Showing posts with label Genetically modified organism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Genetically modified organism. Show all posts

Sunday, October 11, 2015

Monsanto Lied? Say it ain't so .... The independent science Monsanto used to further its GMO agenda was actually executive solicited pro-GMO articles from university researchers.


Organic Consumers Association
Campaigning for health, justice, sustainability, peace, and democracy

The Emperor Has No Clothes, and Neither Do Monsanto’s ‘Scientists’

 
October 7, 2015
Organic Consumers Association
by Katherine Paul


The Monsanto public relations machine has done a stellar job in recent years of reducing the GMO debate to one that pits “pro-science advocates” against “anti-science climate-denier types”—with Monsanto portrayed as being squarely planted in the pro-science camp.

But that well-oiled machine may be starting to sputter.

Turns out that Monsanto executive solicited pro-GMO articles from university researchers, and passed the “research” off as independent science which the biotech giant then used to prop up its image and further its agenda.

We know this, thanks to thousands of pages of emails obtained by US Right to Know, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). And because a host of news outlets—including the New York Times, the Boston Globe, Bloomberg, the StarPhoenix and others—are now running with the story.
For anyone who has paid attention, this latest scandal should come as no surprise. As Steven Druker writes, in “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth,”  “for more than 30 years, hundreds (if not thousands) of biotech advocates within scientific institutions, government bureaus, and corporate offices throughout the world have systematically compromised science and contorted the facts to foster the growth of genetic engineering, and get the foods it produces, onto our dinner plates.”

Will Druker’s book (published this year), and this new wave of bad press be enough to finally expose Monsanto’s “science” for what it is—nothing more than an expensive, sustained and highly orchestrated public relations campaign?

The story behind the story

U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), a nonprofit funded almost entirely by the Organic Consumers Association, launched an investigation into “the collusion between Big Food, its front groups, and university faculty and staff to deliver industry PR to the public.”

As part of its ongoing investigation, the group filed FOIA requests to obtain the emails and documents from 43 public university faculty and staff. The requested documents included records from scientists, economists, law professors, extension specialists and communicators—all of whom, as the group points out, were conducting work in public institutions, all funded by taxpayers.

Read More Here

Monday, April 28, 2014

5 toxins to be especially concerned about. and how they are destroying our bodies


The 5 most prevalent toxins destroying the body

Tuesday, April 22, 2014 by: Derek Henry
5
(NaturalNews) With thousands of toxins circulating in the world it can be very easy to become overwhelmed. Formerly nutritious foods have been denatured to the point that they have very little benefit, and air and water have become dangerously polluted. These are 5 toxins to be especially concerned about.

Heavy metals

Heavy metals are not something that people should normally concern themselves about with regards to food, air, water, and personal care products. Unfortunately, that is not the current situation.
Common exposure points to heavy metals include seafood, dental amalgams, vaccinations, personal care products, pots and pans, baking powder, smoke, paint, water, work sites, and chem trails.
These deadly toxins can immediately wreak havoc, causing chronic pain, fatigue, brain fog, gastrointestinal problems, allergies, headaches, depression, skin problems, insomnia, paralysis, and more.

GMOs

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are foods that have been created by gene-splicing vegetable seedlings with poisonous pesticides, herbicides, and bacteria so plants are inherently protected from pests that may try to damage them.
With 85 percent of all corn, soy, and canola oil being GMO and the fact that they are some of the most heavily consumed food products on the planet, people find themselves with a major problem. Add in sugar beets, cotton, and other popular grains which may be contaminated or are on the agenda to become GMO (wheat, rice), and there is a nutritional apocalypse in the making.
As a result of this engineered process, consumers are essentially consuming toxic seeds laced with chemicals that are known to mutate cells of the body, resulting in tumors and other forms of cancer.

Radiation

There are a few forms of radiation, but the most deadly that are currently polluting the planet are cesium-137 and electromagnetic radiation.

Read More Here
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, April 11, 2014

Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act : A proposed new federal law would outlaw state-enacted GMO labeling laws.

Consumer alert: GMO labeling to be outlawed by 'Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act' introduced today in Congress


GMO
Thursday, April 10, 2014
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)

(NaturalNews) A proposed new federal law just introduced by Rep. G.K. Butterfield (a Democrat) and Rep. Mike Pompeo (a Republican) would outlaw state-enacted GMO labeling laws. The new law, ridiculously called the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, is actually an last-ditch, desperate effort by the biotech industry and the GMA to forever bury the truth about GMOs so that consumers don't know they're eating poison.
According to mainstream media reports (1), the bill would require the FDA to mandate GMO labeling only if those foods "are found to be unsafe or materially different from foods produced without biotech ingredients."
Because the FDA and USDA have already decided, against all scientific evidence, that GMOs are "safe" and "not materially different" from other foods, this requirement is nothing but sheer sleight of hand and a pandering to idiocy. In truth, this new bill, if passed into law, would allow food companies to permanently and insidiously hide GMOs in all their products forever, nullifying the numerous state-based GMO labeling laws which are on the verge of passing.
The Environmental Working Group calls this proposed new law the "DARK Act" (Denying Americans the Right to Know), saying:
After two states have passed GE labeling bills and more than 30 others are poised to consider similar labeling bills and ballot initiatives, the food and biotech industry have goat-roped some members of Congress into introducing legislation to block state GE labeling laws.

Push for GMOs run by criminally-minded organizations

GMOs have already been restricted or banned in over 60 countries (2), and Americans are very close to achieving victory in state-based GMO labeling campaigns. The very idea that American consumers might find out they've been eating GMO poisons in most of their favorite foods is so horrifying to the biotech industry (and the processed food front groups) that its enforcers are now seeking this "nuclear option" to legally deceive consumers about GMOs with the complicity of the FDA.

Read More Here

.....

U.S. bill seeks to block mandatory GMO food labeling by states

April 9 Wed Apr 9, 2014 12:46pm EDT
(Reuters) - A Republican congressman from Kansas introduced legislation on Wednesday that would nullify efforts in multiple states to require labeling of genetically modified foods
The bill, dubbed the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act" was drafted by U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo from Kansas, and is aimed at overriding bills in roughly two dozen states that would require foods made with genetically engineered crops to be labeled as such.
The bill specifically prohibits any mandatory labeling of foods developed using bioengineering.
"We've got a number of states that are attempting to put together a patchwork quilt of food labeling requirements with respect to genetic modification of foods," said Pompeo. "That makes it enormously difficult to operate a food system. Some of the campaigns in some of these states aren't really to inform consumers but rather aimed at scaring them. What this bill attempts to do is set a standard."
Consumer groups have been arguing for labeling because of questions they have both about the safety for human health and the environmental impacts of genetically modified foods, also called GMOs.
Ballot measures in California in 2012 and last year in Washington state narrowly lost after GMO crop developers, including Monsanto Co., and members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) poured millions into campaigns to defeat the measures.
The companies say the crops are safe and cite many scientific studies back those claims. Pompeo on Wednesday reiterated those claims, stating GMOS are safe and "equally healthy" and no labeling is needed.
"It has to date made food safer and more abundant," said Pompeo. "It has been an enormous boon to all of humanity."
But there are also many scientific studies showing links to human and animal health problems, and many indicating environmental damage related to GMO crops.

Read More Here


.....

Congress considers blocking GMO food labeling

Published time: April 09, 2014 20:10
Edited time: April 10, 2014 11:01
AFP Photo / Robyn Beck
AFP Photo / Robyn Beck
A new bill introduced in Congress looks to ban states from implementing their own labeling laws when it comes to food containing genetically engineered ingredients.
According to Reuters, US Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) introduced the legislation on Wednesday, which is intended to head off bills in about 24 states that would require companies to inform customers when their food is produced using genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Titled the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act,” the proposal would forbid states from enacting such proposals.
"We've got a number of states that are attempting to put together a patchwork quilt of food labeling requirements with respect to genetic modification of foods," Pompeo told Reuters. "That makes it enormously difficult to operate a food system. Some of the campaigns in some of these states aren't really to inform consumers but rather aimed at scaring them. What this bill attempts to do is set a standard."
Supporters of GMO labeling argue that modified ingredients pose a threat to human health, and that as a result they should be clearly labeled in the marketplace so that consumers can make informed decisions. In addition to health concerns, they also point to the negative environmental consequences that could arise from widespread GMO use, since millions of acres of farmland and weeds are developing resistances to the pesticides used.
Opponents, however, point to their own studies, showing that GMO crops are safe and therefore do not need to be labeled differently than other products.

Read More Here
.....
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, January 9, 2014

Genetically Modified Apples Which Eliminate The Browning Process Soon To Be Approved


Bad Apple
.....


Jan 8, 2014 by NATASHA LONGO


Since the genetic code of the apple was mapped by researchers a few years ago, scientists have explored gene silencing and other manipulation techniques to alter one of nature's most healing superfoods. Genetically modified apples may soon enter the food supply under the guise of preventing browning. First, though, officials must confront some enduring public distaste for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) now widely perceived as one of the most extensive global threats to human health.



There are natural ways to keep an apple from browning such as applying lemon, lime and even pineapple juice as they have the citric acid necessary to prevent oxidation. Sea salting is another option as it effectively acts as a preservative.

But according to the Washington Agriculture Dept., GMO apples could replace all of these methods straight from the vineyard since gene sequences could be manipulated with the same end result.

An Economic Disaster And Abuse Towards Nature

“This is an economic disaster,” Henry House, an organic apple grower in Davis, Calif., recently warned.

More than 60 million tons of apples are grown worldwide each year - the equivalent of 20lb per person.

Organic growers such as House fear that honeybees will spread genetically engineered apple pollen and contaminate organic orchards. Some consumer advocates maintain a more general antipathy toward engineered foods, while industry groups that include the Northwest Horticultural Council in Yakima, Wash., also object to what would be the first genetically engineered apple in commercial production.

As of yet, no genetically modified apples have been approved anywhere in the world. It is expected, however, that the amount of GM apple field tests will keep increasing.

Washington state accounts for 44 percent of the nation’s apple-bearing land, with 146,000 acres.

The U.S. Apple Association, noting that “browning is a natural process related to the exposure to oxygen,” has voiced opposition to the Arctic apple.

Thousands of others have weighed in as the Agriculture Department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service considers whether to grant “non-regulated status” to varieties called the Arctic Golden and the Arctic Granny. Approval would give the commercial green light to British Columbia’s Okanagan Specialty Fruits.

Processing of GMO Apples Well Underway

The information from gene regulations of the Golden Delicious variety of apples is already being used to breed red-fleshed apples which are supposedly more attractive to consumers. After all, we wouldn't want consumers to think there are a few bad apples of any variety would we?

Ever imagine eating an apple with a desire to curb your appetite for the rest of the day? Well it's becoming a reality as genetically modified apples that suppress appetite could also be in the pipeline, with the first varieties with enhanced appetite suppressing compounds on shelves within five years.

Farmers need not worry about slow growth of apple trees. Now breeders will be able to screen seedlings for key genes, vastly speeding up the process while destroying the Mother Nature's diversity that perfectly tunes apple cultivation.

Researcher Roger Hellens of New Zealand firm Plant & Food Research, said: ‘Now we have the sequence of the apple genome, we will be able to identify the genes which control the characteristics that our sensory scientists have identified as most desired by consumers.

Amit Dhingra, of Washington State University in the US, said: 'Before genome sequencing, the best we could do was correlate traits with genes.

'Now we can point to a specific gene and say, "This is the one; this gene is responsible for this trait". 'Or the trait might be for something desirable, like flavour in a piece of fruit.'

Hellens said: 'Understanding how important characteristics in plants are controlled is vital in reducing the time to breed successful commercial cultivars (varieties).
Company President of Okanagan Specialty Fruits, Neal Carter stated that he “expects full deregulation” of the apples this year.

The Arctic apple’s resistance to what scientists call “enzymatic browning,” which is what happens when a typical apple is cut or bruised, comes from the insertion of a certain genetic sequence taken from an apple. The inserted sequence essentially suppresses the browning process.

With federal approval, the company no longer would need special permits before it put the genetically modified apples into production. If they get the go-ahead, company officials have indicated, the Arctic apples could reach grocery stores sometime in 2015.

Public Outcry Will Be A Challenge To Acceptance

First, though, the Agriculture Department must process all the public reactions received in a comment period that’s been extended until Jan. 30. The initial comment period, in 2012, drew more than 72,000 statements, including many form letters from opponents. The latest period has drawn more than 6,100 comments, many of them passionately worded from opponents of genetically modified organisms.

“Growing these GMO apples is insane,” Loxahatchee, Fla., resident Ellie Jensen wrote last month.

While the public comments have often been skeptical, federal officials have sounded sympathetic. In an 83-page draft environmental assessment completed last year, Agriculture Department scientists recommended approving the product they think can help the apple industry.

“Browning reduces apple quality by causing detrimental flavor and nutritional changes that limit apple’s fresh-market, fresh-cut and processing applications,” the Agriculture Department officials noted.

Officials loudly claim that organic growers “will not be substantially affected” by the “limited acreage” planted with the genetically engineered crops, but then added that organic growers “may need to discuss their needs” with neighbors who opt for the Arctic apples.

If extra genes allowed the apple to adapt for millions of years, do humans really have the right to silence specific genes to enhance the appearance of Mother Nature's abundance or even the consumer's palate?

When genetic engineers insert a new gene into any organism there are "position effects" which can lead to unpredictable changes in the pattern of gene expression and genetic function. The protein product of the inserted gene may carry out unexpected reactions and produce potentially toxic products.

The Agriculture Department, moreover, is effectively limited to considering whether a new product poses a potential plant risk, and questions such as potential market impact or consumer reaction aren’t really part of the equation.
“In general, this administration and past administrations have been very favorable toward biotechnology,” acknowledged Schlect, of the horticultural council.

GMOs Will Never Be The Answer To A Sustainable Food Supply

There are also projects developing insect resistant, transgenic apples. In the US, transgenic apples with delayed softening are being developed with longer shelf life, so that fruit can ripen on the tree. There is no end to the methods of madness that GMO scientists are pursuing to alter Mother Nature.
Genetically modified foods are NOT the answer. Crop uniformity and gene altering such as the research being employed by Plant & Food Research will only reduce genetic diversity making these fruits more vulnerable to disease and pests. The unnatural gene transfers will only create new toxins and weaknesses making us all vulnerable to long-term and potentially persistent illnesses.

We should all be making efforts to take these independent studies very seriously and demand that government agencies reproduce those studies instead of depending on those paid by biotech companies.

Natasha Longo has a master's degree in nutrition and is a certified fitness and nutritional counselor. She has consulted on public health policy and procurement in Canada, Australia, Spain, Ireland, England and Germany.



Reference Sources 122, 231
Enhanced by Zemanta