Studies Prove Ginger Kills Two Common Types of Cancer

by Christina Sarich | Natural Society

Image: peoplespharmacy.com

Thanks to research from the University of Michigan and nearly three centuries of medicinal use, we can now utilize ginger root to not only kill ovarian cancer cells, but also prostate cancer cells with zero toxicity.

Truly among the great medicines of the world, ginger has long been used to treat inflammation and nausea, but the results presented in a session at the American Association for Cancer Research show that in every single instance where ginger powder was used to treat cancer cells, they all died as a result of being exposed to the compound. In medical lingo this is called apoptosis (cancer cell suicide.) When ginger is present, the cells even attack one another, called autophagy.

While ginger has been deemed a great natural remedy for those who are undergoing chemotherapy, it can also be used in larger quantities to treat cancer of its own accord.

Another study showing ginger’s ability to fight ovarian cancer concludes with:

“Ginger inhibits growth and modulates secretion of angiogenic factors in ovarian cancer cells. The use of dietary agents such as ginger may have potential in the treatment and prevention of ovarian cancer.”

Ginger has also been proven to treat prostate cancer. The British Journal of Nutrition published the results of an American study recently in which ginger extract (zingiber officinale) killed human prostate cancer cells while healthy prostate cells were left alone. Whole ginger extract was revealed to shrink prostate tumor size by a whopping 56%

Further adding to the benefits of ginger, the spice has no toxicity when consumed even in high doses, and does not cause people to endure the very uncomfortable side effects of chemo and radiation treatments. The American Cancer Society admits  that more than 15% of men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, and more than 20,000 American women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer this year. Many of these cases can be helped with ginger root.

While Big Pharma would have these men and women endure very invasive treatments, some simple ginger root powder can cause their cancer cells to commit a certain death.

Source: realfarmacy.com via Natural Society

Scientists Officially Link Processed Foods To Autoimmune Disease

April McCarthy | Prevent Disease

The modern diet of processed foods, takeaways and microwave meals could be to blame for a sharp increase in autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, including alopecia, asthma and eczema.

Image: stopmakingsense.org

A team of scientists from Yale University in the U.S and the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, in Germany, say junk food diets could be partly to blame.

'This study is the first to indicate that excess refined and processed salt may be one of the environmental factors driving the increased incidence of autoimmune diseases,' they said.

Junk foods at fast food restaurants as well as processed foods at grocery retailers represent the largest sources of sodium intake from refined salts.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal sent out an international team of researchers to compare the salt content of 2,124 items from fast food establishments such as Burger King, Domino's Pizza, Kentucky Fried Chicken, McDonald's, Pizza Hut and Subway. They found that the average salt content varied between companies and between the same products sold in different countries.

U.S. fast foods are often more than twice as salt-laden as those of other countries. While government-led public health campaigns and legislation efforts have reduced refined salt levels in many countries, the U.S. government has been reluctant to press the issue. That’s left fast-food companies free to go salt crazy, says Norm Campbell, M.D., one of the study authors and a blood-pressure specialist at the University of Calgary.

Many low-fat foods rely on salt--and lots of it--for their flavor. One packet of KFC’s Marzetti Light Italian Dressing might only have 15 calories and 0.5 grams fat, but it also has 510 mg sodium--about 1.5 times as much as one Original Recipe chicken drumstick. (Feel like you’re having too much of a good thing? You probably are.

Bread is the No. 1 source of refined salt consumption in the American diet, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Just one 6-inch Roasted Garlic loaf from Subway--just the bread, no meat, no cheeses, no nothing--has 1,260 mg sodium, about as much as 14 strips of bacon.

How Refined Salt Causes Autoimmune Disease

The team from Yale University studied the role of T helper cells in the body. These activate and 'help' other cells to fight dangerous pathogens such as bacteria or viruses and battle infections.

Previous research suggests that a subset of these cells - known as Th17 cells - also play an important role in the development of autoimmune diseases.

In the latest study, scientists discovered that exposing these cells in a lab to a table salt solution made them act more 'aggressively.'

They found that mice fed a diet high in refined salts saw a dramatic increase in the number of Th17 cells in their nervous systems that promoted inflammation.

They were also more likely to develop a severe form of a disease associated with multiple sclerosis in humans.

The scientists then conducted a closer examination of these effects at a molecular level.

Laboratory tests revealed that salt exposure increased the levels of cytokines released by Th17 cells 10 times more than usual. Cytokines are proteins used to pass messages between cells.

Study co-author Ralf Linker, from the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, said: 'These findings are an important contribution to the understanding of multiple sclerosis and may offer new targets for a better treatment of the disease, for which at present there is no cure.'

It develops when the immune system mistakes the myelin that surrounds the nerve fibres in the brain and spinal cord for a foreign body.

It strips the myelin off the nerves fibres, which disrupts messages passed between the brain and body causing problems with speech, vision and balance.

Another of the study's authors, Professor David Hafler, from Yale University, said that nature had clearly not intended for the immune system to attack its host body, so he expected that an external factor was playing a part.

He said: 'These are not diseases of bad genes alone or diseases caused by the environment, but diseases of a bad interaction between genes and the environment.

'Humans were genetically selected for conditions in sub-Saharan Africa, where there was no salt. It's one of the reasons that having a particular gene may make African Americans much more sensitive to salt.
'Today, Western diets all have high salt content and that has led to increase in hypertension and perhaps autoimmune disease as well.'

The team next plan to study the role that Th17 cells play in autoimmune conditions that affect the skin.
'It would be interesting to find out if patients with psoriasis can alleviate their symptoms by reducing their salt intake,' they said.

'However, the development of autoimmune diseases is a very complex process which depends on many genetic and environmental factors.'

Stick to Good Salts

Refined, processed and bleached salts are the problem. Salt is critical to our health and is the most readily available nonmetallic mineral in the world. Our bodies are not designed to processed refined sodium chloride since it has no nutritional value. However, when a salt is filled with dozens of minerals such as in rose-coloured crystals of Himalayan rock salt or the grey texture of Celtic salt, our bodies benefit tremendously for their incorporation into our diet.

"These mineral salts are identical to the elements of which our bodies have been built and were originally found in the primal ocean from where life originated," argues Dr Barbara Hendel, researcher and co-author of Water & Salt, The Essence of Life. "We have salty tears and salty perspiration. The chemical and mineral composition of our blood and body fluids are similar to sea water. From the beginning of life, as unborn babies, we are encased in a sack of salty fluid."

"In water, salt dissolves into mineral ions," explains Dr Hendel. "These conduct electrical nerve impulses that drive muscle movement and thought processes. Just the simple act of drinking a glass of water requires millions of instructions that come from mineral ions. They're also needed to balance PH levels in the body."
Mineral salts, she says, are healthy because they give your body the variety of mineral ions needed to balance its functions, remain healthy and heal. These healing properties have long been recognised in central Europe. At Wieliczka in Poland, a hospital has been carved in a salt mountain. Asthmatics and patients with lung disease and allergies find that breathing air in the saline underground chambers helps improve symptoms in 90 per cent of cases.

Dr Hendel believes too few minerals, rather than too much salt, may be to blame for health problems. It's a view that is echoed by other academics such as David McCarron, of Oregon Health Sciences University in the US.

He says salt has always been part of the human diet, but what has changed is the mineral content of our food. Instead of eating food high in minerals, such as nuts, fruit and vegetables, people are filling themselves up with "mineral empty" processed food and fizzy drinks.

Study Source:
This is the result of a study conducted by Dr. Markus Kleinewietfeld, Prof. David Hafler (both Yale University, New Haven and the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, and Harvard University, USA), PD Dr. Ralf Linker (Dept. of Neurology, University Hospital Erlangen), Professor Jens Titze (Vanderbilt University and Friedrich-Alexander-Universitat Erlangen-Nurnberg, FAU, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg) and Professor Dominik N. Muller (Experimental and Clinical Research Center, ECRC, a joint cooperation between the Max-Delbruck Center for Molecular Medicine, MDC, Berlin, and the Charite -- Universitatsmedizin Berlin and FAU) (Nature, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11868)*. In autoimmune diseases, the immune system attacks healthy tissue instead of fighting pathogens.

April McCarthy is a community journalist playing an active role reporting and analyzing world events to advance our health and eco-friendly initiatives.

Source: preventdisease.com

Scientists discover what’s killing the bees and it’s worse than you thought

As we’ve written before, the mysterious mass die-off of honey bees that pollinate $30 billion worth of crops in the US has so decimated America’s apis melliferapopulation that one bad winter could leave fields fallow. Now, a new study has pinpointed some of the probable causes of bee deaths and the rather scary results show that averting beemageddon will be much more difficult than previously thought.

Image: kezi.com

Scientists had struggled to find the trigger for so-called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) that has wiped out an estimated 10 million beehives, worth $2 billion, over the past six years. Suspects have included pesticides, disease-bearing parasites and poor nutrition. But in a first-of-its-kind study published in the journal PLOS ONE, scientists at the University of Maryland and the US Department of Agriculture have identified a witch’s brew of pesticides and fungicides contaminating pollen that bees collect to feed their hives. The findings break new ground on why large numbers of bees are dying though they do not identify the specific cause of CCD, where an entire beehive dies at once.

When researchers collected pollen from hives on the east coast pollinating cranberry, watermelon and other crops and fed it to healthy bees, those bees showed a significant decline in their ability to resist infection by a parasite calledNosema ceranae. The parasite has been implicated in Colony Collapse Disorder though scientists took pains to point out that their findings do not directly link the pesticides to CCD. The pollen was contaminated on average with nine different pesticides and fungicides though scientists discovered 21 agricultural chemicals in one sample. Scientists identified eight ag chemicals associated with increased risk of infection by the parasite.

Most disturbing, bees that ate pollen contaminated with fungicides were three times as likely to be infected by the parasite. Widely used, fungicides had been thought to be harmless for bees as they’re designed to kill fungus, not insects, on crops like apples.

“There’s growing evidence that fungicides may be affecting the bees on their own and I think what it highlights is a need to reassess how we label these agricultural chemicals,” Dennis vanEngelsdorp, the study’s lead author, told Quartz.

Labels on pesticides warn farmers not to spray when pollinating bees are in the vicinity but such precautions have not applied to fungicides.

Bee populations are so low in the US that it now takes 60% of the country’s surviving colonies just to pollinate one California crop, almonds. And that’s not just a west coast problem—California supplies 80% of the world’s almonds, a market worth $4 billion.

In recent years, a class of chemicals called neonicotinoids has been linked to bee deaths and in April regulators banned the use of the pesticide for two years in Europe where bee populations have also plummeted. But vanEngelsdorp, an assistant research scientist at the University of Maryland, says the new study shows that the interaction of multiple pesticides is affecting bee health.

“The pesticide issue in itself is much more complex than we have led to be believe,” he says. “It’s a lot more complicated than just one product, which means of course the solution does not lie in just banning one class of product.”

The study found another complication in efforts to save the bees: US honey bees, which are descendants of European bees, do not bring home pollen from native North American crops but collect bee chow from nearby weeds and wildflowers. That pollen, however, was also contaminated with pesticides even though those plants were not the target of spraying.
“It’s not clear whether the pesticides are drifting over to those plants but we need take a new look at agricultural spraying practices,” says vanEngelsdorp.

Source: QZ.com

Preclinical Study: Turmeric Extract Kills Highly Lethal Pancreatic Tumors

by Sayer Ji – greenmedinfo.com

Considering that the conventional treatment of advanced stage pancreatic cancer can result in as little as a 1% 5-year survival rate, new preclinical research on a liposomal turmeric extract that inhibits pancreatic tumor growth by 42% is all the more amazing.

A promising new study published in the journal Anticancer Research, a peer-reviewed medical journal published by the International Institute of Anticancer Research, reveals a unique turmeric extract known as liposomal curcumin may provide an ideal chemotherapy alternative in the treatment of highly lethal pancreatic cancers.

Image: www.fourwinds10.net

Curcumin is the primarly polyphenol in turmeric, and has been the subject of extensive research demonstrating its ability to kill cancer cells, with over 1,500 studies available to view on Greenmedinfo.com relevant to over 100 distinct cancer types, including 24 studies demonstrating its anti-pancreatic cancer properties.

Liposomal curcumin utilizes a successful lipid-based drug delivery system, with some liposomal formulations having already received FDA approval. Owing to curcumin’s low water solubility and subsequent low systemic bioavailability, its encapsulation into liposomes (artificially-prepared vesicle composed of a lipid bilayer) greatly improves its ability to gain entry into the body by passing through the ‘glucoronidation barrier’ in the liver.

Exocrine pancreatic cancer is notorious for responding poorly to conventional treatment, with American Cancer Society statistics promising only a 14% 5-year survival rate in Stage IA cancers, spiraling down to only 1% for Stage IV types. Moreover, even when chemotherapy, surgery and radiotherapy results in the successful debulking of the tumor, and the patient manages to survive past 5 years, recurrence is still common; this often occurs as a direct result of conventional treatment, which damages the immune system and enriches the treatment-resistance tumorigenic cancer stem cell population within the post-treatment cancer survivor’s body.

The new study was performed by researchers at the Department of Molecular Biology and Immunology, and Institute for Cancer Research, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas. They determined the antitumor effects of a liposomal curcumin formulation against human pancreatic cancer cells through in vitro and xenograft studies, where the cells were implanted into mice to form tumors.

The liposomal curcumin formulation was found to inhibit pancreatic cancer cell proliferation in vitro, and when administered to the animals intraperitoneally at a dose of 20 mg/kg, three-times a week for four weeks, a 42% suppression of tumor growth was observed compared to untreated controls. This would be the equivalent of 1,360 mg for a 150 lb adult. Note, the 20 mg/kg dose given to the test animals is 100 times lower than the LD50 for mice (i.e. the dose that would take to kill 50% of a test group).

Additionally, researchers observed “A potent antiangiogenic effect,” characterized by a reduced number blood vessels and other pro-angiogenic factors associated with the growth of the tumor’s blood supply.

The researchers concluded, “These data clearly establish the efficacy of liposomal curcumin in reducing human pancreatic cancer growth in the examined model. The therapeutic curcumin-based effects, with no limiting side-effects, suggest that liposomal curcumin may be beneficial in patients with pancreatic cancer.”

Considering the relatively high safety margin, affordability, accessibility and effectiveness (as demonstrated by pre-clinical research and a vast body of anecdotes) of turmeric extracts in fighting highly lethal cancers, we can only hope the medical establishment begins to incorporate these medicinal spices into their treatment protocols.

Study: suicide rates falling in medical marijuana states

“We conclude that the legalization of medical marijuana leads to an improvement in the psychological well being of young adult males, an improvement that is reflected in fewer suicides.”

This story didn’t make it past the network news filters, was ignored by the mainstream media, and numerous mental health/suicide prevention organizations would not even comment about it!
Wall Street Journal – Does Medical Marijuana Reduces Suicides?

Image: www.marijuana.com

American Independent – Study: Suicide Rates Fall When States Legalize Medical Marijuana

Why would a “good news” marijuana story, like where suicides markedly declined, be ignored by the media? Now some truth and daylight as reported by three American researchers who had their findings published by the Institute for the Study of Labor in Bonn, Germany. Why wouldn't it be published in the U.S.? Is it safe for a researcher and his or her future academic funding to challenge government dogma and publish contrary evidence domestically? Apparently it may not be, because it contradicts the misinformation and the socially engineered negative propaganda campaign against marijuana by self-serving interests since 1937. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGZEMwMx2vk

 If the results of this study reported the opposite results, it would be the lead headline nationwide, I assure you. The emperor truly has no clothes!

• Marijuana improves the “psychological well being” of young adult males and saves lives!

• Marijuana’s major actions are that of an anti-depressant, anti-anxiety and anti-anger medication.

• Marijuana reduces alcohol consumption in this at risk population. ​

Can it to be used prevent suicide in a high-risk population? And what exactly is this state of “improved psychological well being?” It has been described and supported with evidence as the “cannabinoid homeostatic healing perspective” (CHHP) and the “psychology of optimal experience.” Marijuana’s therapeutic effect requires immediate further research, as the suicide study emphasizes. Do you really have to be sick to get benefit from cannabis? Isn’t relaxation itself medicinal?

 From: “High on Life? Medical Marijuana Laws and Suicide” / Jan 2012 (Anderson, Rees, Sabia)

 Abstract: Using state-level data (from Centers for Disease Control) for the period 1990 through 2007, we estimate the effect of legalizing medical marijuana on suicide rates. “There have been no previous attempts to estimate the effect of medical marijuana laws on completed suicides, the tenth leading cause of death in the United States.” (National Institute of Mental Health 2010) Data from states where medical marijuana is legal, looking back three years prior to legalization, the year of legalization (year zero) and three years’ post-legalization was compared against data on suicide rates in prohibition states.

“Our results suggest that the passage of a medical marijuana law is associated with an almost 5 percent reduction in the total suicide rate. “An 11 percent reduction in the suicide rate of 20- through 29-year-old males; and a 9 percent reduction in the suicide rate of 30- through 39-year-old males.” “We conclude that the legalization of medical marijuana leads to an improvement in the psychological well being of young adult males, an improvement that is reflected in fewer suicides.”
​
​

In an often-cited article by Hamermesh and Soss (1974), who were the first economists to model suicidal behavior, and according to their “economic theory of suicide,” negative shocks to happiness can reduce expected lifetime utility to the point where an individual will decide to take his or her own life,” overwhelming the individual’s ability to maintain homeostasis. “Even if a shock is perceived to be temporary, an individual with ‘time inconsistent preferences’ may commit suicide at the prospect of having to cope with an acutely painful state in the present.” “Consistent with the hypothesis that marijuana can be an effective treatment for depression and other mood disorders, there appears to be a decrease in the suicide rate of 15-19 year-old males in the treatment states as compared to the prohibition states for approximately two years after legalization.”

 “A similar decrease can be seen for males 20-59 and there is a moderate decrease in males 60 years or older three years after legalization.” In addition, this downward trend in suicides in states post-legalization was especially pronounced in males as was the risk of suicide by decreasing alcohol consumption. “The total suicide rate falls smoothly during the pre-legalization period in both MML (medical marijuana law) and non-MML states. “However, beginning in year zero, the trends diverge: the suicide rate in MML states continues to fall, while the suicide rate in states that never legalized medical marijuana begins to climb gradually.” http://blog.norml.org/2012/02/21/study-passage-of-medical-marijuana-laws-correlated-with-fewer-suicides/
The negative relationship between legalization and suicides among young adult males is consistent with the argument that marijuana can be used to cope with such shocks. However, estimates provide an alternative explanation. These authors found that the passage of MMLs (medical marijuana laws) led to sharp decreases in alcohol-related traffic fatalities, self-reported alcohol use, and per capita beer sales. The strong association between alcohol consumption and suicide-related outcomes found by previous researchers raises the possibility that medical marijuana laws reduce the risk of suicide by decreasing alcohol consumption.

​And in a very sad, related story that we all need to be mindful of: “More U.S. Soldiers Killed Themselves than Died in Combat in 2010” “For the second year in a row, more American soldiers — both enlisted men and women and veterans — committed suicide than were killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Excluding accidents and illness, 462 soldiers died in combat, while 468 committed suicide. A difference of six isn’t vast by any means, but the symbolism is significant and troubling. In 2009, there were 381 suicides by military personnel, a number that also exceeded the number of combat deaths.” ​So, do you really have to be sick to benefit from cannabis? Isn’t relaxation itself medicinal?

The future is now! My last several posts have focused on evidence gathered over the last 10 years that shows marijuana can treat anxiety, depression, PTSD, and simultaneously increases subjective well being and positive states of cognitive, emotional and existential wellness. This study provides the numbers and stats to validate these claims. It provides evidence supporting marijuana’s positive psychology/happiness effects and the very topic of my recent post: marijuana and the psychology of optimal experience. When you ask people why they smoke marijuana, the most common answer is that it helps them relax and makes them feel better. That makes it medicine, and the word medical is redundant when talking about cannabis.

“Suicide is not chosen; it happens when pain exceeds resources for coping with pain.” Medical marijuana patients are able to reduce their use of painkillers, tranquilizers, and other psychiatric medicines! Isn’t it ironic that all antidepressants advertised on T.V. have increased suicide behavior as one of the many major side effects? Perhaps another variable at work here is that when people switch to safer marijuana to treat depression the prescription side effect of suicide goes away?

​SuicideNoteMarijuana restores homeostasis to the mind, similar to a period of mindfulness meditation or yoga. Marijuana reduces hostility, depression and anxiety, and blocks traumatic memories. Marijuana increases introspection, metacognition, calmness and laughter. Marijuana is unique among illegal drugs in its political symbolism, its safety, and its wide use. Smoking marijuana will never kill you; it is the antidote to modern life, it is medicine by popular vote! In 2007, the suicide rate was 11.26 per every 100,000 people. The population of the U.S. as of March 2, 2012 was 313,113,996. Approximately 35,250 suicide deaths occurred nationwide in 2007; a 5 percent decrease in suicide rate due to marijuana legalization would theoretically save almost 1,800 lives per year. The U.S. has been shoving our failed drug policy down the throats of countries around the world and and of citizens at home for decades. All of those in favor of a serious and honest debate say “Aye!”

 Source: tokesignals.com

The Cancer Causing Metal Millions of Us Have Eaten, Worn and Injected

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

                     Written By:SAYER JI, FOUNDER

Aluminum is considered by most health authorities perfectly acceptable to eat, wear as an antiperspirant, and inject into your body as a vaccine adjuvant, but new research indicates it has cancer-causing properties, even at levels 100,000 times lower than found in certain consumer products.

A concerning new study published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistrydemonstrates clearly that exposure to aluminum can increase migratory and invasive properties of human breast cancer cells.  This has extremely important implications, because mortality from breast cancer is caused by the spread of the tumor and not from the presence of the primary tumor in the breast itself.  This profound difference, in fact, is why a groundbreaking new NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE COMMISSIONED EXPERT PANEL recently called for the complete reclassification of some types of non-progressive ‘breast cancer’ and ‘prostate cancer’ as essentially benign lesions – bittersweet news for the millions who were already misdiagnosed/overdiagnosed and mistreated/overtreated for‘CANCER’ OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS.  

Another recent relevant study, also published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, found increased levels of ALUMINUM in noninvasively collected nipple aspirate fluids from 19 breast cancer patients compared with 16 healthy control subjects. The researchers commented on their findings: “In addition to emerging evidence, our results support the possible involvement of aluminium ions in oxidative and inflammatory status perturbations of breast cancer microenvironment, suggesting aluminium accumulation in breast microenvironment as a possible risk factor for oxidative/inflammatory phenotype of breast cells.”[1]

A key implication of this research is that the common ingestion (food additive), injection (as a vaccine adjuvant), and topical application (antiperspirant) of forms of aluminum may be contributing to the burgeoning cancer epidemic in exposed populations. Given this possibility, the further use of aluminum in foods, cosmetics and drugs should be halted until adequate risk assessments can be made thoroughly proving its safety.  (Since we do not use the precautionary principle to guide risk assessments and their regulation in the US, instead opting for a chemical and drug-industry favoring “weight of evidence” standard, this likely will not happen; however, we can use this information to apply the precautionary principle in our own lives)

When it comes to aluminum’s presence in ANTIPERSPIRANT FORMULAS, a very concerning study published last year in the Journal of Applied Toxicology identified the primary form of aluminum used in underarm cosmetics – aluminum chloride – as capable of altering breast cancer cells in a way indicative of ‘neoplastic transformation,’ or, the transformation of a healthy cell into a cancerous one:

“These results suggest that aluminium is not generically mutagenic, but similar to an activated oncogene [cancer-causing gene], it induces proliferation stress, DSBs and senescence in normal mammary epithelial cells; and that long-term exposure to AlCl(3) generates and selects for cells able to bypass p53/p21(Waf1) -mediated cellular senescence. Our observations do not formally identify aluminium as a breast carcinogen, but challenge the safety ascribed to its widespread use in underarm cosmetics.”

Even more disturbing was their finding that these changes, which included “contact inhibition and anchorage-independent growth” (two markers of malignancy), were caused by concentrations “…up to 100 000-fold lowerthan those found in antiperspirants, and in the range of those recently measured in the human breast.”[2]

This new study dovetails with recent research demonstrating that aluminum binds to cellular estrogen receptors, indicating it may disrupt and/or drive proliferation within hormone-sensitive tissues. One research team coined a new term – “METALLOESTROGEN” – to describe an entirely new class of metal-basedENDOCRINE DISRUPTERS, including aluminum, antimony, arsenite, barium, cadmium, chromium (Cr(II)), cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenite, tin and vanadate. This reclassification of what were formerly perceived to be hormonally inert substances should help to alert consumers to the significant health risk associated with the use of ‘unnatural’ products containing these elements.

While there is little extant animal research demonstrating aluminum’s cancer causing properties, which is why it has not yet been classified with respect to carcinogenicity, “aluminum production” has been classified as carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).[3]  There is also a 2011 study published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology that foundALUMINUM CONTENT IS HIGHER IN NIPPLE ASPIRATE FLUID OF BREAST CANCER-AFFECTED WOMEN VERSUS HEALTHY CONTROLS.

Aluminum, of course, is widely distributed within our environment (reaching, at present, the highest level in documented history), and has even been implicated in ATMOSPHERIC AEROSOLS (i.e. geoengineering/ ‘chemtrails’); which, incidentally, may be one reason why our soils are becoming saturated with the metal to levels toxic to plants, and why biotech corporations are presently working on developing ALUMINUM-TOLERANT GM plants.

Because our regulators consider ALUMINUM PERFECTLY  ’SAFE TO EAT,’ apply topically, and INJECT INTO OUR BODIES to “IMPROVE NATURAL IMMUNITY,” the emerging view of aluminum as possessing cancer-causing effects will put additional responsibility on consumers to educate themselves and make choices to protect themselves from avoidable exposure.

source:GREENMEDINFO.COM and rawforbeauty.com 

Harvard Study Shows “Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half”

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Science Daily

The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.

Image: Wisconsin Department of Justice

They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy.

THC that targets cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 is similar in function to endocannabinoids, which are cannabinoids that are naturally produced in the body and activate these receptors. The researchers suggest that THC or other designer agents that activate these receptors might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer.

“The beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer,” said Anju Preet, Ph.D., a researcher in the Division of Experimental Medicine.

Acting through cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2, endocannabinoids (as well as THC) are thought to play a role in variety of biological functions, including pain and anxiety control, and inflammation. Although a medical derivative of THC, known as Marinol, has been approved for use as an appetite stimulant for cancer patients, and a small number of U.S. states allow use of medical marijuana to treat the same side effect, few studies have shown that THC might have anti-tumor activity, Preet says. The only clinical trial testing THC as a treatment against cancer growth was a recently completed British pilot study in human glioblastoma.

In the present study, the researchers first demonstrated that two different lung cancer cell lines as well as patient lung tumor samples express CB1 and CB2, and that non-toxic doses of THC inhibited growth and spread in the cell lines. “When the cells are pretreated with THC, they have less EGFR stimulated invasion as measured by various in-vitro assays,” Preet said.

Then, for three weeks, researchers injected standard doses of THC into mice that had been implanted with human lung cancer cells, and found that tumors were reduced in size and weight by about 50 percent in treated animals compared to a control group. There was also about a 60 percent reduction in cancer lesions on the lungs in these mice as well as a significant reduction in protein markers associated with cancer progression, Preet says.

Full Story at Science Daily

Source: realfarmacy.com

34 Medical Studies The Government Wishes Were Never Published

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Michael Taillard, Guest
Waking Times

Image: Raw For Beauty

There’s still a lot of confusion across the nation about whether or not marijuana is effective for cancer patients. Odds are you’ve heard something about it but weren’t sure whether the information was reliable or definitive. So, in order to help clear things up, here is a list of 34 studies showing that marijuana cures cancer, categorized by the type of cancers being cured in each study. As you sort through the articles, note that the consistent theme between them is that cannabis shrinks tumors and selectively targets cancer cells. As bills and voter initiatives to legalize medical marijuana spread from state to state, remember that we’re not just talking about mitigating the side effects of chemo (though this is another viable use), we’re talking about curing the cancer itself as well as preventing its spread. I’ve taken the liberty of only including articles from credible scientific journals, removing any biased or otherwise improperly cited studies. Enjoy!

Cures Brain Cancer

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v95/n2/abs/6603236a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11479216
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/21/17/6475.abstract
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/308/3/838.abstract
http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/10/1/90.abstract

Cures Mouth and Throat Cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20516734

Cures Breast Cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20859676
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18025276
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21915267
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/early/2006/05/25/jpet.106.105247.full.pdf+html
http://www.molecular-cancer.com/content/9/1/196
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22776349
http://www.pnas.org/content/95/14/8375.full.pdf+html

Cures Lung Cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22198381?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21097714?dopt=Abstract
http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v27/n3/abs/1210641a.html

Cures Uterine, Testicular, and Pancreatic Cancers

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/13/6748.abstract

Cures Prostate Cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12746841?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3339795/?tool=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22594963

Cures Colorectal Cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22231745

Cures Ovarian Cancer

http://www.aacrmeetingabstracts.org/cgi/content/abstract/2006/1/1084

Curse Blood Cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12091357
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16908594
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.23584/abstract
http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/70/5/1612.abstract

Cures Skin Cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12511587

Cures Liver Cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475304

Cures Biliary Tract Cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916793

Cures Bladder Cancer

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/803983 (Sign-up required to view study)

Cures Cancer in General

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12514108
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15313899
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15313899

sources: Raw For Beauty

Waking Times

Study: US Lost 31.1 Percent of Entire Bee Population This Year

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Matt Agorist
Real Farmacy

Tough talk: ‘Basically, we’re taking a product that would be sold at A study done by Apiary Inspectors of America (AIA) illustrates the true threat that honey bee colonies face. The bee losses for the 2011/2012 winter were 22 percent. This year, 2012/2013 saw a near 10 percent increase in total losses of managed honey bees nationwide.

The survey, which covered from October 2012 through April 2013, was conducted by University of Maryland research scientist Dennis vanEngelsdorp, who is also director of the Bee Informed Partnership, in collaboration with Jeff Pettis, research leader of the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Bee Research Laboratory in Beltsville, Md., and others. More information about the Bee Informed Partnership is available online at http://beeinformed.org/

According to the study, more than two-thirds of responding beekeepers (70 percent) reported losses greater than 14 percent, the level of loss that beekeepers stated as allowing them to remain economically viable as a business.

Unlike previous years in which the majority of bee losses were attributed to Colony Collapse Disorder, this year colonies were observed “dwindling away.” Beekeepers did not report CCD as a major cause of colony loss this past winter, which follows the previous year’s trend.

As REALfarmacy.com has pointed out, studies have shown that neonicotinoid pesticide use is impacting honeybees on a genetic level, causing a decrease in the ability of bee larva to survive to adulthood.

There are an abundance of reasons why bee populations are suffering yet researchers have shown a direct correlation with neonicotinoid pesticides and they continue to be the most widely use pesticides in the country. While the EU has placed a temporary, 2 year ban on two neonicotinoids, clothianidin and thiamethoxam, the evidence shows that levels can remain in soil for longer than this period which hardly makes this ban effective. Also neonicotinoids will still be widely used on cereals which will continue the broad impact. The EPA in the United States recently approved Bayer’s clothianidin and thiamethoxam despite the myriad of evidence that ties neonicotinoids to bee deaths.

Source: Real Farmacy

The Results Are In: Gardening Makes You Happy, Smart

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

“The glory of gardening: hands in the dirt, head in the sun, heart with nature. To nurture a garden is to feed not just the body, but the soul.” – Alfred Austin

Gardeners have been knowing for centuries that their pastime gives them joy and peace. Many people will say that gardening is stress therapy. There is even a group called the American Horticultural Therapy Association “committed to promoting and developing the practice of horticultural therapy as a unique and dynamic human service modality.”

As with so many things, science introduces us to the physical wonders behind what we already know on a subliminal level. There are two interesting pieces of research that give credence to the feeling that our bodies and souls are better off from gardening.

Researchers reported in the journal Neuroscience that contact with a soil bacteria called Mycobacterium vaccae triggers the release of serotonin in the brain. This type of serotonin acts on several different pathways including mood and learning. Lack of serotonin in the brains is related to depression.

So basically, the things we do as gardeners—working the soil, planting, mulching, and so forth—can really contribute to happiness. We ingest the bacteria by breathing or through broken skin. The simple act of children playing outside in the grass and dirt can be a natural way for them to reduce anxiety.

In addition to increasing happiness and reducing anxiety, serotonin has positive effects on memory and learning. Research presented at the American Society for Microbiology shows that feeding live M. vaccae bacteria to mice significantly improved their ability to navigate mazes, due to the fact that the bacteria triggers the release of brain serotonin. It appears that this bacterium plays a role in learning in mammals.

Have you noticed that you feel really happy when picking those ripe vegetables, especially that first tomato of the season? Well, it turns out that harvesting fruits and vegetables triggers the release of dopamine in the brain. It is speculated that this evolved over 200,000 years of humans harvesting food as hunter-gatherers. Dopamine is strongly correlated with reward-motivated behavior.

So there we have it, two physical reasons why people can be happier and smarter through gardening. I suspect there are several other other reasons contributing to this, including the myriad of colors in plants and animals, trees swaying in the wind, birds singing, squirrels chattering, lady beetles, and fresh air. Perhaps one day we’ll have scientific explanations for all this, but in the meantime we can take comfort in our innate feelings.


Source: RealFarmacy.com

10 Cannabis Studies The Government Wishes It Never Funded

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

10) MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY: A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002.

9) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON’T RUIN YOUR LIFE: Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept. 1997

8) THE “GATEWAY EFFECT” MAY BE A MIRAGE: Marijuana is often called a “gateway drug” by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical “associations” indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana – implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained “without requiring a gateway effect.” More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what’s most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504.

7) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART I): The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, “the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement.” And what data exist show “little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use.” In other words, there is no proof that prohibition – the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century – reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America’s Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don’t Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193.

6) PROHIBITION DOESN’T WORK (PART II): DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE THE “GATEWAY EFFECT”?): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found no differences except one: Lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its “tolerant” marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p. 836-842.

5) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I): Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice’s lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.

4) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II): In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, “in a dose-dependent manner” (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, “Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer,” AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.

3) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III): Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn’t also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.

2) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV): Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased lung cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.

1) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE: In response to passage of California’s medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana’s medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, “Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana.” While noting potential risks of smoking, the report acknowledged there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting. The government’s refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government loves to ignore our report; they would rather it never happened. (Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr. 21, 2006)

Sources: Higher Perspective

Waking Times

14 Year Old Destroys Billionaire Who Claims Monsanto Is A Hero

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

Here is an excerpt from billionaire Kevin O'Leary's pro-Monsanto rant

"Monsanto Should be held up as a hero because they’ve developed technologies that help under developed countries increase productivity by 5 and 10 times. You’re an ignorant and stupid  person if you say what Monsanto does is bad for human beings" – Kevin O’leary

Mr. O'leary you're misinformed. In a recent study from the University of Caterbury, Professor Heinemann found that "the combination of non-GM seed and management practices used by Western Europe is increasing corn yields faster than the use of the GM-led package chosen by the US."

The study also found that the GMO policy of the US is actually lowering yields of crops while at the same time causing more chemical pollution due to the heavier use of pesticides where GMOs are grown.

Please enjoy this video of 14 year old Rachel Parent as she destroys the patently false claim that Monsanto is a hero to the world. Her website is www.gmo-news.com

Study: GMOs and monoculture killing US agriculture

Natural Cures Not Medicine on Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalcuresnotmedicine

A new study shows that the US Midwest staple crop system - predominantly genetically modified (GM) - is falling behind other economically and technologically equivalent regions. Western Europe, matched for latitude, season and crop type as well as economic and technological development, outperforms the US (and Canada) with regards to yields, pesticide use, genetic diversity and crop resilience, as well as farm worker wellbeing.

The study, headed by Jack Heinemann at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, is a damning indictment of the large-scale, monoculture model in the US, the world’s largest producer of maize since the records began in 1961, and is increasingly relied upon to provide more and more of the world’s calorie intake [1]. This serves as a warning to the UK environmental minister Owen Paterson, who proposes to introduce GM crops into the UK [2].

US Midwest and European yields compared

Maize, rapeseed, soybean and cotton yield data were obtained from the United Nations Food and Agriculture organisation (FAO) FAOSTAT database for the United States, Canada and the total group Western Europe (Austrian, Belgium-Luxembourg, France, Germany, Netherlands and Switzerland). Records from 1961 to 2010 were used, while 2011 and 2012 data were included through projections and additional statistics. They conducted statistical covariance (ANCOVA) analyses to test whether the yield differed significantly between locations, year, percentage of GM crops used and any other interactions.

First compared was rapeseed and maize, which have similar agroecosystems (latitude, growing seasons and equally developed agriculture systems across the two continents as well as access to biotechnological and intellectual property (IP) rights options, which are legal protection for so-calledcreations of the mind, allowing industry to own GM seeds through claiming them as novel inventions. The major difference between the continents is the near saturation of GM varieties in N. America compared to a virtual absence in W. Europe. Between 1961 and 1986, the US maize yield averaged

5 700 hectogram/hectare (hg/ha) more than W. Europe, totalling 54 379 hg/ha. (A hectogram = 100 g). However, after 1986, there was a significant change in yield between the compared regions. W. Europe averaged 82 899 hg/ha, slightly more than the 82 841 hg/ha in the US (see Table 1).This suggests that GM has offered no benefit whatsoever in the US – contrary to what has been claimed - while the overall increase in yields in both regions were due to improved management and conventional breeding (see Figure 1).

Table 1 Yield data of maize and rapeseed in the US (and Canada) versus Western Europe

Agroecosystem	Crop	Average yield (hg/ha)
United States 1961 – 1985	Maize	54,379
Western Europe 1961 – 1985	Maize	48,681
United States 1986 – 2010	Maize	82,841
Western Europe 1986 – 2010	Maize	82,899
Canada 1961 – 1985	Rapeseed	10,489
Western Europe 1961 – 1985	Rapeseed	21,481
Canada 1986 – 2010	Rapeseed	14,588
Western Europe 1986 – 2010	Rapeseed	31,885

Figure 1   Yield data for maize show more improvement and less variability in Europe compared to the US despite Europe’s lack of GM varieties

Further, the difference between the estimated yield potential and the actual yield, or the ‘yield-gap’ appears smaller in Europe. Over the entire period of 1961 to 2010 the US reached marginally significantly higher yield averages, but when taking into account the interaction between year and location, a steeper increase in European maize yield was found in recent years, as consistent with the actually higher yields in Europe than in the US, despite the latter’s use of GM. Yield data from 2011 and projected yields for 2012 reveal a downward trend in the US compared with Europe. Fluctuations in yield are more severe in the US, a sign of reduced resilience to environmental stressors, which can also spark dramatic price changes in agricultural markets.

Rapeseed (or canola) shows a similar pattern when comparing yields from Canada, the next earliest adopter of GM after the US, with W. Europe. The average yield has always been lower in Canada by an average of 11 000 hg/ha during 1961-1985, and an even larger average difference between 1986 and 2010 of 17 300 hg/ha, the period when Canada moved to GM and Europe did not. Wheat yields have consistently increased in both regions, but increasing at a steeper rate in Europe. Neither region grows GM wheat, again highlighting that gains in yields over recent years are not dependent on GM technologies and that the combination of biotechnologies used in Europe is demonstrating greater productivity than in the US.

Low genetic diversity of US crops

Despite its size, the US agro-ecosystem has had very low levels of on-farm genetic diversity, with 80-85 % of maize in the 1980s for example being based on a single innovation – the T cytoplasm. Across the world, the low genetic diversity is a concern, with varieties of many staple crops decreasing in recent years. As FAO pointed out, China went from having 10 000 varieties of wheat in 1949 to 1 000 in the 1970s, while the US has lost 95 % of the cabbage, 91 % of field maize, 94 % of the pea, and 81 % of their tomato varieties in the last century.

Powerful economic and legislative forces continue to drive uniformity. There are two major farming policies in the US that affect sustainability – innovation (through development of licensing and IP rights) and public subsidies. Subsidies increase with higher acreage, promoting monoculture farming. The larger and more uniform the crop, the bigger the cost reduction on pest control, harvesting mechanisation and planting, which has been a major driver of GM crop adoption. With the huge subsidies given to industrial farms, the US is able to sell its staple crops including maize, wheat, sugar and milk at 73, 67, 44 and 61 % of cost price to the world market, which likely undermines the emergence of more sustainable production systems. Historically, low on-farm diversity has led to food production and price uncertainty.

The huge scale of production of staple crops has led to a reduction in seed varieties available to small-scale farmers and poorer farmers, as well as organic farmers. While staple crops are being used on a large-scale for non-food industries, with maize being put into ‘household’ products such as cosmetics and medicines e.g. asparin and deodorant, antibiotics, tobacco, fuel, pastes and adhesives, textiles, building supplies and solvents among other things. The concentrated control of such products by large corporations and companies in these breadbasket regions of the world has far reaching consequences beyond national borders. The US has gone from a system based on public seed saving and exchanges between large and small farmers in the 19^th century to one based on strict patents and patent-like protections of varieties, forcing seed saving to disappear. The advent of hybrid varieties in the 1970s which act as a ‘biological patent’, with the next generations seeds not transmitting the commercial traits uniformly, the power of seed control is left in the hands of the commercial breeders, along with the ‘legal patent’ system. This has driven the US industry away from mainly small-scale, specialist breeders to even larger and fewer specialist breeders.  Patents on GM crops are only exaggerating this trend. Seed saving on crops such as soybean was still common until they became available as GM cultivars and came under the control of patents in the 1990s.

Breeder concentration may lead to a loss of agrobiodiversity. The corn leaf blight epidemic of 1970 is a clear example of how the lack of genetic diversity can create a huge risk to food security, revealing the dangers and unsustainability of monoculture practices and genetic uniformity.

What has happened to seed diversity as a result of American agricultural innovations? Using the seed catalogue provided by Monsanto to the US Department of Justice antitrust investigation of the seed industry, Heinemann’s team analysed the number of seed cultivars on offer. They found that the true genetic base of corn was much narrower than the numbers of names and numbers would suggest. One single variety of corn, “Reed Yellow Dent”, contributes to 47 % of the gene pool used for creating hybrid varieties.  The germplasm is limited to around 7 founding inbred lines in the US Maize belt. Similar findings were made for soybean varieties, with a decrease in the number of cultivars by 13 % from the years 2005-2010. A reduction in diversity is consistent with a trend towards reduced yields over the last decade or so, with adverse high temperatures and droughts. Maize and soybean yield predictions for 2012 were the lowest since 2003.

With this worrying trend of reduced yields comes a global increasing dependence on cereal crops for our calorie intake. Though the world produces more calories for food than it did in 1970, the proportion of calories derived from maize grew from 4 % in 1970 to 5 % in 2007. This heavy reliance on a crop that shows the large variability in losses due to biotic and abiotic stresses as highlighted by the authors is a sign of instability and not sustainability. This is in clear contrast to the agro-ecological advances made based on increased on-farm diversity that has seen significant increases in rice yields, reduced pesticide use as well as higher farmer incomes. Intercropping of maize with tobacco, maize with sugarcane, maize with potatoes and wheat with broad beans have all been shown to increase yields of at least one of the crops, or even overall yields as well as reduced disease [3].

Pesticide use higher in US

Pesticide use has increased overall since the introduction of GM crops (see [4] Study Confirms GM Crops Increase Pesticide Use, SiS 56), largely a result of the most common GM trait providing tolerance to Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup. Insecticide use has officially gone down slightly, though dwarfed by the increases in herbicide use. This coincides with the introduction of Bt crops genetically engineered to produce an insecticide (which is not included in official ‘pesticides applied’ when insecticide use is analysed). However, Europe also showed a reduction in pesticide use during the same period. In the US in 2007, herbicide use was up by 108 % from 1995 levels, while insecticide use dropped to 85 % of 1995 levels. In Europe however, more impressive reductions were found, with France reducing herbicide use to 94% of 1995 levels and chemical insecticide levels to 24% of 1995 levels. By 2009, herbicide and pesticide use was down to 82 % and 12 % of 1995 levels respectively. Similar trends were seen in Switzerland and Germany.

Farm workers role sacrificed for monoculture farming

Another symptom of the American monoculture farming system is the sacrifice of farm workers. The number of farms has decreased since its peak in 1935, with the loss of 2 million farms by 2007 despite the acreage of the agroecosystem remaining the same to this day. For corn, 69 % is grown by Large or Very Large Farms as defined by the USDA, i.e., having sales in excess of $250 000 and $500 000 respectively. This comes with the inability of farmers to innovate and breed new varieties due to the monopolisation of the seed market and IP patent agreements which have all but abolished public breeding programmes. As the authors state [1]: “Loss of farmer experimentation will likely reduce resilience and adaptation to climate change, natural disasters or as an outcome of conflict.” The GM crop system, with its strict IP patent agreements and commercial development, contributes to the concentration of the seed market, as exemplified by the soybean varieties planted today: 0.5 % of soybean varieties were developed by the public sector in 2007, compared to 70 % in 1980. Seed prices have risen as a result, climbing by 140 % since 1994. With climate change affecting the global yields since the 1980s and 1990s for soybean, there is no evidence that strict IP instruments or biological patents have increased resilience so far.

A warning to the US and the rest of the world

The lessons of the 1972 epidemic of ‘corn leaf blight’ have still not been learnt. The Committee on Genetic Vulnerability of Major Crops at the US National Research Council at the time posed the question: “How uniform genetically are other crops upon which the nation depends, and how vulnerable, therefore, are they to epidemics? The answer is that most major crops are ‘impressively genetically uniform and thus vulnerable and results from government legislative and economic policy’.

The authors recommend important strategies that need to be employed to bring the US back to being one of the largest seed saving and exchange cultures, instead of the current undemocratic and unsustainable system they currently force on farmers in the US and the rest of the world.

Three main suggestions include collection of annual statistics on on-farm genetic diversity along with environmental stress events, to see get a picture of performance resilience. Second, on-farm diversity should be encouraged through policies such as subsidies. Lastly, instead of looking to peak yields of crops, the goal should be to select crops with long-term sustainable yields.

GM crop cultivation, which is an extreme version of industrial farming, is obstructing a shift to more sustainable methods of food production and in addition to reducing yields, is now associated with a plethora of negative human health and environmental impacts as documented in Ban GMOs Now - Special ISIS Report [5]. To increase crop yields, protect the environment and protect the health of citizens across the world, GM crops need to be banned.

References

1. Heinemann JA , Massaro M, Coray DS, Agapito-Tenfen SZ, Wen JD. Sustainability and innovation in staple crop production in the US Midwest.International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408
2. “Owen Paterson: UK must become global leader on GM crops”, Guardian.com http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jun/20/owen-paterson-uk-global-leaders-gm-crops 26th June 2013-06-26
3. Lee EA & Tracy WF. Modern maize breeding. In: J. Bennetzen and S. Hake, eds. Handbook of maize: genetics and genomics. New York, NY: Springer, 141–160
4. Sirinathsinghji E. Study Confirms GM crops lead to increased Pesticide Use.Science in Society 56, 8-10, 2012
5. Ho MW & Sirinathsinghji E. Ban GMOs Now. Health and Environmental Hazards Especially in Light of the New Genetics. ISIS Special Report, 2013. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Ban_GMOs_Now.php

Source: Institute of Science in Society