Tag Archive | "Raw"

Tags: , , ,

California Police raid Organic Food store GUNS DRAWN looking for raw milk!!

Posted on 06 August 2010 by admin

Food police target organic foods in California! on TV News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifvp3Fxi7Uo
Police raided the Rawsome Foods organic grocery store with guns drawn in search of “raw-foods”. George Hemminger (George4Title) said the battle over organic foods is heating up because large agricultural businesses and corporations feel threatened by local co-ops and have hijacked the FDA and other government regulatory agencies.

RAW VIDEO: California Police raid Organic Food store GUNS DRAWN looking for raw milk!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHoFY7h-do8
California Police raid organic food store looking for raw milk!!

Keep Raw Milk LEGAL!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56tiOnGSgyQ
In October 2007, California State Legislature passed a bill banning the sale of raw milk. Despite its medicinal value, raw milk will no longer be available to the public. Republican Presidential Candidate Dr. Ron Paul has introduced a bill to legalize the transportation of unpasteurized milk. Please help save raw milk. Visit www.organicpastures.com to make a donation.

H. R. 778 Unpasteurized (Raw) Milk Legalization Bill

To authorize the interstate traffic of unpasteurized milk and milk products that are packaged for direct human consumption.

Comments (3)

Tags: , , , ,

Mouth Health: Fluoridated Water, Good or Bad?

Posted on 20 July 2010 by admin

Let’s talk about water fluoridation this week. And, being that I’m a dentist, you’ll probably be a little surprised by my stance on it. At least in terms of it being included in water.

As you likely know, fluoride is a chemical that is commonly found in most toothpaste brands. People use fluoridated toothpaste as a means to strengthen teeth (i.e. prevent cavities) and normally don’t think much further about it. Which is fine — that’s pretty much how it’s marketed.

Since the late 1990s, the United States Food and Drug Administration has made it mandatory for toothpastes to carry a warning in regards to fluoride usage. But why would the FDA post a warning on a toothpaste ingredient? Doing research on what fluoride is reveals that the chemical is now considered a potential toxic drug, and ingesting enough of the ingredient could be harmful.

Now, I don’t want to scare you — brushing your teeth with fluoride toothpaste isn’t harmful. Nor is a dentist using a gel-type fluoride treatment when you get your checkup. Uses like that are topical usages — you don’t ingest it. And even if you do ingest some toothpaste (etc), the levels of fluoride aren’t going to pose any threat. And it does prevent cavities.

But in terms of it being added to water, I’m not so sure that’s a good thing. Adding fluoride has been a standard in many countries for years. However, several countries (mainly Europe) have taken an active stance on banning fluoride from their drinking water. And I’m with them — I do not see the good in fluoridating our drinking water. I definitely see the reasoning why countries would add it — it helps prevent cavities. But as a dentist, I think cavity prevention can be done just as effectively without putting fluoride in our water. To me, the “bad” it can (potentially) do outweighs the good.

So what is the bad?

Well, I’ll be the first to tell you that research is not all-encompassing. Since fluoride does prevent cavities, it’s a popular chemical. However, studies have been done that seem to equate fluoride with weakened bones, primarily the hips . There is also a known condition called fluorosis, which occurs when a child gets too much fluoride when teeth are developing. Well, if there is fluoride in the water, wouldn’t you come to the conclusion that this could contribute to “too much fluoride?” I would. Even more disturbing, there was a study done in China on children with fluorosis, and the findings were that children with the affliction had, in overall terms, lower IQ scores. These findings were echoed in an American study that came to the same findings using animals: The study concluded that fluoride would accumulate in specific areas of the brain, which then affected the ability to learn. This does not constitute irrefutable proof, but it does make one think.

In addition, recently, the National Kidney Foundation (NFK) withdrew its long-held support for fluoridated water. Now, they didn’t radically reverse their opinion, they just went from endorsing it to having no opinion at all. That’s a little telling.

However, in all of this, I do need to point out that I am in the minority, and there are plenty of studies that refute what I am saying here. In other words, my “side” of this is far from proven. But, in my years of being a dentist, I’ve found enough to make me feel that fluoride in the water just isn’t worth it. Even if some research is scoffed at, the question itself is enough to make me pause. Especially because I do feel we have enough education on oral health that everyone should be brushing their teeth. And trust me, if you are brushing like you should be (and your dentist is using a topical treatment every so often), then I feel you don’t need fluoride in your water. I’m not a fan of inserting a chemical into our water that most of us simply don’t need to help the few that won’t help themselves.

Ok, you say, “how can I remove fluoride from my water? Fluoride can be removed from a person’s drinking water through various filtration methods. Reverse osmosis, distillation and alumina defluoridation can help to remove unnecessary impurities. Methods such as boiling or freezing water do nothing but concentrate the fluoride source, and should be avoided.

While uncovering the truth behind fluoride’s origins can be a frightening concept, there is some discussion in regards to removing its presence from our water supply (like I said earlier, most of Europe has already done so). If this interests you, I urge you to do some research, draw your own conclusions, and then write your congressperson.

Until next time, keep smiling.

Follow Thomas P. Connelly, D.D.S. on Twitter

source: Huffington Post

Comments (0)

Tags: , , ,

Organization questioning use of fluoride in town of Lake Cowichan’s drinking water

Posted on 15 June 2010 by admin

Lake Cowichan’s drinking water may not be as healthy as the public thinks, Burnaby-based Health Action Network Society president Jane Shaak argues.

The fluoridation of the water, she said, must end.

“I’m sure a lot of people in Lake Cowichan don’t know they’re the only community on the island that has (fluoridated water),” she said.

Not only is Lake Cowichan the only place on Vancouver Island still adding fluoride to its drinking water, its citizens make up some of the only 3.7 per cent of British Columbians with access to fluoridated water.

The Health Action Network Society has a goal of reducing that number to zero.

The World Health Organization document Fluoride in Drinking-water states: “Fluoride has beneficial effects on teeth at low concentrations in drinking-water, but excessive exposure to fluoride in drinking-water, or in combination with exposure to other sources, can give rise to a number of adverse effects.”

Lake Cowichan superintendent of public works Nagi Rizk confirmed through an e-mail interview that the town samples its water daily and once a month a compounded sample is tested in a certified laboratory for optimal fluoride content.

“For whatever reason (fluoridation) was done in the past, but this has to change,” Shaak said. By adding fluoride to the water supply the town is forcing a medication upon the public. “Why are municipalities medicating people? They’re making these arbitrary decisions based on information of the past.”

The fluoridation of the local water supply last came up in council meetings in 2002, when the council of the time approved of putting the fluoridation issue to a public vote.

Before this happened, submissions made by the Central Vancouver Island Health Region endorsing fluoridation came forward, and approval for the vote was withdrawn.

source: Cowichan News Leader Pictorial

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Olbermann Slams Tea Party Senate Candidate For Voting Against Water Fluoridation

Posted on 11 June 2010 by admin

Olbermann Slams Tea Party Senate Candidate For Voting Against Water Fluoridation  110610Olbermann

It is now considered crazy to think sodium fluoride is poison even though it is

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Friday, Jun 11th, 2010

RELATED:  Scientific Study Finds Fluoride Horror StoriesFactual

MSNBC Countdown host Keith Olbermann has slammed a Tea Party Senate candidate who won a key primary victory this week, intimating that she is crazy because she believes sodium fluoride, a deadly poison, is poisonous.

In yet another example of an anti-establishment candidate scoring a decisive victory, Tea Party-backed Nevada Republican Sharron Angle came from behind to win the State primary on Tuesday and earn the right to challenge incumbent Harry Reid for a place in the Senate.

In a similar vein to the backlash against Rand Paul following his Kentucky win last month, Democrats have suggested that Angle’s win is a good thing because she will be an easier opponent for Reid come November due to her “extremist” views.

Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent noted that Reid will seek to “use her own words to paint her as, well, a complete whackjob.”

Olbermann began the tirade against Angle on Wednesday, during a segment of his show as he announced “Conventional wisdom was that Sue Lowden’s come-from-ahead defeat to Tea Partier Sharron Angle would hurt Senator Harry Reid. Turns out Ms. Lowden was the sensible one.”

Calling Angle “cartoon-like”, Olbermann criticized Angle’s affiliation with the Oath Keepers, the military and law enforcement activist group that pledges to uphold state’s rights and the U.S. Constitution.

Despite the fact that since 9/11, the U.S. has officially been under a state of emergency, and the vast erosion of civil liberties in the form of legislation such as the Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act and the Military Commissions Act, to name but a few, Olbermann suggested Angle was farcical for having concerns that Martial Law could be used to suspend the Constitution and effectively turn American cities into internment camps:

“Two months ago Ms. Angle said she was a member of the Oath Keepers, a group preparing itself not just for government internment camps, but for the day that somebody issues a ‘order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.’” Olbermann sardonically read from his autocue.

Olbermann clearly considers such concerns ludicrous now Obama is in office, but just a few years ago he was decrying the death of Habeas Corpus under president Bush, explaining to his viewers that any American citizen could effectively be arrested and locked away forever without trial. A google search yields articles and videos of Olbermann’s well placed concern.

The hope and change America has since experienced has clearly alleviated such worries in Keith’s mind, and he now considers the same concerns stupid and laughable.

This is a clear example of how the phony left/right political paradigm works. For eight years Olbermann campaigned against the increasing tyranny Americans were subject to. Despite the fact that none of the freedom stripping legislation enacted under Bush has been repealed by the Obama administration, everything is seemingly fine now the Democrats are back in power.

Olbermann also described as farcical Angle’s views that the Income Tax is unconstitutional and her concern that oil should not be nationalized in the wake of the BP disaster.

Olbermann saved his best attempted smear for last, however, chuckling his way through the sentence:

“Ms. Angle also voted against fluoridizing (sic) the water, because she thinks the fluoride might be poison.”

Watch the video via Raw Story

Olbermann Slams Tea Party Senate Candidate For Voting Against Water Fluoridation  110610Olbermann3

What a crazy kook, to think that sodium fluoride, the stuff that comes in bags with a skull and cross bones on, labeled “TOXIC”, is a poison!

Note, we are not talking about calcium fluoride – which is naturally occurring and not added to water because it is INSOLUABLE.

How “extremist” it is to believe that a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry, a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972, is a poison – stupid Sharron Angle. Stupid crazy Sharron Angle – she must be racist for thinking that.

Well, there’s no doubt that Angle will be roundly defeated by Reid in November… Oh no wait, she already has an 11-point lead over the Senate Majority Leader. Perhaps the American people are actually aware that poison is not good to drink after all Mr Olbermann.

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , ,

GMO Strawberries from Mexico

Posted on 06 April 2010 by admin

GMO strawberries from Mexico

“A decade ago, Alba Jofre, from the Center for Research and Advanced
Studies (CINVESTAV), and Pedro Antonio Davalos, from the National
Institute of Forestry, Agriculture and Livestock (INIFAP), created two
transgenic varieties of Mexican strawberries…”

Have these GM strawberries really been approved for commercialization? What about for export (or import) to the US, Canada, and other countries? (This is a public posting.)

From the article, it sounds like Mexico is planning to increase the export of these GM Strawberries between August and February. Who will they be exporting too? Wouldn’t those individual countries need to approve this crop?

http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=61490

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , ,

GMO-based stuff will be excluded from baby food

Posted on 03 March 2010 by admin

The Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine adopted as a basis the bill on amendments to the Law on Baby Food (concerning toughening of the demands to the production and sale of foodstuffs).

The bill is called to strengthen requirements to the production of baby food and raw materials used for this production. The bill specifies the norms concerning the ban on the use in the production of baby foods of the raw materials made of genetically modified organisms, containing hormonal substances, antibiotics, heavy metals, pesticides, radionuclides and other harmful substances. It was also determined that the production of baby food shall proceed on an exclusively industrial basis, at specializes enterprises, shops or technology lines.

source: National Radio Company of Ukraine

Comments (0)

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

China says has not allowed imported GMO grain seeds for planting

Posted on 02 March 2010 by admin

(Reuters) - China will accelerate development of its own genetically modified (GMO) crops, seeking to secure food security and international competitiveness, an official from the country’s Ministry of Agriculture said.

The official from the Ministry’s biosafety administration office also denied recent media reports that China had already approved imported GMO grain seeds for widespread planting. His remarks were published by state media on Wednesday.

“The Ministry of Agriculture has never approved any genetically-modified grain seeds for planting in the country, and there are no GMO grain crops being planted within the country,” said the unnamed official.

The GMO cotton, soy, maize and rapeseed approved for import into China were “restricted to use as raw materials for processing,” but not for planting, said the official.

But the official also described hopes that China will be a leading player in international competition to create and grow its own GMO crops that are resistant to pests and diseases.

“Accelerating technical research on GMO crops and their application and healthy development will provide a vigorous scientific support for the sustainable development of China’s agriculture,” said the official, in the interview that also appeared on the ministry’s website.

Developing GMO strains was important for both international competitiveness and ensuring China’s food security, said the official.

China approved the safety of the insect-resistant Bt strain of rice and phytase corn last November, opening the door to widespread planting of the GMO grain crops, within about three years. [ID:nSP364484]

A survey conducted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) showed that Bt rice could cut pesticide use by as much as 80 percent and save labour costs for farmers, boosting net income by $72 per hectare.

More than 20 GMO crops have been approved for field trials, including wheat, soybean and rapeseed, according to the CAS report published last month.

China’s largest feed mill, the New Hope Group, said the company was supporting GMO corn, which could help China produce enough grain to meet rising demand for animal protein.

“I think GMO technology is a good thing… It can resolve the problem of grain supply for food, for animal feed and industry on limited farmland,” said its chairman, Liu Yonghao, on Tuesday.

“We have no choice, either we import large quantities of corn or grow GMO corn. I think the government will choose to grow GMO corn,” said Liu.

(Reporting by Chris Buckley and Niu Shuping; Editing by Ken Wills)

Comments (0)

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

Controversy over GMO food crops in India

Posted on 18 February 2010 by admin

After heavy protests, India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, recently blocked the release of “Bt brinjal” until further notice. This Indian eggplant would have been the first GM food introduced to Indian cuisine for direct consumption by humans. Though the use of GM products is not new to India, Bt brinjal has sparked a heated discussion. Here is more on the controversy over genetically modified crops in India.

 

Today, GM, or “Bt” cotton makes up at least 80 per cent of India’s total cotton production. But eight years after its introduction, the Indian public is adamant about keeping GM food off the menus.Bt cotton is now the most common in many countriesBt cotton is now the most common in many countries

Bt is “proteins that act as an insect repellent,” says Christoph Tebbe, an agricultural expert from Germany. “They are produced mainly by soil bacteria. Genetic engineering has taken the genes that produce this insecticide protein (the so-called Bt toxin) from the bacteria and transferred them to plants, allowing the plants to produce the insecticide proteins themselves.”

Bt – friend or foe?

Using Bt means using less chemical insecticides. The US agricultural giant Monsanto has played a role in India’s Bt crops. On their website they say that farmers will soon have to double output in order to feed the world’s growing population. Advocates say GM technology will have to be used for this.

But many disagree, like Jaikrishna Ranganathan from Greenpeace India, “it’s not true that GM crops can increase yields, so Monsanto’s dreams of feeding the world, it is just not possible. The real technology is sitting in organic and ecological techniques.Scientists are looking for ways to make drought resistent cornScientists are looking for ways to make drought resistent corn India’s crisis right now is because of over-use of fertilizers and fertility losses of the soil, which is serious, and GM crops are not addressing it.”

Critics also argue that Indian farmers are forced further into debt, as they buy expensive GM seeds and technologies. But the director of Monsanto India, Dr. Gyanendra Shukla disagrees.

“If you go through the country, more than 5 million farmers are using this technology,” he says. “No farmer would continue to adopt this kind of technology if they are not economically benefited. From the farmer’s perspective it means cost saving, peace of mind, and higher productivity that translates to higher income.”

GM in use today

Dr Shukla also says Bt corn and oil from Bt cotton seed areGM science could be used to fundamentally change the genetic code of plants. This picture shows purple tomatoes growing in a research gardenGM science could be used to fundamentally change the genetic code of plants. This picture shows purple tomatoes growing in a research gardenalready used for direct consumption and that there is a growing trend, “it is a progression of the technology. The technology started first in the US then it went to cotton. Recently China has approved Bt rice. So, it’s just a question of time. This technology is now in existence for thirteen, fourteen years, so I guess slowly it is coming into other crops.”

Hans-Jörg Buhk from Germany’s Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Consumer Safety says in addition to the largest GM crops, corn and soy, there are already many types of genetically modified food, for example in the US, which are not yet welcomed everywhere. Buhk also points out that “there is an area that consumers seem to pay little attention to: enzymes. Many enzymes we come across every day are used for example in fruit juice purification, in baked goods, in the cheese making process, detergents. All these things are made using genetically modified microorganisms. No one criticizes this, but it creates great savings in energy and raw materials.”

The people will decide

Buhk says that while the creation of Bt crops is not tampering too greatly with the genetic code, fears that this technology could be taken further and lead to unknown problems is understandable. Many experts are convinced that GM science can help feed the world’s growing population. But in the end, consumer acceptance will be crucial – and that precisely is the reason why India has put Bt brinjal on hold for the time being.

Author: Sarah Berning
Editor: Thomas Baerthlein

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Monsanto GMO Corn Causing Organ Failure In Rats Study

Posted on 19 January 2010 by admin

Three types of Monsanto genetically modified corn are under scrutiny in the wake of a new study published by the International Journal Of Biological Sciences which found that rats ingesting the corn were subject to statistically significant amounts of organ toxicity. These three types — Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 — have been approved for consumption in the US and several countries in Europe.

The finding that corn produced by one of the world’s agricultural giants could cause organ failure has been met with obvious concern by food activists and consumers alike. It’s not the first bout of negative publicity for Monsanto, which has been vilified for everything from producing Agent Orangeintimidating farmers, using aggressive tactics to squeeze out competitionpressuring farmers to be dependent on their products, and strongly promoting the use of genetically modified seeds here and abroad. It has been negatively portrayed in films such as “Food, Inc.” and “The World According To Monsanto”.

While some groups like Change.org, see this study as a rallying cry for regulatory action and boycott, others on both sides of the GMO issue think the study results itself are not clear and shouldn’t be accepted wholeheartedly. The IJBS is not a peer-reviewed journal, and the work was not an independent analysis of the effects of the GM corn on rats. Rather, it was a full interpretation of all of the samples of rats in the 90-day study that Monsanto itself sponsored. After analyzing the data, the European researchers came to the conclusion:

“Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity.[...] These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown.”

Discover notes that Greenpeace, an activist environmental group sponsored the scientists’ research — they had to sue to obtain the raw data in the first place, and that the IJBS is relatively obscure. Leading nutrition professor Dr. Marion Nestle wrote on her blog about the study, “I found the paper extremely difficult to read, in part because it is written in exceptionally dense and opaque language, and in part because it presents the data in especially complicated tables and figures.” Monsanto claims that the study employed “non-traditional statistical methods to reassess toxicology data from studies conducted with MON 863, MON 810 and NK603 corn varieties” and that the IJBS paper reaches “unsubstantiated conclusions.”

 
The IJBS study itself strenuously suggests more testing over two years rather than 90 days to evaluate the long-term health impacts, and by independent researchers rather than Monsanto itself. The study also points out that Monsanto conducted the study only once rather than multiple times, and only tested one species — rats — and emphasizes that testing on more mammals of this GM maize is needed to reach any kind of conclusion on safety. This maize is used as both animal feed and for human consumption.

According to the FDA’s website, the agency concludes that genetic engineering that occurred in the maize varieties, MON 810NK603MON 863 was not different enough from past approved products and did not need a pre-market review. The FDA essentially takes Monsanto’s word that the company had done adequate testing to ensure its safety, as shown clearly in this letter. Several countries in Europe, such as Germany and France, have recently banned GM crops, specifically MON 810 after it had been approved for consumption in the European Union.

Furthermore, there are no laws requiring companies to label if their products contain GMOs. Even food labeled “Organic” that is processed with multiple ingredients must only be 95% organic, leaving loopholes for obscure ingredients that are genetically modified to be included. HuffPost Blogger and Eco Etiquette columnist Jennifer Grayson has written a comprehensive article detailing the ways to avoid genetically modified foods in light of the fact that there are no labeling requirements in the US.

So the facts are as follows: We eat corn and corn derivatives that have been genetically modified, which has been banned for being unsafe in other countries – the FDA has not done independent testing on the health effects of at least three types of corn that we are eating, and have instead taken Monsanto’s word for the fact that they are safe. Monsanto resisted releasing their data to independent researchers — environmental groups had to sue to get it. Once it was released and analyzed by one group of scientists, they wrote a dense study in a non-peer reviewed journal and found statistically significant amounts of organ failure in the rats in Monsanto’s own study. Consumers often have no way of knowing clearly if they are eating genetically modified food.

The FDA did not return calls for comment.

Comments (0)

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

The Health Hazards of GM Corn

Posted on 09 January 2010 by admin

A study demonstrates the toxicity of three genetically modified corn varieties from the American seed company Monsanto, according to the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering.

“For the first time in the world, we’ve proven that GMO are neither sufficiently healthy nor proper to be commercialized … Each time, for all three GMOs, the kidneys and liver, which are the main organs that react to a chemical food poisoning, had problems,” said Gilles-Eric Séralini, an expert member of the Commission for Biotechnology Reevaluation.

The researchers based their analyses on the data supplied by Monsanto to health authorities to obtain the green light for commercialization, but they draw different conclusions after new statistical calculations.

Sources:

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Safety/gmo/the_health_hazards_of_gm_corn_0901100909.html

Organic Consumers Association December 11, 2009

Truthout December 2009

Int J Biol Sci 2009

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Monsanto’s own study has come back to bite them.

And rightly so—they clearly concealed the results of this study, massaging the data until they could slide it by as supporting the safety of their product.

It took an independent team of researchers to reexamine data and get the truth out.

Isn’t it interesting that every time Monsanto conducts scientific research on its own products, the conclusions are that they are safe? But each time independent scientists study them, all kinds of horrific side effects are uncovered.

Some former Monsanto employees report that anything that interferes with advancing the commercialization of their biotechnology is pushed aside.

One former Monsanto scientist said he knew of several fellow Monsanto researchers involved in feeding studies who have all (secretly) switched to organic milk.

What does that tell you?

If You Plant It, They Will Come

The United States has planted more GM crops than any other country every year since 1996, when GM crops were first made available commercially.

It’s bad enough that the United States allows GM crops to be grown at all—and it’s even worse that we grow two-thirds of the GM crops worldwide.

By far, corn is the crop taking up the most acreage.

The 2007 U.S. corn crop was one for the record books at 13.1 billion bushels of production, eclipsing the previous high set in 2004 of 11.8 billion bushels, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). The 2007 production level was up 24 percent from 2006[i].

Corn has exploded as a result of our dependence upon high fructose corn syrup, as well as its use in ethanol, although corn-based biofuel appears to be on the decline due to its excessive carbon footprint.

United States Rather Slow to “Get It”

The US is painfully slow to wise up about the damaging effects of GM corn.

Germany recently banned the GM corn variety called MON 810, which had been the only remaining GM crop permitted in that country. MON 810 had already been banned in Austria, Hungary, Greece, France and Luxembourg.

What do they know that we don’t?

We are still reserving tens of millions of acres for genetically modified corn!

The Scientific Studies Couldn’t Be Clearer

Biology professor Bela Darvas of Hungary‘s Debrecen University discovered that Monsanto’s Mon 810 corn is lethal to two Hungarian protected species and one insect classified as rare. Now Monsanto refuses to give Darvas any more Mon 810 to use in his studies.

They also refused his request for Mon 863, another GM variety.

So, not only has MON 810 been shown to cause serious damage to animals, but it may also wipe out protected plant and insect species.

A mountain of evidence now exists about the troubling effects of GM corn:

  • Rats fed GM corn have kidney, liver, and blood abnormalities whereas rats fed non-GM corn had normal organs and blood.
  • GM corn has led to serious reproductive problems in mice. Mice fed Monsanto’s GM corn showed lower fertility and had offspring with lower body weight.
  • An Italian study in 2008[ii] found significant disturbances in the immune function of mice fed GM corn.
  • Another study showed that mice fed bt corn (bt stands for “bacterial toxin”— engineered to manufacture a natural bacterial toxin) sufferedmultiple immune system responses, “as if they were eating the pure bt toxin alone.”
  • Several US farmers reported sterility and fertility problems among pigs and cows fed GM corn.
  • In Germany, twelve cows that had eaten GM corn mysteriously died.
  • In feeding trials with chickens, twice the number of chickens died when fed GM corn as those fed non-GM corn.

Adding to the potential devastation is the fact that corn is a wind-pollinated plant, which means it can spread from one acre to another. While growers of GM food often say their crops will be contained and unable to contaminate nearby fields, from an environmental perspective, contamination between GM and non-GM crops is generally acknowledged to be unavoidable.

What can stop windstorms, tornadoes or other weather from blowing GM pollen or seeds onto non-GM crops?

Not a whole lot.

The environmental impact of GM crops may be worse than the health impact. Genetic pollution is self-propagating. It is altering our biosphere in ways that could outlast climate change and nuclear waste.

You can’t “recall” genes from the environment—just like putting the genie back in the bottle.

Although Monsanto doesn’t believe (or admit) this is a possibility, their shortsighted focus on profits is blinding them to the very real threats this technology is posing to the viability of the human race.

Monsanto’s influence in the government is legendary. Consequently, policy makers have not heeded the warnings to do long-term safety testing.

How Genetic Modification is Actually Executed

The making of a GM seed isn’t the highly precise operation you might expect.

According to Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette, once a gene is identified that creates a protein that they want, it is shot into the DNA with a “gun.”

They don’t care where the gene ends up…as long as it attaches somewhere.

This blasting creates all manner of problems. In fact, collateral damage is a given—5 percent of the surrounding genes can be disrupted! The DNA is sometimes truncated, sometimes mutated, creating proteins that are different and predictablyunpredictable.

Is it any wonder, then, how genetically modified foods carry with them so many unintended and devastating consequences?

According to Jeffrey Smith, the most common result of GM is surprise side effects. These side effects come in four main categories:

  1. Allergenic
  2. Toxic
  3. Carcinogenic
  4. Anti-nutritional

To bump up the desired GM effects, developers have been inserting what’s called a “promoter,” which has been derived from a virus. A promoter acts like a switch to turn on the gene it’s attached to. And the promoter’s action is not confined to the gene it rides in on—it’s been known to turn on other genes around it, permanently, at high volume.

It can turn on an allergen, a toxin, a carcinogen—we don’t know—it’s genetic roulette.

The promoters could switch on dormant viruses, producing super-diseases. One pesticide-tolerant gene called “the liberty link” could turn your body into a pesticide factory for life. The viral gene might transfer to your body a permanent suppression of your viral defenses.

We just don’t know.

And the reason we don’t know is that the government refuses to demand the rigorous testing of these GM products BEFORE permitting them into your food supply.

A Bad Gut Feeling

GM industry representatives falsely claim that when you eat a genetically modified food, the DNA is destroyed by digestion.

Researchers have now proven this is false.

British researchers demonstrated that GM DNA from crops can find its way into human gut bacteria, creating health risks. The concern is that the antibiotic marker genes inserted with the GM material could cause a person to be resistant to antibiotic medicines.[iii]

The study by Newcastle University in the UK was conducted on 7 human volunteers who, in the past, had their lower intestines removed and now use colostomy bags. After eating a meal containing GM soy, researchers were surprised to find that a relatively large proportion of GM DNA survived the digestive process.

In 3 of the 7 volunteers, they found bacteria had taken up the herbicide-resistant gene from the GM food at a very low level.

And this was after only one GM meal.

Not only that, but researchers also found “Roundup ready” gut bacteria from past GM soybean consumption. This was NOT from the current experiment—it was evidence that similar gene transfer had occurred in the past, from prior consumption of GM “Roundup ready” soy. (Roundup ready is the term used to mean soy that was engineered to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup.)

Michael Antonio, a senior lecturer in molecular genetics at King’s College Medical School in London, said this study was significant because the researchers demonstrated that you can get GM plant DNA in your gut bacteria, which was previously considered impossible.

This is the first clear evidence that antibiotic marker genes can jump to the bacteria in your stomach and increase your risk for an antibiotic-resistant infection.

The Mission to Exterminate GM From Our Food Supply

There are two strategies the non-GM movement is working on to rid our food supply of GM products:

  1. Labeling all foods for their GM/non-GM status
  2. Educating the public so that it will choose non-GM foods over GM foods.

The labeling campaign is making progress, thanks to the persistence of Jeffrey Smith and the Institute for Responsible Technology, an organization whose goal is to end the genetic engineering of our food supply and the outdoor release of GM crops. If you would like to sign the petition to President Obama in support of mandatory labeling of GM foods, click here.

But don’t wait for the labels to protect yourself and your family.

Nearly all GM foods can be avoided by steering clear of four basic food products:

  1. Corn
  2. Soy
  3. Cottonseed
  4. Canola

Additionally, avoid the following produce that is commonly GM by purchasing only organic varieties:

  • Zucchini
  • Crookneck squash
  • Hawaiian papaya
  • Sugar derived from sugar beets (new GM crop as of 2009)

For more specifics, the Institute for Responsible Technology has compiled an excellent Non-GMO Shopping Guide that you can download for free.

According to Jeffrey Smith, when people are educated about GM foods and provided a choice of products to buy, surveys show that at least 90 percent will opt for non-GM.

Therefore, between labeling products and a massive education campaign, GM foods will become a thing of the past. Once the tipping point is reached, the demand for non-GM products will be so fierce that market forces will smother the GM market once and for all.


[i] “2007 corn crop a record breaker, USDA reports” (January 11, 2008) USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service http://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2008/01_11_2008.asp

[ii] Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, Monastra G, Ambra R, Turrini A and Mengheri E. “Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON 810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice” J Agric Food Chem (16 Nov 2008) Summary athttp://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=2470

[iii] “Would you like frankenfries with that?” (July 17, 2002) Greenpeace Internationalhttp://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/gm-genes-found-in-human-gut

Comments (0)

Advertise Here
Advertise Here