Chief McDonald’s fries supplier gets USDA nod for ‘cancer-reducing’ GMO-potato

McDonald’s is now resorting to serving GMO french fries under the guise that they fight cancer? How absurd is that? -LW


Comparison of Innate and conventional potatoes 10 hours after being cut (photo: Simplot)

Comparison of Innate and conventional potatoes 10 hours after being cut (photo: Simplot)

Simplot, one of the world’s biggest agribusinesses, has received USDA approval for Innate, a genetically-modified potato that produces fewer carcinogens when fried. Anti-GMO pressure groups are campaigning for the decision to be reversed.

“This approval comes after a decade of scientific development, safety assessments and extensive field tests,” said the Idaho-based Simplot, which annually processes about 3 billion pounds of potatoes.

The potatoes, which are also modified to bruise less easily and to not turn brown for many hours after being cut, underwent successful field trials in eight states – Florida, Indiana, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Washington and Wisconsin – between 2009 and 2011.

Innate reportedly produces up to 75 percent less acrylamide, a substance that is suspected of contributing to cancer, when fried. The medical implications of the alterations have not been tested.

US Department of Agriculture chemical tests showed that all non-targeted substances remained within regular range, and that the plants posed no danger to other crops located in the vicinity. Simplot said that it expects to receive clearance from the Food and Drug Administration that the potato is safe to eat within weeks.

Simplot, which had revenues of $5.8 billion last financial year, reassured that the technology is not as alarming as that used by other companies, which introduce bacteria or genes from other plants. Simplot is simply manipulating genes contained within the potato’s own DNA.

AFP Photo/Goergh Koch

AFP Photo/Goergh Koch

“We are trying to use genes from the potato plant back in the potato plant,” Haven Baker, chief potato scientist for Innate, told the New York Times. “We believe there’s some more comfort in that.”

The company plans to use the potato’s main benefits for a two-pronged assault on the market. The spuds will be sold as a healthier alternative, and will also be supplied pre-cut to supermarkets and restaurants, due to the fact that they remain pristine-looking for longer. In fact, while the purported cancer effect will grab the headlines and curry public opinion, it is the longevity that really gives Innate its market advantage.

“This could be a game-changer for the industry!” boasted Kerwin Bradley, Simplot’s director of commercialization.

But an anti-GMO food groups did not share his enthusiasm.

“We think this is a really premature approval of a technology that is not being adequately regulated,” Doug Gurian-Sherman, a plant pathologist and senior scientist at the Center for Food Safety, told the New York Times.

The organization says that the RNA interference technique used for Innate is untested, and said that one of the substances suppressed by it actually plays an important role in the chemical make-up of the potato, and its ability to fight pests.

The Center for Food Safety says that it plans to appeal the USDA approval.

McDonald’s favorite supplier

Simplot’s role as a GMO potato pioneer is somewhat ironic, considering that it played a decisive role in the discontinuation of the world’s first flirtation with innovative spuds more than a decade ago.

Monsanto sold its NewLeaf genetically-modified potato resistant against the Colorado beetle and PVY virus between 1996 and 2001.

But as it was gaining popularity, activists pressured McDonald’s and other leading fast food chains in the US to turn their back on GMO potatoes. In turn Simplot, which supplies more than half of McDonald’s potatoes in the US and has done so for decades, simply stopped planting NewLeaf potatoes.

As a result, Monsanto stopped selling its range, concentrating on more successful products. More than 90 percent of soybeans and 60 percent of corn in the US are now genetically-modified.

The Food and Water Watch group has hoped to repeat the trick, already sending a petition signed by over 100,000 people, asking McDonald’s to ban all Innate potatoes.

But this time Simplot is unlikely to be fobbed off so easily. The company says that it plans to produce a new-generation Innate potato in the coming years, which will be resistant to late blight – the cause of the Irish Potato Famine – by mixing genes of wild potatoes into cultivated varieties.

The company says it is also seeking approval for Innate in Canada, Japan and Mexico.

Source.

USDA goes paramilitary: Organic certifier buying submachine guns with night sites, 30-round magazines

Submachine guns? Really? What are they going to do—shoot bees? In the dark?

Conspiracy theory, eh? They stage fake shootings to get Americans to give up their guns while THEY stockpile ammo and arm federal agents who have no sane call for weapons in their job description and that’s a conspiracy theory?

Did you hear that nearly all conspiracy theories have proven to be true? Hmmmm…

No one is making this up. The proof is easily available. See below. And then check out the armoured vehicles your local police department probably already has.

And don’t forget you or your family members could get picked off by a drone next time you step outside your home.

Thanks to NDAA, you could be arrested with no probable cause and locked up, no phone call to your family or legal counsel… indefinitely. The FEMA camps are all ready to accommodate Americans now.

Question: Does this sound like a government of the people, by the people, FOR the people? There’s still time for you to go to Washington to facilitate removal of said “government”.

America, if you can’t come up with one good reason why federal agencies (TSA, USDA, DHS, the Post Office, EPA, IRS, BLM) should have automatic weapons, that’s probably one GOOD reason to participate in ‘Operation American Spring’—before they use them on YOU.  ~ BP

USDA

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Tags: USDA, submachine guns, paramilitary agencies

(NaturalNews) The U.S. Department of Agriculture is joining the militarization trend that’s spreading like wildfire across federal agencies. Both the EPA and IRS currently have armed federal agents, and recent events involving the BLM in Nevada showed that even the Bureau of Land Management possesses a small army of long-range snipers and heavily armed paramilitary operators.

Now the U.S. Department of Agriculture is joining the militarization bandwagon, publishing a solicitation (# USDAOIGWEA-5-7-14) requesting “submachine guns, .40 Cal. S&W” with “Tritium night sights for front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight (front under fore grip) and scope (top rear), stock-collapsible or folding, magazine – 30 rd.”

In other words, the USDA is now purchasing precisely the weapons that Obama famously said belong “in the hands of soldiers” and not “on the streets of America.” Yet Obama’s administration is, in fact, putting these types of weapons on the streets of America as long as they are in the hands of federal agents who increasingly patrol those streets.

“These weapons are used for night-time battle”

Natural News attempted to reach out to Linda Josey, Chief of the Procurement Management Branch of the USDA to ask why the USDA needs submachine guns with 30-round magazines and tritium night sights. She did not answer the phone, however, and her voice mail was full.

So we next reached out to Jeremy Alcede, founder and CEO of Tactical Firearms, a Katy, Texas firearms retailer and large indoor training facility that hosts training sessions for both private civilians and local law enforcement. “That class of weapon is used for night-time battle,” Alcede told Natural News.

“Honestly I think the federal government is using different agencies to stockpile these weapons,” Alcede continued. “I can’t imagine why the USDA would need submachine guns to enforce agricultural regulations. Are they planning for a mad cow disease rampage of some kind? But then again, why does DHS need hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo? They’ve stockpiled enough ammo right now to have one bullet for every American.”

It’s true, believe it or not. Although the discovery of the massive, multi-billion-round ammo purchases by the federal government were initially derided as “paranoid conspiracy theories” by the lie-slinging mainstream media, it turns out these purchases are completely true and irrefutably documented. The federal government really is stockpiling over a billion rounds of ammunition for some yet-unknown purpose.

Tactical Firearms recently unleashed a wave of controversy across the ‘net after sporting a store sign message that reads, “I like my guns like Obama likes his voters – undocumented.” This sign has been widely shared across the ‘net by a growing number of Americans who are increasingly frustrated by the Obama Administration’s policies on a wide range of topics, including debt spending, gun control and immigration. Even many former supporters of Obama are now extremely worried to learn that Obama’s government is clearly in favor of a massive build-up of guns as long as they are in the hands of federal agencies.

Here’s a screen shot of the USDA’s submachine gun acquisition request:

Militarization of agencies under “anti-gun” administration has observers scratching their heads

As U.S. federal agencies accelerate their militarization efforts, clashes between the feds and the public have every potential to become more violent, escalated by the radicalized armament of federal agencies.

Case in point: The recent Bundy ranch standoff in Bunkerville, Nevada, where BLM agents brought hundreds of militarized agents, snipers and government helicopters to a standoff which they claimed was about “saving the desert tortoise.”

No federal agency purchases firearms unless they plan to use them, of course, yet at the same time these agencies are arming up as if for war, the Obama administration is aggressively attempting to disarm private citizens. The result can be nothing other than a radical concentration of power into the hands of federal agencies coupled with the disarmament of the People. This is precisely the kind of power imbalance that makes historians nervous. Every case of government genocide throughout history began this way, of course.

This is all being done under the excuse of “public safety,” but as I reveal in my article The great government hoax of public safety, that’s just a flimsy cover story.

Even gun control advocates are getting worried

This shift even has progressives concerned so much that gun control advocates are seriously starting to wonder why there are so many automatic weapons in the hands of the feds. In a story entitled How Every Part of American Life Became a Police Matter, the progressive-minded Mother Jones magazine says, “American society is starting to resemble a police state.”

Such a quote might have once been scoffed at with accusations of paranoia, but today the evidence is undeniable and widespread. As Mother Jones writes:

There is the proliferation of heavily armed SWAT teams, even in small towns; the use of shock-and-awe tactics to bust small-time bookies; the no-knock raids to recover trace amounts of drugs that often result in the killing of family dogs, if not family members; and in communities where drug treatment programs once were key, the waging of a drug version of counterinsurgency war. (All of this is ably reported on journalist Radley Balko’s blog and in his book, The Rise of the Warrior Cop.) But American over-policing involves far more than the widely reported up-armoring of your local precinct. It’s also the way police power has entered the DNA of social policy, turning just about every sphere of American life into a police matter.

The USDA now looks to join this radicalized militarization push by the federal government, arming its agents with submachine guns — class 3 weapons which private citizens cannot legally purchase without enduring extensive background checks and paperwork with the ATF.

The tritium sights clearly indicate the USDA anticipates “night time raids” with these submachine guns, and there’s no question those raids will be conducted on U.S. soil. The only question remaining is: Who does the USDA imagine it will be raiding at gunpoint with these automatic weapons?

How tyranny is born

The answer, sooner or later, is YOU. That’s how the rise of tyranny works in an emerging police state. First the weapons are for “terrorists.” Then they’re for “criminals.” And before long, anyone who questions the government’s rapid militarization is labeled an “anti-government criminal” and added to the raid list.

I happen to run a certified organic food manufacturing facility subject to USDA regulation. Now I have to legitimately wonder whether I’m supposed to expect a night-time armed raid on my facility by overzealous USDA operatives eager to play with their new submachine toys.

They wouldn’t find much, of course, other than pallets of raw materials, a microbiology testing lab and food packaging equipment. But since when did the feds ever need an actual, legitimate reason to conduct armed raids in the first place? I know a man in California named James Stewart who was raided at gunpoint and thrown in jail for the “crime” of distributing fresh milk from local farms. He’s still facing felony counts in Ventura for ludicrous charges related to this “crime.”

When the feds want to shut you down, they can always trump up dozens of charges and have you arrested. But now, thanks to this rapid militarization effort, they can also stage armed, SWAT-style raids of our homes, businesses and farms. When the USDA has automatic weapons, night sights and 30-round magazines as part of a department of “agriculture,” something has gone terribly wrong in America.

That’s why I say, “Restore the Constitution!” Government was limited by the Constitution for precisely this reason: If you allow government to concentrate power, it will eventually use that power to subjugate the People. It is no longer a conspiracy theory to make the informed observation that America is more and more beginning to resemble a fascist police state, complete with the world’s most massive prison system and the arming up of federal agencies that have no business with automatic weapons in the first place.

Sources for this article include:
http://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=…

New York Times Rejects Monsanto Science

Thanks, Patrick!

Now we’re getting somewhere!  I wonder if this had anything to do with the 9/11 billboard We, the People,  put in Times Square right in front of the NY Times building, asking them why they didn’t report the truth… 

Sometimes what we want comes in a different way than we expect.  ~ BP

This isn’t a leak. It isn’t a timid flow. It’s a flood.

I’m talking about about the criticism of Monsanto’s so-called science of genetically-engineered food.

For the past 20 years, independent researchers have been attacking Monsanto science in various ways, and finally the NY Times has joined the crowd.

But it’s the way Mark Bittman, lead food columnist for the Times magazine, does it that really crashes the whole GMO delusion. Writing in his April 2 column, “Why Do G.M.O.’s Need Protection?”, Bittman leads with this:

“Genetic engineering in agriculture has disappointed many people who once had hopes for it.”

As in: the party’s over, turn out the lights.

Bittman explains:

“…genetic engineering, or, more properly, transgenic engineering – in which a gene, usually from another species of plant, bacterium or animal, is inserted into a plant in the hope of positively changing its nature – has been disappointing.”

As if this weren’t enough, Bittman spells it out more specifically:

“In the nearly 20 years of applied use of G.E. in agriculture there have been two notable ‘successes,’ along with a few less notable ones. These are crops resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (Monsanto develops both the seeds and the herbicide to which they’re resistant) and crops that contain their own insecticide. The first have already failed, as so-called superweeds have developed resistance to Roundup, and the second are showing signs of failing, as insects are able to develop resistance to the inserted Bt toxin — originally a bacterial toxin — faster than new crop variations can be generated.”

Bittman goes on to write that superweed resistance was a foregone conclusion; scientists understood, from the earliest days of GMOs, that spraying generations of these weeds with Roundup would give us exactly what we have today: failure of the technology to prevent what it was designed to prevent. The weeds wouldn’t die out. They would retool and thrive.

“The result is that the biggest crisis in monocrop agriculture – something like 90 percent of all soybeans and 70 percent of corn is grown using Roundup Ready seed – lies in glyphosate’s inability to any longer provide total or even predictable control, because around a dozen weed species have developed resistance to it.” Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup.

Just as the weeds developed resistance and immunity to the herbicide, insects that were supposed to be killed by the toxin engineered into Monsanto’s BT crops are also surviving.

Five years ago, it would have been unthinkable that the NY Times would print such a complete rejection of GMO plant technology. Now, it’s “well, everybody knows.”

The Times sees no point in holding back any longer.

Of course, if it were a newspaper with any real courage, it would launch a whole series of front-page pieces on this enormous failure, and the gigantic fraud that lies behind it. Then the Times might actually see its readership improve.

The revelations will indict the corporation (Monsanto), its government partners, and the scientists who falsified and hid data.

Momentum is something its editors understand well enough. You set your hounds loose on a story, you send them out with a mandate to expose failure, fraud, and crime down to their roots, and you know that, in the ensuing months, formerly reticent researchers and corporate employees and government officials will appear out of the woodwork confessing their insider knowledge.

The story will deepen. It will take on new branches. The revelations will indict the corporation (Monsanto), its government partners, and the scientists who falsified and hid data.

FDA and USDA may take some fire

In this case, the FDA and the USDA will come in for major hits. They will backtrack and lie and mis-explain, for a while, and then, like buds in the spring, agency employees will emerge and admit the truth. These agencies were co-conspirators.

And once the story unravels far enough, the human health hazards and destruction wreaked by GMOs will take center stage. All the bland pronouncements about “nobody has gotten sick from GMOs” will evaporate in the wind.

It won’t simply be, “Well, we never tested health dangers adequately,” it’ll be, “We knew there was trouble from the get-go.”

Yes, the Times could make all this happen. But it won’t. There are two basic reasons. First, it considers Big Ag too big to fail. There is now so much acreage in America tied up in GMO crops that to reject the whole show would cause titanic eruptions on many levels.

And second, the Times is part of the very establishment that views the GMO industry as a way of bringing Globalism to fruition for the whole planet.

Source

 

Toxicology Expert Speaks Out About Roundup and Monsanto’s GMOs

I have no desire to preach to the choir, but if you know someone who is unaware or who doesn’t believe GMOs are a problem, you may want to share this great article from Dr. Mercola about the research that’s been done. Otherwise, I can only hope that the right people will land here and read this.

Wake up America. Too many people are still unaware of what genetically modified foods do to us and animals that we consume. And that’s not the whole story by any means.

Monsanto has and will NOT do ANYTHING that is of benefit to Humanity or our planet. They are destroying our food supply, entire ecosystems and US with them—intentionally.

If you’re getting your education from Monsanto or their affiliates and their convenient television and print ads, you have been brainwashed. Do you really think they will tell the truth if it means it would take money out of their pocket? What company that is still in business does that?

Tell the truth? Not on your life. Your life means nothing to them but dollar $ign$.

This subject needs top priority in society. Countries in Europe, South America and elsewhere have completely banned Monsanto products and GMOs from use. Some, like Hungary, have even ploughed under and burned entire fields of GMO crops to get rid of the poisonous organisms and seeds so they can’t reproduce and contaminate pure crops.

Canada banned Roundup years ago. What’s wrong with the USA??!!! The research speaks for itself! There is no excuse for not understanding the issues.

Americans need to wake up and get educated on this enough to realize they must contact their government representatives and let them know that if they support Monsanto and/or GMOs, they will be out of a job. It’s that simple.

Don’t wait for someone else to deal with the problem. If you do, YOU are part of the problem and you’re going to feel very foolish when you eventually learn the truth. “I DIDN’T KNOW” is not acceptable—not in the Information Age.

Have you never pondered why so many people are dying of cancer these days, when cancer was almost unheard of in your great-grandparents’ day? GMOs affect gene expression, for crying out loud!

Reminder: The government works for The People, not the other way around. State your demands and ensure they are met. That will get rid of the treasonous bastards who are selling out to rich companies like Monsanto who buy off politicians. 

Do you think Obama and his family eat GMO food? Hell to the no! They have their own gardens and eat organic food because they know GMOs are not only dangerous, but lethal.

So let’s get to it. Your education starts NOW.  ~ BP

 

 

Genetically Modified Foods Actually “Starve” You

By Dr. Mercola

Dr. Don Huber is likely the leading GMO expert in the world. He is an award-winning, internationally recognized scientist, and professor emeritus of plant pathology at Purdue University for the past 35 years.

His agriculture research is focused on the epidemiology and control of soil-borne plant pathogens, with specific emphasis on microbial ecology, cultural and biological controls, and the physiology of host-parasite relationships.

His research over the past few decades has led him to become very outspoken against genetically modified organisms (GMO) and genetically engineered (GE) foods and the use of Roundup in agriculture in general.

He’s really one of the best scientists we have in the GMO movement for documenting the dangers of genetically engineered foods.

“I appreciate the opportunity to share a little bit of my research and the research of many other scientists who are expressing concern; recognizing that we’ve missed the boat in much of this discussion and much of the process, because it’s really a food and health safety issue that we’re dealing with here,” he says.

Three Things You Need to Know About GMOs

There’s a lot of confusion about the basic validity of concerns about genetically engineered (GE) foods. Many have been deceived into thinking that there’s really no difference between GE foods and conventional fare, and all these worries are just paranoid fear-mongering.

According to Dr. Huber, the following three facts are some of the most important that everyone needs to understand about GMOs:

  1. Despite what the media and so-called “experts” proclaim, there are NO peer-reviewed scientific papers establishing the safety of GMO crops. According to Dr. Huber, so far, no one has been able to establish that there’s a safety factor to either the genetically engineered proteins (i.e. the foreign proteins produced by the genetically modified plant) or the chemicals we’re consuming in ever larger quantities as a result of the genetic engineering process.There are, however, both clinical and peer-reviewed scientific papers showing the hazards of GMO crops, including harmful secondary effects.

    “A group of us met with top USDA administrators. They assured us that they based all their decisions on peer-reviewed science. When we asked them if they would share any of that, they were unable to produce any,” he says.

  2. Epidemiological patterns show there’s an identical rise in over 30 human diseases correlated with our increased usage of glyphosate and the increased prevalence of genetically engineered proteins in our food.
  3. Genetically engineered foods, as well as conventional crops that are heavily sprayed with glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup), have lower nutrient density than organic foods. They also contain high amounts of pesticides with documented harmful health effects, along with novel, highly allergenic, proteins.

Little-Known Facts About Glyphosate

You can’t really discuss genetic engineering without also addressing the chemicals these plants are engineered to tolerate. About 85 percent of all genetically engineered plants are herbicide-tolerant—designed to tolerate very high levels of herbicides, glyphosate in particular. These are the so-called Roundup Ready crops.

It’s important to realize that glyphosate is not “just” an herbicide. As explained by Dr. Huber, it was first patented as a mineral chelator. It immobilizes nutrients, so they’re not physiologically available for your body.

“You may have the mineral [in the plant], but if it’s chelated with glyphosate, it’s not going to be available physiologically for you to use, so you’re just eating a piece of gravel,” Dr. Huber says.

Naturally, health effects are bound to occur if you’re consistently eating foods from which your body cannot extract critical nutrients and minerals. Mineral deficiencies can lead to developmental and mental health issues, for example. Glyphosate is also patented as an antibiotic—and a very effective one at that— against a large number of beneficial organisms. Unfortunately, like all antibiotics, it also kills vitally important beneficial soil bacteria and human gut bacteria.

“Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus faecalis—these are organisms that keep you healthy either by providing accessibility to the minerals in your food or producing many of the vitamins that you need for life. They’re also the natural biological defenses to keep Clostridium, Salmonella, and E.coli from developing in your system,” Dr. Huber explains.

“When you take the good bacteria out, then the bad bacteria fill that void, because there aren’t any voids in nature. We have all of these gut-related problems, whether it’s autism, leaky gut, C. difficile diarrhea, gluten intolerance, or any of the other problems. All of these diseases are an expression of disruption of that intestinal microflora that keeps you healthy.”

Glyphosate was first patented as a chelator in 1964 by Stauffer Chemical Co. It was patented by Monsanto and introduced as an herbicide in 1974. And then in 1996, Roundup Ready crops hit the market. There’s been a steep increase in the usage of Roundup since then, because you can apply it multiple times without damaging your crop. Making matters worse, they’re now also using glyphosate as a ripening agent—even for non-GMO crops. It’s applied right before harvest time to ripen off the crop.

“We have about a five-fold increase in glyphosate usage on many of our GMO crops. With the Roundup Ready-resistant weeds, we see that rate going up exponentially,” he says.

Did You Know? EPA Just Increased Allowable Limits of Glyphosate in Your Food

Despite well-understood health risks, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is repeatedly approached by agricultural and biotech companies asking for increased limits of this pernicious toxin in your food.

“The companies say we have to increase the amount of glyphosate that we can have in your food, so we can have a ‘safe’ product – not based on science but based on how much chemical is actually in our food!” Dr.Huber says.

On May 1, the EPA went ahead and doubled the amount of glyphosate allowed in food… Soybean oil may now contain as much as 40 parts per million (ppm) of glyphosate. Meanwhile, research by Dr. Monika Krueger at Leipzig University shows that a tenth of a part per million is all that it takes to kill your Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Enterococcus faecalis! So soybean oil is now allowed to contain a whopping 4,000 times the known limit at which it can impact your health.

Can GMOs Coexist with Conventional Crops?

On September 20, agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack announced that the Department of Agriculture (USDA) will soon publish a notice in the Federal Register asking for public comments on how agricultural coexistence in the US might be strengthened. At the time of this writing, the USDA has not yet published that notice, but you can search the Federal Register for the latest notices here.1

According to the media release:2

“The Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture recommended that USDA support agricultural coexistence by strengthening education and outreach on this vital issue… In response, with this notice, we are asking all those with a vested interest in coexistence to help us learn more about what coexistence means to them, how they are already contributing to it, and what more is needed to achieve coexistence. With this input, we can continue the dialogue begun by the AC21 group3 and find practical solutions that will help all sectors of American agriculture be successful.

… Coexistence is defined as the concurrent cultivation of crops produced through diverse agricultural systems including traditionally produced, organic, identity preserved, and genetically engineered crops. USDA supports all forms of agriculture and wants each sector to be as successful as possible providing products to markets in the United States and abroad.”

Vilsack wants comments… How about we start with the suggestion that “Biotech Government of the Year shouldn’t be running the show.” He says the USDA supports ALL agriculture, yet the USDA primarily subsidizes junk food crops—corn and soy—and cave in to the multi-million dollar lobbying of the biotech industry. Meanwhile, the USDA has all but wiped out raw milk, heritage hogs, and most small farmers. So, really, the only agriculture the USDA support is the chemical variety. When asked whether he believes that it’s ever appropriate or possible for GMOs to coexist with conventional and organic crops, Dr. Huber replies:

“We know how to get these genes in; we don’t know how to remove them,” he says. “I don’t see any opportunity for coexistence with the current technology that we have because of that promiscuous nature of the genes. If you have a gene that is spread by pollen, like Roundup Ready alfalfa, it’s just a matter of time before bees or the wind is going to transfer that particular pollen to every alfalfa crop that you’re going to grow. There’s a very high probability that you’re going to see that genetic component in it.”

The StarLink Case—Proof Positive GMOs Can’t ‘Coexist’ with Natural Plants

According to Dr. Huber, our knowledge of what we’re doing in the genetic engineering process is extremely limited. Contrary to popular belief, we’re still only in the initial stages of understanding what we’re doing in that whole process:

“We do know that it’s more like a virus infection than it is a breeding program. In other words, you’re throwing genes in, but you’re not moving all of the regulatory and control mechanisms with those genes so that they’re only going to function at a time when the plant needs it or under conditions when it needs it. It’s a flawed science to think that you have one gene or one little group of genes and it’s going to do this particular function and not the other things.”

Clearly, that’s not the general perception. Most people are still under the illusion that genetic engineering is a very precise approach. That’s certainly what the industry wants you to believe. But as Dr. Huber points out, we learned some very important facts from  sequencing of the human genome: There aren’t nearly enough genes to do all of the things we know are done within the human body.

This is related to the profoundly important relationships that epigenetics controls. We found out that a gene actually functions in relation to the environment and its relationship to other genes or other genetic components in that code. When you disrupt those relationships and the integrity of the genetic code, you end up with mutations and epigenetic effects that we’ve yet to explore.

“We know they occur because for every one of those successful expressions that you get from genetic engineering, you have over a million other things that take place that are negative,” he says. “We also have potentially negative [effects] with the one that succeeded in expressing a particular protein that you want for genetic engineering. But nobody even looks for all of those other epigenetic effects that occur.

One of the things that we do know, since we don’t have the regulatory genes that would normally be part of those components from a regular breeding program, is that the genes that are being inserted are extremely promiscuous. They’re not stable. They may stay in and be transferred through a regular breeding program after they’re introduced. But we know that they can be transferred to soil microorganisms when the stubble or the grain is digested and decomposed in the soil—or in your gut.”

In the latter case, your gut flora can then pick up those same genes, and can start producing those foreign proteins, which are extremely allergenic. A perfect example of this was the StarLink corn, which produced a protein that turned out to be very toxic to humans. StarLink was grown 10 years ago for a pharmaceutical process. It was pulled off the market when they realized it had escaped from its confines and had the ability to contaminate corn destined for food production.

We know that GE crops decimate agricultural variety—countless varieties have been wiped out in order to foster a few monocultures. Now, if GMOs are removed, will there really be less food variety?

This ridiculous concept was recently brought forth by Scientific American.4 The erroneous and illogical claims made in the editorial mirrors claims made by Monsanto—such as the idea that GMO labels could destroy the market for genetically engineered foods in a country where 70 percent of processed foods already contain them. This, they want you to believe, would result in “less variety and higher costs.” Look, we’re primarily talking about ingredients like corn syrup and soy! And food companies do not appear to have any major problems supplying Europe, where GMOs have to be labeled, with products that do not contain genetically engineered corn and soy.

It’s funny how times have changed at Scientific American, as they now tow the biotech line like a well greased PR firm. It wasn’t all that long ago that they had the right idea, questioning the logic and safety of restricting GE crop research to the seed companies that make them.5

Could YOU Be Altering Your OWN Genes When You Eat GMOs?

As discussed by Dr. Huber, research clearly shows that the novel proteins created in genetically engineered plants are highly allergenic, with the capability to promote diseases like cancer and liver or kidney failure. But Dr. Huber points out that there are other factors involved as well, which have some scientists concerned about the spread of those genes into the human gut… Not only do GMOs alter your intestinal microflora, but research shows that human cells are also able to transfer those novel genes, thereby affecting the human genome.

“Especially with generation two genetic engineering, called gene silencing—that section of the nucleic acid can actually be picked up or attached to your own genes, and then start shutting down your own physiology in that process… It’s well-documented in the scientific literature.”

Indeed, last year, University of Canterbury Professor Jack Heinemann released results from genetic research he conducted on this type of GE wheat, which showed without “any doubt” that molecules created in the wheat, which are intended to silence wheat genes to change its carbohydrate content, may match human genes and potentially silence them. If that’s not a concern, I don’t know what is! University Professor Judy Carman agreed with Heinemann’s analysis, stating in Digital Journal:6

“If this silences the same gene in us that it silences in the wheat — well, children who are born with this enzyme not working tend to die by the age of about five.”

Heinemann reported that his research revealed over 770 pages of potential matches between two GM genes in the wheat and the human genome. Over a dozen matches were “extensive and identical and sufficient to cause silencing in experimental systems,” he said. Experts warned that eating the wheat could lead to significant changes in the way glucose and carbohydrates are stored in the human body, which could be potentially deadly for children and lead to serious illness in adults.

Glyphosate—Another Culprit in Bee Die-Offs?

Glyphosate may also play a role in bee colony collapse disorder. As stated by Dr. Huber, there are three established characteristics of colony collapse disorder that suggests glyphosate may be (at least in part) responsible:

  1. The bees are mineral-deficient, especially in micronutrients
  2. There’s plenty of food present but they’re not able to utilize it or to digest it
  3. Dead bees are devoid of the Lactobacillus and the Bifidobacterium, which are components of their digestive system

The bees also become disoriented, suggesting endocrine hormone disruption. Neonicotinoid insecticides, which are endocrine hormone disruptors, have been demonstrated to make a bee disoriented and unable to find its way back to the hive. Glyphosate is also a very strong endocrine hormone disruptor.

Dr. Huber cites a study on glyphosate in drinking water at levels that are commonly found in US water systems, showing a 30 percent mortality in bees exposed to it. And that’s just from common levels of glyphosate in drinking water…

Glyphosate Is a Cumulative Chronic Toxin

Americans are in a tough spot right now, as there’s no telling which foods might contain genetically engineered ingredients tainted with high amounts of Roundup. Labeling would at least tell you that much, and give you the freedom to choose another product.

“A consumer needs to be very concerned. They need to be active in the labeling aspects,” Dr. Huber says. “They also need to be active in the requirement for safety studies. These haven’t been done. When the EPA employed the term ‘substantially equivalent,’ it gave the chemical companies essentially a waiver on doing any of the safety tests. The only thing that they’ve ever tested for is acute toxicity. Well, we know that glyphosate, for instance, isn’t an acute toxin. It’s a serious chronic toxin. That’s been well-established in peer-reviewed scientific articles. We have more of those coming along all the time. There is no question that it’s a chronic toxin.”

According to Dr. Huber, glyphosate at a mere 0.5 ppm is toxic to your endocrine hormone system, which includes your pituitary, thyroid, and reproductive hormones. Ten ppm is cytotoxic to kidney cells; one ppm is toxic to your liver, and 0.1-10 ppm are toxic to a whole series of human cellular functions or cells directly. Dr. Huber has even likened glyphosate to DDT in terms of toxicity. Consider that, and then consider that we are currently using some 880 million pounds—that’s nearly ONE BILLION pounds—of glyphosate annually on crops grown worldwide.

As Dr. Seneff and Samsel reveal in a recent study conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, glyphosate is probably the most harmful chronic toxin we’ve ever encountered, both in our environment and on our dinner plates. Their findings show that two of the key problems caused by glyphosate in the diet are nutritional deficiencies, and systemic toxicity.

“It’s just that you don’t get killed or die today from it; you have to suffer through the process of gluten intolerance, leaky gut, Crohn’s, Alzheimer’s, autism, or any of those diseases that are related to the health of your gut, which we’re seeing now on an epidemic scale in our society,” he says.

Why Is the USDA Ignoring This Health Threat?

Two years ago, in 2011, Dr. Huber wrote a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, informing him of many of the safety concerns surrounding genetically engineered crops, along with yet another groundbreaking finding that could spell absolute disaster for your entire food supply. He warned Vilsack about the emergence of a brand new electron microscope-sized organism associated with something called Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS) in soy.

It’s also found in a large variety of livestock given GE feed who experience both spontaneous abortions and infertility. This includes cattle, horses, sheep, pigs, and poultry. Might it affect humans in the same way? Dr. Huber urged the USDA to investigate the matter and suspend approval of GE alfalfa until proper studies have been completed.

“We know that all herbicides are chelators, mineral chelators. That’s how they compromise the plant’s physiology: they tie up a particular nutrient and shut down a physiologic pathway,” he says. “This wasn’t new from that standpoint. But the thing that was different [with glyphosate] was its biocidal effect. It’s not only a chelator, but it’s also a strong antibiotic to beneficial microorganisms. How do you compensate for that? How do you restore biological activities?

Much of my research, which was focused on glyphosate, was focused on the biology and restoration of those mineral nutrients. I served on the National Plant Disease Recovery Program. I was chairman at that time and also for the USDA. I’ve also served for 40 years on our various threat pathogens committees and recognized what the potential problems were with Roundup Ready alfalfa.”

The American Stock Growers’ Association also testified before Congress, saying that infertility was threatening the animal industry. Dr. Huber saw how all of these issues were connected—via genetically engineered crops and the application of glyphosate. He felt an obligation to alert the USDA secretary and to ask for his help in getting the research done before further jeopardizing not only our fourth most important crop, but also our entire animal production because of the prevalence of this new abortogenic entity, found in high concentrations in GE or high-glyphosate intense growth conditions.

His warnings were ignored, and GE alfalfa was deregulated that same year. Why is the USDA ignoring warnings from a scientist with 50 years of experience with plant pathology, soil-borne diseases, microbial ecology, and host-parasite relationships?

“A group of us met with the top administrators. I’ve never met with the secretary personally. But we did have the privilege of meeting and sharing our concerns and 130 or so peer-reviewed scientific articles that support our position with top administrators in USDA and some of the other agencies. They assured us that if we could do the work, they would be willing to look at it.

Well, they haven’t looked at any of the other peer-reviewed science… And the USDA scientists, who have a tremendous amount of knowledge on the impact of glyphosate, have all been muzzled. They’re not permitted to say anything about it. I got a phone call from one a few weeks ago. He said, ‘I’ll be retiring fairly soon. I plan on moving off and sharing that stage with you because I have a lot that I want to say. I just can’t say it right now.’”

GMOs Are Not the Solution to Feed a Burgeoning Population

There is simply no question and there is irrefutable evidence that genetic engineering is not the solution to feed a growing world population. Rather, it actually increases disease susceptibility of plants by impairing their immune response. It also reduces, not increases, yield potential. There’s never been a genetically engineered plant that increases the intrinsic yield of a plant. Improved plant yield is accomplished through traditional breeding programs that promote improved gene expression.

“We’re only expressing 25 or 30 percent of the genetic potential for yield in any of our crops now,” Dr. Huber says. “There’s tremendous potential there. It’s a matter of using that traditional breeding as we’ve done for many years and getting better expression – not throwing in additional genes to act like a virus and disrupt the integrity of the whole process that’s required for yield and quality.

We can increase all of the nutrient density with traditional breeding. In fact, the Brazilians are doing that. They’ve just released new varieties of soybean with higher vitamin A, and corn with higher vitamin A and vitamin C. We can do all of that with traditional breeding. We’ve been doing it for years. You don’t need to disrupt the genetic integrity and introduce all the collateral damage with its long-term effects.”

I can personally attest to this fact as well. High-performance agriculture is one of my new passions, so much so it’s turning into something of a second career—to learn and understand how to optimize plant growth and the environment. I’ve been applying what I’ve learned in my own garden for a few months now, and I’ve been able to personally witness the maximization of genetic potential that is possible. For example, by using compost tea and mineral amendments, the leaves on some plants, like my lime trees and oleanders, are literally 300 to 400 percent bigger than the typical leaf of these plants. It’s truly extraordinary! You wouldn’t even imagine that plants could grow that big.

Part of the problem is that we’ve gotten used to less than mediocrity, when it comes to plant performance. According to John Kempf,7 an Amish farmer and one of the leaders in the field of high-performance agriculture, farmers and food producers routinely harvest only about 10 to 15 percent of the inherent genetic capacity of any given crop. In a nutshell, the foundation of health – whether we’re talking about plants, soils, animals, or people – it really boils down to two things:

  1. Having adequate mineral nutrition, and
  2. Having that nutrition, in the case of plants, be supplied by an active soil microbial community, or having a strong soil biology

Genetically engineered crops decimate both. How could it possibly be the answer to rising food demands?

Join Us in Your Right to Know by Getting GMOs Labeled!

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. In the past few weeks, Connecticut and Maine have passed GMO-labeling bills, and 20 other states have pending legislation to label genetically engineered foods. So, now is the time to put the pedal to the metal and get labeling across the country—something 64 other countries already have.

I hope you will join us in this effort.

The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. Please help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for GMO labeling in other states by making a donation to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).

Donate Today!

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn’t have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let’s not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can.

  • No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
  • Sign up to learn more about how you can get involved by visiting Yeson522.com!
  • For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
  • Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.

Source

Doctors: Prescribe Emergency Contraception for All Girls Under 17

contraceptionpills 255x159 Doctors: Prescribe Emergency Contraception for All Girls Under 17You have GOT to be kidding me. Where’s the fire? What’s the ’emergency’?!

These aren’t doctors, they’re robots. The memory of the hipocratic oath has been erased from their memory banks, they’ve been programmed by and are getting paid off by Big Pharma.

Aside from the list of negative side-effects below that could result, there’s still the fact they’re putting something unnatural and synthetic into the body and that is always bad news and completely unpredictable from person to person.

I certainly hope parents have the sense to see a red flag when it’s waving wildly in front of their faces. It’s time to stop taking a pill to solve every issue and start by looking in the mirror at the root cause of behaviour. Take some responsibility, people! Parents—raise your children properly and quit passing the buck.

Violence against women—sure, it happens, but who are the perpetrators? Men! Parents—take a more active role in raising your children and reduce the violence in the world. Things are going to be changing dramatically very soon, thank goodness, because it doesn’t look like people are going to assume the responsibility in this current consciousness.

And the anti-abortion folks who say it’s a beating heart that constitutes a ‘person’, and therefore abortion constitutes murder—maybe they’ll revise their stand when they learn that consciousness, or the soul, doesn’t enter a body until around the time of birth, not on conception—so the ‘person’ doesn’t yet exist prior to that. Man, do we need change in this society…

November 27, 2012

The American Academy of Pediatrics has a surprising bit of advice in its new policy statement: doctors should prescribe underage teens emergency contraceptive pills like Plan B.

The heads of abstinence-advocates, natural healers, and skeptics at large are spinning.

Teen pregnancies in the US, while having dropped 44% between 1991 and 2010, remain five times that of France, 2 ½ times that of Canada, and higher than China’s and Russia’s.

An unfortunate share of it is attributed to sexual assault, which are highest among teens and young adults according to the Justice Department’s Office on Violence against Women.

“We really can do better,” says Dr. Cora Breuner, a member of the AAP’s Committee on Adolescence. “By providing more education and improving access to contraception and more education about family planning, we can do better.”

About 80% of teen pregnancies in America are unplanned, and Breuner adds that babies of such pregnancies tend to experience behavioral and academic problems compared to babies born in planned pregnancies from older parents.

Because emergency contraception pills work most effectively if taken within the first 24 hours, teens may feel more comfortable not talking to parents or gynecologists and instead using the preemptively prescribed pills for emergency contraception.

Dangers Associated with Emergency Contraceptives

The logic may be sound—better safe than sorry—but there are other implications to consider, though the gravity of each one compared to an unplanned pregnancy is entirely up to the individual.

Women taking birth control drugs with imitation progesterone (to include Yaz, Bayer’s Yasmin, Beyaz, Safyraland Angeliq) are, according to the US Food and Drug Administration, 150 percent more likely to develop blood clots.

Other dangers to consider when taking birth control or emergency contraceptive pills include:

  • Weight gain or loss
  • Reduced or increased acne
  • Nausea, abdominal pain, vomiting
  • Emotional sensitivity and mood swings
  • Irregular bleeding, spotting
  • Decreased libido
  • Benign liver tumors
  • Yeast overgrowth and infection
  • Vitamins B2, B6, and B12 deficiency

Because emergency contraception administered to underage teens would not be prescribed for cases like acne and hormonal imbalances (as with conventional birth control pills), the issue of using birth control to clear symptoms of deeper, underlying conditions such as poor liver or adrenal function is not at issue.

The issue here is using emergency birth control for teens who, for poor planning, emotional unease, or sexual assault, are unable or unwilling to discuss courses of action with gynecologists or parents.

Arguably, instead of prescribing emergency contraception to teens, it might be worthwhile (and healthier) for parents and pediatricians to have regular, comfortable talks about sexual health and non-hormonal methods of birth control (like condoms).

Sadly, not all adults have the mindfulness or time befitting a good parent and not all children, environments, or circumstances prevent accidents, assault, or plain bad planning.

Condoms do fail and sexual assault is a horrid reality, and emergency contraceptives then would be a boon for any scared, underage teen to have at hand.

And of course, is it morally correct to stop a pregnancy in its path? Just recently, some individuals said that newborn babies ‘aren’t people’ and it is therefore acceptable to kill them. They are calling for after-birth abortions.

The writers say that newborn babies simply do not have a “moral right to life”. Is society slowly trying to better control population numbers?

Are emergency contraceptive pills OK? What do you think?

Source

 

US and China Caught Secretly Testing GMO Rice on Chinese Children

Instead of putting genetically modified foods through proper trials as consumers have been demanding for years, it appears the United States Department of Agriculture in alliance with the Chinese government have instead chosen to secretly test their latest GMO rice on young Chinese children.

What’s particularly interesting is the fact that the agencies decided they even needed to test the rice, after claiming that GMO rice and all other GM creations are virtually identical to natural foods.

Currently under investigation by Chinese health officials, the research project was cracked wide open after Greenpeace reportedly corresponded with the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention to expose the ongoing research.

Currently, Greenpeace is calling for a stop to the trials which are reportedly continuing in the field. Citing health and environmental risks, Greenpeace says that the studies are taking place on roughly 24 children aged between six and eight years old. It has also been said that the parents likely were completely unaware or misinformed.

 The USDA seeks to examine the effects of the GMO rice on the young children, also known as genetically modified ‘golden rice’.

Shortly after the news came out, China’s version of Twitter exploded with outrage as Chinese government organizations went into overdrive to downplay the studies.

A Tufts University PR spokesperson, the very university developing the rice, claimed to no knowledge of the event and decried it as inhumane and unethical. PR rep Andrea Grossman stated that the GMO rice creators had always placed the ‘highest importance’ on human health:

“We have always placed the highest importance on human health, and we take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of human research subjects.”

One Chinese author indicated in the secret GMO rice trials, Shi-an Yin, was suspended from his work. The second claimed to have no idea the study was going on and was therefore not arrested or even suspended.

For the USDA to be secretly testing genetically modified foods on young children while disregarding all calls for real analysis in the United States shows just how the agency is trying to hide. After all, why would you not perform trials out in the open if the results were so favorable?

Likely because their previous secret tests were not favorable, and the agency is determining just how detrimental new GMO rice really is.

Source