Tag Archives: GM

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

It’s believed CV vaccines may contain genetically engineered prions that could cause brain damage that may in turn lead to death

Information from the seemorerocks blogspot:

Excerpt: “The first covid-19 vaccine victim to have suffered brain damage has been reported in India a few months after being vaccinated, which is why test subjects are observed for only one or two months by vaccine producers and regulatory agencies.”

READ MORE

https://robinwestenra.blogspot.com/2020/12/important-information-on-vaccines-that.html?fbclid=IwAR0BSAmFG-TBggPCpQjhewojrB-E49Nua3IeDbWQK3nkYTttEhY4pXhZsiQ

Image by HeungSoon from Pixabay

Glyphosate Herbicides Now Banned or Restricted in 18 Countries Worldwide – Sustainable Pulse Research

Following the recent bans on the use of glyphosate-based herbicides by cities and institutions in the U.S., including Key West, Los Angeles, the University of California and Miami, Sustainable Pulse decided to research which countries around the world have banned or restricted the use of the world’s most used herbicide.

This research has led to the discovery that there is a growing swell of government level support worldwide for bans on glyphosate-based herbicides for both health and environmental reasons.

17 countries have now banned or restricted the use of this carcinogenic herbicide.

Previous research by Sustainable Pulse on the number of countries that have banned GM Crops has reached millions of people and we look forward to our latest research reaching an even wider audience. Sustainable Pulse welcomes additions or edits to the list below from readers and experts from around the Globe.

Africa:

Malawi: Malawi’s Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development announced the suspension of import permits for glyphosate in April 2019.

Asia:

Vietnam: Vietnam announced that it banned the import of all glyphosate-based herbicides with in March 2019 following a cancer trial verdict from San Francisco

Sri Lanka: In 2015 a full import ban on all glyphosate-based herbicides was put in place by the then newly elected President Maithripala Sirisena. This ban was partly lifted in July 2018 but only for use on tea and rubber plantations.

READ MORE

https://sustainablepulse.com/2019/05/28/glyphosate-herbicides-now-banned-or-restricted-in-17-countries-worldwide-sustainable-pulse-research/#.XXsuGejVKdE

4 Sugar Alternatives That Won’t Poison You


You may think that staying slim and eating healthfully means NO sweets, but guess what? There are natural and delicious sweeteners that won’t wreck your diet, and even have therapeutic ‘side benefits.’

No arena of health and wellness is more debatable than what we should be eating. Looking back through time, the foods that constitute a healthy diet have changed so dramatically, you can literally mark the passage of time by the coming and going of dietary fads.

  • Weight-loss clubs and diet pill popping in the 1970s
  • Cabbage soup and liquid diets in the ‘80s
  • The Zone and blood-type diets (along with lawsuits related to diet pills!) in the ‘90s
  • In the aughts, Atkins and gluten-free
  • In the 2010’s, it’s Paleo, raw, and local

Despite this obsessive focus on what to eat, Americans are fatter and in many ways, unhealthier than ever before[1]. In 2016, two-thirds of the adult population were considered overweight or obese, according to a U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services study[2]. This health epidemic spans ethnic and cultural boundaries, and is affecting more adults and children every year.

One factor that is contributing to America’s growing problem with weight is our obsession with sugar. You probably don’t need to see the results of a clinical study to believe that the more sugary calories you consume, the greater your risks of obesity[3]. What you may not know, is that what passes for sugar these days is actually a hyper-sweetened extract of one of the cheapest, most heavily-sprayed, GMO-pervasive crops on the planet.

READ MORE

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/4-sugar-alternatives-wont-poison-you?

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/

Big Ag GAG: 29 states quietly pass “preemptive seed laws” that prevent debate and local government autonomy over genetically engineered crops – another attack on democratic debate

Another attack on free speech and democratic debate says Mike Adams, NaturalNews. This is serious folks. We have GE spuds approved here now (the growing of) and how much did we hear about that pre approval? This may not be NZ but be assured the creep is world wide. These folk aim to control the whole food supply & they’re well on target.
EnvirowatchRangitikei

(Natural News) Big Ag has found a way to make genetically modified seeds permanent, by quietly writing in “preemptive seed laws” at the state level. In twenty-nine states, men and women at the local level will no longer be able to discuss, debate, or propose laws on the use of genetically modified seeds. The people will not have any voice in their individual cities and municipalities to protect their fields, crops, property, and water from biotech experimentation.

Corporations that genetically modify seeds have infiltrated the state legislatures to further secure their monopoly and prevent scientific scrutiny of their seed experimentation. By passing “seed preemption laws” they can bar public discourse on seed laws at the local level. This is a new attack on free speech and democratic debate. The corporate interests in the agriculture sector want to shut people up who desire natural, unmodified foods. These same corporate interests have been successful in the past with “ag-gag” laws that bar anyone from photographing the abuses of factory farms. Whistleblowers and journalists who tried to document unsanitary and inhuman animal feeding operations have had the law turned against them. In much the same way, these new “seed preemption laws” turn the law against the voices of the common man and woman working locally for change.

Oregon, California, Texas, Montana and Iowa are just a few of the states that have fallen prey to these new laws. These laws are “designed to block counties and cities from adopting their own rules on the use of seeds, including bans on GMOs” In many parts of the country, decisions on seed use are left up to individual counties, cities, and municipalities. Now, Big Ag is finding ways to snuff out the people’s voices in the matter.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-11-17-29-states-quietly-pass-preemptive-seed-laws.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monsanto’s New Illegal Poison Kills Neighbors’ Crops — EPA Does Nothing

Predictably Monsanto would have way more up their sleeves than the average gardener or farmer will even know about. Glyphosate is in most supermaket sold herbicides, along with the favourite, Roundup which is the one that gets the most lime light. It is very popular as it is and always was advertised as perfectly harmless. Hence the tertiary agricultural text books in NZ promote it to spray whole fields with. Just bear in mind the product was initially tested by its own manufacturer, Monsanto, when approved. Say no more.

Check out our Glyphosate  and Chemicals pages for further info on that product, then educate yourself on their latest new poison.  

EnvirowatchRangitikei


agriculture-89168_1280.jpg

By Daisy Luther  at naturalblaze.com

Now that glyphosate has been denounced by the World Health Organization, there’s a new spray in town from our friendly neighborhood purveyor of poison, Monsanto. It hasn’t yet been approved, but given the history of blatant collusion between Monsanto and the government, there’s little doubt that it will be.

But there’s a bit of a catch: even though dicamba, the newest toxic ingredient in the Monsanto line-up, hasn’t actually been approved for this use by the EPA, it is already being widely used on genetically modified crops … and the illegal spray is killing the crops of neighboring farmers.

The Environmental Working Group reports:

Farmers in 10 states have now complained that dicamba is hurting their crops, according to a notice issued last week by the Environmental Protection Agency. The reported damage from dicamba has spread from two to 10 states in a matter of weeks, and now includes Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

The EPA has done very little in response to the complaints, and some states are beginning to take matters into their own hands to protect their farmers and prevent further crop loss…

Dicamba easily drifts in the air after it’s sprayed, and damages crops when it lands on neighboring fields. More than 100 Missouri farmers have reported damage to their peaches, tomatoes, cantaloupes, watermelons, rice, cotton, peas, peanuts, alfalfa and soybeans.

 

READ MORE:

http://www.naturalblaze.com/2016/08/monsanto-new-illegal-poison-kills-neighbors-crops-epa-does-nothing.html

Thanks To GMOs, We Are Consuming Highly Toxic Pesticides EVERY SINGLE DAY

SOURCE: We Are Anonymous

More than 90% of all soybean, cotton and corn acreage in the United States is used to grow genetically modified crops. Other popular and FDA approved genetically modified food crops include sugar beets, alfalfa, canola, papaya, summer squash, apples that don’t brown and bruise-free potatoes.

However, if you have been led to believe that genetically modified foods were one of the main reasons why the world was enjoying food with less pesticide residues, you are being misled – the fact is, GMOs replaced one class of harmful pesticides with something more poisonous – neonicotinoids, dicamba, 2,4-D, DDT, glyphosate and its family of products including Round Up – and therefore ended up doing more harm than good.

READ MORE: http://anonhq.com/thanks-gmos-americans-consuming-highly-toxic-pesticides-every-single-day/

COMMENT:
Lest you are thinking Kiwis, “we’re not affected by this over here”,  as Kiwis who read the mainstream media often do, think again. Our stock is fed GE food (report the Greens) so it’s in our meat. Our pastures are also sprayed liberally with glyphosate (which our stock eats) and we had trial GE corn grow here in ’99 left to harvest with a raised threshold on GE’s acceptable levels, many thanks to Helen Clarke (all kept from the public at the time). It’s coming by increments. And it’s not labeled of course and since much of the corn and soy products found in so much packaged food now (that companies decline to declare the origins of) a very high percentage of that is GM. Search other GMO articles here under categories and check out the Glyphosate pages.

EnvirowatchRangitikei

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

World Health Organization Only Requires 90 Days ‘Safety Testing’ on GMOS – Not Long Enough for Tumours to Show

It is well documented what GMOs do to the human body (see videos in this article) let alone the animals. (Liver disease is one effect). However, here we see how Monsanto (and WHO) manage to hoodwink the public by ensuring the testing period required is not long enough for any health effects to emerge … yet. As Prof Seralini discovered in his two year long research with lab rats.  As to the animals, here in NZ our stock (who knows how much) is being fed GE feed. Two producers I’ve contacted here in NZ who are particularly more humane in their animal treatment couldn’t rule out some of the cheaper feed they acquire (making their businesses economically viable) ‘may’ contain GMOs given they are soy products. So … if they admit they possibly are feeding their stock GE food, then what of the larger factory farmed livestock where cost cutting is a primary objective? You can bet your bottom dollar they will be munching on GE feed. The Green Party has drawn this to the public’s attention numerous times.

An excerpt from the Natural Society’s article:

By Christina Sarich

“The WHO could have picked any arbitrary number of months to ensure that GMOs were safe, and make sure that the public wasn’t dining on food that would cause serious damage to their intestines, their livers, their reproductive organs, and their brains. But I suppose just THREE months will do just fine when experimenting with the global food supply and global population.”

Read more about the GMO/Glyphosate connection at our website:https://envirowatchrangitikei.wordpress.com/glyphosate/
Sign our Petition to Restrict the Use of Glyphosate in Rangitikei’s Urban Public Spaces: https://envirowatchrangitikei.wordpress.com/petition-2/

Keep your heirloom seeds … they’re gold … Monsanto is buying up the heirloom companies

Keep your heirloom seed… Monsanto, creator of carcinogenic glyphosate/roundup that kiwis love, (also, DDT, Agent Orange & Aspartame) are about controlling the food supply.

Kissinger: “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”

pig-139712__180

GE feed is already being fed to some of our farm animals … it is unlabeled as GE so farmers can give no guarantee it’s not

They’ve been doing it by increments for decades. Once they own all the seed companies, you will have no other option than buying their genetically modified seed which we already know is dangerous to health. GE feed is already fed to some of our NZ animals … so it is in our food… be aware and treasure your organic/heirloom seed like gold.

Some history here … in the late 1980s a bill was passed in NZ (now world-wide) called Plant Variety Rights (PVR) or Plant Breeders’ Rights (PBR). This allowed companies to emasculate seeds, removing their ability to reproduce by removing the reproductive organs. This meant of course that you couldn’t save seed from the resultant plants and would be forced to return to the store and buy another packet of seeds next season. Now pumpkin-233851_1280what good could transpire from such an arrangement except profits for the …. yes …. the corporation?  Corporations are about profits not the well being of populations. They are not averse to suing poor farmers for saving seed, something they’ve done for thousands of years. How helpful is that for struggling farmers from struggling nations? Already in poorer nations the promise by Monsanto of greater yields with their emasculated seed (aka genetically modified) have fallen flat and these farmers find themselves in very great debt instead, many committing suicide. 

Just ten companies own 67% of the world’s proprietary seed market, and of that, Monsanto owns 23% and DuPont 15%. Need I say more? Do take the time to research this topic for yourself. You can read the full article on Monsanto at permaculture.co.uk:

” … Monsanto is buying heirloom seed companies. They are also buying the trademarks to a number of heirloom seeds. This means that you may think you are supporting an heirloom seed company but in reality the company is owned by Monsanto… “

 http://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/monsanto-buys-heirloom-seed-suppliers



Use categories for further related articles (at left of any page). 

Please also consider liking our FB page &/or following our blog (right of any page) and do spread the word on all the untruths we have been told! Use the share buttons! 

Thank you!

 

EnvirowatchRangitikei

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

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, health or safety …. a sad reality. Nevertheless the tools are there for us to find out for ourselves. Better still, if you can, grow or buy your own fresh organic food for baby, that is by far the best. You will then know what it contains. Do your homework and protect your precious little ones.

The article is from Natural Society’s website:

 “What kind of person, even as the head of a major food retailer, would want to feed developing children pesticides and questionable genetically modified ingredients?…..”  Read the article HERE

“GM-Free” Domino’s Caught Selling GMO-Laden Pizzas

From NaturalSociety … all too common now, the lying of corporations to sell their wares. So here Dominoes has been caught LYING. People are waking up to their wiles. A good expose of corporations that explains all is the doco ‘The Corporation’. This will clearly set out for you how and why corporations tell bare faced lies. They have no conscience for one but analytically, it goes deeper. To guard your good health you must research the facts. No longer can we rely on these behemoths to be truthful, and neither can we rely on the mainstream media to report the truth either. The thing with the GM developments, and particularly with GM crops that tolerate lashings of glyphosate, WHO has recently announced glyphosate probably causes cancer (which we did already know from mountains of other research including France’s Professor Seralini’s findings) however it is convenient for governments world wide (aside from some) to ignore the facts. For further information on all of the above visit the Corporations page and the Glyphosate page on this site.

Read the NaturalSociety article HERE