GMO linked to gluten disorders plaguing 18 Million Americans

Genetically modified foods such as soy and corn may be responsible for a number of gluten-related maladies including intestinal disorders now plaguing 18 million Americans, according to a new report released on Tuesday.

The report was released by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), and cites authoritative data from the US Department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection Agency records, medical journal reviews as well as international research.

“Gluten sensitivity can range in severity from mild discomfort, such as gas and bloating, to celiac disease, a serious autoimmune condition that can, if undiagnosed, result in a 4-fold increase in death,” said Jeffrey M. Smith, executive director of IRT in a statement released on their website.

Smith cited how a “possible environmental trigger may be the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to the American food supply, which occurred in the mid-1990s,” describing the nine GM crops currently on the market.

In soy, corn, cotton (oil), canola (oil), sugar from sugar beets, zucchini, yellow squash, Hawaiian papaya, and alfalfa, “Bt-toxin, glyphosate, and other components of GMOs, are linked to five conditions that may either initiate or exacerbate gluten-related disorders,” according to Smith.

It’s the BT-toxin in genetically modified foods which kills insects by “puncturing holes in their cells.” The toxin is present in ‘every kernel’ of Bt-corn and survives human digestion, with a 2012 study confirming that it punctures holes in human cells as well.

The GMO-related damage was linked to five different areas: Intestinal permeability, imbalanced gut bacteria, immune activation and allergic response, impaired digestion, and damage to the intestinal wall.

The IRT release also indicated that glyphosate, a weed killer sold under the brand name ‘Roundup’ was also found to have a negative effect on intestinal bacteria. GMO crops contain high levels of the toxin at harvest.

“Even with minimal exposure, glyphosate can significantly reduce the population of beneficial gut bacteria and promote the overgrowth of harmful strains,” the report found.

Dr. Tom O’Bryan, internationally recognized expert on gluten sensitivity and Celiac Disease, says that “the introduction of GMOs is highly suspect as a candidate to explain the rapid rise in gluten-related disorders over the last 17 years.”

Internist, Emily Linder, offered some backup for the report’s findings. She removed GMO from her patients’ diets, finding that recovery from intestinal diseases was faster and more complete.

“I believe that GMOs in our diet contribute to the rise in gluten-sensitivity in the US population,” Linder said in the release.

Source: RussiaToday

Connecticut becomes first state to enact GMO labeling law!

The governor of Connecticut hosted a ceremonial signing outside an organic restaurant in the city of Fairfield on Wednesday to commemorate the state’s passing of what could be the first GMO labeling law of its type in the United States.

Voters in Connecticut decided back in June to approve a bill requiring that all foods meant for human consumption that contain genetically-modified ingredients be properly labeled. Unless some neighboring states in the region follow suit, however, the status of that law remains in limbo.

The Connecticut bill requires at least four other Northeastern states with a combined population of no fewer than 20 million to approve similar acts before it can officially go on the books. And while so far proponents of a GMO labeling initiative have found allies in one adjacent state, it could very well be a long-time coming before the proper support is rallied.

Voters in Maine have already elected to pass a near-identical measure, but residents in a region that includes Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont must come together to do the same in at least three other locales.

Outside the Catch A Healthy Habit restaurant in Fairfield on Wednesday, Gov. Dannel Malloy implored his counterparts to consider joining in their fight.

“I am proud that leaders from each of the legislative caucuses can come together to make our state the first in the nation to require the labeling of GMOs,” Malloy said, according to Fairfield’s Daily Voice. “The end result is a law that shows our commitment to consumers’ right to know while catalyzing other states to take similar action.”

Tara Cook-Littman, the director of GMO Free Connecticut, applauded the efforts by advocates in the state and country working towards new laws.

“As the catalyst for GMO labeling in the United States, Connecticut residents should feel proud,” she told reporters. “We are hopeful that legislators throughout the Northeast will follow the lead of Governor Malloy and all our legislative champions by passing laws that give consumers transparency in labeling. It is a great honor for all of us to stand with Governor Malloy as he signs the first in the nation GMO labeling law.”

More than 60 countries across the world have approved mandatory labeling laws for GMO foods already, and polling suggests that the vast majority of Americans are in favor of doing the same. So far, in fact, almost half of all US states have introduces bill that, if approved, would either require labeling of GMO foods or prohibit them altogether.

“Surveys have always found 80 to 95 percent of people wanting labeling,” Consumers Union senior scientist Michael Hansen told the Rodale News health site back in April. “People are paying attention to food, and because of that they’re more interested in GMO issues and buying food that’s more local and food without pesticides and other added ingredients.”

Now with Connecticut taking the lead, Gov. Malloy hopes other states will do the same.

“This is a beginning, and I want to be clear what it is a beginning of,” he told the Fairfield Citizen before Wednesday’s event. “It is a national movement that will requiring (food) labeling.”

“People need to demand GMO labeling,” Malloy told WFSB News on the day of the ceremonial signing. “Some companies are doing this and we need to move in that direction.”

“This is the time,” he said to the Citizen. “You better get ready; people are coming and this is not a movement you are going to stop.”

Malloy was flanked by state lawmakers from both the right and the left at Wednesday’s event, and Republicans and Democrats alike are now aligning themselves in the fight.

“This bill moves forward and reinforces our fundamental right to know what is in our food so we can make informed choices about what we feed our families,” said Rep. Tony Hwang (R-Fairfield-Trumbull), according to reporter Christina Chiarelli. “Consumers may or may not wish to purchase foods that they know to be genetically modified, but they need the information made available to them to make those informed choices.”

“Passing this bill is courageous and monumental,” added Rep. Philip Miller (D-Essex). “It is an affirmation for healthy, sustainable agriculture and responsible stewardship of our food supply. The ever growing grassroots efforts of Connecticut citizens has come to fruition with the passing of this legislation. I thank Governor Malloy for being a champion of our right to participate in building our economy as fully informed consumers and citizens.”

Currently 15 nations in the European Union require labels on GMO products, and Zambia, Benin and Serbia have all instated prohibitions against products. Just earlier this week, China for the fifth time blocked a cargo shipment of US corn from entering the country, citing concerns of GMO contamination.

Source: RussiaToday

GMOs cause horrible deformities, birth defects in piglets

When Danish pig farmer Ib Pedersen first noticed the sudden uptick in disease, deformities and death among his farrow, his immediate reaction was to investigate the diet of his pigs to look for possible causes. And what he found confirms what a growing body of evidence also suggests: that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in conventional animal feed are increasingly responsible for triggering birth defects, deformities, spontaneous abortions and other growth and development abnormalities in both pigs and cattle.

With 13,000 pigs on his farm, Pedersen knows the ins and outs of how to properly raise swine, as well as what is considered normal in terms of pig health. This is why he grew particularly alarmed when many more of them than usual began to come down with strange illnesses. Besides noticeably lower birthrates, Pedersen observed more of his pigs than normal being born with strange defects like spinal deformities and limb problems, and many more pigs than usual were dying.

"When using GM feed I saw symptoms of bloat, stomach ulcers, high rates of diarrhea, pigs born with deformities," explained Pedersen to The Ecologist's Andrew Wasley, who recently conducted an in-depth investigation into the link between GMOs and animal health problems. "But when I switched [to non-GM feed] these problems went away, some within a matter of days."

Switching to non-GM feed reduces costs, boosts profits

Pedersen's case is hardly an isolated one, as animal farmers all over the world are now reporting more illness and death associated with the use of GM animal feed, problems that typically go away when GM feed is replaced with non-GM feed. Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans are especially problematic, as they are doused with the toxic herbicide glyphosate, which numerous studies have linked to causing birth defects, endocrine disruption and other problems.

"Farmers who have worked to exclude GM ingredients from their feed report dramatic improvements in herd health," says Claire Robinson from the group GM Watch. "Farmers should be worried and should not settle for what some scientists are calling a 'new norm' of increased rates of malformations, deaths and digestive and reproductive problems, as GM feed becomes more common."

Those like Pedersen who have made the switch to non-GM feed say it has actually saved them money in the long run. Not only are there fewer animal health issues that require treatment when using non-GM feed, they say, but transgenic corn and soy also hampers productivity.

"In my experience, farmers have found increased production costs and escalating antibiotic use when feeding GM crops," says Howard Vlieger, an Iowa-based farmer who helped coordinate an independent study comparing the health of pigs fed GM feed to those fed non-GM feed. The findings of Vlieger's study corroborate what Pedersen observed on his farm.

Many farmers have no choice but to settle for disease-causing GM feed

Finding affordable, non-GM feed, however, is an entirely different story. The unfortunate reality is that even in places like Europe where GMOs are widely rejected by the public, and where GMO labeling is mandatory, non-GM animal feed is getting harder and harder to come by. And this, of course, is due to the fact that corporations like Monsanto dominate the seed stocks used by staple crop growers throughout North and South America.

"It's a nightmare trying to source non GM feed," stated one U.K.-based supermarket source to The Ecologist. "The reality is that trying to source it on the scale needed [by large retailers] is very difficult. The feed companies own the boats, the mills, they control the supply chain."

Sources: NaturalNews. The Ecologist

China rejects U.S. corn; GMO continues to harm U.S. economically

A recent shipment of corn from the United States to China has been rejected due to contamination by genetically modified strains that have not been approved by Beijing.

The offending crop that caused the shipment to be rejected was Syngenta AG's Agrisure Viptera corn. This incident highlights a growing problem of GMO contamination of crops, as seen in September this year when alfalfa grown in Washington was discovered to be contaminated with a GM strain.

The bad news impacted the Chicago Board of Trade corn futures, causing December corn to hit a three-year low. Thankfully for corn farmers, U.S. corn imports into China are soaring, as the Chinese government struggles with high domestic corn prices, compared to relatively cheap U.S. corn imports from a record harvest, and an increasing demand for food.

However, the contaminated shipment will have to transported elsewhere, like Japan or South Korea.

"We are worried. At this stage, we have to wait and see before making any judgment whether the government is sending a signal to the market that it does not want more imports or whether this is simply a quarantine issue," said one trading manager with a large animal feed mill in Guangdong.

Agrisure Viptera was engineered in an effort to increase resistance against crop-damaging insects and is widely grown in the U.S., so the genetic pollution likely came from the GM strain commingling with the approved corn.

As usual, the biotech industry denies responsibility. "Syngenta is not aware of any such incident," said Paul Minehart, head of Corporate Communications-North America for Syngenta Corporation.

Source: NaturalNews, Reuters

Are you eating fake eggs made in a laboratory?

Bill Gates GMO Zombie Eggs:

Are you eating fake eggs made in a laboratory? Who knew? This is like some mutated organism plasma-like "goo" from the movie "Alien." Who in their right mind would dare eat it? Well, lots of people who don't know that they're eating it, that's who. When will it be substituted and remain as such without labels or warnings in just about every egg-containing packaged item that is sold to the masses by Corporate America and infects the body with GM bacteria? Welcome to zombie food central and the inside story on this nightmare coming to grocery stores everywhere. Some say it's already in the food. But wait, it's made from plants! Didn't you hear? It's time to get brainwashed, again, by the richest people on the planet.

A radical "artificial egg" backed by Paypal billionaire Peter Thiel and the "infamous" Bill Gates goes on sale in US supermarkets for the first time. Made from plants, it can replace eggs in everything from cakes to mayonnaise - without a chicken in the equation whatsoever. The "Bio-tech food mutation" team today have already started selling their "plant egg"! It looks like it will be first sold at none other than the beloved "Whole Foods" in California - and some say it could "soon be available in supermarkets worldwide."

How many products will contain genetically modified "plant" eggs? What could you accidentally bake with this synthetic science mystery? Will you make cookies or brownies for the kids? Will you slop some "bio" mayonnaise on your next sandwich, or will you pour some synthetic salad dressing on your greens? Will it be in all the pasta and bread or lumped into muffins for that "bouncy" quality that stays "fresh" so long? This synthetic nightmare will contain no real egg whatsoever. You know they'll call it something real nifty too, like "Beyond the Egg" mayonnaise, or the "Incredible Scramble!" The name has to reflect the opposite of what it's really all about.

That's why GMOs are unlabeled in America, and saying that it doesn't need to be listed in the ingredients means it's the MOST dangerous ingredient mankind could know! Get it? Soon, aspartame will be in milk, unlabeled, and all those conventional milk worshipers will be consuming artificial sweetener on top of all those hormones, antibiotics and pus from the cow udders. That's where conventional cheese is derived, so pay attention closely to the new FAKE eggs, and try not to eat "cancer" intentionally or unintentionally.

Of course, they'll claim the nutritional values are the same. "They" being the regulatory organization that approves it (FDA/Monsanto), the companies that test it for health dangers (the manufacturers who make billions) and those scientific "peer-reviewed" tests (altered results) will be shared with the public (the shareholders) so that proper diet (pharmaceutical medications) can be addressed by the doctors who recommend it (surgeons and oncologists that work on you later). This is the nature of the GM beast.

Everyone should know doctors who have a degree in nutrition to get the right "news" and the right "advice" on how food affects your body, your mind and your health. Some doctors know the dangers of GMOs and will tell you all about it! (http://www.naturopathic.org) Research more on this: "Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food." (http://www.responsibletechnology.org)

Fake egg makers can't seem to get that egg "bounce" right

They say they don't have the right "bounce" yet, to make them feel like real eggs, so what will they use for that, gelatin? That would add to the toxicity and DNA damage to human cells, since gelatin comes from CAFO animals' connective tissue. "We want to take animals out of the equation," said Josh Tetrick, the firm's founder. "The food industry is begging for innovation, especially where animals are involved - it is a broken industry." You can say that again - now throw those eggs in the "trash compactor" with the other medical waste please.

Please realize, this is not a legitimate, healthy vegan alternative to eggs. The bigger questions still remain: Will the GM eggs contain bacteria from insects, or worms, or plants that are never supposed to be eaten? Also, since genetically modified organisms are not required to be labeled in the USA, will GM eggs be HUGE mystery, and could they cause cancer, birth defects or other gene mutations in humans? Don't turn into a zombie. Don't consume anything GM. Stay positive and informed. Eat only organic eggs! Don't eat pesticide vegetables (GMOs) and never ever eat cancer.

Source: NaturalNews

Warning: GMO feed is turning pig stomachs to mush!

If you have stomach problems or gastrointestinal problems, a new study led by Dr. Judy Carman may help explain why: pigs fed a diet of genetically engineered soy and corn showed a 267% increase in severe stomach inflammation compared to those fed non-GMO diets. In males, the difference was even more pronounced: a 400% increase. (For the record, most autistic children are males, and nearly all of them have severe intestinal inflammation.)

The study was conducted on 168 young pigs on an authentic farm environment and was carried out over a 23-week period by eight researchers across Australia and the USA. The lead researcher, Dr. Judy Carman, is from the Institute of Health and Environmental Research in Kensington Park, Australia. The study has now been published in the Journal of Organic Systems, a peer-reviewed science journal.

The study is the first to show what appears to be a direct connection between the ingestion of GMO animal feed and measurable damage to the stomachs of those animals. Tests also showed abnormally high uterine weights of animals fed the GMO diets, raising further questions about the possibility of GMOs causing reproductive organ damage.

Proponents of corporate-dominated GMO plant science quickly attacked the study, announcing that in their own minds, there is no such thing as any evidence linking GMOs to biological harm in any animals whatsoever. And they are determined to continue to believe that, even if it means selectively ignoring the increasingly profound and undeniable tidal wave of scientific studies that repeatedly show GMOs to be linked with severe organ damage, cancer tumors and premature death.

"Adverse effects... toxic effects... clear evidence"

The study was jointly announced by GM Watch and Sustainable Pulse.

Lead author of the study Dr. Judy Carman stated, "We found these adverse effects when we fed the animals a mixture of crops containing three GM genes and the GM proteins that these genes produce. Yet no food regulator anywhere in the world requires a safety assessment for the possible toxic effects of mixtures. Our results provide clear evidence that regulators need to safety assess GM crops containing mixtures of GM genes, regardless of whether those genes occur in the one GM plant or in a mixture of GM plants eaten in the same meal, even if regulators have already assessed GM plants containing single GM genes in the mixture."

The following photo shows one of the pig intestines fed a non-GMO diet vs. a pig intestine fed a GMO diet. As you can see from the photo, the pig fed the GMO diet suffered severe inflammation of the stomach:

Yet more evidence that GMOs damage mammals

The study adds to the weight of scientific evidence from others studies which show that rats fed a diet of GMOs grow horrifying cancer tumors and suffer premature death.

A scientific study published last year concluded that eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide was linked with rats developing shockingly large tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death.

That study was also criticized by corporate GMO trolls who argued that scientists should not show pictures of rats with large cancer tumors caused by GMOs because the pictures scare consumers into being afraid of GMOs.

Here are some of the pictures they don't want you to see, taken right from the public announcement of the study:

That study also found that rats fed GM corn suffered severe kidney damage as well as shockingly high rates of premature death.

Why weren't these studies done before GMOs were unleashed into the global food supply?

The GMO biotech industry was able to escape any meaningful regulation of GMOs in the United States by (ridiculously) claiming GMOs were substantially no different from non-genetically engineered crops. "They're all the same!" we were told. And the USDA bought it.

So how did Monsanto patent its GM corn, then? You're not supposed to be able to patent something unless it's uniquely different. Thus, the very fact that Monsanto has acquired patents on its GMO crop varieties is proof that the company itself believes its seeds are different.

And what's different about Monsanto's GM corn? It produces a deadly insecticide grown right into every kernel. That insecticide, of course, is what kills insects that try to eat the crop. And how does it kill those insects? It fatally damages their digestive systems. That same insecticide stays inside the corn even as the crop is turned into animal feed... or corn chip snacks... or flaked corn breakfast cereal.

GMOs are unfit for human consumption

This pig stomach inflammation study suddenly provides yet more credible evidence that GMOs are unfit for human consumption and may be causing severe damage to the digestive systems of both humans and mammals.

Naturally, the GMO industry and all its paid online trolls, on-the-take "scientists" and multi-million dollar P.R. machine will try to viciously attack this study from every angle. They absolutely hate real science when that science calls into question their poisonous, deadly seeds and genetic pollution.

That's why you won't read this news anywhere in the mainstream media -- the same media that utterly discredited itself a few weeks ago when it pretended the hugely successful global March Against Monsanto never even took place.

NOTE TO THE SELLOUT CORPORATE MEDIA: You have zero credibility remaining. Virtually no one believes what you print. Everyone knows you have sold out your editorial agenda to Big Pharma, Monsanto, weapons manufacturers and the surveillance state. The reason why alternative media like GM Watch and Natural News is rising while your own numbers keep plummeting is because we print the real news that really matters on liberty, food freedom, farm freedom, health freedom and self-reliance. Maybe if you stopped intentionally lying to your readers on a daily basis while censoring important news on grassroots liberty, you might see some readers return to your publication... 

Source: NaturalNews

How Roundup Weedkiller Can Promote Cancer, New Study Reveals

Roundup herbicide (glyphosate) is in our air, rain, groundwater, soil and most food in the U.S., and an increasing body of research reveals it has cancer-promoting properties.

Researchers from the Indian Institute of Toxicology Research have recently confirmed the carcinogenic potential of Roundup herbicide using human skin cells (HaCaT ) exposed to extremely low concentrations of the world's best selling herbicide.

The researchers previously reported on glyphosate's tumor promoting potential in a two-stage mouse skin carcinogenesis model[i] through its disruption of proteins that regulate calcium (Ca^2+- ) signaling and oxidative stress (SOD 1), but were unable in these investigations to identify the exact molecular mechanisms behind how glyphosate contributes to tumor promotion.

The new study, published in the peer-reviewed journal ISRN Dermatology,[ii] sought out to clarify the exact mode of tumorigenic action, finding the likely mechanism behind glyphosate's cancer promoting properties is through the downregulation of mitochondrial apoptotic (self-destructive) signaling pathways, as well as through the disruption of a wide range of cell signaling and regulatory components. Cell proliferative effects were induced by concentrations lower than .1 mM, and as low as 0.01 mM, which is four orders of magnitude lower than concentrations commonly used in GM agricultural applications (e.g. 50 mM). The fact that lower concentrations were more effective at inducing proliferation than higher concentrations (which suppressed cell growth), indicates that Roundup is a potent endocrine disrupter, and further highlights why conventional toxicological risk assessments are inadequate because they do not account for the fact that as concentrations arereduced certain types of toxicity -- e.g. endocrine disruption -- actually increase.

The researchers used the product Roundup Original (glyphosate 41%, polyethoxethyleneamine (POEA) ≅15%—Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO, USA), and observed the following changes to human skin cells induced through exposure to this chemical mixture:

·         Significant increases in cell proliferation (via disruption of CA2+ levels, i.e. decreased levels)

·         Increases oxidative stress, as measured by levels of ROS (reactive oxygen species)

·         Cell-cycle dysregulation, marked by an accumulation of cells in S-phase (hallmark feature of cancer)

·         Increased proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), a marker for increased cell proliferation

·         Increased Bromodeoxyuridin (BrdU), a marker for increased cell proliferation

·         Decreases in the level of the protein IP3R1, an indication of resistance to cell death

·         Increases in Bcl-2 protein, a tumor promoter gene product

·         Decreases in Bax proteins, a tumor suppressor gene product

·         Caspase suppression (associated with prevention of cell death)

·         Changes in the expression of the Ca2+- binding family of proteins (S100 family) S100A6/S100A9, associated with various cancers.

It is important to emphasize that while the researchers observed cell proliferation-associated changes in the expression of the Ca2+- binding proteins S100A6/A9 following glyphosate exposure to human skin cells, the implications of these findings reach beyond the skin cell lineage. They explained that related modifications of the expression pattern of S100A6/A9 protein have also been found in "hepatocellular carcinoma [15], lung cancer [16], colorectal cancer [17], and melanoma [18]."

The study included a diagram (shown below) representing graphically the multiple ways in which glyphosate disrupts cellular structure/function to contribute to uncontrolled cell proliferation.

The researchers summarized their findings as follows:

In conclusion, in this study, we demonstrated that glyphosate may possibly exert proliferative effect in HaCaT cells by activating Ca2+ binding proteins to promote the imbalance of intracellular Ca2+ homeostasis and lessen SOD1 to increase ROS generation. This effect was partially reversed by treatment with antioxidant NAC indicating connections between oxidative stress and hypocalcaemia. Reduced Ca2+ levels enhance Bcl-2 and decrease Bax, subsequently leading to decrease in cytochrome c to stimulate further decrease of caspase 3 via the downregulation of IP3R1 level, thus halting apoptosis. The present study for the first time provides insight into the mechanism of glyphosate-induced neoplastic potential in mammalian skin system.

It should be noted that their observation that the carcinogenicity of Roundup may be suppressed by the antioxidant n-acetyl-cysteine (NAC), which is a precursor to the cellular detoxifier and antioxidant known as glutathione and a readily available dietary supplement, has important implications, owing to how widespread exposure to Roundup herbicide has become, both through environmental exposures in air, soil, rain and groundwater, as well as in the tens of thousands of unlabeled products containing GM ingredients contaminated with physiologically significant levels of this chemical. 

Reflecting on the Implications

We leave the reader with some final reflections on the implications of this research. The wholesale dismissal of attempts to differentiate GMO from conventional products through accurate labeling is based on the idea that they are 'substantially equivalent.' But, this fallacious approach is based on the mistaken view that the only difference between GMO and non-GMO crops of feed and food importance is the presence of either the novel transgenes inserted into them or their novel transgene protein products.

The discover of Roundup's extreme toxicity destroys that argument, and calls into question the credibility of any would-be 'scientist' or pro-GMO advocate who would propose otherwise.  How so? The fact is that the majority of approved GM plants have been genetically engineered to be "Roundup Ready," i.e. resistant to glyphosate, which means that the land they are grown upon is basically carpet-bombed with the chemical mixture to kill any living plant other than the glyphosate-resistant GM monocultures. The GM plants take up glyphosate, convert some of it to a similarly toxic metabolite AMPA, and survive the chemical exposure, while maintaining residues of both chemicals post-harvest -- which ultimately means that the consumer will be exposed to these compounds through their food.

This means that if you are not consuming foods that are explicitly GM free, you are being exposed to glyphosate (and glyphosate metabolites) on a daily basis. The difference, therefore between GMO and non-GMO is vastly more significant than simply the presence or absence of novel transgenes or their proteins.  It is the difference, candidly, between being exposed (poisoned) with a chemical with likely carcinogenicity or not being exposed to it.  For a more elaborate explanation read: Extreme Toxicity of Roundup Destroys GM/non-GM 'Substantial Equivalence' Argument.

Lastly, consider if Roundup (glyphosate) 'weed-killer' bore a warning sign 'may cause cancer,' or the tens thousands of products made with GM ingredients contaminated with it. Would there be any justifiable reason to resist GMO labeling? No, to the contrary, the focus would be on banning them immediately, instead of cow-towing to the powers that be to allow us the choice not to be poisoned by default.

Despite the so called "science" and "reason" based GMO proponents who think it makes sense to have mattresses labeled, but not food you put into your body, the actual empirical, peer-reviewed and published research – not ghost-written or funded by biotech corporations themselves – says that this omnipresent herbicide has multiple models of carcinogenicity, and in concentration ranges far below agricultural application, as far down as to the parts-per-trillion range. It is time those paying lip service to the 'evidence-based' model of GMO risk assessment, and who recklessly promote the dystopian interests of biotech corporations, address the evidence itself, or stop co-opting powerful sounding terms like "Science" to justify their highly irrational and ultimately biased and self-serving perspectives on the subject.

Source: GreenMedInfo