY] toxicity tests on Apis mellifera for product approval did not consider sub-lethal nor prolonged exposure effects. Studies were only focused on obtaining LD50 (lethal dose, 50%) as a measure of the effect of an acute exposure, but nevertheless, they were carried out on the basis that honeybees might in fact be exposed to GLY in their natural environment, either through the consumption of contaminated resources or through a direct exposure as a result of inadvertent spraying (Giesy et al., 2000). Even though LD50 results seem to indicate that GLY is not harmful for honeybees, the fact that honeybees are potentially exposed to GLY motivated us to pursue further analysis and to address the lack of chronic studies."
    The authors of the new study set out to test whether doses of glyphosate bees would realistically encounter in the field (field-realistic doses) could affect their feeding behavior (appetitive behavior) in a deleterious manner.

    They exposed honeybees to field-realistic doses of glyphosate chronically and acutely, and observed: "a reduced sensitivity to sucrose and learning performance for the groups chronically exposed to GLY concentrations within the range of recommended doses," as well as significant decrease in elemental learning, non-elemental associative learning, and short-term memory retention, when exposed to acute GLY doses.

    Roundup Already Identified As Likely Cause of Colony Collapse Disorder
    This latest study is not the first to link glyphosate to the vanishing honeybee.

    Extensive research on the topic performed by Dr. Don D. Huber and summarized in an article published last year titled, "Is glyphosate a contributing cause of bee colony collapse disorder (CCD)?," lead him to conclude that the 880 million pounds of glyphosate released into the environment worldwide has been contributing to the collapse of the honeybee. The paper revealed the following six ways that glyphosate could contribute to CCD:
    • Glyphosate chelates minerals, lowers nutrients in plants: In CCD, Malnutrition is universally present.
    • Glyphosate acts like an antibiotic to beneficial bacteria: In CCD, loss of Lactobacillus and other critical beneficial bacteria for digestion is commonly observed.
    • Glyphosate is a neurotoxin: In CCD, honeybees experience neurological changes associated with disorientation.
    • Gyphosate causes endocrine hormone & immune disruption: In CCD, immunity and other hormonal variables are altered or suppressed.
    • Glyphosate stimulates fungal overgrowth: In CCD, the fungal pathogen Nosema increases.
    • Glyphosate persists and accumulates: High environmental exposure, including glyphosate residues present in honey, nectar and other plant products, make honeybees susceptible to continual toxic challenge -- which is believed to be a primary underlying cause of CCD.
    Other Factors Contributing to Colony Collapse
    While it is now increasingly acknowledged that many agrochemicals pesticides -- especially neonicotinoids -- are toxic to honeybees, there are other factors that likely play a role as well:
    It should be pointed out that the last factor listed – infectious organisms – are likely more a symptom than a cause of honeybee morbidity and mortality. In other words, following electromagnetic, agrochemical and dietary assault, the immune system of the honeybee – and the collective immunity of the hive – weakens, leading to greater susceptibility to opportunistic infections.

    One USDA study published in 2013 discussed the role of fungicidal contaminants in pollen leading to increased probability of Nosema fungal infection in bees who consumed pollen with a higher fungicide load.[3]

    This linkage between chemical exposure > immune suppression, > opportunistic infection, is especially poignant when it comes to Roundup herbicide, which profoundly alters the makeup of the beneficial flora in exposed organisms, leading to the overgrowth of pathogenic bacteria. A 2012 PloS study found that lactic acid bacteria living in the crop (the part of the bee's alimentary canal that stores food prior to digestion) of bees are vitally important for the health of honeybees, with some strains suggesting a history of association with bees stretching over 80,000,000 years ago. Various chemical are capable of damaging this vitally important locus for the honeybee's immunity and digestion, and are likely exerting their adverse effects through sublethal, hard to detect mechanisms.

    Why Does Monsanto Own Beelogics, 'The Guardian of Bee Health Worldwide'?
    On Sept. 28th, 2011, Monsanto announced that it was acquiring the company Beeologics, whose explicit goal is to become "the guardian of the bee health wordwide," including finding ways to address CCD.

    Here is their mission statement:
    Quote "Beeologics LLC is an international firm dedicated to restoring bee health and protecting the future of honey bee pollination. Beeologics' mission is to become the guardian of bee health worldwide. Through continuous research, scientific innovation, and a focus on applicable solutions, Beeologics is developing a line of RNAi-based products to specifically address the long-term well being of honey bees, including the control of parasites and how they're involved in Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD)."
    A classical problem-solution approach, Monsanto creates a problem – a systemic herbicide intended to 'save the world' from hunger as part of its GMO Roundup-ready proprietary production system that actually destroys the pollinators required to maintain our global food supply – and then capitalizes on a GM solution on the backend, with patented RNA interference 'solutions' intended to, again, 'save the world' from hunger.


    [1] Dennis vanEngelsdorp, Diana Cox-Foster, Maryann Frazier, Nancy Ostiguy, and Jerry Hayes (5 January 2006). "Colony Collapse Disorder Preliminary Report". Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium (MAAREC) – CCD Working Group. p. 22. Retrieved 2007-04-24.

    [2] Peng Han, Chang-Ying Niu, Antonio Biondi, Nicolas Desneux. Does transgenic Cry1Ac + CpTI cotton pollen affect hypopharyngeal gland development and midgut proteolytic enzyme activity in the honey bee Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae)? Ecotoxicology. 2012 Nov ;21(8):2214-21. Epub 2012 Aug 7. PMID: 22868904

    [3] Jeffery S Pettis, Elinor M Lichtenberg, Michael Andree, Jennie Stitzinger, Robyn Rose, Dennis Vanengelsdorp. Crop Pollination Exposes Honey Bees to Pesticides Which Alters Their Susceptibility to the Gut Pathogen Nosema ceranae. PLoS One. 2013 ;8(7):e70182. Epub 2013 Jul 24. PMID: 23894612
    "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 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Daughter of Time (17th September 2014), jerry (15th September 2014), markoid (8th August 2014), RunningDeer (22nd August 2014), william r sanford72 (22nd August 2014)

  3. Link to Post #22
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    More Pesticides Coming to Our Food

    August 19, 2014
    By Dr. Mercola


    One of the “benefits” of genetically modified (GM) crops is supposed to be a significant reduction in the use of chemicals, such as highly toxic herbicides and pesticides.

    The idea, theoretically anyhow, was that herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant plants, which make up the majority of GM crops, would make it easier to kill weeds and diminish crop loss to harmful pests.

    They would require farmers to use far less chemicals to control weeds and pests, so the pesticide companies, like Monsanto, assured us. In practice, however, this “promise” has been consistently broken.

    In 2012, research showed that GM crops have led to a 404-million pound increase in overall pesticide use from the time they were introduced in 1996 through 2011. This equates to an increase of about 7 percent per year.

    The excessive use of agrichemicals by farmers has now, in turn, led to herbicide resistance, both in weeds and pests, leaving farmers to struggle with an increasingly difficult situation. More than two dozen weed species are now resistant to glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto's broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup.

    But instead of getting to the bottom of the weed-resistance problem, which is the GM crops at its foundation, US regulators are adding fuel to the fire and getting ready to approve more GM crops that, ironically, call for even more use of herbicides…

    New GM Crops Target Weed Resistance with More Herbicides
    In a draft "environmental impact statement" (EIS), the US Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has recommended that Monsanto’s new GM cotton and soybean plants should be approved.1

    The so-called "Roundup Ready Xtend” crops are resistant to both glyphosate and the herbicide dicamba. Since millions of acres of weeds are now resistant to glyphosate, farmers will be able to douse crops with both glyphosate and dicamba. APHIS also issued a final EIS for Dow AgroSciences’ GM “Enlist” corn and soybeans, which are resistant to glyphosate and 2,4-D.

    Charles Benbrook, a research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University, has already found rapidly increasing weed resistance is driving up the volume of herbicide needed by about 25 percent annually.

    The new approvals could drive it up by another 50 percent, according to research published in Environmental Sciences Europe:2
    "Contrary to often-repeated claims that today's genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied.
    If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50 percent.

    The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future."
    The final decision won’t be made until after a 30-day public review period, but it unfortunately seems the die has been cast. The approvals would come despite intense opposition from consumer, environmental, and farmer groups, which have voiced valid concerns that the increased use of herbicides on the GM crops will only lead to increasing weed resistance in the long run.

    Even APHIS acknowledged that Monsanto’s Xtend crops could increase the chance of dicamba-resistant weeds.3 Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist with the Pesticide Action Network North America, told Reuters:4
    "We are outraged… Despite all of this public outcry, what these decisions show is that USDA is much more interested in working with Dow and Monsanto and getting their products to market than in protecting the public."
    [...]

    What’s the Big Deal About Glyphosate Residues in Your Food?

    Glyphosate residues in the amount of “parts per million” might not seem like such a big issue, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. While Monsanto insists that Roundup is safe, a peer-reviewed report authored by Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant, and a long-time contributor to the Mercola.com Vital Votes Forum, and Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), reveals how glyphosate wrecks human health.7

    They argue that glyphosate residues, found in most commonly consumed foods in the Western diet courtesy of GM sugar, corn, soy, and wheat, “enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease.” Interestingly, your gut bacteria are a key component of glyphosate’s primary mechanism of harm.

    Monsanto has steadfastly claimed that Roundup is harmless to animals and humans because the mechanism of action it uses (which allows it to kill weeds), called the shikimate pathway, is absent in all animals. However, the shikimate pathway IS present in bacteria, and that’s one key to understanding how it causes such widespread systemic harm in both humans and animals.

    Now, with the impending approval of the new GM crops, you’re going to see increased exposure to even more herbicide residues, including the highly toxic dicamba and 2,4-D. If you eat processed foods, most of which are made with GM corn and soy ingredients, you’re consuming glyphosate residues, and will then be exposed to the forthcoming dicamba and 2,4-D residues as well, probably in each and every bite. Knowing this, and the fact that tests show people in 18 countries across Europe already have glyphosate in their bodies,8 this should leave you very, very concerned…

    [...]

    Full article: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...erbicides.aspx
    "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.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Daughter of Time (17th September 2014), RunningDeer (22nd August 2014), william r sanford72 (22nd August 2014)

  5. Link to Post #23
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,089 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    How 'the New DDT' Wreaks Havoc on the Bottom of the Food Chain

    Quote “Neonics are 5,000 to 10,000 times more toxic than DDT,” said Jean-Marc Bonmatin of The National Centre for Scientific Research in France.

    FYI: Rachel Carson must be “turning over in her grave.” Who will take up her call to action against the new DDTs (neonics & fipronil) that are impacting honey bees, butterflies, earthworms, song birds, and humans? It’s past time for action. Let’s terminate the USEPA and USDA folks who permitted this new scourge on the land and ban the use of these devastating pesticides…NOW! Otherwise, we won’t have to worry about global warming -- neonics and fipronil will kill us before its consequences "do us in."

    How 'the New DDT' Wreaks Havoc on the Bottom of the Food Chain

    By Stephen Leahy
    Motherboard
    June 24, 2014
    URL: http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/re...the-food-chain

    The same insecticide nerve poison that is contributing to the shocking declines in bees <http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/bees-get-blinded-by-polluted-scents-new-insights-into-colony-collapse-disorder> and other pollinators is also behind the sharp declines in many other insect species, along with insect-eating birds and bats. Even important creatures like earthworms, which keep our soils healthy, are being damaged by systemic insecticides called neonicotinoids (neonics) and fipronil, a new four-year international meta-analysis has found.

    “It’s the new DDT but different,” said Ole Hendrickson, a former scientist at Environment Canada and member of the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides <http://www.tfsp.info/> that complete the Worldwide Integrated Assessment (WIA) analysis. It's the first examination of all the science on the topic—more than 800 studies. The task force is compromised of 50 independent scientists from all over the world who spent the last four years trying to figure out why so many bees, butterflies, and other insects are disappearing.

    “Instead of wiping out the top of the food chain, killing hawks and eagles as DDT did, neonics are wiping out the bottom of the food chain,” Hendrickson told me. “Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson once said if we wipe out the world’s insects, we will soon follow them to extinction.”

    Over the past 15 years, neonics have become the most widely used insecticides on the planet. They’re everywhere: in homes, gardens, farms, lakes, rivers and forests. The six main types of neonics in use are very, very good at destroying the nerve cells of anything that ingests them.

    “Neonics are 5,000 to 10,000 times more toxic than DDT,” said Jean-Marc Bonmatin of The National Centre for Scientific Research in France.

    Many corn, soy, and wheat seeds planted today are coated with neonics. If a bird eats a seed or two, they die. Clouds of toxic dust that are stirred up during planting are also dangerous to birds and insects in the vicinity. As the crops grow, they incorporate the neonic into their tissue, making them poisonous to any insect that nibbles on them. Pollen, nectar, sap and even dead leaves contain neonics. So does the soil, and because neonics readily mix with water, they're contaminating streams, ponds, rivers, and possibly coastal zones, the analysis found.

    Neonics can last and build up in soil and water for more than year. “Even at extraordinarily low levels neonics have impacts on many species,” said Bonmatin, the lead author of the WIA analysis, which will be published as a series of articles in the peer-reviewed journal Environment Science and Pollution Research <http://www.springer.com/environment/journal/11356> .

    At nonlethal levels, exposure to these nerve poisons can screw up nervous systems. The documented impacts include impaired sense of smell or memory; reduced fertility; altered feeding behaviour and reduced food intake; difficulty in flight and increased susceptibility to disease and altered tunnelling behaviour in earthworms. Hardest hit by all this is not bees, contrary to popular belief, but worms, and other invertebrates that live in the soil, the study found.

    "These are the organisms that cycle nutrients and keep soil fertile. Without them farmers will have to add more chemical fertilizer," Bonmatin told me in an interview.

    He said these toxic pesticides aren't even necessary—they're just "convenient." This is nothing like a farmer spraying when there is a pest problem; neonics are in the plant 24/7, from seed to harvest. "At least 90 percent of the time the neonics aren't even needed, according to our studies," he said. There are many effective, pre-existing alternatives for dealing with insect pests, including crop rotation, the analysis also shows.

    Now there is some emerging evidence of neonics' potential impacts on human health.

    "The insects are showing us to be very careful with neonics," Bonmatin said. “They're dangerous and probably should be banned." The official position of the Task Force is to ask governments to restrict their use.

    Europe already placed a two-year moratorium <http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/29/bee-harming-pesticides-banned-europe> on use of some neonics in April 2013 because of the impact on bees, and on June 20, just four days before the release of the WIA analysis, the Obama Administration told the Environmental Protection Agency <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/20/presidential-memorandum-creating-federal-strategy-promote-health-honey-b> (EPA) to review the impacts of neonics on bees and other pollinators. The EPA has 180 days to report.

    "There is no question that neonics are behind colony collapse disorder," said Chensheng (Alex) Lu, associate professor of environmental exposure biology at Harvard School of Public Health. Lu recently replicated an early study <http://motherboard.vice.com/read/goddamnit-there-are-colony-collapse-disorder-deniers> showing low doses of neonics result in the loss of honey bee colonies known as colony collapse disorder (CCD).

    The new study showed that only half of the colonies survived the winter when healthy bees were exposed to neonics. Lu believes neonics impair the bee's neurological functions. "The health situation of bees in the US is dire and getting worse," he said.

    The EPA is "misreporting" what's happening to bees by claiming CCD losses have improved dramatically since 2008, Lu said. According to him, Ohio and nearby states lost up to 90% of their colonies last winter while the EPA reported losses of only 30% nationwide. The biggest losses of bees are in the midwest, where the highest levels of neonics are.

    Lu criticized the EPA's strategy of spending millions on improving bee habitat in the midwest, which he said was pushed by the pesticide lobby, and also wondered why the USDA, the ultimate authority on the use of neonics, has been silent on a major study <http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/releases/130319.html> by the American Bird Conservancy in 2013 that clearly documented “massive impacts on American songbirds.” That report criticized the EPA for underestimating the risk and then failing to act when impacts were documented.

    "This is a not a controversial problem," Lu said. "We know what to do."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Hervé (27th August 2014), william r sanford72 (1st March 2015)

  7. Link to Post #24
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,089 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Hillary gets it wrong (again)
    Organic Consumer Assoc.

    Quote Just. Plain. Wrong.



    In her June 25 keynote address to the BIO International Convention in San Diego, Calif., Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for genetic engineering and genetically engineered crops. She earned a standing ovation that day by stating that the biotech industry suffers from a public perception problem and that it just needs “a better vocabulary” in order to persuade GMO skeptics who don’t understand “the facts” about genetic engineering.

    And then Hillary proceeded to get the facts wrong.

    Why does it matter what Hillary, who holds no public office and has not (yet) declared her candidacy for president, says or believes about genetic engineering and genetically modified crops and foods?

    It doesn’t. Unless she throws her hat in the ring for the Democratic nomination. And then it matters not just what her position on GMOs is, not just how deep her financial ties with the biotech industry run, not just how much she distorts the facts about the “promise” of biotech crops.

    It matters, deeply, to more than 90 percent of Americans, what her position is on GMO labeling laws.

    If elected, will Hillary support consumers’ right to know? Or will she support the DARK Act, a bill introduced in Congress earlier this year, that would preempt state GMO labeling laws?

    Hillary has been coy about announcing her candidacy. On clarifying her position on GMO labeling laws, she’s been dead silent.

    As she soon heads to Iowa—the testing ground for presidential candidates—Hillary’s presidential aspirations will no doubt become more clear. If she runs, as the pundits predict, it will be up to the GMO labeling movement to demand that she take a stand on GMO labeling laws.

    Meanwhile, here’s why Hillary’s speech to the BIO convention was just plain wrong.

    Read the essay:
    http://www.organicconsumers.org/arti...icle_30776.cfm
    Quote By Katherine Paul and Ronnie Cummins
    Organic Consumers Association, August 28, 2014

    For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Millions Against Monsanto page and our Environment and Climate Resource Center page.



    In her June 25 keynote address to the BIO International Convention in San Diego, Calif., Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for genetic engineering and genetically engineered crops. She earned a standing ovation that day by stating that the biotech industry suffers from a public perception problem and that it just needs “a better vocabulary” in order to persuade GMO skeptics who don’t understand “the facts” about genetic engineering.

    And then Hillary proceeded to get the facts wrong.

    Why does it matter what Hillary, who holds no public office and has not (yet) declared her candidacy for president, says or believes about genetic engineering and genetically modified crops and foods?

    It doesn’t—unless she throws her hat in the ring for the Democratic nomination. And then it matters not just what her position is on GMOs, not just how deep her financial ties to the biotech industry run, not just how much she distorts the facts about the “promise” of biotech crops.

    It matters, deeply, to more than 90 percent of Americans, what her position is on laws requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs in food and food products.

    If elected, will Hillary support consumers’ right to know? Or will she support the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, a bill introduced in Congress earlier this year, which if passed, will preempt state GMO labeling laws?

    Hillary has been coy about announcing her candidacy. But when it comes to clarifying her position on GMO labeling laws, she’s been dead silent.

    As she soon heads to Iowa—the testing ground for presidential candidates—Hillary’s presidential aspirations will no doubt become more clear. If she runs, as the pundits predict, it will be up to the GMO labeling movement to demand that she take a stand on GMO labeling laws.

    Meanwhile, here’s why Hillary’s speech to the BIO convention was just plain wrong.

    Wrong on the science of genetic engineering

    Hillary brought the BIO convention-goers to their feet with her call for “a better vocabulary” to win over consumers.

    No wonder. After all, that’s the line Monsanto has been feeding the public ever since the public became wise to the lies and false promises of an industry known for its reckless disregard for public health. It’s part of an aggressive, widespread public relations campaign to sugar-coat the facts about genetically engineered foods and the toxic chemicals required to produce them.

    As scientists release studies, each one more alarming than the next, revealing the devastating health and environmental hazards of the herbicides required to grow GMO crops—toxic chemicals such as glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, and Dow’s 2,4-D —consumers are connecting the dots between the rise of chronic illness and the unleashing of toxins into the environment (and onto our food).

    No amount of “better vocabulary” will be able to counter the science behind the impact of toxic herbicides and pesticides on soil, on the environment, on human health.

    But here’s where Hillary’s call for a “better vocabulary” really ran off the rails. Coverage of the convention included a video in which Hillary wrongly equated the age-old practice of seed hybridization with modern genetic engineering, in order to make the case that genetic engineering has been around since the beginning of farming.

    Hillary would do well to go back to her science books. Here are the facts, as understood by every biologist. Seed hybridization occurs when the seeds of two compatible parent plants, within the same species, are crossed, either in a controlled environment or in nature. That process is in no way equivalent to genetic engineering, a process that requires human intervention, and consists of changing the genetic code of one organism by inserting into it the DNA from a completely different plant or animal.

    Genetic engineering is an unnatural process that can take place only in a laboratory, aided by a human.

    Wrong on genetic engineering and drought

    In the same video from the June 25 conference, Hillary perpetuates industry claims that as global warming leads to more droughts, GMO crops will feed the world. She does this by focusing on GE drought-resistant seeds—as if engineering seeds for drought-resistance were a major focus on the biotech industry.

    It’s not, of course. Drought-resistant seeds and crops make up a miniscule portion of the GMO crop market. Close to 98 percent of GE crops are corn, soy, alfalfa, canola and sugar beets, used to make biofuels, animal feed and processed food products, such as high fructose corn syrup. These crops are engineered to produce their own Bt toxins in every cell or else to withstand massive doses of herbicides, such as Monsanto’s Roundup, which are sold to farmers as companions to their GMO seeds. They have nothing to do with drought-resistance.

    In fact, attempts to engineer seeds to thrive during droughts are still in the experimental stages and so far have largely failed. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Monsanto’s DroughtGard, the only drought-resistant crop approved so far by the USDA, produces “only modest results, and only under moderate drought conditions.”

    Yet to hear Hillary tell it, genetic engineering is all about saving farmers by providing them with magic seeds that thrive without water.

    Wrong on genetic engineering and global warming

    Toward the end of her video interview, Hillary switched gears to talk about climate change. She endorsed the Obama climate plan and called out the media for giving too much attention to climate-change skeptics.

    Hillary believes we must address global warming. Good news.

    But there’s just one problem.

    A growing chorus of scientists warn that we cannot successfully address global warming unless we acknowledge the huge role that industrial agriculture, with its GMO mono-crop culture and massive use of chemicals, plays in cooking the planet.

    If we’re truly serious about averting a global warming disaster, reducing carbon emissions isn’t enough. We have to acknowledge, and harness, potential of organic, regenerative agriculture to reverse global warming by sequestering carbon.

    According to groups like the Rodale Institute, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, and the Alliance for Food Sovereignty, a transition to sustainable, regenerative agriculture—not genetic engineering—is not only the only way we will feed the world, but absolutely essential if we want to slow global warming.

    Hillary is just plain wrong if she thinks we can solve global warming while simultaneously promoting GMO agriculture, here in the U.S. and abroad. That’s why the Organic Consumers Association has launched a petition asking her to rethink her support for biotech, and commit to supporting a transition to a sustainable, organic food and farming system.

    As consumers grow more knowledgeable about the link between food produced using toxic chemicals and the declining health of the U.S. population, they are looking more closely at those politicians who side with, and take money from, the biotech industry. Clinton’s ties to the biotech industry date back to the 1970s, when she was a partner in the Rose Law Firm which represented Monsanto.

    A recent ABC News poll revealed that 52 percent of Americans believe food containing GMOs are unsafe, while 13 percent are “unsure.”

    On mandatory GMO labeling laws, Americans are clear: 93 percent want labels.

    Hillary, where do you stand?

    Katherine Paul is associate director of the Organic Consumers Association.

    Ronnie Cummins is the international director of the Organic Consumers Association and its Mexico affiliate Via Organica.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Hervé (15th September 2014), william r sanford72 (1st March 2015)

  9. Link to Post #25
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Why the Use of Glyphosate in Wheat Has Radically Increased Celiac Disease

    September 14, 2014 | 253,930 views

    | Disponible en Español

    Click HERE to watch the full interview!


    By Dr. Mercola
    The use of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, has dramatically risen over the past 15 years, right in step with the use of GE crops.

    According to Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), glyphosate appears to be strongly correlated with the rise in celiac disease.

    Dr. Anthony Samsel and Dr. Seneff produced some phenomenal research1 on this connection, which was published in December last year. Previously, she has investigated the relationship between glyphosate and the development of a wide array of modern diseases, including autism.

    She believes that glyphosate may in fact act as a transporter for aluminum (a common vaccine adjuvant) into the brain. It also appears to transport arsenic into the kidneys. For more in-depth information on this glyphosate-autism link, please listen to the full version of Dr. Seneff's interview.

    Use of Roundup Matches Increased Use of GE Crops, and Rise in Chronic Diseases
    Her initial findings were published in the journal Entropy2 last year, which was followed by a second paper,3 again co-authored with Dr. Samsel, which links glyphosate to celiac disease specifically.
    "There's an extremely strong correlation between the use of Roundup on corn and soy over time and the increase in all these different diseases, and celiac disease is one of them," she says.

    "We certainly have seen an explosive appearance of celiac disease almost overnight in the last five to 10 years... Now you have a growing section of gluten-free choices of various food products...

    Lots of people are intolerant to gluten, of course. But people aren't thinking, 'Why is this now true? This didn't use to be true'... I was really puzzled because wheat is not a GE product... GMO wheat is not a product that's on the market."

    So what's going on? Dr. Seneff's research reveals that when it comes to gluten intolerance and celiac disease, the problem actually doesn't stem from genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

    Rather it’s related to the use of glyphosate just before the harvesting of many of the non-organic wheat crops, in order to reduce the amount of residue that needs to be cleared and to get a head start on next year’s weeds.

    Glyphosate-Treated Wheat Promotes Celiac Disease
    Celiac disease is a severe reaction to gluten that primarily affects your gastrointestinal system. Glyphosate has been shown to severely damage your gut flora and cause chronic diseases rooted in gut dysfunction.

    The use of glyphosate on wheat crops has risen in tandem with the rise in celiac disease. In fact, it correlates to a greater degree than glyphosate usage on corn and soy.

    According to Dr. Seneff, desiccating4 non-organic wheat crops with glyphosate just before harvest came in vogue about 15 years ago. Interestingly enough, when you expose wheat to a toxic chemical like glyphosate, it actually releases more seeds. “It ‘goes to seed’ as it dies,” Dr. Seneff explains. “At its last gasp, it releases the seed.”

    This results in slightly greater yield, and the glyphosate also kills rye grass, a major weed problem for wheat growers that is resistant to many other herbicides. What they're not taking into consideration is the fact that rye grass helps rebalance the soil, and from that perspective is a beneficial plant.

    So, most of the non-organic wheat supply is now contaminated with glyphosate. A large percentage of processed foods are made from wheat, and this helps explain the explosion of celiac disease and other gut dysfunction.

    What happens is that the villi in your gut get destroyed by the glyphosate, which reduces your ability to absorb vitamins and minerals. Also, wheat contains gliadin, which is difficult to break down. Normally, a reaction takes place that builds connections between different proteins in the wheat.

    But glyphosate gets right in the middle of that process too, resulting in wheat that is highly indigestible. Dr. Seneff and her co-researcher Dr. Anthony Samsel believe the glyphosate may attach to the gliadin as a consequence of a chemical reaction. The end result is that your body develops an immune reaction. As noted in their study:5
    "[G]ut dysbiosis, brought on by exposure to glyphosate, plays a crucial role in the development of celiac disease. Many CYP enzymes are impaired in association with celiac disease, and we show that glyphosate's known suppression of CYP enzyme activity in plants and animals plausibly explains this effect in humans."

    Glyphosate Disrupts Important Sulfate Pathway Implicated in Celiac Disease
    Glyphosate causes gut dysbiosis (a condition of microbial imbalance in your intestines that can lead to gut inflammation and leaky gut) and an overgrowth of pathogens. Sulfur, and the sulfur pathway, plays in important part in optimal health, and when your gut is inflamed, your body’s ability to transport sulfate is impaired.

    This is in part why Dr. Seneff recommends soaking in magnesium sulfate (Epsom salt) baths rather than taking a sulfur supplement (such as chondroitin sulfate, for example.) This way, it can bypass your gut mucosa. The sulfur pathway is also implicated in celiac disease, and this is the connection between glyphosate exposure and celiac:
    "There are two classes of molecules that transport sulfate. One is the sterols: cholesterol, vitamin D, and all sex hormones – estrogen, testosterone, and DHEA. On the other side, you have all the neurotransmitters. This is the dopamine, melatonin, serotonin, and the adrenaline. All of those transport sulfate. They're all derived from this pathway that glyphosate disrupts," Dr. Seneff explains.

    "Glyphosate disrupts the shikimate pathway, which is a biological pathway in plants and in microbes. That pathway produces the precursors to all those neurotransmitters. When you can't produce those precursors... because of the glyphosate, you become deficient.

    This links directly to celiac disease because serotonin is very strongly implicated in celiac disease. In fact, you have an overproduction of serotonin whenever you have dietary tryptophan. In celiac, these cells are hypersensitized. They take in the tryptophan and make serotonin out of it [editor's note: the majority of serotonin is produced in your gut, not your brain].

    Tryptophan is one of the products of this pathway that glyphosate disrupts.
    Your body is really eager to grab every bit of tryptophan it can find in the diet and immediately turn it into serotonin... But too much serotonin causes diarrhea. That's how you get a connection to the celiac disease behavior."

    To summarize, most of the serotonin that's produced in your body is produced in your gut in response to tryptophan. Wheat is a good source of tryptophan, but when the wheat is contaminated with glyphosate, your gut cells go into overdrive and begin producing too much serotonin, which in turn produces many of the common symptoms of celiac disease, such as diarrhea.

    Celiac Disease Comorbidities
    According to Dr. Seneff, there are a number of comorbidities of celiac disease: diseases or conditions that are more common in people with celiac disease compared to the normal population. For example, they have a higher risk of producing children with disabilities and various birth defects. One example is anencephaly or microcephaly, which is a missing brain or small brain.

    She notes that this exceptionally rare disorder, anencephaly, has become increasingly common in babies born in certain regions of Washington State. While this serious birth defect normally affects only one in the entire US population each year, there have been about 20 cases born in Washington State over the course of just two or three years.
    "They looked at everything except at glyphosate," she notes. "They didn't look at glyphosate because they consider it to be harmless. They are using tons of it around the waterway...There have been papers written that have shown that glyphosate causes anencephaly in frogs—a clear connection there. I even know why. It's because of the excess retinoic acid, which is well-known to cause anencephaly... glyphosate also disrupts cytochrome p450 enzymes in the liver; it's a CYP enzyme that breaks down retinoic acid.

    When you can't break it down... the retinoic acid builds up and becomes toxic to the embryo. It's very clear to me, that connection. And then, of course, the celiac disease is an indicator of glyphosate exposure. Celiac patients also have a very high risk of cancer. That's probably why they die prematurely. They typically live a shorter life. I think their life is reduced by three to five years."
    Gastrointestinal (GI) cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma are among the most common comorbidities among those with celiac disease. Here Dr. Seneff goes into a number of details relating to glyphosate's influence on cancer and its link tonon-Hodgkin's lymphoma. For those details, please listen to the full version Dr. Seneff's interview, or read through the transcript. It seems clear that if you have cancer or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, you'd be wise to switch to an all-organic diet in order to avoid any further exposure to glyphosate.

    Dr. Seneff believes it's important to address sulfate deficiency whenever you're suffering with a chronic disease, including cancer and lymphoma. In her opinion, eating sulfur-rich foods is part and parcel of the solution. Garlic is a very good source of sulfur. Raw garlic is the most potent. According to Dr. Seneff, you don't need to concern yourself with the issue of sulfate transport because the garlic form of sulfur is very easy to transport. Your red blood cells oxidize it to sulfate, and it gets into your blood as sulforaphane.

    Glyphosate Chelates Minerals and Promotes Deficiencies
    Making sure you're getting enough trace minerals is also important, as glyphosate disrupts a wide variety of them, including manganese, iron, cobalt (cobalamin) and molybdenum, and copper, just to name a few. All of these minerals are affected because the glyphosate causes your body to mismanage them. It chelates the minerals in your gut, so the gut bacteria can't get to them. And your gut bacteria need minerals to work properly. For example, Lactobacillus depends on manganese. According to Dr. Seneff, these bacteria have an unusual mechanism to protect themselves from oxidative damage, which involves manganese. But they can't get at it because the manganese hides inside the glyphosate molecule...

    The human body depends on minerals for a wide variety of functions, but it's important to get minerals in a bioavailable form. You can't take a mineral supplement. You need to get them through your diet so that your body can utilize them properly. Hence, an organic diet devoid of glyphosate is again the answer. Natural salt, such as sea salt or Himalayan salt is also a good addition to eating lots of vegetables.

    Is There Hope for the Future?
    The chemical technology industry controls most of our government agencies from the inside these days, which can easily make one despondent. Is there any hope for the future?
    "There is hope," Dr. Seneff says. "I have hope through China and Russia, interestingly enough. Russia has made a pretty strong stand against GMO.Putin has been saying, 'You can go ahead and eat your GMO foods, but we don't want them.' The guy knows, which I love. And I just came back from a conference in Beijing put on by Professor Gu.

    She brought in people from around the world... who are sounding the alarm about GMOs and Roundup. Don Huber was there, and Mae-Wan Ho... Jeffrey Smith... and from Australia, there was Judy Carman, who studied the pigs...China will really have an impact if they simply refuse to import GMO soy. They're finding, by the way, that in step with the increased imports of GMO Roundup-Ready soy… they're finding tremendous increases in autism, Parkinson's disease, infertility, and all the same things we're seeing here.

    ...I just do not understand how the US government refuses to acknowledge that we're basically slowly poisoning and killing our population. We're going to have a huge autism problem in 10 or 15 years. Mothers rising up and saying 'I'm going to feed my child organic food only'—that's the only way we're going to stop it. We have to push the organic movement... In fact, one of the people at this conference was Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America, which is an organization of moms. Her son had autism. She fixed his autism by putting him on an organic diet."

    Can You Detox Glyphosate?
    It's important to understand that you cannot wash glyphosate off genetically engineered foods, as it is then incorporated into each cell of the plant. And when you're consuming processed foods, clearly you cannot rinse off any contamination—it's already been processed into the final product. So truly, the only way to eliminate it from your diet is to avoid conventionally grown foods and processed foods, and to eat as many organic foods as possible. Organic standards do not permit glyphosate. Do not confuse this with labels that say "natural" or "all-natural." These are not regulated, and are often GMO!

    This is equally if not more important when it comes to meat and other animal products, as factory-farmed animals are typically raised on a GMO diet, and glyphosate bioaccumulates in the tissues. So what about detoxing? According to Dr. Seneff, they've had some success detoxing animals of glyphosate by feeding them charcoal and humus (the dark organic material in soils). The problem, again, is that glyphosate bioaccumulates throughout your body, and it can be difficult to get out. It's also unclear just how effective taking charcoal might be for humans.

    In short, it's much harder to reverse the damage once it's done, so the answer is to avoid glyphosate from the start—especially in your child's diet. The only way to do that right now is to buy certified organic food, or food from a local farmer you know is not using glyphosate or other synthetic chemicals. Perhaps the best alternative is to grow your own. "I think there's going to be a run on organic once everybody wakes up," Dr. Seneff says. "If you're not growing your own, you won't have access. It would be very difficult."

    Take Control of Your Health—Choose Your Foods Wisely
    According to Dr. Seneff, a number of frightening revelations concerning GE foods themselves came out during the Beijing conference, which we did not have time to go over in this interview. But clearly, besides the potential hazards associated with GE foods—which includes heightened allergenicity—the issue of glyphosate contamination is a very important one. It appears to play an instrumental role not only in celiac disease, but also in autism, Alzheimer's, and cancer. In fact, Dr. Seneff's work suggests it may play a role in most chronic diseases.
    "There are many, many reasons to avoid these processed foods that our government is encouraging us to eat," she says. "Taking complete ownership of your food by growing your own is the most special thing you can do, not just for yourself but for humanity and for the earth itself. Everyone who pitches in to contribute their piece of healthy grown food with developing healthy soil is so important to our future salvation because if we don't move fast with this, we're going to end up with a country that's so sick... we're going to spend all of our time and all of our money taking care of the sick and needy. We won't be able to do anything else.

    We need to move quickly, and individually make ourselves healthy by eating healthy foods and by putting in the effort to cook and the effort to grow the food ourselves. Buy organic. Support the organic farmers. Don't worry about the fact that it's costing you a little more in food because it's going to save you a huge amount on healthcare down the road. It's going to totally pay for itself. If people can get into that mindset, we can make it happen as individuals. We don't need the government [to act]."
    I recently named the GMA “the most evil corporation on the planet,” considering the fact that it consists primarily of pesticide producers and junk food manufacturers who are going to great lengths to violate some of your most basic rights—just to ensure that subsidized, genetically engineered and chemical-dependent, highly processed junk food remains the status quo.

    The insanity has gone far enough. It’s time to unite and fight back, which is why I encourage you to boycott every single product owned by members of the GMA, including natural and organic brands. To learn more about this boycott, and the traitor brands that are included, please visit TheBoycottList.org. I also encourage you to donate to the Organic Consumers Fund. Your donation will help fight the GMA lawsuit in Vermont, and also help win the GMO labeling ballot initiative in Oregon in November.


    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. And as always, continue educating yourself about genetically engineered foods, and share what you’ve learned with family and friends.


    [-] Sources and References
    "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.

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

    avid (26th November 2014), Daughter of Time (17th September 2014), jerry (15th September 2014), thunder24 (15th September 2014), william r sanford72 (1st March 2015)

  11. Link to Post #26
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,089 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Pro-GMO Industries Increase Spending and Launch Attack to Discredit World-Famous Environmentalist Vandana Shiva in an Effort to Thwart GMO Labeling in the US
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar..._rid=660272692

    By Dr. Mercola

    Quote Between 2012 and mid-2014, Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) successfully blocked GMO labeling legislation in over 30 states, at a price tag of more than $100 million.

    These funds were received from the 300+ members of the GMA, which include chemical/pesticide, GE seed, and processed food industries.

    Together, these industries are working in a symbiotic fashion to grow, subsidize, and manufacture foods that have been clearly linked to growing obesity and chronic disease epidemics.

    According to the most recent analysis, opponents of GMO labeling spent more than $27 million on lobbying in the first six months of this year alone. This is about three times more than they spent during all of 2013, when they shelled out $9.3 million.

    "The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and major food makers such as Coca-Cola Co and PepsiCo Inc and top biotech seed makers Monsanto Co and DuPont were among heavy spenders on GMO labeling-related lobbying, among other food issues, according to a report issued by the Environmental Working Group," Reuters1 reports.

    Chemical Technology Industry Running Scared

    Such a dramatic rise in expenditure to keep genetically engineered (GE) foods and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) hidden is probably understandable in light of the fact that one state—Vermont—successfully signed into law a mandatory labeling bill in May.

    The law will require food manufacturers to label genetically engineered (GE) foods sold in Vermont, and prohibits them from labeling foods with GE ingredients as "natural" or "all natural."

    In response, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) along with the Snack Food Association, International Dairy Foods Association, and the National Association of Manufacturers, sued Vermont in federal court2 the following month (June).

    The GMA also sued the state of Washington last year after getting caught in a money laundering scheme during the state's GMO labeling campaign.3 Caught red handed, the GMA was forced to reveal the donors to their aggressive anti-labeling campaign.4

    But rather than admitting its wrongdoing, the GMA sued Washington State, arguing the association should be allowed to hide their donors—which is a direct violation of state campaign disclosure laws—in order to "speak with one voice" for the interests of the food industry.5

    As noted by Reuters,6 more than 20 other states are presently considering GMO labeling laws. Both Colorado and Oregon have GMO labeling on their November ballots. Two counties in Oregon have already voted to ban the growing of GE crops.

    This escalating trend undoubtedly has the industry running scared that their jig might soon be up...

    Clearly, as more states move forward on their labeling bills, keeping up the lawsuit strategy could turn into a major headache for the GMA, which is why it's pushing a Congressional bill called "The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 20147," (dubbed "DARK"—Denying Americans the Right to Know Act) that would simplypreempt all states from passing GMO labeling laws.8

    To help Vermont defend its GMO labeling law against these multi-national giants, consider making a donation to the Organic Consumers Fund, which has been set up to raise funds for this purpose. The fund has also pledged $500,000 to help Oregon pass a GMO labeling initiative in November.



    Coordinated Attack to Discredit Vandana Shiva

    It's also quite clear that the pro-GMO cartel, which includes the GMA, Monsanto and other leading chemical technology companies, along with leading processed food companies, have begun a massive coordinated attack against Vandana Shiva.

    She is perhaps one of the most vocal and most well-respected environmentalists and anti-GMO activists in the world. As recently noted by Counter Punch9 in an article titled "Gunning for Vandana Shiva:"

    "Perhaps nothing symbolizes the decline of The New Yorker magazine more than the hatchet job on Vandana Shiva that appears in the latest issue.10

    Written by Michael Specter, the author of 'Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress,' the article is a meretricious defense of genetically modified organisms (GMO) relying on one dodgy source after another.

    This is the same magazine whose reputation was at its apex when Rachel Carson's groundbreaking articles on DDT appeared in 1962. If DDT was once a symbol of the destructive power of chemicals on the environment, GMO amounts to one of the biggest threats to food production today.

    It threatens to enrich powerful multinational corporations while turning farmers into indentured servants through the use of patented seeds. Furthermore, it threatens to unleash potentially calamitous results in farmlands through unintended mutations."

    Not surprisingly, Michael Specter turns to two well-oiled propaganda mouthpiecesamela Ronald and Mark Lynas, to defend GE crops and refute Shiva's warnings. I've discussed both in previous articles. For example, Ronald, a GMO advocate and scientist, recently had two of her scientific papers retracted due to sizeable scientific errors that rendered her findings null and void.

    Vandana Responds to Her Critics

    Vandana Shiva issued a response11 to Specter's article stating that "Specter's piece starts with inaccurate information, by design." She notes several of the discrepancies in his reporting, including his attempt to discredit her by claiming he could not find any evidence of her education. She writes:

    "Specter has reduced my M.Sc. Honors in Physics to a B.Sc. for convenience. Mr. Specter and the Biotech Industry (and The New Yorker, by association) would like to identify the millions of people opposing GMOs as unscientific, romantic, outliers. My education is obviously a thorn in their side.

    'When I asked if she had ever worked as a physicist, she suggested that I search for the answer on Google. I found nothing, and she doesn't list any such position in her biography.' Specter has twisted my words, to make it seem like I was avoiding his question. I had directed him to my official website... The Wikipedia page about me has been altered to make it look like I have never studied science. The Biotech Industry would like to erase my academic credentials...

    Quantum theory taught me the four principles that have guided my work: everything is interconnected, everything is potential, everything is indeterminate, and there is no excluded middle. Every intellectual breakthrough I have made over the last 40 years has been to move from a mechanistic paradigm to an ecological one..."

    Why Do So Many Indian Farmers Commit Suicide?

    The introduction of genetically engineered seeds, and the coercion of Indian farmers to use them, has led to the largest wave of recorded suicides in human history. In India, it's been estimated that a farmer commits suicide every 30 minutes, typically by ingesting pesticide. But why? The short answer is crop failures, which leaves them in financial ruin.

    What many fail to realize is that it's the genetically engineered (GE) seeds that fail (especially Bt cotton), and GE seeds must be repurchased every year. You're not allowed to save patented GE seeds, as has been done since the beginnings of agriculture. Bt cotton is much more expensive than traditional cotton seed, requires more water and pesticides, and has failed to produce the increased crop yields promised by Monsanto. A single failed crop combined with lack of financing options can therefore bankrupt a farmer. Others keep going, taking out more and more loans, until they simply cannot ever pay them back.

    Michael Specter tries to make light of such statistics stating that the Indian suicide trend is similar to that in France. In my view, we should be horrified to realize that the business of growing food has gotten so financially challenging that even in a country like France a farmer commits suicide every two days12—again due to being financially ruined, just like the farmers in India. Interestingly, poisoning by pesticide has actually become the leading method of suicide around the world, according to the World Health Organization.13

    GMO Promises Fall Flat Because They're Not Rooted in Truth

    David Friedberg is the latest poster boy for Monsanto, as it tries to clean up its image. According to the St. Louis Business Journal:14 "Friedberg, a 34-year-old lifelong vegetarian, is emerging as 'an unlikely champion' of Monsanto and its genetically modified products... Friedberg, who formerly was a Google Inc. executive, oversees Monsanto's precision agriculture services... The Wall Street Journal reports that Friedberg's 'Silicon Valley pedigree' is helping open doors for him to advocate for Monsanto in a region that has been anti-GMO... Friedberg said he believes Monsanto's products help sustain food production for the world's growing population."

    The claim that GE crops are "necessary" to feed a growing population is a popular mantra among those who do not have an understanding of the whole picture. It's actually 180 degrees from the truth, as what we really need is to focus on strategies that will promote soil health, and GE crops decimate soil fertility.

    Also, besides killing critical soil microbes needed for plant health and nutrition, what many fail to take into account is that GE plants typically require more water, not less, and while many varieties are designed to produce their own internal pesticides, which was meant to reduce pesticide requirements, these plants actually require more pesticides too—just to keep up with the proliferation of resistant pests and weeds!

    For example, earlier this summer Bloomberg15 reported that "BASF, the world's biggest chemical maker, plans to produce 50 percent more dicamba weedkiller in Texas to keep pace with anticipated demand from a new generation of genetically modified crops."

    Dicamba is a weed killer linked to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. And Texas is gearing up to dump 50 percent more of it on its crops in the near future. How is this benefiting anyone's health and well-being? How are GE crops "saving the world" when they are poisoning the environment and the people eating the food? This is NOT a sensible solution to world hunger. The fact is that 30-50 percent of the four billion tons of food produced around the world each year never reaches a human mouth.Cutting food waste is a critical aspect of preventing hunger as the population grows.16

    The list of failed GMO promises goes on and on... And countries that recognize these facts and risks are even being more or less blackmailed into accepting GE crops, especially if they're in need of aid. El Salvador is one such example.17 If saving the world was really that high on the list of priorities, the chemical technology industry, led by Monsanto, would hardly engage in the kind of mafia tactics they've become famous for...

    GMOs Have Labeling Requirements in More Than 60 Countries, Why Not in the US?

    The words, "Contain GMOs," are required on labels in 64 other countries around the world. It is truthful information, and just like added flavors must be labeled "natural or artificial," and juice must state if it is from concentrate, whether or not an ingredient is genetically engineered falls under truth in labeling. To take it a step further, it prevents fraud.

    Free market principles require certain understandings. If you label a product "salmon," a buyer and seller understand what salmon is. If you splice eel genes into salmon, it is no longer plain, regular old salmon. If you continue to mislabel this eel-spliced fish as salmon, the seller is committing fraud. Labeling GMOs—transgenic plants and animals—is a truthful right of the consumer. We consider non-labeled transgenic products to be fraud that the federal government has allowed based on "substantial equivalence"—a term invented to monopolize and patent life between a few gigantic corporate interests.





    I recently named the GMA “the most evil corporation on the planet,” considering the fact that it consists primarily of pesticide producers and junk food manufacturers who are going to great lengths to violate some of your most basic rights—just to ensure that subsidized, genetically engineered and chemical-dependent, highly processed junk food remains the status quo.



    The insanity has gone far enough. It’s time to unite and fight back, which is why I encourage you to boycott every single product owned by members of the GMA, including natural and organic brands. To learn more about this boycott, and the traitor brands that are included, please visit TheBoycottList.org. I also encourage you to donate to the Organic Consumers Fund. Your donation will help fight the GMA lawsuit in Vermont, and also help win the GMO labeling ballot initiative in Oregon in November.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    avid (26th November 2014), Daughter of Time (17th September 2014), Hervé (17th September 2014), william r sanford72 (1st March 2015)

  13. Link to Post #27
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Monsanto's Roundup Linked to Cancer - Again

    Monday, 06 October 2014 09:19
    By Jeff Ritterman, M.D., Truthout


    A brilliant and celebrated inventor, John Franz, gave us an herbicide, Roundup, which has changed the face of agriculture. This herbicide has become the foundation for an entirely novel approach to farming - biotech agriculture - that has expanded rapidly throughout the globe.

    Monsanto makes seeds for soy, corn, canola, cotton, alfalfa and sugar beets that are genetically engineered to be tolerant to Roundup. The seeds are marketed in 120 countries. Throughout the world, Roundup is sprayed heavily as a weed killer without fear of damaging the cash crops, which have been engineered to survive the herbicide's effects.

    Quote "The change in how agriculture is produced has brought, frankly, a change in the profile of diseases. We've gone from a pretty healthy population to one with a high rate of cancer, birth defects and illnesses seldom seen before."
    Roundup seemed, at first, to be the perfect herbicide. It blocks the ESPS synthase enzyme, which prevents the synthesis of amino acids that plants need for growth. Since animals don't have this enzyme, it was initially hypothesized that they would be safe from Roundup's effects.

    Unfortunately, Roundup has now been shown to affect much more than the EPSP synthase enzyme. The herbicide has been proven to cause birth defects in vertebrates, including in humans, and it may also be the cause of a fatal kidney disease epidemic.

    An increasing number of studies are now linking the herbicide to cancer.

    Roundup Linked to Increased Cancer in "Soy Republic"
    Roundup is now heavily sprayed in what is known as the "Soy Republic," an area of Latin America larger than the state of California. This region has undergone a profound transformation since genetically modified (GM) crops were first introduced in 1996. Some 125 million acres in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Uruguay and Paraguay are now devoted to GM soy production.

    Doctors serving these areas have documented an alarming increase in cancers. A group of dedicated physicians formed an organization, Doctors of Fumigated Towns. They held a national conference in August of 2010 in Córdoba, the center of Argentina's soy region. The Department of Medical Sciences of the National University at Córdoba sponsored the conference. An estimated 160 doctors from throughout the country attended.

    Dr. Medardo Avila Vazquez, a pediatrician specializing in environmental health, explained his concerns:

    Quote "The change in how agriculture is produced has brought, frankly, a change in the profile of diseases. We've gone from a pretty healthy population to one with a high rate of cancer, birth defects and illnesses seldom seen before. What we have complained about for years was confirmed and especially what doctors say about the sprayed towns and areas affected by industrial agriculture. Cancer cases are multiplying as never before in areas with massive use of pesticides."
    Dr. Avila Vazquez blamed the biotech agricultural corporations for placing their profits over the public's health:

    Quote "The tobacco companies denied the link between smoking and cancer, and took decades to recognize the truth. The biotech and agrochemical corporations are the same as the tobacco industry; they lie and favor business over the health of the population."
    It was the health of the population that concerned Dr. Damian Verzeñassi, professor of social and environmental health from the National University at Rosario. In 2010, he began a house-to-house epidemiological study of 65,000 people in Santa Fe, also in Argentina's soy region. He found cancer rates two to four times higher than the national average, with increases in breast, prostate and lung cancers.

    Dr. Verzeñassi commented on his findings: "Cancer has skyrocketed in the last fifteen years."

    Much the same was found in Chaco, Argentina's poorest province. In 2012, two villages were compared, the heavily sprayed farming village of Avia Terai and the non-sprayed ranching village of Charadai. In the farming village, 31 percent of residents had a family member with cancer while only 3 percent of residents in the ranching village had one.

    Carlos Fria lives in Avia Terai. He has complained about glyphosate spraying in close proximity to his home:

    Quote "If the wind changes, the agrochemicals come into the house. My uncle just died of cancer. My wife too, passed away from cancer. Now many, many people are dying of cancer. It didn't used to be like that. In my opinion, this has to do with the poison they put on the fields."
    Roundup Linked to Lymphoma
    Research has also been done in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand investigating possible links between glyphosate, Roundup's active ingredient, and cancer. A large number of studies have focused on glyphosate's possible association with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

    Scientists from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have analyzed studies spanning almost three decades. The IARC is the branch of the World Health Organization that promotes cancer research. Scientists throughout the world with skills in epidemiology, laboratory sciences and biostatistics are brought together to identify the causes of cancer so that preventive measures may be instituted. The agency views cancers as linked, directly or indirectly, to environmental factors.

    Quote The research shows that Roundup is linked to a host of cancers in those living in the heavily sprayed regions of Latin America. It has also been linked to B cell lymphoma, and to brain cancer.
    In April of 2014, scientists at the IARC published their review of twenty-five years of research on the relationship between pesticide exposure and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. They found a positive association between organo-phosphorus herbicides, like glyphosate, and this cancer. The B cell lymphoma sub-type, in particular, was strongly associated with glyphosate exposure.

    Roundup Linked to Brain Cancer
    The linkage to lymphoma is the most recent research raising concerns about glyphosate's connection to cancer. Scientists from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a branch of the US Department of Health and Human Services, specialize in illnesses caused by toxic substances. They published the results of the US Atlantic Coast Childhood Brain Cancer Study in 2009. Children with brain cancer from Florida, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania were compared to age matched controls. The researchers found that if either parent had been exposed to Roundup during the two years before the child's birth, the chances of the child developing brain cancer doubled.

    Roundup and Cancer: Human Observations Summarized
    The research shows that Roundup is linked to a host of cancers in those living in the heavily sprayed regions of Latin America. It has also been linked to B cell lymphoma, and to brain cancer.

    While the epidemiological studies show close correlation, they cannot prove causality. The gold standard for scientific proof is a randomized controlled trial, which would be unethical in this instance. You cannot ethically expose humans to an herbicide. Scientists therefore use a variety of experimental models to assess cancer risk.

    Roundup Causes DNA Damage, Errors During Cell Division
    Cancer risk can be evaluated by experiments that measure Roundup's ability to induce DNA damage.

    One of the initial steps in the development of cancers is often damage to our DNA. Each of our cells gets its operating instructions from its DNA. If the DNA is damaged, the faulty operating instructions can re-program cells to divide rapidly and chaotically. When this happens, cells become transformed into cancers.

    A number of experiments have been done using various animal models, all showing the same results: after exposure to Roundup, cells exhibited DNA damage. This was true in fruit fly larvae, in mice, in the blood cells of the European eel and in the lymphocytes of cows.

    Another experimental model that has been used to judge glyphosate's cancer risk focuses on the herbicide's impact on cell division. Cells are vulnerable to being turned into cancers if an error is made during this delicate process. In the process of cell division, the DNA must be copied precisely. Each daughter cell must receive from its parent cell an identical copy of the DNA. If a mistake is made, the daughter cells will receive faulty DNA copies. Cells with damaged DNA can turn into cancers.

    In a 2004 study done at the National Scientific Research Center and the University of Pierre and Marie Curie in France, Roundup caused significant errors in the cell division of sea urchin embryos. The scientists commented that these abnormalities are hallmarks of cancer and delivered a particularly chilling warning: The concentration of Roundup needed to cause these errors was 500 to 4,000 times lower than the dose to which humans may be exposed by aerial spraying or handling of the herbicide.

    Roundup Damages Human DNA
    The most worrisome of the DNA studies are the ones that show DNA damage in humans.

    Dr. Fernando Manas, a biologist at the National University of Rio Cuarto in Argentina, has been investigating the effects of pesticides for years. He believes that glyphosate spraying is causing cancer by inducing DNA damage. His research has documented genetic damage in those exposed. When Dr. Manas studied pesticide sprayers working in the soy industry in Córdoba, he found significantly more DNA damage in their lymphocytes than in those of an unexposed group of controls. Roundup was one of the most commonly used pesticides.

    Quote The pesticide sprayers in Córdoba, the Ecuadorians living in Sucumbíos, and the normal volunteers all developed Roundup-induced DNA damage in their lymphocytes.
    Genetics researchers from the Pontifical Catholic University in Quito, Ecuador evaluated Ecuadorians living in the Sucumbíos district in northern Ecuador for evidence of DNA damage. This area was heavily sprayed with Roundup by the Colombian government to eradicate illicit crops. Those exposed to the herbicide developed a number of acute symptoms, including abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, fever, heart palpitations, headaches, dizziness, numbness, insomnia, depression, shortness of breath, blurred vision, burning of eyes, blisters and rash. When compared to a control group, they also showed significantly more DNA damage.
    Interestingly, scientists have known since 1998 that when normal human lymphocytes were exposed to Roundup in a test tube, the lymphocytes developed DNA damage.

    The pesticide sprayers in Córdoba, the Ecuadorians living in Sucumbíos, and the normal volunteers all developed Roundup-induced DNA damage in their lymphocytes. A cancer of the lymphocytes is known as a "lymphoma," the very same type of cancer that the International Agency for Research on Cancer showed to be strongly associated with glyphosate exposure.

    Roundup Boosts Cancer in Tissue Culture Studies
    Another method that scientists have used to assess Roundup's cancer risk is to expose cells grown in "tissue culture" to the herbicide. Sheets of cells are grown on a small dish with nutrients. Glyphosate is added and its effects are observed.

    In 2010, researchers in India exposed mouse skin cells grown in tissue culture to Roundup. When the herbicide was added, the cells became cancerous.

    Scientists in Thailand studied the impact of Roundup on human estrogen-responsive breast cancer cells in tissue culture. They published their results in 2013. Hormone-responsive breast cancer cells are known to grow when exposed to estrogen. Roundup also stimulated these cells to grow. The herbicide was able to bind to the cancer's estrogen receptors, thus mimicking the effects of estrogen and accelerating tumor growth.

    Roundup Causes Cancer in Test Animals
    Roundup's effects have been assessed in studies with a variety of test animals for more than three decades.

    One of the earliest studies was done in 1979-1981, under the auspices of the United Nations Environmental Program, the International Labor Organization and the World Health Organization. Rats exposed to low levels of the herbicide developed testicular cancer. A larger dose did not produce the cancer. Unfortunately, at the time of the experiment, it was not understood that certain substances have more potent effects at lower doses than at higher doses. The evaluators erroneously dismissed the results showing the low-dose effect.

    In a study from the Institute of Biology at the University of Caen in France, researchers studied glyphosate's effects on rats. Originally published in 2012, the resulting report was retracted after the biotech agriculture industry complained. After extensive review failed to show any fraud or problem with the data, the report was re-published in 2014. In this study, Roundup was shown to double the incidence of mammary gland tumors. These cancers developed much faster in rats exposed to Roundup than in controls. There was also an increase in cancers of the pituitary gland.

    Rounding Up the Evidence
    Epidemiological studies in humans, in the soy regions of Argentina and in Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have shown Roundup to be linked to an increase in cancer risk. There is a strong association between Roundup and B cell lymphoma, brain cancer and a variety of other cancers in those living in heavily sprayed areas.

    In addition to these epidemiological observations, laboratory studies have shown that Roundup causes DNA damage, disturbs cell division, increases cancer growth in tissue culture and induces cancer when fed to test animals.

    Proving Causality
    Does the evidence linking Roundup to cancer prove causality? In the 1964 landmark Surgeon General's Report, which for the very first time linked tobacco to cancer, Surgeon General Dr. Luther Terry presented criteria for the establishment of a cause and effect relationship in a scientific study.

    To meet Dr. Terry's criteria, an association must be strong, specific and consistent. Cause must precede effect. And the association must be biologically plausible.

    Biotech agriculture's most powerful backer, it seems, is the government of the United States.
    How well does the association between Roundup and cancer fit these criteria?

    Roundup exposure is consistently and specifically associated with precancerous abnormalities in a wide variety of experimental settings. Epidemiological observations show a tight linkage between glyphosate and cancer. In the laboratory research, as well as in the epidemiological studies in the field, exposure to the herbicide precedes the development of the abnormalities. There are plausible biological mechanisms that explain how glyphosate can transform cells into cancers.

    In citing the Surgeon General's report, Drs. Wild and Seber, in their highly regarded statistics textbook, Chance Encounters, provide an example of a strong association. If an "illness is four times as likely among people exposed to a possible cause as it is for those who are not exposed," the association is considered strong.

    Most of the glyphosate exposure experiments and epidemiological observations show a doubling of cancer risk. This leaves some room for doubt.

    But who, given the science, would want to expose their loved ones to Roundup?

    The State of the Science vs. the Science of the State
    Roundup has now been conclusively proven to cause birth defects and to be closely linked to cancer. If we do not want this herbicide to accumulate in our water, land, and food, we need to stop using it.

    Quote In the final sad irony, when the cancer cells reach their growth peak, they kill their host and die in the process.
    The science is clear, but powerful economic interests have, thus far, prevailed. The executives of the biotech agricultural corporations and their backers have ignored or denied the science documenting Roundup's harm.

    Biotech agriculture's most powerful backer, it seems, is the government of the United States.

    This official policy was explained in a 2010 US State Department cable from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

    Quote "Our biotech outreach objectives for 2010 are to increase access to, and markets for, biotech as a means to help address the underlying causes of the food crisis, and to promote agricultural technology's role in mitigating climate change and increasing biofuel production."
    The US government has been willing to exercise its muscle in support of the biotech agricultural corporations.

    In El Salvador, for example, the United States recently pressured the government to buy Monsanto's GM seeds or risk losing $277 million in development aid. El Salvador refused and stood firm, preferring to buy the seeds from its own struggling farmers.

    Cancer's Lessons
    There is a disturbing parallel between the exponential growth of biotech agriculture and the spread of a cancer in the human body.

    Cancers are cells that reproduce rapidly and haphazardly with no regard for the greater good of the organism. Cancer cells consume valuable energy, starving out normal cells. They grow so wildly and so quickly that they crowd out their neighbors. They send off emissaries to start new cancer colonies. They make harmful substances that damage healthy cells. They spread relentlessly. In the final sad irony, when the cancer cells reach their growth peak, they kill their host and die in the process.

    Like a cancer, biotech agriculture has crowded out its neighbors and is spreading relentlessly. Also like a cancer, it makes harmful substances. Roundup is one of them. As more acreage comes under GM cultivation, we can expect Roundup use to continue to increase.

    Roundup kills plants, causes birth defects in vertebrates, and is linked to cancer. Can a living planet withstand the continuous assault from this poison any more than the human body can withstand the attack from an aggressive cancer?

    Do we need to fight biotech agriculture with the same persistence, commitment and force that we bring to bear in battling cancers?

    The author thanks Vivien Feyer for contributions to this article.


    Related Stories

    Roundup Ready Alfalfa Damages US Seed Industry
    By Phillip Geertson, Activist Post | Report

    Monsanto Found Guilty of Chemical Poisoning in France
    By Anthony Gucciardi, Natural Society | Report

    Monsanto and Big Food Losing the GMO and "Natural" Food Fight
    By Ronnie Cummins, Organic Consumers Association | News Analysis
    "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 6 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (26th November 2014), Daughter of Time (23rd October 2014), heyokah (27th November 2014), Ikarusion (28th May 2015), onawah (8th October 2014), william r sanford72 (1st March 2015)

  15. Link to Post #28
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,089 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Billion-dollar lawsuits claim GMO corn 'destroyed' US exports to China
    Published time: October 06, 2014 19:05
    http://rt.com/usa/193612-china-lawsuits-gmo-corn/
    Quote Three class-action lawsuits filed Friday claim that agribusiness power Syngenta is to blame for depressed corn exports to China since the seed company released a genetically-engineered variant of the crop before it was approved by Beijing.

    At issue is Syngenta’s 2009 release and distribution of its MIR162 genetically-modified corn known as Agrisure Viptera, which is engineered to fend off certain insects known to decimate corn crops. While approved for use in the United States, Chinese regulators have yet to sanction the export of Viptera.

    Syngenta is responsible for “destroy[ing] the export of US corn to China,” which led to “depressed prices for all domestic corn,” according to Volnek Farms, the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit filed in an Omaha, Nebraska federal court. Volnek and others are claiming $1 billion in compensation.

    The two other suits were filed in Iowa and Illinois federal courts, according to Courthouse News. In addition to monetary claims, the Nebraska and Iowa suits seek to enjoin Syngenta from cultivating and marketing MIR162, or Viptera.

    In addition to alleging the destruction of the US corn export market to China, Iowa plaintiffs Cronin Inc. and Jim Ruba Jr., who say they do not even plant genetically-modified corn, claim that Syngenta offered “materially misleading statements relating to the approval status of MIR162 in China and the impact the lack of approval would have on the market.”

    “Syngenta's widespread contamination of the US corn and corn seed supply with MIR162, which will continue to foreclose the US export market to China in future years and will continue to lead to lower corn prices per bushel in the US market, as a result,” the Iowa plaintiffs added.

    China’s importation of US corn is expected to rise, Nebraska plaintiff Volnek said, citing the US Department of Agriculture. But China ceased importing US corn after detecting MIR162 in shipments, Volnek and company added.

    Though Viptera has been planted on only about three percent of US farm acreage, it is difficult to say for sure "that any shipments of US corn will not be contaminated with trace amounts of MIR162," the Nebraska plaintiffs said.

    The commingling of corn from various sources at corn distribution centers is “essentially impossible," according to the Iowa complaint, which cites other major grain companies Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, which do not accept Viptera.

    Syngenta has been encouraged by the National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) to stop selling Viptera, according to the Iowa claim. The NGFA has estimated that actions taken in China against US corn have caused prices to drop by 11 cents per bushel.

    The Iowa suit alleges that the release of Syngenta’s Viptera caused the US-to-China corn export market to fall by 85 percent.

    Syngenta has claimed that "the vast majority of corn produced in the US is used domestically," and that exports are not as important, though the USDA says 20 percent of corn produced in the US is exported. These conflicting accounts led to accusations by Iowa plaintiffs that Syngenta has engaged in willful misrepresentation.

    Nebraska plaintiffs allege "reckless disregard" for the commodity market.

    "Syngenta's decision to bring Viptera to the market crippled the 2013-14 corn export market to China," they said.

    In 2011, Syngenta requested in federal court that a grain elevator firm, Bunge North America, remove signs that said it would not accept Viptera-variety corn. The request was denied.

    In April, the NGFA, a trade organization for grain elevators, reported that China had barred nearly 1.45 million tons of corn shipments since 2013, resulting in about $427 million in lost sales. China first halted shipments of American corn in November, as RT previously reported.

    Concern over the safety of genetically engineered food may have played a role in a recent decision by Chinese officials to move away from GE production of the nation’s own. In August, China’s Ministry of Agriculture announced it would not continue with a program that developed genetically-modified rice and corn.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (26th November 2014), Hervé (10th October 2014), heyokah (27th November 2014)

  17. Link to Post #29
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    21st March 2010
    Location
    the foothills of le Massif Central, France
    Age
    77
    Posts
    1,352
    Thanks
    7,476
    Thanked 4,829 times in 1,059 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    Hillary gets it wrong (again)
    Organic Consumer Assoc.

    Quote Just. Plain. Wrong.



    In her June 25 keynote address to the BIO International Convention in San Diego, Calif., Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for genetic engineering and genetically engineered crops. She earned a standing ovation that day by stating that the biotech industry suffers from a public perception problem and that it just needs “a better vocabulary” in order to persuade GMO skeptics who don’t understand “the facts” about genetic engineering.

    And then Hillary proceeded to get the facts wrong.

    Why does it matter what Hillary, who holds no public office and has not (yet) declared her candidacy for president, says or believes about genetic engineering and genetically modified crops and foods?

    It doesn’t. Unless she throws her hat in the ring for the Democratic nomination. And then it matters not just what her position on GMOs is, not just how deep her financial ties with the biotech industry run, not just how much she distorts the facts about the “promise” of biotech crops.

    It matters, deeply, to more than 90 percent of Americans, what her position is on GMO labeling laws.

    If elected, will Hillary support consumers’ right to know? Or will she support the DARK Act, a bill introduced in Congress earlier this year, that would preempt state GMO labeling laws?

    Hillary has been coy about announcing her candidacy. On clarifying her position on GMO labeling laws, she’s been dead silent.

    As she soon heads to Iowa—the testing ground for presidential candidates—Hillary’s presidential aspirations will no doubt become more clear. If she runs, as the pundits predict, it will be up to the GMO labeling movement to demand that she take a stand on GMO labeling laws.

    Meanwhile, here’s why Hillary’s speech to the BIO convention was just plain wrong.

    Read the essay:
    http://www.organicconsumers.org/arti...icle_30776.cfm
    Quote By Katherine Paul and Ronnie Cummins
    Organic Consumers Association, August 28, 2014

    For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Millions Against Monsanto page and our Environment and Climate Resource Center page.



    In her June 25 keynote address to the BIO International Convention in San Diego, Calif., Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for genetic engineering and genetically engineered crops. She earned a standing ovation that day by stating that the biotech industry suffers from a public perception problem and that it just needs “a better vocabulary” in order to persuade GMO skeptics who don’t understand “the facts” about genetic engineering.

    And then Hillary proceeded to get the facts wrong.

    Why does it matter what Hillary, who holds no public office and has not (yet) declared her candidacy for president, says or believes about genetic engineering and genetically modified crops and foods?

    It doesn’t—unless she throws her hat in the ring for the Democratic nomination. And then it matters not just what her position is on GMOs, not just how deep her financial ties to the biotech industry run, not just how much she distorts the facts about the “promise” of biotech crops.

    It matters, deeply, to more than 90 percent of Americans, what her position is on laws requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs in food and food products.

    If elected, will Hillary support consumers’ right to know? Or will she support the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, a bill introduced in Congress earlier this year, which if passed, will preempt state GMO labeling laws?

    Hillary has been coy about announcing her candidacy. But when it comes to clarifying her position on GMO labeling laws, she’s been dead silent.

    As she soon heads to Iowa—the testing ground for presidential candidates—Hillary’s presidential aspirations will no doubt become more clear. If she runs, as the pundits predict, it will be up to the GMO labeling movement to demand that she take a stand on GMO labeling laws.

    Meanwhile, here’s why Hillary’s speech to the BIO convention was just plain wrong.

    Wrong on the science of genetic engineering

    Hillary brought the BIO convention-goers to their feet with her call for “a better vocabulary” to win over consumers.

    No wonder. After all, that’s the line Monsanto has been feeding the public ever since the public became wise to the lies and false promises of an industry known for its reckless disregard for public health. It’s part of an aggressive, widespread public relations campaign to sugar-coat the facts about genetically engineered foods and the toxic chemicals required to produce them.

    As scientists release studies, each one more alarming than the next, revealing the devastating health and environmental hazards of the herbicides required to grow GMO crops—toxic chemicals such as glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, and Dow’s 2,4-D —consumers are connecting the dots between the rise of chronic illness and the unleashing of toxins into the environment (and onto our food).

    No amount of “better vocabulary” will be able to counter the science behind the impact of toxic herbicides and pesticides on soil, on the environment, on human health.

    But here’s where Hillary’s call for a “better vocabulary” really ran off the rails. Coverage of the convention included a video in which Hillary wrongly equated the age-old practice of seed hybridization with modern genetic engineering, in order to make the case that genetic engineering has been around since the beginning of farming.

    Hillary would do well to go back to her science books. Here are the facts, as understood by every biologist. Seed hybridization occurs when the seeds of two compatible parent plants, within the same species, are crossed, either in a controlled environment or in nature. That process is in no way equivalent to genetic engineering, a process that requires human intervention, and consists of changing the genetic code of one organism by inserting into it the DNA from a completely different plant or animal.

    Genetic engineering is an unnatural process that can take place only in a laboratory, aided by a human.

    Wrong on genetic engineering and drought

    In the same video from the June 25 conference, Hillary perpetuates industry claims that as global warming leads to more droughts, GMO crops will feed the world. She does this by focusing on GE drought-resistant seeds—as if engineering seeds for drought-resistance were a major focus on the biotech industry.

    It’s not, of course. Drought-resistant seeds and crops make up a miniscule portion of the GMO crop market. Close to 98 percent of GE crops are corn, soy, alfalfa, canola and sugar beets, used to make biofuels, animal feed and processed food products, such as high fructose corn syrup. These crops are engineered to produce their own Bt toxins in every cell or else to withstand massive doses of herbicides, such as Monsanto’s Roundup, which are sold to farmers as companions to their GMO seeds. They have nothing to do with drought-resistance.

    In fact, attempts to engineer seeds to thrive during droughts are still in the experimental stages and so far have largely failed. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Monsanto’s DroughtGard, the only drought-resistant crop approved so far by the USDA, produces “only modest results, and only under moderate drought conditions.”

    Yet to hear Hillary tell it, genetic engineering is all about saving farmers by providing them with magic seeds that thrive without water.

    Wrong on genetic engineering and global warming

    Toward the end of her video interview, Hillary switched gears to talk about climate change. She endorsed the Obama climate plan and called out the media for giving too much attention to climate-change skeptics.

    Hillary believes we must address global warming. Good news.

    But there’s just one problem.

    A growing chorus of scientists warn that we cannot successfully address global warming unless we acknowledge the huge role that industrial agriculture, with its GMO mono-crop culture and massive use of chemicals, plays in cooking the planet.

    If we’re truly serious about averting a global warming disaster, reducing carbon emissions isn’t enough. We have to acknowledge, and harness, potential of organic, regenerative agriculture to reverse global warming by sequestering carbon.

    According to groups like the Rodale Institute, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, and the Alliance for Food Sovereignty, a transition to sustainable, regenerative agriculture—not genetic engineering—is not only the only way we will feed the world, but absolutely essential if we want to slow global warming.

    Hillary is just plain wrong if she thinks we can solve global warming while simultaneously promoting GMO agriculture, here in the U.S. and abroad. That’s why the Organic Consumers Association has launched a petition asking her to rethink her support for biotech, and commit to supporting a transition to a sustainable, organic food and farming system.

    As consumers grow more knowledgeable about the link between food produced using toxic chemicals and the declining health of the U.S. population, they are looking more closely at those politicians who side with, and take money from, the biotech industry. Clinton’s ties to the biotech industry date back to the 1970s, when she was a partner in the Rose Law Firm which represented Monsanto.

    A recent ABC News poll revealed that 52 percent of Americans believe food containing GMOs are unsafe, while 13 percent are “unsure.”

    On mandatory GMO labeling laws, Americans are clear: 93 percent want labels.

    Hillary, where do you stand?

    Katherine Paul is associate director of the Organic Consumers Association.

    Ronnie Cummins is the international director of the Organic Consumers Association and its Mexico affiliate Via Organica.
    Here's Hillary Rodham Clinton on GMO crops:


  18. Link to Post #30
    Avalon Member East Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th May 2010
    Location
    USA
    Language
    English
    Posts
    2,108
    Thanks
    6,997
    Thanked 8,486 times in 1,711 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Why would anyone listen to a known pathological liar.
    Last edited by East Sun; 23rd October 2014 at 20:04.
    Question Everything, always speak truth... Make the best of today, for there may not be a tomorrow!!! But, that's OK because tomorrow never comes, so we have nothing to worry about!!!

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to East Sun For This Post:

    avid (26th November 2014), Blacklight43 (22nd October 2014)

  20. Link to Post #31
    Avalon Member East Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th May 2010
    Location
    USA
    Language
    English
    Posts
    2,108
    Thanks
    6,997
    Thanked 8,486 times in 1,711 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    [/COLOR]For the most part people do not change. In case you did not know or remember here is a character insight from history:


    In Case Y'all Forgot!!!!
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J01Rxjrmro...llaryFired.jpg
    Last edited by East Sun; 23rd October 2014 at 20:02.
    Question Everything, always speak truth... Make the best of today, for there may not be a tomorrow!!! But, that's OK because tomorrow never comes, so we have nothing to worry about!!!

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to East Sun For This Post:

    avid (26th November 2014)

  22. Link to Post #32
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Official records show massive spraying of restricted pesticides on Kauai

    Nov 26, 2014 by Jon Rappoport
    NoMoreFakeNews.com

    I don’t know whether this is the complete record of dangerous pesticides sprayed on Kauai, but it is an enormous list. The category “restricted use” means “even the authorities admit significant toxicity.”

    Here’s the link:

    “Kaua’i Agricultural Good Neighbor Program RUP Use Reporting: Aggregate usage of Restricted Use Pesticides as reported through the Kaua’i Agricultural Good Neighbor Program.”

    https://data.hawaii.gov/Health/Kaua-...Use-/9pud-c8q5

    (Hat tip to reader “Rita1″ for passing this information along).

    Jon Rappoport

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    My, is it ever a VERY long list!
    "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.

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

    avid (26th November 2014), onawah (27th November 2014)

  24. Link to Post #33
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,089 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    DNA from GMOs can pass directly into humans, study confirms
    http://livefreelivenatural.com/dna-g...tudy-confirms/
    This info hit home for me. I bought a free range turkey from my local health food store but didn't realize until after I had cooked it and eaten some that it was not GMO free. I didn't feel well after eating it, and I thought at first it might have been because I am primarily vegetarian and haven't eaten flesh in a long time. I got the turkey because I had been reading in Dr. Mercola's newsletter about how good bone broth is for bones and I have some health issues on that score, so I had resolved to make broth as well as a medicinal turkey vegetable soup, so as not to be wasteful. But when my body gave me negative signals, I checked further into the source of my turkey and discovered that "free range" did not mean GMO free. After reading this article, I think I am going to throw the whole GMO infected mess away...
    Quote Posted on June 24, 2014 by Cecil Iscool in Health

    (Via NaturalNews | Jonathan Benson) The idea that DNA from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is broken down in the digestive tract and rendered innocuous, a common industry claim, is patently false. A recent study published in the scientific journal PLOS ONE found that large, meal-derived DNA fragments from GMOs are fully capable of transferring their genes directly into the bloodstream, deconstructing the myth that transgenic foods act on the body in the same way as natural foods.

    A combined analysis of four other independent studies involving more than 1,000 human samples and a team of researchers from universities in Hungary, Denmark and the U.S. looked at the assimilation process for GMOs as they are currently consumed throughout the world. This includes derivatives of GM crops such as high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from GM corn, for instance, and soy protein from GM soybeans, as well as meat derived from animals fed a GM-based diet.

    After looking at the data on how the human body processes these and other forms of GMOs, the team discovered that DNA from GMOs is not completely broken down by the body during the digestion process. What would normally be degraded into smaller constituents like amino acids and nucleic acids was found to remain whole. Not only this, but these larger DNA fragments were found to pass directly into the circulatory system, sometimes at a level higher than actual human DNA.

    “[B]ased on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies, we report evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments which are large enough to carry complete genes can avoid degradation and through an unknown mechanism enter the human circulation system,” explained the authors in their study abstract.

    “In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA.”

    Genes from GMOs transfer into small intestine, alter composition of beneficial bacteria

    This is an astounding discovery that proves false claims made by Monsanto and others that GMOs are no different from non-GMOs as far as the body is concerned. Monsanto even claims on its “Food Safety” page for GMOs that the DNA from GMOs is “extensively digested” and “present[s] no hazards,” both of which have now been shown to be lies.

    Based on this latest analysis of how food genes are transferred from the digestive tract into the bloodstream, it is now apparent that the genes of GMOs pass into the bloodstream whole. Their presence is also associated with major inflammatory conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease, adenoma and colorectal cancer.

    The presence of transgenic genes in the small intestine was also found to affect the composition of beneficial bacteria, which are responsible for protecting the gut against foreign invaders and helping the body absorb nutrients from food. Individuals with ileostomies, or perforations in their abdominal walls as a result of surgery, were found to literally be harboring full DNA sequences from GMOs in their intestinal tracts.



    None of this is really all that surprising, of course, as the biological activities behind how GMOs are processed by the human body have never been legitimately studied. Biotechnology companies have always just claimed that GMOs are the same as real food, without any evidence to back this up, and this has been enough for the government to keep them on the market for nearly 20 years.

    “One small mutation in a human being can determine so much, the point is when you move a gene, one gene, one tiny gene out of an organism into a different one you completely change its context,” said David Suzuki, co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. “There is no way to predict how it’s going to behave and what the outcome will be.”

    Sources for this article include:

    http://www.realfarmacy.com

    http://www.plosone.org

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

    http://science.naturalnews.com

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com
    - See more at: http://livefreelivenatural.com/dna-g....IgqmjCNK.dpuf
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  25. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Hervé (28th November 2014), william r sanford72 (1st March 2015)

  26. Link to Post #34
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,089 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Dramatic Correlation Shown Between GMOs and 22 Diseases
    http://www.nationofchange.org/2014/1...ical-diseases/

    [QUOTE]Millions of people have marched against Monsanto and the national consensus is in favor of labeling. Why hasn't the U.S. government responded?

    Published: November 19, 2014 | Authors: Kevin Zeese Margaret Flowers | Popular Resistance | News Report
    There is a growing movement for labeling of GMO crops, and many would go further and ban GMOs completely. Currently there is a close vote in Oregon on a GMO labeling initiative, with advocates for labeling 0.3% behind and raising money to check ballots (we urge your support). Those who profit from GMOs spent $20 million to prevent labeling in Oregon. Several states in the Northeast have put in place laws that will require labeling.

    Vermont is about to be sued to prevent GMO labeling. GMO profiteers have an unusual marketing strategy. While most companies brag about their product, the GMO industry spends hundreds of millions to hide their product. The US does not require labeling of GMOs despite the fact that 64 countries around the world label GMO foods.

    Millions have marched against Monsanto urging labeling or the banning of GMO products. There is a national consensus in favor of labeling but the government has been unable to respond. Indeed, President Obama’s food czar is a former Monsanto executive. The deep corruption of government is putting the health of the American people at serious risk.
    The research highlighted below, “Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America,” was published in The Journal of Organic Systems this September and links GMOs to 22 diseases with very high correlation. We reprinted many of the graphs from the study that show an incredible correlation between the rise of GMO crops that use the herbicide glyphosate and a wide range of diseases.

    Glyphosate was introduced to the marketplace in 1974 but data on its use is only available since 1990. Monsanto has genetically modified foods so that they are resistant to glyphosate, a herbicide Monsanto sells, resulting in a dramatic increase in the use of glyphosate. The study points out that research has shown that “glyphosate disrupts the ability of animals, including humans, to detoxify xenobiotics. This means that exposures to the numerous chemicals in food and the environment, such as endocrine disrupting chemicals and carcinogens, could be causing levels of damage that would not occur if the body were able to detoxify them.”

    Correlation is not proof of causation. But the authors point out “we have data for 22 diseases, all with a high degree of correlation and very high significance. It seems highly unlikely that all of these can be random coincidence.” They point out that according to “the American Academy of Environmental Medicine’s position paper on genetically modified (GM) foods: ‘[S]everal animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.’”

    The conclusions of the study are:

    “These data show very strong and highly significant correlations between the increasing use of glyphosate, GE crop growth and the increase in a multitude of diseases. Many of the graphs show sudden increases in the rates of diseases in the mid-1990s that coincide with the commercial production of GE crops. The large increase in glyphosate use in the US is mostly due to the increase in glyphosate-resistant GE crops.

    “The probabilities in the graphs and tables show that it is highly unlikely that the correlations are a coincidence. The strength of the correlations shows that there is a very strong probability that they are linked somehow. The number of graphs with similar data trends also indicates a strong probability that there is a link. Although correlation does not necessarily mean causation, when correlation coefficients of over 0.95 (with p-value significance levels less than 0.00001) are calculated for a list of diseases that can be directly linked to glyphosate, via its known biological effects, it would be imprudent not to consider causation as a plausible explanation.

    “We do not imply that all of these diseases have a single cause as there are many toxic substances and pathogens that can contribute to chronic disease. However, no toxic substance has increased in ubiquity in the last 20 years as glyphosate has. . . . Another critical issue is that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor and it has been argued that there are no safe levels of endocrine disruptors. This would imply that the current permitted residue levels in food could be causing multiple health problems that have been documented in the scientific literature to be caused by endocrine disrupting chemicals.” [Citations omitted]
    A root cause of the problem is that United States’ regulatory structure is backward, making people into guinea pigs instead of protecting them. As the researchers write:

    “… the regulatory approach in the US is reactionary rather than precautionary. Instead of taking preventive action when uncertainty exists about the potential harm a chemical or other environmental contaminant may cause, a hazard must be incontrovertibly demonstrated before action is initiated. Instead of requiring industry to prove the safety of their devices or chemical products, the public bears the burden of proving that a given environmental exposure is harmful.”

    As to next steps, the researchers urge independent scientific research (sadly, too much research is funded by corporations that profit from GMO crops]. They write:

    “The data presented in this paper highlight the need for independent scientific research to be conducted, especially in the areas of the endocrine disruption, cancer precursor, oxidative stress, gut microbiome and the Cytochrome P450 pathways. It is our hope that, in addition to more basic research in the form of toxicology and carcinogenic studies, epidemiology studies will be undertaken by experts in each of these disease categories.”

    In the meantime, people need to continue to take political action to require labeling, urge a new regulatory structure that applies the precautionary principle and urge the banning of GMO crops now that correlation to disease is being shown. There are a few things you can do to protect yourself from GMO foods: (1) Buy organic, (2) Look for the Non-GMO seal, (3) Avoid crops where GMO’s are common.

    The eight GM food crops are Corn, Soybeans, Canola, Cottonseed, Sugar Beets, Hawaiian Papaya (most) and a small amount of Zucchini and Yellow Squash. Sugar is likely to contain GMO beets unless it is labeled as pure cane sugar. Dairy is also likely to be GMO unless it is labeled No rBGH, rBST, or artificial hormones. Here’s a non-GMO shopping guide for further assistance.

    Below are some of the key charts from the Journal of Organic Systems study.



















    continued
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Hervé (28th November 2014), william r sanford72 (1st March 2015)

  28. Link to Post #35
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,089 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff


    Adoption of GMO crops in US

















    Liver cancer and GMOs

    Kidney Cancer and GMOs

    Urinary and bladder cancer and GMO

    Thyroid cancer and GMOs

    Hypertension and GMOs

    Stroke and GMOs

    Obesity and GMOs

    Diabetes and GMOs

    Diabetes prevalence and GMOs

    Lipoprotein Disorder Deaths and GMOs

    Renal disease deaths and GMOs

    Inflamatory bowell disease and GMOs

    Intestinal infection and GMOs

    Autism and GMOs

    Senile Dementia and GMOs

    Alzheimer's and GMOs

    Parkinson's and GMOs



    For more information visit the Organic Consumers Association Millions Against MonsantoCampaign.

    Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance which provides daily movement news and resources. Sign up for their daily newsletter; and follow them on twitter, @PopResistance.[/QUOTE]
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  29. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Hervé (28th November 2014), william r sanford72 (1st March 2015)

  30. Link to Post #36
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,089 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Autism Bomb: Bayer Herbicide Causes Autism, Even at Trace Levels
    Read more at http://expandedconsciousness.com/201...OWGhBI9q531.99
    http://expandedconsciousness.com/201...-trace-levels/
    Quote By Christina Sarich
    Bayer’s Liberty Link GMO crops made to withstand glufosinate ammonium (GLA) herbicide are linked directly to autism-like symptoms, according to a new study. Even in low doses, both pre and post-natal exposure to GLA caused symptoms in laboratory mice.
    Published in Frontiers of Behavioral Neuroscience, the study outlines how GLA, one of the most widely used herbicides in agriculture is harming neurological health.
    Pointing to the findings of previous research linking herbicides and autism, as well as with Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, the study explains that pesticide and herbicide exposure weakens the basic structure of the brain.
    The developmental impact of GLA was examined by exposing female mice to low dose GLA during both pre- and postnatal periods and analyzed potential developmental and behavioral changes of the offspring during infancy and adulthood.
    A host of neurobehavioral tests revealed some unsettling results:
    “. . .significant effects of GLA maternal exposure on early reflex development, pup communication, affiliative behaviors, and preference for social olfactory cues, but emotional reactivity and emotional memory remained unaltered. These behavioral alterations showed a striking resemblance to changes seen in animal models of Autistic Spectrum Disorders. At the brain level, GLA maternal exposure caused some increase in relative brain weight of the offspring. In addition, reduced expression of Pten and Peg3 – two genes implicated in autism-like deficits – was observed in the brain of GLA-exposed pups at postnatal day 15.
    Our work thus provides new data on the link between pre- and postnatal exposure to the herbicide GLA and the onset of autism-like symptoms later in life. It also raises fundamental concerns about the ability of current safety testing to assess risks of pesticide exposure during critical developmental periods.”

    Bayer Crop Science will tell you:
    “High-performance LibertyLink traits are widely available across crops – canola, cotton, corn and soybeans – including leading brands such as FiberMax® and Stoneville® cotton, InVigor®canola and more than 100 brands of corn and soybeans, including HBK soybeans.”
    This means that GLA is in use on thousands of acres of crops across the United States and in Canada.
    The Institute for Responsible Technology has stated that:
    “Twice the number of chickens died when fed Liberty Link corn. The death rate for chickens fed Chardon LL GM corn for 42 days was 7%, compared to 3.5% for controls. GM-fed chickens also had more erratic body weight and food intake, and less weight gain overall. But these results were dismissed without follow-up.”
    Were the results of this study ignored like so many other GMO tests because the makers were already well aware that GLA was toxic and deathly?
    Bayer is working to defeat GMO labeling as well.
    How convenient for Bayer, since it makes pharmaceuticals which also ‘treat’ neurological impairment like Alzheimer’s disease. It’s also convenient for Titan pharmaceuticals, which makes drugs to treat Parkinson’s. A new appointee to the board at Titan includes one former Bayer executive. And of course, Bayer makes drugs like selective seratonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) that ‘treat’ autism as well.
    It’s a tangled web.
    Additional Sources:
    Eco Watch
    This post was originally featured on Global Research:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/autism-...levels/5417852

    Read more at http://expandedconsciousness.com/201...OWGhBI9q531.99
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  31. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Hervé (5th December 2014), william r sanford72 (1st March 2015)

  32. Link to Post #37
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    A summary and interpretation of the graphs posted above by onawah:

    Study finds: "Very Strong" correlation between GMOs and two dozen diseases

    Arjun Walia
    collective-evolution.com
    Sat, 17 Jan 2015 02:45 CET



    It's no secret that we are living in a time where chronic disease continues to rise at an exponential rate, especially within the past couple of decades. New evidence continues to mount suggesting that Genetically Modified Organisms (more specifically GM food) might have played, and do play a key role in those statistics.

    A new study recently published in the Journal of Organic Systems last September examined US government databases, researchers searched for GE (Genetically Engineered) crop data, glyphosate application data, and disease epidemiological data while performing a "correlation analysis" on a total of 22 different diseases.

    Researchers reached an alarming conclusion:
    Quote "These data show very strong and highly significant correlations between the increasing use of glyphosate, GE crop growth and the increase in a multitude of diseases. Many of the graphs show sudden increases in the rates of diseases in the mid-1990s that coincide with the commercial production of GE crops. The probabilities in the graphs and tables show that it is highly unlikely that the correlations are a coincidence. The strength of the correlations shows that there is a very strong probability that they are linked somehow." (1)
    If you're thinking causation doesn't mean correlation [sic], you are right, but it's important to consider taking into account the multitude of studies that clearly indicate the potential dangers associated with ingesting genetically modified foods. There is a lot of information out there, and our lack of support for GE foods comes from examining a multitude of information instead of just "a study." It's always important to look at a wide variety of data and evidence when trying to make the best possible decisions for you and your family when it comes to GE foods. The science suggesting that they should not be deemed completely safe for consumption is quite large, and goes beyond the correlation analysis that was performed in this study.

    If you take glyphosate, for example, it was introduced in 1974 and its use is accelerating at an alarming rate. Over the decades, strong scientific evidence has shown how glyphosate disrupts the endocrine system and the balance of gut bacteria, that it damages DNA and encourages cell mutations that can lead to cancer. It's also been linked to autism, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and various other detrimental human health ailments. This fact alone gives more credence to the main study mentioned in this article.

    The actual study contains more information and visuals for anybody who reads it, you can access it within the sources.

    With all of the information and science that's now been published, more specifically with regards to glyphosate, it's absolutely absurd, dangerous and irresponsible for any biotech corporation who manufactures these substances to tell the world that they are completely safe and harmless, yet they do. Don't you think? How could a corporation like Monsanto (a corporation charged with regulating our global food supply) claim that glyphosate is safe despite all of the evidence that confirms that it's not?
    Quote "It is commonly believed that Roundup is among the safest pesticides... Despite its reputation, Roundup was by far the most toxic among the herbicides and insecticides tested. This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to huge economic interests, which have been found to falsify health risk assessments and delay health policy decisions."

    - R. Mesnage et al., Biomed Research International, Volume 2014 (2014) article ID 179691
    Keep in mind that the use of glyphosate rose 1500% from 1995 to 2005, and that 100 million pounds of glyphosate is used every year on more than a billion acres. (Cherry B. GM crops increase herbicide use in the United States. Science in Society 45, 44-46, 2010)(source)

    Source: http://www.organic-systems.org/journ...nson-et-al.pdf

    SOTT Comment: More strong scientific evidence 'showing how glyphosate disrupts the endocrine system, the balance of gut bacteria, damage to DNA and encourages cell mutations that can lead to cancer.'
    "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.

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

    Ikarusion (28th May 2015), william r sanford72 (1st March 2015)

  34. Link to Post #38
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,089 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Seedy Business
    What Big Food Is Hiding with Its Slick PR Campaign on GMOs
    February 10, 2015
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar..._rid=837076910
    Quote By Gary Ruskin
    Co-Founder and Executive Director, U.S. Right to Know

    U.S. Right to Know – a new nonprofit organization — released a new report on Big Food’s PR campaign to defend GMOs: how it manipulated the media, public opinion and politics with sleazy tactics, bought science and PR spin.

    Since 2012, the agrichemical and food industries have mounted a complex, multifaceted public relations, advertising, lobbying and political campaign in the United States, costing more than $100 million, to defend genetically engineered food and crops and the pesticides that accompany them.

    The purpose of this campaign is to deceive the public, to deflect efforts to win the right to know what is in our food via labeling that is already required in 64 countries, and ultimately, to extend their profit stream for as long as possible.

    This campaign has greatly influenced how U.S. media covers GMOs. The industry’s PR firm, Ketchum, even boasted that “positive media coverage has doubled” on GMOs. The report outlines fifteen things that Big Food is hiding with its artful PR campaign on GMOs.

    #1: The agrichemical companies have a history of concealing health risks from the public. Time and again, the companies that produce GMOs have hidden from consumers and workers the truth about the dangers of their products and operations. So how can we trust them to tell us the truth about their GMOs?

    #2: The FDA does not test whether GMOs are safe. It merely reviews information submitted by the agrichemical companies.

    #3: Our nation’s lax policy on GMOs is the work of former Vice President Dan Quayle’s anti-regulatory crusade. It was designed and delivered as a political favor to Monsanto.

    #4: What the agrichemical and tobacco industries have in common: PR firms, operatives, tactics. The agrichemical industry’s recent PR campaign is similar in some ways to the most infamous industry PR campaign ever – the tobacco industry’s effort to evade responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans each year.

    #5: Russia’s PR firm runs the agrichemical industry’s big PR salvo on GMOs. We don’t trust the PR firm Ketchum when it spins for Russia and President Putin. Why should we trust its spin on GMOs?

    #6: The agrichemical industry’s key front groups and shills aren’t trustworthy. Many of the industry’s leading advocates have records of defending the indefensible, or other scandals and conduct that inspires no confidence.

    #7: The agrichemical companies have employed repugnant PR tactics. These tactics include attacks on scientists and journalists, and brainwashing children.

    #8: The agrichemical companies have a potent, sleazy political machine. They have allies in high places, and employ their power vigorously – and sometimes corruptly — to protect and expand their markets and their profits from GMOs.

    #9: Half of the Big Six agrichemical firms can’t even grow their GMOs in their own home countries. Because of the health and environmental risks of GMOs, citizens of Germany and Switzerland won’t allow farming of BASF, Bayer, and Syngenta’s GMO seeds.

    #10: Monsanto supported GMO labeling in the UK but opposes it in the USA. Although Monsanto is based in St. Louis, Missouri, Monsanto believes that British citizens deserve stronger consumer rights than Americans do.

    #11: The pesticide treadmill breeds profits, so it will likely intensify. It is in the financial interest of the agrichemical companies to promote the evolution and spread of the most pestilential superweeds and superpests, because these will spur the sale of the greatest quantities of the most expensive pesticides.

    #12: GMO science is for sale. Science can be swayed, bought or biased by the agrichemical industry in many ways, such as suppressing adverse findings, harming the careers of scientists who produce such findings, controlling the funding that shapes what research is conducted, the lack of independent U.S.-based testing of health and environmental risks of GMOs, and tainting scientific reviews of GMOs by conflicts of interest.

    #13: There are nearly no consumer benefits of GMOs. The GMOs that Americans eat are not healthier, safer or more nutritious than conventional foods. They do not look better, nor do they taste better. By any measure that consumers actually care about, they are not in any way an improvement. Profits from GMOs accrue to the agrichemical companies, while health risks are borne by consumers.

    #14: The FDA and food companies have been wrong before: they have assured us of the safety of products that were not safe. Many drugs and food additives that the FDA allowed on the market have subsequently been banned because they were toxic or dangerous.

    #15: A few other things the agrichemical industry doesn’t want you to know about them: crimes, scandals, and other wrongdoing. The agrichemical industry’s six major firms — Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, DuPont, Bayer, and BASF — have been involved in so many reprehensible activities that documenting them would require at least an entire book.

    U.S. Right to Know is a new nonprofit food organization. We expose what food companies don’t want us to know about our food. We stand up for the right to know what’s in our food. We bring accountability to Big Food and its compliant politicians. For more information, please see our website at usrtk.org.

    Gary Ruskin is the co-founder and executive director of nonprofit organization U.S. Right to Know. In 2012, Gary was campaign manager for California Right to Know (Proposition 37), a statewide ballot initiative for labeling of genetically engineered food in California.

    For 14 years, he directed the Congressional Accountability Project, which opposed corruption in the U.S. Congress. For nine years, he was executive director and co-founder of Commercial Alert, which opposed the commercialization of every nook and cranny of our lives and culture. Gary was also director of the Center for Corporate Policy.

    He has often been quoted in major newspapers across the country and has appeared scores of times on national TV news programs. He received his undergraduate degree in religion from Carleton College, and a master’s degree in public policy from Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  35. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Hervé (10th February 2015), william r sanford72 (1st March 2015)

  36. Link to Post #39
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,089 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    GMO Food Alert: Scientific Truths Revealed
    Free audio show today only at the link, or hopefully one of the Mods can record and embed this.
    http://www.naturalhealth365.com/talkhourshow.html

    Our Guest - Robert Kremer, Ph.D. is a Professor of Soil Microbiology at the University of Missouri and recently retired after a 32-year career as a research microbiologist with the USDA Agricultural Research Service. The public needs to know: The vast majority of our corn and soy crops are genetically engineered and finding their way into more foods than you can imagine. This show sounds the alarm about the health dangers associated with genetically manipulated foods. You’ll learn how serious this issue is and, hopefully, share this information with your family and friends. It’s an urgent message!
    Now Playing! Sun. Mar. 1, 2015
    Available 9:00 am – 9:00 pm (EST)
    - See more at: http://www.naturalhealth365.com/talk....bfWIZEbR.dpuf
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  37. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    eaglespirit (1st March 2015), william r sanford72 (1st March 2015)

  38. Link to Post #40
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    34,268
    Thanks
    208,959
    Thanked 457,520 times in 32,788 posts

    Default Re: GMO And Related Stuff

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    GMO Food Alert: Scientific Truths Revealed
    Free audio show today only at the link, or hopefully one of the Mods can record and embed this.
    http://www.naturalhealth365.com/talkhourshow.html

    Our Guest - Robert Kremer, Ph.D. is a Professor of Soil Microbiology at the University of Missouri and recently retired after a 32-year career as a research microbiologist with the USDA Agricultural Research Service. The public needs to know: The vast majority of our corn and soy crops are genetically engineered and finding their way into more foods than you can imagine. This show sounds the alarm about the health dangers associated with genetically manipulated foods. You’ll learn how serious this issue is and, hopefully, share this information with your family and friends. It’s an urgent message!
    Now Playing! Sun. Mar. 1, 2015
    Available 9:00 am – 9:00 pm (EST)


    Done.

    http://projectavalon.net/GMO_Food_Al...March_2015.mp3
    (17 Mb, 41 mins, permanently on the Avalon server now)

  39. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Bob (1st March 2015), eaglespirit (1st March 2015), Jean-Marie (1st March 2015), onawah (1st March 2015), the_real_dave-id (1st March 2015), william r sanford72 (1st March 2015)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 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