Category Archives: GMOs

Bill Gates tells Reddit why he’s bought so much farmland

Gates, recently separated from Melinda … interesting timing I figure. He’s ‘helping developing countries’ again … remember all the crippled & dead children in India? The sterilized African women? Heaven help the recipients of his ‘philanthropy’. This is a man who wants to reduce the world’s population, whilst ‘saving’ people with his jabs. And he wants us eating fake meat (see article). How helpful is that for our health? Great for depop. EWR

********************************************************************

…the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced that it’s creating a nonprofit entity called Gates Ag One which will seek to “speed up efforts to provide smallholder farmers in developing countries.”

“Gates argued that higher-income societies should completely replace their consumption of cattle-derived beef with “synthetic” alternatives.”

Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates responded to questions about his farmland investments during an ‘Ask Me Anything’ (AMA) session on social media platform Reddit this weekend.

It’s the first time Gates has publicly commented on land purchases made by entities associated with him and his wife Melinda since they were named as the top private owners of US farmland by acreage earlier this year.

Gates was speaking to Redditors during an event marking the release of his new book, ‘How to Avoid a Climate Disaster.’

Responding to the question, “Hey Bill! Why are you buying so much farmland?” posed by one Reddit user, Gates indicated that seed science and biofuel development were major drivers of the acquisitions.

“My investment group chose to do this. It is not connected to climate,” he wrote.

“The agriculture sector is important. With more productive seeds we can avoid deforestation and help Africa deal with the climate difficulty they already face. It is unclear how cheap biofuels can be but if they are cheap it can solve the aviation and truck emissions.”

Back in January, US magazine The Land Report revealed that Bill and Melinda Gates have amassed the largest portfolio of private farmland in the US, comprising an estimated 242,000 acres.

READ MORE

https://agfundernews.com/bill-gates-tells-reddit-why-hes-acquired-so-much-farmland.html?fbclid=IwAR1OsoXXfJHCqLqkSQ2Zp-HKxIm2Lq5lJy5kuXhGPpEA6EBeWopNo0gDPjc

Photo: screen shot

Studies That Show Dangers Of GMOs And What Their Makers Do To Hide Them From You | Jeffrey Smith | The Real Truth About Health (video)

Read article plus video at the link:

From theplantstrongclub.org

The biotech industry’s claim that genetically modified (GM) foods are safe is shattered in this groundbreaking lecture. Safety assessments on GM crops are not competent to identify the health problems, and industry research is rigged to avoid finding problems.

This lecture is for anyone wanting to understand GM technology, to learn how to protect themselves, or to share their concerns with others. It is presented in the clear, accessible style that made Jeffrey Smith’s Seeds of Deception the world’s best-selling book on genetically engineered foods.

The leading consumer advocate promoting healthier non-GMO choices, Jeffrey Smith’s meticulous research documents how biotech companies continue to mislead legislators and safety officials to put the health of society at risk and the environment in peril. His work expertly summarizes why the safety assessments conducted by the FDA and regulators worldwide teeter on a foundation of outdated science and false assumptions, and why genetically engineered foods must urgently become our nation’s top food safety priority.

READ MORE

https://theplantstrongclub.org/2021/04/17/studies-that-show-dangers-of-gmos-and-what-their-makers-do-to-hide-them-from-you-jeffrey-smith-the-real-truth-about-health/

RELATED:

GLYPHOSATE

Moderna’s top scientist said in a 2017 lecture: ‘We are actually hacking the software of life’

Comments by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

Veteran investigative reporter Leo Hohmann has discovered a 2017 Ted Talk presentation by Dr. Tal Zaks, the chief medical officer at Moderna Inc., where he clearly explains in layperson’s language just what the mRNA technology does in vaccines. (Thanks to Patrick Wood of Technocracy News for publishing this.)

https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/modernas-top-scientist-on-mrna-technology-in-covid-shots-we-are-actually-hacking-the-software-of-life/

Photo: Ted Talk Screenshot

Vandana Shiva: When Bill Gates pours money into Africa to feed the poor & prevent famine, he’s continuing the work of Monsanto, pushing chemicals, GMOs & the failed Green Revolution

FRANCE 24 English 1.58M subscribers

Subscribe to France 24 now: http://f24.my/youtubeEN​ FRANCE 24 live news stream: all the latest news 24/7 http://f24.my/YTliveEN

Our guest is Vandana Shiva, a world-famous environmental activist from India. Her latest book is entitled “One Earth, One Humanity vs. the 1%”. She tell us about more her opposition to big multinationals such as Monsanto for their nefarious influence on agriculture. But Shiva also singles out billionaires like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg for criticism. “When Bill Gates pours money into Africa for feeding the poor in Africa and preventing famine, he’s pushing the failed Green Revolution, he’s pushing chemicals, pushing GMOs, pushing patterns”, she tells FRANCE 24’s Marc Perelman. Visit our website: http://www.france24.com

The “Golden Rice” Hoax – When Public Relations replaces Science – By Vandana Shiva

This post replaces a previous one that has since lost all working links:

Unfortunately, Vitamin A rice is a hoax; the problem is that vitamin A rice will not remove vitamin A deficiency (VAD). It will seriously aggravate it. It is a technology that fails in its promise.

The “Golden Rice” Hoax’ - When Public Relations replaces Science by Vandana Shiva (Seed Freedom, republished in blog)

Source: “THE ‘GOLDEN RICE’ HOAX – When Public Relations replaces Science,” by Vandana Shiva, Seed Freedom1

[The original date of publication for this article is uncertain although references to it can be found as far back as 2000]

By Vandana Shiva, Seed Freedom1

“Golden Rice”: A technology for creating Vitamin A deficiency.

Golden rice has been heralded as the miracle cure for malnutrition and hunger of which 800m members of the human community suffer.

Herbicide resistant and toxin producing genetically engineered plants can be objectionable because of their ecological and social costs. But who could possibly object to rice engineered to produce vitamin A, a deficiency found in nearly 3 million children, largely in the Third World?

As remarked by Mary Lou Guerinot, the author of the Commentary on Vitamin A rice in Science, one can only hope that this application of plant genetic engineering to ameliorate human misery without regard to short term profit will restore this technology to political acceptability.

Unfortunately, Vitamin A rice is a hoax, and will bring further dispute to plant genetic engineering where public relations exercises seem to have replaced science in promotion of untested, unproven and unnecessary technology.

The problem is that vitamin A rice will not remove vitamin A deficiency (VAD). It will seriously aggravate it. It is a technology that fails in its promise.

Currently, it is not even known how much vitamin JA the genetically engineered rice will produce. The goal is 33.3% micrograms/100g of rice. Even if this goal is reached after a few years, it will be totally ineffective in removing VAD.

Since the daily average requirement of vitamin A is 750 micrograms of vitamin A and 1 serving contains 30g of rice according to dry weight basis, vitamin A rice would only provide 9.9 micrograms which is 1.32% of the required allowance. Even taking the 100g figure of daily consumption of rice used in the technology transfer paper would only provide 4.4% of the RDA.

In order to meet the full needs of 750 micrograms of vitamin A from rice, an adult would have to consume 2 kg 272g of rice per day. This implies that one family member would consume the entire family ration of 10 kg. from the PDS in 4 days to meet vitaminA needs through “Golden rice”.

This is a recipe for creating hunger and malnutrition, not solving it.

Besides creating vitamin A deficiency, vitamin A rice will also create deficiency in other micronutrients and nutrients. Raw milled rice has a low content of Fat (0.5g/100g). Since fat is necessary for vitamin A uptake, this will aggravate vitamin A deficiency. It also has only 6.8g/100g of protein, which means less carrier molecules. It has only 0.7g/100g of iron, which plays a vital role in the conversion of Betacarotene (precursor of vitamin A found in plant sources) to vitamin A. Superior Alternatives exist and are effective. A far more efficient route to removing vitamin A deficiency is biodiversity conservation and propagation of naturally vitamin A rich plants in agriculture and diets.

Table 1 gives sources rich in vitamin A used commonly in Indian foods.

Source: Hindi name/ Content (microgram/100g)

(Amaranth leaves) Chauli saag=266-1,166 –

(Coriander leaves) – Dhania=1,166-1,333

(Cabbage) Bandh gobi=217

(Curry leaves)-Curry patta=1,333

(Drumstick leaves)-Saijan patta1=283

(Fenugreek leaves)-Methi-ka-saag=450

(Radish leaves)-Mooli-ka-saag=750

(Mint)-Pudhina=300

(Spinach)-Palak saag=600

(Carrot)-Gajar=217-434

(Pumpkin (yellow))-Kaddu=100-120

(Mango (ripe))-Aam=500

(Jackfruit)-Kathal=54

(Orange)-Santra=35

(Tomato (ripe))-Tamatar=32

(Milk (cow, buffalo))-Doodh=50-60

(Butter)-Makkhan=720-1,200

(Egg (hen))-Anda=300-400

(Liver (Goat, sheep))-Kalegi=6,600 – 10,000

Cod liver oil=10,000 – 100,000

In spite of the diversity of plants evolved and bred for their rich vitamin A content, a report of the Major Science Academies of the World – Royal Society, U.K., National Academy of Sciences of the USA, The Third World Academy of Science, Indian National Science Academy, Mexican Academy of Sciences,

Chinese Academy of Sciences, Brazilian Academy of Sciences – on Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture has stated, Vitamin A deficiency causes half a million children to become partially or totallyblind each year.

Traditional breeding methods have been unsuccessful in producing crops containing a high vitamin A concentration and most national authorities rely on expensive and complicated supplementation programs to address the problem. Researchers have introduced three new genes into rice, two from daffodils and one from a microorganism. The transgenic rice exhibits an increased production of betacarotene as a precursor to vitamin A and the seed in yellow in colour. Such yellow, or golden rice, may be a useful tool to help treat the problem of vitamin A deficiency in young children living in the tropics. It appears as if the world stop scientists suffer a more severe form of blindness than children in poor countries. The statement that “traditional breeding has been unsuccessful in producing crops high in vitamin A” is not true given the diversity of plants and crops that Third World farmers, especially women have bred and used which are rich sources of vitamin A such as coriander, amaranth, carrot, pumpkin, mango, jackfruit.

It is also untrue that vitamin A rice will lead to increased production of betacarotene. Even if the target of 33.3 microgram of vitamin A in 100g of rice is achieved, it will be only 2.8% of betacarotene we canobtain from amaranth leaves 2.4% of betacarotene obtained from coriander leaves, curry leaves and drumstick leaves.

Even the World Bank has admitted that rediscovering and use of local plants and conservation of vitamin A rich green leafy vegetables and fruits have dramatically reduced VAD threatened children over the past 20 years in very cheap and efficient ways. Women in Bengal use more than 200 varieties of field greens.

Over a 3 million people have benefited greatly from a food based project for removing VAD by increasing vitamin A availability through home gardens. The higher the diversity crops the better the uptake of pro-vitamin A.

The reason there is vitamin A deficiency in India in spite of the rich biodiversity a base and indigenous knowledge base in India is because the Green Revolution technologies wiped out biodiversity by converting mixed cropping systems to monocultures of wheat and rice and by spreading the use of herbicides which destroy field greens.

In spite of effective and proven alternatives, a technology transfer agreement has been signed between the Swiss Government and the Government of India for the transfer of genetically engineered vitamin A rice to India.

The ICAR, ICMR, ICDS, USAIUD, UNICEF, WHO have been identified as potential partners. The breeding and transformation is to be carried out at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore,

Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack and Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and University of Delhi, South Campus.

The Indian varieties in which the vitamin A traits are expected to be engineered have been identified as IR 64, Pusa Basmati, PR 114 and ASD 16.

Dr. M.S. Swaminathan has been identified as “God father” to ensuring public acceptance of genetically engineered rice. DBT & ICAR are also potential partners for guaranteeing public acceptance and steady progress of the project.

Genetically engineered vitamin A rice will aggravate this destruction since it is part of an industrial agriculture, intensive input package. It will also lead to major water scarcity since it is a water intensive crop and displaces water prudent sources of vitamin A. Transferring an Illusion to India.

The first step in the technology transfer of vitamin A rice requires a need assessment and an assessment of technology availability. One assessment shows that vitamin A rice fails to pass the need test. The technology availability issue is related to whether the various elements and methods used for the construction of transgenic crop plants are covered by intellectual property rights. Licenses for these rights need to be obtained before a product can be commercialised. The Cornell based ISAAA (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Application) has been identified as the partner for ensuring technology availability by ensuring technology availability by having material transfer agreements signed between the representative authority of the ICAR and the “owners” of the technology, Prof. I. Potrykus and Prof. P. Beyer.

In addition, Novartis and Kerin Breweries have patents on the genes used as constructs for the vitamin A rice.

At a public hearing on Biotechnology at U.S. Congress on 29th June 2000, Astra-Zeneca stated they would be giving away royalty free licenses for the development of “Golden rice”.

At a workshop organised by the M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Dr. Barry of Monsantos Rice Genome initiative announced that it will provide royalty-free licenses for all its technologies that can help the further development of “golden rice”.

Hence these gene giants Novartis, Astra-Zeneca and Monsanto are claiming exclusive ownership to the basic patents related to rice research. Further, neither Monsanto nor Astra – Zeneca said they will give up their patents on rice – they are merely giving royalty free licenses to public sector scientists for development of “golden rice”. This is an arrangement for a public subsidy to corporate giants for R&D since they do not have the expertise or experience with rice breeding which public institutions have.

Not giving up the patents, but merely giving royalty free licenses implies that the corporations like Monsanto would ultimately like to collect royalties from farmers for rice varieties developed by public sector research systems. Monsanto has stated that it expects long term gains from these IPR arrangements, which implies markets in rice as “intellectual property” which cannot be saved or exchanged for seed. The real test for Monsanto would be its declaration of giving up any patent claims to rice now and in the future and joining the call to remove plants and biodiversity out of TRIPS. Failing such an undertaking by Monsanto the announcement that Monsanto giving royalty free licenses for development of vitamin A rice like the rice itself can only be taken as a hoax to establish monopoly over rice production, and reduce rice farmers of India into bio-serfs.

While the complicated technology transfer package of “Golden Rice” will not solve vitamin A problems in India, it is a very effective strategy for corporate take over of rice production, using the public sector as aTrojan horse.

SOURCES: https://seedfreedom.info/campaign/the-golden-rice-hoax/

http://online.sfsu.edu/repstein/GEessays/goldenricehoax.html

Will You Eat Cultured Meat Grown From Human Cells in a broth of blood from calf fetuses?

Story at-a-glance

  • The fake meat industry poses tremendous risks to global health as ultraprocessed foods have been robustly linked to obesity, ill health and early death. It also threatens global food security through the patenting of food
  • Imitation meats are ultraprocessed foods as they’re manufactured from start to finish and typically involve the use of man-made ingredients
  • Once living animals are eliminated and replaced with patented plant-derived and cell-based lab-grown alternatives, private companies will effectively control the food supply in its entirety, and they will be the ones profiting from it rather than farmers
  • Meat grown from human cells harvested from the inside of your cheek, which are then grown in a broth made from blood extracted from unborn calf fetuses or expired human blood, may eventually become available
  • Start-ups are working on or have already launched meatless soy-based burgers and lab-grown steaks, shrimp, pork and chicken

READ MORE

Jamie Oliver’s teaming up with Gates the frankenfood advocate

Another person sadly sold out? Should you seriously think the fake food intended by the rich and powerful to feed the starving planet is good please see the glyphosate page (main menu). Particularly as FF 101 watch Jeffrey Smith’s little video clip to give you the short low down on it. And there are multiple other videos for those who wish to dig deeper … in particular watch ‘The World According to Monsanto’ (who haven’t gone away BTW they’ve just morphed into Bayer) … a time worn tactic the name change. EWR

RELATED: The “Golden Rice” Hoax – When Public Relations replaces Science – By Vandana Shiva
_____________________________________________________________________

Jamie Oliver is a well known English chef and media personality who is known for his TV cookery shows and cookbooks along with his global campaign for better food education.

But now, Oliver the “healthy food advocate” has decided to team up with one of Monsanto’s biggest allies, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

The video shows Oliver pledging his support for what GMO pushing Gates has called “a better food system”, which is supposed to get rid of world hunger and global poverty..

READ MORE

LINK: https://newspunch.com/tv-food-activist-jamie-oliver-teaming-up-with-bill-gates-foundation-video/?fbclid=IwAR02hznqApLT33ud-5LMvh0faa_fU2BZeoR9vCRdwulO1-mk_aHcrAVXnFA

Image by Steve Buissinne from Pixabay

Shopper Warning As Approval Given For Pesticide Corn

December 14, 2020

Press Release – GE Free NZ

Shoppers must start taking extra care when selecting the type of food they are eating, especially now that GE Corn with multi-pesticide resistance has been given approval by food safety regulators. The Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) Ministerial …

Shoppers must start taking extra care when selecting the type of food they are eating, especially now that GE Corn with multi-pesticide resistance has been given approval by food safety regulators.

The Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) Ministerial Forum has approved corn line MON87429, genetically modified to tolerate glufosinate, dicamba, 2,4-D and the aryloxyphenoxypropionate group of herbicides (known as FOPs); and a tissue-specific herbicide tolerance to glyphosate. Six transgenic (foreign) genes have been inserted into this genetically modified corn to make it resistant to twelve different herbicides. [1] This corn line will now be allowed into the food chain, unlabelled, untested, and untraceable. No mechanism is in place for detection of adverse health effects in consumers.

“Because no data was provided on the safety of the whole food, the GE Corn approval by FSANZ has deceived the public. FSANZ has failed in its responsibilities to the people of New Zealand, because the agency is unable to provide the requisite information regarding any potential allergy or health problems the GM corn might cause when eaten,” Claire Bleakley, president of GE Free NZ said.

The joint submission and others made to FSANZ on application A1092 [1] raising concerns over the lack of safety studies and significant changes to the nutritional profile and allergen profile were assiduously ignored and cavalierly dismissed. The complete absence of safety studies on the whole food raises grave concerns regarding the risks to public health. With no safety studies submitted or required, how can FSANZ know what those risks might be?

The agency’s safety assessment of MON87429 stated that no potential public health and safety concerns have been identified. With no supporting evidence whatsoever, the decision-makers at FSANZ considered food derived from MON87429 to be as safe for human consumption as food derived from conventional (non-GM) corn cultivars.

“It is extraordinary that a Government body should breach their duty of care by pretending they have seen safety studies but omitting to tell the public that there are no studies to show the food is safe to eat,” said Bleakley. “New Zealand does not grow GE foods. So, buying local and sourcing foods,especially organic, that have been grown in New Zealand will ensure that you avoid any concerns with GE organisms.”

The FSANZ Act review is further signalling that the guidelines for assessment of GE foods will be loosened, in line with supporting industry and making consumer protection less onerous for businesses.

The FSANZ agency evidently does not consider public health and safety important enough to motivate decision-makers to ensure the GE foods they allow into the food chain are safe for human consumption. It is important for everyone’s health that the new Minister of Food Safety, Hon Ayesha Verall, reconsider this GM product and require information on the safety of the whole food. The Minister must require that long term testing, including clinical trials, is conducted.
References:

[1] Corn line MON87429 https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/applications/Pages/A1192.aspx
[2] gefreepolicy.com

SOURCE: http://business.scoop.co.nz/2020/12/14/shopper-warning-as-approval-given-for-pesticide-corn/?fbclid=IwAR1IT-PXCpAYkczGrcXvaTV_NP_wvWdBSEMEPeLDSFKGYWd49j45gSpFCFc

Image by Cornell Frühauf from Pixabay

Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies (Part Two)

See Part One at the link first

Genetically Engineered Corn

The biotech industry is fond of saying that they offer genetically modified (GM) crops that resist pests. This might conjure up the image of insects staying away from GM crop fields. But “resisting pests” is just a euphemism for
contains its own built-in pesticide. When bugs take a bite of the GM plant, the toxin splits open their stomach and kills them.

The idea that we consume that same toxic pesticide in every bite is hardly appetizing. But the biotech companies and the Environmental Protection Agency—which regulates plant produced pesticides—tell us not to worry. They contend that the pesticide called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) is produced naturally from a soil bacterium and has a history of safe use. Organic farmers, for example, have used solutions containing the natural bacteria for years as a method of insect control. Genetic engineers simply remove the gene that produces the Bt in bacteria and then insert it into the DNA of corn and cotton plants, so that the plant does the work, not the farmer. Moreover, they say that Bt-toxin is quickly destroyed in our stomach; and even if it survived, since humans and other mammals have no receptors for the toxin, it would not interact with us in any case.

These arguments, however, are just that—unsupported assumptions. Research tells a different story.

Bt spray is dangerous to humans

When natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions—mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms. Six people had to go to the emergency room for allergies or asthma.
[1],
[2] Workers who applied Bt sprays reported eye, nose, throat, and respiratory irritation,
[3] and some showed an antibody immune response in linked to Bt.
[4] Farmers exposed to liquid Bt formulations had reactions including infection, an ulcer on the cornea,
[5] skin irritation, burning, swelling, and redness.
[6] One woman who was accidentally sprayed with Bt also developed fever, altered consciousness, and seizures.
[7]

In fact, authorities have long acknowledged that “People with compromised immune systems or preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt.”
[8] The Oregon Health Division advises that “individuals with . . . physician-diagnosed causes of severe immune disorders may consider leaving the area during the actual spraying.”
[9] A spray manufacturer warns, “Repeated exposure via inhalation can result in sensitization and allergic response in hypersensitive individuals.”
[10] So much for the contention that Bt does not interact with humans.

As for being thoroughly destroyed in the digestive system, mouse studies disproved this as well. Mice fed Bt-toxin showed significant immune responses—as potent as cholera toxin. In addition, the Bt caused their immune system to become sensitive to formerly harmless compounds This suggests that exposure might make a person allergic to a wide range of substances.
[11],
[12] The EPA’s own expert advisors said that the mouse and farm worker studies above “suggest that Bt proteins could act as antigenic and allergenic sources.”
[13]
The toxin in GM plants is more dangerous than natural sprays

The Bt-toxin produced in GM crops is “vastly different from the bacterial [Bt-toxins] used in organic and traditional farming and forestry.”
[14] First of all, GM plants produce about 3,000-5,000 times the amount of toxin as the sprays. And the spray form is broken down within a few days to two weeks by sunlight,
[15] high temperatures, or substances on the leaves of plants; and it can be “washed from leaves into the soil by rainfall,”
[16] or rinsed by consumers. A Bt producing GM plant, on the other hand, continuously produces the toxin in every cell where it does not dissipate by weather and cannot be washed off.

The natural toxic produced in bacteria is inactive until it gets inside the alkaline digestive tract of an insect. Once inside, a “safety catch” is removed and the Bt becomes toxic. But scientists change the sequence the Bt gene before inserting it into GM plants. The Bt toxin it produces usually comes
without the safety catch. The plant-produced Bt toxin is
always active and more likely to trigger an immune response than the natural variety.
[17]
Bt-toxin fails safety studies but is used nonetheless

Tests cannot verify that a GM protein introduced into the food supply for the first time will not cause allergies in some people. The World Health Organization (WHO) and UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) offer criteria designed to reduce the likelihood that allergenic GM crops are approved.
[18]They suggest examining a protein for 1) similarity of its amino acid sequence to known allergens, 2) digestive stability and 3) heat stability. These properties aren’t
predictive of allergenicity, but their presence, according to experts, should be sufficient to reject the GM crop or at least require more testing. The Bt-toxin produced in GM corn fails all three criteria.

For example, the specific Bt-toxin found in Monsanto’s Yield Guard and Syngenta’s Bt 11 corn varieties is called Cry1AB. In 1998, an FDA researcher discovered that Cry1Ab shared a sequence of 9-12 amino acids with vitellogenin, an egg yolk allergen. The study concluded that “the similarity . . . might be sufficient to warrant additional evaluation.”
[19] No additional evaluation took place.
[20]

Cry1Ab is also very resistant to digestion and heat.
[21] It is nearly as stable as the type of Bt-toxin produced by StarLink corn. StarLink was a GM variety not approved for human consumption because experts believed that its highly stable protein might trigger allergies.
[22] Although it was grown for use in animal feed, it contaminated the US food supply in 2000. Thousands of consumers complained to food manufacturers about possible reactions and over 300 items were subject to recall. After the StarLink incident, expert advisors to the EPA had called for “surveillance and clinical assessment of exposed individuals” to “confirm the allergenicity of
Bt products.”
[23] Again, no such monitoring has taken place.

Bt cotton triggers allergic reactions

A 2005 report by medical investigators in India describes an ominous finding. Hundreds of agricultural workers are developing moderate or severe allergic reactions when exposed to Bt cotton. This includes those picking cotton, loading it, cleaning it, or even leaning against it. Some at a ginning factory must take antihistamines daily, in order to go to work. Reactions are
only triggered with the Bt varieties.
[24] Furthermore, the symptoms are virtually identical to those described by the 500 people in Vancouver and Washington who were sprayed with Bt. Only “exacerbations of asthma” were in one list and not the other (see table).

Upper respiratory Eyes Skin Overall
Bt Spray Sneezing,
runny nose,
exacerbations of asthma
Watery,
red
Itching, burning, inflammation, red, swelling Fever,
some in hospital
Bt cotton Sneezing,
runny nose
Watery,
red
Itching, burning, eruptions,
red, swelling
Fever,
some in hospital

(We are unaware of similar reports in the US, where 83% of the cotton is Bt. But in the US, cotton is harvested by machine, not by hand.)

The experience of the Indian workers begs the question, “How long does the Bt-toxin stay active in the cotton?” It there any risk using cotton diapers, tampons, or bandages? In the latter case, if the Bt-toxin interfered with healing it could be a disaster. With diabetics, for example, unhealed wounds may be cause for amputation.

Cottonseed is also used for cottonseed oil—used in many processed foods in the US. The normal methods used to extract oil likely destroy the toxin, although cold pressed oil may still retain some of it. Other parts of the cotton plant, however, are routinely used as animal feed. The next part of this series—focused on toxicity—presents evidence of disease and deaths associated with animals consuming Bt cotton plants.

Bt corn pollen may cause allergies

Bt-toxin is produced in GM corn and can be eaten intact. It is also in pollen, which can be breathed in. In 2003, during the time when an adjacent Bt cornfield was pollinating, virtually an entire Filipino village of about 100 people were stricken by a disease. The symptoms included headaches, dizziness, extreme stomach pain, vomiting, chest pains, fever and allergies, as well as respiratory, intestinal, and skin reactions. The symptoms appeared first in those living closest to the field, and then progressed to others by proximity. Blood samples from 39 individuals showed antibodies in response to
Bt-toxin; this supports, but does not prove a link to the symptoms. When the same corn was planted in four other villages the following year, however, the symptoms returned in all four areas—only during the time of pollination.

The potential dangers of breathing GM pollen had been identified in a letter to the US FDA in 1998 by the UK Joint Food Safety and Standards Group. They had even warned that genes from inhaled pollen might transfer into the DNA of bacteria in the respiratory system.
[25] Although no studies were done to verify this risk, years later UK scientists confirmed that after consuming GM soybeans, the foreign inserted genes can transfer into the DNA of gut bacteria. If this also happens with Bt genes, than years after we decide to stop eating GM corn chips, our own gut bacteria may continue to produce
Bt-toxin within our intestines.

Studies show immune responses to GM crops

Studies confirm that several GM crops engineered to produce built-in pesticides provoke immune responses in animals. A Monsanto rat study on Bt corn (Mon 863), that was made public due to a lawsuit, showed a significant increase in three types of blood cells related to the immune system: basophils, lymphocytes, and total white cell counts.
[26]

Australian scientists took an insecticide producing gene (not Bt) from a kidney bean and put it into a pea, in hopes of killing the pea weevil. The peas had
passed the tests normally used to approve GM crops and were on the way to being commercialized. But the developers decided to employ a mouse study that had never before been used on other GM food crops. When they tested the pesticide in its natural state, i.e. the version produced within kidney beans, the protein was not harmful to mice. But that “same” protein, when produced by the kidney bean gene that was inserted into pea DNA, triggered inflammatory responses in the mice, suggesting that it would cause allergies in humans. Somehow, the protein had been changed from harmless to potentially deadly, just by being created in a different plant. Scientists believe that subtle, unpredicted changes in the pattern of sugar molecules that were attached to the protein were the cause of the problem. These types of subtle changes are not routinely analyzed in GM crops on the market.

Experimental potatoes engineered with a third type of insecticide caused immune damage to rats.
[27] Blood tests showed that their immune responses were more sluggish, and organs associated with immune function also appeared to be damaged. As with the peas, the insecticide in its natural state was harmless to the rats. The cause of the health problems was therefore due to some unpredicted change brought about by the genetic engineering process. And like the peas, if the potatoes had been subjected to only the type of tests that are typically used by biotech companies to get their foods on the market, the potatoes would have been approved.

Allergic reactions are a defensive, often harmful immune system response to an external irritant. The body interprets something as foreign, different and offensive, and reacts accordingly. All GM foods, by definition, have something foreign and different. According to GM food safety expert Arpad Pusztai, “A consistent feature of all the studies done, published or unpublished, . . . indicates major problems with changes in the immune status of animals fed on various GM crops/foods.

[28]

In addition to immune responses, several studies and reports from the field provide evidence that GM foods are toxic. In the next article in this series, we look at thousands of sick, sterile and dead animals, linked to consumption of GM crops.

[1] Washington State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,” (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993).

[2] M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide
Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,”
Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848-852.

[3] M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook, “Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray” (Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30, 1992).

[4] A. Edamura, MD, “Affidavit of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division. Dale Edwards and Citizens Against Aerial Spraying vs. Her Majesty the Queen, Represented by the Minister of Agriculture,” (May 6, 1993); as reported in Carrie Swadener, ”
Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.),”
Journal of Pesticide Reform, 14, no, 3 (Fall 1994).

[5] J. R. Samples, and H. Buettner, “Ocular infection caused by a biological insecticide,”
J. Infectious Dis. 148, no. 3 (1983): 614; as reported in Carrie Swadener, ”
Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.)”,
Journal of Pesticide Reform 14, no. 3 (Fall 1994)

[6]M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide
Bacilus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,”
Amer. J. Public Health, 80, no. 7 (1990): 848-852.

[7] A. Edamura, MD, “Affidavit of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division. Dale Edwards and Citizens Against Aerial Spraying vs. Her Majesty the Queen, Represented by the Minister of Agriculture,” (May 6, 1993); as reported in Carrie Swadener, ”
Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.),”
Journal of Pesticide Reform, 14, no, 3 (Fall 1994).

[8] Carrie Swadener, ”
Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.),
Journal of Pesticide Reform 14, no. 3 (Fall 1994).

[9]
Health effects of B.t.: Report of surveillance in
Oregon
, 1985-87. Precautions to minimize your exposure (Salem, OR: Oregon Departmentof Human Resources, Health Division, April 18, 1991).

[10]
Material Safety Data Sheet for Foray 48B Flowable Concentrate (Danbury, CT: Novo Nordisk, February, 1991).

[11]Vazquez et al, “Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from
Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice,”
Life Sciences, 64, no. 21 (1999): 1897-1912; Vazquez et al, “Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from
Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice,”
Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 33 (2000): 147-155.

[12] Vazquez et al, ”
Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant,”
Scandanavian Journal of Immunology 49 (1999): 578-584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000b).

[13] EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, “Bt Plant-Pesticides Risk and Benefits Assessments,” March 12, 2001: 76. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/2000/october/octoberfinal.pdf
[14] Terje Traavik and Jack Heinemann, “Genetic Engineering and Omitted Health Research: Still No Answers to Ageing Questions, 2006. Cited in their quote was: G. Stotzky, “Release, persistence, and biological activity in soil of insecticidal proteins from
Bacillus thuringiensis,” found in Deborah K. Letourneau and Beth E. Burrows,
Genetically Engineered Organisms. Assessing Environmental and Human Health Effects (cBoca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC, 2002), 187-222.

[15] C. M. Ignoffo, and C. Garcial, “UV-photoinactivation of cells and spores of
Bacillus thuringiensis and effects of peroxidase on inactivation,”
Environmental Entomology 7 (1978): 270-272.

[16] BT: An Alternative to Chemical Pesticides,
Environmental Protection Division, Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia, Canada,
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/ipmp/fact_sheets/BTfacts.htm
[17] See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, “Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator
Chrysoperia carnea,”
Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441-7; and J. Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, ”
Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing
Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae),”
Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no.2-3 (2004): 175-183.

[18] FAO-WHO, “Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology,” Jan. 22-25, 2001;
http://www.fao.org/es/ESN/food/pdf/allergygm.pdf
[19] Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,”
Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45-62.

[20] US EPA, “Biopesticides Registration Action Document (BRAD)—
Bacillus thuringiensis Plant-Incorporated Protectants: Product Characterization & Human Health Assessment,” EPA BRAD (2001b) (October 15, 2001): IIB4,
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad2/2-id_health.pdf
[21] US EPA, “Biopesticides Registration Action Document (BRAD)—
Bacillus thuringiensis Plant-Incorporated Protectants: Product Characterization & Human Health Assessment,” EPA BRAD (2001b) (October 15, 2001): IIB4,
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad2/2-id_health.pdf
[22] “Assessment of Additional Scientific Information Concerning StarLink Corn,” FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Report No. 2001-09, July 2001.

[23] EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, “Bt Plant-Pesticides Risk and Benefits Assessments,” March 12, 2001: 76. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/2000/october/octoberfinal.pdf
24 Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),”
Investigation Report, Oct-Dec 2005.

25 N. Tomlinson of UK MAFF’s Joint Food Safety and Standards Group 4, December 1998 letter to the U.S. FDA, commenting on its draft document, “Guidance for Industry: Use of Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes in Transgenic Plants,”
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfp1998.pdf; (see pages 64-68).

26 John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002
http://cera-gmc.org/docs/decdocs/05-184-001.pdf, see also Stéphane Foucart, “Controversy Surrounds a GMO,”
Le Monde, 14 December 2004; and Jeffrey M. Smith, “Genetically Modified Corn Study Reveals Health Damage and Cover-up,” Spilling the Beans, June 2005, http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/June05GMCornHealthDangerExposed/index.cfm

27 A. Pusztai, et al, “Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health Effects,” in: Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins (ed. JPF D’Mello) (Wallingford Oxon, UK: CAB International), 347-372, also additional communication with Arpad Pusztai.

28 October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John

SOURCE:

https://responsibletechnology.org/genetically-engineered-foods-may-cause-rising-food-allergies-part-two/

Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies (Part One)

“The allergy study identified irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems,chronic fatigue, headaches, lethargy, and skin complaints, including acne and eczema, all related to soy consumption. Symptoms of glyphosate exposure include nausea, headaches, lethargy, skin rashes, and burning or itchy skin.”
May 7, 2007

despair-1235582_1280

From responsibletechnology.org

Genetically Engineered Soybeans

The huge jump in childhood food allergies in the US is in the news often[1], but most reports fail to consider a link to a recent radical change in America’s diet. Beginning in 1996, bacteria, virus and other genes have been artificially inserted to the DNA of soy, corn, cottonseed and canola plants. These unlabeled genetically modified (GM) foods carry a risk of triggering life-threatening allergic reactions, and evidence collected over the past decade now suggests that they are contributing to higher allergy rates.

Food safety tests are inadequate to protect public health

Scientists have long known that GM crops might cause allergies. But there are no tests to prove in advance that a GM crop is safe.[2] That’s because people aren’t usually allergic to a food until they have eaten it several times. “The only definitive test for allergies,” according to former FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, “is human consumption by affected peoples, which can have ethical considerations.”[3] And it is the ethical considerations of feeding unlabeled, high-risk GM crops to unknowing consumers that has many people up in arms.

The UK is one of the few countries that conducts a yearly evaluation of food allergies. In March 1999, researchers at the York Laboratory were alarmed to discover that reactions to soy had skyrocketed by 50% over the previous year. Genetically modified soy had recently entered the UK from US imports and the soy used in the study was largely GM. John Graham, spokesman for the York laboratory, said, “We believe this raises serious new questions about the safety of GM foods.”[4]

Critics of GM foods often say that the US population is being used as guinea pigs in an experiment. But experiments have the benefit of controls and measurement. In this case, there is neither. GM food safety experts point out that even if a someone tried to collect data about allergic reactions to GM foods, they would not likely be successful. “The potential allergen is rarely identified. The number of allergy-related medical visits is not tabulated. Even repeated visits due to well-known allergens are not counted as part of any established surveillance system.”[5] Indeed, after the Canadian government announced in 2002 that they would “keep a careful eye on the health of Canadians”[6] to see if GM foods had any adverse reactions, they abandoned their plans within a year, saying that such a study was too difficult.

Genetic engineering may provoke increased allergies to soy

The classical understanding of why a GM crop might create new allergies is that the imported genes produce a new protein, which has never before been present. The novel protein may trigger reactions. This was demonstrated in the mid 1990s when soybeans were outfitted with a gene from the Brazil nut. While the scientists had attempted to produce a healthier soybean, they ended up with a potentially deadly one. Blood tests from people who were allergic to Brazil nuts showed reactions to the beans.[7] It was fortunately never put on the market.

The GM variety that is planted in 89% of US soy acres gets its foreign gene from bacteria (with parts of virus and petunia DNA as well). We don’t know in advance if the protein produced by bacteria, which has never been part of the human food supply, will provoke a reaction. As a precaution, scientists compare this new protein with a database of proteins known to cause allergies. The database lists the proteins’ amino acid sequences that have been shown to trigger immune responses. If the new GM protein is found to contain sequences that are found in the allergen database, according to criteria recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others, the GM crop should either not be commercialized or additional testing should be done. Sections of the protein produced in GM soy are identical to known allergens, but the soybean was introduced before the WHO criteria were established and the recommended additional tests were not conducted.

If this protein in GM soybeans is causing allergies, then the situation may be made much worse by something called horizontal gene transfer (HGT). That’s when genes spontaneously transfer from one species’ DNA to another. While this happens often among bacteria, it is rare in plants and mammals. But the method used to construct and insert foreign genes into GM crops eliminates many of the natural barriers that stop HGT from occurring. Indeed, the only published human feeding study on GM foods ever conducted verified that portions of the gene inserted into GM soy ended up transferring into the DNA of human gut bacteria. Furthermore, the gene was stably integrated and it appeared to be producing its potentially allergenic protein. This means that years after people stop eating GM soy, they may still be exposed to its risky protein, which is being continuously produced within their intestines.

Genetic engineering damaged soy DNA, creating new (or more) allergens

Although biotech advocates describe the process of genetic engineering as precise, in which genes—like Legos—cleanly snap into place, this is false. The process of creating a GM crop can produce massive changes in the natural functioning of the plant’s DNA. Native genes can be mutated, deleted, permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their levels of protein expression. This collateral damage may result in increasing the levels of an existing allergen, or even producing a completely new, unknown allergen within the crop. Both appear to have happened in GM soy.

Levels of one known soy allergen, trypsin inhibitor, were up to 27% higher in raw GM soy. In addition, although cooking soybeans normally reduces the amount of this protein, the trypsin inhibitor in GM varieties appears to be more heat resistant. Levels in cooked GM soy were nearly as high as those found in raw soy, and up to seven times higher when compared to cooked non-GM soy.[8] This suggests that this allergen in GM soy may be more likely to provoke reactions than when consumed in natural varieties.

Another study verified that GM soybeans contain a unique, unexpected protein, not found in non-GM soy controls. Moreover, scientist tested the protein and determined that it reacted with the antibody called IgE. This antibody in human blood plays a key role in a large proportion of allergic reactions, including those that involve life-threatening anaphylactic shock. The fact that the unique protein created by GM soy interacted with IgE suggests that it might also trigger allergies.

The same researchers measured the immune response of human subjects to soybeans using a skin-prick test—an evaluation used often by allergy doctors. Eight subjects showed a reaction to GM soy; but one of these did not also react to non-GM soy. Although the sample size is small, the implication that certain people react only to GM soy is huge, and might account for the increase in soy allergies in the UK.

Increased herbicides on GM crops may cause reactions

By 2004, farmers used an estimated 86% more herbicide on GM soy fields compared to non-GM.[9] The higher levels of herbicide residue in GM soy might cause health problems. In fact, many of the symptoms identified in the UK soy allergy study are among those related to glyphosate exposure. [The allergy study identified irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, chronic fatigue, headaches, lethargy, and skin complaints, including acne and eczema, all related to soy consumption. Symptoms of glyphosate exposure include nausea, headaches, lethargy, skin rashes, and burning or itchy skin. It is also possible that glyphosate’s breakdown product AMPA, which accumulates in GM soybeans after each spray, might contribute to allergies.]

GM soy might impede digestion, leading to allergies

If proteins survive longer in the digestive tract, they have more time to provoke an allergic reaction. Mice fed GM soy showed dramatically reduced levels of pancreatic enzymes. If protein-digesting enzymes are less available, then food proteins may last longer in the gut, allowing more time for an allergic reaction to take place. Such a reduction in protein digestion due to GM soy consumption could therefore promote allergic reactions to a wide range of proteins, not just to the soy. No human studies of protein digestion related to GM soy have been conducted.

Soy linked to peanut allergies

There is at least one protein in natural soybeans that has cross-reactivity with peanut allergies.[10] That means that for some people who are allergic to peanuts, consuming soybeans may trigger a reaction. While it is certainly possible that the unpredicted side effects from genetic engineering soybeans might increase the incidence of this cross-reactivity, it is unlikely that any research has been conducted to investigate this. GM soy was introduced into the US food supply in late 1996. We are left only to wonder whether this had an influence on the doubling of US peanut allergies from 1997 to 2002.

Eating GM foods is gambling with our health

The introduction of genetically engineered foods into our diet was done quietly and without the mandatory labeling that is required in most other industrialized countries. Without knowing that GM foods might increase the risk of allergies, and without knowing which foods contain GM ingredients, the biotech industry is gambling with our health for their profit. This risk is not lost on everyone. In fact, millions of shoppers are now seeking foods that are free from any GM ingredients. Ohio-based allergy specialist John Boyles, MD, says, “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it—unless it says organic.”[11]

Organic foods are not allowed to contain GM ingredients. Buying products that are certified organic or that say non-GMO are two ways to limit your family’s risk from GM foods. Another is to avoid products containing any ingredients from the seven food crops that have been genetically engineered: soy, corn, cottonseed, canola, Hawaiian papaya and a little bit of zucchini and crook neck squash. This means avoiding soy lecithin in chocolate, corn syrup in candies, and cottonseed or canola oil in snack foods.

Fortunately, the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America will soon make your shopping easier. This Consumer Non-GMO Education Campaign is orchestrating the clean out of GM ingredients from foods and the natural products industry. The campaign will circulate helpful non-GMO shopping guides to organic and natural food stores nationwide. The Campaign will provide consumers with regular GM food safety updates that explain the latest discoveries about why, Healthy Eating Means No GMOs.

Safe eating.

This article is limited to the discussion of allergic reactions from GM soybeans. The evidence that GM corn is triggering allergies is far more extensive and will be covered in part 2 of this series.

[1] See for example, Charles Sheehan, “Scientists see spike in kids’ food allergies,” Chicago Tribune, 9 June 2006, http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/living/health/

[2] See for example, Carl B. Johnson, Memo on the “draft statement of policy 12/12/91,” January 8, 1992. Johnson wrote: “Are we asking the crop developer to prove that food from his crop is non-allergenic? This seems like an impossible task.”

[3] Louis J. Pribyl, “Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92,” March 6, 1992, www.biointegrity.org

[4] Ibid.

[5] Traavik and Heinemann, “Genetic Engineering and Omitted Health Research”

[6] “Genetically modified foods, who knows how safe they are?” CBC News and Current Affairs, September 25, 2006.

[7] J. Ordlee, et al, “Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans,” The New England Journal of Medicine, March 14, 1996.

[8] Stephen R. Padgette et al, “The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans,” The Journal of Nutrition 126, no. 4, (April 1996); including data in the journal archives from the same study.

[9] Charles Benbrook, “Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years”; BioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper Number 7, October 2004.

[10] See for example, Scott H. Sicherer et al., “Prevalence of peanut and tree nut allergy in the United States determined by means of a random digit dial telephone survey: A 5-year follow-up study,” Journal of allergy and clinical immunology, March 2003, vol. 112, n 6, 1203-1207); and Ricki Helm et al., “Hypoallergenic Foods—Soybeans and Peanuts,” Information Systems for Biotechnology News Report, October 1, 2002.

[11] John Boyles, MD, personal communication, 2007.
SOURCE

 

https://responsibletechnology.org/genetically-engineered-foods-may-cause-rising-food-allergies-part-one/

GMO feed turns pig stomachs to mush! Severe damage caused by GM soy and corn feed that in NZ is not labeled

Note Kiwis, some time back I contacted two well known local farming enterprises, one that produced pork and the other chickens. I asked both if they fed their stock GMO feed. Both sidestepped a direct answer by telling me they couldn’t rule it out because the feed is not labelled. What is the bet it’s GMO stock feed? If it weren’t both of these companies would be clambering at the opportunity to prove their produce is top of the line. But no, just ‘we can’t rule out GMOs’. Sad. Read below at naturalnews.com what GMO feed does to pigs’ stomachs, and likely yours as well. And be aware NZ approved the use of a GE bacteria pig growth hormone in 2001 & it isn’t labeled. The only way around this is to buy organic meat or go vegan. Even then with the latter you are better off to choose organic. The following article is from NaturalNews.com


(NaturalNews) If you have stomach problems or gastrointestinal problems, a new study led by Dr. Judy Carman may help explain why: pigs fed a diet of genetically engineered soy and corn showed a 267% increase in severe stomach inflammation compared to those fed non-GMO diets. In males, the difference was even more pronounced: a 400% increase. (For the record, most autistic children are males, and nearly all of them have severe intestinal inflammation.)

The study was conducted on 168 young pigs on an authentic farm environment and was carried out over a 23-week period by eight researchers across Australia and the USA. The lead researcher, Dr. Judy Carman, is from the Institute of Health and Environmental Research in Kensington Park, Australia. The study has now been published in the Journal of Organic Systems, a peer-reviewed science journal.

The study is the first to show what appears to be a direct connection between the ingestion of GMO animal feed and measurable damage to the stomachs of those animals. Tests also showed abnormally high uterine weights of animals fed the GMO diets, raising further questions about the possibility of GMOs causing reproductive organ damage.

Proponents of corporate-dominated GMO plant science quickly attacked the study, announcing that in their own minds, there is no such thing as any evidence linking GMOs to biological harm in any animals whatsoever. And they are determined to continue to believe that, even if it means selectively ignoring the increasingly profound and undeniable tidal wave of scientific studies that repeatedly show GMOs to be linked with severe organ damage, cancer tumors and premature death.

“Adverse effects… toxic effects… clear evidence”

The study was jointly announced by GM Watch and Sustainable Pulse.

Lead author of the study Dr. Judy Carman stated, “We found these adverse effects when we fed the animals a mixture of crops containing three GM genes and the GM proteins that these genes produce. Yet no food regulator anywhere in the world requires a safety assessment for the possible toxic effects of mixtures. Our results provide clear evidence that regulators need to safety assess GM crops containing mixtures of GM genes, regardless of whether those genes occur in the one GM plant or in a mixture of GM plants eaten in the same meal, even if regulators have already assessed GM plants containing single GM genes in the mixture.”

READ MORE

https://www.naturalnews.com/040727_GMO_feed_severe_inflammation_pig_stomachs.html

New Meta-Analysis Reveals Extensive Phenotypic Differences Between GMO and Non-GMO Cultivated Plants

Written By:

GMWatch Reporter

greenmedinfo.com

Claims of “substantial equivalence” of GM plants again shown to be false

The myth of “substantial equivalence” between GM crops and their closest non-GM relatives (called “isolines”) has taken yet another scientific hit, this time from a new peer-reviewed paper discussed in an article on the website Hygeia Analytics.

The researchers from Mexico City published their meta-analysis of genetic data on rice, canola, maize, sunflower, and pumpkin. They looked at wild, GMO, and non-GMO cultivated varieties of these five crops, analyzing phenotypic change.

The phenotype of a crop is defined by a set of characteristics expressed by the crop’s genetic code (DNA). In theory, genetically engineered plants will show phenotypic changes only linked to the traits that scientists added to the GMO in the hope that they will be expressed. For example, a corn plant engineered to express the Bt toxin should not be different from normal corn in other ways.

 

READ MORE

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/new-meta-analysis-reveals-extensive-phenotypic-differences-between-gmo-and-non-gm

© [Article Date] GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

 

Monsanto’s latest marketing ploy: Labeling GMOs as “biofortified”

GMOs have been getting a bad name for quite some time now, and it’s hardly surprising given the near-constant stream of evidence showing the harms caused by genetically engineered crops and the pesticides used on them. As people increasingly make an effort to avoid buying these products, Monsanto has come up with a new idea to trick people into forking over their hard-earned money for its health-destroying products.

The Waking Times reports that Monsanto is trying to manipulate the definitions used on food labels in such a way that GMOs could be labeled as “biofortified foods.”

Codex Alimentarius is a collection of codes and guidelines created by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization to standardize world food trade and its production and safety. Codex was mulling a proposal to allow a company to use the term “biofortified” on vegetables that use conventional cross-breeding to increase the content of certain nutrients to help give malnourished populations a nutrition boost.

Monsanto sensed an opportunity here and set out to exploit it. They used their influence to try to convince delegates to have the definition of “biofortified” broadened to include foods that have been genetically modified. The National Health Federation (NHF), which is the only natural health advocate with a seat at Codex, reports that many of the delegates saw right through Monsanto’s attempt to pull the wool over consumers’ eyes, and the move was even denounced during the meeting. Nevertheless, the topic will be debated when the group convenes in Berlin this November under a new chairperson.

NHF President Scott Tips said: “It is a very sad state of affairs where we have come to the point where we must manipulate our natural foods to provide better nutrition all because we have engaged in very poor agricultural practices that have seen a 50% decline in the vitamins and minerals in our foods over the last 50 years. We will not remedy poor nutrition by engaging in deceptive marketing practices and sleight of hand with this definition.”

READ MORE

https://www.food.news/2018-01-20-monsantos-latest-marketing-ploy-labeling-gmos-as-biofortified.html

Roundup EXPOSED – The truth about pesticides, disease and scientific fraud

(NaturalHealth365) Roundup is a weed killer that’s showing up in our food supply; contaminating the waterways and the air we breathe. Yet, the biotech industry – with companies like Monsanto and Dow – continue to tell us, ‘we have nothing to worry about’ – in terms of all the agricultural ingredients used today.

So, what’s the truth?

Shocking truths exposed about Roundup and our current food production techniques

Just to be clear: Roundup is the most widely used herbicide in all of human history, and while farmers and homeowners alike use it daily, this highly-toxic product carries a wide range of health hazards – which are being systematically overlooked (and ignored) by government health agencies.

READ MORE PLUS AT THE LINK LISTEN TO THE PODCAST (LINK AT TOP LEFT OF SCREEN)

https://www.naturalhealth365.com/roundup-glyphosate-2465.html

F. William Engdahl shatters biotech myths by demonstrating the health hazards of GMO

Published on Sep 18, 2013

In “Seeds of Destruction” and elsewhere, F. William Engdahl shatters biotech myths by demonstrating the health hazards of GMO, and also by proving this technology is but a deliberate continuation of eugenics, racial hygiene and population control. The ultimate purpose of this is not to consolidate markets or even to make huge profits. The ultimate purpose is to exert sterilization and slow kill deaths on those who are seen as “unfit”: the poor and the middle classes. Mr. Engdahl’s approach to this is impeccably accurate and comprehensive. http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Destructi… Genetically engineered foods are contributing to rising disease rates. GMO has been shown to cause organ damage, sterility and cancer, to the point where even the Monsanto scientists who make the stuff refuse to eat it. The same goes for cafeterias in high government institutions, known for not serving GM to their clienteles. And don’t forget, GM allows the big biotech corporations to patent genes — life. They’re already trying to spread that status to cover *human genes* as well. What a unique new way of looking at the concept of human chattel, isn’t it? Anyway it goes, “patenting life” — your life — is theft. Treat for what it is, stealing. Don’t get stuck on the yuppie terminology. Stealing is stealing is stealing. Anyone who does it is a robber, a criminal, to be dealt with in a court of law, and jail. Once the People get their legal system back on track. Also, you can’t go around changing protein structures (that’s what genes are) without causing the spread of thousands of unpredictable mutations in the genomes of organisms and the gene pools of whole ecosystems alike. That’s how protein chains work. Changes to those structures are never linear. They’re always systemic, with the spread of multiple unpredictable effects being caused along the protein chain. This, along with geoengineering, is what is REALLY dangerous for humans and the environment alike. In fact, one can also point out that this (bioengineering) is a vital part of geoengineering, something which is designed and developed to radically alter and distort life on Earth (possibly even end it). Get informed and protect yourself and your family from the toxic hazard that is GMO. F. William Engdahl’s work: http://www.oilgeopolitics.net/ http://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Destructi… Also check out Jeffrey M. Smith’s groundbreaking work on GMO: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/

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

The 10 GMO Myths That Monsanto Wants You To Believe

From activistpost.com

Monsanto and their biotech buddies would have you believe that they are super-heroes, set on saving hungry children from starvation wearing a dazzling fake-green cape. In fact, in a recent attack on activists, Monsanto’s CEO Hugh Grant said that because critics “can afford” organic food, we don’t care about the plight of those who can’t afford it. “There is this strange kind of reverse elitism: If I’m going to do this, then everything else shouldn’t exist,” said Grant. “There is space in the supermarket shelf for all of us.”

Even Monsanto’s website is on the defense, with page after page attempting to justify what the biotech industry is doing to our food supply. It must be true if even leading “philanthropists” (and I use this term loosely) like Bill and Melinda Gates are behind the distribution of Monsanto crops across the globe. Right?

Actually, it’s all about the public’s perception. The push for acceptance of GMO foods has, thus far, been all about which team has the most money. Monsanto and their ilk can afford more television ads and more PR than anti-GMO activists can. Because the biotech companies, Big Food, and Big Agri can pay to spread their message, many people are convinced by their pure propaganda that GMOs are a necessary evil if the Third World is to avoid millions of slow, agonizing deaths by starvation. Because biotech is able to afford to blanket the media with their perspective, their view point is accepted as the correct one because that is the only perspective that many people ever hear.

But just because they shout the loudest, that doesn’t make it true.

How we address these misconceptions can mean the difference between swaying people to examine these claims more closely or causing them to stick their fingers in their ears and sing, “lalalalala…” to block us out. Here are some of the most common myths that Monsanto and friends would like you to believe about the wonderful world of GMOs.

Myth #1: No one has ever proven that GMOs are harmful to people.

Monsanto mouthpieces have been quoted time, time, and time again stating the untruth that genetically modified organisms have never been proven to harm people. It seems that they believe, like Joseph Goebbels, the uncontested King of Propaganda, that if you repeat a lie often enough, and with enough conviction, that it becomes the accepted truth.

The reality: Just a few of the results of a GMO diet (based on peer-reviewed studies) are: grotesque tumors, premature death, organ failure, gastric lesions, liver damage, kidney damage, severe allergic reactions, a viral gene that disrupts human functions…you can read more HERE.

Myth #2: GMO crops are the only way to solve world hunger.

The most common pro-GMO argument that you will hear these days is that genetically modified crops are the only way to feed the world’s burgeoning population. Without them, proponents claim that hunger will claim the lives of millions over the next decade. In the gospel of biotech, GMOs are the answer to world hunger. If you protest against GMO technology, you are cast as a cold-hearted elitist and the deaths of all of those suffering children in ***** (pick-a-3rd-world-country) rest firmly on your doorstep.

READ MORE

https://www.activistpost.com/2013/07/the-10-gmo-myths-that-monsanto-wants.html

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

Why Do Supporters of Genetically Engineered Foods Insist on Organics for Their Own Families?

From Dr Mercola

  • Many political supporters of genetically engineered (GE) foods are feasting on organics, while promoting unlabeled GE foods for everyone else, including Mitt Romney, President Obama, and former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
  • According to a former White House executive chef, Laura Bush was “adamant that in ALL CASES, if an organic product was available it was to be used in place of a non-organic product,” and Mitt Romney’s wife, Ann, has publicly credited a combination of organic foods and holistic medicine for turning her health around after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998

 

Over the past few years, an interesting pattern has emerged, where political supporters of genetically engineered (GE) foods are feasting on organics, while promoting unlabeled GE foods for everyone else.

Most recently, Mother Jones1 discussed how Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney – whose ties to Monsanto go back to the late 1970’s when GE crops were still in the R&D phase – reportedly makes sure his own meals are nothing but organic…

According to Peter Alexander of MSN Today:2

On Romney Air, or Hair Force One – as Reuters’ Steve Holland like to call it – Mitt Romney has his own galley in ‘forward cabin.’ And, while I’ve never been invited up front, sources close to the campaign tell me the shelves are stocked with a wide variety of healthy fare. Kashi cereals, hummus, pita, as well as organic applesauce.

Everything’s organic, I’m told, including the ingredients to Romney’s favorite, peanut butter and honey sandwiches.”

Even more interesting, in a 2002 article3 about Romney’s wife, Ann, she credits a combination of organic foods and holistic medicine for turning her health around after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998. The profile reads in part:

“…She was 49 at the time, and the disease was progressing rapidly, she says, prompting the doctors to put her on steroids, which made her so sick she could barely get out of bed. ‘They were killing me,’ she says of the treatment. ‘You have bone loss; they are so bad for you.’

Mrs. Romney was introduced to several practitioners of holistic medicine, who persuaded her to adopt alternative therapies. She now eats organic foods and very little meat. She practices reflexology and undergoes acupuncture treatments. She credits the lifestyle with turning her health around…

‘Everyone has to find their own way,’ she says. ‘Three years ago I was really, really sick and not able to function at all. A lot of the symptoms are [now] gone…'”

Mrs. Romney isn’t the only success story in which food played a center role in beating multiple sclerosis (MS). Last year I posted an article about Dr. Terry Wahls, who reversed MS after seven years of deterioration on the best conventional treatments available, simply by changing her diet.

Wouldn’t it be a nice change of pace if our agricultural authorities, not to mention our President, could reach into their hearts and find the humanity to fight for everyone’s right to eat wholesome food that doesn’t contain foreign DNA, built-in pesticides, and an inordinate amount of synthetic chemicals so that diseases such as MS and cancer could be curtailed before they even get a foothold?

If GE Foods are So Great, Why Won’t the Elite Eat Them?

While Obama has been a huge supporter of Big Biotech during his term, Romney is just as “tight” with Monsanto, having actually successfully guided the company out of lawsuits with Congress in the shameful aftermath of Agent Orange (a Monsanto creation, which was supposed to be harmless to everything except vegetation), and heinous chemical dumping incidents in Missouri and Alabama.4

He’s also in favor putting the “Monsanto rider” provision in the 2012 Farm Bill – a rider that would prevent a federal court from putting in place court-ordered restrictions on a GE crop, even if the approval were fraudulent or involved bribery, among other things.

Unfortunately, Mitt Romney is just one in a line of politicians who support and promote GE foods as being just as safe and “natural” as conventional foods while privately serving up nothing but organic for their own families. President Obama, as his predecessors George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, have all reportedly insisted on an organic diet.

READ MORE

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/09/ge-food-supporters-insist-organic-foods.aspx?e_cid=20121009_DNL_art_1

Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) – Myths and Truths

Published on Sep 20, 2012

The information is based on the new report “GMO Myths and Truths” by EarthOpenSource.org. You can find more information here: http://earthopensource.org/index.php/… http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art… Watch out for the Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) myths and truths which provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.
SOURCE

First kumara, then potatoes, now pumpkin prices are sky high … the uncomfortable truth about the control of your food supply

“…control food and you control the people …”

Kissinger: “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.” US strategy deliberately destroyed family farming in the US and abroad and led to 95% of all grain reserves in the world being under the control of six multinational agribusiness corporations….SOURCE

Henry Kissinger is on record as saying that. Now why would  Kissinger want to control people? If you’ve never pondered that question you’ve probably been listening to mainstream media which would’ve told you he never said it and in fact nobody wants to control people & such thoughts are the product of the conspiracy machine. He’s on metabunk as having not said it. Not the place to look for truth. There are sites like that Rat-Tumor-Monsanto-GMO-Cancer-Study-3-Wide2.jpgthat say Professor Seralini’s research on glyphosate (the rats with very large tumours that Monsanto didn’t find because they only tested their rats for the required 90 days) is fiction. If you find something there or on similar sites you can be sure there’s a likelihood it is true.

As Noam Chomsky pointed out, in both “old” and “new” world orders the central goal has pivoted around the issue of control: “Control of the population is the major task of any state that is dominated by particular sectors of the domestic society and therefore functions primarily in their interest …”[1] Such “particular sectors” as referred to are the minority elite, who pursue controlling strategies to “engineer” nation and international affairs in line with their aims. And these aims are for the most part based on greed and power; and the need to keep the masses contented and docile.  SOURCE

Continuing with the food topic, did you notice the sequence of price rises? Here in NZ, first kumara, then potatoes, now pumpkin. I saw a blogger post a pumpkin with $17 on it (NZ) recently. A month ago I bought one for $3. Just as I was telling my family after the potato price hike, buy pumpkins when they’re cheap and add them to your mashed potatoes. (Along with telling them, grow your own potatoes). Did you also notice that in between the potato and the pumpkin price hike came the introduction of … ta da … GM potatoes? Quite strategically done I thought. And you can bet I’m sure those potatoes when they’re grown here in (not) clean green, (not) GE free NZ, that they’ll be cheap as chips no pun intended but it does fit quite nicely – given chips are quite a staple, as are the other items on the now outrageously dear and out-of-the-reach-of-many-families aforementioned staples. Think potato chips for instance, and fish and chips. And finally, yes, it’s the weather that’s created this problem but look who has a hand in the weather as well. It’s well documented.

And finally, whether deliberate or not, you need to read Susan George’s ‘How the Other Half Dies’ (free pdf) on hunger and who’s causing it in the so called undeveloped countries that were very rich in resources when the colonizer ‘found’ them. (For other good reads on topic see our resources page at the main menu. And watch ‘The Corporation’ movie on the Corporations pages for an insight into how corporations work for themselves and not you).

Time to grow your own food and stop supporting corrupt corporations. Or buy from your local farmer market.

EnvirowatchRangitikei

SOURCES:

http://investmentwatchblog.com/kissinger-control-oil-and-you-control-nations-control-food-and-you-control-the-people-us-strategy-deliberately-destroyed-family-farming-in-the-us-and-abroad-and-led-to-95-of-all-grain-reserves/

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/9769-democratic-unfreedom-social-technique-and-the-manufacture-of-control

 

One-fifth of global deaths now linked to processed junk food and toxic ingredients Science now admits

Remember, it’s not just the fast food as pictured above, although these are obvious examples, but it’s the poisons and chemicals in your staples, like flour and so on. All these staples have been contaminated by unknown (to the average unaware shopper) substances and processes. Glyphosate being the biggie. That is sprayed relentlessly everywhere because Monsanto appears to have unprecedented inside control in terms of what gets into our food. Beware. EWR  (Note original video no longer there, short clip though at the link below image).

Screenshot_2021-04-05 TOXIC FOOD is killing humanity One-fifth of global deaths now linked to processed junk food and toxic[...]

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-25-toxic-food-is-killing-humanity-one-fifth-of-global-deaths-now-linked-to-processed-junk-food-and-toxic-ingredients.html

(Natural News) A new study conducted at the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington (HealthData.org) and published in The Lancet medical journal finds that a shocking 20 percent of global deaths are caused by toxic foods, junk foods, processed foods and harmful food ingredients. In essence, the study reveals that the toxic food industry is now about as dangerous as Big Tobacco.

As covered in The Guardian:

The study, based at the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, compiles data from every country in the world and makes informed estimates where there are gaps… Diet is the second highest risk factor for early death after smoking. The problem is often seen as the spread of western diets, taking over from traditional foods in the developing world.

In other words, all the toxic food ingredients, processed foods, junk foods and fast foods that we’ve been warning you about for years are now being recognized by the science establishment to be one of the leading killers of human beings across our planet. Many of these foods are saturated with glyphosate and pesticides, and an increasing number are also genetically engineered. The food industry, in other words, is about as dangerous to human health as the tobacco industry, yet while Big Tobacco is highly regulated, there are virtually no enforced regulations that limit heavy metals, pesticides or dangerous chemical ingredients (like aspartame) in the U.S. food supply.

READ MORE:

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-25-toxic-food-is-killing-humanity-one-fifth-of-global-deaths-now-linked-to-processed-junk-food-and-toxic-ingredients.html

Developments in Chemical Biotechnology Continue to Threaten Environmental and Human Health

Following our recent approval in clean green, GE free Enzed of GM potato crops this is a bit of a farce given Helen Clarke (Labour note for those who are rejoicing at the other wing of the same bird that’s currently now in) approved the growing to harvest of GM corn in 2000 or thereabouts. It was uncovered, having already been planted, then ordered to be pulled up by Clarke who then flip flopped after a bit of corporate persuasion. So here it is again, some 17 odd years later … yes it is farcical. They’ve been tampering with the genes of all sorts including animals, all along. This kind of food has already been independently researched & found seriously wanting. Eat it at your own risk I would say. EnvirowatchRangitikei

Story at-a-glance

  • Corporate GMO propaganda is hitting the big screen. Forty-five scientists, academics and writers have signed a statement calling the food industry-funded film, “Food Evolution,” a piece of corporate propaganda that misrepresents the GMO issue
  • EPA has approved RNAi corn for human consumption, which is based on “gene silencing” technology. Research suggests RNA may have the ability to silence genes inside your body as well
  • A new generation of GMO crops resistant to dicamba is wreaking havoc across the U.S., as neighbors to farms growing dicamba-resistant crops report massive crop destruction from dicamba drift

By Dr. Mercola

Pesticides are taking a major toll on health across the globe. According to a recent United Nations (UN) report,1 pesticides are responsible for 200,000 acute poisoning deaths each year, and chronic exposure has been linked to cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, hormone disruption, developmental disorders and sterility.2

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the World Health Organization and the “gold standard” in carcinogenicity research, found glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world — is a probable human carcinogen.3,4 As of July 2017, glyphosate is listed as a known carcinogen under California’s Proposition 65,5 which means products containing glyphosate must carry a cancer warning label.

Pesticides like Roundup also threaten the health of the soil, thereby threatening the very future of agriculture itself, as healthy soils are key for growing food.6 So grave are the concerns over the health and environmental effects of pesticides, the UN’s report proposes a global treaty to phase them out and transition to a more sustainable agricultural system.

All of this is terrible news for the chemical industry in general, and Monsanto in particular. Last year, Monsanto accepted a $66 billion takeover bid from Bayer AG,7,8,9 which would make the new entity the largest seed and pesticide company in the world. The merger is expected to be finalized by the end of 2017. However, as noted in the Bloomberg video report above, suspicions of carcinogenicity now pose a serious threat to this deal.

Court Will Determine Roundup’s Role in Cancer

Plaintiffs10 in a class-action lawsuit against Monsanto claim Roundup caused or contributed to their non-Hodgkin lymphoma.11,12 The outcome of this lawsuit may influence Bayer’s decision to acquire Monsanto or back out of the deal. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) reevaluation of glyphosate’s toxicity may also have a bearing on the planned merger, although it will not influence the litigation against Monsanto.

U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria, who presides over multi-district litigation currently involving 310 cancer victims’ lawsuits against Monsanto, has stated that the scientific evidence presented at trial is what will settle the question of whether glyphosate can cause cancer — not the determination by the IARC or the EPA. According to Bloomberg:13

“Chhabria has allowed the plaintiffs wide latitude to collect evidence on Monsanto’s health-effects research over the years, which the plaintiffs hope will show the company manipulated the data.

In March he unsealed dozens of Monsanto’s confidential documents for the public to see. The records show internal deliberations on how to present the science on glyphosate’s health impacts and manage a global public-relations campaign to assure consumers and regulators that Roundup is safe.”

EPA Has a History of Protecting Chemical Industry

The litigation has brought to light evidence showing how the EPA has colluded with Monsanto to protect the company’s interests. For example, email correspondence reveals Jess Rowland — who was the associate director of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs and a key author of the EPA’s controversial glyphosate report — helped stop a glyphosate investigation by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) on Monsanto’s behalf.14,15

READ MORE

 

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/08/01/chemical-biotechnology-threatens-environmental-human-health.aspx

 

“Growing Your Own Food Is Like Printing Your Own Money” – Avoid GMOs & Do It

And yes, that garden on the header image is my old garden … I don’t garden as much these days (other priorities) but I buy organic or from local gardeners… EnvirowatchRangitikei

growingfoodronfinley1

Vanessa, a blogger from Taihape turned her parents front garden into a food space, pictured above, especially to show folks where food comes from … not necessarily the supermarket. Check out her blog HERE.


It’s well documented how harmful GM food is for your health (see our GMO pages) and it’s being foisted upon us whether we like it or not. Whether we protest, make submissions, voice our opinions etc etc or not, our voices are virtually ignored these days. Our current govt/corporations are determined to have us eat their products & in many cases we already are because they are not required to label their wares. However you slice & dice this it is downright fascist. We are forced to drink fluoride, chlorine and other unknown substances in our water (or spend a fortune filtering or distilling ourselves), to eat our mainstream veg and fruit that are sprayed to the hilt with a raft of chemicals and poisons (unknown to most purchasers because again no requirement to label them as sprayed or with what) … and unless we buy organic at often treble the price. Our meat is not exempt, just observe all the nice yellowy fields around the countryside, these are sprayed with Roundup that contains Glyphosate & is recommended by at least one I know of, agricultural text books, being as they say quite harmless. As harmless as dish liquid farmers tell me with a smile and as if I have two heads for even questioning their wisdom (which they acquired from Monsanto, no questions asked). These farmers spray it over everything. They love it. One proudly told me when the soil’s plowed under it’s perfectly safe for the stock to eat the grass that grows there. They think because you don’t drop dead on the spot it really IS harmless. Nobody bothers to look at the independent research or consider the LONG TERM effects. Anyway there is plenty of info on all of that, including the independent research, on our Glyphosate pages.

The point of this post before I get too carried away was to highlight the fact you can grow your own uncontaminated food, even in small spaces. Google that and there are many articles on gardens in small high rise apartments even. Nothing’s impossible. There are some other ideas on our Food pages also.

wallyjr_opt
Wally Richards: see the relevant links below

For Kiwis (and anybody else) we have our own Kiwi gardening guru Wally Richards. Wally also features in a gardening group at thecontrail.com. His website even provides a telephone number you can ring for advice if you’re stuck &/or you can sign up and receive regular updates and news about gardening.

 

Here’s Wally’s site:

GARDENING PAGES

ESPECIALLY for N.Z.Established June 1996(Orginally the web site was http://www.manawatu.gen.nz/garden

(Updated Monday 16th October 2017)
Note these pages WILL be updated weekly.Over 21 Years of bringing these gardening pages to the Internet(from June 1996 to present. Making this site one of the oldest web sites in New Zealand)Orginally the web address was http://www.manawatu.gen.nz/gardening


Changing The World
Garden by Garden!

“Surely by now there can be few here who still believe the purpose of government is to protect us from the destructive activities of corporations.
At last most of us must understand that the opposite is true:
that the primary purpose of government is to protect the destroyers of our Earth, our Home from the outrage of injured citizens.

If we do not resist using whatever means necessary, we condemn ourselves, our children and future generations to trying to exist on a lifeless planet.

Make no mistake, we are in a fight for our very survival.”

QUESTION MORE“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take,
their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

Thomas Jefferson

LATEST GARDENING WEEKLY NEWS

 

READ MORE

http://www.gardenews.co.nz/

 

Here is a link to the gardening group at thecontrail (you will need to sign up):

http://thecontrail.com/group/grow-your-own-food-gardening

NOTE: YOU CAN SEARCH FOR ARTICLES ON ANY OF THE TOPICS LISTED HERE, BY GOING TO ‘CATEGORIES’ (LEFT OF PAGES), THE TAG CLOUD, OR USE THE SEARCH BOX.

 

 

Are there Genetically Engineered Foods in NZ?

Read ‘Seeds of Distrust’ by Nicky Hager on the story of the GE COVER UP Kiwis. They planted many crops of GE corn throughout our clean green paradise and it was left to full harvest so ‘no worries’ then by the esteemed leaders about cross contamination to other NON GE crops. Corngate it was called, courtesy of HELEN CLARKE who worked at the UN on Global Governance (aka New World Order – think Agenda 2030) after leaving her job leading your country. Do you still really think it matters which party is in the saddle?
EnvirowatchRangitikei


From nzhealth.net.nz

Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foods

Genetically engineered foods containing genes derived from animals, fish, insects and bacteria are now being imported into New Zealand. The genetic changes that have been made to these foods are completely different to those resulting from traditional breeding methods. Yet, the import and sale of these foods is being permitted without proper assessment of the risks and without adequately informing the public, even though many scientists say that genetically modified foods could cause serious damage to health and the environment. Genetic technology has already caused human fatalities, new toxins and allergies, soil infertility, animal ill health, financial losses for farmers, and environmental damage in the US.

The process of genetic engineering introduces dangerous new allergens and fatal toxins into foods that were previously naturally safe. Already, one genetically engineered soybean was found to cause severe allergic reactions, and bacteria genetically engineered to produce large amounts of the food supplement tryptophan, have produced toxic contaminants that killed 37 people and permanently disabled 1,500 in USA.

It is estimated that about 57% of research by biotechnology companies is on the development of herbicide-resistant plants and that this will lead to increased use of herbicides, resulting in even higher concentrations of chemicals in food and in the water run-off from the land. Other dangers include the creation of herbicide-resistant weeds, the spread of diseases across species barriers. The artificially induced traits and inevitable.

Imperfections will be passed to all subsequent generations and to related and unrelated organisms. They can never be recalled or contained. The consequences are incalculable.

What foods are here already?

Genetically modified foods (GMFs) available, or about to appear, in New Zealand shops include tomatoes, yeast, corn, and soya (which is used in many processed foods, such as bread, pasta, confectionery, ice cream, pies, biscuits, margarine, meat products and vegetarian meat substitutes).

Genetically modified organisms are also used to produce cheeses and many other processed foods. But this is just the beginning. In a few years, if transnational biotech companies are allowed a free hand, it may be almost impossible to find natural food. GMFs area also reaching NZ supermarkets because they are being introduced in USA Canada and Japan far more freely and are entering the food chain through global trade. Over 4,000 field projects are in progress worldwide, so basically the market is about to be flooded with genetically modified products.

New ANZFA rules bypass New Zealand sovereignty

Genetically Modified foods and food additives will be sold in New Zealand without labelling and without warning the public because they have been approved by a small committee based in Canberra. New arrangements introduced under CER, effective from July 1st 1996, mean that decisions about New Zealand food standards are now made by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA), a committee on which New Zealand has representation equivalent to that of ‘other Australian States’.

READ MORE

http://www.nzhealth.net.nz/environment/poisons/genetic_foods.shtml

So our infants need corn syrup & GMOs? – Mike Adams on CNN’s “breastfeeding’s not natural” debacle

Further to the recent article in a pediatrics journal coercing us not to call breastfeeding ‘natural’, Mike Adams weighs in on their preferred alternative – formula with GMOs and corn syrup… satirizing and exposing the whole debacle for the idiocy that it is.
Published on Mar 28, 2016

Wow, CNN is so totally brain dead that it’s now warning against calling breastfeeding “natural.”

What’s the problem with that? They claim if we call it “natural,” then we might be encouraging moms to pursue other “natural” things like nutrition or organic food (or avoid vaccines).

And that’s BAD, according to CNN.

Yep, the Communist News Network has gone full retard…

Learn more at http://NaturalNews.com


 

RELATED:

Pediatrics Journal says to stop calling breastfeeding natural  

Report Finds Gerber Baby Food Filled With GMOs … Don’t feed this to your baby

A repost of this news item from last year. A good reminder as the glyphosate issue rumbles on with more countries and individual shops banning it. How long will it be before NZ takes it more seriously. They continue to spray it on our pastures and our public spaces ignoring the reliable research that tells it it’s a carcinogen and is linked to many many more health problems.

Rangitikei Environmental Health Watch

Here is some shocking news on baby food and formula. I’m unsure if this brand is sold in NZ however readers from the US will recognize it. A quick search tells me it is sought after by parents outside of the US. A fairly recent report told us NZ baby foods contain 800x more pesticides than those in Europe. Good reason to do some online research before buying. I emphasize online because it tends nowadays to be not 100% reliable to simply ask the companies. Remember the Ribena fiasco? Two fourteen year old High school students discovered in a classroom experiment, the manufacturers, GlaxoSmithKlein had been lying about the Vitamin C content. If you’ve read the information on my website with regard to how corporations operate (see the movie The Corporation on the Corporations page) you will know they are frequently caught lying. Their bottom line is profits not people…

View original post 93 more words

U.S. Government Planned To “Retaliate & Cause Pain” On Countries Refusing GMOs – Wikileaks

From 

By

(Collective-Evolution) “Studies that link Genetically Modified (GM) food to multiple human health ailments are not the only thing that has millions of people questioning the production of GM food. There is fact that previously classified secret government documents exist which show how the Bush administration developed ways to retaliate against countries that were refusing to use GM seeds, for example. If information about our food needs to be concealed from the public domain, then something has gone seriously wrong with the food industry. It’s great to have an organization like WikiLeaks shed some light into the world that’s been hidden from us for so many years…”

Targeting Certain Countries

“The cables reveal that the State Department was lobbying all over the world for Monsanto and other major biotech corporations. They reveal that American diplomats requested funding to send lobbyists for the biotech industry to meet with politicians and agricultural officials in “target countries.” These included countries in Africa, Latin America, and Europe…”

“This is just one example that clearly shows how giant corporations pretty much dictate government policy. These food corporations are responsible for forcing independent agriculturists to go out of business. They control the world’s seed supply, forcing farmers to become dependent on their seed. Monsanto and corporations like it have created patented GMO seeds and are preventing farmers from seed saving and sharing, resulting in a dependence on their genetically modified product…”

– See more at: http://realitieswatch.com/wikileaks-cables-reveal-u-s-government-planned-to-retaliate-cause-pain-on-countries-refusing-gmos/#sthash.gZzC0NGt.dpuf


Comment:

See our Corporations page for more on how corporations operate. Watch ‘The Corporation’, on that page, for the finer detail of their workings. You’ll be surprized at the far reach of their persuasion & the lengths they go to to maintain control. This is why we need to oppose the TPPA (protest coming up on 14th November). Corporations are about profits and they will guard those to the death almost. They use well paid lawyers in their large armoury of tactics. GMOs are being resisted world wide now that more of the truth is out. Research GMOs for yourself if you’re not up to speed with them. Much of our food, particularly soy and corn is already GM, and it isn’t labeled. It has never been proven safe and there is much data now to cause you to want to refrain.

EnvirowatchRangitikei

Pediatricians Target GMO Farms as Cause of Increased Birth Defects

waimea-canyon-385123_1280
Waimea Canyon, Hawaii

“Birth defects are on the rise in Hawaii, leaving many to wonder if pesticides are to blame – including some pediatricians who are witnessing a spike in birth defects in babies.

In the town of Waimea, pediatrician Carla Nelson has seen at least 9 severe heart malformations in babies in the last five years, 10 times more than the national average. For the past three years, Nelson and other local doctors have found themselves at the center of a controversy over whether a cash crop of GM corn modified to withstand pesticides on four of the six main islands is the cause of an economic boom, or the source of the birth defects and illnesses. [1]…”

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/pediatricians-target-gmo-farms-as-cause-of-increased-birth-defects/#ixzz3lUSjkZgY
Follow Natural Society: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook


Read the research and follow the links here to see that indeed the industry knew about the risk of birth defects decades ago and failed to inform the public.

EnvirowatchRangitikei

Latvia, Greece win opt-out from Monsanto GM crop

By Barbara Lewis

BRUSSELS (Reuters) – Monsanto said it would abide by Latvia’s and Greece’s requests under a new EU opt-out law to be excluded from its application to grow a genetically modified (GM) crop across the European Union, but accused them of ignoring science.

Under a law signed in March individual countries can seek exclusion from any approval request for GM cultivation across the EU. While the European Commission is responsible for approvals, requests to be excluded also have to be submitted …. read more