Natural Cures Not Medicine: dangers of gmo

Most Read This Week:

Showing posts with label dangers of gmo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dangers of gmo. Show all posts

Hawaii passes bill forbidding biotechnology companies, GMOs

Legislation outlawing all future plantings of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) as well as the very companies that manufacture and spread them has become law on Hawaii's "Big Island" following the historic passage of Bill 113. According to reports, the new law prohibits biotechnology companies like Monsanto and Dow from further experimenting with GMO crops and seeds on the Big Island, and also forbids any new GMOs from being cultivated there.

The Honolulu Civil Beat reports that the Hawaii County Council voted 6-3 to pass the momentous bill, which contains only one exemption for GM papayas that have been grown in Hawaii since the late 1990s. All other GMOs, including the latest incarnations of Roundup Ready soybeans and Bt corn, for instance, will have to make their homes elsewhere, as residents of the Big Island have made their voices overwhelmingly heard on the issue.


"Forcing genes of one species into another and changing the DNA of plants is not natural," stated one local resident by the name of Helene Love. "[GMOs] could turn out to be a huge danger, similar to nuclear disasters of our planet that we can't put out."

Some might say this suggestion is a bit dramatic, but the truth of the matter is that the long-term adverse effects of GMOs on the environment and human health are largely unknown. It is also undeniable that, once released, GMOs can never again be contained, as their pollen and other components will continue to indiscriminately spread and contaminate other plants and food crops.

"Even the worst chemical pollution diminishes over time as the pollutant is degraded by physical and biological mechanisms.," explains the comprehensive
 Earth Open Source research study GMO Myths and Truths. "But GMOs are living organisms. Once released into the ecosystem, they do not degrade and cannot be recalled, but multiply in the environment and pass on their GM genes to future generations."


Big Island mayor fully endorses Bill 113; says it will help protect his community's agricultural heritage

Big Island Mayor Billy Kenoi was also supportive of the bill, telling reporters that it fully embodies the sentiments of his local community. Rather than continue to allow large biotech corporations to rob the people of their agricultural heritage, Bill 113 encourages community-based farming and ranching rather than chemical-based factory agriculture.

"Our community has a deep connection and respect for our
 land, and we all understand we must protect our island and preserve our precious natural resources," wrote Kenoi to the councilmen. "We are determined to do what is right for the land because this place is unlike any other in the world."

The Hawaiian island of Kauai is also considering similar legislation in the form of Bill 2491, which rather than implement a full-on
 GMO ban would merely increase the standards for GMO approval. According to Civil Beat, Bill 2491, which is expected to be very soon submitted by councilwoman Elle Cochran to the Maui City Council, would require biotech corporations to disclose details about pesticide use and report all experimental and commercial GMOs to authorities.

"The bill requires commercial agricultural companies that use more than 5 pounds or 15 gallons of restricted use pesticides to disclose what chemicals they spray, where and in what quantities," explains a recent new report on the upcoming bill. "The bill would apply to all of Maui County -- including the island of Molokai where both Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences operate."


Source: NaturalNews

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

Connecting the Dots: GMOs and Vaccines




Humans suffer from hubris – we think we know better than nature, can fix it, manipulate it, and master it. There are (at least) two major transgressions that follow similar patterns, raise important red flags, and most certainly do not pass the sniff test: GMOs (genetically modified "foods") and vaccination.  Here's what they have in common:

War with Nature
Nature has a sense to it, cultivated over billions of years of evolution. The complexity of botanical systems, the relationship to pests, soil, and the elements sustains optimal diversity and reproduction. It was only when we began to industrialize the process, hijack growth with an eye toward yield, and allow chemical companies to attempt to regulate variables of perceived adversity that we ended up in the mess that GMO crops are in today. Now we have randomly spliced animal DNA with bacterial vectors inserting into plant genomes, disrupting the natural functioning of the plant, and allowing for supersaturation with the toxic, endocrine-disrupting and gut bug slaughtering herbicide, Roundup.
Pharmaceutical companies and doctors think they can outsmart immune systems that have evolved to coexist with microbes, to be primed and educated by them. We are at war with infectious disease, and as a consequence, our fear and malice toward bacteria and viruses have lead us to compromise and alter our immune systems with pathogens entering our bodies through our muscles, accompanied by toxic additives that cripple our natural immune function and cause chronic inflammation. The notion of improving upon our human capacities, as we understand them is discussed by Sayer Ji of GreenMedInfo as "transhumanism."

We cannot outsmart nature, we are only just beginning to appreciate her infinite sophistication.

Lack of Pre-marketing Safety Study
Monsanto claims that GMOs are simultaneously equivalent to existing foods (relieving them of any real duty to demonstrate safety), and novel enough that they can be patented. Despite the Frankensteinian effects of genetic manipulation on proteins and gene expression, these foods have never been studied in a human population, let alone assessing for long-term effects. What happens as a result of this fast-track-to-market process is that slow-emerging trends of harm at the population level begin to emerge.  Differing patterns of chronic disease in Europe and America at this point may have some relation to limitations of GMO products in Europe.  There is inherent difficulty in associating cause to effect in chronic disease; however, arguing for the importance of long-term premarketing trials.

Vaccines have similarly, never been studied against an unvaccinated control group, allegedly because they are assumed to be so vital to our health that it would be unethical to withhold them even though basic epidemiology demonstrates that hygiene and nutrition have played the most significant role in elimination of infectious disease.  They have never been studied in their current schedule, nor have the additives (adjuvants) which include known body toxins, aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde, and polysorbate 80.

Signal of Harm
Despite this lack of effort and incentive to support safety data in these two arenas, both have suffered a signal of harm that should have activated the precautionary principal. Monsanto monitored GM and non-GM fed rats for 90 days, and declared that changes in liver and kidney function were not clinically significant. Seralini et al, copied this design, but extended the observation period to years. Take agander at what happened to these animals. The first tumor sprouted at the 4 month mark. Multiple animal studies have emerged mirroring this study's provocative findings. Glyphosate, the herbicide that has been sprayed in escalating quantities, is an endocrine-disruptor that has been linked to obesity, liver disease, birth defects, autism, and cancer. This is the most enlightening exploration of its toxic mechanisms. Bt-toxin in GMO corn has been found to puncture intestinal cells and circulate into fetal tissue.

Whether in the realm of neurodevelopment, death, autoimmunity, or even susceptibility to the disease intended to provide protection from, vaccines have been demonstrated to harm and several billion dollars of taxpayer money have been paid out to victims through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Patterns of chronic illness such as atopy and autism have been demonstrated to correlate with vaccine uptake and prospective study of neurodevelopment in monkey's has demonstrated injury.

Suppression of Investigation
Seralini was silenced. His work was roundly attacked, censored from the media, and demands from industry ties for the paper to be retracted from its journal of publication. Several months after Seralini's paper, Richard Goodman, a former Monsanto employee was fast-tracked to the position of Associate Editor for Biotechnology. With Monsanto now at the helm of influential medical journals, the prospects for publication of independent research are diminishing.

The now infamous Andrew Wakefield, who published a paper on the presence of vaccine-strain measles in the guts of autistic children was stripped of his license and maligned for fraud in a witch-hunt intended to suppress any further investigation into this connection. Fortunately, at least 28 independent studies from around the world have confirmed his findings.

Protection of Corporate Profits
The "Monsanto Protection Act" was designed to provide legal immunity to GM technology so that citizens could never litigate on the grounds of harm secondary to GM food exposure. In this way, corporations would be protected above farmers and citizens.
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was established in 1986 to assume liability from corporations so that any incentive to police the safety of their product was roundly eliminated and civilians could only engage in a non-jury-mediated "trial" of red-tape and rejection as a means of seeking justice for injury.

Revolving Door Conflicts of Interest
This is where the rubber meets the road on these issues, and, truly the source of all corruption. When those regulating a system in need of checks and balances are the same people who have profited or are profiting from its protection and success, we have a critical breakdown in protection of the interests of consumers and patience. The revolving door of Monsanto and government ranges from Michael Taylor, FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods and former Monsanto Vice President of Public Policy to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, former Monsanto attorney. Enjoy this pictoral.

The list of interchangeable figures between the CDC, pharmaceutical industry and Vaccine Advisory Committee features more conflicts than exceptions. Notably, in January 2010, Julie Gerberding, former director of the CDC, became the President of Merck's vaccine unit. In January 2011, Elias Zerhouni, former director of the NIH became President of Sanofi-Aventis' research labs. These relationships are known to be kindled far in advance of the job acceptance. The most outspoken mouthpiece of today's vaccine schedule is Paul Offit MD, Merck employee and Rotavirus vaccine patent holder.  This paper details the many layers of profit-motivation that cloud regulators' judgment.  Here's a little video if you'd rather not read.

It is an impossible expectation that objectivity in research support or information dissemination could be exercised under these circumstances. These conflicts of interest undermine any and all safety claims, and leave those engaging with these technologies to look to research that has not been funded by corporate agendas to help navigate true concerns about risk. These are multibillion-dollar corporate giants with dollars to spare when it comes to influencing legislators and regulators.

These arenas and their implicit overlap as discussed here, are slated to unite in a number of in-development GMO-containing vaccines. We are already part of a vast, uncontrolled experiment, and this may add a layer of complexity that will be the ultimate straw that broke the camel's back. If you're anything like me, you want out of this deal you never signed up for. There is a way out. Make informed choices, trust your instincts, vote with your wallet.

Source: GreenMedInfo

Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks On Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food

Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out on the Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food:


By Dr. Mercola
Who better to speak the truth about the risks posed by genetically modified (GM) foods than Thierry Vrain, a former research scientist for Agriculture Canada? It was Vrain’s job to address public groups and reassure them that GM crops and food were safe, a task he did with considerable knowledge and passion.
Thanks for making this picture gmo-awareness.com

But Vrain, who once touted GM crops as a technological advancement indicative of sound science and progress, has since started to acknowledge the steady flow of research coming from prestigious labs and published in high-impact journals - research showing that there is significant reason for concern about GM crops – and he has now changed his position.

Former Pro-GMO Scientist Cites GM Food Safety Concerns

Vrain cites the concerning fact that it is studies done by Monsanto and other biotech companies that claim GM crops have no impact on the environment and are safe to eat. But federal departments in charge of food safety in the US and Canada have not conducted tests to affirm this alleged “safety.”
Vrain writes:1
There are no long-term feeding studies performed in these countries [US and Canada] to demonstrate the claims that engineered corn and soya are safe. All we have are scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely.
These studies show that proteins produced by engineered plants are different than what they should be. Inserting a gene in a genome using this technology can and does result in damaged proteins. The scientific literature is full of studies showing that engineered corn and soya contain toxic or allergenic proteins.
… I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat.”

“The Whole Paradigm of Genetic Engineering Technology is Based on a Misunderstanding”

This misunderstanding is the “one gene, one protein” hypothesis from 70 years ago, which stated that each gene codes for a single protein. However, the Human Genome project completed in 2002 failed dramatically to identify one gene for every one protein in the human body, forcing researchers to look to epigenetic factors -- namely, "factors beyond the control of the gene" – to explain how organisms are formed, and how they work.
According to Vrain:
“Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene – one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong.
The whole paradigm of the genetic engineering technology is based on a misunderstanding. Every scientist now learns that any gene can give more than one protein and that inserting a gene anywhere in a plant eventually creates rogue proteins. Some of these proteins are obviously allergenic or toxic.”
In other words, genetic engineering is based on an extremely oversimplified model that suggests that by taking out or adding one or several genes, you can create a particular effect or result. But this premise, which GMO expert Dr. Philip Bereano calls “the Lego model,” is not correct. You cannot simply take out a yellow piece and put in a green piece and call the structure identical because there are complex interactions that are still going to take place and be altered, even if the initial structure still stands.

Serious Problems May Arise From Horizontal Gene Transfer

GE plants and animals are created using horizontal gene transfer (also called horizontal inheritance), as contrasted with vertical gene transfer, which is the mechanism in natural reproduction. Vertical gene transfer, or vertical inheritance, is the transmission of genes from the parent generation to offspring via sexual or asexual reproduction, i.e., breeding a male and female from one species.
By contrast, horizontal gene transfer involves injecting a gene from one species into a completely different species, which yields unexpected and often unpredictable results. Proponents of GM crops assume they can apply the principles of vertical inheritance to horizontal inheritance, but according to Dr. David Suzuki, an award-winning geneticist, this assumption is flawed in just about every possible way and is “just lousy science.”
Genes don’t function in a vacuum — they act in the context of the entire genome. Whole sets of genes are turned on and off in order to arrive at a particular organism, and the entire orchestration is an activated genome. It’s a dangerous mistake to assume a gene’s traits are expressed properly, regardless of where they’re inserted. The safety of GM food is based only on a hypothesis, and this hypothesis is already being proven wrong.

Leading Scientists Disprove GMO Safety

Vrain cites the compelling report "GMO Myths and Truths"2 as just one of many scientific examples disputing the claims of the biotech industry that GM crops yield better and more nutritious food, save on the use of pesticides, have no environmental impact whatsoever and are perfectly safe to eat. The authors took a science-based approach to evaluating the available research, arriving at the conclusion that most of the scientific evidence regarding safety and increased yield potential do not at all support the claims. In fact, the evidence demonstrates the claims for genetically engineered foods are not just wildly overblown – they simply aren't true.
The authors of this critical report include Michael Antoniou, PhD, who heads the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King's College at London School of Medicine in the UK. He's a 28-year veteran of genetic engineering technology who has himself invented a number of gene expression biotechnologies; and John Fagan, PhD, a leading authority on food sustainability, biosafety, and GE testing. If you want to get a comprehensive understanding of genetically engineered foods, I strongly recommend reading this report.
Not only are GM foods less nutritious than non-GM foods, they pose distinct health risks, are inadequately regulated, harm the environment and farmers, and are a poor solution to world hunger. Worse still, these questionable GM crops are now polluting non-GM crops, leading to contamination that cannot ever be “recalled” the way you can take a bad drug off the market … once traditional foods are contaminated with GM genes, there is no going back! Vrain expanded:3
Genetic pollution is so prevalent in North and South America where GM crops are grown that the fields of conventional and organic grower are regularly contaminated with engineered pollen and losing certification. The canola and flax export market from Canada to Europe (a few hundreds of millions of dollars) were recently lost because of genetic pollution.”

American Academy of Environmental Medicine Called for Moratorium on GM Foods FOUR Years Ago

In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium on GM foods, and said that long-term independent studies must be conducted, stating:
“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. …There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation…"
Despite this sound warning, GM foods continue to be added to the US food supply with no warning to the Americans buying and eating this food. Genetic manipulation of crops, and more recently food animals, is a dangerous game that has repeatedly revealed that assumptions about how genetic alterations work and the effects they have on animals and humans who consume such foods are deeply flawed and incomplete. Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant claims genetically engineered crops are “the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen.” What he doesn’t tell you is that:
  1. Industry-funded research predictably affects the outcome of the trial. This has been verified by dozens of scientific reviews comparing funding with the findings of the study. When industry funds the research, it’s virtually guaranteed to be positive. Therefore, independent studies must be done to replicate and thus verify results.
  2. The longest industry-funded animal feeding study was 90 days, which recent research has confirmed is FAR too short. In the world’s first independently funded lifetime feeding study, massive health problems set in during and after the 13th month, including organ damage and cancer.
  3. Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta rarely if ever allow independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citing the legal protection these seeds have under patent laws. Hence independent research is extremely difficult to conduct.
  4. There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the GM item in question has been approved, not a single country on earth is actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health effects.

It Might Take More Than One Bite to Kill You …

One argument I hear repeatedly is that nobody has been sick or died after a meal (or a trillion meals since 1996) of GM food,” Vrain said. “Nobody gets ill from smoking a pack of cigarettes either. But it sure adds up, and we did not know that in the 1950s before we started our wave of epidemics of cancer. Except this time it is not about a bit of smoke, it’s the whole food system that is of concern.  The corporate interest must be subordinated to the public interest, and the policy of substantial equivalence must be scrapped as it is clearly untrue.”
Remember, Vrain used to give talks about the benefits of GM foods, but he simply couldn’t ignore the research any longer … and why, then, should you?  All in all, if GM foods have something wrong with them that potentially could cause widespread illness or environmental devastation, Monsanto would rather NOT have you find out about it. Not through independent research, nor through a simple little label that would allow you to opt out of the experiment, should you choose not to take them on their word. As Vrain continued:
“The Bt corn and soya plants that are now everywhere in our environment are registered as insecticides. But are these insecticidal plants regulated and have their proteins been tested for safety? Not by the federal departments in charge of food safety, not in Canada and not in the U.S.
… We should all take these studies seriously and demand that government agencies replicate them rather than rely on studies paid for by the biotech companies … Individuals should be encouraged to make their decisions on food safety based on scientific evidence and personal choice, not on emotion or the personal opinions of others.”
At present, the only way to avoid GM foods is to ditch processed foods from your grocery list, and revert back to whole foods grown according to organic standards.

Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. 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. As stated on LabelitWA.org:
"Calorie and nutritional information were not always required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin labeling wasn't required until 2002. The trans fat content of foods didn't have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or frozen concentrate.
Doesn't it make sense that genetically engineered foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The research we have is raising serious questions about the impact to human health and the environment.
I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522 will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or consumers."
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, regardless of what state you live in.

Disclaimer:

Before trying anything you find on the internet you should fully investigate your options and get further advice from professionals.

Below are our most recent posts on facebook