Wednesday, June 30, 2010
(Will try to post better, clearer images later. You may have to zoom in to see the details in the meantime.)
Keyword Search - investigate FDA:
Keyword Search - GMO Free Zazzle
Also check these seach terms: GMO Free Marketing (more to come). 6/20/2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
FINALLY. A Major Media News Outlet airs a story on GMOs. (Fox killed their story a few years back.) Thank you, CBS News. Notice that a former FDA employee admits the FDA "fought hard" to keep GMO ingredients out of the labeling because they were terrified that "no one would buy the products" - not because they were concerned for American Consumer Safety, but because they were afraid no one would buy the Genetically Engineered Products!
Isn't it time to investigate the FDA and hold them accountable for criminal acts such as this?!
Watch CBS News Videos Online
Friday, June 25, 2010
Click here to send the letter below to your congressional representatives today! You can personalize the letter with your own comments.
I am writing to urge you to support and co-sponsor legislation to require the mandatory labeling and safety testing of genetically engineered foods. The Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act would require labels on gene altered food, and the Genetically Engineered Food Safety Act would call for federal standards for safety assessments of these experimental foods now in our stores.
It is shocking that the FDA has never developed binding federal rules to protect consumers from the food safety risks of genetically engineered foods. Unlike crops from traditional breeding, genetically engineered crops contain antibiotic-resistant marker genes, viral promoters and foreign proteins never before consumed by humans. Yet the FDA relies on the very companies that have a financial interest in bringing these biotech crops to market to assess their safety. FDA has stated, "Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety" of gene altered foods.
Congress must step up and fill the gaping regulatory hole left by the FDA to protect American consumers. The Genetically Engineered Food Safety Act would fill this hole by requiring mandatory pre-market safety testing for all GE foods.
The Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act would require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. Here in America, we pride ourselves on having choices and making informed decisions. Under current FDA regulations we don't have that choice when it comes to GE ingredients in the foods we purchase and feed our families. Labeling is essential for me to choose whether or not I want to consume genetically engineered foods. Genetically engineered foods are required to be labeled in the 15 European Union nations, Russia, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries around the world. As an American, I firmly believe I should also have the right to know if my foods have been genetically engineered. If food makers like Kraft and Kellogg's can label the products they sell in these countries, they can certainly do it in the U.S.
A recent poll released by ABC News found that 92 percent of the American public wants the federal government to require mandatory labeling on genetically engineered foods. As ABC News stated, "Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare." I hope you will listen to me and the other 92 percent of the American public who want mandatory labeling and show your support for American consumers by supporting and co-sponsoring the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act. I look forward to a written response confirming your support.
(See my additional comments in red below.)
If there are laws requiring possible allergens to be listed on food labels, GE foods should CERTAINLY be included as possible allergens. Both my son and I have developed an increase in allergies over the past decade alone. I know for a fact that when I eat something that may contain GE ingredients instead of organic versions of the same food, I have physical allergic reactions. Doctors will not say I am allergic to any ingredient in those products (because we all know mainstream medicine refuses to acknowledge the dangers of GM foods), but I can tell the difference. If a person is sentive to chemicals, pesticides, etc., then it stands to reason that foods containing such chemicals should be required to list them on the food labels. If I am exposed to certain chemicals, fragrances, fumes, pesticides, etc., my throat dries up, and I have a difficult time breathing. The same thing happens if I consume certain foods, therefore I am convinced these toxic foods are allergens to my body, and I have the right to demand these irritants and allergens be disclosed if sold on the open market or used in government supported food programs such as school lunches for children and teens or food programs for the sick, elderly and underprivileged. Refusing to publish these possible allergens on food labels is therefore criminal and discriminatory in my opinion.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
It has taken a long time - 8 years to be precise. In 2002 Bayer first applied for approval for Brazilian farmers to be allowed to grow their genetically engineered (GE) rice. The only problem with their plan is that Brazilian rice farmers and producers don’t want GE rice. Bayer has finally gotten the message, and yesterday they finally withdrew their application.
Bayer is saying publically that they have withdrawn their application “to broaden the dialogue with key members in the production of rice in Brazil”. I would think 8 years would be more than enough time to broaden the debate on how GE crops are becoming less effective in the face of weeds that are resistant to herbicides, how rice producers have lost financially due to GE rice and how we continue to see unexpected side effects from GE crops.
It might have been more than just the Brazilian’s rejection of GE rice that made Bayer act. They are also currently taking a pounding in the US courts, having to pay out tens of millions of dollars to rice producers affected by their contamination of the US rice supply in 2006.
Despite this, the message from Brazilian rice producers is clear – GE rice is not wanted in Brazil. To broaden the debate Bayer will need to do some serious searching for other players in the Brazilian rice production chain, as already most of these players have voiced their opposition to GE rice. Amongst these groups is the Rice Federation of Rio Grande do Sul, the region which accounts for 60% of Brazilian rice production.
It’s time for governments everywhere to stand up for what people and producers want and stop GE rice.
See more on Greenpeace Brazil’s webpage (in Portuguese).
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — When the weed killer Roundup was introduced in the 1970s, it proved it could kill nearly any plant while still being safer than many other herbicides, and it allowed farmers to give up harsher chemicals and reduce tilling that can contribute to erosion.
But 34 years later, a few sturdy species of weed resistant to Roundup have evolved, forcing farmers to return to some of the less environmentally safe practices they abandoned decades ago.
The situation is the worst in the South, where some farmers now walk fields with hoes, killing weeds in a way their great-grandfathers were happy to leave behind. And the problem is spreading quickly across the Corn Belt and beyond, with Roundup now proving unreliable in killing at least 10 weed species in at least 22 states. Some species, like Palmer amaranth in Arkansas and water hemp and marestail in Illinois, grow fast and big, producing tens of thousands of seeds.
"It's getting to be a big deal," said Mike Plumer, a 61-year-old farmer and University of Illinois agronomist who grows soybeans and cotton near the southern Illinois community of Creal Springs. "If you've got it, it's a real big deal."
When Monsanto introduced Roundup in 1976, "it was like the best thing since sliced bread," said Garry Niemeyer, who grows corn and soybeans near Auburn in central Illinois.
The weed killer, known generically as glyphosate, is absorbed through plants' leaves and kills them by blocking the production of proteins they need to grow. At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers it to have little toxicity to people and animals, and aside from the plants it's sprayed on, it's less of a threat to the environment because it quickly binds to soil and becomes inactive.
Monsanto's introduction of seeds designed to survive Roundup made things even better for farmers because they could spray it on emerging crops to wipe out the weeds growing alongside them. Seeds containing Monsanto's Roundup Ready traits are now used to grow about 90 percent of the nation's soybeans and 70 percent of its corn and cotton.
With increased reliance on Roundup, herbicide use on corn decreased from 2.76 pounds an acre in 1994 to 2.06 in 2005, the most recent year for which the U.S. Department of Agriculture has data. Spread that out over the 81.8 million acres planted in 2005, and it's a decrease of more than 57 million pounds of herbicides annually.
Farmers also found they could cut back or in some cases eliminate tilling, reducing erosion and fuel use.
But with any herbicide, the more it's used, the more likely it'll run into individual plants within a species that have just enough genetic variation to survive what kills most of their relatives. With each generation, the survivors represent a larger percentage of the species.
St. Louis-based Monsanto maintains the resistance is often overstated, noting that most weeds show no sign of immunity.
"We believe that glyphosate will remain an important tool in the farmers' arsenal," Monsanto spokesman John Combest said.
That said, the company has started paying cotton farmers $12 an acre to cover the cost of other herbicides to use alongside Roundup to boost its effectiveness.
The trend has confirmed some food safety groups' belief that biotechnology won't reduce the use of chemicals in the long run.
"That's being reversed," said Bill Freese, a chemist with the Washington, D.C.-based Center For Food Safety, which promotes organic agriculture. "They're going to dramatically increase use of those chemicals, and that's bad news."
The first weeds in the U.S. that survived Roundup were found about 10 years ago in Delaware.
Agricultural experts said the use of other chemicals is already creeping up. Monsanto and other companies are developing new seeds designed to resist older herbicides like dicamba and 2,4-D, a weed killer developed during World War II and an ingredient in Agent Orange, which was used to destroy jungle foliage during the Vietnam War and is blamed for health problems among veterans.
Penn State University weed scientist David Mortensen estimates that in three or four years, farmers' use of dicamba and 2,4-D will increase by 55.1 million pounds a year because of resistance to Roundup. That would push both far up the list of herbicides heavily used by farmers.
Dicamba and 2,4-D both easily drift beyond the areas where they're sprayed, making them a threat to neighboring crops and wild plants, Mortensen said. That, in turn, could also threaten wildlife.
"We're finding that the (wild) plants that grow on the field edges actually support beneficial insects, like bees," he said.
In Australia, weed scientist Stephen Powles has been a sort of evangelist for saving Roundup, calling it a near-miraculous farming tool.
Australia has been dealing with Roundup-resistant weeds since the mid 1990s, but changes in farming practices have helped keep it effective, Powers said. That has included using a broader array of herbicides to kill off Roundup resistant weeds and employing other methods of weed control.
Those alternative methods, such as planting so-called cover crops like rye to hold back weeds during the winter and other times when fields aren't planted with corn, soybeans or cotton, are the key, said Freese, the Center For Food Safety chemist.
Otherwise, he said, "We're talking a pesticide treadmill here. It's just coming back to kick us in the butt now with resistant weeds."
(This version CORRECTS the second paragraph to say that it is 34 years after the introduction of Roundup, not 24.)Get HuffPost Green On Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz! Know something we don't? E-mail us at Huffpostgreen@huffingtonpost.com
Monday, June 21, 2010
"The Court further recognized that the threat of transgenic contamination is harmful and onerous to organic and conventional farmers and that the injury allows them to challenge future biotech crop commercializations in court."
High Court Delivers Ruling that Leaves Ban on Planting of Roundup Ready Alfalfa in Place in First-Ever Case on a Genetically-Engineered Crop
The Center for Food Safety today celebrated the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Monsanto v. Geerston Farms, the first genetically modified crop case ever brought before the Supreme Court. Although the High Court decision reverses parts of the lower courts’ rulings, the judgment holds that a vacatur bars the planting of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Alfalfa until and unless future deregulation occurs. It is a victory for the Center for Food Safety and the Farmers and Consumers it represents.
“The Justices’ decision today means that the selling and planting of Roundup Ready Alfalfa is illegal. The ban on the crop will remain in place until a full and adequate EIS is prepared by USDA and they officially deregulate the crop. This is a year or more away according to the agency, and even then, a deregulation move may be subject to further litigation if the agency’s analysis is not adequate,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “In sum, it’s a significant victory in our ongoing fight to protect farmer and consumer choice, the environment and the organic industry.”
In the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held: “In sum…the vacatur of APHIS’s deregulation decision means that virtually no RRA (Roundup Ready Alfalfa) can be grown or sold until such time as a new deregulation decision is in place, and we also know that any party aggrieved by a hypothetical future deregulation decision will have ample opportunity to challenge it, and to seek appropriate preliminary relief, if and when such a decision is made.” (Opinion at p. 22).
The Court also held that:
- Any further attempt to commercialize RRA even in part may require an EIS subject to legal challenge.
- The Court further recognized that the threat of transgenic contamination is harmful and onerous to organic and conventional farmers and that the injury allows them to challenge future biotech crop commercializations in court.
USDA indicated at the Supreme Court argument that full deregulation is about a year away and that they will not pursue a partial deregulation in the interim. Any new attempt at deregulation in full or part will be subject to legal challenge.
“The bottom line is that the Supreme Court set aside the injunction because the vacating of the commercialization decision already gave us all the relief we needed, by forbidding RRA planting until a new decision is made by the agency. And at such time, farmers and consumers still have the right to challenge the adequacy of that process.” said George Kimbrell, senior staff attorney for CFS. “The Court’s decision affirmed that the threat of genetic contamination of natural plants posed by biotech crops is an issue of significant environmental concern now and in the future.”
In this case, CFS faced off against powerful opposing entities, including the Department of Agriculture and the agricultural biotech giant, Monsanto Corporation. The Center and the other respondents were supported by a broad array of diverse interests, marshalling no less than seven amicus briefs in support. The amici included three states’ attorneys general, leading scientific experts, legal scholars, former government officials, farmers, exporters, environmental groups, food companies and organic industry trade groups. The Organic Trade association and companies like Stonyfield Farms, Cliff Bar and Eden Foods voiced united concern over the threat a ruling for Monsanto would pose to the organic food businesses, the fastest growing sector in the American food industry. Attorneys general from California, Oregon and Massachusetts filed a brief on behalf of their citizens emphasizing “the States’ interests in protecting the environment, their natural resources and their citizens’ rights to be informed about the environmental impacts of federal actions.” A full list of the more than sixty organizations, companies and individuals who filed briefs in support of CFS and opposed to Monsanto can be viewed at http://truefoodnow.org/publications/supreme-court-briefs/.
Monsanto was supported by a bloc of powerful corporate interests and industry groups, including the American Farm Bureau, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and CropLife America.
The environmental, health, cultural, and economic impacts of the genetically-engineered alfalfa seed, which is designed to be immune to Monsanto’s flagship herbicide Roundup, and the USDA’s plan to commercialize it, was at the heart of this dispute since 2006, when CFS filed a lawsuit against the USDA on behalf of a coalition of non-profits and farmers who wanted to retain the choice to grow non-GE alfalfa. Central to the issue is unwanted transgenetic drift: GE alfalfa can spread uncontrollably by way of bees that can cross-pollinate plants many miles away, contaminating both conventional and organic alfalfa with foreign DNA, patented by Monsanto.
“We brought this case to court because I and other conventional farmers will no doubt suffer irreversible economic harm if the planting of GE alfalfa is allowed,” said plaintiff Phil Geerston. “It was simply a question of our survival, and though we did not win on all points of the law, we are grateful that the practical result of today’s ruling is that Monsanto cannot take away our rights and Roundup Ready alfalfa cannot threaten our livelihoods.”
Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S., and a key source of dairy forage. Organic and conventional farmers faced the loss of their businesses due to widespread contamination from Monsanto’s patented GE alfalfa, and the foreseeable contamination of feral or wild alfalfa would ensure an ongoing and permanent source of transgenic pollution in wild places akin to that of invasive species.
Roundup Ready alfalfa would also increase Roundup use and thereby exacerbate the serious, ongoing epidemic of glyphosate-resistant superweeds. As recently discussed in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, superweeds lead to increased use of toxic herbicides, more soil-eroding tillage and higher production costs for farmers. If allowed to spread, they could reduce food production and lead to higher food prices. USDA has failed to take superweeds seriously or propose any means to address them.
Further background information on the history of this case and scientific studies are available at http://truefoodnow.org/publications/supreme-court-briefs/. The Supreme Court decision can be viewed here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-475.pdf
The Center for Food Safety is national, non-profit, membership organization, founded in 1997, that works to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. On the web at: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org
Sunday, June 20, 2010
(Copied in part below)
Congress: End the Destruction Now! Investigate the US’ Most Lawless Agency: FDA!
Natural Solutions Foundation
The Voice of Global Health Freedom™
Congressional Hearing on FDA Lawlessness
Principle: The FDA is lawfully bound by the US Constitution and the Legislation of the US Congress.
Problem: FDA answers to its industrial constituency, not the Constitution and the well-being of the people of the United States.
Background: Article 16 of the enabling legislation which created what has become Food and Drug Administration in 1932 (who thought of combining foods and drugs?) says that the primary purpose of the Agency is to promote, protect and promulgate the Pharmaceutical Industry. The Agency is doing that job very, very well. Its other job, however, protecting the health and welfare of the American Public is not being served.
Summary: Despite Constitutional and explicit legal protection, the FDA has repeatedly created arbitrary, illogical and unlawful standards upon which to curtail First Amendment rights regarding health and food, nutrients, health devices and technologies and abused its considerable powers to stifle non-pharmaceutical, natural health options. FDA Marshals invade and terrorize small manufacturers of legal substances and devices. FDA lawyers bully and intimidate these same companies and individuals, jailing innocent people and destroying legitimate businesses which compete with drug company profits.
For complete article, click here.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
There is a great paper put together by Willie Nelson and the Board of Directors for Farm Aid addressed to Congress to support American Family Farmers. It is very insightful and addresses the issues of GMOs and CAFOs, etc. It is a very well-thought-out, well-written proposal to rebuild America. Real life examples of towns and communities that have turned their economies around through utilizing local family farmers. It appears to have been written in September, 2008 but has resurfaced for the site's current publication dated June 2010.
Main site: http://www.farmaid.org/site/c.qlI5IhNVJsE/b.6037327/k.3472/Economic_Stimulus__We...
Thursday, June 17, 2010
via GMO Truth Alliance
Sunday, June 13, 2010
By Charlie Dunmore
June 4 (Reuters) - The EU executive European Commission has drawn up plans for a radical overhaul of the 27-nation bloc's rules on genetically modified (GM) crop cultivation, according to sources, which if approved could see huge growth in plantings in Europe. Click for Reuters exclusive [ID:nLDE6520Q6]
Below are questions and answers the plans raises.
WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED?
* The plan set to be adopted in mid-July has two elements: "fast-track" technical guidelines immediately enabling member states to grow or ban GM crops as they choose, and a legislative change designed to confirm the new approach in EU law.
* The Commission hopes that by giving countries opposed to GM cultivation the option to ban it, they will end their opposition to approving new varieties for growing in the EU and unblock the paralysis in Europe's approval system.
* Approvals would still be granted at EU level following a scientific safety assessment, but member states would be free to ban cultivation at any time without the need for scientific justification, and the Commission will not intervene.
WHAT IMPACT WILL THE PLANS HAVE?
* If approved the proposals are likely to see rapid growth of GM cultivation in parts of Europe, particularly in countries seen as favourable to the technology such as Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden and the Czech Republic.
* They would also legally confirm cultivation bans in anti-GM countries such as Italy, Austria and Hungary, and raise the prospect of new national bans in the future should governments change their position on GM crops.
* Multinational biotech companies such as U.S. seed and chemical giant Monsanto (MON.N) and Swiss agro-chemicals firm Syngenta (SYNN.VX) could see lucrative new markets opening up in Europe, but countries' ability to ban cultivation at any time creates legal uncertainty and could hamper their business plans.
* Industry experts said new GM crops most likely to be planted in Europe in the coming years include a maize variety resistant to the corn root worm, and a fungal-resistant potato currently being trialled.
* New GM oilseed rape varieties could be available within a decade, and GM wheat with resistance to septoria disease could be developed within 10 to 20 years, they added.
WILL THE PLANS BE APPROVED?
* The "fast-track" guidelines would only need to be rubber-stamped by EU governments to take effect, which could happen within weeks of publication in mid-July, though countries such as France are thought to be strongly opposed to the plans.
* The legislative change is even more uncertain, as it must be approved by a qualified majority of EU governments and members of the European Parliament under the bloc's weighted voting system.
* The Commission believes it can restrict the scope of the legal review to its proposal alone, but EU lawmakers could try and open up the EU's entire GM policy for review, which could take several years and make the final outcome very uncertain.
HOW HAVE THE PLANS BEEN RECEIVED?
* The biotech industry has criticised the proposals for introducing unscientific concepts and legal uncertainty into the EU's approval system, and warn that different rules in different countries will disrupt the EU's internal market and lead to legal disputes.
* Environmentalists are also unhappy, because they fear an end to the EU's largely GM-free stance, which has seen commercial planting limited to less than 100,000 hectares to date, compared with 134 million hectares worldwide.
* The EU's trading partners are known to be watching developments closely, and could challenge the new rules in the World Trade Organisation if they percieve them as anti-science or a barrier to trade. (Compiled by Charlie Dunmore, Editing by Keiron Henderson)
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Please clarify whether your cereals containing "sugar" are sweetened with genetically modified sugar beets? My public and I will not stand for these gmo sweetners in our food under the ... See Moreguise of "sugar". In response to one of your FAQ's on your website about sugar in your "heart healthy" cereals, only pure sugar is considered healthy in moderation. Sweetners made from genetically modified crops have been proven to have adverse effects on our health and have been proven to change the DNA of those who consume them. Our organizations are standing up to these tactics, getting the word out (with the help of advanced software and media outlets) and will boycott companies that continue to use unhealthy ingredients or try to hide the fact that gmo ingredients are used in their products. I urge you to please take steps to ensure your products DO NOT include any genetically engineered, genetically modified or "biotech" ingredients suchas gmo sugar beets, gmo corn products, etc.
PS. GMO Truth Alliance has support from the following groups:
Breast Cancer Action
Citizens For a GMO Free World
Citizens to Label GMO Food
Demand GMO Labeling!
Do You Know GMO
Feeding Blackmail Blog
Fred Burks, US Intelligence Examiner
Healthy & Living
Institute for Responsible Technology
Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception & Genetic Roulette
New Healthy Attitude
The Non GMO Project
The Organic & Non-GMO Report
Stay-at-home Mom and organic gardener
Unite Against GMOs in Our Food
Wellness Uncovered / Wellness Uncovered Health Forum
FAQ from Your Site - Question:
Why is there sugar in your cereals with the "Heart Healthy" claim?
Kellogg is aware of the importance of controlling your diet to lower the risk of heart disease, and we are committed to providing consumers of all ages with wholesome, nutritious products that fit into a heart-healthy lifestyle.
According to the Food and Drug Administration regulations, a food product may use the claim "healthy" if it is low in fat and saturated fat, has less than 480 milligrams of sodium and less than 50 milligrams of cholesterol in a serving, while having 10% or more of the Daily Value of certain other nutrients. There is no criterion for the amount of sugar the product may contain.
Our Kellogg's® Smart Start® Healthy Heart cereals were specially formulated to deliver a good source of soluble fiber from oats to help lower cholesterol. A good source of potassium and low in sodium to help lower blood pressure, they also supply 25% of the Daily Value for folic acid and vitamins B6 and B12, which research studies have shown can help lower the homocysteine levels in the blood - another risk factor for heart disease.
There are 16 grams of sugar per serving in Kellogg's® Smart Start® Healthy Heart cereal, which supplies 64 calories. Sugar is a good source of immediate energy. Currently there is no scientific evidence to link sugar consumption to any chronic disease, like diabetes or heart disease.
May 31 at 12:44pm · Flag
Sent: Thu, June 3, 2010 10:32:17 PM
Subject: Kellogg's® Consumer Affairs 020959726A
Thank you for taking the time to email us regarding the use of biotechnology ingredients. Like you, we want only the best ingredients to go into our products.
Like most other food makers in the nation, we buy the ingredients for our foods on the open market. We use grain and sugar from a number of suppliers in our country, so our supply would likely include biotechnology-produced ingredients in the same proportion that they occur in the United States supply. Currently approximately 81% of all corn grown in the U.S. and 90% of the U.S. sugar beet supply is genetically modified. You are probably aware that sixty to seventy percent of packaged foods in the U.S. include biotechnology crops. Even organic ingredients can contain biotech ingredients due to cross-pollination.
We use biotech ingredients based on the backing of groups including the World Health Organization, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the American Medical Association that confirm there are no safety concerns.
Regarding the F.A.Q. you referenced from our website; this information is for consumers who are questioning the addition of sugar (in any form) to our line of Smart Start® cereals. It does not address concerns about biotechnology ingredients. We invite our consumers to contact us with any questions that are not answered by information on our website.
We will continue to evaluate our ingredients, suppliers and product formulas to give you the best products possible. We appreciate your input and I will be sure to share your concerns with our food development team.
Rebecca A Jimenez
We are responding back with the following on June 04, 2010:
Thank you for the candid response. This is very disheartening to hear. As you may very well know, there have been recent developments in the news regarding CODEX and the efforts to allow the use of genetically modified foods through the world.
* Many countries are standing up to the US in regards to what they will agree to sign off on as acceptible text to be included in any formal document. The majority of the countries in these meetings have said they will not agree to text stating GMOs are no different from non-GMO foods. (See http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=1619588 - report from Dr. Rhima)
FROM THIS REPORT
DATED MAY 8, 2010
FROM CODEX ALIMENTARIUS
COMMISSION MEETING IN QUEBEC
"The US wants to say GMO Foods and non-GMO foods make no difference."
'"The US is working for the biotech industry.They voted to postpone it and come to no decision to delay labeling longer.
"The consensus was for labeling but the US would not allow this."
* Britain just this week had a senior member of the Food Food Standards Agency walk out because of its hidden agenda to promote GMOs.
(Interview with Prof. Brian Wynne about his recent resignation from the British Food Standards Agency (FSA): 'Food agency 'promotes GM.'' Candid comments about the real agenda of the Food Standards Agency. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8718000/8718061.stm)
* India is resisting the pressures to accept the GMOs. (See video clip referencing lawsuit against Monsanto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1TOss9Mslw)
* Canada has taken a stand against US recommendations
* Many countries no longer will import food from the US because of the health risks of these genetically modified crops and meat
* 'On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.” They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”
More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”
Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.'
See full article from Jeffrey M. Smith: http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=2989
AAEM Position Paper: http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
We could go on and on citing various references proving the dangers of genetically modified foods and the increasing resistance going on world-wide. Other countries do not want our tainted crops. American food producers should realize this if they want to stay in business because American consumers are being alerted to these dangers as well.
Regretfully, we will be adding Kellogg's to our list of boycotted products in light of these developments. Please advise us if Kellogg's decides to make changes to eliminate obvious sources of genetically modified foods from their products.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
BBC News - Today - Food agency 'promotes GM'
It seems the majority of the countries around the globe are waking up to the facade the GMO-pro groups have been pushing, but not here in the states.
Wake up America!
We are the most obese and unhealthy country in the world now, thanks to these genetically modified foods produced in our very own back yard. Are we that ignorant? Are we that blind to think everyone else is wrong and we are right? The corruption and lies must stop. We must stand up to the FDA, the USDA and any other entity designed to monitor and evaluate food for our safety if they are not doing the jobs they are being paid to do. It is time to put an end to the biotech propaganda and destruction our nutrition.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Cotton that has been genetically modified to poison an insect pest can cause a massive increase in the number of other insects.
“Bt cotton” is genetically modified to produce a toxin from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) that is deadly to the bollworm. More than 4 million hectares of Bt cotton are now grown in China.
But according to Nature:
“Numbers of mirid bugs (insects of the Miridae family), previously only minor pests in northern China, have increased 12-fold since 1997.”
Mirids are now the main pest in the region, and their rise in number can be directly linked to the scale of Bt cotton cultivation.Meanwhile, in the United States, farmers’ widespread use of Roundup weedkiller is spurring the creation of superweeds. There are now at least 10 different species of superweeds resistant to Roundup, spread over 22 states and millions of crop acres.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Those who believe crops genetically modified to poison specific insects are the solution to agricultural pest control are suffering from a serious case of tunnel vision. As Chinese farmers can now attest, when you wipe out one pest, it simply paves the way for another to flourish.
Bt cotton was engineered with a gene from a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis. Organic farmers use the natural form of the bacterium as an insecticide, spraying it occasionally during times of high pest infestation.
Monsanto engineers, however, isolated and then altered the gene that produces the Bt-toxin, and inserted it into the DNA of the cotton plant.
Now every cell of their Bt cotton produces a toxic protein that kills certain pests, including the bollworm -- one of the major pests that threatened China’s cotton crops.
Killing Off One Pest Throws Nature Out of Balance
When Bt cotton was first introduced, farmers were able to temporarily cut back on their use of broad-spectrum pesticides, which GM advocates use to support their flawed argument that GM crops are environmentally friendly.
What happened, though, was that as bollworms decreased, mirid bugs, which are not vulnerable to the Bt toxin and were once only a minor pest in the area, increased significantly. Mirids are just as much of a threat to cotton crops as bollworms, so Chinese farmers have upped their pesticide use on the Bt cotton crops to kill the mirid bugs.
So now, not only are farmers planting Bt cotton crops to ward off bollworms, but they are spraying increasing amounts of pesticides to tackle the mirid bugs that only became a problem because of the Bt crops! This is hardly a benefit to the environment.
Further, the mirid bugs are not only a threat to cotton crops, they’re also a threat to green beans, vegetables, fruits and cereal crops as well. Worse still, the evolution of Bt-resistant bollworms worldwide have been confirmed and documented, which means Monsanto’s Bt crops are a miserable failure on all counts.
Despite the fact that Bt cotton has done the area no favors whatsoever, Chinese researchers are looking into developing more GM crops that will kill both bollworms and mirid bugs -- even though it’s fairly obvious that a new pest will soon step up to take their place.
Bt Crops May Also Kill Animals
Along with creating new pest problems, Bt crops may also be toxic, even deadly for animals.
As Jeffrey Smith, the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified foods, recently shared, in India animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died.
Investigators said preliminary evidence "strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin." In one small study, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died; those fed natural plants remained healthy.
Jeffrey Smith visited one village in Andhra Pradesh and interviewed the villagers. He reported:
“Buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. But on January 3rd, 2008, 13 buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All died within three days.
The village also lost 26 goats and sheep.
Buffalo in Haryana, India are fed cottonseed and oil cakes. But those fed the Bt variety, according to veterinarians and farmers, suffered from reproductive disorders, skin problems, and sudden death of both adults and calves.
According to Jeffrey Smith:
“Bt corn is also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in the Philippines.”
More Reasons to be Very Concerned About Bt Crops
So far it’s been revealed that Bt crops are spurring the creation of new pests and Bt-resistant bugs, along with being toxic to animals. What’s left? The crops are also potentially toxic to humans.
The Bt toxin kills pests by splitting open their stomachs. Monsanto claims the crops are safe for humans, however, because organic farmers have used natural Bt sprays as pest control for years. But Jeffrey Smith points out that there’s actually a very big difference:
“GM plants produce about 3,000-5,000 times the amount of toxin as the sprays. A Bt-producing GM plant continuously produces the toxin in every cell where it does not dissipate by weather and cannot be washed off.
The bacterial spray form, on the other hand, is broken down within a few days to two weeks by sunlight, high temperatures, or substances on the leaves of plants, and can be "washed from leaves into the soil by rainfall," or rinsed by consumers.
The natural toxin produced in bacteria is inactive until it gets inside the alkaline digestive tract of an insect. Once inside, a "safety catch" is removed and the Bt becomes toxic.
But scientists change the sequence of the Bt gene before inserting it into GM plants. The Bt toxin it produces usually comes without the safety catch. The plant-produced Bt toxin is always active and more likely to trigger an immune response than the natural variety.”
In India, farm workers who handle Bt crops are already reporting allergy and flu-like symptoms. There’s also concern that the Bt toxin could remain active in your intestines, turning your digestive tract into a virtual pesticide factory. As Smith says:
“The only published human feeding study revealed that even after you stop eating GMOs, harmful GM proteins may be produced continuously inside of you; genes inserted into GM soy transfer into bacteria inside your intestines and continue to function.
If Bt genes also transfer, eating corn chips might transform your intestinal bacteria into a living pesticide factory”
“Superweeds” Now Devastating Farmers
Since 1996, when GM crops were first introduced, at least 10 species of U.S. weeds have developed resistance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp herbicide.
In case you’re not familiar with Roundup, Roundup Ready soybean, cotton and corn crops are the world’s largest group of genetically modified crops. This particular variety of GM crops became so popular because it allows farmers to spray Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide directly onto their fields without harming the crops. Ordinarily, if you were to spray Roundup, or any other glyphosate-based herbicide, onto a plant, it would die.
As you might imagine, the use of Roundup herbicide has increased dramatically since the GM Roundup Ready crops were introduced. In the first 13 years, American farmers sprayed an additional 383 million pounds of herbicide due to these herbicide-tolerant crops. And now the repeated exposures have given Mother Nature all she needs to stage her comeback in the form of devastating superweeds.
As a result, farmers are being forced to spray their crops with even more toxic herbicides, along with return to labor-intensive methods like pulling weeds by hand. According to the New York Times:
“Farm experts say that such efforts could lead to higher food prices, lower crop yields, rising farm costs and more pollution of land and water.
“It is the single largest threat to production agriculture that we have ever seen,” said Andrew Wargo III, the president of the Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts.”
Just Say No to GMO!
China’s GM-induced pest problems are likely a drop in the bucket compared to what the United States is in for. 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. Fortunately, there are two strategies the non-GM movement is currently working on to rid our food supply of GM products:
- Labeling all foods for their GM/non-GM status
- 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 like, you can join the fight by signing the petition to President Obama in support of mandatory labeling of GM foods. According to a CBS/New York Times survey, most consumers (53%) say they would avoid brands with GM ingredients if given a choice—if they were labeled.
In the meantime, nearly all GM foods can be avoided by steering clear of five basic food products:
- Sugar derived from sugar beets (new GM crop as of 2009)
Additionally, avoid the following produce that is commonly GM by purchasing only organic varieties:
- Crookneck squash
- Hawaiian papaya
For more specifics, the Institute for Responsible Technology has compiled an excellent Non-GMO Shopping Guide that you can download for free.
By educating the public about the risks of GM foods through a massive education campaign, and by circulating the Non-GMO Shopping Guide so consumers can make healthier non-GMO choices, the Institute’s plan is to generate a tipping point of consumer rejection to make GMOs a thing of the past.
Dr. Mercola is the founder of the world’s most visited natural health web site, Mercola.com. You can learn the hazardous side effects of OTC Remedies by getting a FREE copy of his latest special report The Dangers of Over the Counter Remedies by going to his Report Page.