Filed under: agriculture, Bio Weapons, corruption, depopulation, Dictatorship, EPA, Eugenics, Fascism, fda, food safety, genetic engineering, genetically modified, GM corn, gm crops, gm food, GM foods, health and environment, Human Experiments, malthusian, malthusian catastrophe, Monsanto, Population Control, scandal, softkill, toxic earth, toxic environment, toxicity | Tags: GM corn, gm soy, kidney failure, liver damage, liver health
GM Food Causes Liver and Kidney Damage
Disturbing Fact: 75% of processed foods that Americans eat have genetically modified ingredients
Daily Mail
January 21, 2010
Fresh fears were raised over GM crops yesterday after a study showed they can cause liver and kidney damage.
According to the research, animals fed on three strains of genetically modified maize created by the U.S. biotech firm Monsanto suffered signs of organ damage after just three months.
The findings only came to light after Monsanto was forced to publish its raw data on safety tests by anti-GM campaigners.
They add to the evidence that GM crops may damage health as well as be harmful to the environment.
The figures released by Monsanto were examined by French researcher Dr Gilles-Eric Seralini, from the University of Caen.
Yesterday he called for more studies to check for long-term organ damage.
‘What we’ve shown is clearly not proof of toxicity, but signs of toxicity,’ he told New Scientist magazine. ‘I’m sure there’s no acute toxicity but who’s to say there are no chronic effects?’
The experiments were carried out by Monsanto researchers on three strains of GM maize. Two of the varieties contained genes for the Bt protein which protects the plant against the corn borer pest, while a third was genetically modified to be resistant to the weedkiller glyphosate. All three strains are widely grown in America, while one is the only GM crop grown in Europe, mostly in Spain.
Monsanto only released the raw data after a legal challenge from Greenpeace, the Swedish Board of Agriculture and French anti- GM campaigners.
Dr Seralini concluded that rats which ate the GM maize had ‘ statistically significant’ signs of liver and kidney damage. Each strain was linked to unusual concentrations of hormones in the blood and urine of rats fed the maize for three months, compared to rats given a non-GM diet.
The higher hormone levels suggest that animals’ livers and kidneys are not working properly.
Female rats fed one of the strains also had higher blood sugar levels and raised levels of fatty substances caused triglycerides, Dr Seralini reported in the International Journal of Microbiology.
The analysis concluded: ‘These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown.’
Monsanto claimed the analysis of its data was ‘based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning, and does not call into question the safety findings for these products’.
Filed under: agriculture, Bio Weapons, depopulation, Dictatorship, DNA, EPA, Eugenics, Fascism, fda, food safety, genetic engineering, genetically modified, GM, GM corn, gm food, GM foods, health and environment, Human Experiments, malthusian, malthusian catastrophe, Monsanto, New World Order, NWO, Oppression, softkill
Is Monsanto’s Corn Destroying Your Internal Organs?
Sustainable Food
January 8, 2010
Yes, this is another story about Monsanto, the controversy-prone American agricultural giant that, according to Greenpeace, sells 90 percent of the world’s genetically modified seeds.
The company’s dominance is such that even the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating it for possible antitrust practices.
But the government has been a willing partner in marketing GMO crops, repeatedly refusing to require GMO foods to be labeled (as the E.U. does) and signing off on their alleged safety.
Funny thing about that: There’s hardly any research to back it up: The government hasn’t funded it and independent researchers can’t get a hold of the — patented — seeds.
What studies there are don’t look good. One Australian report suggests the GMO corn made by Monsanto causes significant fertility problems in mice (and, by implication, possibly humans).
And a new study — which had to resort to analyzing data sets produced by studies conducted by Monsanto and another biotech firm, Covance Laboratories, and submitted to European governments because researchers couldn’t get seeds — has found that Monsanto corn impairs rats’ kidneys and livers. The “data strongly suggests” that after just 90 days of eating GM corn, rats experienced kidney toxicity and showed effects to their hearts, adrenal glands, spleen and blood cells. (The study was published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences.)
The authors explain that their analysis of the data differed from Monsanto’s because the company overlooked different reactions in male and female rats. The ag giant continues to maintain that its GMO corn is safe.
So what happens to humans who eat GM corn products as well as animals who’ve been fed GM corn? That’s a darn good question, and one the U.S. government ought to have an answer to before waving these products into the food supply. (And if you think that just because humans and livestock aren’t dropping dead on the spot GMOs must be fine, read this very sane analysis.)
Take action and Get the FDA to Suspend Approval for Monsanto’s GMO corn.
Filed under: agriculture, animal cruelty, ben bernanke, Bio Weapons, depopulation, Dictatorship, DNA, EPA, Eugenics, Fascism, fda, food safety, genetic engineering, genetically modified, GM, GM corn, gm food, GM foods, health and environment, Holocaust, Human Experiments, malthusian catastrophe, Monsanto, New World Order, NWO, Oppression, softkill | Tags: health alert, spider goat
Monsanto named “Company of the Year” by Forbes Magazine
NoWorldSystem
January 7, 2010
Monsanto is named “2009 Company of the Year” by Forbes Magazine. This is just another slap in the face on the American people, just as devaluer-in-chief Ben Bernanke was nominated “Man of The Year” by Times Magazine, it’s completely absurd.
Filed under: AGW, arsenic, biochemical warfare, biochemicals, biological warfare, cancer, cap-and-trade, carbon dioxide, Carbon Tax, Chemical Warfare, climate change, Co2, copenhagen, Copenhagen treaty, corruption, deception, depopulation, desalination, Dictatorship, drinking water, Empire, environmental taxation, EPA, Eugenics, Fascism, federal crimes, fluoride, food safety, fruedian catastrophe, genetically modified, global tax, Global Warming, global warming hoax, gm food, health and environment, hypocrisy, man made global warming, medical industrial complex, Mercury, methanphetamines, Nazi, Population Control, radiation, radium, radon, scandal, softkill, tap water, toxic waste, toxicity, Uncategorized, uranium, water safety, White House | Tags: contaminated environment, estrogen, health risks, hyperthyroidism, kidney failure, lowering IQ, perchlorate, prozac, public health, rocket fuel, thyroid disease, thyroid function, thyroid gland, toxic environment
EPA HYPOCRISY
EPA: CO2 is a deadly gas, but uranium, mercury, arsenic, rocket-fuel and drugs in drinking water is perfectly safe.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
December 8, 2009
While the EPA declares the gas that we exhale to be a deadly poison, as protesters at Copenhagen decry the suffering of polar bears as their population figures increase to record levels, and as delegates in the Danish capital warn of the dastardly peril of cows farting, a New York Times report confirming that U.S. drinking water contains dangerous levels of arsenic, uranium and other radioactive substances barely gets noticed.
Furthermore, the new study shows that the Environmental Protection Agency knew that water systems all over the United States were contaminated with dangerous levels of numerous toxic substances, yet failed to punish the vast majority of water authorities involved.
Since the environmental movement was completely hijacked by globalists hell bent on world government and devastating carbon taxes, real environmental problems have been swept aside as the contrived scam of man-made global warming swallows up all the attention.
Our drinking water is contaminated with toxic waste, our food supply is poisoned by genetically modified garbage, and our consumer products are laced with cancer-causing chemicals, but who cares right? Surely all this pales in comparison to the effort to stop the world warming by a percentage of a degree over the next 100 years?
- More than 20 percent of the nation’s water treatment systems have violated key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act over the last five years, according to a New York Times analysis of federal data.
That law requires communities to deliver safe tap water to local residents. But since 2004, the water provided to more than 49 million people has contained illegal concentrations of chemicals like arsenic or radioactive substances like uranium, as well as dangerous bacteria often found in sewage.
But unlike the mammoth threat posed by the life-giving gas carbon dioxide, which the EPA yesterday classified as a health threat to the same humans that exhale it, the Environmental Protection Agency is noticeably less concerned about the fact that our water is filled with contaminants that are “linked to millions of instances of illness within the United States each year.”
Indeed, records show that fewer than 6 percent of the water systems that broke the law were ever punished or fined by the EPA.
“In some instances, drinking water violations were one-time events, and probably posed little risk. But for hundreds of other systems, illegal contamination persisted for years, records show,” according to the article.
The Senate Environment and Public Works committee will question a high-ranking E.P.A. official about why they allowed water companies to continue such contamination without punishment at a hearing today.
According to the study, not only were water systems contaminated with radioactive substances like uranium as well as arsenic, but they were also found to contain cancer-causing solvents and illegal amounts of bacteria.
“The amount of radium detected in drinking water was 2,000 percent higher than the legal limit,” adds the report. Radium is described as “extremely radioactive” and has a half-life of 1602 years. People exposed to radium suffer serious health effects including sores, anemia and bone cancer. The use of radium in paints as late as the 1950’s was eventually halted after many deaths were attributed to exposure to the chemical.
True to form, the NY Times chooses to characterize water which contains deadly radioactive chemicals as “dirty” in its headline!
Millions in U.S. Drink Dirty Water, Records Show – oh its just a bit of dirt you know! Cancer-causing radioactive toxins and poisonous arsenic – its just a little dirty!
“The problem, say current and former government officials, is that enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act has not been a federal priority,” reports the Times, adding that current and former EPA officials who attempted to make the agency enforce the drinking water law were targeted.
“I proposed drinking water cases, but they got shut down so fast that I’ve pretty much stopped even looking at the violations,” said one longtime E.P.A. enforcement official who, like others, requested anonymity for fear of reprisals. “The top people want big headlines and million-dollar settlements. That’s not drinking-water cases.”
So there you have it – according to the EPA – breathing is a threat to human health – but drinking water laced with arsenic, cancerous carcinogens, and radioactive chemicals is perfectly nutritious!
So pour a fresh glass of toxic tap water, drink up and say cheers to the fact that the government really cares about our health and the real environmental issues – before you drop dead.
Court strikes down EPA’s plan on mercury
EPA: American lives less valuable
Filed under: Animal Abuse, animal cruelty, Bio Weapons, bovine growth hormone, cancer, depopulation, Dictatorship, Empire, Eugenics, fda, food market, food safety, genetic engineering, genetically engineered, genetically engineered food, genetically modified, Genocide, GM, gm food, GM foods, GMO, GMOs, health and environment, Human Experiments, malthusian catastrophe, Monsanto, rBST, soft kill, toxicity, Uncategorized | Tags: (IGF-1, Cancer Prevention Coalition, CPC, homogenization, milk, pasteurization
Genetically engineered hormones used by dairy industry promote cancer
E. Huff
Natural News
November 17, 2009
An industry report claiming that the genetically-engineered hormone Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST) is safe has received criticism from the Cancer Prevention Coalition (CPC) for its dubious findings. Funded by producers of rBST, the report was conducted entirely by industry-paid consultants rather than by independent, credible scientists, indicating it is fallacious.
Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, chairman of the CPC, lambasted the report for failing to recognize the grave, scientifically-proven dangers imposed by rBST. Author of the 2006 book What’s In Your Milk?, Dr. Epstein stated the report was “blatantly false”.
One of the primary effects of rBST on cows is that is causes them to become seriously ill with various diseases including mastitis, an infection of the udder that ultimately contaminates milk with pus. Commonly branded as Posilac, rBST unnaturally increases milk production at the expense of the cow’s health, the repercussions of which are passed on to the consumer.
Monsanto, the original creator of rBST, was forced to reveal the truth that rBST induces roughly 20 toxic effects, all of which end up tainting the milk with disease. When farmers then treat these illnesses with antibiotics, those too end up in the milk that is eventually drunk by unsuspecting consumers.
Got milk hormones?
Research has also revealed that rBST-treated milk is both chemically and nutritionally different than natural milk and that traces of the hormone end up in the milk. Those who drink rBST-tainted milk readily absorb the hormone in their digestive tract which is then assimilated into the blood.
Milk from rBST-treated cows contains unnaturally high levels of natural growth factor (IGF-1) which inhibits the body’s natural defense mechanisms designed to fend off cancer. Well-documented scientific studies have implicated the hormone in precipitating prostate, breast, and colon cancer.
CPC has been working for decades to eliminate rBST from the milk supply. In 1990, the group issued a warning in conjunction with over 40 other organizations about the dangers of rBST. The warning fell upon deaf ears at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which continued to accept the flawed notion that rBST was safe in spite of its proven dangers.
In 2007, CPC sent a petition to the FDA entitled “Seeking Withdrawal of the New Animal Drug application for rBST”, which was endorsed by several farmer and consumer protection groups. Citing Congressional concerns about the hormone that date back to the 1980s, as well as countless studies illustrating the toxicity of rBST, these groups labored to reform the FDA’s flawed position. Unfortunately, the FDA ignored the facts and continues to keep the interests of industry as its priority at the expense of consumer protection.
Dr. Epstein’s recommendation, especially for children who are most susceptible to cancer-causing additives like rBST, is to choose organic milk if they are going to drink milk at all. Organic milk is not allowed to contain rBST or any artificial hormones and is the best alternative to conventional milk that may be tainted with rBST.
Organic, raw milk is the most preferable option as it is a whole, living food rich in beneficial enzymes, probiotics, and other nutrients that get destroyed during pasteurization and homogenization. Many believe raw milk is a perfect food rich in essential vitamins and high in protein.
Filed under: agriculture, animal cruelty, Bio Weapons, cancer, David Rockefeller, depopulation, Dictatorship, DNA, Empire, EPA, Eugenics, Eugenics Society, Fascism, fda, food market, food safety, genetic engineering, genetically engineered, genetically engineered food, genetically modified, genetics, Genocide, GM, GM corn, gm food, GM foods, GMO, GMOs, health and environment, Holocaust, Human Experiments, malthusian catastrophe, Monsanto, New World Order, NWO, Oppression, Population Control, rockefeller, Science and technology, soft kill, super weapons, syngenta, toxicity, White House | Tags: Michael Taylor, spider goat
GMO foods are changing the DNA of humans
Filed under: agriculture, food crisis, food market, food shortage, genetically modified, Genocide, GM, gm crops, gm food, health and environment, Holocaust, India, Prince Charles
The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops
Daily Mail
November 3, 2008
When Prince Charles claimed thousands of Indian farmers were killing themselves after using GM crops, he was branded a scaremonger. In fact, as this chilling dispatch reveals, it’s even WORSE than he feared.
The children were inconsolable. Mute with shock and fighting back tears, they huddled beside their mother as friends and neighbours prepared their father’s body for cremation on a blazing bonfire built on the cracked, barren fields near their home.
As flames consumed the corpse, Ganjanan, 12, and Kalpana, 14, faced a grim future. While Shankara Mandaukar had hoped his son and daughter would have a better life under India’s economic boom, they now face working as slave labour for a few pence a day. Landless and homeless, they will be the lowest of the low.
Shankara, respected farmer, loving husband and father, had taken his own life. Less than 24 hours earlier, facing the loss of his land due to debt, he drank a cupful of chemical insecticide.
Unable to pay back the equivalent of two years’ earnings, he was in despair. He could see no way out.
There were still marks in the dust where he had writhed in agony. Other villagers looked on – they knew from experience that any intervention was pointless – as he lay doubled up on the ground, crying out in pain and vomiting.
Moaning, he crawled on to a bench outside his simple home 100 miles from Nagpur in central India. An hour later, he stopped making any noise. Then he stopped breathing. At 5pm on Sunday, the life of Shankara Mandaukar came to an end.
As neighbours gathered to pray outside the family home, Nirmala Mandaukar, 50, told how she rushed back from the fields to find her husband dead. ’He was a loving and caring man,’ she said, weeping quietly.
’But he couldn’t take any more. The mental anguish was too much. We have lost everything.’
Shankara’s crop had failed – twice. Of course, famine and pestilence are part of India’s ancient story.
But the death of this respected farmer has been blamed on something far more modern and sinister: genetically modified crops.
Shankara, like millions of other Indian farmers, had been promised previously unheard of harvests and income if he switched from farming with traditional seeds to planting GM seeds instead.
Beguiled by the promise of future riches, he borrowed money in order to buy the GM seeds. But when the harvests failed, he was left with spiralling debts – and no income.
So Shankara became one of an estimated 125,000 farmers to take their own life as a result of the ruthless drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops.
The crisis, branded the ’GM Genocide’ by campaigners, was highlighted recently when Prince Charles claimed that the issue of GM had become a ’global moral question’ – and the time had come to end its unstoppable march.
Filed under: 2008 olympics, agriculture, asia, beijing, China, EPA, Eugenics, fda, federal crime, genetically modified, Genocide, Globalism, GM, gm crops, gm food, health and environment, Human Experiments, malthusian catastrophe, melamine, Monsanto, olympics, Population Control, USDA | Tags: cyromazine, dangerous candy, deadly candy, halloween, halloween candy, herbicide glyphosate, hersheys, infant deaths, infanticide, John Schorr, kelloggs, kidneys, lactose powder, M&Ms, made in china, mars, milk, non-fat milk powder, pet food, powdered milk, roundup, roundup ready, sugar, sugar beet, sugar beets, target, trick or treating, u.s. food safety, u.s. food supply, wheat gluten, whole milk powder
Halloween Candy With Melamine on U.S. Store Shelves?
This Halloween, Say No To Candy Containing GM Sugar
Joanne Waldron
NaturalNews
October 27, 2008
Parents in Brazil are refusing to feed their children products made using genetically-modified sugar, according to an article at Food & Water Watch. Halloween is just around the corner, and unbeknownst to many American parents, foods like Kellogg’s cereal and Hershey’s chocolate may be made with sugar from genetically-modified sugar beets, warns Kisha Lewellyn Schlegel in a report at NewWest.net. There are many reasons that parents of American children need to be concerned.
Why Would They Use GM Sugar Beets?
Not surprisingly, it’s all about the money. These sugar beets have been genetically altered so that they can withstand regular applications of a weed killer made by Monsanto known as RoundUp. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently increased the allowable residue of the active ingredient of the weed killer (known as glyphosate) on beetroots by a whopping 5000%. Those scientists at the EPA are really doing their jobs protecting everyone, eh?
What’s The Trouble With Glyphosate?
So, what’s the trouble with the weed killer residue? Probably the biggest issue is that there have been studies linking glyphosate exposure to cancer and other health problems. Of course, there is also the Network of Concerned Farmers, a group of farmers who believe that glyphosate can create “super weeds” that are resistant to herbicides. Then, of course, there is a concern that these frankenfood crops may be responsible for the gene pollution of other crops and plants.
Monsanto Hires a Team of Lobbyists – Parents Must Take Action!
While the sugar industry is trying to keep their use of genetically-modified sugar beets quiet, Monsanto has hired a whole team of lobbyists to work on their behalf. This is why it is very important for concerned parents to make their views known before it is too late! Contact Nancy Pelosi at AmericanVoices@house.gov, and tell her that laws are needed to protect consumers from genetically-modified sugar beets. It is also important to send faxes to lawmakers. One can (at the time of this writing) send two free faxes per day at FaxZero.com right from any computer with an Internet connection (see terms and conditions at the site). Consumers should never have to worry about getting cancer from eating a piece of Halloween candy. (Even if parents are strict about what their children eat at home, it’s hard to police what they might be given at at class parties at school.) Why not send a free fax to two different lawmakers every single day? If enough people complain, lawmakers will have to listen. E-mail or fax this article to lawmakers today.
Don’t Support Child Slave Labor
Unfortunately, there is another reason to be concerned about the candy one purchases. According to an article by Dr. Edward Group, two of the companies that rule the chocolate industry (M&M/Mars and Hershey’s) purchase much of their cocoa from the Ivory Coast. Unfortunately, Ivory Coast cocoa farms use child slave labor to work their farms. Parents must consider whether they really want their children indulging in sweets made at the expense of other children.
Dr. Group: Put Your Money Where Your Health Is
Dr. Group believes parents can make their voices heard by voting with their dollars, by purchasing only organic chocolate and candy products. Dr Group asks parents to ask themselves if they would buy a chocolate bar if the label on the product said: “Consuming this candy bar may cause cancer – contains sugar from genetically engineered beets, cocoa harvested by child slaves, and harmful pesticides and fungicides.” Sounds much less appealing, doesn’t it?
Filed under: agriculture, EPA, genetically modified, GM, gm crops, gm food, health and environment, Human Experiments, idaho, minnesota, Monsanto, north dakota, Science and technology, USDA | Tags: halloween, herbicide glyphosate, hersheys, John Schorr, m&M, mars, roundup, roundup ready, sugar, sugar beet, sugar beets, u.s. food supply
Sugar now coming from genetically modified sugar beets
Mike Adams
NaturalNews
October 7, 2008
This year saw the first commercial planting of genetically modified (GM) sugar beets in the United States, with that sugar to hit the food supply soon after.
Farmers across the country will soon be planting Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beet, genetically engineered for resistance to Monsanto’s herbicide glyphosate (marketed as Roundup). John Schorr, agriculture manager for Amalgamated Sugar, estimates that 95 percent of the sugar beet crop in Idaho will be of the new GM variety in 2008, or a total of 150,000 out of 167,000 acres.
Approximately 1.4 million acres of sugar beets are planted in the United States each year, primarily in Minnesota and North Dakota’s Red River Valley, as well as the Pacific Northwest, Great Plains and Great Lakes areas.
In response to the anticipated flood of GM sugar onto the food market, the consumer group Citizens for Health has launched an email campaign to pressure three major sugar and candy companies to refuse the new product. In 2001, American Crystal Sugar, Hershey’s and M&M Mars all promised that they would not use GM sugar; Citizens for Health is asking consumers to email those companies from the group’s Web site and urge them to keep that promise.
“Since half of the granulated sugar in the U.S. comes from sugar beets, the infiltration of GE sugar beets represents a significant alteration of our food supply,” Citizens for Health says on its Web site. “Unlike traditional breeding, genetic engineering creates new life forms that would never occur in nature, creating new and unpredictable health and environmental risks.”
In 1999, candy companies’ refusal to purchase GM sugar scuttled Monsanto’s first attempt to introduce Roundup Ready sugar beets.
On another front, a coalition of farmer and environmental groups is seeking to block the planting of the GM beets through a federal lawsuit. The plaintiffs in the case – the Center for Food Safety, High Mowing Organic Seeds, the Organic Seed Alliance and the Sierra Club – are represented by lawyers from the Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice.
In 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) changed the classification of Roundup Ready sugar beets from regulated to deregulated, meaning that the GM beets could be planted without a special permit. But the lawsuit alleges that the USDA failed to properly conduct an environmental review into the impacts of this deregulation.
“The law requires the government to take a hard look at the impact that deregulating Roundup Ready sugar beets will have on human health, agriculture and the environment,” said Greg Loarie of Earthjustice. “The government cannot simply ignore the fact that deregulation will harm organic farmers and consumers, and exacerbate the growing epidemic of herbicide resistant weeds.”
Critics point out that Roundup Ready crops encourage increased chemical use, with dangerous effects on both human health and the environment. In addition to contaminating soil and water, pesticides leave potentially dangerous residue on food plants themselves.
Citizens for Health says that this is a particular concern in light of the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent compliance with a Monsanto request to increase the allowable levels of glyphosate residue on sugar beet roots by 5000 percent.
“Sugar is extracted from the beet’s root, and the result is more glyphosate pesticide in our sugar,” the group said.
Another concern is that such plants encourage the development of “superweeds” that are resistant to Roundup.
“Just as overuse of antibiotics eventually breeds drug resistant bacteria, overuse of Roundup eventually breeds Roundup-resistant weeds,” said Kevin Golden of the Center for Food Safety. “When that happens, farmers are forced to rely on even more toxic herbicides to control those weeds.”
USDA data reveals that in the 10 years after the 1994 introduction of Roundup Ready crops, herbicide use increased by 15 times. This has led to a concurrent increase in superweeds. While no cases of Roundup-resistant weeds were known in the U.S. corn belt in 2000, this year the roster of such weeds includes marestail, common and giant ragweed, waterhemp, Palmer pigweed, Cocklebur, lambsquarters, morning glory and velvetleaf.
Ninety-nine percent of U.S. superweeds are resistant to Roundup.
GM crops may also cross-breed with non-GM plants of the same or closely related species. The primary seed-growing region for sugar beets – the Willamette Valley of Oregon – is also a major seed-growing area for the closely related organic chard and table beets. Since all these species are wind pollinated, the chances of contamination are very high.
“Contamination from genetically modified pollen is a major risk to both the conventional and organic seed farmers, who have a long history in the Willamette Valley,” said Matthew Dillon, director of advocacy for the Organic Seed Alliance. “The economic impact of contamination affects not only these seed farmers, but the beet and chard farmers who rely on the genetic integrity of their varieties.”
Crops contaminated by cross-pollination with GM varieties can no longer be certified organic.
Since corn syrup is an even more widely used sweetener than sugar and the majority of corn grown in the United States is also Roundup Ready, food safety advocates note that nearly all sweetened food in the United States will soon be GM. Because U.S. law does not require labeling of GM ingredients, consumers of products from candy to breakfast cereal will soon be unknowingly exposed to engineered sugar, with unknown health consequences.
“As a consumer, I’m very concerned about genetically engineered sugar making its way into the products I eat,” Neil Carman of the Sierra Club said.
Filed under: agriculture, fda, genetically engineered, genetically modified, GM, gm crops, gm food, health and environment, Mad Cow, Monsanto, Science and technology | Tags: cloned, cloned animals, cloned beef, frankenfoods, genetically engineered eggs, genetically engineered meat, genetically engineered milk, genetically modified eggs, genetically modified meat, genetically modified milk, GM eggs, GM meat, GM milk, pig mouse, round-up ready, u.s. food supply
More “Frankenfoods” heading toward American dinner tables
Telegraph
September 18, 2008
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a proposed legal framework which is expected to open the market to meat and milk produced from modified animals, which detractors have already termed “Frankenfood”.
Such creatures, which could include new hen breeds capable of laying healthier eggs and cows that are immune to mad cow disease, have been developed already.
But producers have been discouraged from marketing their creations by the absence of clear rules governing such a controversial issue.
The government wants the guidelines to resolve questions such as as whether altered animals are safe for human consumption or whether they pose a risk to the environment.
“Genetic engineering of animals is here and has been here for some time,” said Larisa Rudenko, a science policy adviser with the FDA’s veterinary medicine centre.
“We intend to provide a rigorous, risk-based regulatory path for developers to follow to help ensure public health and the health of animals.”
Consumer groups welcomed plans to regulate the area but were alarmed by apparent gaps in the proposals.
They pointed out that the FDA does not, for example, plan to insist that all such meat, fish and poultry be labeled as genetically-engineered.
“They are talking about pigs that are going to have mouse genes in them, and this is not going to be labeled,” said Jean Halloran, director of food policy for Consumers Union. “We are close to speechless on this.”
The FDA has already ruled that cloned animals – which are not the same – are safe to eat.
The agency will continue to exempt genetically-altered animals that pose little risk, such as aquarium fish that were recently changed so they would glow in the dark.
Genetically-engineered animals, which are created by the insertion of a gene from one species of animal into the DNA of another, could fulfil a similar role in food production to GM plants.
Genetic engineering is already widely used in agriculture to produce higher-yielding or disease-resistant crops. However, all sides are aware that consumers may be rather more alarmed by the idea of eating GM meat.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.c..you-genetically-engineered-meat/
Monsanto’s Dangerous Herbicide Will Generate $1.8 Billion in Profits
http://v.mercola.com/b..rate–1-8-Billion-in-Profits-70015.aspx
Filed under: agriculture, Britain, Dissent, Europe, european union, genetically modified, global economy, GM, gm crops, gm food, health and environment, Human Experiments, Inflation, Monsanto, Police State, Prince Charles, Protest, United Kingdom | Tags: prince of wales
Prince Charles warns GM crops risk causing the biggest-ever environmental disaster
Telegraph
August 12, 2008
The mass development of genetically modified crops risks causing the world’s worst environmental disaster, The Prince of Wales has warned.
In his most outspoken intervention on the issue of GM food, the Prince said that multi-national companies were conducting an experiment with nature which had gone “seriously wrong”.
The Prince, in an exclusive interview with the Daily Telegraph, also expressed the fear that food would run out because of the damage being wreaked on the earth’s soil by scientists’ research.
He accused firms of conducting a “gigantic experiment I think with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong”.
Filed under: Australia, big pharma, Britain, defense department, Department of Defense, DoD, drinking water, Europe, european union, genetically modified, GM, gm food, health and environment, Japan, medical industrial complex, nanotech, nanotechnology, tap water, United Kingdom
Nanotech: Why Something So Small Can Be So Dangerous
Alternet
June 23, 2008
“It’s green, it’s clean, it’s never seen — that’s nanotechnology!”
That exuberant motto, used by an executive at a trade group for nanotech entrepreneurs, reflects the buoyant enthusiasm for nanotechnology in some business and scientific circles.
Part of the slogan is indisputably true: nanotechnology — which involves creating and manipulating common substances at the scale of the nanometer, or one billionth of a meter — is invisible to the human eye.
But the rest of the motto is open for debate. Nanotech does hold clean and green potential, especially for supplying cheap renewable energy and safe drinking water. But nanomaterials also pose possible serious risks to the environment and human health — risks that researchers have barely begun to probe, and regulators have barely begun to regulate.
What’s more, the potential damage could take years or even decades to surface. So these tiny particles could soon become the next big thing — only to turn into the next big disaster.
Nano enthusiasts see it as the next “platform technology” — one that will, like electricity or micro-computing, change the way we do almost everything. While that prediction is still unproven, there’s no question that nanotech is booming. Universities, industry, and governments around the globe are pouring billions into creating and developing nanoproducts and applications. A range of nanotechnologies is already used in more than 600 consumer products — from electronics to toothpaste — with global sales projected to soar to $2.6 trillion by 2014.
Environmentalists, scientists, and policymakers increasingly worry that nanotech development is outrunning our understanding of how to use it safely. Consider these examples from last month alone:
- An animal study from the United Kingdom found that certain carbon nanotubes can cause the same kind of lung damage as asbestos. Carbon nanotubes are among the most widely used nanomaterials.
- A coalition of consumer groups petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ban the sale of products that contain germ-killing nanosilver particles, from stuffed animals to clothing, arguing that the silver could harm human health, poison aquatic life, and contribute to the rise of antibiotic resistance.
- Researchers in Singapore reported that nanosilver caused severe developmental problems in zebrafish embryos — bolstering worries about what happens when those antimicrobial products, like soap and clothing, leak silver into the waste stream.
- The U.S. Department of Defense, in an internal memo, acknowledged that nanomaterials may “present… risks that are different than those for comparable material at a larger scale.” That’s an overarching risk with nanomaterials: Their tiny size and high surface area make them more chemically reactive and cause them to behave in unpredictable ways. So a substance that’s safe at a normal size can become toxic at the nanoscale.
- Australian farmers proposed new standards that would exclude nanotechnology from organic products.
- The European Union announced that it will require full health and safety testing for carbon and graphite under its strict new chemicals law, known as REACH (for Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemical Substances). Carbon and graphite were previously exempt, because they’re considered safe in their normal forms. But the U.K. study comparing carbon nanotubes to asbestos, along with a similar report from Japan, raised new alarms about these seemingly
Old Materials, New Risks
The EU’s move is a critical step toward recognizing nanomaterials as a potential new hazard that requires new rules and new information.
The raw materials of nanotechnology are familiar. Carbon, silver, and metals like iron and titanium are among the most common. But at the nanoscale, these well-known substances take on new and unpredictable properties. That’s what makes them so versatile and valuable. It also makes them potentially dangerous in ways that their larger-scale counterparts are not.
Filed under: Britain, Europe, european union, France, GM, gm crops, gm food, gordon brown, health and environment, United Kingdom
Gordon Brown Wants More GMO Animal Feed
London Independent
June 20, 2008
Gordon Brown is calling on the European Union to relax its rules on importing genetically modified animal feed in a further sign of the Government’s willingness to embrace the controversial technology. Mr Brown believes GM crops are vital to the attempt to cut spiralling food prices.
His proposal comes the day after The Independent revealed that the Environment minister, Phil Woolas, has held private talks with the biotechnology industry about relaxing Britain’s policy on the use of GM crops.
The Prime Minister also signalled that he is happy to see a public debate over whether GM crops should be grown commercially in Britain to reduce global prices by boosting production. His spokesman said last night: “His view is that we must be guided by the scientific evidence.”
Ministers who support GM crops believe there are no convincing arguments against them. They want to turn the tables on environmental groups who campaigned successfully against widespread GM production in Britain during the last government review in 2004. Although there is no ban, the ministers want the rules changed in light of the food crisis, as no GM crops are currently being grown commercially in this country.
At a two-day summit in Brussels which began last night, EU leaders were urged to “bite the bullet” and embrace GM products as a solution to rocketing food prices. The plea came from Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission. Several EU countries, led by France, are unconvinced that “Frankenstein foods” are safe.
Filed under: Britain, Europe, genetically modified, GM, gm food, health and environment, nanotech, nanotechnology, United Kingdom
UK: 104 Products Contain Toxic ’Grey Goo’
Daily Mail
March 11, 2008
Some skin creams use nano particles but many are now concerned about the use of the technology in foods
Potentially toxic chemicals are being incorporated into food, packaging, health supplements and other products by stealth, it is claimed.
Manufacturers boast that nanoparticles can deliver drugs or vitamins more effectively, kill harmful bugs in food or create self-cleaning windows.
But scientists, consumer groups and green campaigners fear the technology is being introduced into the diet, body and environment without proper safety checks.
Nanoparticles are 80,000 times thinner than a human hair – so small they can cross membranes protecting the brain or a baby in the womb.
Critics say it is not known how such tiny particles will interact with the body and organs in the long term, whether they are toxic or how long they will persist in the body.
Doom-mongers have warned that nanoparticles could mutate and reproduce out of control, consuming all life on earth, a scenario often referred to as “grey goo”.
Yesterday a report by Friends of the Earth said current regulations are “ill-equipped” to deal with the unique properties of nanoparticles.
It said: “Despite concerns about the toxicity risks of nanomaterials, consumers are unknowingly ingesting them because regulators are struggling to keep pace with their rapidly expanding use.”
The study found at least 104 food and agricultural products available in Europe, including the UK, which use nanotech particles or technology.
This includes some nutritional supplements under the Solgar brand, cling wrap and containers, antibacterial kitchenware, processed meats, chocolate drinks, baby food and chemicals used in agriculture.
Friends of the Earth’s food and farming spokesman, Helen Holder, said: “Europeans should not be exposed to potentially toxic materials in their food and food packaging until proper regulations are in place to ensure their safety.
“In the absence of proper safety regulations or mandatory labelling, consumers are being left in the dark about the products they consume and are unknowingly putting their health and the environment at risk.”
A Government sponsored report, published before Christmas, said a shortage of money for research had created an absence of basic information about nanoparticle toxicology.
It said research into how long these tiny particles persist in the body is urgently needed.
The consumer group Which? has called on the Government to set up a task force to take immediate steps to establish how nanotechnologies are being used in the UK and to urgently address gaps in current regulations.
Filed under: 1984, ADA, Alex Jones, Atzlan, Big Brother, Bill Clinton, biometrics, Bohemian Grove, brainwashing, Child Abuse, Conditioning, David Rockefeller, Dick Cheney, Dictatorship, Eugenics, fluoride, Genocide, George Bush, global elite, global government, Globalism, GM, gm food, gordon brown, health and environment, Hillary Clinton, Hitler, Iraq, Martial Law, Media, Media Fear, Monsanto, Nazi, New World Order, North American Union, Oppression, Police State, Population Control, Propaganda, skull & bones, skull and bones, SPP, Surveillance, Tony Blair, Troops, UN, War On Terror
Question Your Reality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpFu_bYkomc
Police tear-gas farmers in clash over French GM crops
Independent
August 27, 2007
Growing tensions in France between opponents and supporters of genetically modified crops have led to violent confrontations.
Gendarmes used tear gas and batons to prevent pro-GM farmers from invading a picnic for militant opponents of genetically modified maize at the town of Verdun-sur-Garonne in south-west France over the weekend.
Hardly a day has gone by this summer without opponents of GM maize – both environmental campaigners and small farmers – invading fields and trampling or cutting down crops. The protesters, led by the small- farmers’ leader, José Bové, claim a citizens’ right to destroy crops which, they say, threaten ecological calamity and the subjection of farmers to the whims of agro-industrial, multinational companies.
Tempers have risen to boiling point since the suicide earlier this month of a farmer in the Lot département who had agreed to plant a small section of GM maize. He took his life a few days after he had been warned that anti-GM protesters planned to hold a picnic on his fields.
The largest French farmers’ federation, the FNSEA, called for Saturday’s demonstration to protest against attacks on crops and alleged government inaction. Gendarmes used tear gas to prevent the farmers from crossing a bridge to the site of the anti-GM picnic, which was addressed by the extravagantly moustachioed M. Bové.
“If Bové keeps on cutting down our crops, we’re going to shave his moustache,” said one protester.
Michel Masson, head of the FNSEA in the central area of France, said: “There has already been one death and I can tell you that many farmers, rather than hang themselves from a tree, are now ready to take their rifles off the wall.”
The confrontation is partly between town and country. It is also a confrontation between two different approaches to agriculture. The FNSEA supports a “scientific” and highly productive approach to agriculture. M. Bové and his supporters argue for a traditional, small-scale approach.
Successive governments have shied away from legislating clearly on GM crops. Most types are banned but farmers have been allowed to plant, experimentally, a variety of maize called MON810, developed by the US company, Monsanto, which is said to be immune to insect attack.
FDA Says No Label For Nanotechnology
Reuters
August 3, 2007
CHICAGO (Reuters) – The Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday said the rising number of cosmetics, drugs and other products made using nanotechnology do not require special regulations or labeling.
The recommendations come as the agency looks at the oversight of products that employ the design and use of particles as small as one-billionth of a meter. There are fears by consumer groups and others that these tiny particles are unpredictable, could be toxic and therefore have unforeseen health impacts.
A task force within the FDA concluded that although nano-sized materials may have completely different properties than their bigger counterparts, there is no evidence that they pose any major safety risks at this time.
“We believe we do not have scientific evidence about nano-sized materials posing safety questions that merit being mentioned on the label,” said Dr. Randall Lutter, FDA’s associate commissioner for policy and planning, during a briefing with reporters.
As least 300 consumers products, including sunscreen, toothpaste and shampoo are now made using nanotechnology, according to a Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars report.
The technology is also being used in medicine, where scientists are developing tiny sensors that detect disease markers in the body, and in the food industry, which is using it to extend shelf life in food packaging.
The FDA now treats products made with nanotechnology the same way it handles all products — requiring companies to prove safety and efficacy before their product can come to market.
But some product categories, such as cosmetics, foods and dietary supplements are not subject to FDA oversight before they are sold, which already worries some advocates. Producing them with nanotechnology adds another layer of concern.
The International Center for Technology Assessment, a nonprofit policy group that is suing the FDA calling for more oversight over the technology, said the recommendations lack teeth.
“Nano means more than just tiny. It means these materials can be fundamentally different, exhibiting chemical and physical properties that are drastically different,” said George Kimbrell, staff attorney at the group. “The consumer is being made the guinea pig.”
The group sites studies showing certain types of the particles can cause inflammatory and immune system responses in animals as an example of possible dangers.
The FDA said it will soon issue guidance documents for industries using nanotechnology, which include pharmaceutical companies, medical device makers and consumer products firms.
Lutter said the task force concluded that nanotechnology is not substantially different from earlier emerging technologies such as biotechnology or irradiation.
noworldsystem.com 