Category Archives: GM

GMO Foods are set to be MISLABELLED as “BIOFORTIFIED – and it’s reported Australia & NZ are ‘as nearly always’ leaders of the ‘pro-GMO pack’

“With the past and present Chairwomen’s help, the pro-GMO forces have so far been successful in manipulating the biofortification definition…aided greatly in her dictatorial approach by those country delegates who very desperately wanted to be sure that the “Biofortification” definition could serve as cover for GMO foods so that consumers could be tricked into eating them in blissful ignorance. Australia and New Zealand of course, as nearly always, led the pro-GMO pack, egged on by their corporate masters. Brazil, Nigeria, Costa Rica, Uganda, Ghana, Thailand, the Philippines, China, and the United States supported marketing deception as well.

On the other hand, doughty Nepal opposed the definition, calling it, among other things, exactly what it is: marketing deception.”

From healingoracle.ch

GMO FOOD will soon be marked as “Biofortified” as the agenda to sneak GMOs into our foods advances

If you have ever been to Berlin, Germany in the late Fall, you know how miserably wet, cold, and windy it can be. The only real refuge from those elements is to be found indoors. But even then there can be events that drive you right back outdoors and into the elements. Such was the case with the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU), which was holding its 40th session during the week of November 26-30, 2018, in that city.

As most of you already know, the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its various committees spread throughout the World, establish food standards and guidelines after an eight-step process of consideration and debate that are then usually adopted by the Codex member states. The Codex Nutrition Committee is just one of the many committees that develop these food standards and guidelines. It is also one of the committees with the most controversial issues.

Biofortification
‘Biofortification’ is a method of increasing certain vitamin and mineral content of basic food crops by the time-honored, conventional way of cross-breeding and not through genetic engineering. Harvest Plus, the company behind biofortification, will for example increase the vitamin, or iron content of sweet potatoes, so that malnourished populations in developing nations will receive better nutrition. This is a very admirable goal, although I have argued at these meetings that perhaps it’s an unnecessary one if farmers would simply employ the proper farming techniques to prevent soil depletion and along with it the vitamin and mineral content of the foods grown in that soil.

For the last several years, the Codex Nutrition Committee has been crafting a definition for Biofortification. That definition would then be used uniformly around the World to apply to those foods conventionally fortified with higher levels of nutrients and everyone would be on the same page whenever the term “biofortified” was used. Indeed, the National Health Federation (NHF), a health-freedom organization accredited by Codex to participate in its meetings and the one whose delegation I led there, was an early supporter at Codex of this definition.

We have already gone through the sordid history, in detail, of how the draft definition of Biofortification had been infused with the disease of GMOs. I won’t repeat that history here. Just know that, now, the term Biofortification will have huge ramifications for the entire World. If the pro-GMO forces can succeed in continuing to hide their genetic-engineered foods within the definition of Biofortification and in using its appealing, natural-sounding name to sell their GMO foods, then consumers will be deceived on a worldwide scale.

The term “Biofortification,” at least within European countries, risks consumer confusion as to whether they are purchasing organic products or something else entirely. If Codex were to allow “any method of production” and “any source” to be part of the Biofortification definition, then Codex would be promoting marketing deception of the worst sort. Most consumers want GM foods labelled. In fact, consumer polls across the World have shown this to be true. In the United States alone, some 90% of consumers want such labelling and yet, here, the current, proposed definition will disguise GM foods under the term Biofortification. That is dishonest, disgraceful, and makes a mockery of Codexand its pretensions to credibility and transparency.

With the past and present Chairwomen’s help, the pro-GMO forces have so far been successful in manipulating the biofortification definition. And we are still living in the crater of that explosion that converted something good into something deliberately deceptive.

“The term ‘Biofortification,’ at least within european countries, risks consumer confusion as to whether they are purchasing organic products or something else entirely.” Scott C. Tips

New Leader, Same Story
So, as the Nutrition Committee was to edit once again the definition of Biofortification at this meeting, it was led by a new Chairwoman, Dr. Anja Brönstrup, a Policy Officer at the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL). Replacing Dr. Pia Noble, who had chaired last year’s meeting, Dr. Brönstrup had been the former head of the German Codexdelegation. So, with such experience, we all had high hopes that she would be a more just and equitable chairwoman than the previous one, who had pretty much conducted her Codex meetings as if they were her own private fiefdom and without even a whiff of regard for whether she was following the Codex Procedural Manual.

She was aided greatly in her dictatorial approach by those country delegates who very desperately wanted to be sure that the “Biofortification” definition could serve as cover for GMO foods so that consumers could be tricked into eating them in blissful ignorance. Australia and New Zealand of course, as nearly always, led the pro-GMO pack, egged on by their corporate masters. Brazil, Nigeria, Costa Rica, Uganda, Ghana, Thailand, the Philippines, China, and the United States supported marketing deception as well.

On the other hand, doughty Nepal opposed the definition, calling it, among other things, exactly what it is: marketing deception. Revealing her own biases, the Chairwoman then quickly scrambled to do damage control, dismissing Nepal’s strong comments by claiming that a footnote allowing countries to include GMOs or not would address Nepal’s concerns. That made as much sense as claiming that because only some consumers would be deceived, we could still mislabel foods.

The European Union, Norway, Switzerland, Chile, Argentina, and India all opposed the GMO-inclusive definition, as did Russia, which sensibly stated its main concern was that if each member state could decide whether to include GMO foods within the definition, then this lack of a harmonized approach would lead to market confusion. Unfortunately, the very vocal Bangladesh delegate Dr. S.K. Roy had already left the meeting for the day, or else he would have lambasted the definition as well. All in all, there was significant opposition to the proposed definition.

Yet, Dr. Brönstrup ran the meeting with cool but soulless German efficiency, which in her case meant dispensing with, or else dismissing, the airing of any viewpoints that might in any possible way slow down her sprint to the finish line for each agenda item. With her allotting only 40 minutes for the delegates to discuss the Biofortification definition, this also meant that she did not call upon any of the INGOs that had signalled her that they wanted to speak. Only the sponsoring INGO, the International Food Policy Research Institute, which strangely enough opened the discussion on this topic, was able to speak out on the definition, and at length. Fortunately, NHF had submitted written comments stating its position against the proposed definition.2

“I am referring this definition back to the Codex Committee on Food Labelling,” the Chairwoman suddenly proclaimed at the end of the day, without giving NHF and other consumer organizations any chance to speak. With this peremptory proclamation that the GMO-inclusive definition would be sent to CCFL for its review and approval, I was furious (as were evidently the other ignored INGOs). But I was the only one to storm to the front table and condemn the Chairwoman face-to-face for having not only ignored NHF but the Codex Procedural Manual as well. It was not a pretty exchange. But I did make my point.

READ MORE

https://healingoracle.ch/2019/02/01/gmo-foods-are-set-to-be-mislabelled-as-biofortified/?fbclid=IwAR3gS_rH1jZVS1QvwUzXp3dAtV5BGH-cEhT40Vh8W_STPxbyhm26jDWPbaY

The flopped GMO Golden Rice of 2 decades ago was approved in 2018 to enter the US food supply

From naturalsociety.com
BY MIKE BARRETT

Two decades ago, genetically modified (GM) golden rice was touted as a way to save the world’s starving children. The hype didn’t last very long, however. It didn’t save any lives, farmers didn’t grow it, and nobody ate it. But in May, golden rice won the approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with the agency declaring it safe to eat.

Golden rice, one of the oldest GMO crops, initially won high praise because it was engineered to produce vitamin A (beta-carotene), which would help children in poor countries get the required dose of the vitamin. About 250,000 to 500,000 children go blind each year from a lack of the vital nutrient.

Read: “Miracle” Golden Rice Could Cause Birth Defects, Warns Indian Scientists

Researchers began modifying rice DNA in 2000, and it won overwhelming support from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, both of which funded its progress. Even Pope Francis gave the GMO crop his blessing.

The U.S. is the 4th nation to approve golden rice, and more could follow. The U.S. is part of an international body that forms recommendations about food safety that other countries can adopt if they lack their own equivalent of the FDA.

Still, it could be a tough sell for the other 168 countries that chime in about international food standards. Golden rice crops aren’t necessarily field-ready, according to a 2016 Mother Jones report. The plants aren’t as efficient as they could be and don’t yield the crops that regular rice does, so many farmers might see golden rice as a waste of time and money.

And, there’s this…

The news media has been celebrating the FDA’s embrace of golden rice and the fact that more countries could also approve it, still framing golden rice as a savior of sick and dying children. Don’t be fooled.

READ MORE

http://naturalsociety.com/fda-approved-gmo-golden-rice-enter-us-food-supply-5811/?utm_source=Natural+Society&utm_campaign=b7c7c8be0b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_11_23_12_11&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f20e6f9c84-b7c7c8be0b-324147329

Genetically Modified Children – a disturbing doco about glyphosate – free viewing for 7 days at GreenMedInfo

If you haven’t had a chance to see “Genetically Modified Children” yet, our friends at GreenMedInfo.com are screening the film for FREE, worldwide, on their website for the next 7 days! Use the link below to view.

Along with the free screening event, the “Genetically Modified Children” DVD is 15% off for the next 7 days!

—> Go to goo.gl/mFM2GJ to purchase the DVD. Use the code GM15 at check out to receive the discount! Want to share the important information in this film with friends and family? Discounted 10 pack DVD’s with worldwide free shipping are also available for purchase.

Along with the free screening event, don’t miss an EXCELLENT article on the toxic repercussions of Glyphosate by world renowned expert, Stephanie Seneff, available to read in full using the link below!

Hundreds of Scientists Tell The World That The GMO Cancer Link Is Real

SOMEONE SOMEWHERE

Anytime a peer-reviewed publication reveals something startling that could literally shut down an entire industry, it seems to be retracted. This is a big problem, and perhaps the biggest when it comes to medical science, with multiple doctors, professors and scientists coming forward in abundance to stress the fact that more than half of all the published research out there could be false. This is why we see so much independent peer reviewed research completely contradict that which is put out by government health authorities.

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”

– Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard professor of medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal  (source)

View original post 2,518 more words

Tests in 2003 revealed an Inghams food product was GE contaminated

This is obviously quite old but worth a re visit. See how things were creeping in so very long ago? This is not that long after Corngate when the esteemed Helen Clarke let the secretly sown GE corn crops in various places throughout NZ be left to grow to harvest. She initially ordered them pulled up but I suspect corporate persuasion made her change her mind. How dishonest and treacherous can you get? Be aware Kiwis as the article says regarding animal feed, three years ago I rang two producers of chicken and pork here in NZ and neither would admit to GM feed for their livestock, however added they ‘couldn’t rule it out’ because the feed wasn’t labeled as GM. So much for GE free NZ. Like the green image it’s an illusion, a farce, a big LIE.  EnvirowatchRangitikei

Press release – June 5, 2003

Greenpeace today released results that show an Ingham frozen chicken product on sale in New Zealand is contaminated with genetically engineered (GE) soy ingredients (1). Earlier in the year, tests also revealed the Aussie-owned brand uses GE soy in its feed (2).

“Inghams are showing a total disregard for their customers preference – which is for GE-free food,” said Greenpeace campaigner Steve Abel. “Inghams continue to import GE soy meal into New Zealand for use in animal feed – and this latest test shows that Inghams are using GE soy contaminated ingredients in their products too.”

Greenpeace also criticised lax labelling regulations which mean GE feed and many processed ingredients don’t require GE labelling and enter the food chain by stealth.

The environmental organisation is encouraging the public to phone Inghams on 0508 800 785 and express their opposition to GE food. Greenpeace volunteers will be distributing postcards addressed to Inghams and demanding that they remove GE feed and ingredients from the food chain.

“Supermarkets and other users of Inghams products and feed should also demand that the company commit to a GE free policy,” said Abel.

New Zealand’s biggest poultry producer Tegel and their feed subsidiary NRM, shifted to a non-GE feed policy in 2001 following a public campaign by Greenpeace.

“Tegel have set the standard for excluding GE ingredients in animal feed. It’s time for Inghams to clean up their act and stop contaminating New Zealand’s food chain with unwanted GE,” said Abel.

The growing of genetically engineered crops threatens conventional production and the environment and GE foods are insufficiently tested and labelled.

Notes to the Editor:

(1) Inghams “2 Chicken Cordon Bleu” product made and purchased in New Zealand tested positive for GMO Roundup Ready (RR) soy in tests carried out by GeneScan Australia (AgriQuality) on 16 May 2003.

(2) Soy meal destined for Ingham feed mills in New Zealand tested positive for RR soy after tests by GeneScan on 14 March 2003.

 

Pasted from http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/press/new-test-reveals-inghams-food/

Did You Know That Dozens of Genetically Modified Babies Have Already Been Born? – How Will They Alter Human Species?

  • As of 2001, 30 children genetically modified children had been born, courtesy of a process in which genes from a female donor are inserted into a woman’s eggs before being fertilized. Two children that were later tested were found to have DNA from three parents—two women and one man
  • No one really knows what the ramifications of having DNA from three parents might be for the individual, or for their subsequent offspring
  • Many follow-up reports continue to tout the high success of this method of treating infertility. But some do warn about the dangers and risks of this procedure. Researchers have found a link between chromosomal anomalies and oocytes manipulation, and one of the babies was diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder, a spectrum of autism-related diagnoses, at the age of 18 months

By Dr. Mercola

When I first read that genetically modified humans have already been born, I could hardly believe it. However, further research into this story featured in the UK’s Daily Mail1 proved it to be true. They’ve really done it… they’ve created humans that nature could never allow for, and it’s anyone’s guess as to what will happen next.

Even more shocking was the discovery that this is actually old news!

The Daily Mail article was not dated, and upon investigation, the experiments cited actually took place over a decade ago; the study announcing their successful birth was published in 20012.

While I typically comment on recent findings and health related news, in this case I will make an exception, because I think many of you may be as surprised by this information as I was. I do not propose to have any answers here as this is out of my scope of expertise.

At best, I hope I can stir you to ponder the implications of this type of genetic engineering, and I invite you to share your perspective in the vital votes’ comment section below. As reported in the featured article:

“The disclosure that 30 healthy babies were born after a series of experiments in the United States provoked another furious debate about ethics… Fifteen of the children were born… as a result of one experimental program at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey.

The babies were born to women who had problems conceiving. Extra genes from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were fertilized in an attempt to enable them to conceive.

Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year- old children confirm that they have inherited DNA from three adults—two women and one man.”

Human Germline Now Altered… What Happens Next?

Today, these children are in their early teens, and while the original study claims that this was “the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children,” later reports put such claims of absolute success in dispute. Still, back in 2001, the authors seemed to think they had it all under control, stating:

“These are the first reported cases of germline mtDNA genetic modification which have led to the inheritance of two mtDNA populations in the children resulting from ooplasmic transplantation. These mtDNA fingerprints demonstrate that the transferred mitochondria can be replicated and maintained in the offspring, therefore being a genetic modification without potentially altering mitochondrial function.”

READ MORE

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/17/first-genetically-modified-babies-born.aspx?e_cid=20120722_SNL_MC_1

Australia and New Zealand to be test sites for GM insect trials courtesy of DARPA!

I’ve heard a few nay sayers on the authenticity of this claim which set me to reading more of the links and particularly the synbiowatch site. It does indeed appear that discussions are ongoing with this. I was not aware that the gene drive proposal was all over the media during this year 2017 & prior (been a busy year). Have a search & you will see, preferably a non google search, you will find more. There’s indeed been a media drive to capture public ‘consent’ sugar coated with all the pluses. I will add some of those links but really it deserves another whole post. Then I see on some of their conference papers, ads etc. (synbiowatch)  the familiar names Monsanto, DuPont, Rockefeller Bill & Melinda Gates and more. Those names alone are cause for caution. The emphasis on the drive seems more on animals at this point although the trials for insects have (?) been in Hawaii & are proposed (?) for Africa. I’m sure I saw reference to release of GM insects in Christchurch this year but cannot find a link anywhere. Could be wrong on that, unfortunately I didn’t keep the link. Overall anyway, it is tied in very much with NZ’s predator free 2050 plan basically. So that’s government & will Jacinda oppose it? I doubt it personally as she is globalist isn’t she? Even if she did personally oppose it I doubt she would be able to reverse this tide. Interesting timing wasn’t it? Right on the year of election & we know who was steering the ship prior to that. I’ve ceased to be amazed now at the arrogance of these people to imagine they can improve on the ecosystem. As if it has not survived perfectly well for thousands of years without the help of GM. Seems to me the biggest pestilent threat to the survival of the ecosystem is them. Humankind. The original polluters of the planet.
EnvirowatchRangitikei

 

Sent to me by Warren Woodward via emfacts.com
In order to make sense of the title of this posting read down to where it is stated where the proposed test sites for this GM technology will be.
The files reveal how far along the two leading gene drive teams (Target Malaria for the UK and GBIRD, based in North Carolina) have proceeded towards building gene drive organisms and are preparing for open field trials, including steps to select test sites in Australia, New Zealand, Burkina Faso, Uganda, Mali and Ghana, and to create government and community acceptance of the use of gene drives in key testing sites. SOURCE
No sites in the US obviously.
After all, if there are any unexpected consequences of releasing GM altered insects in the environment better do it well away from America – and there’s lots of water between America and the Antipodes.

But don’t worry, they are also preparing a PR package aimed to “create government and community acceptance”. The main funder of gene drive technology is the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). With virtually unlimited funding imagine what the folks at DARPA can come up with. For the betterment of humanity, as Bill Gates would like us to believe, or for America’s military/corporate complex with global dominance as the real goal?

Perhaps this will not be such an easy sell in Australia because virtually all Australians know of the ongoing tragedy of the introduction of cane toads, introduced to Australia from Hawaii in 1935 by the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations as an amazing new technique to control the native grey-backed cane beetle. It didn’t work and now the toad is slowly invading much of Northern Australia with great destruction of native species.
The coming gene drive PR spin by “Emerging Ag” will claim benefits such as controlling mosquito diseases but other not mentioned “benefits” will be to try to develop a Monsanto pesticide resistant bee which will be used to pollinate crops sprayed with the chemicals without dying. After the GM bee has done its job, it’s programmed “termator gene’ will ensure all the GM bees die without leaving offspring, so each year farmers have to purchase a new batch of GM bees if they want to have pollinating dependent crop. Such a development would go a long way to assure global US military and corporate dominance over the world’s food resources.
The logic being why remove a profitable chemical which happens to be killing bees and other pollinating insects when you can change nature itself, at huge profit but with an unknown long-term cost to humanity. (Keep scrolling)
Read on…

Gene Drive Inheritance

Gates Foundation paid $1.6 million to influence UN on gene drives

Over 1,200 emails released under open records requests reveal that the US military is now the top funder and influencer behind a controversial genetic extinction technology known as “gene drives” – pumping $100 million into the field. The trove of emails, obtained via open records requests, also shed light on a $1.6 million dollar UN gene drive lobbying operation paid for by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

“Emerging Ag,” a private PR firm funded by the Gates Foundation, is working behind the scenes to stack key UN advisory processes with gene drive-friendly scientists, and has recruited ostensibly independent academics and public officials into a private collaboration to counteract proposed regulations and to resist calls by scientists and conservationists for an international moratorium. Some of those recruited entered into the UN discussions without divulging their conflicts of interest or the role that paid political consultants played in shaping their inputs.

The files, dubbed “The Gene Drive Files,” additionally cast a spotlight on the central role of the shadowy US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) as the key funder now accelerating gene drive development. For example, DARPA is now revealed as the major financial backer of efforts to develop gene drive mammals (mice) that are led by a US environmental NGO, although DARPA has no biodiversity conservation mission, raising questions about the defence agency’s intent. These revelations come on the heels of a public warning issued by a leading gene drive researcher Dr Kevin Esvelt that current gene drives are too powerful to be used in conservation.

“Gene drives are a powerful and dangerous new technology and potential biological weapons that could have disastrous impacts on peace, food security and the environment, especially if misused,” said Jim Thomas of ETC Group. “The fact that gene drive development is now being primarily funded and structured by the US military raises alarming questions about this entire field.”

“Gene drives could have profound global impacts, and these emails reveal a secretive attempt to game the system by gene drive proponents aiming to minimize essential regulations and oversight,” said Dana Perls of Friends of the Earth US. “We need more transparency about who is influencing critical decisions about the future of global ecosystems, people’s livelihoods, or our food system.”

“In response to this news that the integrity of technical processes under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) may have been compromised, civil society groups will urgently raise the need for better disclosure of interests within a framework for addressing conflict of interest at the CBD,” said Lim Li Ching of Third World Network.

“Mosquitoes containing gene drives are being proposed for malaria control in Africa. While claiming potential health benefits, any application of such powerful technologies should be subject to the highest standards of transparency and disclosure. Sadly, this doesn’t appear to be the case. Releasing risky GM organisms into the environments of these African countries is outrageous and deeply worrying,” said Mariam Mayet, Executive Director of The African Centre for Biodiversity.

Information revealed in the Gene Drive files includes:

● The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is reported to have given approximately $100 million for gene drive research, $35 million more than previously reported. If confirmed, DARPA appears to be the largest single funder of gene drive research on the planet.

● Emerging Ag, a privately-held public relations firm, received over $1.6 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to work on gene drive topics and to focus on exerting influence on the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the key body for gene drive governance. Following calls in 2016 for a global moratorium on the use of gene drive technology, the CBD sought input from scientists and experts in an online forum. According to the Gene Drive Files, Emerging Ag recruited and coordinated over 65 experts, including a Gates Foundation senior official, a DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Project Agency) official, and government and university scientists, in an undercover attempt to flood the official UN process with their coordinated inputs.

● The attempt to covertly influence the UN process online centrally involved three members of an associated UN expert committee (The Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Synthetic Biology). Two of them are from institutions that together received over $100 million in U.S. military and other funds expressly to develop and test gene drive systems. One served as “stakeholder engagement lead” for a Gene Drive development project. The Expert committee meets this week in Montreal Canada.

● The secretive JASON group of military advisors have undertaken two classified studies on genome editing and gene drives at the request of the US government. The gene drive study, which included input by a Monsanto executive, focuses on hostile use of gene drives and use of gene drives in agriculture.

● DARPA is revealed to be funding a high profile UK team of researchers targeting African communities with gene drive mosquitos. This funding was not previously made public.

● The files reveal how far along the two leading gene drive teams (Target Malaria for the UK and GBIRD, based in North Carolina) have proceeded towards building gene drive organisms and are preparing for open field trials, including steps to select test sites in Australia, New Zealand, Burkina Faso, Uganda, Mali and Ghana, and to create government and community acceptance of the use of gene drives in key testing sites.

ABOUT THE RECORDS

The Gene Drive Files can be accessed at: http://genedrivefiles.synbiowatch.org

The Gene Drive Files consist of records recently released in response to U.S. and Canadian open records requests. The bulk of the files are from North Carolina State University, and were released on 27 October 2017 under a request by Edward Hammond/Third World Network. The files also include records from Texas A&M University, also requested by Edward Hammond/Third World Network and released on 21 August 2017 (Request TAMU R001428). Additional records from an Access to Information request filed in Canada by ETC Group are also included at the same site.

Please take note of the information provided (readme file) on proper citation of the records.

Source: ETC Group

SOURCE: https://www.emfacts.com/2017/12/australia-and-new-zealand-to-be-test-sites-for-gm-insect-trials-courtesy-of-darpa-re-posted/

 

RELATED

http://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1005830&type=printable

http://genedrivefiles.synbiowatch.org/2017/12/01/us-military-gene-drive-development/

MEDIA ON GENE DRIVE

What Is Stopping the Use of Genetically Modified Insects for Disease Control?

Behind New Zealand’s wild plan to purge all pests

First Gene Drive in Mammals Could Aid Vast New Zealand Eradication Plan

Warning Against Gene-Drive Hype Provided by AgResearch Gene Experiment

Search this topic for yourself, there are many more links. Little opposition published there by mainstream except GE Free NZ.

 

NZ GOVERNMENT’S STANCE ON GE

https://www.parliament.nz/resource/mi-nz/00PLEcoRP02031/9b9daa9d3d61f962d81d99629eb02357fb73ba0f

 

 

 

WHO Cancer Agency Asked Experts to Withhold Weed Killer Documents

What is especially infuriating about this is Monsanto’s original claim their product would “solve the world’s food problem”. Food problem? Read Susan George’s exposé of the real root cause of the world’s food problem. It’s not because of laziness and overpopulation as the powers that be would have you believe. You can download that book (written in the ’70s) for free (search pdf). Agribiz corporations created the food problem, now corporations claim they can fix it … well of course they can! … and for a whole lot more profit – to themselves.
EnvirowatchRangitikei


The horrific truth about this disastrous chemical is that, while Monsanto claims it’s harmless, it actually creates nutritional deficiencies and systemic toxicity in the human body, and is linked to multiple chronic diseases and conditions including autism.
resized 2.jpg
Sprayed in a section adjacent to a primary school in NZ, farmers are told Roundup is harmless

Reuters news service has discovered that the World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer agency advised a review panel not to disclose documents on the weed killer glyphosate requested under U.S. freedom of information (FOIA) laws, according to America Online News. The report said the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) claims they are exempt from FOIA laws because they alone own the information.

Critics of the IARC’s “possibly carcinogenic” classification of glyphosate — including Monsanto vice president Scott Partridge — say they want to review the agency’s work. Glyphosate is the most heavily used agricultural chemical of all time, with 1.8 million tons of it applied to U.S. fields since 1974; two-thirds of that in the last 10 years.

When this toxic poison was first released in connection with “Roundup Ready” genetically engineered (GE) glyphosate-tolerant crops (soy, corn and cotton), Monsanto promised it would reduce the use of pesticides worldwide and solve the world’s food problem. Instead, it’s been a dismal failure, with “super weeds” resistant to glyphosate posing a massive worldwide problem.


The horrific truth about this disastrous chemical is that, while Monsanto claims it’s harmless, it actually creates nutritional deficiencies and systemic toxicity in the human body, and is linked to multiple chronic diseases and conditions including autism.

In 2009 a French court found Monsanto guilty of lying about its safety, and since then other research has shown more evidence of glyphosate’s dangers.

 

Find further articles on glyphosate under ‘categories’ top left of any page and visit our glyphosate pages. Please share the info and help expose corporate corruption and lies.

What’s in our meat? … and is NZ really GE free?

I purchased pork chops recently, and specifically chose the brand that advertises itself as being humane to its animals. Nice grassed grazing (for their chooks and pigs), outdoor huts with lots of hay. Definitely free range which is refreshing in a world where we’re seeing the steady growth of factory farming. The pigs and chooks looked happy indeed.

Not having done too much homework of late on this front, as in I buy organic when I can but mostly restrict my meat intake … I thought I’d better contact the manager and just check, do they feed their animals non GE food?

Well, the reply confirmed my suspicions and of course confirmed for me, no more pork, or any other meat, that’s not organic. Occasionally I obtain produce … vegetables, fruit and eggs, from growers who don’t use sprays of any kind which is next best to organic and less costly. In the instance of the pork, the manager told me he couldn’t rule out that the pigs weren’t eating GE feed as some of their soya feed is sourced from the US which he acknowledged meant it could quite well be GE. So … they are working on getting alternative feed but as yet … no … no guarantees. To recap here, it is definitely great to see farmers treating their animals well, housing them properly with room to roam and forage … definitely a huge improvement on the crates and tightly enclosed concrete and steel pens that occasionally feature on the news when animal activists expose them. So kudos to this farmer on that aspect. However, the GE food is definitely of concern, and especially if the animal is destined for your plate.

A couple of years ago I read a local book called ‘Seeds of Distrust’ by respected local investigative journalist, Nicky Hager. Our country, good old New Zealand, is touted world wide as being amongst other things ‘clean and green’, ‘pristine’, ‘unspoilt’ (the Rangitikei’s official logo), ‘GE free’ and even ‘nuclear free’ (it helps attract business). Interestingly, as an aside on nuclear free, radiation levels have been recorded at danger levels in the South Island. Fukushima possibly? That is definitely worse than what we’re told and definitely not all sorted by any stretch of the imagination.

Anyway, Hager’s book details the events surrounding the planting of GE sweet corn in several locations here in 2000. When this came to light the current Prime Minister at the time, Helen Clarke, ordered these be pulled up. As is the usual with such events, some discussion went on for a time and eventually it turns out, the corn was not pulled up, but was left to come to full harvest. And our threshold of acceptability for GE content was raised as well. Problem solved as it were. Thanks to big-business lobbying (corporate persuasion) and to Helen Clarke, the GE sweet corn plants were allowed to spread their pollen and were harvested for sale in NZ and overseas. The rest of the contaminated seed batch was also approved for planting and the public not told.  Do you still believe everything the Government tells you?

This has been a good reminder for me, don’t buy supermarket meat, or any meat that isn’t organic. Unless you know who bred and killed it. Otherwise you may likely be ingesting GE food.

I’ve replied again to the company that ‘can’t guarantee’ the pigs don’t eat GE feed, with a link to one of Jeffrey Smith’s videos (included below) about what the GE food does to animals’ livers. The animals are reported to smell highly putrid when slaughtered and their livers are obviously diseased. Which does remind me of the recent furore in the South Island when around 200 cows died after eating swedes that are herbicide tolerant. Predictably the link between swedes and these deaths has been all but wiped off the radar but that’s a topic for another post. Herbicide tolerant by the way, means that the crop can be sprayed with herbicide (as is the case with GE crops that are sprayed with glyphosate) killing the weeds but not the crop. The crop retains residues of the herbicide and of course whoever/whatever eats the crop ingests the herbicide as well. This is why glyphosate is being found in human blood, urine and breast milk, even in people who don’t use glyphosate. It is in our environment.

You can learn more about the glyphosate link to GE food on the Glyphosate page here on this site. I plan to include organic and GE sections to the Food page shortly. Another excellent resource, the one that educated me as to what Genetic Engineering of our food is all about, is the book ‘Hard to Swallow’ by Jeffrey Smith (who is featured on the video here).