Monsanto Knowingly Killing You with Glyphosate Since 1981

23 Jul 2015 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in Conspiracy, Control, Disease, Enforcement, GMO's, USDA Tags: , , ,

Admittedly, I find it unbelievable that people can still defend Round Up or GMO’s in any way. The evidence that they are completely unsafe is overwhelming and to believe otherwise requires such a huge denial of reality it is akin to believing the earth is flat and the center of our galaxy.

If you know anyone who is still in that camp, please have them read the following article. Unless they are brain dead, it is compelling:

Researcher Reveals Monsanto Has Known Since 1981 That Glyphosate Promotes Cancer

By Dr. Mercola

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup, is one of the most commonly used herbicides in the world.

An estimated one billion pounds a year is sprayed on our food crops,1,2 resulting in the average American eating several hundred pounds of glyphosate-contaminated food every year.

How might that affect your health? Dr. Anthony Samsel is an expert in this area, and in this interview, he reveals a number of glyphosate’s adverse effects.

Armed with this understanding, you’ll likely be far more motivated to eliminate this pernicious toxin from your diet—and to take action to get it out of our food supply so that everyone can be protected.

Dr. Samsel is a research scientist who is passionate about farming, gardening, and agriculture, making him particularly suitable for investigating glyphosate.

“I was with the ‘think tank,’ Arthur D. Little (ADL) in Cambridge, Massachusetts for many years working as a research scientist on many types of projects, from product development to environmental sciences to later switching to health sciences,” he says.

He’s also done contract work for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and as a hazardous materials expert, he’s worked for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the United States Navy (USN), and the United States Coast Guard (USCG).

For example, Dr. Samsel was one of the authors of the Chemical Hazard Response Information System (CHRIS) manual for the US Coast Guard.  He is also a valuable contributor to our article comments section (Vital Votes).

Besides his career in science, he also owned and operated several farms in New England, and it was this first-hand experience that led him to begin investigating the effects of glyphosate in the first place.

“I started using glyphosate myself commercially around the farm and my properties back in the late ’70s or early ’80s, when it first came on the market,” he says.

“I believed the hype like all the other farmers and people around the world do, that glyphosate is as safe as salt and that it broke down into harmless chemicals that did no harm. I believed all that stuff until I started studying the chemical.

Being a research scientist, a chemist, I knew what to look for. Having worked in public health, I was familiar with how chemicals had effects on the human body and on animals. So I started approaching it from that aspect.

As far as my own health, it started to suffer. That’s what put me on the road to take a look at this chemical because I was using it.”

Human Urine Turning into Herbicide…

One interesting experience that got him thinking was when he tried to deter deer from eating his crops. He’d run out of coyote urine, which is an effective deterrent, so he used his own urine.

Curiously, he noticed the weeds where he’d sprayed his urine were dying, despite the fact he’d not sprayed any Roundup there. He then realized his own urine was acting like an herbicide!

“I did some controlled experiments in the greenhouse with some plants and the same thing happened. Those plants died. Then, I started looking at my diet,” he says.

“The only organic food I was eating was out of my own garden and the stuff that I would can and preserve. But for everything else, I’d go to the supermarket and I ate boxed food and what-not. I started to put two and two together; that maybe this was the reason why I wasn’t feeling good.

Then I started looking into glyphosate because I was using it. That was my primary chemical exposure other than my food.

Then I realized they were using [glyphosate] on genetically engineered crops, and I started looking at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to see what food would have glyphosate or glufosinate in them.

[Glufosinate] is similar to glyphosate and used in genetically engineered crops. It’s not as widely used as glyphosate, but that’s still a problem to public health. All herbicides are ‘a’ problem to public health. There should be no herbicides in our food supply. None.”

90 Percent of Soybeans Found to Contain Glyphosate Residues

Unfortunately, testing for glyphosate and glufosinate is expensive and is the excuse the USDA uses for not  testing for it, and no contamination data was available for Dr. Samsel to review.

Eventually, he convinced the USDA to release the results of a series of tests in 2011. In all, they tested 400 samples of soybeans, and they found more than 90 percent of the soybeans had glyphosate residues in them.

However, when the agency sent him a pre-publication copy of the report, he noticed they were only reporting on 300 out of the 400 samples.

“I started looking at the data. I noticed that the amount of aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), which is the metabolite of glyphosate, was greater than that of the glyphosate itself.

If you analyze the glyphosate, you’re going to get glyphosate if the residue is in the crop, but you’re also going to get the metabolite AMPA. But looking at the numbers, they just didn’t make sense. I believed they’ve cherry-picked the data so that the data didn’t exceed the EPA residue limits,” he says.

Unfortunately, when he tried to get an explanation for the discrepancy in the data, his USDA contact was no longer working there, and he hasn’t been able to find him since.

Advocacy Group Now Offers Testing for Glyphosate in US

While the USDA does not test food for glyphosate residues, this may soon change. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced US regulators may start testing for glyphosate residues in the near future3,4,5 due to rising consumer concerns about the health impact of this chemical.

Meanwhile, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has joined forces with the Feed the World Project, launching the world’s first glyphosate testing for the general public.6,7,8,9 As reported by the OCA:

“The project, with specific focus on women and children in the US, is offering the first-ever validated public LC/MS/MS glyphosate testing for urine, water and soon breast milk… The testing OCA, Feed the World and many other organizations will begin offering [on April 22] will allow everyone who wants to know whether or not, and to what extent, they personally have been exposed to glyphosate.

We expect that once the public learns how widespread the exposure has been—in the context of the recent report from the World Health Organization that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen—public pressure will eventually force governments worldwide to finally ban Roundup.”

The Importance of Bacteria for Optimal Health

Dr. Samsel understood that his gut problems were related to bacteria and that just as healthy soil needs beneficial microbes, so does your gut. This was something instilled in him by his grandfather, who taught him that healthy bacteria in the soil help grow healthy crops. Not surprisingly, when he cleaned up his diet, his gut dysbiosis cleared up, as did a number of neurological problems he’d started experiencing.

At that point, he began delving deeper into the science of the human microbiome. Many are unaware of the fact that glyphosate is patented as an antibiotic. It’s designed to kill bacteria, which is one of the primary ways it harms both soils and human health. Recent research has even concluded that Roundup (and other pesticides) promotes antibiotic resistance. Dr. Samsel was actually the person who dug up the patents showing glyphosate is a biocide and an antibiotic.

“Some of the pathogens, like Salmonella and Pseudomonas, are resistant to glyphosate. When we ingest residues of glyphosate, glyphosate in the acidic environment dissociates. The acid glyphosate then is able to do a number on the bacteria, the same as it does in plants. It kills plants and bacteria in our plants.

Our gut has a beautiful ‘lawn’ of upwards of a thousand various species. Each species of bacteria has a specific function. We might liken the bacteria of our microbiome to mining and manufacturing companies. You might visualize the bacteria with mining helmets and pick axes. They mine the minerals in your biology that your body needs as co-factors for various biochemical processes. Your bacteria also manufacture vitamins and other biomolecules that are essential.

Even some of your fatty acids, which serve as signaling molecules, are manufactured by your bacteria. Our bacteria manufacture most of our B vitamins – B6, B9, and B12, which is cobalamin – essential to our neurology. Bacteria also manufacture vitamin K and some of your vitamin C. We have a symbiotic relationship with these bacteria. We help them and they help us. They take the food and they don’t just break it down and obliterate it to unrecognizable things. They dismantle the food, and they utilize everything that’s in the food.”

Bacteria Also Produce Essential Amino Acids and More

Bacteria are also responsible for producing essential amino acids such as tryptophan, phenylalanine, and tyrosine. So in addition to chelating out various vitamins and other important elements, glyphosate also disrupts bacteria manufacturing aromatic amino acids. It also disrupts methionine, a sulfur amino acid crucial for detoxification, and glutamate. All of this can have a profound influence on your biology. For example, as Dr. Samsel explains:

“Glyphosate disrupts the aromatic amino acid tryptophan, and tryptophan is necessary for the production of serotonin. Of course, from serotonin, we make melatonin and from melatonin, we make melanin. There are several biomolecules that are very important to your health and biology. Serotonin regulates and controls blood sugar. It also regulates IGF-1, which is insulin-like growth factor. IGF-1 is necessary for neurogenesis, for your ability to produce new neurons throughout life, and also for regulation of your physiology. Serotonin also activates the enzyme endothelial-derived nitric oxide synthases (eNOS), which is responsible for insulin secretion.”

Serotonin also catalyzes nitric oxide (NO) production in the vasculature providing airway tone and smooth muscle relaxation, and 90 percent of your serotonin—which is known as a neurotransmitter—is actually produced in your gut by certain bacteria, not in your brain.

Today, millions of prescriptions are being written for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which are designed to increase serotonin in your brain. Yet 90 percent of it is manufactured in our gut! Dr. Samsel gave another excellent interview with Zen Honeycutt10 in 2013, in which he describes the impact glyphosate has on your gut bacteria, so for more information, please listen to the following helpful interview as well.

Monsanto Has Known for Nearly 35 Years That GMOs Promote Cancer

Dr. Samsel eventually asked the EPA for Monsanto’s trade secret documentation, as most of the approval process for glyphosate was based on studies Monsanto had done by outside contractors. That process began in the late 1970s and concluded around 1983 with the registration of the chemical. Since then, it’s gone through a couple of re-reviews. But Dr. Samsel wanted access to those documents to investigate what the EPA and Monsanto really knew about glyphosate from the very beginning.

“I asked EPA, as a research scientist, to be able to access those documents in my research. I was denied by the Environmental Protection Agency, initially,” he says. “It finally took Senator Shaheen’s office, here in New Hampshire, to move the EPA… They sent [the documents] to me on a disc. I had to sign for them. I was also told that I could not share them with foreign nationals under a penalty of law…

However, I’ve been going through 12 to 14 of these documents in the file. They represent thousands and thousands of pages of data on studies that were done on laboratory animals. What amazed me was that Monsanto knew in 1981 that glyphosate caused adenomas and carcinomas in the rats that they’ve studied… The highest incidence of tumorigenic growth occurred in the pituitary gland… the second highest levels were in the breasts of the female rats, in the mammary glands… Thirdly, the next highest tumorigenic growth was found in the testicles of male rats..”

In essence, Monsanto’s research of glyphosate showed similar findings as Dr. Gilles-Éric Séralini, whose damning lifetime GMO feeding study11 was wrongfully retracted12,13,14,15largely due to Monsanto’s influence. (Séralini’s paper was later re-published with open access in the Springer Group journal Environmental Sciences Europe.16)

Monsanto’s own research also supports the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determination that glyphosate is a Class 2 A “probable human carcinogen.”17,18,19 –a determination Monsanto is now trying to get retracted. What’s more, the research shows that lower doses of glyphosate tend to have a greater effect than higher doses, and the doses at which damage was found to occur are comparable to the glyphosate levels found in wheat, sugar, corn and soy in the American diet.

Monsanto Never Published These Negative Findings

So how did Monsanto and Biodynamics—the company doing the research—hide these inconvenient facts? According to Dr. Samsel, they cancelled out the controls and the damning findings by using historical control data from unrelated studies. It’s also worth noting that these negative findings were never published in the peer-reviewed literature or submitted to the EPA or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Cancer was clearly shown in their 26-month long feeding study, but the only studies Monsanto has published are studies done in less than three months, which hides the consequences of eating glyphosate and genetically engineered foods over the course of a lifetime.

“I’m looking at a Biodynamics report here as Project number 77-2062, ‘A Lifetime Feeding Study of Glyphosate in Rats,’ and every page of this document says, ‘Contains trade secret or otherwise confidential information of Monsanto Company.’ I have a letter here from Monsanto’s health and safety officer. He was the head guy at Monsanto at the time, back in 1981. In his letter, he asked the US EPA to seal the documents and to treat them as trade secret. I personally feel that this is a violation of the public review process…

Now that I’ve looked at Monsanto’s trade secret documents that the public doesn’t have access to, I’m in the process of writing the Environmental Protection Agency and I’m asking them to release those. They have no right to withhold that information from the public. Because what I’ve seen in those documents, it clearly shows that Monsanto knew in 1981 that glyphosate caused tumorigenic growth and carcinomas in multiple organs and tissues… At the rate we’re going, we’re going to kill billions of people,” Dr. Samsel says.

Removing Glyphosate Is Imperative to Protect Human Health and Future Generations

According to Dr. Samsel, we’re seeing the effects of glyphosate in human disease statistics now. His work with Dr. Stephanie Seneff and Dr. Nancy Swanson show that chronic disease rates are at an all-time high, including the specific tumors found in Monsanto’s 26-month feeding study, as well as the Séralini study and others—specifically pituitary, kidney, breast, testicular, thyroid tumors, and thymic hyperplasia.

“There was some work that was recently done where they looked at the CT scans of patients who had thyroid disease and also found that they had thymic hyperplasia. Well, guess what? In the rat study, they found high incidence of thymic hyperplasia as well as thyroid adenomas and carcinomas,” Dr. Samsel says. “If we don’t take this chemical out of the food supply, everybody will be affected. Everybody that is eating the Western diet. Everybody.

Now, for some diseases, the incidence rate among rats were slightly less than 50 percent—some were as high as 80 percent of the treated group. Obviously, we’re not seeing 80 percent of people in Western populations coming down with tumors. But we might eventually… Rats have an average lifespan of two to two and a half years, whereas the human lifespan is around 80. We’ve only been eating GMOs for about 15 years, but already disease statistics are clearly rising, and rising dramatically. Dr. Samsel believes there’s no doubt genetically engineered (GE) foods will shorten the human lifespan.

“In the 20th month, the rats had an 80 to 90 percent survival rate. But when we got to around 24 months, more than 50 percent of the rats had died. When we got to month 26, I think they only had 30 percent left.”

While correlation is not causation, were we to extrapolate, it would suggest that unless we stop eating glyphosate and genetically engineered foods, the vast majority of us will contract a life-threatening disease in our late senior years, and few will die from plain old age. Other non-life threatening diseases are also cropping up at a furious rate—neurological disorders such as autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and a wide variety of behavioral problems.

When I began practicing medicine in the early ’80s, the autism rate was one in 10,000. Now it’s as low as one in 30, according to some estimates. According to Drs. Samsel and Seneff’s estimations, in the next decade, half of all people born will have some form of autism! “That’s correct, if we continue on the same trajectory, it will be one in two, which is frightening,” Dr. Samsel says.

Studies May Be Using Contaminated Controls…

On a side note, it’s important to realize that when studies are done, they do not test the control diet for the presence of glyphosate, which may dramatically skew results and effectively hide harmful effects. According to Dr. Samsel:

“They are continuing to do that. As I look deeper into the studies, they didn’t analyze the water. They did not analyze the feed for other contaminants. I contacted Purina and asked them for a comment about their animal chows and their laboratory feed. They do analyze for some of the basic pesticides and fungicides, like malathion, some of the other organophosphates, and some of the fungicides.

But they don’t analyze for glyphosate in those feeds. Going back to when they did these studies back in 1978 and 1980, they didn’t analyze the feed, but the most popular pesticides used at the time in growing corn and soy for those animal feeds, were the organophosphates. Some of the organophosphates were carbaryl and lannate.

What’s interesting is that I also turfed up many synergy patents. I’ve read all of Monsanto’s patents, plus patents from other companies that have also done work with glyphosate. Glyphosate is a synergist with other antibiotics, with fungicides, and with most of the chemicals that I’ve seen it used in combination.

I even wrote about it being synergistic with imidacloprid, the systemic pesticide that’s been implicated in harming the bees. The effects they saw in the Biodynamics studies in the controls, they were feeding contaminated feed to these animals…which are known to induce some of the tumorigenic growths. But the fact that the glyphosate-dosed animals had higher incidences…shows that there was a synergy with whatever was in that feed.”

Clearly, this is something the EPA and FDA must address. When laboratory tests with animals are done, they really need to look at the residue levels of glyphosate and other chemicals in the animal chow because it’s skewing all the laboratory results, and making the risks appear non-existent.

The Problem with Genetically Engineered Plants

According to Dr. Samsel, glyphosate is only one-half of a two-part problem. The other half is the genetically engineered plants. For the past two years, he’s been conducting field experiments and laboratory analysis of 33 varieties of genetically engineered corn. This year, he’s branching into soy. Not only are there Roundup-resistant GE crops, there are also Bt crops, which produce their own internal pesticide called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). But there are also glyphosate and glufosinate toxins involved, because in many GM crops, the genes are stacked.

“I’m looking at the untreated [genetically engineered corn], and then I’m spraying it with the herbicide [glyphosate]. I’m analyzing the fatty acids and the mineral content. I’m also looking at the isomers of the vitamins. What I’m finding is that there’s a difference between those treated with the herbicide and those that are not treated. The herbicide influences the mineral content of even the genetically engineered resistant varieties, making them particularly more deficient in manganese, cobalt, and copper, but particularly manganese. I’m also finding that the fatty acids are being skewed slightly but also the vitamins, particularly the isomers of vitamin E, tocopherol.”

He’s found that GE varieties of soy, canola, and corn oil contain mostly gamma-tocopherol opposed to alpha-tocopherol (types of vitamin E). Alpha-tocopherol is really beneficial to our biology whereas gamma-tocopherol induces inflammation, particularly in your lungs. Hence Dr. Samsel believes these GE oils may influence rates of asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). On the whole, it seems clear that hundreds of millions of people could improve their health simply by avoiding glyphosate and genetically engineered foods.

The Good News: You Can Get Glyphosate Out of Your System Fairly Quickly

One important question many are likely to have is, once you decide to avoid glyphosate-contaminated foods, how do you detoxify? Here, there’s good news because glyphosate is fairly quickly eliminated via urine and feces—provided you’re not continuously putting more in. And if you need any more reasons to stop eating glyphosate contaminated food, consider this: one secret study Dr. Samsel reviewed found that glyphosate quickly went into the bone marrow, which is where the formation of blood cells takes place. The glyphosate remained stable in the bone marrow for at least 10 hours.

The white blood cells produced during that time go to the thymus and tonsils, where they mature. So glyphosate really works on the molecular level, affecting not only your bacteria, but also your blood cells. Importantly, glyphosate also both up and down regulates genes. For example, in E.coli bacteria, glyphosate up and down regulates about 1,040 genes, many of which are involved with cytochrome P450 enzymes, as well as glutathione S transferase, which is another first line of defense your cells employ to detoxify.

How to Reduce Your Family’s Exposure to Pesticides

Your toxic load is closely linked to your diet, as so many of the chemicals you’re exposed to on a daily basis are contaminants in foods and/or its packaging. Non-organic processed foods will expose you to the greatest amounts of chemicals and potential toxins, including pesticides and genetically engineered organisms (GMOs), but virtually all non-GMO whole foods will tend to be contaminated with pesticides to some degree as well. To reduce your family’s exposure to glyphosate and other toxic chemicals, please consider the following advice:

  1. Buy organic fruits and vegetables. Non-organic fruits and vegetables most likely to be grown using pesticides include apples, peaches, celery, and potatoes. For a full list of the most and least contaminated produce, please see the Environmental Working Group’s shopper’s Guide to Pesticides.20
  2. Add fermented foods to your diet. The lactic acid bacteria formed during the fermentation of kimchi may help your body break down pesticides, so including fermented foods can be a wise strategy to help your body’s natural detoxification processes. Also make sure you’re getting enough fiber in your diet, as it too plays an important role in detoxification.
  3. Choose seafood wisely. Opt for low-mercury fish varieties, such as wild caught Alaskan salmon, anchovies, and sardines, and avoid farm-raised fish, which are often heavily contaminated with PCBs and mercury. To optimize your omega-3, you may also consider taking a krill oil supplement.
  4. Filter your tap water.Municipal water supplies can be contaminated with any number of potential toxins, so filtering your water is always a wise idea. Be particularly mindful of avoiding fluoridated water when preparing infant formula.
  5. Replace your non-stick pots and pans with ceramic or glass cookware.
  6. Avoid plastic food containers, bottles, and mugs.Instead, opt for glass, ceramic, or stainless steel varieties.
  7. Avoid using dangerous chemicals on your lawn. If you have a lawn care service, make sure they’re not using organophosphate pesticides.
  8. Check your school’s/employer’s pest control policy. If they have not already done so, encourage your school district/employer to move to Integrated Pest Management, which uses less toxic alternatives.
  9. Switch to organic personal care products,and avoid using artificial air fresheners, dryer sheets, fabric softeners, or other synthetic fragrances. Any product containing “fragrance” will typically contain high levels of endocrine-disrupting phthalates.

Dr. Samsel has also set up a Go Fund Me page to allow him to continue to fund his important research on glyphosate.  Click on the button below to learn more and make a donation.

Victory on GMO’s?

14 May 2015 1 Comment

by truthfarmer in Agenda 21, Consolidation, Conspiracy, GMO's, USDA

On the heels of the World Health Organization saying that glyphosate appears to be causative in cancer, and several countries moving against Monsatan’s non-food products (I include the genetically modified things that are put into our food supply as non-food. We aren’t supposed to be eating it) the USDA is providing a certification process for those who want to label their products as non-gmo.

Is this a good thing, or a bad thing? The USDA has more than earned the moniker Uncle Sam Destroying Agriculture, so my personal jury is out on this move they have just taken. However, I think it is highly positive that there is finally some methodology being put into position to differentiate those things which are not food with those things which are likely to be food. At minimum, it shows that social pressure is finally eliciting some kind of action.

Here is an article about the USDA’s announcement on their GMO labeling decision:

USDA Announces First Government Approved Non-GMO Label

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Agriculture Department has developed the first government certification and labeling for foods that are free of genetically modified ingredients.

USDA’s move comes as some consumer groups push for mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

Certification would be voluntary — and companies would have to pay for it. If approved, the foods would be able to carry a “USDA Process Verified” label along with a claim that they are free of GMOs.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack outlined the department’s plan in a May 1 letter to employees, saying the certification was being done at the request of a “leading global company,” which he did not identify. A copy of the letter was obtained by The Associated Press.

Right now, there are no government labels that certify a food as GMO-free. Many companies use a private label developed by a nonprofit called the Non-GMO Project.

Vilsack said the USDA certification is being created through the department’s Agriculture Marketing Service, which works with interested companies to certify the accuracy of the claims they are making on food packages — think “humanely raised” or “no antibiotics ever.” Companies pay the Agricultural Marketing Service to verify a claim, and if approved they can market the foods with the USDA label.

“Recently, a leading global company asked AMS to help verify that the corn and soybeans it uses in its products are not genetically engineered so that the company could label the products as such,” Vilsack wrote in the letter. “AMS worked with the company to develop testing and verification processes to verify the non-GE claim.”

A USDA spokesman confirmed that Vilsack sent the letter but declined to comment on the certification program. Vilsack said in the letter that the certification “will be announced soon, and other companies are already lining up to take advantage of this service.”

The USDA label is similar to what is proposed in a GOP House bill introduced earlier this year that is designed to block mandatory GMO labeling efforts around the country. The bill, introduced earlier this year by Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., provides for USDA certification but would not make it mandatory. The bill also would override any state laws that require the labeling.

The food industry, which backs Pompeo’s bill, has strongly opposed individual state efforts to require labeling, saying labels would be misleading because GMOs are safe.

Vermont became the first state to require the labeling in 2014, and that law will go into effect next year if it survives a legal challenge from the food industry.

Genetically modified seeds are engineered in laboratories to have certain traits, like resistance to herbicides. The majority of the country’s corn and soybean crop is now genetically modified, with much of that going to animal feed. GMO corn and soybeans are also made into popular processed food ingredients like high-fructose corn syrup and soybean oil.

The FDA says GMOs on the market now are safe. Consumer advocates pushing for the labeling say shoppers still have a right to know what is in their food, arguing that not enough is known about the effects of the technology. They have supported several state efforts to require labeling, with the eventual goal of having a federal standard.

 

Doctors Want Glyphosate (Round Up) Banned!

28 Apr 2015 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in Consolidation, Conspiracy, Control, food, food safety, GMO's

So 30,000 Argentinian doctors have shown they have much greater powers of observation than all the doctors at the FDA, USDA, AMA, CDC, and NIH combined. I don’t know, but I wonder if Argentina doctors have the same kind of nefarious relationship with big pharma as the doctors in the US do. Let’s not forget that Monsanto is 85% owned by Pfizer.

Here’s the article on the Argentinian doctors asking that glyphosate be banned:

30,000 Doctors in Argentina Demand that Glyphosate be Banned

Joining millions of citizen voices
pesticides_field_guys_735_350
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/30000-doctors-in-argentina-demand-that-glyphosate-be-banned/#ixzz3YcL327g5
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

If the millions of regular people who have asked Monsanto to stop selling their toxic chemicals is not enough, more than 30,000 doctors and health professionals are asking that glyphosate be banned.

The doctors are part of FESPROSA, Argentina’s Union of medical professionals. Citing the World Health Organization’s recent declaration that the glyphosate chemicals used in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Round Up (formulated to use on Round Up Ready crops) are “likely carcinogenic,” they add an additional disclaimer:

Glyphosate is also associated with:

  • Spontaneous abortions
  • Birth defects
  • Skin disease
  • Respiratory illness
  • Neurological disease

Where are the American doctors who can tell the WHO, and Monsanto the same thing? Instead of forcing Monsanto’s hand, other doctors have been retaliating against Dr. Oz who recently said that glyphosate was dangerous on world-wide television.

Read: Glyphosate Found in Urine, Blood, Breast Milk

FESPROSA also explained:

“In our country glyphosate is applied on more than 28 million hectares. Each year, the soil is sprayed with more than 320 million litres, which means that 13 million people are at risk of being affected, according to the Physicians Network of Sprayed Peoples (RMPF). Soy is not the only crop addicted to glyphosate: the herbicide is also used for transgenic maize and other crops. Where glyphosate falls, only GMOs can grow. Everything else dies.”

The doctors also talk about vindicating one of their own:

“Our trade union, the Federation of Health Professionals of Argentina (FESPROSA), which represents more than 30,000 doctors and health professionals in our country, includes the Social Health Collective of Andrés Carrasco. Andrés Carrasco was a researcher at [Argentine government research institute] CONICET, who died a year ago, and showed the damage caused by glyphosate to embryos. For disseminating his research, he was attacked by the industry and the authorities at CONICET. Today, WHO vindicates him.”

With evidence like this – how can any biotech shill talk about genetically modified food being ‘safe’ when the primary chemicals sold to grow them are killing the people of entire countries?

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/30000-doctors-in-argentina-demand-that-glyphosate-be-banned/#ixzz3YcJoOzJG
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

ADM Suing over GMO Corn?

02 Dec 2014 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in Consolidation, food, GMO's

Like a snake eating it’s own tail…so are the manipulations of the consolidated control aspects of USDA Approved agribusiness. China is rejecting GMO corn, so is Russia and about 60 other countries. Here in the US, we can’t get it labeled and if you eat prepared box foods or meat from the store, you are getting it whether you like it or not. What you don’t know can indeed harm you! But ADM, one of the largest ag market controlling entities, is actually suing Syngenta because China keeps refusing shipments of GMO contaminated corn. China (and ALL countries, but particularly those who are categorized as lesser developed countries by the WTO) have the right to exercise the Sanitary Phyto Sanitary clause of the WTO agreements and refuse this based on their own science based principles. I just find it really amusing that biotech is being sued by one of the biggest distributors in the world. And we can’t even get a label on food in stores….

(Two articles below, both linked to GM Watch in the title)

Archer Daniels Midland says GMO corn is killing US exports to China

on 25 November 2014.

China has rejected the “vast majority of US corn shipments” because of the presence of Syngenta’s GMO MIR162

China’s barriers to imports of some US GM crops are disrupting seed companies’ plans for new product launches and keeping at least one variety out of the US market altogether.

1. In wake of China rejections, GMO seed makers limit U.S. launches
2. Archer Daniels Midland says GMO corn is killing U.S. exports to China

1. In wake of China rejections, GMO seed makers limit U.S. launches

By Tom Polansek
Reuters, 25 Nov 2014
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0J90DU20141125?irpc=932

China’s barriers to imports of some U.S. genetically modified crops are disrupting seed companies’ plans for new product launches and keeping at least one variety out of the U.S. market altogether.

Two of the world’s biggest seed makers, Syngenta AG and Dow AgroSciences, are responding with tightly controlled U.S. launches of new GMO seeds, telling farmers where they can plant new corn and soybean varieties and how can the use them. Bayer CropScience told Reuters it has decided to keep a new soybean variety on hold until it receives Chinese import approval.

Beijing is taking longer than in the past to approve new GMO crops, and Chinese ports in November 2013 began rejecting U.S. imports saying they were tainted with a GMO Syngenta corn variety, called Agrisure Viptera, approved in the United States, but not in China.

The developments constrain launches of new GMO seeds by raising concerns that harvests of unapproved varieties could be accidentally shipped to the world’s fastest-growing corn market and denied entry there. It also casts doubt over the future of companies’ heavy investments in research of crop technology.

The stakes are high. Grain traders Cargill Inc [CARG.UL] and Archer Daniels Midland Co, along with dozens of farmers, sued Syngenta for damages after Beijing rejected Viptera shipments, saying the seed maker misrepresented how long it would take to win Chinese approval.

In the weeks since Cargill first sued on Sept. 12, Syngenta’s stock has touched a three-year low. ADM in its lawsuit last week alleged the company did not follow through on plans for a controlled launch of Viptera corn.

Syngenta says the complaints are unfounded.

Bayer, told by Beijing in September that the new soybean seed, LL55, had not been approved for imports, says it will keep on trying, seven years after the company first filed its request. In the meantime, it will withhold the new seed. China granted its last import approval for any GMO grain in June 2013.

TEN YEAR EFFORT

“Our objective is to get the approval and the clearance from the Chinese authorities so that we can go into a full commercial launch as soon as possible,” said Frank Terhorst, global head of seeds for the company.

It can take up to 10 years and $150 million to develop new GMO seeds and further delays in Chinese approvals will raise concerns about Bayer’s future investment in new GMO products, Terhorst said.

The slowdown in Beijing’s regulatory process comes amidst growing consumer sentiment against GMO food in China and concerns amongst some government officials about excessive dependence on U.S. food supplies.

China is a key market for the $12 billion U.S. agricultural seeds business and for global grain traders and accounted for nearly 60 percent of U.S. soybean exports and 12 percent of corn exports two years ago. Nearly 90 percent of corn in the United States is genetically engineered, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as farmers embrace technology that helps kill weeds and fight pests.

It is a common practice to mix different corn varieties in storage and during transportation, so a lack of approval for one GMO variety can put at risk of rejection large shipments that include approved GMO grains.

The controlled releases by Dow and Syngenta aim to bring new GMO seeds to the U.S. market while assuring U.S. farmers and exporters that the harvests will not be rejected by countries that have not approved the GMO grain.

Dow AgroSciences this month said it will limit sales of its new genetically modified corn and soybeans next year while it waits for China’s approval. Farmers who grow the new Enlist corn must maintain isolation areas around their fields, use the corn only as livestock feed, and submit to audits of their compliance.

When Syngenta released its Agrisure Duracade corn this year, which is approved in the United States but not by China, it contracted grain handler Gavilon, owned by Japanese trading house Marubeni Corp, to oversee the launch. Gavilon assigned as many as six workers at its Omaha headquarters to keep Duracade out of markets where it had not been cleared, said Greg Konsor, general manager for grain operations.

At harvest, growers have to fill out canary-yellow tracking agreements where they identify themselves, their trucking firms and the destinations for their Duracade corn. The bright color is meant to tell buyers the shipments require special attention.

Iowa farmer Gary Vetter said that after he planted 240 acres of Duracade last spring, he received calls and certified mail from Gavilon checking on his compliance with restrictions aimed to keep the grain out of unapproved markets.

“No matter what, they want to know where the corn goes,” he said.

Controlled launches, however, are at best a temporary fix because they are costly, complicated and risk accidental contamination of other export grains, said Jim Sutter, chief executive of the U.S. Soybean Export Council.

“The long-term solution is to work with our partners in China and build confidence in the process in the way we want it to work,” he said. “Easier said than done.”

(Additional reporting by Niu Shuping in Beijing; Editing by David Greising and Tomasz Janowski)

2. Archer Daniels Midland says GMO corn is killing U.S. exports to China

By SABRINA CANFIELD
Courthouse News Service, 24 Nov 2014
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/11/24/archer-daniels-midland-says-gmo-corn-is-killing-u-s-exports-to-china.htm

The Archer Daniels Midland Company sued the developer of a genetically modified corn, accusing the company of intentionally stymieing United States exports to China.

In a lawsuit filed in the St. Charles Parish District Court in Louisiana, ADM says Syngenta Corporation sold GMO corn seed to farmers across the U.S. without undertaking reasonable “stewardship” practices designed to ensure genetically-modified seeds do not taint or become intermixed with the regular corn seed supply.

As a result, China has rejected the “vast majority of U.S. corn shipments” because of the presence of Syngenta’s GMO MIR162, which has become intermixed with regular corn seed.

Those safeguards are critical because China, a major importer of corn from the U.S., has not approved genetically-modified corn containing Syngenta’s MIR162 genetic trait, and won’t accept shipments containing so much as a trace of GMO corn.

Syngenta’s seed is sold under the brand names Viptera and Duracade.

According to ADM, which owns 200 grain elevators across the United States, Syngenta’s actions have cost corn exporters tens of millions of dollars in lost profits.

Until recently China had been a significant purchaser of U.S. grown corn, and Archer Daniels Midland Company sold and exported substantial volumes of corn to China. China is the second-largest corn consumer in the world.

The regular corn crop has been tainted as a result of cross-pollination, where the wind has blown pollen containing MIR162 onto fields where regular corn is planted, and also by channeling, where the modified corn is combined with regular corn at processing facilities.

Once it became apparent that MIR162 corn was tainting the regular corn supply, Syngenta was warned but took no measures to quarantine its crop which made $875 million in 2013 alone, the lawsuit says.

Archer Daniels Midland Company filed the lawsuit in St. Charles Parish because that where its two largest export grain terminals and elevators are located.

The U.S. is one of the world’s top corn exporters. In 2013, the U.S. exported 18.3 million metric tons of corn. That same year, China consumed roughly 24.5 percent of the world’s corn, making it the second largest corn consumer in the world and the third largest purchaser of U.S. exported corn.

When Syngenta’s GMO corn was approved by the USDA, Syngenta had promised to follow strict guidelines, and to force farmers to also follow guidelines, to ensure the MIR162 crop did not comingle with other crops.

But forcing farmers to participate in a stewardship process when using its corn seed would have made the seed less desirable, so Syngenta didn’t require it, the lawsuit says.

Additionally, Syngenta could have asked grain elevator operators to keep its corn separate so it wouldn’t intermingle with and taint regular corn, but Syngenta didn’t. Instead, Syngenta actually encouraged the cross-pollination of its GMO corn with regular crops by telling farmers to grow GMO and regular corn side by side, according to the lawsuit.

Until recently, Syngenta had a document on its website that purported to be an approval from the Chinese government of MIR126 to encourage corn seed buyers to believe China had finally approved the GMO when actually it has not.

As a result of Syngenta’s failure to implement reasonable stewardship actions, its genetically modified corn brands, Viptera and Duracade, have cross-pollinated with neighboring corn fields, including corn fields owned by farmers who did not purchase the GMO brands of seed. When the unknowing farmers sell their tainted corn at a grain elevator, MIR162 inadvertently enters the grain supply system.

After Archer Daniels Midland Company unknowingly purchased and comingled GMO corn with its grain supply, Archer Daniels Midland Company’s supply became tainted. This happened at all of Archer Daniels Midland Company’s 200 U.S. grain elevators, the company says.

As a result, corn Archer Daniels Midland Company has attempted to export to China has been refused by the Chinese government.

The parties did not reply to emailed requests for comment.

Archer Daniels Midland Company seeks damages for negligence and violations of the unfair trade practices and consumer protection acts.

Named defendants are Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Seeds Inc. and Syngenta Crop Protection LLC.

The lawsuit was filed by Glenn Goodier of Jones Walker LLP in New Orleans.

 

Gene Silencing of GMO’s Not Considered

13 Nov 2014 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in food shortage, GMO's, USDA Tags: , , , , , , ,

While the topic of gene silencing brought about by ingestion of GMO’s has had some scientific study done, not once has it been taken into consideration by the Powers that Shouldn’t Be when approving GMO’s for human or animal consumption in the US. The article below touches on that subject in relation to the recent approval of GMO Simplot potatoes. These are the primary potatoes for McDonald’s french fries.

Poorly tested gene silencing technology to enter food supply with Simplot potato

on 08 November 2014.

USDA approves new GM potato developed with new, little understood form of genetic engineering called RNA interference (RNAi)

EXCERPT: “We simply don’t know enough about RNA interference technology to determine whether GE crops developed with it are safe for people and the environment. If this is an attempt to give crop biotechnology a more benign face, all it has really done is expose the inadequacies of the U.S. regulation of GE crops. These approvals are riddled with holes and are extremely worrisome,” said Doug Gurian-Sherman, Ph.D., CFS director of sustainable agriculture and senior scientist.

Poorly tested gene silencing technology to enter food supply with Simplot potato

Center for Food Safety, November 7th, 2014
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/3594/poorly-tested-gene-silencing-technology-to-enter-food-supply-with-simplot-potato

* A new form of genetic engineering will soon be sold to unsuspecting consumers

Center for Food Safety (CFS) is today warning consumers about a new genetically engineered (GE) potato that may soon enter the food supply. Because GE foods are not required to be labeled, the new GE potato will be sold to consumers without their knowledge. The GE potato was one of two new crops approved today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that uses a new, little understood form of genetic engineering called RNA interference (RNAi). The other is a new low-lignin alfalfa from Monsanto. Despite the unprecedented nature of these approvals, USDA has inexplicably failed to undertake the legally required rigorous and overarching analysis of the GE crops’ impacts or reasonably foreseeable consequences.

“We simply don’t know enough about RNA interference technology to determine whether GE crops developed with it are safe for people and the environment. If this is an attempt to give crop biotechnology a more benign face, all it has really done is expose the inadequacies of the U.S. regulation of GE crops. These approvals are riddled with holes and are extremely worrisome,” said Doug Gurian-Sherman, Ph.D., CFS director of sustainable agriculture and senior scientist.

Analysis of RNAi by a panel of independent scientists requested by the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that there were many significant uncertainties about potential risks from this technology, and that current risk assessment procedures were not adequate. Despite such cautions USDA is rushing the technology forward.

Unlike earlier genetic engineering techniques that splice in segments of DNA, the new technique used in the Simplot potato and Monsanto’s low-lignin alfalfa is based on the manipulation of the plant’s RNA-based control mechanisms. RNA interference (RNAi) induces the plant to silence or dial back expression of the plant’s own genes, such as those responsible for natural processes like browning or lignin production.. However, RNA manipulations may end up turning down, or off, genes other than those that were targeted because many genes contain similar, or even identical, stretches of DNA. Current testing requirements do not reliably detect such effects on other important crop genes.

Concerns with Simplot Potato:

Developed by the J.R. Simplot Company, the potato would be the only GE potato variety on the U.S. commercial market. The Simplot potato has been genetically engineered with RNAi technology to reduce browning by silencing the expression of one of five polyphenol oxidase genes, which is normally highly expressed in potato tubers. This is attractive to the potato processing industry because bruised potatoes are culled for cosmetic reasons. However, bruised potatoes have not been associated with health risks.

These potatoes are also silenced for genes affecting sugar production and the amino acid asparagine, which during frying and baking lead to the production of acrylamide, a probable carcinogen. However, it is unclear whether the observed reductions will lead to positive health outcomes, given that acrylamide is found in many other foods. In addition, fried potato products have other serious negative health effects.

“In light of the obesity crisis, there has been an important national push to discourage children and adults from eating large quantities of fried foods like french fries or chips. In creating the false illusion that fried potatoes are now healthy, the Simplot potato sends the absolute opposite message,” said Elizabeth Kucinich, policy director at CFS. “Claims of health benefits by USDA and Simplot are short sighted, misleading, and in the light of the science, could actually be potentially dangerous.”

The asparagine gene has also been shown in recent research to be important in plant defenses against pathogens. The Simplot potato was not adequately tested for a possible weakening of its ability to defend itself against disease. If this occurs in the field, it could lead to increased fungicide use, greater farmer expense, and possibly reduced productivity. The latter effect was seen in several tests of these potatoes.

“We need answers to these questions before these potatoes are commercialized,” said Gurian-Sherman.

Concerns with Monsanto’s Low-Lignin Alfalfa:

Monsanto and Forage Genetics International (FGI) have genetically engineered alfalfa for reduced levels of lignin through the suppression of a key enzyme in the lignin biosynthetic pathway. It represents the first non-regulated GE crop with reduced lignin levels. Lignin and its building blocks perform many functions in plants, including structural stability and plant defense. Lowering lignin levels could make the alfalfa more prone to attack by insects or diseases, and potentially increase pesticide use. Moreover, there are still many unknowns about how plants make lignin, making it premature to manipulate this important pathway. Additionally, alfalfa is a perennial crop and can cross-pollinate at great distances, allowing it to interbreed with other types of alfalfa. Any adverse impacts of the new variety will therefore be spread rapidly through much or all of the alfalfa seed supply

Regulatory Failures:

USDA assessed the risk from these crops under the inadequate plant pest provisions of the Plant Protection Act (PPA) of 2000. USDA has ignored the noxious weed provision of the PPA, which would allow a more thorough risk assessment. By failing to develop reasonable regulations under the PPA 14 years after its passage, USDA continues to fail in its mandate to protect the public and the environment.

 

GMO Contamination of All Corn

12 Nov 2014 1 Comment

by truthfarmer in Control, Disease, food, food safety, GMO's

End of Organic? Report Says GMO Crop Contamination Cannot Be Stopped

contaminated crops

(This article is linked through the title at the top of the picture. This is not surprising news at all, but I contend that if there is a wholesale repudiation of GMO corn, where farmer’s refuse to grow it, that we could breed it out of existence over time. That is likely the only way to purify corn left to us. Soy is even worse than corn, although it isn’t quite as prolific in it’s cross pollination capacities. Planting real food in revolt is our best and most important effort. It won’t restore balance quickly, but we can’t stop the wind, so we have to do what we can or give up…Now, here’s the article.)

With each passing year, an increasing number of states are attempting to adopt GMO labeling laws amid the federal government’s resistance to allow you to know what’s in your food. With each victory, or even loss, we get stronger — and closer to making GMO labeling a reality. The sad reality, however, is that many experts say GMO labeling will not suffice in the overall fight against biotech due to the fact that GMO crops can easily contaminate nearby farms.

A new report finds that the GMO contamination issue is much more serious than previously thought, and the concerned experts couldn’t be more correct.

There have been numerous real-life cases of GMO contamination thus far, though most aren’t well known. One key example rests with Australian farmer Steve Marsh, an organic farmer who sued a neighboring farmer for compensation after his field of non-GMO wheat was contaminated by Michael Baxter’s RoundUp Ready canola seeds. He took his case to the Supreme Court of Western Australia and lost.

Another example of GMO contamination can be seen with an unapproved strain of genetically modified wheat discovered in Oregon. The Roundup Ready strain was nixed in 2005 when global resistance to Monsanto forced the company to stop working on it. It was never approved for use, let along growing and exporting.

The claim by the biotech industry that GMO crops can be contained and kept away from organic farmers who have chosen not to use genetically modified ‘suicide’ seeds has steadily been proven false. A third of organic growers are now reporting problems with cross contamination, according to one survey. More than 80% of farmers who participated in the survey are ‘concerned’ about the impact of genetic seeds. About 60% are ‘very concerned.’

One organic farmer, Oren Holle, blames the USDA’s loving relationship with Monsanto:

 “…the USDA has been extremely lax and, in our opinion, that’s due to the excessive influence of the biotech industry in political circles.”

The newly released report outlining the prevalence of GMO contamination, which can be found in the International Journal of Food Contamination, reports that by the end of 2013 and since 1997, 396 incidents of GMO cross-contamination across 63 countries had been recorded. Many of which had involved GM rice.

The Paper Makes the Following Main Points:

  • 1. GMO contamination is unavoidable and will happen no matter what through nature.
  • 2. Contamination will even occur via field trials or illegal plantings. The report references 9 cases of contamination of unauthorized GMO crops which have bypassed environmental and food safety testing.
  • 3. Genetically modified rice made up about 33% of the contamination cases by crop. This is despite the fact that as of December 2012, GM rice hasn’t even become widely available for production or consumption. There is a global absence of any commercial cultivation of GM rice. The authors suggest this figure might be related to the routine testing of imports of GM rice at national borders.
  • 4. It is difficult to contain and halt contamination after it has already happened.
  • 5. “From these data, it’s not clear what the main factors affecting contamination rates are. It’s not only the GM contamination itself (cross-pollination, mix-ups etc.) that contributes to the number of cases, but also the the testing regime (both routine and targeted). The highest rates of contamination are in imported foodstuffs to Germany but this is probably because they do a lot of testing. All EU countries have high rates because they report their findings of the RASFF database. The data for contamination exists – but not the factors to analyse what influences contamination.”
  • 6. The researchers conclude that for most experimental GMOs, there is no protocol for testing, which makes detection for contamination extremely difficult.

The report concluded:

“The detection of GMO contamination is dependent on both routine and targeted monitoring regimes, which appears to be inconsistent from country to country, even within the EU. The lack of an analytical methodology for the detection of GM crops at the field trial stage (i.e. pre-commercialisation) can hamper efforts to detect any contamination arising from such GM lines.”

– See more at: http://naturalsociety.com/gmo-crop-contamination-cannot-be-stopped/#sthash.h8b1ijMr.dpuf

Vermont and GMO Labeling

15 Oct 2014 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in food, food safety, GMO's

Vermont Plans Rules, Meetings for GMO LabelingLaw

 

They claim it’s going to be too troublesome to follow the labeling law passed in Vermont. I say they should have thought about that before they started ok’ing pesticides and herbicides for human consumption. What a load. They can label for dairy, nuts, etc., but those who are so proud of GMO don’t want to put on the label that it “MAY CONTAIN GMO Ingredients!” It looks like the Grocery Manufacturers Association thinks it is better to conduct experiments on mankind with no oversight and without people’s knowledge or consent. 

Yeah…it makes me kind of angry.

Story below:

MONTPELIER, Vermont—A legal challenge hasn’t deterred Vermont authorities from moving forward to implement the nation’s first law requiring labeling of genetically modified organisms in food.

The Office of Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell has scheduled three public meetings for next week to introduce draft rules to implement Act 120, the GMO labeling law that is the subject of litigation in federal court. The meetings will be held Oct. 21 in Burlington, Oct. 22 in Montpelier and Oct. 24 in Brattleboro.

Sorrell anticipates making the draft rules public in advance of the meetings, according to an Oct. 10 press release.

Last month, the Grocery Manufacturers Association and other organizations that filed a lawsuit to invalidate Act 120 moved to enjoin Vermont authorities from implementing the law until the litigation has run its course. Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the Snack Food Association, International Dairy Foods Association and National Association of Manufacturers.

Among other arguments, the food groups contend the law fails to serve a legitimate government purpose, violates federal labeling requirements and is preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Act 120 doesn’t take effect until July 1, 2016, but the food groups argue the industry will suffer irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction due in part to costs they must incur to comply with the law.

“Manufacturers have no way to reliably distinguish ingredients derived from genetically engineered plant varieties from those that are not,” plaintiffs stated in their request for a preliminary injunction filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont. “The changes manufacturers would need to demand from their suppliers and initiate in their own facilities to segregate ingredients require money and time—much more time than the Act’s July 1, 2016 effective date allows.”

A federal judge, Christina Reiss, may hear oral arguments in December on the motion for the injunction and a separate request by the defendants to dismiss the lawsuit. Plaintiffs also have moved to amend their complaint.

In a motion filed in August to dismiss the lawsuit, Sorrell’s legal team argued the labeling law advances a number of legitimate state interests, including preventing confusion about whether consumers are purchasing genetically modified foods. Food manufacturers are free to express their view about genetically modified foods, and nothing in Act 120 prohibits manufacturers from noting FDA’s viewpoint that such foods are not materially different from natural ones, the state lawyers said.

Last week, Reiss denied a request by two organizations—the Center for Food Safety and Vermont Public Interest Research Group—to intervene in the case.

The lawsuit in Vermont is being closely watched across the United States because it could have ramifications for labeling initiatives in other states. Lawyers for the State of Vermont said roughly 80 percent of processed food sold in the United States is produced with genetic engineering

 

GMO Bananas…Straight to Human Trial

16 Sep 2014 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in food, food safety, GMO's

It seems like each day has more stupidity paid for by taxpayer dollars with the overages charged to future generations. In Des Moines, they are doing a straight to human GMO banana trial, which is described below. If my daughter was willing to do this for the $900 offered, I would be deeply ashamed and upset. Despite our bilateral symmetry, we are only given one earthly vessel to occupy. Please read the article and share it around. It’s linked on the title:

naturalnews.com

Originally published September 16 2014

by Jonathan Benson, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Human trials with a new genetically modified (GM) banana with artificial levels of the vitamin A precursor beta-carotene are set to begin this fall without prior animal testing. Researchers plan to feed the “frankenfruit” to college students attending Iowa State University (ISU), though details outlining how the study will be conducted and whether or not students will know what they are eating have been limited.

The Des Moines Register (DMR) reports that 12 female students out of 500 who responded to a call for volunteers will be selected in the next few months to eat the GM banana for four days during three separate study periods. Each participant will receive $900 in compensation for her participation, the outcome of which is entirely unknown, as the GM banana in question has never before been tested on a living organism, let alone a human being.

A project of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the GM banana is intended for cultivation and use in poor African countries, where vitamin A deficiency is widespread. Like the infamous GM “Golden Rice,” which has failed in every trial thus far conducted, the novel GM banana is being offered up as the solution to vitamin A deficiency, even though there are plenty of other natural fruits and vegetables like mangoes and sweet potatoes that already contain high levels of beta-carotene.

Why won’t Gates’ scientists test GM banana on animals first?

Besides the controversial nature of the project itself — foods genetically modified to contain added nutrients have repeatedly been shown to harm humans — many are wondering why animal trials are not being conducted on the new GM banana. European regulations require that any proposed new GMO first be tested on animals for at least 90 days, but in this case scientists are rushing it straight to humans.

This amounts to gross experimentation on humans, cut from the same fabric as Nazi scientists who during World War II performed heinous medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners. It is impossible for those participating in such a trial to give informed consent because they have no idea what they’re consenting to — and neither do the scientists who will be performing the experiments!

“Going straight from GMO development to human trials is exactly what happened with the GM golden rice trials, where GM golden rice was fed to children without informed consent and without prior animal testing,” wrote Claire Robinson for GMWatch.eu. “The lack of animal testing was condemned by international scientists as a breach of the Nuremberg Code, established after World War II to prevent a repeat of Nazi experiments on humans.”

Natural bananas with high amounts of beta-carotene already exist

When confronted with the fact that beta-carotene-rich bananas already exist in nature, scientists backing the GM banana project humorously tried to claim that people living in East Africa probably wouldn’t eat them because, get this — they’re too sweet for their tastes. Thus, it is essential that Bill Gates & Co. swoop in and save the day with a man-madebanana that could end up killing the target population in the end.

Such lunacy is what drives the genetic scientists pushing this type of nonsense on the world, when something as simple as inexpensive vitamin A supplements would be more than adequate at addressing deficiency in the Third World. Either that, or teaching people in these countries to grow foods that are naturally rich in beta-carotene and other carotenoid precursors to vitamin A.

“Like Golden Rice, these wannabe super heroes from the West will fail with their silver bullet for what is a complex societal & ecological problem,” wrote one DMR commenter. “The first step to helping these kids would be to stop dumping our surplus corn into their economy at below the cost of production.”

“Diversity in agriculture is the answer to the dietary problems afar and in our own [country]. Doubling down, with fingers crossed, on biotech silver bullets will not help… and if history is any indicator, we’ll probably just make it worse.”

Sources for this article include:

http://www.gmwatch.eu

http://www.desmoinesregister.com

http://www.independentsciencenews.org

http://science.naturalnews.com

http://science.naturalnews.com


All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit http://www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml

Excellent News from Mexico on Monsanto Soy

22 Aug 2014 4 Comments

by truthfarmer in Consolidation, Conspiracy, Disease, GMO's

As most everyone knows, Amendment 1, Missouri’s MegaAg Protection Racket, or Monsanto Protection Act, barely passed. It’s my understanding that there is going to be a recount on that amendment to Missouri’s Constitution. Personally, I think there needs to be more than a recount, but I will save that for another day.

Despite the assertions that Monsanto and genetically modified organisms in general are gaining “world wide acceptance”, the truth is that many nations are doing all they can to ban these abominations of nature. Below is an article about Mexico and Monsanto’s Round Up Ready Soy…A little “Yeah!” for those who want to eat clean food.

Just one small comment here. I find it increasingly odd that I am often in agreement on a topic with organizations that are so far left of where I am politically. In the case I am addressing at the moment, that group is Greenpeace. To be clear, I am a massive proponent of private property owner’s rights. Staunchly opposed to corporations posing as “individuals” and against consolidation, contraction and restriction of access to markets for farmers growing real food. I am not a “greenie weenie”, but I do believe that we were put here by our Creator to be stewards of the land and His creation and not to rape, pillage and plunder the creation. We certainly are not called to change the genetic structure of life and create abominations of natural species by mutating them in a lab.

 

Sweet victory for Mexico beekeepers as Monsanto loses GM permit

Evidence convinced judge of threat posed to honey production in Yucatán – but firm will almost certainly appeal against ruling

 

 

MDG : Monsanto GM soya impact on honey bees protest in Yucatan Peninsula in mexico
Greenpeace activists and Mayans form a human chain to spell out the words ‘ma ogm’, which translates as ‘no gmo’ (genetically modified organisms). Photograph: Arturo Rocha/Greenpeace

A small group of beekeepers in Mexico has inflicted a blow on biotech giant Monsanto, which has halted the company’s ambitions to plant thousands of hectares of soybeans genetically modified to resist the company’s pesticide Roundup.

A district judge in the state of Yucatán last month overturned a permit issued to Monsanto by Mexico’s agriculture ministry, Sagarpa, and environmental protection agency, Semarnat, in June 2012 that allowed commercial planting of Roundup-ready soybeans.

The permit authorised Monsanto to plant its seeds in seven states, over more than 253,000 hectares (625,000 acres), despite protests from thousands of Mayan farmers and beekeepers, Greenpeace, the Mexican National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity, the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas and the National Institute of Ecology.

In withdrawing the permit, the judge was convinced by the scientific evidence presented about the threats posed by GM soy crops to honey production in the Yucatán peninsula, which includes Campeche, Quintana Roo and Yucatán states. Co-existence between honey production and GM soybeans is not possible, the judge ruled.

Mexico is the world’s six biggest producer and third largest exporter of honey. About 25,000 families on the Yucatán peninsula depend on honey production. This tropical region produces about 40% of the country’s honey, almost all of which is exported to the EU. This is not small change: in 2011, the EU imported $54m (£32m) worth of Mexican honey.

The concerns are multiple. Roundup-ready crops – soybeans, corn, canola, sugar beets, cotton and alfalfa – have been manipulated to be resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.

Some argue that glyphosate poses a risk to human and animal health, a claim that Monsanto and other agribusinesses reject.

In addition to health risks, environmental damage to soil, water and bee colonies – which are dwindling fast – have been attributed glyphosate use, threatening food and water security across the globe.

GM crops could devastate the important European export market for Mexican beekeepers, where the sale of honey containing pollen derived from GM crops has been restricted since a landmark decision in 2011 by the European court of justice.

The ruling barred honey derived from a GM crop unapproved for human consumption – which includes some soy and other animal feeds – from sale in the EU. Honey with more than 0.9% of GM pollen (from an approved GM food) must be labelled as containing GM ingredients and cannot be marketed as an organic product. Some countries, including Germany, reject honey that contains any GM pollen.

A small study conducted in Campeche, where about 10,000 hectares of GM soybeans were planted after the permit was approved in 2012, found GM pollen in some honey samples destined for the European market. This, say the authors, threatens the local honey industry and contradicts the position taken by Sagarpa and industry groups that soybeans are not visited or pollinated by bees searching for food because they can self-pollinate.

The Monsanto ruling was commended by the respected national newspaper La Jornada, which accused the Mexican government of ignoring widespread concerns over GM and forcing those opponents to fight it out in court with powerful multinational companies. The government’s stated ambition of eliminating hunger is incompatible with its decisions to increasingly allow multinational companies such as Monsanto to introduce GM crops, the paper’s editorial concluded.

Central to the ruling was the Mexican constitution, specifically the government’s obligation to fully consult indigenous communities before making any major decision about what happens, including what is grown, on their territory. The judge ordered planting to stop and gave Sagarpa six months to carry out full and proper consultations with indigenous farmers – which it should have done before the permit was granted in 2012.

It was this same omission that led to an almost identical ruling by a district judge in Campeche in March 2014.

These two judgments have set a precedent that will help farmers, campaigners and environmentalists take local legal action against the rollout of GM soy and corn, which the federal government is sanctioning without consultation and against experts’ advice.

But this is a high-stakes game to play, in which indigenous communities are being forced to fight their own government and multinational corporations with multimillion-dollar legal departments, simply to have their constitutional rights honoured and protect their traditional ways of farming and living.

So while a third victory in Chiapas, where a similar case is pending, could soon follow, this is almost certainly only round one. Monsanto will probably appeal against the decision to a higher court.

The North American Free Trade Agreement, criticised by some for crippling small-scale Mexican farming, is not on the side of the beekeepers. This David and Goliath battle is about so much more than honey.

 

Label GMO Campaign in Texas

11 Aug 2014 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in GMO's

As a former Texan married to a native Texan, I truly hope that Texas can get this done! If they do, it will help even non-Texans have a better chance of getting a bit of knowledge about what is in their food. This is a lengthy article by Texan Mike Adams:

Label GMOs Texas: grassroots campaign for food transparency launched in the Lone Star State

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/046413_GMO_labeling_Texas_grassroots_campaign.html#ixzz3A7lnGPBh

(NaturalNews) A grassroots campaign to require honest GMO labeling on food products has been launched in Texas. Called “Label GMOs Texas,” the campaign follows in the footsteps of the highly successful Vermont campaign which achieved victory earlier this year.

The Facebook page for the Texas campaign is available here.

A petition demanding the labeling of GMOs in Texas has also been launched here.

People interested in joining the campaign can email texaslabelgmos@gmail.com and request to be added to the announcement list. Natural News has been informed by the campaign organizers that action instructions will be emailed out within roughly two weeks.

The fundamental human right to know what we are eating

Like nearly all informed Americans, Natural News believes that food consumers have a fundamental human right to know what they are buying and eating. The right for consumers to know the ingredients of foods, the country of origin, the organic status and the GMO status of foods they buy is impossible to deny.

Those who oppose GMO labeling do so as a matter of willful deception: they do not want consumers to realize they’re buying artificially engineered foods containing deadly pesticides. The entire effort put on by the biotech industry and deceptive food companies to block GMO labeling is one of the most insidious and evil-minded campaigns in the history of agriculture. Food democracy and transparency is an abhorrent idea to these companies, because they are fully aware that their profits are largely derived from tricking consumers into buying something they would much rather avoid if they had an informed choice.

That’s why the biotech industry and processed food manufacturers have only managed to defeat state labeling laws through the use of blatantly illegal money laundering tactics, highly deceptive disinfo campaigns and the contracting of “hired gun” scientists to confuse and misinform the public about GMO labeling.

In the history of dirty campaign tactics, nobody has a more disgusting track record of lies and deceptions than the biotech industry and the processed food manufacturers who profit from GMOs. When they claim their campaigns are backed by “science,” what they really mean is “corporate-funded junk science” designed to trick the public and protect corporate profits. This can only be achieved through an elaborate campaign of deception which continues to this day.

Will Texans demand honest food labeling?

Texas is a fiercely independent state, which is one of the reasons why I like being a Texan so much. The state is filled with high-integrity, hard-working people who believe in honesty, morality and transparency.

Many Texans, however, don’t yet fully understand how GMOs are poisoning their children, poisoning their farms and compromising their future. Parents who are feeding their children corn flakes don’t yet realize that every flake of that cereal contains a poison which was engineered into the corn.

The Texas A&M “chemical agriculture” approach is deeply embedded into Texas culture. Many farmers think nothing of spraying 100 acres of grass with Roundup in order to re-seed the land with Coastal (high-protein forage grass for cattle). It doesn’t help, either, that Texas A&M is funded in part by Monsanto. So we can all expect fierce resistance from Texas A&M “scientists” who the industry will no doubt pay off and roll out in front of the press to spread calculated lies about GMO labeling. (It worked for them in California, so why not spread the same lies in Texas?)

The biotech industry pulls all sorts of stunts to deceive the public about GMO labeling. For example, in the California campaign they dreamed up fake organizations with official sounding names like (for example) the “California State Nurses Association” and then mailed postcards to every household with quotes from “nurses” who claimed GMO labeling would be horrible. They pull these same tricks with other fictitious organizations, too.

This same industry got caught money laundering in Washington State, illegally funneling millions of dollars into the campaign to defeat GMO labeling there. The GMA, in fact, just lost a court battle over its money laundering activities. There is nothing this industry won’t do to keep consumers in the dark and keep pushing its poison. This includes willfully breaking the law.

Austin will be pivotal in the battle for GMO labeling in Texas

The Austin crowd is well ahead of the curve when it comes to recognizing the dangers of chemical agriculture and hidden poisons in genetically modified corn. If GMO labeling ever becomes law in Texas, it will be primarily due to grassroots efforts among the residents of Austin (and Dallas).

To most Texans, Austin is viewed with a tremendous amount of suspicion. Most of Texas is rural country, where people like myself live on ranches of various sizes, taking care of animals, keeping our rifles sighted in and our tractors running. To most rural Texans, Austin is seen as leaning too far to the left, with an almost socialism slant. So there will be some suspicion among rural Texans about anything that appears to have originated in Austin.

That’s why this GMO labeling battle will be so interesting to watch. It’s really a clash of cultures in Texas. I’m one of the few who spans those cultures, being both pro Second Amendment and simultaneously in favor of chemical-free agriculture and honest food labeling. Most people are squarely in one camp or the other, with very little cross-over, so it’s not difficult to see how the issue of GMO labeling in Texas will meet resistance. Democratic lawmakers will tend to be in favor of it, while Republicans will likely tend to oppose it.

The Biblical argument: GMOs seen as a violation of God and nature

There’s also a strong argument of GMO opposition among the many Christians in Texas who honor God and regularly attend church. There’s no more horrifying example of violating God’s will than taking a seed which once provided nourishment and engineering it to produce a toxic poison. The very idea that a corporation could patent and own food crop seeds while denying farmers the ability to save those seeds for the next growing season is clearly seen as a violation of Biblical principles and natural law. Anyone who truly follows Christian principles would, almost by definition, be horrified at the truth about GMOs if they came to understand what’s really happening.

There is tremendous evil to be identified and rooted out in the biotech industry which is filled with scientists who are almost universally anti-God atheists who don’t believe in the soul, morality or spiritual judgment. The “anti-God” aspects of GMOs and the biotech industry could really be brought to light in a grassroots campaign across rural Texas.

The Alex Jones factor

There’s also an interesting Alex Jones factor in any Texas GMO labeling campaign. Jones is of course strongly conservative on issues like the Second Amendment, liberty, the Bill of Rights and so on. At the same time, he’s very well informed about the corporate poisoning of America and the truth about GMOs, fluoride, aspartame and so on.

Jones has a very large following in Texas, and his daily radio show (which I previously guest hosted several times) reaches millions around the world. Through his influence, Jones has the ability to rally a large number of conservative Texans to the cause of GMO labeling, if he so chooses. Then again, he’s also quite busy covering far more serious current events such as the possibility of war with Russia, the invasion of Texas through its open southern border, the federal attempt to disarm all Americans, and so on. Although I don’t speak for him, Jones may decide that GMO labeling simply isn’t that big of a priority considering the wholesale assault on America being staged from the White House.

Texas is also home to Glenn Beck, a wildly popular conservative radio commentator whose actions often confound liberty-loving Texans. For example, Beck surprised a lot of people with his “open arms” approach to welcoming illegal aliens crossing the border rather than calling for the borders to be immediately closed and secured. Then again, on a lot of other issues, Beck is very much liberty-minded and argues strongly for a return to constitutional principles.

On the issue of GMO labeling, I have no idea where Beck might fall on the spectrum of support vs. opposition. Clearly agriculture and nutrition is not his area of focus, so he may not comment on it at all. For Beck, commenting on GMOs is a lose-lose proposition. If he comes out in opposition to GMO labeling, his listener base will aggressively accuse him of colluding with Monsanto. If he comes out in favor of GMO labeling, he might offend some of his more “pro business” conservative allies and show sponsors. Beck’s best strategy on this is to avoid talking about GMO labeling altogether.

Nevertheless, it is an interesting lineup: Texas has the Health Ranger, Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Ron Paul and many other freedom-loving celebrities, many of whom fully recognize the inherent evil of GMOs and the biotech industry. On the other hand, Texas also has Texas A&M, which is steeped in chemical agriculture and full of “scientists” who are fully capable of going on television and swearing with a straight face, “These chemicals are harmless.” (That’s the same thing they said about Thalidomide, Agent Orange, DDT and lots of other deadly chemicals, by the way.)

How it will really play out is up to the people of Texas. Will they choose to allow their children to be quietly poisoned with insecticides engineered into their corn flakes? Or will they demand the free market solution of honest GMO labeling so that consumers can make their own free choice about what they wish to buy and consume?

Texas political leaders need to be educated about the long-term dangers of GMOs and chemical agriculture

Another important question is what might happen if a law gets passed and it goes to the desk of likely future Governor Greg Abbott. Abbott is a remarkable, courageous man who holds true to the fundamental concepts of liberty for a free Texas. But I don’t know if he is well informed yet on the issue of GMOs and how genetic engineering (and the chemicals that go along with it) will actually devastate Texas agricultural production in the long run.

Even more, the long-term health effects of GMOs — which include cancer — will cost billions of dollars in state medical expenditures. Medical costs are bankrupting many states, and any time something like GMO labeling might allow citizens to avoid cancer-causing foods and thereby reduce their risk of disease, it should be seriously considered on its cost-saving merits alone. If Texans had an honest choice, a significant percentage of them would consciously choose to avoid GMOs altogether, and cancer rates would measurably drop.

People like Rick Perry and Greg Abbott need to be politely but firmly educated about why the future of Texas agriculture depends so much on the ability of Texas farmers to declare their independence from corporate GMO predatory farming practices. Texas farmers and Texas consumers need to be allowed a free market choice on what they wish to grow, buy or consume, and those choices need to be fully informed so that consumers have the information necessary to make those decisions.

Join the grassroots campaign in Texas

Click here for the Label GMOs Texas Facebook page.

Click here for the label GMOs petition for Texas.

Email texaslabelgmos@gmail.com to be added to the announcement list.

Good luck, Texans! Twenty-six million people are ready to stop eating poison if given a chance.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/046413_GMO_labeling_Texas_grassroots_campaign.html#ixzz3A7l9mbJf

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries