Tag Archive | "Grain"

Tags: , , , , , ,

Roundup Ready Soybean Patent Expiration

Posted on 02 November 2011 by admin

cia_rrsoybean.jpg

The world’s most widely adopted biotech trait, Roundup Ready® soybeans, is set to go off patent soon in the U.S. – the last applicable Monsanto-owned patent is expected to expire in 2014.

We introduced our second-generation Roundup Ready soybean technology in 2009 – Genuity™ Roundup Ready 2 Yield®. Monsanto-owned seed brands will be wholly focused on the Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield platform by 2012. We believe the grower benefits will be impressive, as compared to the post-patent choice of a royalty-free Roundup Ready trait. That’s why Genuity™ Roundup Ready 2 Yield technology will be the base platform for our future soybean technologies.

Seed Company and Farmer Choice After 2014

Farmers and seed companies will have the opportunity to make their own decisions about the value of Genuity™ Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans compared to Roundup Ready soybeans. Our seed company licensees will be able to continue to provide farmers with soybeans containing the Roundup Ready trait through the Roundup Ready patent expiration and beyond.

That means Roundup Ready trait licensees can make business plans that make the most sense for their operations and for their customers.

Here are some key points about the Roundup Ready patent expiration:

  • Monsanto is amending all Roundup Ready soybean trait licenses to extend through the final patent expiration. As a result, the last crop year for which Monsanto will collect royalties on the technology is 2014.
  • Licensees have no obligation to destroy or return seed due to expiration of the Roundup Ready soybean trait licenses.
  • Monsanto will not use variety patents against U.S. farmers who save varieties containing the Roundup Ready trait for planting on their own farms after expiration of the trait patent. Farmers should check with seed suppliers regarding the policy for seed varieties developed by other companies and contain the Roundup Ready trait.
  • Monsanto will maintain full global regulatory support for this first-generation technology through 2021. This will allow grain from the 2014 crop to be sold and processed. We will continue to monitor and assess the planned use of this first-generation technology beyond 2021 and work with appropriate stakeholders on any extension of regulatory support that may be needed.
  • Seed company licensees who choose to work with Genuity™ Roundup Ready 2 Yield technology will be able to continue to sell varieties with Roundup Ready after the patent expires. There is no need for them to stop selling Roundup Ready technology in order to sell the new trait.
  • Universities will also be able to offer soybean varieties containing the Roundup Ready trait. A number of universities have been breeding with the Roundup Ready soybean trait for a number of years and they will be able to continue this both now and following expiration of the patent.

Patent Protection, Innovation and Choice

The fact that Monsanto and other biotech companies continue to invest in the development of new soybean traits that will benefit farmers shows the U.S. patent system provides incentive for innovation.

The transition of Roundup Ready soybean technology into the public domain represents another benefit – patent expiration provides a means for public access to this technology.

This system motivates individuals as well as companies, to invest in all types of new technologies that make U.S. farmers and our economy more competitive.

Roundup Ready Trait and Soybean Variety Patents

Despite the advantage of the Genuity™ Roundup Ready 2 Yield trait, some farmers may want to use Roundup Ready soybean technology following the end of the trait patent.

Many Roundup Ready varieties are also covered by variety patents and plant variety protection certificates.  Monsanto will continue to enforce its intellectual property, including variety patents, with respect to commercial and developmental use of patented Roundup Ready varieties after the patent expiry.

However, as stated above, Monsanto will not use variety patents against U.S. farmers who save soybean varieties containing the Roundup Ready trait for planting on their own farms after patent expiration.

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (1)

Tags: , , , , , ,

Mexico to Expand GMO Corn Planting-group

Posted on 19 September 2011 by admin

(Reuters) – * More than 10 permits sought again for pilot projects

* Pro-GMO group sees commercial corn planting by next year

(Reuters) – Permits to plant large extensions of genetically modified (GM) corn for the first time in Mexico are likely to be approved before the end of the year, said a company lobby group on Monday.

Monsanto , DuPont’s Pioneer seed unit and Dow Chemical’s agricultural arm have all applied to expand on tiny experimental plots of GM corn in northern Mexico, said AgroBIO, an organization that represents the biotech companies.

The group expects the government will approve more sizable pilot plots for the corn-growing state of Sinaloa by the end of October and in Tamaulipas by November with other states following soon after.

The aim is to have the first commercial planting by the end of 2012, AgroBIO’s director Alejandro Monteagudo said.

For years the revered status of corn in Mexico, widely believed to be the birthplace of the grain, has made the country hesitant to adopt transgenic maize seeds.

Tough regulations require companies first plant test plots on less than 2.5 acres (1 hectare), destroying all the corn produced.

Once the experiments show they are not harming the environment or contaminating Mexico’s native corn varieties, the law allows for a pilot phase of around 25 acres (10 hectares).

When that hoop is cleared, farmers can move on to commercial planting.

“We are not gaining anything from just staying in the experimental phase,” Monteagudo said.

Most of the eleven petitions for pilot projects were initially rejected by the government on the grounds there was a lack of sufficient information from the experiments.

AgroBIO resubmitted the claims and is waiting for a response. The Agriculture Ministry did not respond for a request for comment on the new round of permit requests.

Mexicans eat corn with nearly every meal and the grain was worshiped as a god by the region’s pre-colonial cultures.

Now one of the world’s biggest corn producers — more than 20 million tonnes on average per year — Mexico has fallen behind other agricultural powerhouses such as its neighbor the United States where genetically modified seeds are widespread.

Mexico imports around 10 million tonnes of corn every year, mostly a yellow variety from the United States used for animal feed. AgroBIO says the expensive GM seeds could increase yields in Mexico by up to 15 percent and reduce the cost of fertilizers and other inputs.

Farmers in the country’s north, where there are vast expanses of mechanized and irrigated land, say they need the seeds to be more competitive.

But the rest of Mexico’s corn is grown by small producers, many of whom use the grain to feed their families and livestock. They worry the engineered seeds will overtake indigenous corn varieties or create dependencies on international companies. (Reporting by Mica Rosenberg; editing by Miral Fahmy)

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Global scientists decry human trials of GMO Wheat

Posted on 16 July 2011 by admin

By Belinda Tasker
Sydney Morning Herald

A group of prominent scientists and researchers from around the world has urged Australia not to go ahead with human trials of genetically modified (GM) wheat.

The CSIRO is carrying out a study of feeding GM wheat grown in the ACT to rats and pigs and could extend the trial to humans.

The modified wheat has been altered to lower its glycaemic index in an attempt to see if the grain could have health benefits such as improving blood glucose control and lowering cholesterol levels.

But eight scientists and academics from Britain, the US, India, Argentina and Australia believe not enough studies have been done on the effects of GM wheat on animals to warrant human trials.

The CSIRO has dismissed their concerns, insisting no decision has been made on if or when human trials will begin.

In a letter to the CSIRO’s chief executive Megan Clark, the scientists expressed their “unequivocal denunciation” of the experiments.

“The use of human subjects for these GM feeding experiments is completely unacceptable,” the letter said.

“The experiments may be used to dispense with concerns about the health impacts of consuming GM plants, but will not in fact address the health risks GM plants raise.

“The feeding trials should not be conducted until long-term impact assessments have been undertaken and appropriate information released to enable the scientific community to determine the value of such research, as against the risks.”

Among the signatories were Dr Michael Antoniou, of the gene expression and therapy group at King’s College London School of Medicine, and Professor David Schubert, from the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in California.

The scientists said they were concerned that the CSIRO had inadequately described the biological and biochemical make-up of the GM wheat being used in the trials.

They said that, based on previous research, GM food products had been shown to be prone to having multiple effects, including damaging the health of animals which had eaten them.

They believed the CSRIO’s animal feeding trials of up to 28 days were “completely inadequate” to assess such risks.

But CSIRO spokesman Huw Morgan said animal trials of the GM wheat, which began in 2005, were still continuing.

“No decision has been made as yet to undertake human trials,” he told AAP.

“It’s still something that we are considering.”

Mr Morgan said many studies carried out in the past 15 years had shown GM foods had no detrimental impact on human health.

The CSIRO’s trials were trying to determine whether the new type of GM grain had health benefits for people with conditions such as colourectal cancer and diabetes, he said.

Greenpeace food campaigner Laura Kelly said GM experts recommended that long-term animal feeding studies of two years should be carried out before human testing to evaluate any carcinogenic, developmental, hormonal, neural and reproductive dysfunctions.

“This is the first generation of Australian children that will be exposed to GM in food for a lifetime,” she said.

“If Julia Gillard doesn’t stand up to foreign biotech companies, soon they’ll be eating it in their sandwiches and pasta, even though it has never been proven safe to eat.”

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Greenpeace Destroys GMO Wheat trial in Australia

Posted on 14 July 2011 by admin

Greenpeace’s own photo of their criminal activity in destroying the wheat trial in ACT, Australia

 

Greenpeace recently enlisted Vandana Shiva to protest on their behalf about GM wheat trialsunderway in Australia. Vandana Shiva endorses criminal arson as direct actionagainst scientific laboratories she disproves (explicit video interview).

Now Greenpeace — by their own self-acknowledged vandalism — are following Vandana Shiva (Sydney Peace [sic] Prize recipient)  into the cesspool of criminality.

.

Greenpeace destroys GM wheat
Jessica Nairn, ABC Radio 666 Canberra
Updated July 14, 2011 11:08:36

Greenpeace protesters have broken into a CSIRO experimental farm in Canberra to destroy a crop of genetically modified wheat.

In the early hours of this morning a group of Greenpeace protesters scaled the fence of the CSIRO experimental station at Ginninderra in the capital’s north.

Greenpeace says activists were wearing Hazmat protective clothing and were equipped with weed string trimmers.

They say the entire crop of genetically modified wheat has been destroyed.

About half a hectare of GM wheat is being grown on the site, as part of Australia’s first outdoor trials.

No genetically modified wheat strain had ever been approved for cropping in Australia before.
Last month the CSIRO received permission to conduct Australia’s first trial in which humans will eat GM wheat.

The wheat’s genes have been modified to lower the glycemic index and increase fibre to create a product which will improve bowel health and increase nutritional value.

Animal feeding trials of up to three months have been conducted, with human trials at least six months away.

Greenpeace says it has taken action because of concerns over health, cross-contamination and the secrecy surrounding the experiments.

Campaigner Laura Kelly says the Federal Government needs to put an end to testing GM wheat in Australia.

She says parts of the United States and many countries throughout Europe have already rejected the crop, and Australia should do the same.

“No one is looking after the health of Australians. Julia Gillard isn’t standing up to foreign GM countries to protect our daily bread so Greenpeace has to,” she said.

ACT Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury used to work for Greenpeace and says he is not surprised the group has taken such action.

“It’s always very controversial these sorts of actions, but you have to stand up for what you believe in sometimes,” he said.

“Greenpeace has clearly formed a view that the best way to both draw attention to this issue and to potentially protect the human food chain in Australia is to take this action.”

Mr Rattenbury says Greenpeace has a track record of breaking the law to highlight problems.
“I’ve certainly been involved in action in the past where Greenpeace has broken the law and that has been necessary to highlight what we’ve considered at the time to be a greater issue than perhaps a simple trespass,” he said.

ACT police have confirmed they are investigating but have not released any further information.

GM crop destroyed
BY STAFF REPORTERS (Canberra Times)
14 Jul, 2011 09:08 AM

…ABC radio reported that the four protesters scaled the fence at the secure facility in Ginninderra wearing full-body Hazmat protective clothing.

Greenpeace have confirmed at least two women scaled the fence, including one mother, Heather McCabe*, who is concerned about her family’s health.

“This GM wheat should never have left the lab,” said Ms McCabe.

“I’m sick of being treated like a dumb Mum* who doesn’t understand the science. As far as I’m concerned, my family’s health is too important. GM wheat is not safe, and if the Government can’t protect the safety of my family, then I will.”

Canberra Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury [Pundit note:former Greenpeacer staffer] this morning condoned the action on ABC Radio, citing Greenpeace’s long-held opposition to GM crops, and saying that sometimes the end justified the means.

The site was being used to grow some of the first outdoor GM wheat crops in Australia, and trials were due to begin on human consumption of the modified wheat.

“We had no choice but to take action to bring an end to this experiment,” said Greenpeace Food campaigner Laura Kelly in a release this morning.

“This is about the protection of our health, the protection of our environment and the protection of our daily bread.

“It is time Julia Gillard stood up to global biotech companies and protected Australia’s daily bread. With public health and our largest food export under threat, this is too big an issue for the Prime Minister to continue to ignore.”

Police are investigating the incident.

There is a  Heather McCabe on the Greenpeace pay-roll according to linked-in. The dumb Mum treatment thus may be related to her place of employment.
Updates:
Robust reader comment thread

BY EWA KRETOWICZ, CITY REPORTER, Canberra Times
15 Jul, 2011 06:57 AM
Scientists have lost a year of work and up to $300,000 after Greenpeace activists destroyed a crop of genetically modified wheat at Ginninderra.
The CSIRO has labelled the act a media stunt and will review its security procedures….
The GM trials were conducted under licences from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator which imposes strict containment conditions.
CSIRO Plant Industry chief Jeremy Burdon said the wheat was modified to increase yield and improve nutritional value. He denied the government-funded science body had links to multinational biotechnology company Monsanto.
”I don’t see the grounds under which anyone should be concerned about the level of integrity the CSIRO [employs in its] experimental work,” Dr Burdon said.
He said the GM crops were safe.
”Gene silencing basically allows you to turn off genes and manipulate existing genes within a plant. It’s not like some GM products where you bring in a gene from a totally different species. In this case, you are simply taking the existing genes that are there and turning them on or off.”…
From: “Australian Academy of Science”
Subject: Media Release – GM Crop destruction unacceptable: Academy of Science
(14 July 2011)
GM Crop destruction unacceptable: Australian Academy of Science
The Australian Academy of Science today condemned last night’s destruction of a scientific trial of genetically modified crops at CSIRO in Canberra by Greenpeace activists.
“The Academy condemns this behaviour in the strongest possible terms,” said Academy President Professor Suzanne Cory.
“This kind of mindless vandalism against science is completely unacceptable.”
Professor Cory said scientists must be free to conduct their work without fear or favour.
“The trials are being conducted under licences from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator [official Australian Government gene technology regulatory agency] which impose strict containment conditions,” Professor Cory said.
“These conditions have been deliberately breached by Greenpeace.
“For an organisation that claims to be dedicated to the protection of the environment, this is an unconscionable act.”
Australian Farmers React:
Thursday 14 July 2011

Press release Grain Producers of Australia

GRAIN PRODUCERS SLAM GREENPEACE STUNT

Australian Grain Producers have today called for Greenpeace to be reprimanded and appropriate

action taken, following the destruction of CSIRO wheat field trials in Canberra.

“The destruction of world class science is absolutely despicable.  Attacking the research that supports Australian farmers is the same as attacking Australian farmers and generally we are sick of it. It is irresponsible, unethical and in this case illegal” said Mr Peter Mailler, Chairman, Grain Producers Australia.

Mr Mailler said .”CSIRO is an iconic organisation, responsible for many of the agricultural advancements that enable Australian farmers to produce the cleanest, safest and healthiest food and fibre that feeds and clothes hundreds of millions of people across the globe every year ”

“GM wheat is seven to ten years away, CSIRO has been responsibly conducting GM wheat field trials at this site for fourteen years. Today’s Greenpeace actions are totally unacceptable,” he said.

“Plant science and research and development are critical to the future of our industry,” said Mr Andrew Weidemann, R&D spokesperson, Grain Producers Australia.

“Australian farmers are highly innovative and have continued to adapt to changes in climate, customer requirements and the global operating environment, but we cannot achieve ongoing production without new tools and technologies,” he said.

“Gene technology is a proven and safe plant science. GM crops have been grown, traded and consumed around the world for fourteen years, delivering significant agronomic, environmental and sustainable outcomes,” he said.

“Today’s illegal Greenpeace activity has once and for all proven what many of us have feared for quite some time – Greenpeace is not interested in green outcomes or sustainable agriculture and food production. This is purely a non-factual, high profile fund raiser and Australian consumers need to be aware of this,” said Mr Weidemann.

Pruducers Forum Press release 14 July 2011

FARMERS CONDEMN GREENPEACE ASSAULT

Today the multi-million dollar multi-national Greenpeace continued its assault on Australian agriculture and in doing so revealed its true nature. By illegally entering the CSIRO property and deliberately destroying trial plots at the site, the Greenpeace activists and those who support them are making a mockery of Australia’s dearly held democratic rights and freedoms. “Our farmers are appalled at the unconscionable actions of the trespassers and believe that they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,” said Heather Baldock, National Convenor of Producers Forum.

“People have been contacting me to express their outrage and wondering what we can do about it. Civil protest is one thing. Wilful, illegal, destruction is something else entirely and must be roundly condemned,” she continued. “This is the nation’s property yet we have individuals, egged on by a multi-national NGO, willing to destroy it. It is hardly a wonder people are outraged,” Ms Baldock said.

“Australian farmers are innovators. Adopting new tools, techniques and technologies have allowed them to be among the best in the world, made possible by the support of Australian scientists and research organisations.

“The research and development (R&D) and innovation that today allows Australian farmers to produce the safe, healthy and affordable food that consumers value and expect continues to be needed to face the challenges of food production into the future. Our farmers are rightfully proud of the quality, quantity and variety of foods they produce,” Ms Baldock added.

Wayne McKay farms in the Central West of NSW. He says that the Australian grain industry strongly supports R&D in all facets of agriculture including  GM crops, and notes that the rate of production increase in Australia has declined and that Australians do not need fear mongering naysayers trying to undermine and destroy valuable R&D that supports agriculture and food production.

“Australia’s CSIRO is recognised world-wide as a first class   research organisation. The scientists working in the fields of molecular biology and gene technology operate within the processes and guidelines set down by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and our regulatory system is widely regarded as among the best in the world.

“To imply that these scientists are doing anything that would harm Australians or any other people is quite  imply and demonstrably wrong. It certainly does Greenpeace no credit,” Mr McKay said.

“Attacking our CSIRO is a bit like attacking motherhood,” he said.

Ms Baldock says that the community must question Greenpeace’s motives in attacking a technology that is good for the environment, and helps small farmers in developing nations to become more self sufficient.

COSMOS magazine are on the job.

Greenpeace targets CSIRO crops

Thursday, 14 July 2011

by Myles Gough

Cosmos Online

SYDNEY: In the early hours of July 14, Greenpeace protestors gained illegal entry into an experimental CSIRO operated farm near Canberra and destroyed a crop of genetically modified (GM) wheat….

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Mexican States Ban GMO Corn

Posted on 05 March 2011 by admin

The Mexican States of Tlaxcala and Michoacán each passed legislation banning the planting of genetically modified corn to protect natural plants from further contamination of transgenes.  Together, both states produce about a third of all of Mexico’s corn. Below this story is a detailed timeline of genetic contamination and legislation in Mexico.

By Aleira Lara
Greenpeace

It’s been an exciting couple of months in the debate over Mexican maize with some good news for Mexican agriculture and biodiversity. However, the consequences of recent frosts in northern states and the aggressive propaganda of the industry is still putting at risk Mexican’s basic grain. Here’s the latest:

GM FREE STATES ARISING IN MEXICO:

Because of the lack of interest of federal government to protect the large diversity of Mexican maize against the contamination of GM crop, Michoacán State congress passed by a majority the “Law of Promotion and Protection of Native Maize as Alimentary Patrimony of Michoacán State”, which will allow the protection of 18 of the 59 races of this crop that exist in Mexico. Michoacán is the fourth largest maize producer on a national scale and represents 30 percent of Mexico’s total maize crop area.

Michoacán’s initiative follows the recent approval of the “Law of Promotion and Protection of Native Maize as an original patrimony, in constant diversification, and alimentary for Tlaxcala State”. Both states decided to go ahead with the protection of such an important crop for Mexican society.

This process is directly related to the lack of political will of the federal government to promote local production and the fierce interest of multinational companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Pioneer and Dow Agroscience to impose GM maize within Mexican territory. We hope that this process will continue and that more and more states will protect their maizes races, especially the northern states that are currently developing GM maize experimental trials such as “Sinaloa” and “Chihuahua”.

Learn more about the origin and diversity of maize in the American continent, TlaxcalaMichoacán.

ANOTHER DEFEAT FOR MONSANTO

In January, the secretary of agriculture announced his decision to deny pilot trials to Monsanto in the State of Sinaloa – principal producer of white corn for human consumption in Mexico. Pilot trials are the next step after the experimental stage.We have been working hard in this state, facing the will of local authorities that are closely linked to the industry and have distributed GM maize propaganda widely within the region.

Recently we’ve released a new report ““Cultivos transgénicos: cero ganancias” (GM crops,zero profit”) in local meetings. Moreover, in 2007 we made a formal complaint to theProcuraduría General de Protección al Ambiente (Profepa) (Environment Protection Agency).We received additional information in 2010 related to the irregularities in GM trials in Sinaloa state. We published this information and we asked for the suspension of experimental trials in the country. Here is the what the government press release had to say: This is why all Federal Government resolutions are based in scientific principles are decided impartially according to the Law of Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms and all the implications it has of official institutions that are concerned”

Read the whole press release in Spanish.

BIOTECH INDUSTRY’S PROPAGANDA AFTER BAD HARVESTS

On the other side, the consequences of recent frosts in northern states on maize production and the aggressive propaganda of the industry is still putting Mexican’s basic grain at risk.

Our warnings to the Mexican government have fallen on deaf ears and now the tragic loss of more than 5 millions foods grain confirms our worse fears: a model that neglects and excludes indigenous and small corn producers from public policies, that ignores and doesn’t take care of the ecological production and instead concentrates the nation’s resources in mono-crop industrial agriculture is vulnerable to massive failure. The biotech industry won’t hold back and wants to take advantage of the recent crisis to push forward the planting of its transgenic seeds as the magic tool against climate extremes. We are fighting hard to counter these false statements despite of their strong lobbying. The biotech companies are trying to take advantage of a dramatic situation directly related to the economical model they represent.Our struggle for Mexican maize, people and agriculture is still on, and we hope that this year will be full of victories for our campaign, in order to prevent Mexico to be a center of origin of a basic grain to liberate the GM crop on a commercial scale within its territory.

TIMELINE

(Data thru 2006 from History Commons)

1998: Mexico Bans GM Crops

Mexico bans the planting of genetically modified crops. [Mother Jones, 7/9/2002]

July 1999: Grupo Maseca Says it will Stop Using GM Corn

Grupo Maseca, Mexico’s top producer of corn flour, says it will phase out its use of genetically modified corn. Mexico purchased $500 million of US corn in 1998. [Food & Drink Weekly, 9/13/1999Canadian Business, 10/8/1999]

October 2000: Genetically Modified Genes Found in Native Mexican Maize

Dr. Ignacio Chapela, a microbial ecologist, and his assistant, David Quist, a graduate student at UC Berkeley, discover the presence of genetically modified (GM) genes in native Mexican maize growing in the remote hills of Oaxaca, Mexico. The contaminant genes contain DNA sequences from the cauliflower mosaic virus, which is often used as a promoter to “switch on” insecticidal or herbicidal properties in GM plants. Contamination is also found in samples from a government food store that purchases animal feed from the US. The Oaxaca region is considered to be the birthplace of maize and the world’s center of diversity for corn, “exactly the kind of repository of genetic variation that environmentalists and many scientists had hoped to protect from contamination,” the New York Times reports. Scientists worry that the genes could spread through the region’s corn population reducing its genetic diversity. Critics of genetically modified crops have long argued that the technology cannot be contained. According to Dr. Norman C. Ellstrand, evolutionary biologist at University of California at Riverside, the discovery “shows in today’s modern world how rapidly genetic material can move from one place to another.” The findings are not good news for the biotech industry which is currently lobbying Brazil, the European Union, and Mexico to lift their embargoes on genetically modified crops. [New York Times, 10/2/2001; Manchester Guardian Weekly, 12/12/2001; BBC, 3/13/2002] It is later learned that the contamination resulted from Oaxacan peasants planting kernels they purchased from a local feed store. Though there’s a moratorium on the growing of GM crops, there’s no such ban on animal feed containing GM seed. [Cox News, 10/2/2001]

September 18, 2001: Mexican Government Says It Has Found GM Contamination in Native Mexican Maize

Mexico’s Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources announces that it has found genetically modified (GM) corn growing in 15 different localities. It began investigating potential GM contamination after two Berkeley scientists found maize growing in Oaxaca (see October 2000) that was contaminated with genetically engineered DNA sequences from the cauliflower mosaic virus. [New York Times, 10/2/2001] Mexico does not release its study until January 2002 (see January 2002).

(Late 2001): Ecologist Warned Not To Publish Study on GM Contamination in Mexico

When Dr. Ignacio Chapela, a microbial ecologist who recently discovered the presence of genetically modified (GM) genes in Mexican maize (see October 2000), meets with a Mexican agricultural official to discuss the GM contamination, he is warned not to publish his research. Chapela later recalls in an interview with BBC Newsnight, “He [told] me how terrible it was that I was doing the research and how dangerous it would be for me to publish.” When he refuses to back off the issue, the official suggests that Chapela join a research team tasked with proving that the suspected GM genes are actually naturally occuring gene sequences similar to the ones in GM corn. “We were supposed to find this in an elite scientific research team of which I was being invited to be part of and the other people were two people from Monsanto and two people from Dupont supposedly… .” Monsanto denies its scientists were involved in any such study. Chapela also meets with Mexico’s Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources, whose officials are concerned about the discovery. They launch their own investigation and also find evidence of contamination (see September 18, 2001). [BBC, 6/2/2002]

Late November 2001: Berkeley Scientists Publish Study on GM Contaminated Maize in Mexico

Berkeley grad student David Quist and Dr. Ignacio Chapela, a microbial ecologist, publish the results of a study (see October 2000) finding that native Mexican maize has been contaminated with genetically modified genes. The study—published by the British journal Nature after an eight-month long peer-review process—presents two arguments. In addition to reporting the discovery that some of Oaxaca’s maize contains transgenic material, the paper says they found transgene fragments scattered throughout the plants’ modified DNA. [Quist and Chapela, 11/29/2001 ]The study’s second conclusion causes a controversy because it contradicts the assertions of the biotech industry that genetic engineering is a safe and exact science, and that the technology is capable of controlling precisely where the modified sequences are positioned, how they will be expressed, and whether or not they will be passed on to successive generations. One of the main arguments of the technology’s detractors is that the methods used to insert trangenic genes into an organism’s DNA cannot be done with accuracy and therefore are liable to produce unpredictable and undesirable effects. Following the publication of Quist and Chapela’s article, other Berkeley biologists—who work in a Berkeley University program partially funded by Syngenta, a major biotech firm—criticize the study, leading Quist and Chapela to acknowledge that the analyses of two of the eight gene sequences in their paper were flawed. However they stand by their conclusions that the remaining six sequences contained scattered modified gene sequences. Critics of the article also note that both Quist and Chapela strongly oppose the genetic engineering of crops and participated in an unsuccessful effort to block the Berkeley-Syngenta partnership. The issue soon grows into a very large controversy that some suggest is fueled by the efforts of the biotech industry, and in particular, the Bivings Group, a PR firm on Monsanto’s payroll. Forum postings at AgBioWorld.org are reportedly traced to a Bivings’ employee. It is also noted that another person posting on the forum makes “frequent reference to the Center for Food and Agricultural Research, an entity that appears to exist only online and whose domain is [allegedly] registered to a Bivings employee.” Bivings denies that it is in any way connected to the forum postings. In spite of the controversy surrounding the article’s second finding, the other conclusion, that Mexico’s maize has been contaminated, is largely uncontested, and is buttressed by at least three other studies (see January 2002February 19, 2003-February 21, 2003). [Associated Press, 4/4/2002East Bay Express, 5/29/2002;BBC, 6/2/2002Mother Jones, 7/9/2002]

January 2002: Mexican Environmental Ministry Publishes Study on Transgenic Contamination in Mexican Maize

Mexico’s Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources publishes the results of its study (see September 18, 2001) on transgenic contamination in Oaxaca and nearby Puebla. The study found contamination levels between 3 and 13 percent in eleven communities and between 20 and 60 percent in four others. Tests conducted on maize sold in government food stores revealed that 37 percent contained the GM genes. [East Bay Express, 5/29/2002]

April 2002: British Science Journal Pulls Support for Article on GM Contamination in Mexico

In an unprecedented move, Nature runs an editorial pulling its support for a controversial study by Berkeley scientists David Quist and Dr. Ignacio Chapela on genetic contamination of native Mexican maize. The study, published the previous fall (see Late November 2001), reported that native maize in Oaxaca had been contaminated with genetically modified (GM) genes and that transgene fragments were found scattered throughout the plants’ modified DNA. Immediately after being published, the article came under attack by pro-GM scientists who disputed Quist’s and Chapela’s second finding. “In light of these discussions and the diverse advice received, Nature has concluded that the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper,” the journal’s editor, Philip Campbell, writes. “As the authors nevertheless wish to stand by the available evidence for their conclusions, we feel it best simply to make these circumstances clear, to publish the criticisms, the authors’ response and new data, and to allow our readers to judge the science for themselves.” Though the journal withdraws its support, it does not retract the article. [Associated Press, 4/4/2002East Bay Express, 5/29/2002Mother Jones, 7/9/2002] The decision to withdraw support is based on the opinions of three unnamed independent experts whom Nature consulted. Only one of those experts, however, disputed Quist’s and Chapela’s finding that there was evidence of contamination. All three agreed that the second finding—that transgene fragments were scattered throughout the plants’ modified DNA—was flawed. [BBC, 6/2/2002]

April 18, 2002: Mexico Finds More Evidence of GM Contamination in Native Mexican Maize

Jorge Soberon, the executive secretary of Mexico’s biodiversity commission, announces that government scientists have confirmed that genetically modified (GM) corn is growing in Mexico. The finding supports what two US scientists reported several months earlier (see Late November 2001) in a highly controversial paper published in the journal Science. Calling it the “world’s worst case of contamination by GM material,” he says 95 percent of the sites sampled in Oaxaca and Puebla were found to have GM maize. Samples taken from these sites indicated a contamination level as high as 35 percent. [Daily Telegraph, 4/19/2002Mother Jones, 7/9/2002]

January 2003-August 2003: More GM Contamination Discovered in Mexico

A study conducted by a coalition of North American civil society organizations finds that cornfields in nine Mexican states—Chihuahua, Morelos, Durango, Mexico State, Puebla, Oaxaca, San Luis Potosi, Tlaxcala, and Veracruz—are contaminated with genetically modified (GM) DNA. A total of 2,000 plants from 138 farming and indigenous communities are tested. Contaminated corn is discovered in 33 of these communities, or 24 percent. Contamination levels vary from 1.5 percent to 33.3 percent. Some plants are found to contain as many as four different types of GM DNA—one herbicide-resistant variety and three Bt varieties, including Starlink, which is banned for human consumption in the US. Several plants in at least one of the contaminated fields are deformed. “We have seen many deformities in corn, but never like this,” Baldemar Mendoza, an indigenous farmer from Oaxaca, says during a news conference. “One deformed plant in Oaxaca that we saved tested positive for three different transgenes. The old people of the communities say they have never seen these kinds of deformities.” [ETC Group, 10/11/2003]

October 29, 2004: Canada and Mexico Adopt Looser Standards Regulating the Import of GM Contamination Feed

The US, Mexico, and Canada enter into a trilateral agreement that allows food and grain shipments to have GM contamination levels as high as 5 percent. Shipments containing less than the five percent level will only have to bear a label indicating that the grain may contain genetically modified organisms. Additionally, accidental contamination of corn shipments into Mexico will not trigger any labeling requirements. Only the distributor will have to be informed of the contamination. The Mexican government enters into the agreement without the Mexican Senate’s approval. [Associated Press, 2/26/2004] Critics of the deal say the US is attempting to protect agricultural biotech companies and US agriculture. A large percentage of the country’s crop is genetically modified and as a result US farmers and biotechs are having a tough time finding markets abroad. Raising the acceptable contamination limits in other countries will help increase US grain exports. Critics also say that the deal could have a dramatically adverse effect on the genetic diversity of Mexico’s maize. It could result in the planting of more genetically modified corn since small farmers have been known to occasionally plant feed as seed. A few years before, maize growing in Oaxaca and Puebla was discovered to contain genetically modified genes (see October 2000April 18, 2002). It is believed that the contamination was caused in part by farmers who had planted feed from local stores selling grain imported from the US. The ETC Group, a Canadian-based organization that is opposed to genetically modified crops, warns that if Mexico permits the import of grain with such high levels of contamination, the country’s “maize crop would be riddled with foreign DNA from the Rio Grande to Guatemala in less than a decade.” [ETC Group, 2/26/2004]Greenpeace believes that US efforts to convince countries to lower the accepted levels of contamination are aimed at undermining the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (see January 24-29, 2000), which has been set up to regulate transboundary shipments of genetically modified organisms.[Greenpeace, 2/11/2004]

October 9, 2006: Mexico Denies Permits to Biotechs to Plant GE Corn in Northern States

The Mexican Department of Agriculture turns down all seven requests filed by biotech companies to plant experimental fields of genetically engineered corn in northern Mexico. Companies that applied for permits included Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., and others. [Associated Press, 10/18/2006]

March 6, 2009 Mexico lifts ban on GM maize

Mexico has lifted the ban on experimental cultivation of transgenic maize imposed in 1999 in this country where the crop was first domesticated and shaped human culture. Biotech giants have put forward two dozen projects for approval and have announced investments of 382 million dollars up to 2012. The green light was given by the government of conservative President Felipe Calderón to the trials, by means of an executive decree which came into force early this month. [Farming UK, 3/19/09]

Calderon took office under a storm of controversy over election fraud in the 2006 election, prompting millions to protest. The protests were crushed by US and Mexican military. (Click here for links to several news reports, plusthis one by Al Giordana.)

Also see Phantoms in the machine: GM corn spreads to Mexico by author and filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin (The World According to Monsanto), Aug. 19, 2010.

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Europe, Japan GMO Canola Threat

Posted on 27 December 2010 by admin

EUROPEAN and Japanese grain buyers have threatened to cancel Australian contracts over fears of contaminated canola.

Importers have warned Australia’s grain industry they will reject genetically modified grains.

The CBH Group, a major Australian grain co-operative controlled by 4800 growers, yesterday declared that natural canola farmers had a major advantage in international markets, attracting a 5 per cent price premium over GM canola.

CBH had to begin testing all grains for GM contamination this year after Western Australia lifted its moratorium on GM crops, allowing GM canola to survive sprayings of the Monsanto herbicide Round-Up.

CBH’s marketing manager for lupins, oats and canola, Peter Elliott, said yesterday 90 per cent of this year’s traditionally grown canola crop had been sold to Europe, which has banned GM foods. “When you’re growing GM, at the moment you need to compete against Canada, but when you’ve got non-GM you get a free kick into Europe and some markets in Japan,” he said.

“There’s a massive advantage to be growing non-GM this year, because Europe has been so aggressively buying up all the non-GM tonnage.”

Mr Elliott said he was concerned about the case of WA farmer Steve Marsh, who was stripped of his organic status last week after his farm was allegedly contaminated with GM canola seeds, blown from a neighbouring farm.

Mr Elliott said GM canola now made up 6 per cent of the crops in WA and 20 per cent in Victoria and NSW, but the strain was still banned in South Australia, the ACT and Tasmania.

The Australian can reveal that four European and Japanese importers threatened to cancel contracts after the WA government approved GM canola in January.

The European importers — AgroTrace in Switzerland, Eurograin in Germany and Holtermann in Norway — warned WA Premier Colin Barnett in February they would reconsider sourcing canola from the state in order to meet strict European laws on GM labelling and contamination thresholds.

“European consumers remain resolutely opposed to genetically modified crops, and as European importers we must remain responsive to the needs of our customers,” the importers wrote in a letter obtained by The Australian yesterday.

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , ,

China Rejects U.S. Shipment Of GMO Corn

Posted on 02 November 2010 by admin

U.S. Corn Shipment Rejected by China May Go to Japan, Unipac’s Chino Says

A shipment of U.S. corn rejected by China on the grounds that it contained a genetically modified strain not approved in the country may be resold to Japan for livestock feed, Unipac Grain Ltd. said.

Japan approves all varieties of U.S. genetically modified corn that are in commercial production, Nobuyuki Chino, president of the Tokyo-based trading company, said by phone yesterday. Chino has traded grains for more than 30 years.

China rejected a 54,000 ton cargo bought by Cofco Ltd. from a Japanese trading company, two officials with direct knowledge of the matter have said. This was the first time China rejected a U.S. corn cargo, and the grain, stored in the southern port of Shenzhen since September, will probably be ordered out of the country, the officials said.

China, the world’s second-biggest corn consumer, has bought about 1.5 million tons of the U.S. grain this year, the most since about 1995, as the government sought to cool domestic prices that gained 27 percent in the past year. Futures have surged 52 percent in Chicago as drought in Russia and Ukraine and floods in Canada pushed up global grain prices.

The quarantine department’s decision to reject the cargo was reached after tests on as many as eight samples, one official said. The government may make an announcement in the next few days, one official said. They declined to be identified as they are not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

The press office at the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine declined to comment. The Cofco press office also declined to comment.

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I have a right to know about GMOs

Posted on 27 September 2010 by admin

As a human being, an American, I have a right to know what is in the food I consume! As far back as time humans have generally known what their diet consisted of. Early humans just picked it right from the vine, tree, or ground and new that it had nutritional value because it satiated their hunger and gave them energy. Even as far back as a hundred years ago general nutritional value was known of the food you ate. Most people back then even knew where it came from and who grew it and where! Today most of us do not know where our food was grown, what was put on it (i.e. pesticides, fertilizers, hormones, mutant genes, etc!), how it was delivered, or processed. While I understand the FDA’s stance that too much information may confuse most consumers, identifying a genetically modified product would not be confusing. The product has either been genetically modified or it hasn’t (GMO or not GMO) pretty simple! While most consumers are aware that the vast majority of processed foods has been made with plant and vegetables that are heavily treated with insecticides and fertilizers many are not aware that they are also using GMO corn, soy, and canola. They have a right to know! Most consumers are aware that their meat has been treated with hormones and vaccines, many are not aware how much or to what extent. They have a right to know!

The FDA nor the Government has the right to keep such general information from any consumer. They do not have the right to decide if that information is pertinent to me and my decision to buy and consume it. Only I have the right to decide that. The idea that they have decided that the GMO products such as corn, soy, canola, and now possibly salmon are the same as the non GMO products. Their science may say that but I have a right to know what it is I am eating and to deny me the knowledge of the fact that the product has been genetically modified is denying me the right to decide if that is what I want to consume. As it is now, I do not consume processed foods, I do not eat fish or seafood at all. I buy my meat from a source where I know what went into it and what nutritional value I will get from it. Europe has refused our GMO grains. Haitians burned thousands of pounds of donated grains from US farm corporations because they were GMO grains. They were starving and yet they refused the grains! As a United States citizen and a human I demand that the FDA and our Government tell the truth! Tell consumers what is a GMO and what is not. What are they afraid of, that people won’t buy it if it is marked as GMO? Maybe that will happen maybe not, but the people shall decide not the Government.

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

S 510 and Codex Alimentarius – the removal of nutrition

Posted on 20 September 2010 by admin

by A. Goodwin

S 510 includes passages that would force harmonization with Codex Alimentarius. It is a name most people do not know and one that the media has not exposed though its consequences to human health would be extreme. Codex threatens the lives of millions through limiting access to adequate supplementation.

From an open letter by Dr. Matthias Rath, a renowned cardiologist, sent to Helmut Kohl, the German chancellor and one time pharmaceutical lobbyist who introduced Codex to the world.

This “Codex” Commission is overwhelmingly composed of representatives of German and international pharmaceutical corporations, and its aim is to set world-wide guidelines for vitamins, amino acids, minerals and other dietary supplements. Spearheaded by the German pharmaceutical corporations, this Codex Commission plans to ban, on a world wide scale, any health statements in relation to vitamins, be it preventive or therapeutic. Moreover, the only vitamin formulas which would still be available would have to meet the arbitrary restrictions of the Codex Commission. The nations that do not comply with these restrictions are faced with economic sanctions.

These plans of the pharmaceutical corporations and the Codex Commission are in direct opposition to the overwhelming importance of vitamins and other essential nutrients for human health and, in particular, for preventing cardiovascular disease. …

With this background, the attack of the Codex Commission is a desperate act by pharmaceutical companies to protect their world-wide drug market against naturally effective and much more affordable vitamins. Particularly disturbing is the spearheading role of the German pharmaceutical corporations within the Codex Commission. Once before in this century, a German pharmaceutical and chemical corporation, I.G. Farben, became responsible for the deaths of millions of people and consequently, was dismantled in 1946 by the Nuremberg Tribunal and split into Bayer, BASF and Hoechst. With the current plans of the German pharmaceutical companies, the predictable dimension of the unnecessary and premature death of millions of people is unavoidable. If the Codex Commission is allowed to obstruct the eradication of heart disease by restricting access to nutritional supplements, more than 12 million people world-wide will continue to die every year from premature heart attacks and strokes. Within the next generation alone, this would result in over 300 million premature deaths, more than in all the wars of mankind together.

 

Codex for the US began on December 31, 2009. There have been five bills so far this year to remove access to supplements, if one adds S 3767 introduced by Senators Leahy, Klobuchar, and Franken on September 13th.

How dangerous are supplements that they are subject to FDA armed raids?

The Hazardous-Nutritional-Supplements -Target of FDA Police Raids:

Annual Deaths From:

FDA-Approved Drugs (1)…….60,000 – 140,000

Food Contamination (2)………………………9,100

Aspirin (3)………………………………………………90

All vitamins (4). …………………………………….. 0

Uncontaminated amino acids (4)………………0

Commercial herbs (4)……………………………… 0

 

Why is this happening? The logic is inescapable - illness is worth money and health is worth $0. The FDA would be in charge of whatever agency is set up under S 510 (and S 3767) which would destroy availability of adequate nutrition. The dark history of the FDA’s work to cut off knowledge of and access to all treatments for cancer not coming from the pharmaceutical industry is extensive but mostly unknown. The current FDA, pleading it doesn’t have enough power to stop food contamination, finds power when it comes to stopping gentle cancer treatments and safe treatments for pain, and loses it again when it comes to drugs causing thousands of heart attacks ordeaths and is silent on common pharmaceutical industry pain medications which routinely kill.

The value of supplements is abundantly clear to the pharmaceutical industry. When they were the main support for Germany during WWII, it was “A crime punishable by death to spread information in regard to nutrition in Norway, Belgium, Holland, and all other conquered countries.” - D.T. Quigley, MD, Fellow American College of Surgeons, in The National Malnutrition

Today, the FDA is involved in an on-going, unconstitutional effort to stop information about theeffectiveness of supplements, especially those which offeralternatives to H1N1 vaccines. The FDA has been and is increasing its removal of freedoms around speech, and health (as relates to food and vaccines/drugs), and now, just as they hope to control vast power over food and remove supplements, has gone so far as to assert in court that there is no fundamental right to one’s bodily and physical health. (Is this a necessary legal accompaniment to the devastation that Codex would cause, and to forcing people into exposure to pharmaceutical industry’s vaccines which have become increasingly unsafe?)

 

The removal of rights is the focus of

this video on Codex: “We Become Silent – The Last Days of Health Freedom” with Dame Judy Dench.

 

While people may sense that the consequences of the removal of nutritional supplements would be serious, it is possible to see in advance what would result from Codex-compelled vitamin and minerals deficiencies. In viewing the list, however, it is important to realize that those born or already sick with diseases and certain groups such as children, pregnant women and the elderly would be impacted first, given their greatly elevated requirement for nutritional supplementation. And hyper-supplementation to actually treat diseases would be available. Adults who do not fall into those categories would became ill from lack of adequate nutrition, at which point they would join the ranks of the ill and their own nutritional requirements to sustain lives would go up.

This following list is brief, not including hundreds herbs or any of the specially combined nutritional formulations, including those with absolute evidence of their effectiveness, and the absence of which

 

Vitamin D

http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(09)00440-9/fulltext

From the American Journal of Medicine:

“Adequate vitamin D status is necessary and beneficial for health, although deficiency plagues much of the world’s population. In addition to reducing the risk for bone disease, vitamin D plays a role in reduction of falls, as well as decreases in painautoimmune diseasescancerheart disease, mortality, and cognitive function. On the basis of this emerging understanding, improving patients’ vitamin D status has become an essential aspect of primary care. Although some have suggested increased sun exposure to increase serum vitamin D levels, this has the potential to induce photoaging and skin cancer, especially in patients at risk for these conditions.Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency can be both corrected and prevented safely through supplementation.”

 

Vitamin A deficiency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A_deficiency

Vitamin A deficiency is a lack of vitamin A in humans. It is common in developing countries but rarely seen in developed countries. Night blindness is one of the first signs of vitamin A deficiency.Xerophthalmia and complete blindness can also occur since Vitamin A has a major role in phototransduction. Approximately 250,000 to 500,000 malnourished children in the developing world go blind each year from a deficiency of vitamin A, approximately half of which die within a year of becoming blind. The United Nations Special Session on Children in 2002 set the elimination of vitamin A deficiency by 2010. The prevalence of night blindness due to vitamin A deficiency is also high among pregnant women in many developing countries. Vitamin A deficiency also contributes to maternal mortalityand other poor outcomes in pregnancy and lactation.[1][2][3][4]

Vitamin A deficiency also diminishes the ability to fight infections. In countries where children are not immunized, infectious disease likemeasles have higher fatality rates. As elucidated by Dr. Alfred Sommer, even mild, subclinical deficiency can also be a problem, as itmay increase children’s risk of developing respiratory and diarrheal infections, decrease growth rate, slow bone development, and decrease likelihood of survival from serious illness.

Alfred (Al) Sommer‘s research on vitamin A in the 1970s and 1980s revealed that dosing severely vitamin A deficient children with an inexpensive, large dose vitamin A capsule twice a year reduces child mortality by as much as 34 percent.[1] The World Bank and, recently, the Copenhagen Consensus list vitamin A supplementation as one of the most cost-effective health interventions in the world.[2][3]

 

Vitamin B deficiency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_vitamins#B_vitamin_deficiency

Vitamin Name Deficiency effects
Vitamin B1 thiamine Deficiency causes beriberi. Symptoms of this disease of the nervous system include weight loss, emotional disturbances, Wernicke’s encephalopathy (impaired sensory perception), weakness and pain in the limbs, periods ofirregular heartbeat, and edema (swelling of bodily tissues). Heart failure and death may occur in advanced cases. Chronic thiamine deficiency can also cause Korsakoff’s syndrome, an irreversible psychosis characterized by amnesia and confabulation

 

Vitamin B2 riboflavin Deficiency causes ariboflavinosis. Symptoms may include cheilosis (cracks in the lips), high sensitivity to sunlight, angular cheilitis,glossitis (inflammation of the tongue),seborrheic dermatitis or pseudo-syphilis(particularly affecting the scrotum or labia majora and the mouth), pharyngitis (sore throat), hyperemia, and edema of thepharyngeal and oral mucosa.
Vitamin B3 niacin Deficiency, along with a deficiency oftryptophan causes pellagra. Symptoms include aggression, dermatitisinsomnia,weakness, mental confusion, and diarrhea. In advanced cases, pellagra may lead todementia and death (the 3(+1) Ds: dermatitis, diarrhea, dementia, and death). 

Pellagra is a vitamin deficiency disease most commonly caused by a chronic lack of niacin(vitamin B3) in the diet. It can be caused by decreased intake of niacin or tryptophan[1], and possibly by excessive intake of leucine.[2]It may also result from alterations in protein metabolism in disorders such as carcinoid syndrome. A deficiency of the amino acidlysine can lead to a deficiency of niacin as well, meaning that another potential cause of pellagra is lysine deficiency.[3]

Vitamin B5 pantothenic acid Deficiency can result in acne and paresthesia, although it is uncommon.
Vitamin B6 pyridoxine Deficiency may lead to microcytic anemia(because pyridoxyl phosphate is the cofactor for heme synthesis), depression, dermatitis, high blood pressure (hypertension), water retention, and elevated levels ofhomocysteine.
Vitamin B7 biotin Deficiency does not typically cause symptoms in adults but may lead to impaired growth and neurological disorders in infants. Multiple carboxylase deficiency, an inborn error of metabolism, can lead to biotin deficiency even when dietary biotin intake is normal. 

Initial symptoms of biotin deficiency include:

  1. Dry skin
  2. Seborrheic dermatitis
  3. Fungal infections
  4. Rashes including red, patchy ones near the mouth (erythematous periorofacial macular rash)
  5. Fine and brittle hair
  6. Hair loss or total baldness (alopecia)

If left untreated, neurological symptoms can develop, including:

  1. Mild depression, which may progress to profound lassitude and, eventually, tosomnolence
  2. Changes in mental status
  3. Generalized muscular pains (myalgias)
  4. Hyperesthesias and paresthesias
Vitamin B9 folic acid Deficiency results in a macrocytic anemia, and elevated levels of homocysteine. Deficiency in pregnant women can lead to birth defects. Supplementation is often recommended during pregnancy. Researchers have shown that folic acid might also slow the insidious effects of age on the brain.
Vitamin B12 cobalamin Deficiency results in a macrocytic anemia, elevated homocysteineperipheral neuropathy, memory loss and other cognitive deficits. It is most likely to occur among elderly people, as absorption through the gut declines with age; the autoimmune disease pernicious anemia is another common cause. It can also cause symptoms of mania and psychosis. In rare extreme cases, paralysis can result. 

 

Vitamin B12 deficiency is a reduction invitamin B12 from inadequate dietary intake or impaired absorption. The condition is commonly asymptomatic, but can also present as anemia characterized by enlarged blood corpuscles with characteristic changes in neutrophils, known as megaloblastic anemia.

In serious cases deficiency can potentially cause severe and irreversible damage to the nervous system, including subacute combined degeneration of spinal cord.

The anemia is thought to be due to problems in DNA synthesis, specifically in the synthesis of thymine, which is dependent on products of the MTR reaction. Other blood cell types such as white blood cells and platelets are often also low. Bone marrow examination may showmegaloblastic hemopoiesisThe anemia responds completely to vitamin B12; theneurological symptoms (if any) respond partly or completely, depending on prior severity and duration.

 


 

Vitamin C deficiency

Symptoms and Signs of Vitamin C Deficiency

It takes several months of low amounts of vitamin C to lead to the symptoms of scurvy. The classic symptoms are bleeding gums, scaly skin, loose teeth, fatigue, increased risk of infection, and poor wound healing. Children and infants with an ascorbic acid deficiency usually have poor bone growth and anemia.

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/NHC/cardiovascular_disease/lecture/stanford_speech.htm

This animation (requires RealVideoPlayer) shows the connection between cardiovascular disease and the sailor’s disease scurvy. As opposed to animals, the human body cannot synthesize vitamin C. Ascorbate deficiency results in two distinct morphological changes of the vascular wall: Impaired vascular stability due to decreased collagen synthesis and loss of the endothelial barrier function.
The sailors of earlier centuries died within a few months from hemorrhagic blood loss due to lack of endogenous ascorbate synthesis combined with a vitamin deficient diet aboard. When the Indians gave those sailors tea from tree barks and other vitamin rich nutrition, blood loss was stopped and the vascular wall healed naturally.Today, everyone gets some vitamin C and open scurvy is rare. But almost everyone suffers from chronic vitamin deficiency. Over decades, micro lesions develop in the vascular wall, especially in areas of high mechanical stress such as the coronary arteries.

Vitamin E deficiency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_E_deficiency

Vitamin E deficiency causes neurological problems due to poor nerve conduction. These include neuromuscular problems such as spinocerebellar ataxia andmyopathies.[1] Deficiency can also cause anemia, due to oxidative damage to red blood cells.

Vitamin E deficiency is rare in humans and is almost never caused by a poor diet.[1]Instead, there are three specific situations when a vitamin E deficiency is likely to occur. It is seen in persons who cannot absorb dietary fat, has been found in premature, very low birth weight infants (birth weights less than 1500 grams, or 3.5 pounds), and is seen in individuals with rare disorders of fat metabolism.[2]

Individuals who cannot absorb fat may require a vitamin E supplement because some dietary fat is needed for the absorption of vitamin E from the gastrointestinal tract. Anyone diagnosed with cystic fibrosis, individuals who have had part or all of their stomach removed, and individuals with malabsorptive problems such as Crohn’s diseaseliver disease or pancreatic insufficiency may not absorb fat and should discuss the need for supplemental vitamin E with their physician. People who cannot absorb fat often pass greasy stools or have chronic diarrhea and bloating.

Very low birth weight infants may be deficient in vitamin E. A neonatologist, apediatrician specializing in the care of newborns, typically evaluates the nutritional needs of premature infants.

Abetalipoproteinemia is a rare inherited disorder of fat metabolism that results in poor absorption of dietary fat and vitamin E.[3] The vitamin E deficiency associated with this disease causes problems such as poor transmission of nerve impulses, muscle weakness, and degeneration of the retina that can cause blindness.Individuals with abetalipoproteinemia may be prescribed special vitamin E supplements by a physician to treat this disorder. In addition, there is a rare genetic condition termed isolated vitamin E deficiency or ataxia with isolated with vitamin E deficiency, caused by mutations in the gene for the tocopherol transfer protein.[4] These individuals have an extremely poor capacity to absorb vitamin E and develop neurological complications that are reversed by high doses of vitamin E.

 

Vitamin K deficiency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_K

Vitamin K is a group of lipophilichydrophobic vitaminsthat are needed for the posttranslational modification of certain proteins, mostly required for blood coagulation but also involved in metabolism pathways in bone and other tissue.

 

Symptoms of Vitamin K DeficienciesVitamin K is known to be needed to coagulate blood and to maintain proper bone density. It plays a key role in proper development of the fetus. Deficiencies of vitamin K have been linked to:

Heavy menstrual bleeding*
Gastrointestinal bleeding
Hematuria (blood in the urine)
Nosebleeds
Eye hemorrhages
Anemia
Gum bleeding
Prolonged clotting times
Hematomas
Hemorrhaging
Ovarian Hemorrhaging
Easy bruising
Purpura
Osteopenia
Osteoporosis
Fractures
Hypercalciuria
Liver Cancer
Calcification of soft tissue, especially heart valves (See my section on Calcium Deposits for more on this topic).
Birth defects linked directly to vitamin K deficiencies include:

Underdevelopment of the nose, mouth and mid face
Shortened fingers
Cupped ears
Flat nasal bridges

The following birth defects have been linked to anticonvulsant drugs, which block vitamin K:

Epicanthal folds
Flat nasal bridge
Short noses
Variety of craniofacial abnormalities
Neural tube defects
Mental retardation
Learning disabilities
Long, thin overlapping fingers
Hypertelorism
Upslanting palpebral fissures
Microcephaly
Cardiac abnormalities
Distal digit hypoplasia (shortened pinkie fingers)
Growth deficiency

 

Iron deficiency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_deficiency_(medicine)

 

Iron deficiency (sideropenia or hypoferremia) is one of the most commonly known forms of nutritional deficiencies. In the human bodyiron is present in all cellsand has several vital functions—as a carrier of oxygen to the tissues from the lungs in the form of hemoglobin, as a transport medium for electrons within the cells in the form of cytochromes, and as an integral part of enzymereactions in various tissues. Too little iron can interfere with these vital functions and lead to morbidity anddeath.

The direct consequence of iron deficiency is iron deficiency anemia. Groups that are most prone to developing this disease are children and pre-menopausal women.

 

 

Boron deficiency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boron_deficiency_(medicine)

Boron deficiency is a pathology which may occur inanimals due to a lack of boron. A report given by E. Wayne Johnson et al. at the 2005 Alan D. Leman Swine Conference[1] suggests that boron deficiency producesosteochondrosis in swine that is correctable by addition of 50 ppm of boron to the diet. The amount of boron required by animals and humans is not yet well established.

According to some natural therapy researchers,[2] topsoilused over long periods of time for agriculture become boron-deficient to some extent, and humans eating produce from boron-rich soils have reduced incidence ofarthritis and osteoporosis.

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FDN/is_4_9/ai_n9479460/

Deficiency States

Information on boron deficiency in humans is minimal; however, it appears a deficiency in boron impacts mineral metabolism, cognitive function, steroid hormone and vitamin levels, and bone integrity. (20) Boron-deficient diets have resulted in embryological defects in some but not all animals (e.g., not in rodents), pointing to a possible role in reproduction and/or development. Limited growthis also commonly noted in boron-depleted animals, (17,21) while boron-deficient chicks present increased insulin secretion. (19,22)

Clinical Applications Anemia

Boron supplementation to subjects who had previously followed a dietary regimen deficient in boron resulted in increases in blood hemoglobin concentrations, mean corpuscular hemoglobin, and mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration, and decreases in hematocrit, red cell count and platelet count. (23)

Osteo- and Rheumatoid Arthritis

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 20 subjects with osteoarthritis, half of the subjects receiving a daily supplement containing 6 mg boron noted subjective improvement in their condition. (24)

Clinical commentary suggests children with juvenile arthritis (Still’s disease) improve with boron supplementation (6-9 mg daily). (25)

Individuals with rheumatoid arthritis might experience an aggravation of symptoms (Herxheimer response) for 1-3 weeks, but generally notice improvement within four weeks of beginning boron supplementation (6-9 mg daily). (25)

Cognitive Function

Collectively, data indicate that boron might play a role in human brain function, alertness, and cognitive performance. In humans, low boron intake compared to high boron intake was associated with poor short- and long-term memory, eye-hand coordination, and manual dexterity. (26) Boron deficiency has also been associated with decreased brain electrical activity similar to brainwave patterns observed in nonspecific malnutrition. (27)

 

Selenium Deficiency

http://www.suite101.com/content/selenium-deficiency-a10750

Selenium deficiency is thought to contribute toautoimmune disease by making the body more susceptible to nutritional and biochemical stresses as well as infectious diseases. Three diseases caused directly by selenium deficiency include Keshan Disease, which causes an enlarged heart, Kashin-Beck Disease, which causes osteoarthropathy, and Myxedematous Endemic Cretinism, a form of hypothyroidism which results in mental retardation.

  • Fatigue
  • Miscarriage
  • Hyperthyroidism
  • Lack of mental dexterity

However, there are diseases that can be caused by this deficiency as well and they include Keshan disease and Kashin-Beck disease.

Keshan disease is viral disease and mostly affects children. It is caused by a deficient amount of selenium present in the body. The main symptom of this condition is myocardial necrosis, which leads to the weakening of the heart and a general weakness of the heart muscle. Keshan disease can also make a personmuch more susceptible to developing other illnesses.

Kashin-Beck disease occurs when the body is deficient of both selenium and iodine. The symptoms this can then present include the degeneration of cartilage.

So, what exactly causes a selenium deficiency in the first place? Eating food that is grown in soil lacking this nutrient is thought to be the primary cause. Also, people suffering from intestinal disorders that make the absorption of selenium next to impossible are at an elevated risk for developing this deficiency.

Treatment usually consists of taking selenium supplements until the body’s levels have returned to normal. However, supplements may always be necessary if absorption is a problem.

 

Melatonin deficiency

http://www.prevention.com/cda/vendorarticle/melatonin/HN2883002/health/vitamin.encyclopedia/0/0/symptoms.of.deficiency

Adults with insomnia have been shown to have lower melatonin levels.4 Frequent travelers and shift workers are also likely to benefit from melatonin for the resynchronization of their sleep schedules,5 though a melatonin “deficiency” as such does not exist for these people. Patients with heart disease have been reported to have low melatonin levels, but whether this abnormality increases the risk of heart disease or whether heart disease leads to the low melatonin level is not yet known.6 People with schizophrenia were found to have low melatonin output and experienced significantly improved sleep following melatonin replacement supplementation.7

http://www.restorativemedicine.com/books/fundamentals-of-naturopathic-endocrinology/professionals/pineal-disorders/melatonin-deficiency-and-excess

Adeficient production of melatonin can result in anxiety and mood disorders, lowered basal body temperature insomnia, elevated estrogen/progesterone ratio, and immune suppression associated with cancer.

 

Magnesium deficiency

http://www.ctds.info/5_13_magnesium.html

The diets of all Americans are likely to be deficient……..Even a mild deficiency causes sensitiveness to noise, nervousness, irritability, mental depression, confusion, twitching, trembling, apprehension, insomnia, muscle weakness and cramps in the toes, feet, legs, or fingers.

Magnesium (Mg) is a trace mineral that is known to be required for several hundred different functions in the body. A significant portion of the symptoms of many chronic disorders are identical to symptoms of magnesium deficiency. Studies show many people in the U.S. today do not consume the daily recommended amounts of Mg. A lack of this important nutrient may be a major factor in many common health problems in industrialized countries. Common conditions such as mitral valve prolapse, migraines, attention deficit disorder, fibromyalgia, asthma and allergies have all been linked to a Mg deficiency. Perhaps not coincidentally, these conditions also tend to occur in clusters together within the same individual. A magnesium deficiency as a root cause would provide a logical explanation of why some people suffer from a constellation of these types of problems.Many of the following conditions commonly occur in conjunction with each other and all have been linked to a Mg deficiency.

Contents:

  • Allergies, Chemical Sensitivities
  • Anxiety and Psychiatric Disorders
  • Aorta Strength
  • Asthma
  • Attention Deficit Disorder
  • Calcification of Soft Tissue Including Heart Valve
  • Diabetes
  • Also see:
    Magnesium – Part Two - Covers the links between magnesium deficiency and diverse conditions such asfibromyalgia, hearing loss, migraines, menstrual cramps (dysmenorrhea), mitral valve prolapse, muscle cramps, nystagmus, osteoporosis, pectus excavatum, TMJ and more.
What is the percentage of Americans with inadequate intakes of Mg from food based on estimated average requirements?56%

 

 

Calcium deficiency

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/c/calcium_deficiency/symptoms.htm#symptom_list

Calcium is the most abundant mineral found in the human body. The majority (99%) is stored in the bones and teeth; the rest is stored in muscle tissue and blood. In addition to bone building and remodeling, calcium is also responsible for muscle contraction, central nervous function and hormone secretion. Calcium deficiency is of major concern in the United States. An estimated 44-87% of Americans don’t get enough

Symptoms of Calcium deficiency

The list of signs and symptoms mentioned in various sources forCalcium deficiency includes the 23 symptoms listed below:

 

Symptoms of Hypocalcaemia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocalcaemia#Symptoms

Petechia which appear as one-off spots, then later become rashes.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday announced a gradual but potentially far-reaching effort to reduce the amount of salt Americans consume in a bid to combat high blood pressure, heart disease, strokes and other health problems that have soared to near-epidemic proportions.

 

Based on what evidence?

http://www.saltinstitute.org/Issues-in-focus/Food-salt-health/Salt-and-cardiovascular-health

1985. A ten-year study of nearly 8,000 Hawaiian Japanese men concluded: “No relation was found between salt intake and the incidence of stroke.”

1995. An eight-year study of a New York City hypertensive population stratified for sodium intake levels found those on low-salt diets had more than four times as many heart attacks as those on normal-sodium diets – the exact opposite of what the “salt hypothesis” would have predicted.

1997. An analysis by NHLBI’s Dr. Cutler of the first six years’ data from the MRFIT database documented no health outcomes benefits of lower-sodium diets.

1997. A ten-year follow-up study to the huge Scottish Heart Health Study found no improved health outcomes for those on low-salt diets.

1998. An analysis of the health outcomes over twenty years from those in the massive US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES I) documented a 20% greater incidence of heart attacks among those on low-salt diets compared to normal-salt diets

1998. A health outcomes study in Finland, reported to the American Heart Association that no health benefits could be identified and concluded “…our results do not support the recommendations for entire populations to reduce dietary sodium intake to prevent coronary heart disease.”

1999. A further analysis of the MRFIT database, this time using fourteen years’ data, confirmed no improved health benefit from low-sodium diets. Its author conceded that there is “no relationship observed between dietary sodium and mortality.”

1999. A study of Americans found that less sodium-dense diets did reduce the cardiovascular mortality of one population sub-set, overweight men – the article reporting the findings did not explain why this obese group actually consumed less sodium than normal-weight individuals in the study.

2001. A Finnish study reported an increase in cardiovascular events for obese men (but not women or normal-weight individuals of either gender) – the article, however, failed to adjust for potassium intake levels which many researchers consider a key associated variable.

2002. In September, 2002, the prestigious Cochrane Collaboration produced the latest and highest-quality meta-analysis of clinical trials. It was published in the British Medical Journal and confirmed earlier meta-analyses’ conclusions that significant salt reduction would lead to very small blood pressure changes in sensitive populations and no health benefits.

2003. In June 2003, Dutch researchers using a massive database in Rotterdam concluded that “variations in dietary sodium and potassium within the range commonly observed in Westernized societies have no material effect on the occurrence of cardiovascular events and mortality at old age.”

2004. In July 2004, the first “outcomes” study identifying a population risk appeared in Stroke magazine. Researchers found that in a Japanese population, “low” sodium intakes (about 20% above Americans’ average intake) had one-third the incidence of fatal strokes of those consuming twice as much sodium as Americans.

2006. A March 2006 analysis of the federal NHANES II database in The American Journal of Medicine found a 37% higher cardiovascular mortality rate for low-sodium dieters

2007. A February 2007 reported in the International Journal of Epidemiology studied 40,547 Japanese over seven years and found “the Japanese dietary pattern was associated with a decreased risk of CVD mortality, despite its relation to sodium intake and hypertension.”

2007. An April 2007 article in the British Medical Journal found a 25% lower risk of CV events in a group which years earlier had achieved significant sodium reduction during two clinical trials (TOHP I and TOHP II).

2007. An October 2007 analysis of a large Dutch database published in the European Journal of Epidemiology documented no benefit of low-salt diets in reducing stroke or heart attack incidence nor lowering death rates.

2008. A May 2008 examination of NHANES II (the largest US federal database of nutrition and health) published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine confirmed two earlier studies of earlier NHANES surveys that there is no health benefit (CVD or all-cause mortality) for those on low-sodium diets.

 

Salt deficiencyhttp://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/salt.htm

Both sea salt and rock salt were well known to the ancient Greeks who noted that eating salty food affected basic body functions such as digestion and excretion (urine and stools). This led to salt being used medically. The healing methods of Hippocrates (460 BC) especially made frequent use of salt. Hippocrates mentions inhalation of steam from salt-water. We know today that the antiinflammatory effects of inhaled salt provide relief from respiratory symptoms (c). Thus, 2000 years ago, Greek medicine had already discovered topical use of salt for skin lesions, drinking salty or mineralized waters for digestive troubles and inhaling salt for respiratory diseases.

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

FDA Holding Hearings on GMO AquAdvantage Salmon

Posted on 17 September 2010 by admin

FDA hearings regarding allowing GMO salmon into public food supply.

This week the US FDA is holding hearings on the safety of the genetically modified(GMO) AquAdvantage Salmon. The hearings will likely decide whether the GMO salmon will reach American dinner plates any time soon.

AquaBounty has developed a genetically modified Atlantic salmon which carries a gene from a Pacific salmon, a Chinook, that pumps more growth hormone into the young fish. It grows to harvesting size in half the time that a farmed Atlantic salmon normally takes.

AquaBounty Technologies has been working on this genetically altered fish since 1996 in both the US and Canada. Currently altered salmon eggs from Prince Edward Island have been transported to Panama for raising in tanks. The company on its web page points out the lucrative trade in farmed sea food which currently brings in $78.8 billion.

GMO Animals Controversial

The introduction of GMO animals into the food chain is controversial for the same reasons that GMO plants are – there is no reliable way to trace any problems that may arise from consuming them. The GMOs that make their way into the food chain are not labelled as such and consumers do not know which plant foods have been altered. Currently corn, soybeans, canola lead the GMOs in N.America but a plethora of other plants are modified and are in the process of being modified. There is no way to trace any health impact of these synthetic foods.

One of the most troubling side-effects of gene tinkering is a potential increase in allergens or creation of new allergens. A New England Journal of Medicine article on GMO food noted that the potential for allergies created from GMO foods is “uncertain, unpredictable, and untestableCorporate Crime Daily

GMO Salmon Approval Signal for More Gene-Spliced Animals

The FDA has already decreed that there is no significant difference between wild Atlantic salmon and the synthesized one. No labelling should be necessary. If approval is given to market the AquAdvantage salmon in the US, it will open the gates for more species-mixed animals on the dinner plates.

The Enviropig is already waiting in the wings. It has a gene from E.coli and a DNA modifier from a mouse inserted into its genetic makeup in order to promote more efficient digestion of grain. When I was growing up on a two bit old fashioned farm we raised a couple of pigs each year. They got very little grain and a lot of milk and greens, but of course, they didn’t grow really fast either.

Read more about the AquaBounty project within the US in AllVoices article written by Tommy Hollywood FDA About to Approve Frankenfish Salmon.

Share if you eat food or drink water!

Comments (0)

Advertise Here
Advertise Here