GMO’s & World Hunger

Can GMOs Help Feed the World?

http://themindunleashed.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/gmoss.jpg

The claims about genetically engineered foods have been quite lofty. Monsanto and other proponents of biotechnology are fond of saying that genetic engineering is necessary if the world’s food supply is to keep up with seven billion people and counting. They claim GE crops produce higher yields, solve pest and weed problems, are safe for humans and the environment, and are the cure for world hunger.

As John Robbins writes, if Monsanto’s true goal is addressing hunger, then their seeds would be designed to fix the core problems that underlie the hunger issue, such as:[1]

-Able to grow on substandard or marginal soils
-Able to produce more high-quality protein with increased per-acre yield, without the need for expensive machinery, chemicals, fertilizers or water
-Engineered to favor small farms over larger farms
-Cheap and freely available without restrictive licensing
-Designed for crops that feed people, not livestock

If GE foods were really a viable way to eliminate world hunger, then meeting these challenges would be a powerful argument in their favor, would it not? So, what does the science say?

Monsanto gets a failing grade across the board.

With nearly 100 million acres of GE food now planted worldwide, Monsanto’s crops have yet to do one thing to alleviate hunger, particularly for the world’s less fortunate. In fact, most of that acreage is devoted to growing corn and transgenic soybeans for livestock feed.

GE Crops Produce a Higher Yield … Right?

No—their yield is actually lower. Overall, research has shown a 5 to 10 percent reduction in yield for GE soybeans versus the conventional variety. Other GE crops are performing equally poorly.[2] These plants are weak, malnourished and fail with the slightest environmental stress or drought. Agronomists and plant scientists have made far greater advances in yields with conventional breeding methods than with GE crops.

The yields of GE cotton have been particularly abysmal. Scientists have determined that growing GE cotton in the US can result in a 40 percent drop in income. In India, the situation is much worse with up to 100 percent failure rates for Bt cotton, leaving farmers in total financial ruin. According to the National Crime Records Bureau of India, more than 182,900 Indian farmers took their own lives between 1997 and 2007 as a result of GE crop failures—a staggering 46 farmer suicides each and every day.[3]

GE Crops Require Fewer Chemicals … Don’t They?

It turns out that GE crops fail miserably in this respect too. GE crops actually need more toxic chemicals, not less. Eighty-five percent of all GE seeds are engineered for herbicide tolerance—specifically, Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” cotton, corn, soy, and canola seeds. As a result, pesticide use has increased dramatically. Since the introduction of GE crops, more than 120 million pounds of additional pesticides have been used in the US.[4]

Sixty percent of GE crops are resistant to weed killers, fueling a dramatic rise in herbicide use—especially Monsanto’s Roundup, which contains the extremely toxic chemical glyphosate. Roundup is now used in more than 80 percent of all GE crops worldwide, and the only one who benefits from THIS is Monsanto. They produce the seeds that require a massive application of an herbicide that they just happen to produce. How convenient for them!

Not only are these toxic chemicals being used far too heavily, but they are killing our bees and butterflies, polluting our waterways, destroying our soil, and creating resistant super-weeds and mutant pesticide-resistant insects that we have no way to control.[5]

Mother Nature Hates Monocultures

Studies comparing large mechanized farms to small farms have shown that small farms doing multiple and succession plantings are significantly more productive than the monoculture plantings used in large mechanized farms. A report compiled by about 400 of the world’s top scientists concluded our current agricultural system is unsustainable. We need farming methods that rebuild our ecological systems rather than demolish them. Organic farms consistently produce 80 to 90 percent higher yields than monoculture operations.[6] Genetic “bio-invasion” is the biggest risk organic farmers face today.[7]

Biodiversity is key to a healthy ecosystem—and therefore a healthy food supply. In a diverse population, some plants will have natural resistance and will fare better than others, saving the group as a whole from catastrophe. Poor soil quality is a serious problem for farmers across the globe. Our soil is depleting at more than 13 percent the rate it can be replaced due to our chemical-based agriculture system. Massive monoculture has also resulted in the extinction of 75 percent of the world’s crop varieties over the last century.[8]

It can be safely said, then, that GE crops were not developed for the purpose of solving world hunger, but to ensure that everything we eat is owned by them. Their goal is maximum profit.

History has proven that artificially inserted genes can have unintended and disastrous consequences. The reality is that GE farming practices are not the solution to world hunger, but rather the very heart of the problem, virtually guaranteeing future crop collapses and subsequent famine. Sustainable, biodynamic agriculture is the real solution!

http://themindunleashed.org/2014/08/can-gmos-help-feed-world.html

Heirlooms? Hybrids? GMOS? Knowing Which is Which

The Difference Between Heirlooms, Hybrids, and GMOs

Know Your Produce – Perfect Produce Is Unnatural

There is nothing quite like the taste of a fresh fruit or vegetable straight from the garden. To the eye of the gardener, this vegetable picked ripe off of the vine is perfect. They nurtured it, carefully tended to it, and then finally, get to enjoy the fruit of their labors. However, compare this vegetable to one at the grocery store and it is suddenly asymmetrical, small, not candy apple red, and even has, gasp!, a brown spot.

To gardeners, this poses the question, “What is it about those grocery store vegetables that make them all so perfectly colored, perfectly big, and perfectly symmetrical? And, how did they become the standard of how a vegetable should look?” The truth of the matter is that they look perfect because they are unnatural.

In order to understand the differences between fresh produce from a garden and what you see on the average grocery store shelf, you’ve got to look far beyond what is apparent on the surface. In fact, it all comes down to the minutest material of the plant, it’s DNA. As we have gained an understanding of genetics, we’ve also learned how to manipulate the genetic material of the food we grow, for good, and for bad. Let’s take a look.

Peppers 1

Heirloom peppers grown in my garden.

Heirlooms

We’ll start with what’s natural, the way fruits and vegetables have been grown and propagated for thousands of years. It’s a very simple concept: you save the seeds of a fruit or vegetable with favorable characteristics, (typically color, shape, size, and flavor), and plant them year after year. Other than selecting which fruit or vegetable seeds to save, the seeds are in no way manipulated. The plants are allowed to open pollinate and ripen in their own time. Today, we refer to these plants as heirlooms. Since seeds from heirloom plants can be harvested and planted year after year, a farmer or gardener never has to purchase those particular seeds again. In a sense, it’s the ultimate sustainable agriculture practice.

Figure 1 Heirlooms

Figure 1. If an heirloom plant is allowed to open pollinate with other plants of the same variety, the seeds will produce a fruit identical to the parent plant. Source: Kerry Soltis

Hybrids

Heirlooms, however, like all things good and natural, are not perfect. They have a relatively small gene pool and typically lack disease resistance. As we began to learn more about the genetics of these heirlooms, certain varieties were cross-pollinated in order to create new varieties with disease resistance and traits that would enable them to grow in a wide variety of climates. In other words, rather than allowing the plants to open pollinate, two different varieties were purposely crossed to create a plant with specific traits, a hybrid.

Figure 2 Hybrids

Figure 2. If you cross-pollinate two plants, each with a dominant favorable trait, the resulting fruit will bear both of those traits. Source: Kerry Soltis

These sorts of hybrids are a great blessing to farmers and gardeners who live in hot, humid, or very dry environments. They enable more people to grow their own food, decrease their pesticide usage, and live more sustainable lifestyles.
The one major downfall of these hybrids is that their seeds do not necessarily result in plants that are identical to the parent plant, so seeds cannot be saved.

Figure 3 Punnet Square

Figure 3. This punnet square illustrates a cross between two hybrid plants. If you were to cross two heat tolerant, flavorful varieties, only half of the resulting plants would be identical to the parent plant. Source: Kerry Soltis

For a gardener or small farmer, growing certain hybrid varieties is not a bad thing, by any means. However, in the mid 1900s, the agriculture industry began taking hybridization to the next level by selecting for traits that would benefit their industry, and thus, their profits. Size, shelf life, high yields, and aesthetics quickly became the top priority for food production. Why not right? Who wouldn’t want large quantities of produce on grocery store shelves? It all sounds great until you realize what traits are compromised to get these varieties—mainly nutrition and taste. Researchers often refer to the decrease in nutrient content when high yielding plant varieties are developed as the Genetic Dilution Effect.

Studies have found that nutrient content in many of the nation’s main food crops have dramatically decreased over the last century. For example, the protein in wheat, barley, and corn has decreased by approximately 40% since the 1940s. The calcium in broccoli has decreased by more than 50%. Furthermore, since these hybrid plants produce high yields of larger fruits and vegetables, more nutrient rich fertilizers must be applied to support their growth, resulting in more nutritional losses. Raspberries, for example, when fertilized with large amounts of phosphates, will produce double the yield, yet their mineral content decreases by 20-30%. So essentially, our grocery stores are packed with an abundance of big, beautiful fruits and vegetables, but their nutritional value has never been lower. And don’t forget taste. Taste isn’t typically on the high priority list when it comes to creating hybrid varieties for mass production.

Figure 4 Hybrid Produce

Figure 4. When plants are hybridized for mass production, aesthetics, yield, and shelf life are often selected for over nutrition and taste. Source: Kerry Soltis

Hopefully it’s starting to become apparent that when it comes to perfection, it’s all in the eye of the beholder. That home-grown tomato with a little brown spot is probably starting to become much more appealing than those “perfect” grocery store varieties that lack nutrition and flavor.

GMOs

The scary truth is that produce manipulation does not end with these tasteless hybrids. Here in the United States more genetically modified (GMOs) crops are being planted each year. These plants are created using biotechnology. Techniques such as, splicing, microinjection, viral carriers, and bacterial carriers create plant varieties that could never occur naturally. These methodologies give food scientists the ability to introduce favorable genes of completely unrelated species into food producing plants. Unfavorable genes can now also be silenced. Many of these food crops, particularly corn and soy, are ending up in common food products. These food products are not required to be labeled as containing GMOs, so there is no way to avoid them other than buying foods with an organic label.

Not only is this process unnatural, it also has the potential to be extremely dangerous to our health and the environment. A frequently used method for creating pest resistant plant varieties involves artificially inserting a toxin carrying gene from a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, into plant DNA. The resulting plants then produce that toxin, which in turn will kill the larvae of their pests. It is currently unclear how this toxin affects humans. In a similar process, soy beans are genetically engineered so that they can tolerate high levels of pesticide application. As a result more toxic pesticides are being applied to these crops.

We shouldn’t be messing with Mother Nature though; she’ll always find a way around our ingenious ideas. Since the onset of this mass pesticide use, superweeds and superbugs have emerged that have adapted to the pesticides, so that they are in no way effected by them. Unfortunately these superweeds and superbugs have the potential to spread into our natural ecosystems and severely disrupt ecological balances.

Figure 5 GMOs

Figure 5. DNA from a completely non-related organism is inserted into plant DNA so that it produces toxins, making the plant pest resistant. Source: Kerry Soltis

It’s all pretty scary stuff, especially when you consider that Monsanto, the major U.S. company behind all of this genetic engineering, has gone so far as to patent their genomic creations. Farmers who elect to plant GMO crops must sign an agreement that they will not save seeds. Even worse, as wind, insects, and birds spread the seeds and pollen of GMO crops, heirloom crops become contaminated with the GMO DNA. Heirloom farmers have no way of knowing that their crops have been contaminated until they plant the compromised seeds. Monsanto has such a stronghold on the industry that when this occurs the heirloom farmers are sued for infringement on patent laws rather than Monsanto being penalized for contaminating the crops of these farmers.

Consumers, gardeners, and local farmers hold the power when it comes to fighting back against food modification. If we change our perception of the perfect produce and begin selecting fruits and vegetables that are locally grown, nutritious, and flavorful, agriculture will have no choice but to respond accordingly. It’s Darwinism at the grocery store level. We get to decide what is fit to stock the shelves and what isn’t!

from:    http://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com/the-difference-between-heirlooms-hybrids-and-gmos/

 

 

Mike Adams on Spontaneous Healing

heal

The greatest health conspiracy of all time: making you believe you can’t heal without medical intervention


(NaturalNews) The newest episode of “Awakenings” reveals what I call the greatest health conspiracy of all time: the institutionalized effort prevent you from realizing that you are born with all the programming you need to create perfect health and even heal yourself of deadly disease.

Even though this universal, fundamental truth is undeniable, nearly every modern institution of medicine, food, science and media tries to convince you that we’re all born as “defects” requiring medical intervention to be “healthy.”

The truth is far more empowering: You are born as a complete, empowered human being, requiring no injections, medications or interventions to achieve and express perfect health!

Click here to listen to this 10-minute episode of Awakenings.

Here’s some of what you’ll learn in this episode:

• The truth you are not told about how to be healthy.

• Why powerful corporations and for-profit interests want you to suppress your health and stay diseased and confused.

• How toxic chemicals, heavy metals, GMOs and other poisons suppress your body and mind, keeping you enslaved in a system of failed medicine.

• Why your body was programmed to express perfect health from the day you were born!

• How to nourish your natural spontaneous healing potential by activating your inner healing code.

• Which toxins are most dangerous to avoid.

• Which nutrients are most commonly lacking in modern humans.

• Why fruits and vegetables contain thousands of powerful medicines and compounds that can prevent and even treat disease.

• Why Big Pharma won’t reveal the truth about anti-cancer compounds in fruits and vegetables.

France Bans GMO Growing

Effective Immediately: France Bans All GMO Cultivation

“I do not want”

Heather Callaghan
Activist Post

The French National Assembly has made a sweeping declaration with a new bill, effective immediately. No more genetically modified crops.

On Tuesday, the French lower house of parliament adopted a law immediately banning cultivation of any GMO corn, due to environmental safety concerns.

Recently, they also made a halt decree to prohibit planting the only GM crop allowed in the EU – Monsanto’s MON810 corn, with built-in insect resistance.

Jean-Marie Le Guen, the minister in charge of relations with parliament, said:

It is essential today to renew a widely shared desire to maintain the French ban. This bill strengthens the decree passed last March by preventing the immediate cultivation of GMO and extending their reach to all transgenic maize varieties.

Farmers and seed companies are challenging the rule, as they have blocked similar decrees before, viewing safety concerns insufficient. But Le Guen bound the rule so that member state decisions could not be litigated against.

The ban heads back to the Senate for final approval – if rejected, the French National Assembly gets to cast the final ruling. Future strains will be banned even if the EU states approve more.

Of course big biotech companies are not satisfied to let bans rest. If companies like Monsanto have any say, they’ll be back. The EU actually wants to give them that final say.

Additionally, DuPont and Dow Chemical are poised to crash the EU again, if allowed. They already jointly developed Pioneer 1507 GM corn and most of the member states did not gather enough votes to block it.

It appears these companies have money, power and persistence on their side to keep pushing despite wide-spread consumer and safety concerns.

Sources:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/15/us-france-gmo-idUSBREA3E1NY20140415
http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/16/french-parliament-bans-gmo-corn/

from:    http://www.activistpost.com/2014/04/effective-immediately-france-bans-all.html

SIgns of Change

 

10 Signs The Global Elite Are Losing Control

Last updated on April 3, 2014 at 12:00 am EDT by in5d Alternative News

by Eric Blair

Karma is coming for the elite in a big way. As the Powers That Be head toward a devastating defeat in their war plans for Syria, signs are emerging that their rule over humanity is rapidly diminishing.

Over the last decade the global elite have been on a mad dash to consolidate power over the world. It’s always been their plan like some evil villain in a comic book, but after 9/11 the plan went into overdrive and then turbo charged during the financial crisis of 2008.

Yet it’s doomed to fail because humans are meant to be guided by their own free will, not controlled like livestock. The more the elite try to control humanity, the more entropy occurs. Entropy, for those who don’t know, is the lack of order or predictability; a gradual decline into disorder.

Although the elite still enjoy a huge wealth advantage over the masses, they are now resigned to behaving like tyrants to maintain control. This, in turn, exposes their dark side which has been cleverly concealed for ages. Not anymore.

People are waking up in droves, at least as fast as the elite can build their full-spectrum prison matrix. Let them try. To paraphrase Victor Hugo, “No army can stop an idea whose time has come.

Here are ten signs that the elite are losing control over the people

1. Official lies no longer effective: The lies they tell simply don’t work anymore. There was a time when official lies, especially about war and peace, were believed. Because, after all, how evil would it be to lie about such things? Generally people want to believe they are being told the truth when life and death is at stake. The boy who cried wolf has cried one too many times. Even if they told the truth at this point, very few would believe them.

2. No confidence in politics: US politicians have a paltry approval rating. The trust in government is at all-time lows here and around the world. Mainstream polls show only 10% of the public has confidence in Congress. In other words, 90% don’t believe in them to be competent to govern.

Watch this Town Hall exchange below where a man threatens US Senator John McCain with arrest for treason to his face. This would have never happened just a year or two ago:

3. No confidence in media: The most recent polls show that 77% of the population no longer trusts corporate TV news. Is it any wonder why the establishment media failed to sell the lies about the alleged Syria chemical event? With all their monopoly might over the airwaves, they can no longer claim that black is white simply because officialdom says so.

4. Bankers rejected: Hungary recently became the first country to follow Iceland’s lead by shedding international bankers (IMF) and is considering pursuing prosecution of past prime ministers who enslaved the people with debt.

Look for this trend to continue even if nations decide to default to break free.

5. Vatican abruptly cleaning up its act: Under the previous Pope, Pope Benedict, scandals erupted from the Vatican ranging from covering up pedophile priests to money laundering and fraud. Benedict, in an unprecedented move, abruptly retired to make way for a seemingly much more likable Pope Francis. Pope Francis by all measures is working furiously to reclaim the church’s peaceful and humble reputation. Whether this is genuine or a PR move, it’s telling that the church was forced into such a drastic turnaround to save itself from losing all credibility.

6. Mutiny among soldiers: Finally. Soldiers, who are outlawed from making political statements, are steadily speaking out against US military adventurism. As Einstein famously said “The pioneers of a warless world are the young men (and women) who refuse military service.”

7. Militarized police state: One of the darkest signs that the elite are losing their grip on power is the construction of the militarized police state specifically trained to combat domestic civil unrest. Local cops with tanks and other combat gear are working with Feds at Fusion centers, active Army units are on American soil for the first time in history, the NSA spy grid is being used by the IRS and DEA, and the elimination of due process for Americans under the NDAA are just some of the tyrannical moves made to secure the elite criminals from public backlash. They’re clearly scared, and they should be given what they’ve done to the American people and the Constitution.

8. Serious secession movements everywhere: A state seceding from a larger political entity used to be an ultra-fringe concept, until now. In America, secession movements are winning over the public in parts of Colorado and California. In Europe, serious secession movements are happening in Spain and Scotland, as well as several EU nations flirting with the idea of dropping out of the euro. Decentralization = Entropy!

9. GMO food being rejected everywhere: Control the food and you control the people. True in theory, but much more difficult in practice. GMO leaders like Monsanto are being exposed. All of their economic and political strength cannot defeat the spread of knowledge about the dangers of pesticide-soaked Frankenfoods. GMO fields are being burned in protest in America and around the world, informed nations continue to reject their products, and labeling laws are gaining traction.

10. Cannabis liberation: Many reading this will think marijuana legalization is a superficial development. However, it is a major signpost that the elite’s grip is fading. Enormous resources have been spent to keep cannabis illegal. Cannabis has been a powerful medicine for physical, mental, and spiritual health throughout the ages. This single plant represents a huge threat to the power structures and their industries, hence its seemingly senseless illegality. The approaching global reversal of the tyrannical policy of prohibition is the first of many concessions to come.

from:    http://in5d.com/10-signs-the-global-elite-are-losing-control.html

Pro-GMO Scientist Retracts Studies

GMO-Science Takes a Blow as Studies Are Retracted

March 11, 2014 | 227,702 views

By Dr. Mercola

GMO Study

Story at-a-glance

  • Leading scientist for pro-GMO lobby, Dr. Pamela Ronald, recently retracted two studies. Her retracted research has in turn been cited by more than 120 other papers, causing a massive snowball effect of potentially invalidated research
  • The two now retracted studies formed the basis of her research program into how rice plants detect certain pathogenic bacteria
  • With the loss of her credibility, and the domino effect these retractions are likely to cause within the scientific field, the entire industry of biotechnology stands to suffer a great blow to its scientific integrity
  • Genetically engineered foods have never been proven safe for consumption, and there are definitive correlations between the results from GMO animal-feeding studies and the patterns of human disease we’re now seeing

The pesticide producers are one of the most powerful industries on the planet, the influence they possess is enormous. You have probably heard that an Elsevier journal has retracted the Seralini study which showed evidence of harm to rats fed a GMO diet, despite admitting they found no fraud or errors in the study.

This journal had also just recently appointed an ex-Monsanto employee as an editor – one could only guess the value of this strategy for the pesticide industry. Expect Seralini to sue as this story develops, as it appears he has a very strong case.

Alas, the scientific ground on which the genetic engineering of plants is built may now be shakier than ever, thanks to GMO promoting scientists like Dr. Pamela Ronald.  A recent article in Independent Science News1 questions whether she’ll be able to salvage her career, as two of her scientific papers (published in 2009 and 2011 respectively) were recently retracted.

With the loss of her credibility, and the domino effect these retractions are likely to cause within the scientific field, the entire chemical technology industry stands to suffer a great blow to its scientific integrity.

“Her media persona… is to take no prisoners,” Jonathan Latham, PhD writes.2 “After New York Times chief food writer Mark Bittman advocated GMO labeling, she called him ‘a scourge on science’ who ‘couches his nutty views in reasonable-sounding verbiage.’ His opinions were “almost fact- and science-free” continued Ronald.

In 2011 she claimed in an interview with the US Ambassador to New Zealand: ‘After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of two billion acres planted, GE crops have not caused a single instance of harm to human health or the environment.’

She may have to turn down her criticism a notch, considering the fact that not one but two of her own studies were found to contain sizeable scientific errors, rendering her findings null and void. Questions have also been raised about a third study published in 2011, according to the featured article.

Public Face of GMOs Loses Scientific Credibility

Ronald’s research group claimed to have identified a molecule used by rice plants to detect pathogenic rice blight, as well as a quorum sensing molecule (meaning a molecule that can coordinate gene expression according to the density of the local population).

These two studies, both of which are now retracted,3, 4 formed the basis of her research program at the University of California in Davis, which is investigating how rice plants detect certain pathogenic bacteria.

Ronald blamed the erroneous work by long gone lab members from Korea and Thailand, referring to the errors as a “mix-up.” She didn’t name her bungling colleagues, however. And while media coverage applauded Ronald for “doing the right thing” by retracting the studies, the featured article5 questions whether she really deserves such accolades:

“[S]cientific doubts had been raised about Ronald-authored publications at least as far back as August 2012… German researchers had been unable to repeat Ronald’s discoveries… and they suggested as a likely reason that her samples were contaminated.

Furthermore, the German paper also asserted that, for a theoretical reason, her group’s claims were inherently unlikely. In conclusion, the German group wrote: ‘While inadvertent contamination is a possible explanation, we cannot finally explain the obvious discrepancies to the results…’

Pamela Ronald, however, did not concede any of the points raised by the German researchers and did not retract the Danna et al 2011 paper. Instead, she published a rebuttal.

The subsequent retractions, beginning in January 2013, however, confirm that in fact very sizable scientific errors were being made in the Ronald laboratory. But more importantly for the ‘Kudos to Pam’ story, it was not Pamela Ronald who initiated public discussion of the credibility of her research.

… Ronald’s footnotes [in the explanation that accompanied the retraction of her second article6 admit two mislabelings, along with failures to establish and use replicable experimental conditions, and also minimally two failed complementation tests. Each mistake appears to have been compounded by a systemic failure to use basic experimental controls.

Thus, leading up to the retractions were an assortment of practical errors, specific departures from standard scientific best practice, and lapses of judgment in failing to adequately question her labs’ unusual (and therefore newsworthy) results.”

The Snowball Effect of Retracted Studies

According to data from Thomson Reuters,7 the numbers of scientific retractions have climbed more than 15-fold since 2001. What many don’t realize is that even a small number of retracted studies can wreak absolute havoc with the science-based paradigm. Other scientists who have based their research on the results from studies that, for whatever reason, end up being retracted, are now perpetuating flawed science as well. In one example, two retracted medical studies led to the retraction of another 17.

In this case, the first of Dr. Ronald’s retracted studies has been cited eight times.8 The second? 113 times.9 That sounds like an awfully large cleanup job in a field that’s already heavily criticized for its preponderance of “lousy science,” to use the words of award-winning geneticist Dr. David Suzuki.

The Problem with GMO Plant Science

It’s important to realize that genetically engineered plants and animals are created using horizontal gene transfer (also called horizontal inheritance). This is in stark contrast to 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.

Horizontal gene transfer, on the other hand, involves injecting a gene from one species into a completely different species, which yields unexpected and often unpredictable results. Proponents of genetically engineered crops assume they can apply the principles of vertical inheritance to horizontal inheritance, but according to Dr. David Suzuki, 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 genetically modified food is based only on a hypothesis, and this hypothesis is already being proven wrong.

The kind of horizontal gene transfer that is currently used to create new crop seeds tends to produce highly inflammatory foreign proteins. As one would expect, were there a connection, inflammation-based chronic diseases have indeed increased right alongside with the proliferation of GMO foods in the US. Clearly, Dr. Ronald never bothered to look at such data, and her declaration that “GE crops have not caused a single instance of harm to human health or the environment”10 is as lacking in scientific support as her retracted research.

Results from Animal-Feeding Studies Correlate with Human Disease Patterns

According to Jeffrey Smith, who is one of the leaders in educating people about the concerns and dangers of GMOs, there are definitive correlations between the results from animal-feeding studies and the patterns of human disease we’re now seeing. For example, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has done a number of animal-feeding studies on GMOs and specifically enumerated the particular categories of diseases and disorders found in these controlled environments. These include:

Gastrointestinal problems Immune problems Reproductive problems
Organ damage Dysfunction and dysregulation of cholesterol Dysfunction and dysregulation of insulin

 

“You look at the three different corresponding factors: (1) what humans are getting better from, (2) what livestock is getting better from, (3) what afflictions are afflicting the lab animals fed with GMOs, and then you look at what diseases are really taking off in the United States – they’re the same categories,” Smith says.

For example, kidney problems have been demonstrated in 19 different animal-feeding studies, and kidney diseases are on the rise in the US. Could there be a connection? Smith and I both believe this to be the case. According to Smith:

“We heard from two people at a meeting in Arizona, someone whose husband was nearly on dialysis and someone else who had three kidney transplants – both situations reversed when they changed their diet. You see things like the animal-feeding study out of Russia where the babies were a lot smaller after being fed GE soy, and you see the incidence of low-birth-weight babies is going up in the United States… Deaths from senile dementia moved along at a certain pace, and then when GMOs or Roundup were introduced, it shot up… So, you see these correlations between these four things now: (1) the animal-feeding studies, (2) people getting better [when removing GMO], (3) livestock getting better [when removing GMO], and (4) changes in the disease rates.”

GMO Foods Have Never Been Proven Safe for Long-Term Consumption

In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium on genetically modified 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, genetically engineered 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 genetically engineered item in question has been approved, not a single country on Earth is actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health effects.

Vote with Your Pocketbook, Every Day

 

Remember, the food companies on the left of this graphic spent tens of millions of dollars in the last two labeling campaigns—in California and Washington State—to prevent you from knowing what’s in your food. You can even the score by switching to the brands on the right; all of whom stood behind the I-522 Right to Know campaign. Voting with your pocketbook, at every meal, matters. It makes a huge difference.

I-522 poster

As always, I encourage you to continue educating yourself about genetically engineered foods, and to share what you’ve learned with family and friends. Remember, unless a food is certified organic, you can assume it contains GMO ingredients if it contains sugar from sugar beet, soy, or corn, or any of their derivatives.

 

If you buy processed food, opt for products bearing the USDA 100% Organic label, as organics do not permit GMOs. You can also print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. Alternatively, download their free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications. For more in-depth information, I highly recommend reading the following two books, authored by Jeffrey Smith, the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology:

from:   http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/03/11/retracted-gmo-studies.aspx?e_cid=20140311Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20140311Z1&et_cid=DM40701&et_rid=452684942

Monsanto’s New Non-GMO Foods

Finally, Monsanto introduces new strains of food that are NOT genetically modified

(NaturalNews) Monsanto is a name that is synonymous with Big Agriculture and, more importantly, genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The company’s Roundup herbicide, which is used almost exclusively around the world, has been blamed for the development of resistant superweeds that are filling up farmers’ fields in the U.S. and abroad.

And speaking of farmers, Monsanto is also synonymous with the term “lawsuit” — as in the company protects its licensed seeds the way a mother and father protect a child. More than a few farmers have been hauled into court for reusing Monsanto brand seeds from one year to the next, in violation of the company’s trademark.

But what Monsanto is known best for is its creation of GM foods and crops. There is hardly a hectare or acre of soybeans or corn whose seeds have not come from the GMO labs at Monsanto.

Now, however, as consumers have become increasingly leery of genetically altered food, and as some nations have even banned the growth and sale of some GM crops, Monsanto has finally developed new produce that has not been genetically modified one iota. As reported by Wired magazine recently:

Changing the agricultural game is what Monsanto does. … So it’s not particularly surprising that the company is introducing novel strains of familiar food crops, invented at Monsanto and endowed by their creators with powers and abilities far beyond what you usually see in the produce section. The lettuce is sweeter and crunchier than romaine and has the stay-fresh quality of iceberg. The peppers come in miniature, single-serving sizes to reduce leftovers. The broccoli has three times the usual amount of glucoraphanin, a compound that helps boost antioxidant levels. Stark’s department, the global trade division, came up with all of them.

“Grocery stores are looking in the produce aisle for something that pops, that feels different,” Monsanto exec Kenny Avery told the magazine. “And consumers are looking for the same thing.”

Crossbred, not genetically modified

If they are correct, they will know soon enough. Because Monsanto is set to introduce Frescada lettuce, BellaFina peppers, and Beneforte broccoli — and nary a one of them has been genetically modified (also planned for introduction into U.S. supermarkets: a type of melon, a watermelon and an onion).

The Big Ag giant created all of the vegetables using a tried-and-true natural technique — crossbreeding, which is the same “technology” that farmers have been using for hundreds of years to optimize their crops and yields.

“That doesn’t mean they are low tech, exactly. Stark’s division is drawing on Monsanto’s accumulated scientific know-how to create vegetables that have all the advantages of genetically modified organisms without any of the Frankenfoods ick factor,” Wired reported.

And as some cities and states — and food chains like Whole Foods — consider laws and changes in current business practices to require GMO labeling of foods, such requirements won’t apply to Monsanto’s new breed of “super” vegetables. That’s because, despite being developed in a laboratory environment, they are nonetheless as natural as what you would find at a farmers’ market. If you kept them pesticide-free and transported them less than 100 miles, you could actually label them organic. Here’s how the veggies were developed:

— Beneforte broccoli – Derived by crossbreeding commercial broccoli with a strain that grows wild in southern Italy (price will be around $2.50 a pound);

— Bellafina bell peppers – These will be essentially bite-sized, to reduce waste. They were derived through the selective breeding of plants with smaller and smaller peppers (price estimated to be about $1.50 per three-pepper bag);

— Melorange – This was derived by crossbreeding cantaloupe with European heritage melons containing a gene for a fruity, floral aroma (price should be around $3.00 a melon);

— Evermild onion – This sweeter, less tear-inducing strain was developed by crossbreeding individual plants that have lower levels of pyruvate, which affects pungency, and lachrymatory factor (price should fluctuate between $0.70 and $2.00 a pound).

American Farmers GOing GMO-Free

How American Food Companies Go GMO-Free In A GMO World

by

Allen Williams grows corn and soybeans for Clarkson Grain, which has been selling GMO-free grain to Japan for years.

Allen Williams grows corn and soybeans for Clarkson Grain, which has been selling GMO-free grain to Japan for years.

Dan Charles/NPR

Quite possibly, you’ve noticed some new food labels out there, like “Not made with genetically modified ingredients” or “GMO-free.” You might have seen them on boxes of , or on . If you’ve shopped at Whole Foods, that retailer it now sells more than 3,000 products that have been certified as “non-GMO.”

But where does non-GMO food come from? After all, 90 percent of America’s corn and soybeans are genetically modified, and producers of eggs, milk and meat rely on those crops to feed their animals. Soy oil and corn starch are used throughout the industry. Can big food companies really avoid GMOs?

Looking for the answer, I ended up at one of the first links in the non-GMO supply chain: a corn processing facility just north of the small town of Cerro Gordo, in west-central Illinois.

A robotic arm at Clarkson Grain takes a sample of blue corn to be tested for GMOs.

A robotic arm at Clarkson Grain takes a sample of blue corn to be tested for GMOs.

Dan Charles/NPR

Truckloads of corn arrive here and stop at the “scale house,” where they’re weighed. A remote-controlled steel probe dives into each load and sucks out some grain for testing.

That’s all standard at any corn handling facility. But at this processing plant, operated by , there’s one more test: a quick, five-minute check to see if this corn contains specific proteins that are the signature of genetic modification.

Farmers have embraced these novel proteins; they protect a growing cornstalk from some insects, or weedkillers. So, at almost any corn processing facility in America, this test would come up positive.

But here, a positive test means rejection; the truck has to turn around and leave.

Clarkson Grain only accepts GMO-free grain because that’s what its customers want.

“We don’t tell people what their values should be. We inquire, and then we do our best to support those values,” says , the company’s founder.

Clarkson has been in the grain business for 40 years. He doesn’t seem terribly excited about prices and profits, but he loves to talk about relationships: about the customers and suppliers who’ve stayed with him for decades, or the telegram of thanks he got, years ago, after his first foreign deal. “That was the first compliment I had ever received in the grain business in 20 years,” he recalls. “Most of us want to make money, but we also want to do something that somebody appreciates.”

Lynn Clarkson founded Clarkson Grain, which accepts only non-GMO grain.

Lynn Clarkson founded Clarkson Grain, which accepts only non-GMO grain.

Dan Charles/NPR

That story, and the story of Lynn Clarkson’s company, helps explain how American food companies can, in fact, go GMO-free in a world filled with GMOs.

And the story starts years ago, long before any GMOs existed.

Lynn Clarkson was a small-town grain dealer looking for new buyers for his corn. He drove to Chicago to talk to food companies, and he realized that they had a problem. “If you ask food processors anywhere in the world, 90 percent of them will tell you there’s too much variation in incoming raw materials,” he says.

The corn that these food processors were buying wasn’t consistent. They’d cook it and get widely varying results.

Clarkson told them that this problem had a simple cause. They were getting perhaps 30 different genetic types of corn in each shipment.

Clarkson also proposed a solution: “buying a single variety, a single hybrid, delivered at any one time, so you’re not mixing different cooking characteristics.”

Clarkson set up a system that allowed him to deliver exactly that. He signed contracts with farmers near his hometown of Cerro Gordo, agreeing to pay them a little extra to supply specific corn hybrids, or particular varieties of soybeans.

He delivered this uniform, predictable grain to food companies, first in Chicago and then to those appreciative foreign buyers — in particular, in Japan.

When GMOs came on the scene about 20 years ago, it turned out that his Japanese customers didn’t want them. Japanese food companies were suspicious of the new technology and didn’t want to risk a hostile consumer reaction.

So Clarkson tweaked his supply chain to deliver what the Japanese wanted. He made sure his farmers grew varieties that weren’t genetically engineered. The non-GMO niche was born.

He wasn’t the only one doing this. Clarkson shows me, on a wall map, the concentration of farmers who supply the Japanese market. Many are along the Illinois and Ohio rivers, with easy access to ships heading toward Asia.

There are thousands of them, and they’re now happy to supply customers in the U.S., too.

“U.S. buyers often think that we’re starting from scratch” with non-GMO grain, Clarkson says. “Well, we’re not. We’re starting from millions of bushels of demand that are in place and being satisfied on a regular basis for Asian clients.”

Most of these farmers don’t have any philosophical objection to genetic engineering. In fact, most of them grow both GMO and non-GMO crops.

Allen Williams, who grows grain for Lynn Clarkson, says the choice to grow non-GMO grain simply comes down to money. “You’re just trying to improve your profit,” he says. “There’s not a lot of ways to do that, if you’re growing commodities. This is one way to do that.”

He’ll sell his non-GMO grain for 10 percent or 15 percent more than the standard market price. But there are complications. Some of the extra income gets eaten up by extra costs. He’ll spend more money on pesticides, for instance, for his non-GMO soybean fields.

He also has to make sure the grain he sends to Clarkson Grain doesn’t contain any traces of his GMO crops. So when he finishes harvesting one of his GMO fields, he has to spend hours cleaning out his combine.

“You know, time is of the essence during harvest,” he says. “So to take time during harvest to clean out equipment and storage locations and transportation equipment is very expensive for a farmer.”

A GMO test kit in use at Clarkson Grain

A GMO test kit in use at Clarkson Grain

Dan Charles/NPR

Also, because corn pollen blows in the wind, he has to make sure his non-GMO fields of corn are a hundred feet from any GMO corn fields.

The separation doesn’t always work perfectly. But Lynn Clarkson says the food industry is pragmatic; companies know that they have to tolerate small traces of GMOs. “It always comes down to: How do you define GMO-free?” he says. “What’s the tolerance level? If it’s zero, we might as well have a drink and part friendly, because we can’t do business. We cannot hit a zero standard.”

People just need to know, he says, that in the U.S., “GMO-free” means that something contains no more than 0.9 percent GMOs.

Demand for non-GMO grain is growing. Lynn Clarkson has told farmers that he’ll buy about 25 percent more non-GMO grain next year.

At the company’s modest offices beside the railroad tracks in the small town of Cerro Gordo, Wyatt Muse is fielding calls and emails. “We have everything from the home survivalist wanting a 5-gallon bucket for their basement, up to people wanting a Panamax vessel to ship it into East Asia,” he says.

The latest query, sitting on Muse’s desk, is from a snack food company in Europe. It wants non-GMO corn. “We’re going to send one container next week, and assuming they like the quality, we would probably be doing a 100 to 120 containers over the next few months,” he says.

In the world of international grain trading, that’s still pretty small. But there’s a potential development that could transform this small niche market, Clarkson says: a surge in orders for animal feed. A few poultry and egg producers already are going GMO-free; if others do the same, the non-GMO wave could turn into a tsunami.

from:    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/02/04/269479079/how-american-food-companies-go-gmo-free-in-a-gmo-world

Napa Considering GMO Labeling

County may be asked to vote on GMO labels

Advocacy group pushing for state/federal legislation
January 01, 2014 3:00 pm  •  PETER JENSEN

California voters rejected a ballot initiative that would label foods containing genetically modified organisms just over a year ago, but the issue continues to persist in Napa County.

The Napa County Local Food Advisory Council is preparing a recommendation to send to the Board of Supervisors supporting labeling such foods, Agricultural Commissioner Greg Clark said.

The recommendation is currently in draft form, but should reach the elected officials in the new year, Clark said. It would urge state and federal agencies and officials to support labeling, as they have the regulatory authority to impose that requirement.

The push locally proves that, despite a loss at the polls in November 2012, activists continue to press the issue. Proposition 37, which would have required the labeling, failed when it garnered 48.6 percent support, needing a simple majority to pass, according to the California Secretary of State’s Office.

Opponents of the initiative, which were well-funded by agricultural and industrial interests, outspent proponents $45 million to $6.7 million.

A subcommittee of the food council is working on the recommendation, Clark said, and is planning to bring it to the full council at its meeting in January.

With the council’s support, it would then move onto the Napa County Board of Supervisors. Clark was uncertain if it would need to go through the board’s legislative subcommittee, or if it could be put on the full board’s agenda for a discussion and potential vote.

Community members pressed local elected officials to take a stance on the issues, and retiring Agricultural Commissioner Dave Whitmer and Clark felt the food council was the appropriate place to debate it.

“The food council was the perfect entity to have that discussion,” Clark said.

The debate over GMOs fosters sharply different points of view on the health of foods containing GMOs, and the need to label them in the name of consumers’ rights. Clark acknowledged the challenge in keeping the debate solely on labeling and not debate health issues.

“Sometimes it’s a challenge to keep the focus on labeling,” Clark said. “There’s a tendency among people to passionately state their interest.”

Clark said the recommendation is careful to focus only on labeling, and not stray into the broader debate about GMOs.

“We’ve been very deliberate to say this is about labeling — just labeling,” Clark said.

from:    http://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/county-may-be-asked-to-vote-on-gmo-labels/article_68a7d3e4-726c-11e3-a3ff-001a4bcf887a.html

Grocery Manufacturers Attacking GMO Labeling

GMO labeling to be outlawed? Grocery Manufacturers Association unveils deviously evil plan to silence us all

Friday, January 10, 2014
by Mike Adams,

(NaturalNews) The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) is scheming to criminalize state-by-state GMO labeling laws in a deviously evil effort to keep consumers ignorant of what they’re eating. Remember, the GMA is the same organization that got caught running an illegal money laundering scheme in Washington state, secretly funneling money from big food manufacturers into a campaign to defeat GMO labeling initiative I-522.

Now the GMA is pushing legislation at the federal level to not only outlaw GMO labeling laws at the state level, but also to get the FDA to declare GMOs as “natural” so that foods made with GMOs can claim “all natural” on their labels. A petition filed with the FDA by the GMA states, “GMA will be filing a Citizen Petition early in 2014 that asks the FDA to issue a regulation authorizing foods containing ingredients derived from biotechnology to be labeled ‘natural.'” (SOURCE)

“Monsanto and giant food companies are scheming behind the scenes to introduce a bill in Congress that would kill mandatory state GMO labeling efforts and replace it with a gutted version of a bill to preempt states’ rights and give the illusion of serious regulation,” reports Food Democracy Now, which also calls the plan “devious” in nature.

How evil can they get?

With these anti-transparency, anti-consumer, anti-American actions, the GMA now firmly puts itself in the same evil camp as Monsanto itself. Because the right to know what we are eating is a fundamental human right, the GMA’s actions clearly define it as an anti-human rights group. In the history of human rights violations, we’ve seen a long list of evil efforts to silence certain groups of people and keep them ignorant: Women were denied the right to vote, slaves were denied the right to “personhood,” and in the Holocaust, Jews were denied the right to life itself. Now the GMA joins that haunting history of human rights violators by insidious working to deny all people the right to know what they are eating.

The GMA solely represents the profit interests of dishonest, deceptive food manufacturers who sell toxic poisons, not the interests of food consumers, and it has a long established history of using deceptive tactics to make sure its members can continue to hide their toxic poisons in their food products.

The GMA is, in essence, a “pro-poison” industry group that wants consumers to unknowingly eat more poisons in their food. The GMA should not merely be ashamed of itself; it should be publicly exposed as an evil food industry group whose actions, if successful, may result in hundreds of millions of Americans being harmed by unknowingly eating unlabeled poisons in their food.

Your help is needed to stop this group from achieving its truly evil aims in Washington. Here’s what you can do to help:

Actions items to defeat the evil GMA

Sign this petition at Food Democracy Now:
http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/stop…

Share this story at the Center For Food Safety:
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-rel…

Share this story right here on Natural News:
http://www.naturalnews.com/043469_GMA_GMO_la…

Tweet this story, Facebook it, email it, share in whatever way you can. The GMA needs to be halted by a barrage of active consumers who rise up and shout, “ENOUGH! We demand to know whether the products we buy contain GMOs!”

After all, the right to know what we eat is a fundamental human right. Don’t let the anti-human rights “GMA” group keep you in the dark over what you’re eating. We must not let evil prevail in this fight for food transparency!

BTW, Natural News Labs is the only organization in the world now testing and openly publishing heavy metals test results for foods made by the members of the GMA. To see those results right now, visit: http://labs.naturalnews.com

Sources for this story include

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/201…
https://www.politicopro.com/story/agriculture/?id=29…
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-rel…
http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/stop…

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043469_GMA_GMO_labeling_evil_plan.html#ixzz2qFQjvpvw