The Big GMO Cover-Up

Admirable research Jan . Well done .

Oh. and of course, since the FDA made it real easy by circumventing labelling, people may be exhibiting symptoms of allergic reactions and not be able to trace it to something eaten with a GMO organism in it.

Cancer and Degenerative Diseases

3. Direct Cancer and Degenerative Disease Links: GH is a protein hormone which, when injected into cows stimulates the pituitary gland in a way that the produces more milk, thus making milk production more profitable for the large dairy corporations. In 1993, FDA approved Monsanto's genetically-modified rBGH, a genetically-altered growth hormone that could be then injected into dairy cows to enhance this feature, and even though scientists warned that this resulted in an increase of IGF-1 (from (70%-1000%). IGF-1 is a very potent chemical hormone that has been linked to a 2 1/2 to 4 times higher risk of human colorectal and breast cancer. Prostate cancer risk is considered equally serious - in the 2,8.to 4 times range. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Chicago and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, this "induces the malignant transformation of human breast epithelial cells." Canadian studies confirmed such a suspicion and showed active IGF-1 absorption, thyroid cysts and internal organ damage in rats. Yet the FDA denied the significance of these findings. When two award-winning journalists, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, tried to expose these deceptions, they were fired by Fox Network under intense pressure from Monsanto. The FDA's own experiments indicated a spleen mass increase of 40-46%- a sign of developing leukemia. The contention by Monsanto that the hormone was killed by pasteurization or rendered inactive was fallacious. In research conducted by two of Monsanto's own scientists, Ted Elasser and Brian McBride, only 19% of the hormone was destroyed despite boiling milk for 30 minutes when normal pasteurization is 15 seconds. Canada, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand have banned rBGR. The UN's Codex Alimentarius, an international health standards setting body, refused to certify rBGH as safe. Yet Monsanto continued to market this product in the US until 2008 when it finally divested under public pressure. This policy in the FDA was initiated by Margaret Miller, Deputy Director of Human Safety and Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office, Center for Veterinary Medicine and former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto. This is part of a larger revolving door between Monsanto and the Bush Administration. She spearheaded the increase in the amount of antibiotics farmers were allowed to have in their milk and by a factor of 100 or 10,000 percent. Also Michael Taylor, Esq. became the executive assistant to the director of the FDA and deputy Commissioner of Policy - filling a position created in 1991 to promote the biotech industry and squelch internal dissent. There Taylor drafted a new law to undermine the 1958 enacted Delaney Amendment that so importantly outlawed pesticides and food additives known to cause cancer. In other words carcinogens could now legally be reintroduced into our food chain. Taylor was later hired as legal counsel to Monsanto, and subsequently became Deputy Commissioner of Policy at the FDA once again. On another front, GM-approved products have been developed with resistance to herbicides that are commonly-known carcinogens. Bromoxynil is used on transgenic bromoxynmil-resistant or BXN cotton. It is known to cause very serious birth defects and brain damage in rats. Glyphosate and POEA, the main ingredients in Roundup, Monsanto's lead product are suspected carcinogens.

As to other degenerative disease links, according to a study by researcher Dr. Sharyn Martin, a number of autoimmune diseases are enhanced by foreign DNA fragments that are not fully digested in the human stomach and intestines. DNA fragments are absorbed into the bloodstream, potentially mixing with normal DNA. The genetic consequences are unpredictable and unexpected gene fragments have shown up in GM soy crops. A similar view is echoed by Dr. Joe Cummins, Professor of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario, noting that animal experiments have demonstrated how exposure to such genetic elements may lead to inflammation, arthritis and lymphoma (a malignant blood disease).

4. Indirect, Non-traceable Effects on Cancer Rates: The twentieth century saw an incremental lowering of infectious disease rates, especially where a single bacteria was overcome by an antibiotic, but a simultaneous rise in systemic, whole body or immune system breakdowns. The epidemic of cancer is a major example and is affected by the overall polluted state of our environment, including in the pollution of the air, water, and food we take in. There are zillions of potential combinations for the 100,000 commonly thrust upon our environment. The real impact cannot be revealed by experiments that look at just a few controlled factors or chemicals isolates. Rather all of nature is a testing ground. Scientists a few years ago were startled that combining chemical food additives into chemical cocktails caused many times more toxic effects than the sum of the individual chemicals. More startling was the fact that some chemicals were thought to be harmless by themselves but not in such combinations. For example, two simple chemicals found in soft drinks, ascorbic acid and sodium benzoate, together form benzene, an immensely potent carcinogen. Similarly, there is the potential, with entirely new ways of rearranging the natural order with genetic mutations and that similar non-traceable influences can likewise cause cancer. We definitively know X-rays and chemicals cause genetic mutations, and mutagenic changes are behind many higher cancer rates or where cells duplicate out of control. In the US in the year 1900, cancer affected only about 1 out 11 individuals. It now inflicts 1 out of 2 men and 1 out of 3 women in their lifetime. Cancer mortality rates rose relentlessly throughout the 20th century to more than triple overall."

http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful.

Report on health risks and deaths associated with GMOs.

"Deaths and Near-Deaths

1. Recorded Deaths from GM: In 1989, dozens of Americans died and several thousands were afflicted and impaired by a genetically modified version of the food supplement L-tryptophan creating a debilitating ailment known as Eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS) . Released without safety tests, there were 37 deaths reported and approximately 1500 more were disabled. A settlement of $2 billion dollars was paid by the manufacturer, Showa Denko, Japan's third largest chemical company destroyed evidence preventing a further investigation and made a 2 billion dollar settlement. Since the very first commercially sold GM product was lab tested (Flavr Savr) animals used in such tests have prematurely died.

2. Near-deaths and Food Allergy Reactions: In 1996, Brazil nut genes were spliced into soybeans to provide the added protein methionine and by a company called Pioneer Hi-Bred. Some individuals, however, are so allergic to this nut, they can go into anaphylactic shock (similar to a severe bee sting reaction) which can cause death. Using genetic engineering, the allergens from one food can thus be transferred to another, thought to be safe to eat, and unknowingly. Animal and human tests confirmed the peril and fortunately the product was removed from the market before any fatalities occurred. The animal tests conducted, however, were insufficient by themselves to show this. Had they alone been relied upon, a disaster would have followed."The next case could be less than ideal and the public less fortunate," writes Marion Nestle author of Food Politics and Safe Food, and head of the Nutrition Department of NYU in an editorial to the New England Journal of Medicine. It has been estimated that 25% of Americans have mild adverse reactions to foods (such as itching and rashes), while at least 4% or 12 million Americans have provably more serious food allergies as objectively shown by blood iImmunoglobulin E or IgE levels. In other words, there is a significant number of highly food-sensitive individuals in our general population. The percentage of young children who are seriously food-allergenic is yet higher, namely 6-8% of all children under the age of three. In addition, the incidence rates for these children has been decidedly rising. Writes Dr. Jacqueline Pongracic, head of the allergy department at Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago, "I've been treating children in the field of allergy immunology for 15 years, and in recent years I've really seen the rates of food allergy skyrocket." The Center for Disease Control confirmed the spike on a US national level. Given the increased adulteration of our diets, it is no wonder at all that this is happening. Yet the FDA officials who are sacredly entrusted to safeguard the health of the general public, and especially of children, declared in 1992, under intense industry-lobbying pressure, that genetically-modified (GM) foods were essentially equivalent to regular foods. The truth is that genetically modified foods cannot ever be equivalent. They involve the most novel and technologically-violent alterations of our foods, the most uniquely different foods ever introduced in the history of modern agriculture (and in the history of biological evolution). To say otherwise affronts the intelligence of the public and safeguarding public officials. It is a bold, if not criminal deception to but appease greed-motivated corporate parties and at the direct expense and risk of the public's health. The FDA even decided against the advice of its own scientists that there was no need at all for FDA allergy or safety testing of these most novel of all foods. This hands-off climate (as promoted by the Bush Administration and similar to what was done with the mortgage and financial industry) is a recipe for widespread social health disasters. When elements of nature that have never before been present in the human diet are suddenly introduced, and without any public safety testing or labeling notice, such as petunia flower elements in soybeans and fish genes in tomatoes (as developed by DNA Plant Technology Corporation in the 1990s), it obviously risks allergic reactions among the most highly sensitive segments of our general population. It is a well-know fact that fish proteins happen to be among the most hyper-allergenic, while tomatoes are not. Thus not labeling such genetically modified tomatoes, with hidden alien or allergenic ingredients, is completely unconscionable. The same applies to the typical GMO that has novel bacterial and viral DNA artificially inserted. Many research studies have definitively confirmed this kind of overall risk for genetically modified foods:

CORN- Two research studies independently show evidence of allergenic reactions to GM Bt corn,
- Farm workers exposed to genetically-modified Bt sprays exhibited extensive allergic reactions.

POTATOES - A study showed genetically-modified potatoes expressing cod genes were allergenic.

PEAS - A decade-long study of GM peas was abandoned when it was discovered that they caused allergic lung damage in mice.

SOY - In March 1999, researchers at the York Laboratory discovered that reactions to soy had skyrocketed by 50% over the year before, which corresponded with the introduction of genetically-modified soy from the US. It was the first time in 17 years that soy was tested in the lab among the top ten allergenic foods.

Thank you!

Do you really think it would be allowed to be documented? Thanks Jan for getting out the truth. I'm passing this on.

have there been any documented cases of direct harm caused by the genetically modified foods?

living in another country craving the ranch,butter and ketchup, and not having the easy access, really makes you notice how fat america really is.

Perhaps because most of us on this forum live in the richest country in the world, we feel that we have the right to complain about our food. The fact of the matter is that we have an over-abundace of food. Most of us could cut out 20% of our diet and still be perfectly healthy. This is especially sad when you consider that over a billion people don't have enough to eat on a daily basis.

When all this is taken into consideration, GMO's in our food seems a little less like a probelm, and more like a solution (still plagued with problems). It is my humble opinion that only when the entire human race is fed adequately do we have the right to complain about our food. We are all so lucky to have our "three squares a day", but no one seems to remember. I grew up being constantly reminded by my parents about the "starvng children in Afrrica", and though I have never experienced real poverty, my empathy for those who do is strong.

It's not a good thing for us to play with nature, and we've done so much wrong with biotech already. Let us utilize what good there is, and we can feed the world, and in the process, undo some of the atrocities we've committed in our pursuit of perfection.

As the video above states, we have too much food. The problem is not the lack of food it is access to food. Food controlled by the rich under the auspices of the World Bank, WTO, and large corporate conglomerates like Monsanto through patents and IPR (also Cargill, and Bunge) along with speculation driving up food prices is causing hunger. Loans given by the World Bank to poor countries where interest rates are exhorbitant or where in return for loans countries then must privitize water and agriculture are also a cause of food insecurity in these areas. Now with the added effects of climate change the situation is only worsening due mainly to drought and soil degradation and evaporation along with erratic weather patterns.

Farmers in these countries are also raising crops that are known as luxury crops like flowers, coffee, etc and other luxury items that are exported to richer countries. That leaves little land for farmers to grow food for themselves along with land now being used by the Monsantos of this world for their biofuels, and soy and corn used for animal feed instead of food. The little bit farmers then can grow is many times too little for their own population thus driving up the cost and leaving many hungry and starving in countries where land to grow food is abundant, only it isn't being used for the people but for the profits of multinationals.

GMOs are merely a scam for profit. We do not need them. We have enough land to grow food on and to do it naturally. Industrial agriculture strips and erodes soil, impunes soil health through overuse of nitrogen based fertilizers, produces an over abundance of CO2 in our atmosphere due to the petrochemical reliance, and pollutes our waterways with pesticides. Sustainable agriculture that heals the soil, sequesters carbon, and is natural is the only way now to support developing countries and save our climate balance. Study after study has shown that under these right conditions organic out peforms and out yields conventional farming and is healthier for humans and other species... BTW, where are the bees?. Only, there is no profit in it for corporations and governments so it is maligned. Getting out the truth is the only way for people to understand just how they have been lied to by corporations like Monsanto and their own government when it comes to their health and food safety.

warhawk187:

Yes, the MSM in America is mum on this. That's the beauty of having a site where the people who aren't tied to corporate- industrial- political interests can get out the information they don't want people knowing. But you can also always tell who the minions of them are here by their responses.

And the beauty of Current is that I can then remove your crap.

Just for fun I read the title of the article, looked at the picture and the poster, and decided on this alone that the article almost undoubtedly belonged in the conspiracy theory group. Let's see how my prediction goes...

"Big biotech claims that genetic engineering is a necessary step towards feeding the world’s growing population..."
well a lot of people claim it. WHO amongst others. Fair point.

"..And yet debate still rages as to whether GM crops actually increase yields at all."
Rages huh? is this an even up match or more like global warming where 95% of anyone who knows anything about the subject believes it and a few wackos with monetary conflict of interest do not? Hard to say, there's no examples but it does make the crappola meter twitch.

"Independent scientific studies raised serious alarm bells over the safety of GM foods over a decade ago."
Yep. Good studies too. It's why we have all those laws about what can be done with GMO

" But while this made front-page headlines in European newspapers, the North American mainstream media were conspiratorially silent."
!?!? If it never got discussed w wouldn't have any regulation at all. this is self evidently incorrect as well as being unsupported. The crapola meter is definitely ticking now..
"conspiritorily silent?" Looks like the big C word. Small victory dance for me...

"Jeffrey M. Smith, international bestselling author of Seeds of ....(blah blah blah)"<
Look several paragraphs of how awesome this guy is.
It might have more weight if this poster didn't have a history of [promoting] this guy on a fairly regular basis. This has to be like the third time she's plugged that book. How far does this go? The entire rest of the article?! OMG!

Where is this article even from?
AHH! Money shot!
At the very bottom of the quoted article:
"International bestselling author and independent filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology (the owner of the website) and the leading spokesperson"

He's quoting himself from an article he wrote in another magazine on his own website in the third person.

Is he selling his books then? lets look farther.
"...Mr. Smith has pioneered the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America, designed to create the tipping point of consumer rejection against GMOs and force them out of the food supply.
Tell us your opinion on genetically modified food: post a comment below.
To find out how to stop eating GMOs, visit: www.nongmoshoppingguide.com."

nongmoshoppingguide? hmmmm.... Oh look! It's a sponsored list of food manfacturers. Natures path? I've heard of them i eat their breakfast cereal.

"MANUFACTURERS! ENROLL YOUR NON-GMO PRODUCTS IN THE GUIDE!" in caps no less.. Looks like we've found the money.

It's a viral ad!
The heck with conspiracy theory this one gets spam and not news too.

"And yet debate still rages as to whether GM crops actually increase yields at all."

I remember reading in several different articles/reports that GM crops have about a 30% smaller yield than that of normal crops, and that they require something like twice (or more) the amount of water than do normal crops.

Very interesting article on a very unmentioned subject that is in everything we eat.

Will do ! Thanks !

This is an extensive article on GMOs. If there is anything you wanted to know about them, this article will tell you. Please pass it on.

2010=tipping point!