USDA Going for RFID Again…And Again…Ad Nauseum, Ad Infinitum

09 Jul 2020 4 Comments

by truthfarmer in Agenda 21, Animal Welfare, Consolidation, Control, Dairy, farm loss, NAIS, NAIS/ADT, USDA

From my friend Darol:

 

Memo: THE USDA BEATS THIS DEAD MULE OVER AND OVER. They just won’t quit! All government programs are about expanding government and increasing tax-trampling of the citizens. This proposal has been soundly trounced by cattle producers every few years since the early 2000s. It is glossed-over and repackaged at NAIS, ADT, and new names of this old dastardly enforcement.

Unnecessary: The USA has the most cautious livestock producers, with less disease than any country on earth. No livestock producer is asking the government for help in identifying their own cattle. They already know how to ID their cattle. Not needed at all.

Cost: The added cost to large livestock producers is from $6 to $15 per animal. The cost to small producers for pins, applicators, computer entry, etc., will be $25 to $75 per calf. In an industry fighting for their lives, $15 more cost per critter is asinine. Multiply the uselessness considering all cattle are identified by their owners already — no extra cost is wanted or needed.

Follow The Money: Large ear pin/tag companies are “buying” USDA. If USDA makes electronic pins the law, billions will be made by the major companies. It is not about disease — not about identification — it is not that livestock owners want it — it is about the government jobs and ear tag companie’s profits.

Who Wants What: In every comment or listening process USDA and APHIS has conducted (every 2 years) the huge majority of livestock producers soundly reject the increased cost involved, with no value return. Livestock producers are getting so tired of USDA shoving this down our throats over and over…. tired…. tired…….tired.

Call to Action: One more time, tell USDA in their public comments, on line, that no cattle people want this. We don’t need this again, and again. DD

The Dastardly Banner of the Evil USDA

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is seeking public comment on a proposal where APHIS would only approve Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) as the official eartag for use in interstate movement of cattle that are required to be identified by the traceability regulations.

An official eartag is defined as an identification tag approved by APHIS that bears an official identification number for individual animals. Regulations allow APHIS to approve tags that can be used as official identification, and both metal and RFID tags are current options.

A transition to RFID tags would support APHIS’ ongoing efforts to increase animal disease traceability by more accurately and rapidly allowing animal health officials to know where affected and at-risk animals are located. While this would not prevent disease outbreaks, it would allow animal health officials to more quickly contain outbreaks early before they can do substantial damage to the U.S. cattle industry.

APHIS is also seeking comment on a proposed timeline for implementation, which the agency would use if this transition occurs. The timeline would make RFID tags the only option for use in cattle and bison requiring official identification on January 1, 2023. APHIS would “grandfather in” animals that have metal tags already in place on that date – their metal tags would serve as official identification for the remainder of their lifespan.

This transition timeline would not alter the existing regulations. The cattle and bison that must be identified will not change, nor will the option for animal health officials in shipping and receiving states to agree to accept alternate forms of identification, including brands and tattoos, in lieu of official identification.

Public comments will be accepted through October 5, 2020 at the following site: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-14463. After reviewing all comments, APHIS will publish a follow up Federal Register notice. This notice will respond to any such comments, announce our decision whether to only approve RFID tags as the only official identification devices for cattle, and, if so, provide the timeline for such a transition.

Advertisement

I tried to tell everyone….NAIS Never Went Away-it simply had a name change

13 Jul 2017 2 Comments

by truthfarmer in Agenda 21, Consolidation, Conspiracy, Control, Enforcement, NAIS, NAIS/ADT, USDA, WTO Tags: , , ,

The NIAA and the infamous Neil Hammerschmidt are at it again. Having an expensive meeting to figure out how to subject livestock growers to “enforcement” measures for RFID tagging of livestock. They are after the cattle, as they always have been.

Maybe they should remember the nooses on the livestock trailer with their agency name on them the last time they tried this in Colorado. If you are interested, here is the release from the fascist group, NIAA:

Exceptional Agenda Set for Strategy Forum on Livestock Traceability

The National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA) announces an impressive agenda for the upcoming day and a half Strategy Forum on Livestock Traceability which they will co–host with the US Animal Health Association (USAHA) in Denver, CO in September.

The Strategy Forum will kick off with an introduction from Dr. Tony Forshey, Board Chair, National Institute for Animal Agriculture and Dr. Boyd Parr, United States Animal Health Association.

Mr. Matt Deppe, Executive Director, Iowa Cattlemen’s Association (Invited) is scheduled to moderate the Strategy Forum as first day continues with updates on the USDA Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) program and feedback on public meetings from USDA APHIS Veterinary Services Cattle Health Staff/Animal Disease Traceability Veterinarian Dr. Sunny Geiser–Novotny and Dr. Aaron Scott.

Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt, Animal Disease Traceability, Program Manager, will discuss “ADT Next Step Considerations.” After a networking lunch, a panel discussion with State Veterinarians from around the US, will examine “Enforcement Rules –Successes and Opportunities.” Dr. Nevil Speer and Dr. Justin Smith will moderate more panel discussions on “Implications for Livestock Markets ” and “Making Standards and Technology Work.”

Mr. Paul Laronde, Tag & Technology Manager, Canadian Cattle Identification Agency , will open the second day of the Strategy Forum with a review of the Canadian Traceability Forum. Mr. Randy Munger, Mobile Information & Animal Disease Traceability Veterinarian, USDA / APHIS / STAS will speak about “Using RFID to Advance Traceability.”

The final panel discussion will consider “Implications for Livestock Used for Rodeo, Fairs & Exhibitions.”

The Strategy Forum on Livestock Traceability will be held September 26 –27, 2017 at the DoubleTree by Hilton, Denver–Stapleton North, Denver, Colorado. View the entire AGENDA HERE. Register HERE.

GMO Apples to Hit Shelves in Midwest Soon

24 Jan 2017 2 Comments

by truthfarmer in FDA, food safety, GMO's, USDA Tags: , ,

So the Arctic apple will soon be on the shelves. This is the apple that won’t brown when you’ve sliced it. Potential effects on consumers? Who knows! Maybe it will even out tan lines, or cause dark skin to lighten, or just give you cancer or tumors or mess with your hormone levels. No one knows…and the “food police” do not care. They do however care if you want to buy raw milk across state lines. Then you’re engaged a criminal activity.

I don’t know if Trump will be helpful in the fight against GMO’s. He may be helpful on general food freedom issues, but my sense is that we are going to need to really work on his administration for right action on GMO’s.

Here is an article on this apple. Let people know it will be out there, please:

First GMO apple slices to go on sale in Midwest

A small amount of genetically modified sliced apples will go on sale in 10 Midwest stores this February and March.

 

Courtesy of Okanagan Specialty Fruits An Arctic brand Golden Delicious apple genetically modified to not brown when sliced. Packaged slices will be sold for the first time in the U.S. this February and March.

Courtesy of Okanagan Specialty Fruits An Arctic brand Golden Delicious apple genetically modified to not brown when sliced. Packaged slices will be sold for the first time in the U.S. this February and March.

Courtesy of Okanagan Specialty Fruits The Arctic apple brand and a QR code will be the identifiers of genetically modified sliced apples when they go on sale next month in 10 Midwest stores.

Courtesy of Okanagan Specialty Fruits The Arctic apple brand and a QR code will be the identifiers of genetically modified sliced apples when they go on sale next month in 10 Midwest stores.

SUMMERLAND, B.C. — The first genetically modified apples to be sold in the U.S. will debut in select Midwestern stores next month.

A small amount of Arctic brand sliced and packaged Golden Delicious, produced by Okanagan Specialty Fruits of Summerland, B.C., will be in 10 stores this February and March, said Neal Carter, the company’s founder and president. He would not identify the retailers, saying that’s up to them.

“We’re very optimistic with respect to this product because people love it at trade shows,” Carter said. “It’s a great product and the eating quality is excellent.”

Carter reduced the enzyme polyphenol oxidase to prevent browning when apples are sliced, bitten or bruised. The apples match the industry norm of not browning for three weeks after slicing but without using flavor-altering, chemical additives that the rest of the fresh-sliced apple industry uses.

Golden Delicious, Granny Smith and Fuji varieties have been approved by the USDA and Canada. An Arctic Gala could be approved in 2018. Only Goldens and Granny Smiths have been planted long enough to produce fruit in commercial quantities by next fall.

Midwestern retailers were chosen for the first sales this winter because they seemed like a good fit demographically and in presence and size, Carter said.

Asked if Midwest consumers may be more accepting of genetically modified apples than those on the East or West coasts, Carter said consumer research didn’t indicate that and that it wasn’t a consideration.

“We don’t want to skew our test marketing results by choosing stores that may be more friendly to genetic engineering,” he said.

About 500, 40-pound boxes of sliced apples will be sold in grab-and-go pouch bags, he said. The company expects to offer 6,000 boxes of apple slices from the 2017 fall crop.

A QR computer scan code on the packaging enables consumers to get information, including that the apple slices are genetically modified, but nothing directly on the packing identifies it. Okanagan Specialty Fruits will adhere to the new genetically engineered foods labeling act but it’s not clear what that requires, Carter said.

“We are selling it under the Arctic brand and we’ve had a lot of press and attention, so I assume most people will know what it is,” he said.

The company has reworked its logo, making a snowflake inside an apple outline more visible.

The first commercial test marketing will provide the company with consumer preferences on packaging and price and other information including purchase motivations. Survey data will be used to help the company decide its fall 2017 commercial launch strategy.

The company has orchards in British Columbia and 85,000 trees at an undisclosed location in Washington state. More than 300,000 trees will be planted this spring and 500,000 are being budded for planting in 2018. Those numbers may increase, as the company wants enough volume to compete nationally in the sliced apple business, Carter said.

The goal is 800 to 1,000 acres planted in the Northwest and nearly the same acreage in the eastern U.S. in addition to 600 to 800 acres in Canada by 2021, he has said. It will be a mix of company orchards and contract growers.

While supportive of the science, the Washington apple industry opposed approval of GMO apples because it believes negative public perception could damage apple sales. While expressing concerns about market disruption before USDA approval, the U.S. Apple Association is now neutral and stresses that all apples are safe, healthy and nutritious.

Senate Agrees on Dark Act

01 Jul 2016 1 Comment

by truthfarmer in Consolidation, Conspiracy, Control, Disease, farm loss, food safety, GMO's, USDA Tags: , ,

I thought this was a very good article. It seems a completely futile course of action to continue to talk to the furniture in DC, and because of that, I have not been encouraging people to continue to engage in unprofitable action. Does anyone remember that Obama promised to label GMO’s? I know some voted for the cretin on that promise. 8 years after the fact, and the only meaningful things that have happened are at the state level and in public awareness. Neither of which has had any effect on the District of Criminals regulatory or legislative actions.

Due to my desire to not send people on fruitless expeditions, one positive thing you can do is  use this Non GMO shopping guide. Other positive actions on this front include growing your own, buying from farmers that don’t use man-made chemicals and can tell you the breed of the product, and, if you live in a city or town, work to get urban farming and gardening ordinances in place. Or go guerilla grower. 🙂

Here is the best article I could find on the fed level GMO actions:

Senate Agrees on “DARK Act” GMO Labeling Bill

TOPICS:

June 24, 2016

apples-GMO-DARK-Act-620x360-1By Derrick Broze

The U.S. Senate has announced a bipartisan deal which will prevent states from labeling genetically modified foods in favor of a federal labeling system. Here’s what you need to know…

On Thursday, the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry agreed on a new bill aimed at labeling foods with genetically modified ingredients. The committee has been trying for several months to get a bill passed before Vermont’s labeling law goes into effect on July 1.

U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts and Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow released a statement, calling the bill “an important path forward that represents a true compromise. Since time is of the essence, we urge our colleagues to move swiftly to support this bill.” Roberts said if his colleagues do not act on the bill now Vermont’s law will cause confusion in the marketplace. The bill would give the U.S. Department of Agriculture two years to write the labeling rules.

The bipartisan proposal would immediately prohibit states and cities from passing labeling laws for genetically modified or engineered ingredients. Genetically modified or engineered seeds are engineered to have certain traits, such as resistance to herbicides. The majority of the United States’ corn and soybean crops are now GE, including a large portion that is used for animal feed.

The bill would also put the USDA in charge of establishing “a uniform national disclosure standard for human food that is or may be bioengineered.” Critics of a federal standard worry about the USDA being pressured by biotechnology companies that have a close relationship to U.S. regulatory agencies. The proposal would also require companies producing foods with GE ingredients to post a label, including text on package, a symbol, or a link to a website (QR code or similar technology). Smaller food manufacturers can use websites or telephone numbers to disclose ingredients.

In late February, Roberts introduced another bill which attempted to create a federal voluntary standard for labeling GE food. Roberts’ Senate Bill 2609, or the Biotech Labeling Solutions Act, would have blocked mandatory labeling efforts by states. In March, the bill failed to reach the 60 votes needed during a procedural vote, with 49 votes in favor and 48 votes against.

Roberts’ bill was similar to the controversial Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, which passed the House in June 2015 but ultimately failed amid heavy opposition. To critics, the bill was known as the “DARK” (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act because the law was also aimed at nullifying GMO labeling measures, such as the bill passed in Vermont.

The latest bipartisan effort contains language that is identical to both of the previous bills. The bill would “amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a national voluntary labeling standard for bioengineered foods.” It’s safe to say that this new bipartisan compromise is simply the latest version of the DARK Act and will likely live up to it’s name by keeping Americans in the dark regarding what is in their food.

The bipartisan proposal is supported by certain food industry groups that believe state bills like the one in Vermont will lead to increased costs for agriculture, food companies and consumers. “This bipartisan agreement ensures consumers across the nation can get clear, consistent information about their food and beverage ingredients and prevents a patchwork of confusing and costly state labeling laws,” Pamela Bailey, president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the largest food industry lobby group, told the Associated Press.

Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch, said the new bill deserves the name DARK Act because it will prevent consumers from have “clear, on-package labels” as required by the Vermont law.  “But this deal from Senators Stabenow and Roberts doesn’t even come close, and would instead require consumers to have smartphones and a cellphone signal to know what they are buying,” Hauter said in a statement. “This deal seems to be designed to ensure that big food processing companies and the biotechnology industry continue to profit by misleading consumers.”

Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin and Senator Bernie Sanders both spoke against the new measure. Shumlin criticized the two-year delay, while Sanders said he would do “everything I can” to stop the bill. Meanwhile, the Huffington Post reports that the bill “also allows companies to avoid the main thing consumers have demanded – a fast and easy way to determine if a food product they are purchasing was made using genetically engineered crops.”

The key argument seems to be that the new bill would not have as clear labels as Vermont’s law. Senator Stabenow, however, believes the opposite, claiming that the Vermont law would require GMO labeling of a cheese pizza but not a pepperoni pizza. “Throughout this process I worked to ensure that any agreement would recognize the scientific consensus that biotechnology is safe, while also making sure consumers have the right to know what is in their food,” the senator wrote.

The scientific consensus does lean towards the safety of GE foods, but that has not swayed critics and supporters of labeling. A recent report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine concluded GE foods do not pose a health or environmental risk. Critics of the report point to conflicts of interests between researchers with the National Academy of Sciences and biotechnology companies involved in the creation of GE crops.

The environmental watchdog organization Food and Water Watch released their own report, pointing to possible influence from the same organizations that stand to benefit from the growth of genetic engineering of foods. The report, Under the Influence: The National Research Council and GMOs, looks at “far-reaching ties” between the National Research Council, its parent organization the NAS, and biotechnology companies and agricultural corporations.

Americans who want to know what is in their food need to take control of their own food production and stop relying on large-scale, factory farming which increasingly relies on genetically engineered seeds. Only by taking back the power when it comes to our diets can we stop supporting the systems that are working against our health and freedom. It’s time to grow food, not lawns. It’s time to throw seed bombs everywhere. The revolution is growing and resistance is fertile.

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for ActivistPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter.

New England Journal of Medicine Calls for GMO Labeling!

27 Aug 2015 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in Consolidation, Disease, FDA, Food Destruction Agency, food safety, GMO's, USDA

I don’t think this could have come at a better time. The Senate is due to vote on the Dark Act soon, and with such a prestigious medical journal now publishing an article stating that we should be labeling GM crops, it is not going to be easy for the Senators to keep holding the Monsanto line of “It’s great! And all the studies that show it isn’t are wrong because we say so.”  Mind you, I am not going to hold my breath thinking the US Federal Government will do the right and decent thing, but this is still fantastic ammo. Here is an excerpt from an article. The link to the article is in the title below:

New England Journal of Medicine article calls for labeling of GM foods

In the August 20 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, two respected experts on pesticides and children’s environmental health call for the FDA to require mandatory labeling of GMO foods.

Currently, the FDA does not require labeling of genetically modified foods, even though 65 countries mandate the labeling of GM foods, and more than 90 percent of Americans support it. Last month, the DARK Act, which would block states and federal government from making mandatory labeling laws, passed in the House. Next, it goes to the Senate.

What the article says

In the article, titled “GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health,” Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, the Dean for Global Health at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and co-author Charles Benbrook, a crop and soil scientist, say the time has come for three important steps.

One of these is GMO labeling. They write: “We believe the time has come to revisit the United States’ reluctance to label GM foods.”

As they explain, two recent developments are dramatically changing the GMO landscape:

  1. The number of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops has increased sharply and is scheduled to increase even more in the next few years.
  2. This year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate, the herbicide used most widely on GM crops, as a “probable human carcinogen.” And the agency classified 2,4-D, another herbicide, as a “possible human carcinogen.”

The authors believe labeling will have multiple benefits. It will help track the emergence of new food allergies and better evaluate the effects of chemical herbicides applied to GM foods. And also, it will respect the wishes of the growing numbers of consumers who insist they have a right to know what is in the foods and beverages they are buying.

The article also calls for the National Toxicology Program to urgently assess the nature, effects, and possible poisons in pure glyphosate, formulated glyphosate, and mixtures of glyphosate and other herbicides.

Finally, the article calls for the EPA to delay its implementation of its decision to allow the use of Enlist Duo, a combination herbicide made with both glyphosate and 2,4-D that is designed for use on GMO crops…..(rest here)

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.

 

Prices Edging Up Due to Bird Flu

13 May 2015 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in Animal Welfare, Consolidation, Disease, farm loss, food shortage, USDA, WTO

The stamping out policy due to “free” trade is already affecting poultry and poultry product pricing. We now have three different strains of bird flu active in the continental US. These are deemed highly pathogenic and the policy for handling this is foolish at best. Here’s the method, birds get sick with swollen combs, the runs and likely fever. They go off feed and off water. Many begin to die. So the entire house and/or facility has all the birds killed.

The issue that I take with the eradication policy is two fold. First, and arguably most importantly, when you have definitive avian influenza and you kill everything, you are destroying not only ill birds, but most likely destroying birds with genetically carried resistance to the virus. So there are no resistant genes that can be passed on to offspring if you kill the entire flock. Quarantine is definitely a positive method of disease control to employ, but eradication is foolhardy in a long term view. It is a recipe for shortages and economic implosion of that sector of agriculture. There is no way to quarantine the air, but this brings to light the importance of diverse and extremely diffuse production methods. Smaller farms in a myriad of locations is better for all living things. It’s better for economic prosperity, environmental health, hardiness of stock, and the literal security of the food supply.But that makes sense, so we can’t have that.

 Now, the second reason I am so opposed to this eradication policy in any disease, is because it is purely in position for international trade. The OIE has “reportable” diseases that a country must demonstrate it does not have an active issue with in order to be able to continue in unabated free trade agreements. So, to comply with this trade requirement, the stamping out and eradication policies are employed.

We now have these three different strains in 16 states as of today. People are being put out of work and 32 million or more poultry have been killed. The carcasses are an environmental issue. The National Guard is bringing in water to help with the environmental concern…”Huh?” you say. Yep. Farms typically don’t have enough water available. Particularly factory run poultry farms. (In case you’re wondering, that is sarcasm.)

 As for a solution, food grade hydrogen peroxide added to the water of your chickens will help them to resist the flu. Also, being outside and eating fresh stuff the way they were designed to by our Creator to do is going help them be more resistant to disease and generally happier as well.

Here’s an article about the prices rising:

Egg, turkey meat prices begin to rise as bird flu spreads

By DAVID PITT

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Prices for eggs and turkey meat are rising as an outbreak of bird flu in the Midwest claims an increasing number of chickens and turkeys. Market experts say grocery stores and wholesalers are trying to stock up on eggs, but there’s no need to worry about having enough turkeys for Thanksgiving.

The cost of a carton of large eggs in the Midwest has jumped nearly 17 percent to $1.39 a dozen from $1.19 since mid-April when the virus began appearing in Iowa’s chicken flocks and farmers culled their flocks to contain any spread. Neighboring Nebraska reported its first case of bird flu Tuesday, affecting 1.7 million chickens at an egg farm in Dixon County.

A much bigger increase has emerged in the eggs used as ingredients in processed products such as cake mix and mayonnaise, which account for the majority of what Iowa produces. Those eggs have jumped 63 percent to $1.03 a dozen from 63 cents in the last three weeks, said Rick Brown, senior vice president of Urner Barry, a commodity market analysis firm.

Turkey prices, which had been expected to fall this year, are up slightly as the bird flu claimed about 5.6 million turkeys nationwide so far. About 238 million turkeys were raised in the U.S. last year.

The price of fresh boneless and skinless tom breast meat primarily used for deli meat has risen 10 percent since mid-April to $3.37 a pound, a USDA report said Friday. Frozen hens in the 8- to 16-pound range, those often used for home roasting, were up about 3 percent to $1.06 a pound.

Egg supplies are falling short of demand, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has indicated, and Brown said egg buyers such as grocery stores and wholesalers are trying to stock up for fear that another large farm with millions of chickens will be stricken – causing prices to spike higher.

“We’re starting to see a little bit of that demand increase, and the sellers are reluctant to give clients too much more than they normally have because they know what’s going on and they don’t want to be caught short either,” he said.

The number of Iowa chickens lost exceeds 26 million, the vast majority of which lay eggs for food use. That’s about 41 percent of the leading egg state’s layers and about 8 percent of the nation’s laying hens. That many chickens would lay more than 500 million table eggs a month. For comparison, Iowa chickens laid 1.4 billion table eggs in March, before the disease struck. U.S. egg production for March stood at 7.42 billion table eggs.

Some companies are beginning to notice the impact of fewer eggs. Cereal maker Post Holdings Inc., which bought egg products supplier Michael Foods last year, said in its May 7 quarterly earnings report that about 14 percent of its egg supply has been affected by the bird flu outbreak. Post estimated the impact at about $20 million through the end of September.

Michael Foods primarily supplies extended shelf-life liquid and precooked egg products and eggs used in food ingredients.

The poultry industry can replenish the supply of chickens more quickly than beef or pork industries can rebound, but it still takes time to rebuild a flock.

“They’re going to have to phase in replacing those flocks so they can get them get back into a laying schedule that results in a more even flow of eggs, and that’s going to take six to nine months,” said Tom Elam, an agricultural economist and poultry industry consultant.

It takes about four months for a hatched chick to be old enough to begin laying eggs, and it will typically be productive for about two years, Elam said. Many of the hens dying from the disease are younger and no pullets had been planned to replace them yet, Elam said. More than 350,000 pullets have been lost to bird flu – a very small portion of the 50 million egg-type chicks hatched in March, but it compounds the replenishment problem.

While new bird flu outbreaks are occurring in the turkey market – Minnesota, the nation’s leading turkey producer, has 4 million confirmed dead birds so far – Elam said cold storage stocks and the number of hens still on farms suggest turkeys will be available for Thanksgiving.

“Anybody who wants a Thanksgiving turkey is going to be able to get one,” he said. “They may have to pay a little more for it but we’re not going to have national stock-outs for Thanksgiving turkeys, yet.”

 

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.

 

Feeding Hogs Swine Is Likely Culprit in Hog Deaths

17 Apr 2014 Leave a comment

by truthfarmer in Animal Welfare, Consolidation, Disease, USDA Tags: , , , ,

Feed Is Suspect in Spread of Deadly Pig Virus

By

March 30, 2014 7:28 p.m. ET

Porcine plasma has been a mainstay of piglet diets in the U.S. since the 1990s. It helps protect young pigs from disease and helps them switch from milk to a grain-heavy diet. Shown, a sow and her healthy piglets on a Missouri farm last year. Associated Press

My Comments on following article:

 Despite the nearly 100% traceability achieved in hogs via ADT (which is NAIS done a little differently, or the National Animal Identification System after name change) the hog industry is STILL experiencing a massive disease problem. The entire sell behind NAIS was that traceability would stop disease. Ha! We all know that tags or chips can’t stop disease, and this PED epidemic shows that solidly.

 However, there are some pretty serious issues brought to light by the PED epidemic. First of all, it should be obvious to anyone that the forced cannibalism that is largely responsible for Mad Cow (BSE) is a bad idea for all species. Secondly, the consolidation in agriculture, especially hogs and chickens, is a serious concern. The fewer producers of food, the easier it is to run into natural or created shortages.

 Anyway, kudos to the reporter for doing a good job on the feed issue that looks to be responsible for 7 million pig deaths in about one year….Truthfarmer

Scientists and regulators investigating the mysterious spread of a deadly virus plaguing the U.S. pork industry are stepping up their scrutiny of what the nation’s hog herd eats.

With a dearth of solid leads, investigators are exploring whether something in pig feed could be a conduit for porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, which has spread to 27 states and killed millions of young pigs since it was first identified in the U.S. last April. One focus of the inquiry: porcine plasma, a widely used feed ingredient made from the blood of slaughtered hogs and fed to piglets.

Scientists say the virus, one of the most devastating diseases to afflict U.S. livestock in years, is fatal only to young pigs, and poses no threat to human health or food safety. But it has rapidly increased costs for major hog-farm operators, such as Smithfield Foods Inc. and Maschoffs LLC, as prices for replacement pigs have soared to new highs.

The disease threatens to curb U.S. pork supplies in coming months and raise costs for big meat processors, such as Hormel Foods Corp. and Hillshire Brands Co. , as well as retailers and consumers, analysts say.

The number of new confirmed cases of the virus has accelerated recently, confounding farmers and veterinarians, who have ramped up their already stringent “biosecurity” measures since last spring. Those precautions include more aggressively disinfecting trucks and workers’ boots and clothing when they enter and leave farms and barns.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Agriculture Department and pork-industry officials are examining a range of feed ingredients and manufacturing processes as well as other possible pathways for the virus, like contaminated air or dust particles carried from farm to farm.

Though the evidence is inconclusive, some researchers say that porcine plasma could be spreading the virus from adult pigs that show few symptoms, or that some plasma may have been contaminated in transit.

The ingredient has been a mainstay of piglet diets in the U.S. since the 1990s, after scientists discovered it provided antibodies to protect young pigs from disease and helped them switch from feeding from their mother to the grain-heavy diet common on livestock farms.

Studying feed is hard because manufacturers mix and process feed differently. Associated Press

Last month, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency disclosed that it had found plasma contaminated with the virus, after multiple hog farms in Ontario that were hit by PED, and another farm on Prince Edward Island with a suspected case, all reported that they bought feed from the same vendor, Ontario-based Grand Valley Fortifiers.

The Canadian agency said that the virus was present in plasma that originated in the U.S. and was obtained at the company that manufactured Grand Valley’s feed, which the agency has declined to identify. It said the plasma contained virus “capable of causing disease in pigs.”

Earlier this month, however, the agency said laboratory tests in which it fed Grand Valley’s feed pellets to piglets failed to demonstrate that the feed, which contained plasma and many other ingredients, could cause infection.

Still, Grand Valley recalled its products containing plasma and no longer uses the ingredient, said Chief Executive Ian Ross. “While we don’t have conclusive evidence that our feed infected any pigs, it is clear that live virus was present in the plasma in some of our products,” he said. “We’re not willing to play Russian roulette with clients, hoping we never get a bad batch [of plasma] in the future.”

The U.S. Agriculture Department and the FDA, which have been investigating potential pathways for the virus’s spread, said they haven’t been able to link feed samples to a known case of the disease. The FDA has been studying the manufacturing process at the U.S. facility that supplied plasma for the Grand Valley feed, and is seeking “to learn more” about the conditions the raw material is subjected to, said agency spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey.

Scientists say studying animal feed is difficult because feed manufacturers mix and process their feed differently.

Porcine plasma is one of more than 40 ingredients in typical piglet feed. “Many people think that feed is the most likely suspect,” said Greg Stevenson, a veterinary pathologist at Iowa State University who has studied the virus. “But practically speaking, we have no proof.”

Suspicions already have roiled the half-dozen companies that manufacture plasma in the U.S. and Canada; some farmers have stopped feeding the ingredient to their pigs, out of caution.

Sunterra Farms, of Acme, Alberta, recently stopped feeding plasma to the 300,000 pigs it raises each year in the U.S. and Canada. “There are a lot of people making this decision,” said Ben Woolley, vice president.

“People are turning away from the products,” said John Bowlsby, a vice president of Minnesota-based Hemotech LLC, a U.S. plasma supplier whose business has suffered. “We’re trying to weather the storm on this.”

Smithfield Foods, a unit of China’s WH Group Ltd. and the largest hog farmer and pork processor in the world, declined to comment on plasma. Maschoffs, North America’s largest family-owned pork producer, said that without firmer epidemiological evidence linking plasma to the virus it continues to use the ingredient in piglet diets while working with suppliers to ensure its safety.

The North American Spray Dried Blood and Plasma Protein Producers, which represents plasma makers, said porcine blood products that are properly sourced, collected and processed are safe and don’t contribute to the spread of the virus. Louis Russell, the group’s chairman, said that feed ingredients like plasma could be contaminated after processing, during transportation or mixing.

Porcine plasma is made from blood captured in chilled vats at slaughterhouses. It is treated with an anticoagulant and spun in a centrifuge to separate the plasma from blood cells, then transported in insulated trucks to processing plants. The plasma is shot through a spray nozzle into a heated chamber to evaporate excess water, leaving a powder that is run through stainless-steel dryers, bagged and shipped to feed companies.

Plasma makers say they collect blood only from healthy animals in federally inspected slaughter plants. But because the virus has only a mild effect on fully grown hogs, infected animals might not be identified at slaughter, said Liz Wagstrom, chief veterinarian for the National Pork Producers Council, a trade group.

Mr. Russell, who is also CEO of American Protein Corp., of Ankeny, Iowa, one of the world’s largest plasma producers, said the industry is conducting research to “validate” the safety of the product. “We understand the significance of this disease,” he said. “We’re working closely with other groups to understand how we can contribute to solving the problems of the disease.”

Write to Jesse Newman at jesse.newman@wsj.com and Kelsey Gee at kelsey.gee@wsj.com

Previous Older Entries