Rawesome Foods raid!

Cops poured out the milk!

(2683 views) Uploaded 8/6/2011 12:42:04 PM by HealthRanger

http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=C39F34B67FDA804B2D94CD9BBA3F0A0A

Video Information

From the Rawesome Foods raid in Venice, California, this video is from the day of the raid and reveals how the government terrorists poured all the raw milk down the drain! Video courtesy of RealFoodRights.com

Video Keywords: food    health freedom    tyranny    raw milk    raw dairy    food freedom    rawesome foods   government raids

 

Health Ranger: ‘FDA fights organic farmers’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbE3SfvuL1g

 

 

(Rawesome Foods Raid) What Happened – by an employee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjmYOoa14XY

Rawesome Raid August 3, 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI1gvPmA_c8

 

Massive public protest announced against government-sponsored terrorism of Rawesome Foods in California

(NaturalNews) As promised, a massive public protest is now being announced to give the members of the public an opportunity to voice their outrage against today’s arrest of three raw foods advocates who are all being charged with conspiracy.

The protest will be held at the LA County Courthouse located at:
210 West Temple, Division 30
Los Angeles

Arrive there at 7:45 am to join the protest, which needs to be in full swing early, because the court hearing for James is scheduled at 8:30.

Please keep your protests non-violent in nature and bring your signs, shirts and more. LA newspapers and media have already indicated they will be on scene. NaturalNews video journalists will also be on the scene filming whatever goes down. Videos will be posted on www.NaturalNews.TV

Bring your own cameras, too, and record your own photos and videos. Please post on NaturalNews.TV and we will likely link to your video in upcoming coverage of this event.

We apologize for the very short notice of this public protest, but we are publishing details about this story as quickly as we can. The story is breaking big and has already reached millions of listeners on the Alex Jones Show (www.InfoWars.com) and millions of readers through the Drudge Report (www.DrudgeReport.com), which has linked to NaturalNews as the breaking news source for this story.

Once the mainstream media starts covering this story, they will twist it around and LIE about it as they always do. NPR already did a hatchet job on this group following a previous raid. Only independent media (like NaturalNews) can be trusted to bring you the honest story on this without some corporate or government agenda.

There are already misinformed accusations that Rawesome Foods was not licensed as a retail business. But that’s incorrect information: Rawesome Foods is a private buying club and not a retail business that’s open to the general public. People can’t just walk in off the street and shop there like a regular grocery store. Thus, Rawesome does not have to be licensed like a regular grocery store. They are a private buyer’s club.

What went down in Venice, California today was clearly an act of government-sponsored terrorism against innocent citizens who are only “guilty” of selling healthful foods that are in huge demand by happy, healthy members (customers). That the selling of healthful raw milk cannot even be tolerated by the thuggish, corrupt government criminals who run the state of California (and the federal government) today is a powerful statement of just how much freedom we’ve already lost… and how hard we’re all going to have to fight back against tyranny to restore our basic food freedoms.

Watch NaturalNews for more developments on this story, and thank you for spreading the word about this latest assault on food freedom in America.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033223_Rawesome_Foods_public_protest.html

 

“Rawesome” Raw Milk Farm Raided…Again

It has been reported this morning (August 3rd, 2011), that raw milk farm “Rawesome” in Venice, California has been raided once again by members of the SWAT team. With guns drawn, two of the owners arrested, and over $10,000 worth of raw milk dumped out, the freedoms of Americans are diminishing. There is, however, something we can do about it.

Rawesome Raid – Based on Public Health?

The excuse given for these absurd raids (that honestly casts embarrassment over the police force) is that raw milk is a health threat that causes listeria, e. coli disease and death. This certainly can be true for raw milk — but only if you are drinking raw milk from animals that are being raised in inhumane and poor conditions.

The actual excuse for the arrests and the raids have not yet been officially stated. Stay tuned for that news.

Clean, fresh raw milk from grass fed, free ranging animals, however, does not need to be pasteurized. Milk you purchase from a traditional grocery store does require pasteurization, as the farmers who raise these cows raise them in poor, dirty and sanitation conditions. Pasteurization is the answer for man’s dirty mistakes! Nature does not need to be cleaned, and man does not know more than nature.

Raw Milk Proven Safer than Other Commonly Sold Foods

Recent data from researcher Dr. Ted Beals, M.D., shows that between 1999 through 2010 illnesses resulting in raw milk consumption totaled to around462, which is about 42 illnesses per year. Out of the 47.8 million food borne illnesses each year from foods such as raw meat (which is readily available at every grocery store), peanut butter and spinach, it is very curious as to why raw milk is targeted so violently.

Up to 2011, it is estimated that close to 10 million individuals drink raw milk as its popularity rises. More and more individuals are starting to realize and wake up to the fact that are rights as citizens, when it comes to what we consume or inject in our bodies, are slowly being taken away.

We are supposed to be free. We are supposed to be able to make informed decisions on our health. With the majority of the population overweight, diabetic and prediabetic, shouldn’t we focus more attention on the foods that are actually threatening the health of the American population? Shouldn’t we be performing raids on sugary cereals that surpress immune function and accelerate cancer growth, learning disorders and blood sugar instability?

Read Natural News’ article on the illegal actions of the SWAT members and the raid.

http://thehealthyadvocate.com/2011/08/03/rawesome-raw-milk-farm-raided-again/

 

Breaking news: Multi-agency armed raid hits Rawesome Foods, Healthy Family Farms for selling raw milk and cheese

(NaturalNews) This is a NaturalNews exclusive breaking new report. Please credit NaturalNews.com. A multi-agency SWAT-style armed raid was conducted this morning by helmet-wearing, gun-carrying enforcement agents from the LA County Sheriff’s Office, the FDA, the Dept. of Agriculture and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control).

This story is now being followed and widely reported on InfoWars (www.InfoWars.com) and the Drudge Report (www.DrudgeReport.com). See updates below…

Rawesome Foods, a private buying club offering wholesome, natural raw milk and raw cheese products (among other wholesome foods) is founded by James Stewart, a pioneer in bringing wholesome raw foods directly to consumers through a buying club. James was followed from his private residence by law enforcement, and when he entered his store, the raid was launched.

Law enforcement demanded that all customers (members) of the store vacate the premises, then they demanded to know how much cash James had at the store. When James explained the amount of cash he had at the store — which is used to purchase product for selling there — agents demanded to know why he had such an amount of cash and where it came from.

James was handcuffed, was never read his rights and was stuffed into an unmarked car. While agents said they would leave behind a warrant, no one has yet had any opportunity to even see if such a warrant exists or if it is a complete warrant.

Law enforcement then proceeded to destroy the inventory of the story by pouring the milk down the drain and / or confiscating raw cheese and fresh produce for destruction. Video now posted at NaturalNews.TV: http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A…

Note to NaturalNews readers: We believe this was an ILLEGAL raid being conducted mob-style by government thugs who respect no law and no rights. This is an all-out war by the government against people who try to promote healthy raw and living foods.

James is now being held at the Pacific division police department at Centinela and Culver in Los Angeles. He is being held at $123,000 bail with no possibility of using bail bonds. Law enforcement has demanded that if he comes up with the money to cover bail, he must disclose to them all the sources of that money. (This is an illegal demand!)

Massive public protests are needed to teach these criminal law enforcement agencies that they cannot illegally arrest and persecute individuals merely for buying and selling raw milk and cheese. We are organizing a public protest day in cooperation with James. Please watch NaturalNews for an announcement of that. Story is developing…

Right now, James needs help raising money with his legal defense needs. Our non-profit Consumer Wellness Center is currently serving as the collection point for donations. You may donate right now at www.ConsumerWellness.org (100% of the donations go directly to James’ legal defense needs, the Consumer Wellness Center keeps nothing).

See this video of James Stewart talking about his farm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foKg…

Story on InfoWars.com:

http://www.infowars.com/raw-food-ra…

Here’s background on Healthy Family Farms which was also targeted in the raid:

Healthy Family Farms in Santa Paula, California:

“Healthy Family Farms is a sustainable, pasture-based farming operation. We raise all our livestock on pasture. We raise all of our animals from birth. We do not feed any of our animals soy, choosing instead to feed animals as they are designed to be fed. This results in healthy, sturdy animals needing no hormones, antibiotics, or other artificial “enhancements.” We harvest our animals humanely by hand before they are delivered to the farmers markets. We never freeze our products. In addition to farmer’s markets sales, we have an active CSA, which offers discounts to our valued members.”

Watch NaturalNews.com for more breaking news on this story. We are fed up with these illegal mob-style raids against the raw foods community! It is time to protest and fight back against tyranny!

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033220_Rawesome_Foods_armed_raids.html

 

Rawesome Foods founder to be prosecuted under special environmental crimes unit in LA

(NaturalNews) Details are still sketchy on this, as we’re breaking this news straight from the front lines in the aftermath of the government raid on Rawesome Foods in Venice, California (http://www.naturalnews.com/033220_R…), but NaturalNews is now being told that the LA County District Attorney will not be prosecuting James Stewart and the other “conspirators” who were arrested yesterday for selling raw milk. Instead, a special “environmental crimes” prosecutor will reportedly be prosecuting the case, which now consists of 13 criminal charges, some of which are felony crimes.

NaturalNews has not yet learned the name of this special environmental prosecutor, but the explanation smacks of the new environmental police who have been promoted through various propaganda outlets as being upstanding protect-the-Earth cops who arrest people for burning too much gas or using non-recyclable cups to drink beverages.

The issue of environmental police has been covered extensively by Alex Jones at InfoWars.com, where he refers to them as eco fascists. See this page to read more about how propaganda ads are being used to get people comfortable with the idea that “environmental crimes” should result in police slamming your face into the ground and handcuffing you:

http://www.infowars.com/audis-eco-f…

The videos on that page have been disabled, but here’s an alternate link of the green police Superbowl Ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq58…

(Astonishing ad. You MUST watch it.)

The real aim of the green police agenda

Far from being a campaign merely to protect the Earth (which would be great if it were true), the new “green police” agenda is now being used as a way to terrorize innocent Americans as we’re seeing right now with Rawesome Foods. What’s especially frustrating about all this is that some of the Al Gore followers who largely supported the idea of the green police are, in fact, the very same people who are now being targeted for advocating raw milk. They had been misled, sadly.

You see, eco fascism was never really about protecting the planet and promoting sustainable living. It was always about enslaving the population, destroying health freedom, and mandating total corporate conformity at gunpoint. That’s the lesson we’re now learning from the Rawesome Foods raids, where LA County Sheriffs literally poured thousands of dollars worth of wholesome raw milk down the drain and arrested the buying club owner who will be prosecuted as by a special environmental prosecutor.

For the record, I’m a huge advocate of green living, renewable energy, and green consumer practices — but NOT at the cost of surrendering our Constitutional freedoms to a group of government badge-wearing eco terrorists who raid our raw milk clubs and charge people with conspiracy crimes for “mislabeling cheese.” I believe in solar power, I raise my own chickens and grow a portion of my own food NOT because Al Gore told me to, but because it just makes common sense in today’s unpredictable world to be prepared for food supply disruptions and power grid failures.

I try to minimize my eco-footprint on the planet not because some bureaucracy forces me to, but because I want to support the long-term continuation of sustainable life on our planet. Yes, I’m “green” in my daily practices, and at the same time I’m strongly invested in the powerful ideas of liberty and freedom for individuals. “Green” should never mean we have to mean we give up our freedoms. Forcing people to “go green” at the end of a gun isn’t acceptable. It must be done through education and awareness.

Green cops are no better than regular corrupt cops

It’s very clear to me that much of the political talk about saving the planet and going green was really just a campaign to encourage people to surrender their freedoms to yet another tyrannical enforcement bureaucracy that will abuse its power just like every other government agency abuses its power. “Green police” is just another excuse to put tens of thousands of new badge-wearing power trippers on the streets who will terrorize innocent citizens.

And that’s really, really sad, because I think the core idea of “going green” in our day-to-day lives is extremely valuable and valid. We should stop pouring toxic chemicals down the drain. We should collect rainwater and drink that instead of drinking toxic city water. And for that matter, our own government should stop dumping toxic fluoride chemicals into the water supply in the first place!

Meanwhile, the real environmental threats to our planet — such as the Fukushima meltdowns, the toxic chemicals produced by Big Pharma, and the DNA contamination of our planet with GMOs — remains totally ignored. That’s how this game always works: The big corporate criminals run free while the little people are persecuted in the name of “green.”

How insane is it, really, that this raw milk and cheese buyer’s club is now being prosecuted by the very same people who were given power by the green police movement?

All I can say is, beware of creating new police in any form, because when you create police, military or political forces that have power of your lives, they will ALWAYS abuse that power. Eventually, every bureaucracy or institution becomes totally corrupted by corporate influence, and then it no longer serves the people but the corporatocracy that really runs the show.

Notice that all the wealthy elite who pay no corporate taxes and fly around in private jets aren’t being targeted for arrest by the green police? There’s a reason for that. The whole campaign is designed to muzzle the little guy and remind the slaves that they’re really just slaves.

Pay attention, SLAVE. Drink your dead pasteurized milk, take your psychotropic drugs, gulp down your fluoridated water and shut the hell up. You’re under the control of the new eco fascists now, and it’s no longer just talk. It’s all coming to a farm near you.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033233_green_police_environmental_crimes.html

BUENOS AIRES – Scientists in two countries looked set to lock horns Friday over who had produced the world’s first human milk … from cows.

An Argentine laboratory announced Thursday that it had created the world’s first transgenic cow, using human genes that will allow the animal to produce the equivalent of mothers’ milk.

The claim came only days after reports emerged from China saying scientists there had genetically modified dairy cows to produce human breast milk and hoped to be selling it in supermarkets within three years.

The researchers at the Agricultural University in Beijing said they had a 300-strong herd of transgenic cows, which had been bred by inserting human genes into cloned cow embryos which were then implanted into surrogate cows.

However, AFP reported that Argentina’s National Institute of Agrobusiness Technology said of their research, “The cloned cow, named Rosita ISA, is the first bovine born in the world that incorporates human genes that contain the proteins present in human milk.”

Rosita ISA was born on April 6 by caesarian because she weighed more than 99 pounds (45kg), about twice the normal weight of Jersey cows, according to the statement.

As an adult, “the cow will produce milk that is similar to humans,” the statement said.

In China, workers at the university’s dairy farm have already tasted the milk — and said it is sweeter and stronger than the bovine variety.

“It’s good,” said worker Jiang Yao, according to Sky News. “It’s better for you because it’s genetically modified.”

The scientists there said they have also produced animals that are resistant to mad cow disease, as well as beef cattle that are genetically modified to produce more nutritious meat.

BEIJING – Chinese scientists have genetically modified dairy cows to produce human breast milk, and hope to be selling it in supermarkets within three years.

The milk produced by the transgenic cows is identical to the human variety, with the same immune-boosting and antibacterial qualities as breast milk, scientists at China’s Agricultural University in Beijing said.

The transgenic herd of 300 was bred by inserting human genes into cloned cow embryos which were then implanted into surrogate cows. The technology used was similar to that used to produce Dolly the sheep, the first mammal to be cloned by scientists, in Scotland.

The milk is still undergoing safety tests, but with government permission it will be sold to consumers as a more nutritious dairy drink than cow’s milk.

Workers at the university’s dairy farm have already tasted the milk — and said it is sweeter and stronger than the bovine variety, according to Sky News .

“It’s good,” said worker Jiang Yao. “It’s better for you because it’s genetically modified.”

The scientists have also produced animals that are resistant to mad cow disease, as well as beef cattle that are genetically modified to produce more nutritious meat.

The director of the research project, Professor Li Ning, said Western concerns about the ethics of genetic modification are misplaced.

“There are 1.5 billion people in the world who don’t get enough to eat,” he said. “It’s our duty to develop science and technology, not to hold it back. We need to feed people first, before we consider ideals and convictions.”

UPDATE:  Argentine Scientists Claim To Have Created Herd To Produce Breast Milk

source: myfoxny.com

(NaturalNews) Soy, once touted as a medical miracle, has been outed. Ninety-one percent of the soy we consume is tainted by the filth of the GMO machine, literally the most quietly kept epidemic of our lifetime. Soy makes up a large portion of the diet for the chickens, pigs, and cows some of us eat. Even the vegetarian/vegan community is exposed as a number of meat substitutes list soy as a main ingredient. Soy and soybean oil have wiggled their way into a wide array of processed foods including salad dressings, peanut butter, tamari, mayonnaise, crackers, baby formula, baked good mixes, textured vegetable protein, and the list goes on. So unless you are eating anorganicversion of any of the above, there is a good chance you are exposing yourself toGMO soy.

Genetically engineeredcropsare destroying theenvironment, the health of indigenous communities, and ultimately ourhealthas end of the chainconsumers. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has reported a number ofstudies. Their results? Frightening. Think major issues like infertility (http://www.responsibletechnology.or…), immune problems, accelerated aging, and even changes in the cellular structure of major organs (http://www.responsibletechnology.org/). Also, as a result of theantibioticresistant genes within GEfood, they are the highly suspected culprits behind the new “superbug.” The animals involved in the studies ended up deformed, sterile, and dead.

Children are the most susceptible to these harmful effect, since they are constantly in a state of high growth; parents should take care. GMOfoods, and especiallysoy, have been tied to an increase in allergies, asthma, and a propensity to get antibiotic resistant infections.

None of this would surprise any of the individuals in variousSouth Americacountries that live near GM crops. South America is the world’s largest provider of soy (http://www.naturalnews.com/031382_G…).

A recent story in theUK Telegraph(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea…) revealed that the herbicides used on GM soy are so toxic that direct contact oftenresultsin severe illness and sometimesdeath. Petrona Villasboa is one of those that has faced direct loss. Her son was accidenatlly sprayed by one of the machines that are often spraying Monsanto’s Roundup on the surrounding crops. Silvino Talavera died that same day – and it was a horrible death (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea…). That’s not all – Non GMOfarmersare being displaced, and those that stay run a calculated risk. Mothers living close to GM farmland are twice as likely to have a fetus with a birth deformity.

The industry doesn’t want this information out there.Monsantoprovides over 90 percent ofGMOsoy seeds and related herbicides to farmers worldwide (http://www.smdp.com/Articles-c-2011…).

Agent Orange was one of Monsanto’s first herbicides and the resulting effect to U.S soldiers and Vietnamese citizens was reprehensible(http://www.organicconsumers.org/mon…).

Scientist who push to hard to get a widespread scientific inquiry about the devastating effects of GE foods have had subtle and not-so-subtle pressure applied and been forced to back off their findings (http://www.responsibletechnology.or…).

Just as efforts are underway to assist these farmers in seeing the benefits of growing organic food as a means of survival and commerce, the end consumer must also make a change. Soy purchases must be viewed in a whole new light. The best way to protect your family from these potential harmful effects is to remove it from yourdietor stick to strictly organic soy and organicprocessed foods.

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/032370_GM_soy_children.html#ixzz1avpKM8zI

Don’t expect to see any human-like milk products on store shelves. That’s just a trick of redirection, hoping you won’t notice the ethical issue of patenting human genetics.

by Heidi Stevenson

3 April 2011

 

The latest in genetic engineering involves implanting human genes into cow embryos to produce human-like milk. You can imagine who the intended recipients are, can’t you? Just think: There’ll be no need for mommy to risk saggy breasts to feed her baby! Baby won’t know the difference between a bottle and mommy’s breast! No more guilt for not feeding babies what’s best!

Or maybe not.

Scientists in China are claiming to have produced a human-like milk by introducing a human gene into 300 Holstein cows. They’ve inserted the gene for human lysozome (HLZ), which is involved in significantly more than production of milk. It’s an organelle, which is found in most cells, that’s involved in intracellular digestion. Thus, the entire cow’s body has been turned over to production of human-like cellular digestion.

No mention is made of how this affects the cows, but it’s difficult to believe that it’s anything but harmful, likely resulting in misery for the animals. Nor does it look like the result is anything that even approaches human-like milk.

Human-Like Milk?

The authors of the study, “Characterization of Bioactive Recombinant Human Lysozyme Expressed in Milk of Cloned Transgenic Cattle”, published in PLoS, state that HLZ “increases the levels of beneficial intestinal microflora and strengthens disease resistance in infants”. This is fine, but this is the only thing that they’ve introduced into cows’ milk. They have not duplicated the nutrient composition, though their hype would have you believe that’s been done.

Professor Ning Li, the project leader, stated, “The milk tastes stronger than normal milk.” That alone clarifies the fact that the result is far removed from human milk. The single most significant taste difference between human milk and cow’s milk—or most others—is its sweetness, not its strong taste.

 

Milk is, of course, the perfect food for the offspring of the mother. It provides perfect nutrition and a natural source of antibodies to prevent disease in the young. A breast-fed baby is known to have lower risk of disease and better development.

Obviously, the physiology and diet of the mother will have a great deal to do with the quality and substance of the milk—and the simple fact is that a cow is not a human. A cow doesn’t eat the same sort of food a human does. A cow has four stomachs, instead of a human’s single stomach. A cow’s digestion process includes chewing its cud. When was the last time you saw someone chewing cud?

A cow is never going to produce human milk, even with a human gene imposed on it. A cow’s physiology is simply too different. So what is this human-like milk?

Real Purpose of the Human-Like Milk

The primary intention of the researchers can be discerned in this quote from the second paragraph of the study report:

Furthermore, some reports have shown that HLZ has anti-fungal and anti-viral activities. Moreover, changes in the HLZ concentration in serum or urine is used as a diagnostic marker for certain diseases. Also, HLZ is under study as a potentially useful material for use in food products, cosmetics (as a preservative), medicine feed, baby formula, and so on.

 

The researchers are focused primarily on using HLZ as a chemical. Cows are being genetically modified so that they will produce a chemical that they hope to use as a drug, diagnostic product, and additive to foods and cosmetics. If they can also convince the public that it’s a health food, then the profits will be even greater.

The scientists have also created cows that produce milk with the protein lactoferrin, which assists the immune system in babies. In other instances, they have increased the milk fat and changed the milk solids. However, each of these is a single change. They have not been combined.

The reality is that there has not been any milk produced by cows that comes near duplicating human milk. All that’s been done is the recreation of single human molecules in cow’s milk.

Suffering and Death of the Cows

While the scientists are claiming that their cloning and GM technologies are harmless, the fact is that their experiments have been extremely harmful to the animals. During two of them, 42 calves with human genes were born. However, 10 died shortly after birth and 6 died within six months. Only 26 survived. Most of the deaths were from gastrointestinal disease. That does not bode well for the health or comfort of the surviving animals.

The Director of GeneWatch UK stated:

We have major concerns about this research to genetically modify cows with human genes. There are major welfare issues with genetically modified animals as you get high numbers of still births.

There is a question about whether milk from these cows is going to be safe for humans and it is really hard to tell that unless you do large clinical trials like you would a drug, so there will be uncertainty about whether it could be harmful to some people.

Ethically there are issues about mass producing animals in this way.

 

Deformed calves are being brought into the world to suffer horrendously so that a few people can make profits from their anguish. And we haven’t any reason to believe that these products are safe for humans.

False Claims for the Technology

Biology Professor at the University of Nottingham, Keith Campbell, states:

Genetically modified animals and plants are not going to be harmful unless you deliberately put in a gene that is going to be poisonous. Why would anyone do that in a food? Genetically modified food, if done correctly, can provide huge benefit for consumers in terms of producing better products.

 

Of course, Mr. Campbell doesn’t offer any basis on which he makes his claims. That’s because he can’t. There are no studies to document them.

Hype and Human Genes

So why are the scientists making irrational claims for their research? The answer is in the ultimate goal: profits. By creating buzz about what they’re doing, they can bring interest to their projects, while redirecting attention away from their real goal. The scientists are working in conjunction with Beijing GenProtein Biotechnology Company. This association is so close that four of them are employees.

Everything about the project is focused on publicity. The lead researcher, Ning Li, makes claims about the experiments that are simply not justified by the results. He stated:

The modified bovine milk is a possible substitute for human milk. It fulfilled the conception of humanising the bovine milk.

 

As explained above, that claim is far from reality. When a scientist makes such claims that are unjustified by studies, it can only be explained by a desire to sell products.

Perhaps they will ultimately manage to create cows that produce a human-like milk. First, though, the only thing that makes sense is that they intend to use the human molecules produced by the cows’ milk to evade questions about patenting human genes.

While everyone’s attention is focused on the idea of producing human-like milk from cows—a feat they aren’t even close to accomplishing—they will be working away at producing patentable products based on human genes by the convenient sleight-of-hand of slipping them into cows.

Don’t expect to see any human-like milk products on store shelves. That’s nothing but a trick of redirection away from the genuine ethical issue of patenting human genetics.

The Health Risks of GM Foods: Summary and Debate This section summarizes the health risks of genetically modified foods and serves as a forum for a global discussion and debate. It is organized around the 65 main point summaries presented on the left side of the two-page spreads in Part 1 of Genetic Roulette. Each section linked below offers the opportunity for people to submit updates, corrections, challenges and responses. Before making a submittal, please review the full content in that section of the book. Contents at a Glance: Part 1: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods Section 1: Evidence of reactions in animals and humans. 1.1 GM Potatoes Damages Rats (see full content) 1.2 Rats Fed GMO Tomatoes got bleeding stomachs, several died 1.3 Rats Fed Bt Corn had multiple health problems 1.4 Mice Fed GM Bt Potatoes had intestinal damage 1.5 Workers exposed to Bt cotton developed allergies 1.6 Sheep died after grazing in Bt cotton fields 1.7 Inhaled Bt corn pollen may have triggered disease in humans 1.8 Farmers report pigs and cows became sterile from GM corn 1.9 Twelve cows in Germany died mysteriously when fed Bt corn 1.10 Mice fed Roundup Ready soy had liver cell problems 1.11 Mice fed Roundup Ready soy had problems with the pancreas 1.12 Mice fed Roundup Ready soy had unexplained changes in testicular cells 1.13 Roundup Ready Soy Changed Cell Metabolism in Rabbit Organs 1.14 Most offspring of rats fed Roundup Ready soy died within three weeks (see full content) 1.15 Soy allergies skyrocketed in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced 1.16 Rats fed Roundup Ready canola had heavier livers 1.17 Twice the number of chickens died when fed Liberty Link corn 1.18 GM peas generated an allergic-type inflammatory response in mice 1.19 Eyewitness reports: Animals avoid GMOs 1.20 A GM food supplement killed about 100 people Section 2: Gene insertion disrupts the DNA and can create unpredictable health problems. 2.1 Foreign genes disrupt the DNA at the insertion site. 2.2 Growing GM crops using tissue culture can create hundreds or thousands of DNA mutations.  2.3 Gene insertion creates genome-wide changes in gene expression.  2.4 The promoter may accidentally switch on harmful genes.  2.5 The promoter might switch on a dormant virus in plants.  2.6 The promoter might create genetic instability and mutations.  2.7 Genetic engineering activates mobile DNA, called transposons, which generate mutations.  2.8 Novel RNA may be harmful to humans and their offspring.  2.9 Roundup Ready soybeans produce unintentional RNA variations.  2.10 Changes in proteins can alter thousands of natural chemicals in plants, increasing toxins or reducing phytonutrients  2.11 GM crops have altered levels of nutrients and toxins.  Section 3: The protein produced by the inserted gene may create problems. 3.1 A gene from a Brazil nut carried allergies into soybeans. 3.2 GM proteins in soy, corn and papaya may be allergens.  3.3 Bt crops may create allergies and illness. 3.4 The Bt in crops is more toxic than the Bt spray. 3.5 StarLink corn’s built-in pesticide has a “medium likelihood” of being an allergen. 3.6 Pollen-sterilizing barnase in GM crops may cause kidney damage.  3.7 High lysine corn contains increased toxins and may retard growth.  3.8 Cooking high lysine corn may create disease-promoting toxins.  3.9 Disease-resistant crops may promote human viruses and other diseases.  Section 4: The foreign protein may be different than what is intended. 4.1 GM proteins may be misfolded or have added molecules.  4.2 Transgenes may be altered during insertion.  4.3 Transgenes may be unstable, and rearrange over time.  4.4 Transgenes may create more than one protein.  4.5 Weather, environmental stress and genetic disposition can significantly change gene expression.  4.6 Genetic engineering can disrupt the complex relationships governing gene expression.  Section 5: Transfer of genes to gut bacteria, internal organs, or viruses. 5.1 In spite of industry claims, transgenes survive the digestion system and can wander.  5.2 Transgene design facilitates transfer into gut bacteria. 5.3 Transgenes may proliferate in gut bacteria over the long-term. 5.4 Transgene transfer to human gut bacteria is confirmed. 5.5 GM foods might create antibiotic-resistant diseases.  5.6 The promoter can also transfer, and may switch on random genes or viruses. 5.7 If Bt genes transfer, they could turn our gut bacteria into living pesticide factories. 5.8 Genes may transfer to bacteria in the mouth or throat.  5.9 Transfer of viral genes into gut microorganisms may create toxins and weaken peoples’ viral defenses.  Section 6: GM crops may increase environmental toxins and bioaccumulate toxins in the food chain. 6.1 Glufosinate-tolerant crops may produce herbicide “inside” our intestines. 6.2 Herbicide-tolerant crops increase herbicide use and residues in food. 6.3 Tiny amounts of herbicide may act as endocrine disruptors. 6.4 GM crops may accumulate environmental toxins or concentrate toxins in milk and meat of GM-fed animals.  6.5 Disease-resistant crops may promote new plant viruses, which carry risks for humans. Section 7: Other types of GM foods carry risks. 7.1 Milk from rbGH treated cows may increase risk of cancer and other diseases.  7.2 Milk from rbGH-treated cows likely increases the rate of twin births. 7.3 Food additives created from GM microorganisms pose health risks. Section 8: Risks are greater for children and newborns. 8.1 Pregnant mothers eating GM foods may endanger offspring. 8.2 GM foods are more dangerous for children than adults.

There was recently a big uproar about the FDA’s decision to approve genetically modified salmon for human consumption without the need to do any chemical testing on the salmon first.

FDA won’t allow food to be labeled free of genetic modification: report

By Raw Story‘Extra labeling only confuses the consumer,’ biotech spokesman says

That the Food and Drug Administration is opposed to labeling foods that are genetically modified is no surprise anymore, but a report in theWashington Post indicates the FDA won’t even allow food producers to label their foods as being free of genetic modification.

In reporting that the FDA will likely not require the labeling of genetically modified salmon if it approves the food product for consumption, thePost‘s Lyndsey Layton notes that the federal agency “won’t let conventional food makers trumpet the fact that their products don’t contain genetically modified ingredients.”

The agency warned the dairy industry in 1994 that it could not use “Hormone Free” labeling on milk from cows that are not given engineered hormones, because all milk contains some hormones.

It has sent a flurry of enforcement letters to food makers, including B&G Foods, which was told it could not use the phrase “GMO-free” on its Polaner All Fruit strawberry spread label because GMO refers to genetically modified organisms and strawberries are produce, not organisms.

Read Entire Article

Intel Hub – The FDA is actively working with corporations such as Monsanto to essentially poison the food supply. The FDA is crawling with former Monsanto execs, the same company that brought us the infamous agent orange toxin and who controls the vast majority of the American food supply. We live in a country where our government BANS companies from labeling their products GMO free!

Bloomberg just ran an article that shows that consumer concern over the safety of genetically modified food is not unfounded.

According to the article scientist found that genetically modified corn, which was altered to cause the corn to produce an insecticide, is polluting the waters and streams near the corn fields were it is grown. Bloomberg reports that 85% of the corn grown in the U.S is genetically modified and the insecticides have been found in the waters up to 6 months after the corn was harvested meaning that the toxins produced by the corn enters the environment and stays there.

Apparently, while the scientists are concerned about the impact the toxins produced by the corn will have on the environment there is no concern over the health and safety of humans consuming the toxins either through direct consumption or as it comes up the food chain after the toxic corn is feed to livestock.

Toxin From Biotech Corn Detected in U.S. Streams, Study Finds

ept. 28 (Bloomberg) — An insecticide produced by genetically modified corn was found in streams in the U.S. Midwest, according to research by the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies.Samples at 217 stream sites in Indiana found the protein Cry1Ab, the toxin expressed by so-called Bt corn, in water at about a quarter of the locations, the Millbrook, New York-based institute said on its website, citing a study published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The insecticide enters waterways through runoff and when corn stalks, leaves and plant parts are washed into stream channels, …

…

These corn byproducts may alter the health of freshwater bodies, the institute said, adding that ultimately streams that originate in the Corn Belt drain into the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes.

Corn is made to produce the Cry1Ab protein, which is toxic to the European corn borer, by adding a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt….

The study was conducted six months after the corn harvest, indicating that the insecticide can persist in the environment…

…

More than 85 percent of U.S. corn in 2009 was genetically modified to repel pests, resist herbicide exposure or both…

Read the original story.

Grist Magazine gives us more information on the new report which you probably won’t find being discussed from any Corporate news sites.

Field of Screams — Transgenic crops’ built-in pesticide found to be contaminating waterways

One of the main arguments offered in support of the wide use of genetically engineered crops is that they reduce overall pesticide use. This is particularly the case with Monsanto’s “Bt” line of corn, soy, and cotton seeds, which are able to produce their own pesticide, a “natural” toxin from genes of the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis. Ironically, commercial pesticide derived from Bt also happens to be one of the only chemical pesticides approved for use in organic agriculture, because it’s produced through a biological process.Biotechnology companies thus consider Bt seeds some of their most “eco-friendly” products. In theory, farmers don’t have to spray pesticide as much or as often on these crops, and therefore pesticide runoff into waterways is much less of a concern. Well, after years of denial, Monsanto finally admitted recently that superbugs, or pests that have evolved to be able to eat the Bt crops, are a real and growing concern…

…

The fun part? No one has any idea yet of the effects of long-term, low-dose exposure to Bt on fish and wildlife. Perhaps it’s high time somebody did a study on that since, as the researchers dryly observed, the presence of Bt toxin “may be a more common occurrence in watersheds draining maize-growing regions than previously recognized.” Apparently.

So. Not only do genetically engineered crops have worse yields than conventionally bred crops, cost more, lead to pesticide resistance, contaminate other plants with their transgenes, possibly cause allergies and even organ damage, but now we also learn that the plants themselves are possibly poisonous to the environment.

These kinds of genetically engineered seeds keep being touted as the only way we’re going to feed the world. Isn’t it about time we started investing in less toxic alternatives?

Read Entire Aticle

Moreover, while the scientists who performed this research seem “shocked” to have found the toxins in the water and persisting in the environment for months I some times wonder what decision making process these scientists and the FDA uses to come to decisions. For example a study published in FEMS Microbiology Ecology clearly showed that the insecticides penetrated the soil through the root system and persisted in the environment. Common sense would tell you once it enters the soil of course the runoff from rain will carry it into lakes and streams.

FEMS Microbiology Ecology

Abstract

The insecticidal toxin encoded by the cry1Ab gene from Bacillus thuringiensis was released in root exudates from transgenic Bt corn during 40 days of growth in soil amended to 0, 3, 6, 9, or 12% (v/v) with montmorillonite or kaolinite in a plant growth room and from plants grown to maturity in the field. The presence of the toxin in rhizosphere soil was determined by immunological and larvicidal assays. No toxin was detected in any soils from isogenic non-Bt corn or without plants. Persistence of the toxin was apparently the result of its binding on surface-active particles in the soils, which reduced the biodegradation of the toxin. The release of the toxin could enhance the control of insect pests or constitute a hazard to nontarget organisms, including the microbiota of soil, and increase the selection of toxin-resistant target insects.

Saxena, D. and Stotzky, G. (2000), Insecticidal toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis is released from roots of transgenic Bt corn in vitro and in situ. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 33: 35–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2000.tb00724.x Volume 33, Issue 1,pages 35–39, July 2000

Read Entire Study

All247News has printed a piece warning of the dangers of Montosa’s GMO corn.

GMO Corn May Turn Your Tummy Into a Poison Production Factory

August 22nd, 2010.
Michael Danielson

The biotechnology industries are quite proud of their pest-resistant, genetically modified (GMO) corn and other crops. When you hear the term ‘pest-resistant’, you might not think, at first, of what that truly means — that the modified plants are creating their own pesticide inside their cells. In short, the plants kill the bugs that eat them, so the bugs learn not to eat them. Of course, that means that humans who consume the pest-resistant GMO corn are consuming pesticide with every bite, but it’s pesticide from inside the corn, so you can’t wash it off. Biotech companies claim that the toxin that their GMO plants create isn’t dangerous to humans, but many studies show otherwise.

Mice fed the toxin suddenly became allergic to many compounds that previously didn’t bother them. Farm workers have had reactions to the genetically modified toxin, and the Federal Court of Canada has recognized that “People with compromised immune systems or pre-existing allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of [this toxin].”

When the same toxin that GMO plants create within their cells was sprayed over areas of Washington State, six people went to the emergency room and hundreds more reported flu-like or allergy-like symptoms — all provably related to the spray. Then ponder the fact that, inside the plant, the toxin is more than three thousand times as concentrated as it is in the natural commercial sprays, and you can start to grasp the danger.

That’s not even half of the danger associated with the pest-resistant corn, however. The toxin is consumed when the corn is eaten, but it’s also present in the pollen, which can be inhaled by anyone working near the corn field. One Filipino village was mysteriously stricken with a disease in which the entire village suffered headaches, vomiting, chest and stomach pain, fever, and more — for exactly the duration of time that a nearby GMO corn field was blooming. The sickness recurred every year that the same variety of corn was planted in that field, and vanished when the corn was replaced with a different breed. When the same breed of corn was planted near four other villages in the area, the same symptoms swept the villages, again only during pollination season.

The Washington Post

By Lyndsey Layton

September 18, 2010

 

www.washingtonpost.com

 

 

As the Food and Drug Administration considers whether to approve genetically modified salmon, one thing seems certain: Shoppers staring at fillets in the seafood department will find it tough to pick out the conventional fish from the one created with genes from another species.

Despite a growing public demand for more information about how food is produced, that won’t happen with the salmon because of idiosyncracies embedded in federal regulations.

The FDA says it cannot require a label on the genetically modified food once it determines that the altered fish is not “materially” different from other salmon – something agency scientists have said is true.

Perhaps more surprising, conventional food makers say the FDA has made it difficult for them to boast that their products do not contain genetically modified ingredients.

The labeling question has emerged as the FDA determines whether to approve the fish, an Atlantic salmon known as AquAdvantage that grows twice as fast as its natural counterpart. The decision carries great weight because, while genetically modified agriculture has been permitted for years and engineered crops are widely used in processed foods, this would be the first modified animal allowed for human consumption in the United States.The AquAdvantage salmon has been given a gene from the ocean pout, an eel-like fish, and a growth hormone from a Chinook salmon.

‘The public wants to know’

Consumer advocates say they worry about labeling for genetically engineered beef, pork and other fish, which are lining up behind the salmon for federal approval.

“The public wants to know and the public has a right to know,” said Marion Nestle, a professor in the Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health Department at New York University. “I think the agency has discretion, but it’s under enormous political pressure to approve [the salmon] without labeling.”

The debate will be taken up this week, with an advisory committee meeting Sunday and Monday on whether to allow the modified fish, and a separate panel meeting Tuesday on whether the fish should be labeled. The panels will offer recommendations to the FDA commissioner, who will decide both matters.

The biotechnology industry is opposed to mandatory labeling, saying it will only bewilder a public that is not well informed about genetic engineering.

“Extra labeling only confuses the consumer,” said David Edwards, director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization. “It differentiates products that are not different. As we stick more labels on products that don’t really tell us anything more, it makes it harder for consumers to make their choices.”

The FDA defends its approach, saying it is simply following the law, which prohibits misleading labels on food. And the fact that a food, in this case salmon, is produced through a different process, is not sufficient to require a label.

The controversy comes at a time when Americans seem to want to know more about their food – where it is grown, how it is produced and what it contains. Books criticizing industrial agriculture have become bestsellers, farmers markets are expanding and organic food is among the fastest-growing segments of the food industry.

The FDA itself is part of a new effort to improve nutrition information on processed foods.

In the European Union and Japan, it is nearly impossible to find genetically modified foods, largely because laws require labeling, said William K. Hallman, director of the Food Policy Institute at Rutgers University. “No one wants to carry products with such a label,” he said. “The food companies figure that consumers won’t buy it.”

There is nothing to stop salmon producers or food makers in the United States from voluntarily labeling their products as genetically engineered – except a fear of rejection in the marketplace, Hallman said. “I don’t know of a single company that does that,” he said.

The FDA maintains it can only require labeling if a genetically engineered food is somehow different from the conventional version – if it has an unusual texture, taste, nutritional component or allergen, for example.

Although some consumer advocates maintain there are important differences, the agency’s scientists have already said they see no “biologically relevant” variations between the AquAdvantage salmon and traditional salmon.

Consumers could be certain of getting the non-modified version if they bought salmon labeled as “wild,” but most salmon consumed in this country is farmed.

Ever since the FDA approved the first genetically altered material for use in food in 1992, when Monsanto developed a synthetic hormone injected into cows to increase milk production, the agency has held that it cannot require food producers to label products as genetically engineered.

In the intervening years, the use of genetically engineered crops has skyrocketed; 93 percent of this year’s soybean crop is genetically engineered, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department.

Byproducts of those crops – soy lecithin, for example – are found in thousands of processed foods from chocolate bars to breakfast cereal; none is labeled as containing genetically modified ingredients.

No ‘Hormone Free’ either

The labeling matter is further complicated because the FDA has maintained a tough stance for food makers who don’t use genetically engineered ingredients and want to promote their products as an alternative. The agency allows manufacturers to label their products as not genetically engineered as long as those labels are accurate and do not imply that the products are therefore more healthful.

The agency warned the dairy industry in 1994 that it could not use “Hormone Free” labeling on milk from cows that are not given engineered hormones, because all milk contains some hormones.

It has sent a flurry of enforcement letters to food makers, including B&G Foods, which was told it could not use the phrase “GMO-free” on its Polaner All Fruit strawberry spread label because GMO refers to genetically modified organisms and strawberries are produce, not organisms.

It told the maker of Spectrum Canola Oil that it could not use a label that included a red circle with a line through it and the words “GMO,” saying the symbol suggested that there was something wrong with genetically engineered food.

“This to me raises questions about whose interest the FDA is protecting,” said Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who has introduced legislation that would require labeling for genetically engineered food. “They are clearly protecting industry and not the public.”

One state with a sizable salmon fishing industry – Alaska – passed a law in 2005 that requires labeling of any genetically engineered fish sold there.

“One side of the argument says let’s give consumers sovereignty over their food choices,” Hallman said. “The other says we’ve done the science on this and it’s no different, so if we put a label on it, we’re implying it’s somehow risky and that’s like government imposed false advertising.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/18/AR2010091803520.html?referrer=emailarticle