Round Up and Aflatoxins

24 Sep 2013 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in Disease, food safety, GMO's Tags: aflatoxin, gmo, monsanto, monsatan, Round Up

For those who still think Round Up (or any glyphosphate) is a good thing, try telling that to your dead livestock after a spike in aflatoxin either causes them to abort or kills them. Here’s an excellent article, and if you go to the source, there are extensive footnotes:

by Sayer Ji
GreenMedInfo.com

A new study reveals that Roundup herbicide enhances the growth of aflatoxin-producing fungi, lending an explanation for the alarming increase in fungal toxins recently discovered in U.S corn, and revealing another way in which GM farming is seriously undermining food quality.

A new study lead by Argentinean researchers and published in the Journal of Environmental Science and Health titled, “Influence of herbicide glyphosate on growth and aflatoxin B1 production by Aspergillus section Flavi strains isolated from soil on in vitro assay,”[1] adds to an increasing body of research indicating that glyphosate (aka Roundup), the primary herbicide used in GM agriculture, is seriously undermining the quality of our global food supply, and may help to explain recent observations that GM corn heavy markets, such as the U.S., have a significant aflatoxin problem.[2]

Researchers from the Department of Microbiology and Immunology, National University of Rio Cuarto, Cordoba, Argentina, set out to evaluate the effect of glyphosate (Roundup) on the growth of aﬂatoxin B1 production by strains of Aspergillus under different water availabilities on maize based medium. Aflatoxin B1, one of at least 14 different types, is a naturally occurring mycotoxin that is produced by Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus, two species of fungi that commonly effect cereal grains. Known to be one of the most carcinogenic substances in existence, aflatoxin B1 is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as “Group 1, carinogenic to humans,” with an oral, rat LD50 (the dose that acutely kills 50% of a test group) of 5mg/kg – compare that to a 6.4 mg/kg LD50 for potassium cyanide, which is used in lethal injection.

The authors of the study pointed out that that little previous research has been performed on the role of glyphosate on the growth rate of aflatoxin-producing fungal species. The researchers also described the relevance this information has to the Argentinean corn market:

“Aspergillus section Flavi and Nigri Argentina is the world’s second biggest exporter of maize (Zea mays L.), and was responsible roughly for 15 percent of the world’s maize exports in the last three years. During the harvest season 2011/2012 the maize production is expected to be of 20 million tons. These cereal grains are colonize by several fungi communities, including mycotoxigenic species.”

Argentina’s total acreage dedicated to GM corn, while small in comparison to the U.S. majority stake in the world market, is second only to the U.S. [See figure 1]

Figure 1: Acreage of GM maize in million hectares/GMO-Compass.org

Also, Argentina’s GM corn share in the total GM corn acreage of their country is on par with the U.S. [see figured 2 below], indicating that their environmental and toxicological situation in regard to the food quality fallout from GM farming is likely very similar.

Figure 2: GM maize share in the total maize acreage of a country/Source: GMO-Compass.org

Researchers Discover Roundup Enhances Growth of Aflatoxin-Producing Fungi

In brief, the researchers discovered that all six different concentrations of glyphosate tested decreased the lag phase of fungi growth proportionately to the increase in glyphosate concentrations. In other words, the glyphosate enhanced the growth of the aflatoxin-producing Apergillus strains, and at concentrations lower than the range generally detected in Argentinean soils destined to crop production, specifically an agricultural area belonging to the province of Buenos Aires.[3]

In the author’s words:

“This study has shown that the eight Aspergillus ﬂavus and A. parasiticus strains evaluated are able to grow effectively and produce AFs [aflatoxins] in natural medium with high nutrient status over a range of glyphosate concentrations under different aW [water activity] conditions.”

The figure below shows the influence of glyphosate on growth and aflatoxin B1 production:

Figure 3: Influence of glyphosate on aflatoxin

The discovery that glyphosate enhances fungal growth contradicts several previous studies, including a 2007 study performed by US Department of Agriculture researchers,[4] which did not find that glyphosate increased Aspergillus flavus growth. The authors noted that their findings are consistent with research on similar fungal strains, such as Fusarium,[5] which possesses high tolerance to applied doses of glyphosate, and Rust fungi and Blight fungi,[6] [7] which exhibit enhanced growth on glyphosate-amended media.

They noted: “[S]everal studies have demonstrated that microbial activity and/or biomass can be stimulated following application of some glyphosate formulation to ﬁeld soil.” This may be explained by the fact that glyphosate-tolerant species of fungi use glyphosate as a source of ‘food,’ utilizing available phosphate or amine structures that result from its metabolic breakdown. Indeed, previous studies indicate glyphosate can be used by fungal strains as a “nutriment” and “energy substrate.”[8][9] [10]

The Toxicological Nightmare of GM Food Grows Darker

A major implication of the study is that there exists a synergism between glyphosate (Roundup) and soil-borne pathogens, which would lead to increased susceptibility to and severity of disease in glyphosate-treated plants.[11] Not only would Roundup-ready corn contain residues of highly toxic glyphosate, its ‘inactive’ yet still highly toxic ingredients (surfactants), and metabolites (AMPA), but it would also be more likely to contain aflatoxins – taken together, represent a veritable nightmare of synergistic toxicities, whose sum harms no regulatory agency yet adequately accounts for.

The researchers conclude their paper with a cautionary note: “This situation suggests that quantitative changes could occur in these fungi population in the soil exposed to longtime action of this xenobiotic.The survival of these microorganisms, capable to adapt to different glyphosate concentration represents a toxicological risk…”

When one takes into account recent research that Roundup herbicide contributes to the suppression of beneficial lactic-acid producing gut bacteria, while enhancing some of the most deadly known to man, e.g. Clostridium botulinum (1 kilogram (2.2 lbs) would be enough to kill the entire human population), the days of casually classifying the ever-expanding numbers of anti- or non-GMO supporters and activists as alarmists, or GM food itself as “substantially equivalent” to non-GM food, are over. Those who continue to toe Biotech’s party-line, under the much maligned banner of checkbook “Science,” and in face of clear evidence against its safety, will increasingly be perceived as morally, financially and even legally liable for the damages being caused to exposed populations.

Read the full article here: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/breaking-study-links-roundup-weedkiller-overgrowth-deadly-fungal-toxins-1

British Columbia Signs Resolution Banning GMO’s

20 Sep 2013 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in food safety, GMO's Tags: British Columbia, gmo, Resoltion banning GMO's

Excellent news from British Columbia! Not that anything will actually happen, but it is indeed positive that this elevates the conversation about GMO’s into the general public’s view:

UBCM can’t stomach genetically engineered foods

Municipal politicians rejected genetically engineered food by a narrow margin at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention in Vancouver Thursday.

The resolution, brought up by the Vancouver Island community of Metchosin, called for a resolution to ask the province to ban plants and animals produced by using genetic engineering.

According to Health Canada, genetically engineered foods are those that have been developed from a process not previously used in food or had their genes manipulated.

Teresa Lynne of the Society for a GE Free BC said the resolution being passed is in step with public views on the issue.

“We actually believe it is a grassroots effort from the bottom up that can make a difference,” she said. “We’ve had so much response from the people in B.C. backing this.”

Lynne maintains such crops haven’t been proven safe and said, despite many places fighting to label the foods for consumers, her group wanted them banned to avoid cross breeding with non-GE crops and animals.

Reg Ens of the BC Agriculture Council said the issue is “complex and emotional” and one it is watching.

“Our board has discussed it and looked at it,” he said. “We don’t have an official statement or an official statement on it because we probably have five or six different perspectives on the issue itself.”

Ens said the need for regulation is clear as technology is forever changing.

While the resolution may not make much of a difference as provincial agriculture minister Pat Pimm pointed out, such regulations are Ottawa’s responsibility.

“I will certainly share the results of the vote and summary of the debate with the federal minister, as it is the federal government’s jurisdiction to approve or deny foods for production in Canada,” Pimm said in an email.

(link to original by clicking title of article or this url: http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2013/09/19/ubcm-cant-stomach-genetically-engineered-foods)

GMO Damage in Pigs….How about in You?

11 Jun 2013 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in Animal Welfare, Consolidation, Control, Disease, FDA, GMO's Tags: gmo, GMO Study, Pig affects

World Exclusive: Evidence of GMO Harm in Pig Study

June 11, 2013 in Sustainable Agriculture, by Admin Share with

A groundbreaking new study [1] shows that pigs were harmed by the consumption of feed containing genetically modified (GM) crops.

Press release from Sustainable Pulse (sustainablepulse.com) and GMWatch (gmwatch.org)

GM-fed females had on average a 25% heavier uterus than non-GM-fed females, a possible indicator of disease that requires further investigation. Also, the level of severe inflammation in stomachs was markedly higher in pigs fed on the GM diet. The research results were striking and statistically significant.

Find a clear summary of the study here

Find the full paper here

Lead researcher Dr Judy Carman, adjunct associate professor at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia,[2] said: “Our findings are noteworthy for several reasons. First, we found these results in real on-farm conditions, not in a laboratory, but with the added benefit of strict scientific controls that are not normally present on farms.

Find all the background on this study and on Dr. Judy Carman here: www.gmojudycarman.org

“Second, we used pigs. Pigs with these health problems end up in our food supply. We eat them.

“Third, pigs have a similar digestive system to people, so we need to investigate if people are also getting digestive problems from eating GM crops.

“Fourth, we found these adverse effects when we fed the animals a mixture of crops containing three GM genes and the GM proteins that these genes produce. Yet no food regulator anywhere in the world requires a safety assessment for the possible toxic effects of mixtures. Regulators simply assume that they can’t happen.

“Our results provide clear evidence that regulators need to safety assess GM crops containing mixtures of GM genes, regardless of whether those genes occur in the one GM plant or in a mixture of GM plants eaten in the same meal, even if regulators have already assessed GM plants containing single GM genes in the mixture.”

The new study lends scientific credibility to anecdotal evidence from farmers and veterinarians, who have for some years reported reproductive and digestive problems in pigs fed on a diet containing GM soy and corn.[3]

Iowa-based farmer and crop and livestock advisor Howard Vlieger, one of the coordinators of the study, said: “For as long as GM crops have been in the feed supply, we have seen increasing digestive and reproductive problems in animals. Now it is scientifically documented.

“In my experience, farmers have found increased production costs and escalating antibiotic use when feeding GM crops. In some operations, the livestock death loss is high, and there are unexplained problems including spontaneous abortions, deformities of new-born animals, and an overall listlessness and lack of contentment in the animals.

“In some cases, animals eating GM crops are very aggressive. This is not surprising, given the scale of stomach irritation and inflammation now documented. I have seen no financial benefit to farmers who feed GM crops to their animals.”

Gill Rowlands, a farmer based in Pembrokeshire, Wales who is also a member of the campaign group GM-Free Cymru, said: “This is an animal welfare issue. Responsible farmers and consumers alike do not want animals to suffer. We call for the rapid phase-out of all GMOs from animal feed supplies.”

Claire Robinson of the campaign group GMWatch said: “Several UK supermarkets recently abandoned their GM-free animal feed policies, citing lack of availability of non-GM feed. We call on the public to visit the new citizens’ action website gmoaction.org, where they can quickly and easily send an email to the supermarkets asking them to ensure their suppliers secure certified GM-free animal feed. This will mean placing advance orders for GM-free soy from countries like Brazil.

Study details

The research was conducted by collaborating investigators from two continents and published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Organic Systems. The feeding study lasted more than five months, the normal commercial lifespan for a pig, and was conducted in the US. The pigs were slaughtered at the usual slaughter age of over 5 months, after eating the diets for their entire commercial lifespan.

168 newly-weaned pigs in a commercial piggery were fed either a typical diet incorporating GM soy and corn, or else (in the control group) an equivalent non-GM diet. The pigs were reared under identical housing and feeding conditions. They were slaughtered over 5 months later, at the usual slaughter age, after eating the diets for their entire commercial lifespan. They were then autopsied by qualified veterinarians who worked “blind” – they were not informed which pigs were fed on the GM diet and which were from the control group.

The GMO feed mix was a commonly used mix. The GM and non-GM diets contained the same amount of soy and corn, except that the GM diet contained a mixture of three GM genes and their protein products, while the control (non-GM) diet had equivalent non-GM ingredients. Of the three GM proteins in the GM diet, one made a crop resistant to being sprayed with the herbicide Roundup, while two were insecticides.

Contact:

Claire Robinson, GMWatch, UK: claire@gmwatch.org To phone within UK: 0752 753 6923. To phone outside UK: +44 752 753 6923

Dr Judy Carman, Adelaide, Australia

Email: judycarman@ozemail.com.au

Mr Howard Vlieger, Maurice, Iowa

Email: studentofthesoil@mtcnet.net

Notes

1. Judy A. Carman, Howard R. Vlieger, Larry J. Ver Steeg, Verlyn E. Sneller, Garth W. Robinson, Catherine A. Clinch-Jones, Julie I. Haynes, John W. Edwards (2013). A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. Journal of Organic Systems 8 (1): 38-54. Open access full text: www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

2. Dr Judy Carman, BSc (Hons) PhD MPH MPHAA; Epidemiologist and Biochemist; Director, Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Adelaide, Australia; Adjunct Associate Professor, Health and the Environment, School of the Environment, Adelaide, Australia

3. For example:

www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/wp-ontent/uploads/2012/04/Soydamage1.pdf

www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_Soy_Linked_to_Illnesses_in_Farm_Pigs.php

Farmer interviews in the 2012 film, Genetic Roulette: The Gamble of Our Lives, directed by Jeffrey Smith

GMO Labeling Must Wait for Canada’s Definition

06 Jun 2013 1 Comment

by truthfarmer in Conspiracy, FDA, food safety, GMO's

The article below indicates to me that “voluntary” labeling of GMO content or lack of such is (as we thought) completely pointless. The fact is that the powers that be don’t believe we have the right to know what is in the food we put in our mouths, or the mouths of our children. It is apparent that the “guerilla labeling” method is the only way to get more people aware of what they are buying for dinner. So let’s do it! If someone is good at making label templates, let’s get them shared all around and whenever we go to a grocery store put 10 labels on boxes of things the GMO shopping guide indicates contain GMO’s. A little effort multiplied can awaken millions. If they won’t let people know, then it’s our duty to let others know. Your thoughts are welcome:

Loblaws orders GMO-free labels removed

Kevin Cox and Ingrid Peritz

Loblaws, Canada’s largest grocery retailer, has ordered its suppliers to remove or cover by Sept. 1 any labels that identify food as being free of genetically modified ingredients.

The move has angered many of the organic food processors that market their breakfast cereals, pastas and other products in the store’s health food department as being free of chemical additives and genetically modified material.

Nature’s Path Foods Inc., a British-Columbia-based company that produces organic breakfast cereals, said some Canadian grocery chains pressed the company to alter the labels on its products.

The section of the label that says the products are made without genetically modified organisms has been blacked out with a felt pen.

Spokesman Arran Stephens said some large grocery chains warned the company that its products would be yanked from shelves if it didn’t remove the reference to genetically modified organisms.

“We’ve sort of been bullied into this. We feel it’s very important that consumers know if their food has been genetically tampered,” Mr. Stephens said, but the company didn’t want to risk cutting production and laying off employees.

Mr. Stephens noted that independent food stores and grocery chains in the United States welcome the GMO-free labels.

Many suppliers are afraid to criticize the grocery chain publicly because they fear losing shelf space.

But they say privately that they are facing major expense to change labels and could lose sales because consumers won’t be able to tell if they are getting non-GMO foods.

In a memo sent to suppliers in late January, Jamie Cooney, director of procurement of health food for Loblaws, said the products of distributors who didn’t remove the non-GMO labels could be removed from the grocery chain’s shelves.

“It is our position that until such time as a government and-or industry-supported definition of genetic modification exists in Canada we will not support product packaging containing non-GMO claims,” the letter, dated Jan. 29, said. No one was available to comment for Loblaws yesterday.

In some Loblaws stores across the country the non-GMO stickers have been blacked out or covered.

The federal government has yet to establish a standard or a labelling policy for genetically modified foods, those that come from plants altered to resist pests or herbicides or to produce greater yields.

Ottawa suffered a setback yesterday in one of its attempts to control labelling of GMO foods when a Quebec judge quashed its bid for an injunction that would stop a beer maker from labelling and advertising its product as “certified GMO-free” by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The agency doesn’t label or test consumer products for GMOs.

Unibroue Inc. has said that a manufacturer’s certificate signed by a government food inspector proved that the CFIA says its product is GMO-free.

Trade Agreement with Europe May Force Them Into GMO’s

31 May 2013 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in Consolidation, Control, GMO's Tags: EU, gmo, Harmonize, s, Standardize, WTO

As I’ve said entirely too many times, the focus of the “free trade” agreements is to bring the entire globe under similar rule and to make us all equally poor. Europeans are now getting a bit miffed at this harmonization and standardization. But I’ve been hacked off about it for years!

At any rate, the new agreement, when finalized, will allow GMO’s without current impediments into the EU. Here is an article about it:

At the end of June, the European Union and the US will officially launch negotiations for a new free trade agreement known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The plan is to create the world’s largest free trade area, ‘protect’ investment and harmonize regulation. While appealing to big business, the trade treaty poses a serious threat for citizens on both sides of the Atlantic, as it could weaken labour, social, environmental and consumer protection standards. One of the greatest risks includes US negotiators using the trade deal to push for the EU to open its plates and fields up to GM crops.

Everything is on the table

The negotiation agenda is very broad. According to theleaked EU draft mandate it is likely to include “goods and services as well as rules on trade and investment related issues with particular focus on removing unnecessary regulatory barriers”, with the aim of promoting “the untapped potential of a truly transatlantic market place”. Basically, this means tackling what the Office of the United States Trade Representative understands as “technical barriers for trade”, among them EU restrictions on GMOs. (see pp. 61).

One of the core part of the negotiations is that both the EU and US should recognize their respective rules and regulations, which in practice could reduce regulation to the lowest common denominator. The official language talks of “mutual recognition” of standards or so-called reduction of non-tariff barriers. However, for the EU, that could mean accepting US standards in many areas, including food and agriculture, which are lower than the EU’s.

US officials state it quite clearly every time they have the opportunity: all so-called barriers to trade, including highly controversial regulations such as those protecting agriculture, food or data privacy are in their sights. Even the leaders of the Senate Finance Committee, in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, made it clear that any agreement must also reduce EU restrictions on genetically modified crops, chlorinated chickens and hormone-treated beef.

A unique opportunity for big business

The negotiations are so broad that groups lobbying on the subject range from Toyota and General Motors to thepharmaceutical industr y and IBM; not to mention the Chamber of Commerce of the US, one of the most powerful corporate lobby groups in the US. Indeed, Business Europe, the main organization representing employers in Europe, launched their own strategy on an EU-US economic and trade partnershipin early 2012, and their suggestions have been widely included in the draft EU mandate. Regarding agriculture, their demands include an “ambitious liberalisation of agricultural trade barriers with as few exceptions as possible”. Similarly, food lobby group Food and Drink Europe, representing the largest food companies (Unilever, Kraft, Nestlé, etc.), welcomed the negotiations, one of their key demands being the facilitation of the low level presence of unapproved genetically modified crops. This is a long-standing industry agenda also supported by feed and grain trading giants including Cargill, Bunge, ADM, and the big farmers’ lobby COPA-COGECA. Meanwhile, the biotech industry on both sides of the Atlantic offers its “support and assistance as the EU and the US government look to enhance their trade relationship”.

No doubt this trade deal is an unique opportunity to achieve through closed and non-transparent negotiations what hasn’t been possible so far in a transparent and democratic way. Tactics used to convince Europe to introduce GMOs have even included involving US diplomacy, as revealed by a recent report from Food and Water Europe. The TTIP offers the perfect vehicle to bypass overwhelming opposition to GMOs by EU citizens, as confirmed in every European opinion poll.

According to a professional lobbyist, “EU-US trade negotiations will offer many US firms a second chance to get their interests implemented effectively in Europe. Thanks to this process numerous sectors that have been fighting for change for decades could see their fortunes turn around within a short period of time.” And of course, “US seed companies that for a decade have been struggling to break the deadlock over the authorization for the cultivation of their [GM] seeds now will be presented with the ultimate opportunity to change the entire process to suit their needs.”

Time to raise citizens’ voices – take action

The European Parliament will vote 23^rd of May on a resolution over the EU mandate for the negotiation of the TTIP. Corporate Europe Observatory and Friends of the Earth Europe have launched a joint campaign, Stop the Crop, to prevent the introduction of more GMOs into Europe’s food and farming. We ask you to tell MEPs that EU citizens won’t accept the introduction of GMOs through the back door. Public concerns must be debated openly and transparently!

NOTE: The European Parliament already voted. You can read about the results here

Next steps

After the European Parliament vote, the European Council is expected to endorse the EU mandate to negotiate the TTIP in the Foreign Affairs Council dedicated to Trade on the 18th June. The negotiations could be formally launched on the sidelines of the G-8 summit in Northern Ireland by mid June, and are intended to be finalised by the autumn of 2014.

Don’t Hold Your Breath – Monsanto May Be in Trouble

30 May 2013 6 Comments

by truthfarmer in Consolidation, FDA, food, food safety, GMO's, USDA, WTO

Knowing how Monsanto controls the “regulatory” agencies at the Federal level, I deeply doubt that anything will come of this. Also, since Senator Roy Blunt got the Monsanto Protection Act passed, there may be little that can be legally done against one of the most evil corporations on the face of the planet. Nonetheless, here is a story that we should be making a ruckus about:

Monsanto Panics as Oregon GM Wheat Scandal Spreads Worldwide

May 30, 2013 in Sustainable Agriculture, by Admin Share with

USDA INVESTIGATING DETECTION OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED (GE) GLYPHOSATE-RESISTANT WHEAT IN OREGON

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced Wednesday that test results of plant samples from an Oregon farm indicate the presence of genetically engineered (GE) glyphosate-resistant wheat plants. Further testing by USDA laboratories indicates the presence of the same GE glyphosate-resistant wheat variety that Monsanto was authorized to field test in 16 states from 1998 to 2005. APHIS launched a formal investigation after being notified by an Oregon State University scientist that initial tests of wheat samples from an Oregon farm indicated the possible presence of GE glyphosate-resistant wheat plants. There are no GE wheat varieties approved for sale or in commercial production in the United States or elsewhere at this time.

As a result of the USDA announcement Japanese authorities have canceled a tender offer to buy wheat from the US and other governments worldwide have threatened to stop all US wheat imports.

The EU Commission has asked the United States how to test for unapproved GM Wheat, a spokesman said, adding that incoming shipments would be tested and blocked if they contained the strain.

The detection of this wheat variety does not pose a food safety concern. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) completed a voluntary consultation on the safety of food and feed derived from this GE glyphosate-resistant wheat variety in 2004. For the consultation, the developer provided information to FDA to support the safety of this wheat variety. FDA completed the voluntary consultation with no further questions concerning the safety of grain and forage derived from this wheat, meaning that this variety is as safe as non-GE wheat currently on the market.“We are taking this situation very seriously and have launched a formal investigation,” said Michael Firko, Acting Deputy Administrator for APHIS’ Biotechnology Regulatory Services, “Our first priority is to as quickly as possible determine the circumstances and extent of the situation and how it happened. We are collaborating with state, industry, and trading partners on this situation and are committed to providing timely information about our findings. This situation is unacceptable and USDA will put all necessary resources towards this investigation.”

The Plant Protection Act (PPA) provides for substantial penalties for serious infractions. Should APHIS determine that this situation was the result of a violation of the PPA, APHIS has the authority to seek penalties for such a violation including civil penalties up to $1,000,000 and has the authority to refer the matter for criminal prosecution, if appropriate.

APHIS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ FDA work together to regulate the safe use of organisms derived from modern biotechnology. APHIS regulates the introduction (meaning the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release/field testing) of certain GE organisms that may pose a risk to plant health. EPA regulates pesticides, including plants with plant-incorporated protectants (pesticides intended to be produced and used in a living plant), to ensure public safety. EPA also sets limits on pesticide residues on food and animal feed. FDA has primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of human food and animal feed, as well as safety of all plant-derived foods and feeds. (article source)

Yet Another Perversion

28 May 2013 1 Comment

by truthfarmer in food, GMO's Tags: gmo, human genetic engineering, pineapple, Rose pineapple

It is only a matter of time before they destroy everything good under the sun.

Del Monte, one of the world’s largest growers and distributors of the popular tropical pineapple fruit, has developed a genetically modified pineapple that’s currently being grown in Costa Rica, one of the top pineapple-producing countries. It has just received approval by the USDA for eventual sale in the U.S.

Called “Rosé”, representatives for Del Monte say the GMO fruit is still in a testing phase: “The USDA’s decision does not mean that Rosé is in commercial distribution; it is in a testing phase. Del Monte intends to continue to test Rosé and will communicate more details when appropriate,” Dennis Christou, vice president of marketing in North America for Del Monte said in a statement, adding that, “Del Monte Fresh Produce has a very active research and development program designed to explore new varieties and new agricultural techniques. The results of these research projects may or may not lead to commercialization depending on many factors including regulatory approvals by the relevant governmental authorities where and when applicable.”

According to the website, The Packer, Del Monte submitted its requests for approval from the USDA’s APHIS division (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) in July of 2012, and the agency quietly gave its approval of Rosé in January of this year, but a formal public response was only made in late April.

Del Monte’s request for approval describes the GMO Rosé variety as having “rose-colored flesh”, which the company says comes from the addition of genes from “edible plant species, pineapple and tangerine” genetically modified to change the color of the pineapple.

A “food safety consultation” must be completed with the FDA before the pineapples can be imported to the U.S. The Packer reports that as of April 26th, the agency’s list of approved consultations did not show any results connected with Del Monte’s Rosé.

http://www.naturallysavvy.com/natural-and-organic/del-monte-s-gmo-pineapple-approved-in-the-u-s

An Honest Scientist!

20 May 2013 1 Comment

by truthfarmer in Consolidation, Conspiracy, Control, farm loss, GMO's

This is heartening. The biggest problem with science in our part of the world is that those paying for the studies are the ones that determine the findings. This man has done an about face on what, in my opinion, is the biggest danger to humanity outside of a nuclear holocaust. Please read this and share.

Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food

May 6, 2013 by THIERRY VRAIN
I retired 10 years ago after a long career as a research scientist for Agriculture Canada. When I was on the payroll, I was the designated scientist of my institute to address public groups and reassure them that genetically engineered crops and foods were safe. There is, however, a growing body of scientific research – done mostly in Europe, Russia, and other countries – showing that diets containing engineered corn or soya cause serious health problems in laboratory mice and rats

I don’t know if I was passionate about it but I was knowledgeable. I defended the side of technological advance, of science and progress.

I have in the last 10 years changed my position. I started paying attention to the flow of published studies coming from Europe, some from prestigious labs and published in prestigious scientific journals, that questioned the impact and safety of engineered food.

I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat.

There are a number of scientific studies that have been done for Monsanto by universities in the U.S., Canada, and abroad. Most of these studies are concerned with the field performance of the engineered crops, and of course they find GMOs safe for the environment and therefore safe to eat.

Individuals should be encouraged to make their decisions on food safety based on scientific evidence and personal choice, not on emotion or the personal opinions of others.
We should all take these studies seriously and demand that government agencies replicate them rather than rely on studies paid for by the biotech companies.

The Bt corn and soya plants that are now everywhere in our environment are registered as insecticides. But are these insecticidal plants regulated and have their proteins been tested for safety? Not by the federal departments in charge of food safety, not in Canada and not in the U.S.

There are no long-term feeding studies performed in these countries to demonstrate the claims that engineered corn and soya are safe. All we have are scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely.

These studies show that proteins produced by engineered plants are different than what they should be. Inserting a gene in a genome using this technology can and does result in damaged proteins. The scientific literature is full of studies showing that engineered corn and soya contain toxic or allergenic proteins.

Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene – one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong.

The whole paradigm of the genetic engineering technology is based on a misunderstanding. Every scientist now learns that any gene can give more than one protein and that inserting a gene anywhere in a plant eventually creates rogue proteins. Some of these proteins are obviously allergenic or toxic.

I have drafted a reply to Paul Horgen’s letter to the Comox Valley Environmental Council. It is my wish that it goes viral as to educate as many people as possible rapidly. Any and all social media is fine by me. This can also be used as a briefing note for the councilors of AVICC or anywhere else. Thank you for your help. [Original source with replies from Dr. Paul Horgen]

Thierry Vrain
Innisfree Farm

I am turning you towards a recent compilation (June 2012) of over 500 government reports and scientific articles published in peer reviewed Journals, some of them with the highest recognition in the world. Like The Lancet in the medical field, or Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, or Biotechnology, or Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, European Journal of Histochemistry, Journal of Proteome Research, etc â€¦ This compilation was made by a genetic engineer in London, and an investigative journalist who summarized the gist of the publications for the lay public.

GMO Myths and Truths – an evidence based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops. A report of 120 pages, it can be downloaded for free from Earth Open Source. “GMO Myths and Truths” disputes the claims of the Biotech industry that GM crops yield better and more nutritious food, that they save on the use of pesticides, have no environmental impact whatsoever and are perfectly safe to eat. Genetic pollution is so prevalent in North and South America where GM crops are grown that the fields of conventional and organic grower are regularly contaminated with engineered pollen and losing certification. The canola and flax export market from Canada to Europe (a few hundreds of millions of dollars) were recently lost because of genetic pollution. Did I mention superweeds, when RoundUp crops pass their genes on to RoundUp Resistant weeds. Apparently over 50% of fields in the USA are now infested and the growers have to go back to use other toxic herbicides such as 2-4 D. Many areas of Ontario and Alberta are also infested. The transgenes are also transferred to soil bacteria. A chinese study published last year shows that an ampicillin resistance transgene was transferred from local engineered crops to soil bacteria, that eventually found their way into the rivers. The transgenes are also transferred to humans. Volunteers who ate engineered soybeans had undigested DNA in their intestine and their bacterial flora was expressing the soybean transgenes in the form of antibiotic resistance. This is genetic pollution to the extreme, particularly when antibiotic resistance is fast becoming a serious global health risk. I can only assume the American Medical Association will soon recognize its poorly informed judgement.

In 2009 the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium of GM foods, safety testing and labeling. Their review of the available literature at the time noted that animals show 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. Monsanto writes “There is no need to test the safety of GM foods”. So long as the engineered protein is safe, foods from GM crops are substantially equivalent and they cannot pose any health risks.” The US Food and Drug Administration waived all levels of safety testing in 1996 before approving the commercialization of these crops. Nothing more than voluntary research is necessary, and the FDA does not even want to see the results. And there is certainly no need to publish any of it. If you remember 1996, the year that the first crops were commercialized, the research scientists of the US FDA all predicted that transgenic crops would have unpredictable hard to detect side effects, allergens, toxins, nutritional effects, new diseases. That was published in 2004 in Biotechnology if you recall seeing it.

I know well that Canada does not perform long term feeding studies as they do in Europe. The only study I am aware of from Canada is from the Sherbrooke Hospital in 2011, when doctors found that 93% of pregnant women and 82% of the fetuses tested had the protein pesticide in their blood. This is a protein recognized in its many forms as mildly to severely allergenic. There is no information on the role played by rogue proteins created by the process of inserting transgenes in the middle of a genome. But there is a lot of long term feeding studies reporting serious health problems in mice and rats. The results of the first long term feeding studies of lab rats reported last year in Food and Chemical Toxicology show that they developed breast cancer in mid life and showed kidney and liver damage. The current statistic I read is that North Americans are eating 193 lbs of GMO food on average annually. That includes the children I assume, not that I would use that as a scare tactic. But obviously I wrote at length because I think there is cause for alarm and it is my duty to educate the public.

One argument I hear repeatedly is that nobody has been sick or died after a meal (or a trillion meals since 1996) of GM food. Nobody gets ill from smoking a pack of cigarette either. But it sure adds up, and we did not know that in the 1950s before we started our wave of epidemics of cancer. Except this time it is not about a bit of smoke, it’s the whole food system that is of concern. The corporate interest must be subordinated to the public interest, and the policy of substantial equivalence must be scrapped as it is clearly untrue.

Thierry Vrain, Former research scientist for Agriculture Canada and now promoting awareness of the dangers of genetically modified foods. (link to article source)

New Study Shows “Leukemogenic” Properties of the Bt toxin

14 May 2013 2 Comments

by truthfarmer in Conspiracy, Control, Disease, FDA, food, Food Destruction Agency, GMO's Tags: bt, cancer, gmo, monsanto, Round Up

This is a redux on yet another study proving the inherent danger of the genetically modified food supply. With all of the proof behind the dangers of consumption of these aberrations, the only thing I can recommend is that every one grow everything they can and we must plant in defiance of the destruction of decency and integrity in our food. Please, do NOT feed your children this stuff!!! Here is the article:

A new study, yet to receive any media attention, reveals the “leukemogenic” properties of the Bt toxin biopesticides engineered into the vast majority of GMO food crops already within the US food supply.

Last September, the causal link between cancer and genetically modified food was confirmed in a French study, the first independent long-term animal feeding study not commissioned by the biotech corporations themselves. The disturbing details can be found here: New Study Finds GM Corn and Roundup Causes Cancer In Rats

Now, a new study published in the Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases indicates that the biopesticides engineered into GM crops known as Bacillus Thuringensis (Bt) or Cry-toxins, may also contribute to blood abnormalities from anemia to hematological malignancies (blood cancers) such as leukemia.[i]

A group of scientists from the Department of Genetics and Morphology, Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasilia/DF, Brazil set out to test the purported human and environmental biosafety of GM crops, looking particularly at the role that the Bt toxin found within virtually all GM food crops plays on non-target or non-insect animal species.

The research was spurred by the Brazilian Collegiate Board of Directors of the National Sanitary Surveillance Agency (ANVISA), who advocated in 2005 for evaluations of toxicity and pathogenicity of microbiological control agents such as Bt toxins, given that little is known about their toxicological potential in non-target organisms, including humans.

While Bacillus Thurigensis spore-crystals have been used since the late 1960’s in agriculture as a foliar insecticide, it was only after the advent of recombinant DNA biotechnology that these toxin-producing genes (known as delta endotoxins) were first inserted into the plants themselves and released into commercial production in the mid-90’s, making their presence in the US food supply and the bodies of exposed populations ubiquitous.

What the new study revealed is that various binary combinations and doses of Bt toxins are capable of targeting mammalian cells, particularly the erythroid (red blood cell) lineage, resulting in red blood cell changes indicative of significant damage, such as anemia. In addition, the study found that Bt toxins suppressed bone marrow proliferation creating abnormal lymphocyte patterns consistent with some types of leukemia.

The researchers also found that one of the prevailing myths about the selective toxicity of Bt to insects, the target species, no longer holds true:

It has been reported that Cry toxins exert their toxicity when activated at alkaline pH of the digestive tract of susceptible larvae, and, because the physiology of the mammalian digestive system does not allow their activation, and no known specific receptors in mammalian intestinal cells have been reported, the toxicity these MCAs to mammals would negligible [8,22,23]. However, our study demonstrated that Bt spore-crystals genetically modified to express individually Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2A induced hematotoxicity, particularly to the erythroid lineage. This finding corroborates literature that demonstrated that alkali-solubilized Bt spore-crystals caused in vitro hemolysis in cell lines of rat, mouse, sheep, horse, and human erythrocytes and suggested that the plasma membrane of susceptible cells (erythrocytes, in this case) may be the primary target for these toxins [33]

The study also found:

1) That Cry toxins are capable of exerting their adverse effects when suspended in distilled water, not requiring alkalinization via insect physiology to become activated as formerly believed.

2) That a dose of Cry1Ab as low as 27 mg/kg, their lowest tested dose, was capable of inducing hypochromic anemia in mice – the very toxin has been detected in blood of non-pregnant women, pregnant women and their fetuses in Canada, supposedly exposed through diet.

3) Whereas past reports have found that Bt toxins are generally nontoxic and do not bioaccumulate in fatty tissue or persist in the environment, the new study demonstrated that all Cry toxins tested had a more pronounced effect from 72 hours of exposure onwards, indicating the opposite is true.

4) That high-dose Cry toxin doses caused blood changes indicative of bone marrow damage (damage to “hematopoietic stem cell or bone marrow stroma”).

The authors noted their results “demonstrate leukemogenic activity for other spore-crystals not yet reported in the literature.”

They concluded:

[R]esults showed that the Bt spore-crystals genetically modified to express individually Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2A can cause some hematological risks to vertebrates,increasing their toxic effects with long-term exposure. Taking into account the increased risk of human and animal exposures to significant levels of these toxins, especially through diet, our results suggest that further studies are required to clarify the mechanism involved in the hematotoxicity found in mice, and to establish the toxicological risks to non-target organisms, especially mammals, before concluding that these microbiological control agents are safe for mammals.

Did you get that? Their conclusion is that it is premature to consider GM toxins to be safe in mammals. Billions have already been exposed to Bt toxins, in combination with glyphosate-based herbicide formulations such as Roundup, and yet, most biotech research scientists and industry regulators still claim they are unequivocally safe. This has much to do with the well-known relationship that biotech corporations like Monsanto have with so-called ‘check book’ science firms who are basically paid to obfuscate adverse health outcomes of their products, such as the GMO-Cancer link. [see: Monsanto-Funded Science Denies Emerging Roundup Cancer Link]

Consider also that the question of combined toxicity of Cry toxins and glyphosate-based residues within plants have not been sufficiently explored, and that glyphosate exposure has already been linked to non-Hodgkins lymphoma and hairy cell leukemia in the biomedical literature.[ii]

The reality is that we no longer have time to wait around for additional research to accumulate on the adverse health effects of GMOs, especially considering the biotech industry has far more capital to infuse into their own faux research on the topic.

Some, in fact, argue that we should not be waiting around for the corrupt legislative process to compel manufacturers to label GMOs, rather, we should be fighting to BAN THEM NOW, advocating for the precautionary principle before its too late.

In the meantime, you can join the growing movement to March Against Monsanto, occurring world wide on May 25th, as a way of expressing your desire for real change, as well as vote with your forks, the only immediately effective tool we have against biological and environmental gene-ocide articulated by the dominant GMO-based food system.

(from GeenMedInfo)

Monsanto Gets Another Gimme from US Federal Corporation

14 May 2013 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in GMO's

Today’s news is rather depressing, folks. While I’ve long known the courts are a parody of “justice”, one must wonder what more we can do to preserve real food which gives health to people and other living things in this climate of tyranny. So…Monsanto wins again:

US Supreme Court finds for Monsanto in seed patent battle

Indiana grain farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman walks past the US Supreme Court on February 19, 2013 in Washington. The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Monsanto over Bowman, who was accused of having pirated the genetically-modified crops developed by the agribusiness giant.

AFP – The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monsanto Monday over an Indiana farmer accused of having pirated the genetically-modified crops developed by the agribusiness giant.

The high court’s unanimous decision focuses specifically on seed production, but experts say it may also have implications on intellectual property law in medicine, biotechnology and software.

The nine justices ruled that laws limiting patents do “not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder’s permission.”

The crux of the argument was over “patent exhaustion” which states that, after a patented item has been sold, the purchaser has “a right to use or resell that article,” Justice Elena Kagan explained in the court’s 10-page decision.

“Such a sale, however, does not allow the purchaser to make new copies of the patented invention,” she added.

At 2 pm (1800 GMT) on Monday after the ruling, Monsanto stock was down 1.1 percent at $106.94.

In a lawsuit filed in 2007, Monsanto had accused Vernon Hugh Bowman, a farmer, of infringing on its intellectual property rights by replanting, cultivating and selling herbicide-resistant soybean seeds it spent more than a decade developing.

The patented seed, which allows farmers to aerially spray Monsanto-made Roundup herbicide over their entire fields, was invented in 1996 and is now grown by more than 90 percent of the 275,000 US soybean farmers.

The farmer, 75, said he had respected his contract with Monsanto and purchased new Roundup Ready seeds each year for his first planting.

But he said hard times forced him to purchase a cheaper mixture of seeds from a grain elevator starting in 1999, which he used for his second planting.

The mixture included Roundup Ready soybeans, which Bowman was able to isolate and replant from 2000 to 2007.

“Under the patent exhaustion doctrine, Bowman could resell the patented soybeans he purchased from the grain elevator; so too he could consume the beans himself or feed them to his animals,” Kagan explained.

“But the exhaustion doctrine does not enable Bowman to make additional patented soybeans without Monsanto’s permission (either express or implied).

“And that is precisely what Bowman did,” she said.

The court found that the law rightly protects Monsanto from such a practice because, “were the matter otherwise, Monsanto’s patent would provide scant benefit.”

It upheld a lower court ruling demanding Bowman — whose lawyer has said is in dire economic straits — pay the $85,000 in damages Monsanto had sought.

Monsanto cheered the decision in a statement Monday.

“The Court’s ruling today ensures that longstanding principles of patent law apply to breakthrough 21st century technologies that are central to meeting the growing demands of our planet and its people,” Monsanto executive vice president David Snively said.

The company had been supported in court by the US government and, during the hearing, several justices already seemed disposed to rule in its favor.

Monsanto attorney Seth Waxman argued that Bowman was able to profit from the seed giant’s technology without having to pay for it, comparing the case to software piracy.

The high court agreed:

“If simple copying were a protected use, a patent would plummet in value after the first sale of the first item containing the invention,” Kagan wrote in the decision. “And that would result in less incentive for innovation than Congress wanted.”

Although the decision specifically limited its scope to the seed industry, “there’s one clause saying it may be broader,” patent expert Michael Ward told AFP.

“Where the replication is not inadvertent, as long the replication is not a necessary but incidental step, that decision would apply,” he explained.

Truth Farmer