U.S. Navy to release genetically engineered organisms into the ocean, unleashing mass genetic pollution with devastating consequences


Image: U.S. Navy to release genetically engineered organisms into the ocean, unleashing mass genetic pollution with devastating consequences

(Natural News) No longer content to tinker with the genetic design of crops and humans, scientists – at the behest of the U.S. Military – are now turning their attention to the world’s oceans. As reported by Defense One, the Pentagon is looking at various ways in which to genetically engineer marine microorganisms into living surveillance equipment capable of detecting enemy submarines, divers and other suspicious underwater traffic.

The Military is also looking at using genetic engineering to create living camouflage in which creatures react to their surroundings to avoid detection, along with a host of other potentially nefarious applications.

While such modifications might appear to offer benefits to national security endeavors, there will be a price to pay – as is always the case when scientists interfere with genetic design. What will the effects of mass genetic pollution be on our oceans, and what irreversible and devastating results may be unleashed? (Related: First GMO ever produced by genetic engineering poisoned thousands of Americans.)

Unleashing engineered organisms without knowing the consequences

Military officials, who insist that this type of research is still in its infancy, are being supported in their endeavors by the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL).

Defense One explained the research in more detail:

You take an abundant sea organism, like Marinobacter, and change its genetic makeup to react to certain substances left by enemy vessels, divers, or equipment. These could be metals, fuel exhaust, human DNA, or some molecule that’s not found naturally in the ocean but is associated with, say, diesel-powered submarines. The reaction could take the form of electron loss, which could be detectable to friendly sub drones.

Sponsored solution from CWC Labs: This heavy metals test kit allows you to test almost anything for 20+ heavy metals and nutritive minerals, including lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, aluminum and more. You can test your own hair, vitamins, well water, garden soil, superfoods, pet hair, beverages and other samples (no blood or urine). ISO accredited laboratory using ICP-MS (mass spec) analysis with parts per billion sensitivity. Learn more here.

“In an engineered context, we might take the ability of the microbes to give up electrons, then use [those electrons] to talk to something like an autonomous vehicle,” explained NRL researcher, Sarah Glaven, who was speaking at an event hosted by the Johns Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Lab. “Then you can start imagining that you can create an electrical signal when the bacteria encounters some molecule in their environment.”

Researchers have already proven, in a laboratory environment, that the genes of E. Coli bacteria can be manipulated to exhibit properties that could prove useful for submarine detection. However, this type of research is limited because it may not necessarily be replicable in marine life found in the areas where you need them to be in order to detect unfriendly subs.

Nonetheless, Glaven believes that the team can make these types of mutated marine organisms a reality in just a year.

“The reason we think we can accomplish this is because we have this vast database of info we’ve collected from growing these natural systems,” she noted. “So after experiments where we look at switching gene potential, gene expression, regulatory networks, we are finding these sensors.” (Related: Genetic pollution harms organisms through 14 generations of offspring, stunning scientific study reveals.)

Part of a wider “synthetic biology” military program

This marine modification research forms part of a greater $45 million military program which encompasses the Navy, Army and Air Force platforms, and has been labeled the Applied Research for the Advancement of Science and Technology Priorities Program on Synthetic Biology for Military Environments. The program aims to provide researchers in these branches of the military with whatever tools they deem necessary to engineer genetic responses in a way that could be manipulated by the Military.

It is not difficult to imagine that this large-scale genetic manipulation program could create disastrous effects – effects which our children and grandchildren will be left to deal with, and which may prove irreversible.

World’s most popular cereals contain ingredients that are registered with EPA as “biopesticides”


Image: World’s most popular cereals contain ingredients that are registered with EPA as “biopesticides”

Biopesticides are particular types of pesticides, derived from the bacteria in plants and animals, that kill insects. Scientists in laboratories insert the genes of these bacterial pesticides into the DNA sequences of seedlings (i.e. Mycogen seeds) of our most popular crops, like corn, soy, and canola, and then claim they’re all totally safe for human consumption, even though they dissolve the digestive tracts and destroy the reproductive capabilities of worms, beetles, frogs, bees, birds, and just about anything else that eats them.

Biopesticides are commonly found in conventional foods like canola oil, cereal, granola bars, and oatmeal. One gleaming example is a certain brand of Corn Flakes, which contains ingredients registered as pesticides under EPA codes 524.581 and 68467-7. Many organisms in the GMO BT corn used for this nightmarish Monsanto-manufactured product produce bug killing pesticide.

After the toxic corn grows in the field, but before harvest, it’s also dosed with toxic neonicotinoid pesticides (that are killing off our bee population in droves), and then, to top it all off, the corn is further coated with carcinogenic weed killer herbicide (Roundup’s glyphosate), which functions as a drying agent, before the corn is cut down and stored in silos for further processing. The same horrific poisoning process is used for most U.S. grains also, including wheat and oats.

Still, medical doctors can’t seem to figure out why cancer and dementia cases are debilitating every other American, including children. Should there be a pesticide aisle at the supermarkets instead of a cereal aisle? This is not food, it’s poison.

 

Biopesticides target crop pests, but do they also target humans?

Biopesticides registration action documents reveal that most conventional processed foods contain ingredients that are genetically modified and also registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as bug killers, also known as “target pests.” Corporations like Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, Bayer, and Syngenta are in the business of using chemicals and bacteria to kill anything that eats corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beets or alfalfa. If those same chemicals give animals cancer and dementia in the long run, so be it. It’s all about profits, with no regard for human health, farm animal health, environmental health, or sustainability.

Target pests include the European corn borer, the Southwestern corn borer, the Southern cornstalk borer, the corn earworm, the fall armyworm, the Sugarcane borer, the Western corn rootworm, the Mexican corn rootworm, and the list goes on. Monsanto likes to brag in magazines and online about their “insect protected, herbicide-tolerant corn with interspersed refuge.”

In laymen’s terms, this means the corn’s seeds are genetically mutated so the plant grows and produces pesticides, the stalk contains weed-killing genes, and the bug-killing bacteria kills the larvae that nest and travel in the roots.

Are you and your children eating bug-killer and weed-killer daily, at every meal even, and then wondering why you all have severe allergies, headaches, asthma, chronic inflammation, skin disorders, brain fog, ADD, ADHD, autism, Asperger’s syndrome, depression and anxiety? Stop “wondering” and stop eating poison. You are being targeted for health destruction, just like the bugs and worms. You are being targeted for elimination, just like the weeds.

Monsanto found GUILTY of failing to warn consumers their corn, soy, and canola pesticides cause blood cancer

In a landmark case that’s sure to set the precedent for thousands more, a California jury found the most evil company on Earth, Monsanto (now owned and operated by Bayer), guilty and responsible for nearly $300 million in damages to the health of just one man, Dewayne Johnson. Talk about “weeding out” the truth. Johnson was a groundskeeper for a local school system and was diagnosed with blood cancer (non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma) after spraying the same poison we find in cereal, grains, and oats, on school grounds for several years. Obviously, some got on his skin and in his lungs.

What’s worse is that Monsanto has known this atrocity for decades, but they cover up the truth with their own falsified research and follow-up propaganda based on that “scientific” fraud.

That means that most conventional cereals not only contain GMOs that are essentially pesticides that cause cancer and dementia, but they’re also coated with the same blood-cancer-causing weed killer that debilitated Dewayne Johnson. How many millions of Americans could sue Monsanto for the same and win millions of dollars? Johnson’s body is now 80 percent covered in lesions and he’s expected to pass away some day in the next couple of years.

Do you use Roundup on your yard? Roundup contains 50 percent glyphosate. It runs into your garden and your pets soak it up through the pads in their paws. Never use Roundup. Switch to 100 percent organic food right now, because the price to pay for eating conventionally is an early death by cancer or dementia, or both.

 

Sources for this article include:

TheTruthAboutCancer.com

Facebook.com

EWG.org

EPA.gov

TheGuardian.com

NaturalNews.com

Pesticides.news

BeyondPesticides.org

Study May Confirm GMO DNA is Transferred to Human Consumers


Scientists used to think that DNA from our food was always broken down during digestion. But a number of research studies aggregately show otherwise. The truth is, whole genes from other organisms can remain intact after we consume them and they can be found in our bloodstreams!

Foreign DNA in Our Blood?

According to a published article in the Public Library of Science (PLOS), genes from genetically modified foods we eat can enter the human blood. This report is based on four different studies with over 1000 human samples that found DNA fragments of organisms outside of our own that have entered the human circulation system through an unknown mechanism.

These genes were able to avoid degradation, a process that the digestion system undergoes to break down proteins and DNA. In fact, one of the blood samples showed a higher concentration of plant DNA compared to human DNA, which is quite alarming for the human body.

You may ask, “what danger does this information pose on my body?” Well, it’s important to give you a brief understanding of genetically modified foods and what effects they can have on your body.

Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods

corn-gmoYou have probably heard the acronym GMO in the past, and you might’ve even come across food labels that have “non-GMO” printed on the front label. Many food products contain this specific information because GMOs are a major concern when it comes to our health and here’s why.

GMO stands for genetically modified organisms. They are organisms (i.e., plants, animals, or microorganisms) where their DNA gets manipulated through artificial recombination and cross-breeding methods. The process of genetically modifying foods (GMO foods) is meant to bring perceived advantages to producers and consumers of these foods.

GMOs have the ability to develop traits like resistance to browning in apples. What that means for producers is that they are more likely to protect their crops using genetically modified organisms that resist plant diseases, and that in turn means higher levels of production. On the side of consumers, products are priced lower, and there are claims of added nutritional value, although many researchers will beg to differ. The non-GMO project says, “Despite biotech industry promises, there is no evidence that any of the GMOs currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit.”

GMO Must Be Disclosed on Food Labels in Many Countries

It can be deceiving to think that it’s okay to consume foods that contain GMO especially because their prices are much lower than non-GMO foods and they aren’t banned in the food industry. But beware, not everything in the food market is good for you and genetically modified foods, in particular, may bring risks to your health.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), gene transfer and the movement of genes from genetically modified plants into conventional crops or related species may have an effect on food safety and food security.

Quote: “This risk is real, as was shown when traces of maize type which was only approved for feed use appeared in maize products from human consumption in the United States.”

Presently, 64 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union require genetically modified foods to be labeled. The same can’t be said for the U.S. and Canada, even though a 2015 ABC News survey found that 93% of Americans believe that genetically modified foods should be labeled.

As for the rest of the world, there are 300 regions with outright bans of growing GMOs.

Geneticist, David Suzuki Expresses His Concerns Regarding GMOs

Geneticist David Suzuki expresses his concern that human beings are just part of a “massive genetic experiment” over many years, as thousands of people continue to consume GMOs. He even used an analogy to further explain the artificial process of genetic modification and that its drastic effects are beyond current comprehension.

He said, “One small mutation in a human being can determine so much, the point is when you move a gene, one gene, one tiny gene out of an organism into a different one, you completely change its context. There’s no way to predict how it’s going to behave and what the outcome will be. We think that we design these life forms, but it’s like taking the Toronto orchestra prepared to play a Beethoven symphony, and then you take some random drummers from ‘here’ and flip them in with the Toronto Symphony, and you say, ‘play music.’ What comes out is going to be something very different. Publicists say that there is good intention behind GMOs, but the fact of the matter is it’s driven by money.”

Suzuki’s concern is only one of many regarding GMOs. The truth of the matter is that the safety of GMOs is unknown and rigorous research is further needed to prove that there are any health benefits tied to GMO. As such, people are increasingly choosing to take matters into their own hands by choosing to purchase food products that have non-GMO.

Conclusion

If you have been oblivious to the dangers of GMO, it’s time you pay careful attention to what’s in your food and how it’s made. If possible, make an effort to eat non-GMO foods to protect your health.

Is Monsanto going down like Big Tobacco? FAKE SCIENCE about to be exposed on a global scale


Image: Is Monsanto going down like Big Tobacco? FAKE SCIENCE about to be exposed on a global scale

Monsanto is showing some clear signs that they’re getting nervous as their dishonest practices come significantly closer to being brought to light on a grand scale.

Last week, the peer-reviewed manuscripts of the pilot phase of a study known as the Global Glyphosate Study were revealed at a European Parliament press conference, and it’s all bad news for the maker of the world’s most popular glyphosate herbicide, Roundup.

In the short-term pilot study, glyphosate-based herbicides were shown to change some very important biological parameters in rats at exposure to the level set by the Environmental Protection agency as “safe” of 1.75 mg/kg per day. Some of the parameters that were altered relate to sexual development, the intestinal microbiome and genotoxicity. The papers will be published in the Environmental Health journal later this month.

One author of the report, Daniele Mandrioli, said that they found glyphosate in the gut bacteria of rats born to mothers who weren’t affected by it, something he believes is remarkable. He pointed out that gut microbiome disruptions have been linked to problems like diabetes, obesity, and immunological problems.

Another researcher, Professor Philip J. Landrigan, said that these findings should be investigated further in comprehensive long-term studies given their potential to impact a significant number of people around the world.

Monsanto goes on the attack

Monsanto reacted exactly how you’d expect them to react, by attacking the scientists and institutions involved in the study. The firm’s global strategy vice president, Scott Partridge, told The Guardian that The Ramazzini Institute is an “activist organization with an agenda that they have not disclosed.”

Get CLEAN FOOD and help support our mission to keep you informed: The Health Ranger Store lab verifies everything we sell with accredited testing for heavy metals, microbiology and food safety. Certified organic facility, ISO-accredited on-site laboratory, no GMOs or synthetic ingredients. The world’s #1 source of lab-verified clean foods and superfoods for nutritional healing. 600+ products available. Explore now.

It’s an unsubstantiated claim in any event, and it’s also worth noting that the Global Glyphosate Study was carried out by many other bodies in addition to The Ramazzini Institute, such as the Italian National Institute of Health, George Washington University, the Icahn School of Medicine at New York’s Mount Sinai, the University of Bologna, and the Genoa Hospital San Martino. Of course, they won’t be able to attack all of those institutes, so they decided to single one out.

In fact, The Ramazzini Institute is a well-respected institution manned by expert scientists for more than four decades. Their goal is to protect public health, and their activities relate to finding carcinogens and evaluating the safety and efficacy of drugs and ingredients. Their long-term studies have a lot of clout, with past research on benzene, vinyl chloride, and formaldehyde leading to changes in global regulations.

One thing that makes the Ramazzini studies so respected is the fact their design mirrors humans very closely. For example, they tend to follow rodents from prenatal life and observe them until their natural death; most labs “sacrifice” rats about two thirds of the way through their lifespan, which equates to around age 60 in humans. Many people develop cancers later in life, so other researchers miss those cancers that tend to show up in old age.

Glyphosate is everywhere

As the most common herbicide in the world, 18.9 billion pounds of glyphosate have been spread across the planet since 1974. Its use has risen 15-fold since the introduction of genetically modified crops, even though they were initially marketed as being able to reduce the need for herbicide. In the last two decades, the levels of glyphosate found in the human bloodstream have risen by more than 1,000 percent.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical as a “probable human carcinogen” in 2015; Monsanto is now trying to campaign against them and stop the American government from funding them. Now, it looks like the respected institutions involved in the latest study to expose the dangers of their products will also be targeted by their smear campaigns.

Read StopEatingPoison.com to stay informed.

Sources for this article include:

SustainablePulse.com

GlyphosateStudy.org

TheGuardian.com

For all book lovers please visit my friend’s website.
URL: http://www.romancewithbooks.com

New Study Links GMOs To Cancer, Liver/Kidney Damage & Severe Hormonal Disruption


In November 2012, the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled Long Term Toxicity of Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant genetically modified maize by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University. (source) It was a very significant study that made a lot of noise worldwide, the first of its kind under controlled conditions that examined the possible effects of a GMO maize diet treated with Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide.

 After the research was completed, it went through rigorous reviews, as well as a four month review process by scientists and researchers. It was eventually approved and published, only to be retracted by request of the Journal. Although hundreds of scientists around the world condemned the retraction, and the researchers addressed the criticisms, it was to no avail.

There is great news to report however, as this major GMO study has now been republished following its controversial retraction (under strong commercial pressure), with even more up to date information and a response to previous criticisms. You can read more about that here.

The study has now been published by Environmental Sciences Europe. (source)

The chronic toxicity study examined the health impacts on rats of eating  commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize, alongside Monsanto’s NK603 glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup.

The study found severe liver and kidney damage as well as hormonal disturbances in rats fed with GM maize in conjunction with low levels of Roundup that were below those permitted in most drinking water across Europe. Results also indicated high rates of large tumors and mortality in most treatment groups.

 The republished study also has a section describing the lobbying efforts of GMO crop supporters to force the retraction of the original publication. This is scientific fraud at its best. The authors express how the previous retraction was “a historic example of conflicts of interest in the scientific assessments of products commercialized worldwide.”

“We also show that the decision to retract cannot be rationalized on any discernible scientific or ethical grounds. Censorship of research into health risks undermines the value and the credibility of science, thus, we republish our paper.” –  Seralini

“Censorship on research into the risks of a technology so critically entwined with global food safety undermines the value and the credibility of science.” – Seralini

This study has now successfully passed through multiple rounds of rigorous peer review. Again, the study shows that Roundup-treated GM corn as well as the herbicide used on it increases cancer in rats. There are a number of studies that demonstrate the potential health risks of GM plants, this one in particular drew heavy criticism from industry scientists.

“The major criticisms of the Seralini manuscript were that the proper strain of rats was not used and their numbers were too small. Neither criticism is valid. The strain of rat is that which is required by the FDA for drug toxicology, and the toxic effects were unambiguously significant. In fact, Monsanto published a similar study in the same journal eight years before using the same number and strain of rats. Their study was for 90 days and claimed no harm. In contrast, the Seralini study was for two years and did not see any tumors until after nine months. Therefore, it is clear that the short 90-day feeding paradigm is not sufficiently long to detect the carcinogenic effects of GM products. It takes a long time before low-level exposure to environmental toxins affect health. For example, a recent associated press report documented the dramatic increase in birth defects and cancer in areas  of Argentina that have grown GM soy for a decade. Given these facts, what was the justification of the editorial decision to retract the Seralini Manuscript?”  (source)

Other Studies Regarding GMOs and Herbicides

There is a reason that multiple countries all over the world have been banning GMOs and the pesticides that go with them. More information is emerging everyday from scientists and researchers all over the world that clearly points to the fact that we just don’t know enough about GM’s to deem them totally safe for human consumption.

By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment.The FDA has said that genetically modified organisms are not much different from regular food, so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this, geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it horizontally into a totally unrelated species. Now David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot and exchange genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other without regard to the biological constraints. It’s very very bad science, we assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically, applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion – Geneticist David Suzuki (source)

Below is an excerpt from a previous article I wrote. For more information on this subject you can use the search bar on our website to find what you are looking for.

1. Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood

Research from Canada (the first of its kind) has successfully identified the presence of pesticides -associated with genetically modified foods in maternal, fetal and non-pregnant women’s blood. They also found the presence of Monsanto’s Bt toxin. The study was published in the Journal Reproductive Toxicology in 2011.(1) You can read the FULL study here.

“Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed, particularly those using the placental transfer approach. Thus, our present results will provide baseline data for future studies exploring a new area of research relating to nutrition, toxicology and reproduction in women. Today, obstetric-gynecological disorders that are associated with environmental chemicals are not known.  Thus, knowing the actual concentration of genetically modified foods in humans constitutes a cornerstone in the advancement of research in this area.” (1)

The study used blood samples from thirty pregnant women and thirty non-pregnant women. The study also pointed out that the fetus is considered to be highly susceptible to the adverse affects of xenobiotics (foreign chemical substance found within an organism that is not naturally produced.)  This is why the study emphasizes that knowing more about GMOs is crucial, because environmental agents could disrupt the biological events that are required to ensure normal growth and development.

2. DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them

In a new study published in the peer reviewed Public Library of Science (PLOS), researchers emphasize that there is sufficient evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments carry complete genes that can enter into the human circulation system through an unknown mechanism.(2)

In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA.  The study was based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies. PLOS is an open access, well respected peer-reviewed scientific journal that covers primary research from disciplines within science and medicine. It’s great to see this study published in it, confirming what many have been suspected for years.

“Our bloodstream is considered to be an environment well separated from the outside world and the digestive tract. According to the standard paradigm large macromolecules consumed with food cannot pass directly to the circulatory system. During digestion proteins and DNA are thought to be degraded into small constituents, amino acids and nucleic acids, respectively, and then absorbed by a complex active process and distributed to various parts of the body through the circulation system. Here, based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies, we report evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments which are large enough to carry complete genes can avoid degradation and through an unknown mechanism enter the human circulation system. In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The plant DNA concentration shows a surprisingly precise log-normal distribution in the plasma samples while non-plasma (cord blood) control sample was found to be free of plant DNA.” (2)

This still doesn’t mean that GMOs can enter into our cells, but given the fact GMOs have been linked to cancer (later in this article) it is safe to assume it is indeed a possibility. The bottom line is that we don’t know, and this study demonstrates another cause for concern.

3. New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans

This study was recently released by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), and uses data from the US department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection Agency, medical journal reviews as well as other independent research. (3)(4) The authors relate GM foods to five conditions that may either trigger or exacerbate gluten-related disorders, including the autoimmune disorder, Celiac Disease:

  • Intestinal permeability
  • Imbalanced gut bacteria
  • Immune activation and allergic response
  • Impaired digestion
  • Damage to the intestinal wall

The Institute for Responsible technology is a world leader in educating policy makers and the public about GMO foods and crops. The institute reports and investigates on the impact GM foods can have on health, environment, agriculture and more.

4. Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors

In November 2012, The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled ‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’ by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University. (5)

It was a very significant study, which obviously looks bad for the big bio tech companies like Monsanto, being the first and only long term study under controlled conditions examining the possible effects of a diet of GMO maize treated with Monsanto roundup herbicide.

This study has since been retracted, which is odd, because the journal it was published in is a very well known, reputable peer reviewed scientific journal. In order for a study to be published here it has to go through a rigorous review process.

It’s also important to note that hundreds of scientists from around the world have condemned the retraction of the study. This study was done by experts, and a correlation between GMOs and these tumors can’t be denied, something happened.

The multiple criticisms of the study have also been answered by the team of researchers that conducted the study. You can read them and find out more about the study here.

GM Crop Production is Lowering US Yields and Increasing Pesticide Use

5. Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors

A study is published in the US National Library of Medicine (4) and will soon be published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. Several recent studies showed glyphosate’s potential to be an endocrine disruptor. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can interfere with the hormone system in mammals. These disruptors can cause developmental disorders, birth defects and cancer tumors. (6)

Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer. We found that glyphosate exhibited a weaker estrogenic activity than estradiol. Furthermore, this study demonstrated the additive estrogenic effects of glyphosate and genisein which implied that the use of contaminated soybean products as dietary supplements may pose a risk of breast cancer because of their potential additive estrogenicity. (6)

Researchers also determined that Monsanto’s roundup is considered an “xenoestrogen,” which is a foreign estrogen that mimics real estrogen in our bodies. This can cause a number of problems that include an increased risk of various cancers, early onset of puberty, thyroid issues, infertility and more.

6. Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects

A group of scientists put together a comprehensive review of existing data that shows how European regulators have known that Monsanto’s glyphosate causes a number of birth malformations since at least 2002. Regulators misled the public about glyphosate’s safety, and in Germany the Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety told the European Commission that there was no evidence to suggest that glyphosate causes birth defects. (7) (link might not work for some, if not you can access that report HERE)

Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable. In this report, we examine the industry studies and regulatory documents that led to the approval of glyphosate. We show that industry and regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s and 1990s that glyphosate causes malformation – but that this information was not made public. We demonstrate how EU regulators reasoned their way from clear evidence of glyphosate’s teratogenicity in industry’s own studies to a conclusion that minimized these findings in the EU Commission’s final review report (7)

Here is a summary of the report:

  • Multiple peer-reviewed scientific literature documenting serious health hazards posed by glyphosate
  • Industry (including Monsanto) has known since the 1980′s that glyphosate causes malformations in experimental animals at high doses
  • Industry has known since 1993 that these effects could also occur at lower and mid doses
  • The German government has known since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes malformations
  • The EU Commission’s expert scientific review panel knew in 1999 that glyphosate causes malformations
  • The EU Commission has known since 2002 that glyphosate causes malformations. This was the year DG SANCO division published its final review report, laying out the basis for the current approval of glyphosate

Another study published by the American Chemical Society, from the university of Buenos Aires, Argentina also showed that Glyphosate can cause abnormalities.(8)

The direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to glyphosate in agricultural fields (8)

7. Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s

When you ingest Glyphosate, you are in essence altering the chemistry of your body. It’s completely unnatural and the body doesn’t resonate with it. P450 (CYP) is the gene pathway disrupted when the body takes in Glyphosate. P450 creates enzymes that assist with the formation of molecules in cells, as well as breaking them down. CYP enzymes are abundant and have many important functions. They are responsible for detoxifying xenobiotics from the body, things like the various chemicals found in pesticides, drugs and carcinogens. Glyphosate inhibits the CYP enzymes. The CYP pathway is critical for normal, natural functioning of multiple biological systems within our bodies. Because humans that’ve been exposed to glyphosate have a drop in amino acid tryptophan levels, they do not have the necessary active signalling of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease. (9)

8. Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans

A new study out of Germany concludes that Glyphosate residue could reach humans and animals through feed and can be excreted in urine. It outlines how presence of glyphosate in urine and its accumulation in animal tissues is alarming even at low concentrations. (10)

To this day, Monsanto continues to advertise its Roundup products as environmentally friendly and claims that neither animals nor humans are affected by this toxin. Environmentalists, veterinarians, medical doctors and scientists however, have raised increasing alarms about the danger of glyphosate in the animal and human food chain as well as the environment. The fact that glyphosate has been found in animals and humans is of great concern. In search for the causes of serious diseases amongst entire herds of animals in northern Germany, especially cattle, glyphosate has repeatedly been detected in the urine, feces, milk and feed of the animals. Even more alarming, glyphosate was detected in the urine of the farmers.  (10)

9. Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs

A study by scientist Judy Carman, PhD that was recently published in the peer reviewed journal Organic Systems outlines the effects of a diet mixed with GMO feed for pigs, and how it is a cause for concern when it comes to health. (11) Scientists randomized and fed isowean pigs either a mixed GM soy and GM corn (maize) diet for approximately 23 weeks (nothing out of the ordinary for most pigs in the United States), which is unfortunately the normal lifespan of a commercial pig from weaning to slaughter. Equal numbers of male and female pigs were present in each group. The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs. GM-fed pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32% compared to 125 of non-GM fed pigs.

The study concluded that pigs fed a GMO diet exhibited a heavier uteri and a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation than pigs who weren’t fed a GMO diet. Because the use of GMO feed for livestock and humans is so widespread, this is definitely another cause for concern when it comes to GMO consumption. Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs, and these GM crops are consumed widely by people, especially in the United States.

10. GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence in the sense that the testing methods recommended are not adequate to ensure safety. (12)(13)(14)

Deficiencies have been revealed numerous times with regards to testing GM foods.

The first guidelines were originally designed to regulate the introduction of GM microbes and plants into the environment with no attention being paid to food safety concerns. However, they have been widely cited as adding authoritative scientific support to food safety assessment. Additionally, the Statement of Policy released by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States, presumptively recognizing the GM foods as GRAS (generally recognized as safe), was prepared while there were critical guidelines prepared by the International Life Sciences Institute Europe and FAO/WHO recommend that safety evaluation should be based on the concept of substantial equivalence, considering parameters such as molecular characterization, phenotypic characteristics, key nutrients, toxicants and allergens. Since 2003, official standards for food safety assessment have been published by the Codex Alimentarius Commission of FAO/WHO. Published reviews with around 25 peer-reviewed studies have found that despite the guidelines, the risk assessment of GM foods has not followed a defined prototype.(12) (15)

“The risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops for human nutrition and health has not been systematic. Evaluations for each GM crop or trait have been conducted using different feeding periods, animal models and parameters. The most common results is that GM and conventional sources include similar nutritional performance and growth in animals. However, adverse microscopic and molecular effects of some GM foods in different organs or tissues have been reported. While there are currently no standardized methods to evaluate the safety of GM foods, attempts towards harmonization are on the way. More scientific effort is necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods.” (12) (15)

Sources:

(All other sources not listen here are highlighted throughout the article)

http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13

(1) https://www.uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf

(2) http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069805

(3) http://rt.com/usa/gmo-gluten-sensitivity-trigger-343/

(4) http://responsibletechnology.org/media/images/content/Press_Release_Gluten_11_25.pdf

(5) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

(6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

(7) http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/Roundup-and-birth-defects/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5.pdf

(8) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749

(9) http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

(10) http://omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-residues-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.pdf

(11) http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

(12) http://static.aboca.com/www.aboca.com/files/attach/news/risk_assessment_of_genetically_modified_crops_for_nutrition.pdf

(13) Reese W, Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev. 2004;21:299–324

(14) Schubert D. A different perspective on GM food. Nat Biotechnol. 2002;20:969–969.

(15) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19146501

Scientists Who Discovered GMOs Cause Tumors in Rats WIN Landmark Defamation Lawsuit in French Court


Anti-GMO scientist wins court order after attack.

French researcher Professor Giles-Eric Seralini and his team from the University of Caan made some startling discoveries when testing the long-term dangers of GMO’s.

 

They intended to look at the long term effects of eating genetically modified corn, that had been saturated with Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup.

Although there were primarily looking for evidence of toxicity in the lab rats they used in the study, another very apparent side effect made itself known.

The rats all started to develop huge tumors, and pictures of the unfortunate rats were shared many times in the media, due to how shocking the pictures appeared.

The power and influence of pro-GMO companies and, of course, Monsanto who won’t hear a bad word against genetically modified crops or their chemical pesticides soon got hold of the pictures, and they were not about to let Seralini ruin the GMO name.

A highly publicized media attack was launched on Seralini, led by former Monsanto scientist Richard E. Goodman.

 Seralini’s study was originally published in the science journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), but after realizing how damaging to their industry it could be, Goodman persuaded editor-in-chief of FCT Wallace Hayes to remove the article, stripping the study and Seralini of all credibility.

Hayes tried to explain the decision by saying that it was not ‘fraudulent or inaccurate’ but that it had been ‘inconclusive’, nothing to do with the fact that is was highly damaging to the GMO industry who had power and influence over him.

Thankfully, Seralini believed in his paper enough to fight back, and formed the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering.

Unhappy that he had been mostly attacked over the pictures of the tumors, which he had never intended to be the create the media sensation that it did, he wanted people to focus on what he originally intended to look at – the toxicity of GMO’s and pesticides.

The team successfully sued Marianne Magazine and it’s feature journalist Jean-Claude Jaillet for his piece in which he claimed Seralini was guilty of “scientific fraud in which the methodology served to reinforce predetermined results”.

The lawsuit highlighted that it had been Henry Miller working on behalf of pro-GMO Forbes Magazine who had instigated the libelous claims and justice was served.

Sad though it is that Prof. Seralini had to take such drastic measure to simply be believed in the science world, it shows to what lengths the pro-GMO brigade are prepared to go to in order to continue their agenda.

Hundreds of Scientists Tell The World That The GMO Cancer Link Is Real


Anytime a peer-reviewed publication reveals something startling that could literally shut down an entire industry, it seems to be retracted. This is a big problem, and perhaps the biggest when it comes to medical science, with multiple doctors, professors and scientists coming forward in abundance to stress the fact that more than half of all the published research out there could be false. This is why we see so much independent peer reviewed research completely contradict that which is put out by government health authorities.

“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”

– Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard professor of medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal  (source)

“Peer Reviewed:” Science Losing Credibility As Large Amounts Of Research Shown To Be False is an article that provides more examples when it comes to the truth about peer-reviewed research. That doesn’t mean it’s not legit, obviously a lot of it is. It’s no different with food science. Big food corporations have been putting out information that completely contradict a lot of other science that’s been published.

Here’s a great quote from the CDC Spider (CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research). More than a dozen scientists came together a couple of years ago emphasizing the manipulation in the industry, although you probably never heard about it. It’s a problem in all areas of science.

“We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviours. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right. We have witnesses across the agency that witness this unacceptable behaviour. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units.”

You can read the rest of the letter here addressed to Carmen S. Villar, the Chief of Staff of the CDC at the time.

There are loads of examples; the approval of high fructose corn syrup (sugar), processed meats, and packaging that is full of hormone disrupting chemicals. Artificial sweeteners being another. These, and more, are linked to a variety of diseases and surrounded in controversy for the simple reason that the science speaks for itself, and the science used by the big food corporations and their close relationship with government is precisely why they are so commonly used. We’ve been made to think that these things are ok, when in reality, a large portion of the academic, health and science community continue to do their best to emphasize that they’re not.

It is, however, proving to be more difficult in learning of this information as big corporations and their close relationship with government and mainstream media makes sure we don’t come across this type of information. In fact, when questioning certain things, they make you feel like you are stupid to do so. We never hear of the narratives the corporate world does not want us to know, we have to dig for it, and that’s because they have tremendous amounts of power and influence to sway the public perception when it comes to certain developments, like Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

One thing that makes this even more evident is the relationships that big corporations, like Monsanto, have with the US government.

GMOs have come under scrutiny, but no matter who creates awareness of this and provides ample evidence of it, there is always a harsh reaction assuming that their questions and concerns are illegitimate. It’s similar to vaccine safety, and all of the science that’s emerged over the years showing cause for concern, the mainstream still makes those who question vaccine safety feel inferior and out of place for even asking questions.

It’s not right, and the day science stops asking questions is the day we’ve drifted far from real science.

There are countless examples of concerns raised with genetically modified organisms, and why they should not be deemed completely safe for human consumption.  The common narrative is that the overall scientific consensus/majority agree that GMOs are safe, but this simply isn’t true. There are hundreds of scientists sharing their concerns, and it just seems as though all we see are GMO safety campaigns and efforts constantly sharing the idea and overall consensus that they are safe, but that doesn’t seem to be true..

If they were safe, there wouldn’t be so many concerns. Let’s take a look at one study that caused a lot of controversy, the Séralini study.

The Séralini Study

In November 2012, the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled Long Term Toxicity of Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant genetically modified maize by Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University (source). It was a very significant study that made a lot of noise worldwide, the first of its kind under controlled conditions that examined the possible effects of a GMO maize diet treated with Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide.

There are no long term studies examining GMOs, Séralini’s study is the first and only of its kind.

In the study, 100 female and 100 male rats were used . In both sets, some rats were fed NK603, some the GM maize sprayed with Roundup, and the third group was given drinking water with the lowest permissible limit of Roundup. A fourth, control group was fed a standard diet of the closest variety of non-GM maize.

According to the peer-reviewed paper published in Food and Chemical Toxicology, a journal from the reputed Elsevier stable, rats that fed on NK603 or given water containing Roundup died much earlier than the rats in the control group and developed hormonal and sex-related effects. Females developed significant mammary tumours, pituitary and kidney problems, while males died mostly from severe kidney failure. Up to 50 per cent of the male rats and 70 per cent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 per cent and 20 per cent in the control group.

This would, and should, basically mark the end of GMOs, along with all of the other studies that have raised other concerns and have seen strong correlations between GMOs and multiple diseases.  Here is one of multiple examples.

 There is great news to report however, as this major GMO study has now been republished following its controversial retraction (under strong commercial pressure), with even more up to date information and a response to previous criticisms. You can read more about that here.

The study was then re-published by Environmental Sciences Europe. (source)

After the study was retracted, there were more than a hundred notable scientists who came forward to oppose the retraction, calling it an industry retraction. We’ll touch more on that below.

Again, as illustrated above, manipulation of science isn’t new. Just take a look at the recent resignation of the CDC director, as well as the 16 scientists from the CDC who came forward saying that the corporate and political influence of science has gotten out of hand.

It’s all there for us to see, and when discussing science, fraud is rarely brought up and needs to be factored into the equation as one of multiple reasons why GMOs, and other substances, are highly questionable.

Another concerning fact about this study is that, if we look at urine samples, most of us are urinating out Glyphosate. We are eating these GMOs, combined with numerous numbers of pesticides within our blood stream.

There are countless amounts of harmful substances that can lead to cancer, this could be one of many factors in that equation and to help explain why cancer rates keep rising.

Hundreds of Notable Scientists Came Forward To Oppose The Retraction

Despite the fact that the news of the retraction and slandering of the study hit almost every single mainstream media news outlet, shaping the mass perception of it, a number of scientists, who I believe are in the majority, have supported Séralini’s work.

Professor Séralini was also honoured with the 2015 Whistleblower Award by the Federation of German Scientists and the German Section

“Prof Séralini received the award in recognition of his research demonstrating the toxic effects of Roundup herbicide on rats when administered at a low environmentally relevant dose over a long-term period. After the research was published, Prof Séralini was attacked in what the VDW and IALANA call “a vehement campaign by ‘interested circles’ from the chemical industry” as well as from the UK Science Media Centre. This smear campaign led to the retraction of his team’s paper by the first journal that published it. But Prof Séralini and his team fought back, countering the scientific arguments raised against their research and republishing their paper in another journal.”

Again, many international scientists and experts have expressed support for Séralini’s study and for open scientific debate based on the peer-reviewed publication system, but you won’t see a debate, because there is no sound argument from the opposing side.

A statement opposing the attacks, “Science et conscience”, signed by 140 French scientists, was published in the newspaper Le Monde.

“Such attacks on scientists who highlight risks of GM plants are normal. It’s always the same industry-linked GM proponents who immediately try to defame the critical studies and their authors in a concerted campaign. This is about money.” – Dr Angelika Hilbeck, a biologist at the ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), who said in a media interview that she takes Séralini’s findings “seriously”. Hilbeck was subjected to attacks similar to those leveled at Séralini after her team published research showing that GM maize harmed beneficial insects. (Battaglia D. Kritische Gentech-Forschung: “Hier geht es um viel Geld” [Crucial GM research: “This is about large sums of money”]. Tages Woche. 2 November 2012. http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/51-2012/14451)

Hundreds of scientists and academics from around the world signed an open letter that supports Séralini’s research and sheds light on the way in which the GM approval process is rigged, which is backed up by the suppression of independent scientists working in the public interest. The letter states that an “honest, rational or scientific debate” is being made impossible.

Below are links to individual letters from 160 scientists, which were sent to the journal that published the original paper. These letters have been made public by Séralini’s research institute CRIIGEN:

Monsanto’s Secret Documents Show Massive Attack on Séralini’s Study

When the original study was retracted , it was done so by the journal’s editor, A. Wallace Hayes. It was also coincidentally done after the appointment of a former Monsanto scientist, Richard E. Goodman, to the editorial board. Again the study was republished with all the criticisms addressed, but this only happened after the studies reputation was damaged due to the corporation, Monsanto.

Fast forward a few years later and secret internal Monsanto documents were released in 2017 by legal firms in the United States. In these documents, it was quite clear how Monsanto pressured Wallace Hayes, Editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology, to retract the study.

You can access those documents here.

 

10 Things You Need To Know About The Séralini Study

1. Most criticisms of Séralini’s study wrongly assume it was a badly designed cancer study. It wasn’t. It was a chronic toxicity study – and a well-designed and well-conducted one.

2. Séralini’s study is the only long-term study on the commercialized GM maize NK603 and the pesticide (Roundup) it is designed to be grown with. See here: Why is this study important?

3. Séralini used the same strain of rat (Sprague-Dawley, SD) that Monsanto used in its 90-day studies on GM foods and its long-term studies on glyphosate, the chemical ingredient of Roundup, conducted for regulatory approval.

4. The SD rat is about as prone to tumours as humans are. As with humans, the SD rat’s tendency of cancer increases with age.

5. Compared with industry tests on GM foods, Séralini’s study analyzed the same number of rats but over a longer period (two years instead of 90 days), measured more effects more often, and was uniquely able to distinguish the effects of the GM food from the pesticide it is grown with.

6. If we argue that Séralini’s study does not prove that the GM food tested is dangerous, then we must also accept that industry studies on GM foods cannot prove they are safe.

7. Séralini’s study showed that 90-day tests commonly done on GM foods are not long enough to see long-term effects like cancer, organ damage, and premature death. The first tumours only appeared 4-7 months into the study.

8. Séralini’s study showed that industry and regulators are wrong to dismiss toxic effects seen in 90-day studies on GM foods as “not biologically meaningful”. Signs of toxicity found in Monsanto’s 90-day studies were found to develop into organ damage, cancer, and premature death in Séralini’s two-year study.

9. Long-term tests on GM foods are not required by regulators anywhere in the world.

10. GM foods have been found to have toxic effects on laboratory and farm animals in a number of studies.

Concluding Comments & Book Recommendation

Ask yourself: why are dozens upon dozens of countries across the world completely banning the import or growth of genetically modified foods in their countries? Several of them have already cited numerous environmental and human health concerns, and others have simply stated that they’d like to do more research.

Again, the corporate and political influence is huge. What we have here is fraud, not science, and clearly, the “majority,” as mainstream media would have you believe, and have most academics believe, are not “pro” GMO.

Another great example regarding the politicization of this issue comes from Wikileak documents, showing that the United States was threatening other countries to accept them.

Read more about it from The WikiLeaks Files: The World According To U.S. Empire

In 1996, Steven M. Druker did something very few Americans were doing then — learn the facts about the massive venture to restructure the genetic core of the world’s food supply. The problem of unawareness still exists today, but it’s getting much better thanks to activists like Druker.

Druker, being a public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance For Bio-Integrity, initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to divulge its files on genetically engineered foods.

He’s recently published a book on the lawsuit (2015). In the book, Druker provides details of his experience, and he’s also released the documents on his website showing the significant hazards of genetically engineering foods and the flaws that the FDA made in its policy.

It’s called Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public.

The book has some very impressive reviews. For example, David Schubert, Ph.D., molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies said that this “incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well-reasoned and scientifically solid, it’s a pleasure to read – and a must-read.”

Stephen Naylor, Ph.D., CEO and Chariman of Mai Health Inc., an individual who spent 10 years as a Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology and Pharmacology and the Mayo Clinic stated that Druker’s “meticulously documented, well crafted, and spell binding narrative should serve as a clarion call to all of us.” 

 Be Sure to check it out, below is an interview with Druker.

 

Monsanto Uses Codex to Hide GMOs from Consumers


This article was originally published by The National Health Federation (NHF).

“Dishonest” and “disgraceful” – Monsanto attempts to gain backdoor entry for GE foods

At the recent Codex meeting in Berlin, there was an attempt to define genetically engineered (GE) food ingredients as ‘biofortified’ and therefore mislead consumers. This contravened the original Codex mandate for defining biofortification. That definition is based on improving the nutritional quality of food crops through conventional plant breeding (not genetic engineering) with the aim of making the nutrients bioavailable after digestion. The attempt was thwarted thanks to various interventions, not least by the National Health Federation (NHF), a prominent health-freedom international non-governmental organization and the only health-freedom INGO represented at Codex. But the battle is far from over.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission’s Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) convened in Berlin during early December and drafts provisions on nutritional aspects for all foods. It also develops international guidelines and standards for foods for special dietary uses that will be used to facilitate standardized world trade.

Based upon previous meetings, the initial intention of the Committee was to craft a definition for biofortification that could then be used uniformly around the World. Biofortification originally referred to increasing certain vitamin and mineral content of basic food crops by way of cross-breeding, not genetic engineering, for example by increasing the vitamin or ironcontent of sweet potatoes so that malnourished populations would receive better nutrition.

However, according to president of the NHF, Scott Tips, Monsanto wants to redefine the definition to include GE ‘biofortified’ foods and it has seemingly influenced Codex delegates in that direction. Tips says, “I am sure that Monsanto would be thrilled to be able to market its synthetic products under a name that began with the word ‘bio’.”

This year’s CCNFSDU meeting witnessed a lively debate about biofortification. At the 2016 CCNFSDU meeting, chairwoman Pia Noble (married to a former Bayer executive) had opined that the definition should be as broad as possible and that recombinant technology should be included. By the 2017 meeting, the proposed definition had morphed to include GE foods.

Deceptive marketing par excellence

The EU has raised a valid objection that “biofortification” would cause confusion in many European countries due to the widespread use of the word “bio” being synonymous with “organic.” Countries within the EU have been very vocal and support this position, arguing that the definition needs to be restrictive, not broad.

Including GE foods within any definition of biofortification risks consumer confusion as to whether they are purchasing organic products or something else entirely. “Monsanto seeks to cash in on the organic market with the loaded word ‘bio’,” argues Scott Tips.

At the Codex meeting in Berlin, Tips addressed the 300 delegates in the room. “Although NHF was an early supporter of biofortification, we have since come to see that the concept is in the process of being hijacked and converted from something good into something bad,” explained Tips.

He added that if Codex is to allow any method of production and any source to be part of the biofortification definition, it would be engaging in marketing deception of the worst sort.

As Steven Druker has shown in his book Altered Genes, Twisted Truths, GE foods should not even be on the commercial market, given the deceptions and bypassing of procedures that put them there in the first place. But now that they are on the market, most consumers want GE foods labelled. In the United States alone, some 90% of consumers want such labelling. The definition being proposed seeks to disguise GE foods under the term “biofortification.”

“That is dishonest. It is disgraceful, and for all of those sincerely concerned with the credibility and transparency of Codex, you should absolutely and positively oppose this definition,” says Tips.

The NHF feels that this is simply a strategy to gain a backdoor entry into countries for GE foods that are unneeded and unwanted. In his address to the assembled delegates, Tips added, “It is a very sad state of affairs where we have come to the point where we must manipulate our natural foods to provide better nutrition all because we have engaged in very poor agricultural practices that have seen a 50% decline in the vitamins and minerals in our foods over the last 50 years. We will not remedy poor nutrition by engaging in deceptive marketing practices and sleight of hand with this definition.”

The delegates to various Codex committees tend to be national regulatory bureaucrats and representatives from large corporations, including agritech giants like Monsanto. These interests have undue influence within Codex. Over the years, although heavily outnumbered at meetings, Scott Tips and his colleagues at the NHF have been tireless in their efforts to roll back undue corporate influence at Codex. Thanks to NHF and others urging the committee to adopt a clear, non-misleading definition that excluded GE foods, no final decision was taken on the definition of biofortification.

It is now left to the committee to resolve the matter at next year’s meeting or even the one thereafter.

The National Health Federation

The National Health Federation is the only health-freedom organization accredited by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to participate at all Codex meetings. It actively shapes global policies for food, beverages, and nutritional supplements.

Codex

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is run by the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization. Its some 27 committees establish uniform food-safety standards and guidelines for its member countries and promote the unhindered international flow of food goods and nutritional supplements. Learn more about the Codex on GreenMedInfo.com’s page related to the topic.

Putin: GMOs Reduce Sperm Count, It’s A New World Order Depopulation Tool


Russian leader on Monsanto and human devolution By: Daniel Newton

According to new comprehensive studies, sperm counts have plummeted almost 50% in just a four decade As sperm counts in Western men plummet at an alarming rate, Russian leader Vladimir Putin has branded GMOs as “modern poisons” used as a tool of the New World Order to depopulate the planet.

according to new comprehensive studies  sperm counts have plummeted almost 50  in just a four decade

According to new comprehensive studies, sperm counts have plummeted by almost 50% in just a four decades time frame as the modern man’s health deteriorates at break-neck speed.As many theories circulate suggesting that the decline is sperm count is a result of toxic GMOs used by the globalist as depopulation tool, Putin said: “I don’t know what I have to do to get through to people. Can you see where this is headed?“

The human race is doomed unless we take urgent action A young man born today in America will be completely sterilized by the time he is 40.”Russian Deputy Prime Minister, Arkady Dvorkovich, announced last year that Russia had banned GMOs as it had no place in the future of Russian agriculture.Putin said that his goal was to have the world cleanest food supply by boosting the health of its soil, and giving the Russian people purely organic food to avoid the health risks of GMOs. © press sperm counts have plummeted almost 50% in just a four decades time frame as the modern man’s health deteriorates According to a Security Council (SCRF) report, Putin said that evolution was at risk as a result of  Western super powers intentionally decelerating the process for their “personal gain.”Last year, Putin signed Federal Law 358-Z, prohibiting “cultivation of genetically engineered plants and breeding of genetically engineered animals on the territory of the Russian Federation,”GMOs and SpermThe connection between GMOs and Sperm decline hasn’t been officially linked, as scientists still say it’s down to modern lifestyles in the digital era such as anxiety and smoking. So why is Putin the only leader that has made the GMO connection to low sperm counts?

Maybe you should follow the money.“Given the importance of sperm counts for male fertility and human health, this study is an urgent wake-up call for researchers and health authorities around the world to investigate the causes of the sharp ongoing drop in sperm count, with the goal of prevention,” lead author Hagai Levine said in a statement.

Last year, over 37 million bees died when a GMO corn plantation was in close proximity of a local beekeeper in Canada.Incidents like this should be the reason that GMOs should be banned, not just in Russia, but worldwide.

Source:http://www.neonnettle.com

Scientist Who Discovered GMOs Cause Tumors in Rats Wins Landmark Defamation Lawsuit in Paris


GILLES ERIC SƒRALINI EST PROFESSEUR DE BIOLOGIE MOLƒCULAIRE Ë L'UNIVERSITƒ DE CAEN, CHERCHEUR ET CODIRECTEUR DU PïLE "RISQUES, QUALITƒ ET ENVIRONNEMENT DURABLE". IL A MENƒ ENTRE 2008 ET 2011 UNE EXPƒRIENCE DONT LES CONCLUSIONS ONT RƒVƒLƒ LES EFFETS TOXIQUES SUR DES RATS D'UN OGM ALIMENTAIRE ET DU PESTICIDE ROUNDUP DE LA FIRME MONSANTO. IL POSE ICI AVEC SON ƒQUIPE DANS SON LABORATOIRE DE CAEN : NICOLAS DEFARGE (CHEVEUX BLOND), ROBIN MESNAGE (CHEVEUX NOIR) ET JOEL SPIROUX PRƒSIDENT DU CRIIGEN - COMITƒ DE RECHERCHE ET D'INFORMATION INDƒPENDANTE SUR LE GƒNIE GƒNƒTIQUE (VESTE NOIRE), QUI A COFINANCƒ L'ƒTUDE. CAEN, NORMANDIE, FRANCE. FƒVRIER 2013.

Seralini and his team in Normandie, France in 2013.

Was French Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini correct when he discovered that scientific feeding experiments past 90 days with GMO food and rats can cause serious health problems including tumors?

The answer to that question has been debated ever since the initial publication of his study, culminating in a republication of the study in another peer-reviewed journal that wasn’t nearly as well covered as the initial retraction was by the mainstream media.

Now, Prof. Séralini is in the news again – this time for winning a major court victory in a libel trial that represents the second court victory for Séralini and his team in less than a month.

On November 25, the High Court in Paris indicted Marc Fallous, the former chairman of France’s Biomolecular Engineering Commission, for “forgery” and the “use of forgery.” The details of the case have not been officially released.

But according to this article from the Séralini website, Fallous used or copied the signature of a scientist whose name was used, without his agreement, to argue that Séralini and his co-workers were wrong in their studies on Monsanto products, including GM corn.

A sentencing for Fallous is expected in June 2016.

Second Court Victory Reached

 This was the second such court victory for the professor’s team, following a November 6 victory in a defamation lawsuit over an article in the French Marianne magazine which categorized the Séralini team research as “scientific fraud (you can read more about the case here).”

What few people realize about the original Séralini study on GMOs is that it was only retracted after a serious PR offensive from Monsanto and the Biotech industry, one that included the creation of a whole new position on the original Food and Toxicology journal: Associate Editor for Biotechnology.

The new position was actually filled by a former Monsanto employee who helped convince the journal’s author to retract the study.

 Now more than 2 years later, these are the facts: Séralini and his team’s original study has been republished in a different peer-reviewed journal, Environmental Sciences Europe; they have won two key lawsuits against those who have attempted to ruin their reputations; and a recent peer-reviewed letter even asserted that Séralini and his team may have been right after all on their discovery showing tumors in lab rats fed GMOs.

In other words, the jury is still out on GMO safety to say the very least, just as countless independent scientists have warned, and Séralini’s study stands as yet another cause for concern with the ongoing GMO experiment. It also shows the lengths that the Biotech industry will go to in order to discredit any independent science that clashes with their own version of science.

%d bloggers like this: