MONSANTO MUST BE HELD LIABLE FINANCIALLY AND CRIMINALLY and may the sentences fit the despicable crime of slow kill GENOCIDE against all HUMANITY and GENETIC Manipulation of Nature and the Environmental pollution by many different self replicating Genetically Modified Organism ex. GMO Seeds GMO Pollen GMO Plants GMO Animals and the most despicable of all GMO HUMANS to date 2 baby girls with the genes of three parents. If these two girls grow up and mate in the general population they will completely change the future generation genetic Code of humans forever. All of which could cause many unknown bad genetic side effect in future generations Also once introduced to the Gene pool cannot be removed or reversed.
GENETIC MODIFICATION OF ANYTHING IS DANGEROUS AT THE PRESENT TIME AS THE TECHNOLOGY HAS NOT BEEN WITH US LONG ENOUGH FOR SEVERE INTENSIVE LONG TERM RESEARCH AND STUDIES INTO EFFECT AND SIDE EFFECT AND THE INHERANT DANGERS THAT COME WITH GENETIC MODIFICATION
JUST SAY NO TO GENETIC MODIFICATION!!! A BIG
FKN NO!!! RIGHT NOW
From Zyklon B to GM corn: How GMOs transformed
food into a globalist weapon
(NaturalNews) Zyklon B is a very effective chemical for killing humans. The trick is getting the victims to inhale it. Since most people won’t voluntarily inhale Zyklon B gas, you have to use some means of force to march them into chambers where the gas is released. Hence the use of guns in the hands of governments, the rise of the SS (known as "TSA" in modern America), and the rounding up of innocent citizens to be gassed to death during the Nazi regime. "Nazi," by the way, is shorthand for "national socialist party."
The Nazi approach to killing people was very effective in 1944, but it wouldn’t fly today in the age of instant messaging, Twitter, Facebook and other social media. It’s hard to keep a concentration camp a secret these days, especially if millions of people are being processed through them. If the Nazis had cell phone cameras in 1944, somebody would have snapped some photos, uploaded them to "NaziTube.com" and the whole cover would have been blown. (Or YouTube would have censored the videos and protected the Nazis from being outed, because YouTube routinely censors videos that expose bad government.)
Fast forward six decades or so, and you’ve got our modern world. All the same types of psychopathic killers still run the world’s most powerful governments and corporations, but they’ve figured out that in order to kill people, they’ve got to do it a little more covertly.
Specifically, there needed to be a way to get people to voluntarily kill themselves.
How to convince people to "genocide" themselves
Rounding people up at gunpoint is a messy business. It’s so much easier when you can just get people to take care of the act of killing themselves.
This image, fromEnlightenedRedneck.com, shows people voluntarily lining up for vaccine injections. They’ve been convinced, through a steady stream of propaganda, that vaccine shots reduce the risk of catching the flu.
What they’re not told is that flu shots increase the risk of catching influenza. They actually promote the very thing they claim to prevent, thereby causing more people to catch the flu and subsequently believe they need flu shots.
But the real genius of flu shots is that they contain chemicals that cause infertility and spontaneous abortions. Chemical adjuvants. Mercury-derived preservatives. Live viral strains of stealth cancer viruses. (SV40).
This is the new Zyklon B. Except you don’t need to round people up at gunpoint and stuff them into gas chambers. All you have to do is put a sign in front of a building and make sure it reads, "FLU SHOTS HERE" and people will literally line up to not only be injected with deadly poisons, but to even pay for itas well! (So there’s actually PROFIT to be made from getting people to kill themselves.)
Another weapon in the soft-kill arsenal is, of course, genetically modified organisms (GMO).
GMOs are engineered with a toxic pesticide chemical that grows right inside the kernels of the corn. So when you eat the corn, you ingest the same poison that kills insects that feed on corn.
What does this poison do to humans? We’re about to find out in the years ahead, but in rats fed a lifetime of GM corn, they develop grotesque, deadly cancer tumors at an alarming rate.
Here are the pictures of rats fed genetically modified corn in a recent scientific experiment:
The evil genius of GMOs is that if you can hide them in the food supply, people will eat themselves to death and never know what caused their death. After all, the USDA and FDA say GMOs are safe, so it must be true, right?
GMOs are sort of like a "friendly" version of Zyklon B that you can use in pancake batter and muffins. It’s in your breakfast cereal and lunch boxes. GMOs deliver a little bit of death in every bite, and while they don’t kill you right away, the effects build up quietly, cumulatively, until you’re a walking time bomb of cancer and death.
If Hitler had GMO technology, he would have fed GM corn to the Jews and not even bothered with the trouble of constructing gas chambers. He could have disguised it as a "government assistance" program, offering free food to all those of Jewish ancestry. Oh yes, and free vaccines, too. The combination of vaccine chemicals and GMO toxins would have accomplished much the same thing as Zyklon B, but instead of being perceived as an evil monster, Hitler could have been heralded as the hero of the Jewish people for giving them "free food and medicine!"
You ever notice that when governments and non-profits like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation send "aid" to Africa, they never send food? They never teach sustainable farming? They never provide knowledge of local medicinal herbs so that the people can grow their own medicine?
Nope, it’s always "medicine" in the form of vaccines. The goal, of course, is to sterilize African men and women and thereby drastically lower the birth rate. This is perceived by the globalists as a "humane" way to ease their suffering. But it’s all done by deception. Instead of admitting they’re sterilizing the population, they pretend it’s "medicine" and that they’re "saving lives."
The mass vaccination of African children is cheered by ignorant American "progressives" who have been tricked into thinking that Africa’s problems could only be solved if we could inject everyone there with yet more viral strains and mercury preservatives. The insanity of the whole scheme never seems to cross the minds of those who blindly support it.
Death disguised as nourishment
When death is sufficiently disguised as nourishment or medicine, people will actually line up to kill themselves. Look at the example of ant bait:
When you want to kill ants, you use "ant bait." Described as a "syrup-like insecticide bait," this bait ispoisoned disguised as food.
The ants line up to eat it, just like humans lining up to eat GM corn and take vaccine shots. They think it’s nourishment, but it ends up causingdeath.
This particular ant bait, by the way, is made by none other than BAYER, the same company that makes your children’s aspirin. The same company whose chairman, Fritz ter Meer, was convicted of Nazi war crimes. Bayer is the offshoot of the evil pharmaceutical giant IG Farben which used Jewish prisoners for heinous vaccine medical experiments.
In fact, modern-day vaccines have their roots in Nazi medical experiments.
Today’s death chemicals, you see, are all disguised as something that claims to be beneficial: Food, vaccines and pharmaceuticals.
When you take a vaccine shot, swallow a pharmaceutical, or eat genetically modified food, you are, knowingly or not, metaphorically walking into a Nazi gas chamber and gassing yourself with Zyklon B. But the brilliance of the system is that people no longer have to be forced to do this… they will voluntarily do it to themselves and their children. Most parents will literally enforce the globalist genocidal agenda against their own children.
How to stop killing yourself one meal at a time
In contrast to 1944, today you have a choice. You have the power to stop poisoning yourself with GMOs, vaccines and medications.
It only takes a simple choice on your part… a choice to stop participating in the "culture of death" that’s being pushed on you by your doctor, television shows, the news media and government authorities.
The culture of death is steeped in GMOs, vaccines, medications, pesticides and chemical intervention. It leads to only one place: Genetic annihilation and premature death.
In contrast, the culture of LIFE celebrates the following things:
• Eating organics
• Growing your own food (or buying local)
• Naturally strengthening your immune system
• Using herbs and food as medicine, not pharmaceuticals
• Frequent exposure to healing sunlight
• Consumption of superfoods and nutritional supplements
• Overcoming nutritional deficiencies with trace minerals supplements
• Exercising in nature
• Raising children without toxic chemicals
• Honoring and respecting life and nature
• Living with humility and virtue
• Sharing wisdom with others
This is the culture that we espouse here at Natural News. This is what promises sustainable human life on our planet. And this is what is threatened by GMOs and the corporate monsters that push them on the population.
If you love life, STOP buying and eating GMOs. Support life, not death, in every meal you feed yourself or your children. Fight for food justice in our world. Do not allow yourself to become a victim of "food as a weapon."
Don’t be like the ants eating BAYER ant bait — death weapons disguised as food. Be wary of what you consume, what you inject and what you put on your skin. Protect yourself from chemicals and you and your children will have a future of health and abundance.
Remember: The modern holocaust has already begun. It’s a silent, slow, "scientific" holocaust that delivers death in the form of food and medicine.
BRUSSELS (Reuters) — The French author of a study linking a type of genetically modified corn to higher health risks in rats dismissed criticism of his research methods on Thursday, describing the work as the most detailed study to date on the subject.
Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen and colleagues said on Wednesday that rats fed on Monsanto’s genetically modified corn or exposed to its top-selling weed killer suffered tumors and multiple organ damage and premature death.
But experts not involved with the study were skeptical, describing the French team’s statistical methods as unconventional and accusing them of going "on a statistical fishing trip."
Speaking at a news conference in Brussels on Thursday, Seralini defended the peer-reviewed study, which was published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.
"This study has been evaluated by the world’s best food toxicology magazine, which took much more time than people who reacted within 24 hours without reading the study," he told Reuters Television.
"I’m waiting for criticism from scientists who have already published material in journals … on the effects of GMOs and pesticides on health, in order to debate fairly with peers who are real scientists, and not lobbyists."
Earlier, the European Commission said it had asked the EU’s food safety authority, EFSA, to verify the results of the French study and report their findings.
"EFSA’s mandate is to verify what this group of scientists has presented, to look at their research conditions, look at how the animals were treated," Commission health spokesman Frederic Vincent told a regular news briefing.
"We hope that by the end of the year we will have an EFSA opinion on this piece of scientific research."
In 2003, EFSA published a safety assessment of the GM corn variety known as NK603, which is tolerant to Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer. The assessment concluded that NK603 was as safe as non-GM corn, after which the European Union granted approval for its use in food and feed.
Seralini said EFSA’s assessments were less rigorous than his team’s study.
"GMOs have been evaluated in a extremely poor and lax way with much less analysis than we have done. It’s the world’s most detailed and longest study. Therefore, some people are responsible and guilty of authorizing this GMO after only three months," he said.
Health Canada to review GM corn study, promises action
BY SARAH SCHMIDT, POSTMEDIA NEWS SEPTEMBER 23, 2012
A new study found that genetically modified corn elevated the risk of cancer in laboratory rats.
Photograph by: Nati Harnik, The Associated Press , Postmedia News
Health Canada said this week it will take action if its review of a new study, which found Canadian-grown genetically modified corn is linked to elevated risks of cancer, organ damage and premature death in rats, "demonstrates a risk" to Canadians.
The first-ever GM food safety study to test the entire life span of laboratory rats, newly published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, also found health impacts for rats exposed to Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup, the widest-selling herbicide in the world.
The French study, while challenged by some experts, is being taking seriously by the French government. On Thursday, it ordered an urgent review of the study assessing the safety of GM corn and said it will work for a Europewide ban of imports of the crop if the findings were found to be conclusive.
In Canada, where the GM corn is grown and used for animal feed and processed food ingredients, Health Canada said it would be premature to offer its assessment, saying departmental scientists are currently reviewing the findings.
"Should our review of this new study demonstrate a risk, Health Canada will take appropriate actions to protect the health and safety of Canadians," the department added.
The study of Monsanto’s GM corn NK603, approved by Health Canada in 2001 and engineered to withstand sprayings of the company’s herbicide Roundup, found that rats fed the GM corn or Roundup developed tumours faster and died earlier than rats fed nonGM corn.
The study involving 100 female rats and 100 male rats were split into groups and fed different amounts of either GM corn, Roundup herbicide or both, over two years. There was also a control group, which was fed regular corn and plain water.
Up to 50 per cent of males fed GM corn or Roundup and 70 per cent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 per cent and 20 per cent in the control group, the study found. And overall, rats fed GM corn or Roundup developed two to three times more tumours.
Females developed fatal mammary tumours and pituitary disorders, while males suffered liver damage, developed kidney and skin tumours and problems with their digestive system, the study states.
Regulatory authorities around the world, including Health Canada, require mandatory chronic animal feeding studies involving rats before approving GM corn and other GM foods, but none require full lifespan tests. Instead, the tests usually consist of 90-day rat feeding trials conducted by the biotechnology company.
Lucy Sharratt of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network zeroed in on this fact in calling for Health Canada to revamp its approvals system.
"This is the first-ever long-term study and it also happens to be a peer-reviewed study on the corn that Health Canada approved based on a 90-day study from the company that wanted it approved," Sharratt said. "The federal government needs to redesign the entire system that approves foods because our regulations are not designed to look for the types of problems these scientists have found."
© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist
September 23, 2012
In a little over a month, Californians will head to the polls to decide whether or not they want the freedom to know the true contents of the foods they buy at the grocery store. And during this final push to raise awareness about the importance of mandatory labeling of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), the Alliance for Natural Health – USA (ANH-USA) has announced a renewed boycott against the mega-corporations that are working behind the scenes to stop you from knowing whether or not your food contains bio-engineered ingredients.
Proposition 37, a Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative, plainly states that raw or processed foods offered for sale to consumers must be properly labeled if they contain GMOs, and that no food products labeled “natural” can legally contain GMOs. Passage of this important ballot measure is the key to sparking GMO labeling laws nationwide, as it has the potential to drastically change for the better the way major food companies formulate their products. (http://www.carighttoknow.org/)
Several major chemical and food corporations; however, have been actively injecting tens of millions of dollars behind the scenes to stop Prop. 37 from becoming law. And many of these corporations own smaller companies and brands that are marketed as organic or “natural” in health food stores all across the country. It is important in these final days before the November 6 election tostop buying these brands, and support only healthy and organic brands that are not tied to major corporations fighting GMO labeling efforts.
Here is a list of the top corporations fighting GMO labeling efforts, as well as their subsidiary companies and brands. Many of these companies’ products and their respective brands are available in health food stores, and you should avoid supporting them because of their pro-GMO position:
• Pepsi — SoBe, Tazo, IZZE Sparkling Juice, Naked Juice, Naked Juice Coconut Water, Mother’s Cereals, Nut Harvest Nuts, Sabra Hummus, Stacy’s Pita and Bagel Chips, Aquafina
• Nestle — Gerber Organics, Juicy Juice, Perrier, Poland Spring, S. Pellegrino, PowerBar, Tribe Mediterranean Foods
• Coca-Cola — DASANI, FUZE Healthy Infusions, glaceau smartwater, glaceau vitaminwater, Honest Tea, Odwalla, Simply juices
• ConAgra — Alexia Foods, Lightlife
• Kellogg’s Company — Kashi, Bear Naked, Wholesome & Hearty (Gardenburger), Morningstar Farms / Natural Touch
• General Mills – Cascadian Farm Organic,Muir Glen, Good Earth, Larabar, Liberte Greek yogurt, Nature Valley
• Kraft – Halls cough drops
• Dean Foods / Land O Lakes – Silk, Horizon Organic
A more thorough list of the top companies fighting GMO labeling can be accessed here:
ANH-USA has also created its own list of companies and brands that are tied to mega-corporations fighting against Prop. 37 and other GMO labeling initiatives:
“Why is this GMO labeling fight so important? Once GMOs are labeled in California, it will bring a cascade effect in other states as well, since most national companies won’t create two labeling schemes, one for California and one for the rest of the country,” says ANH-USA. “Moreover, once products containing GMOs are labeled, people will stop buying them — and this economic pressure will be enough to force GMOs off the market.”
On the flip side, here is a list of companies that actively support Prop. 37 and GMO labeling efforts elsewhere (http://www.anh-usa.org/boycott-companies-fighting-prop-37/). These are the companies thatdeserve our unabashed support for their commitment to honesty and transparency in food labeling:
• Dr. Bronners
• New Chapter
• Uncle Matt’s
• Straus Organic
• Nature’s Path Organic
• Baby’s Only Organic
• Organic Valley
• Lundberg Family Farms
• Amy’s Kitchen
• Eden Foods
To learn more about the Prop. 37 GMO labeling initiative in California, visit:
Biotech giant attempts to discredit shocking findings
Paul Joseph Watson
September 24, 2012
Biotech giant Monsanto has launched a desperate damage control effort in the aftermath of a French study which found that rats fed on Monsanto’s genetically-engineered corn were far more likely to suffer tumors, organ failure and premature death.
Aside from the details of the study, a wider question remains. If Monsanto and other GMO giants are so confident in the safety of their products and have no qualms about them being in the food supply, why have they spent a combined total of over $19 million dollars in an attempt to prevent Americans from knowing that their food is genetically modified?
Monsanto has bankrolled a huge campaign fronted by lobbyists in an effort to sink California’s Proposition 37, a bill that would simply mandate genetically modified food and ingredients be labeled at the retail level.
If genetically-modified food is safe and the studies have proven it is safe, why is Monsanto so desperate to keep its presence in our food hidden?
The recent study, conducted by scientists at the University of Caen and published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, found that 50 percent of male and 70 percent of female rats fed on a diet containing NK603 – a genetically modified corn produced by Monsanto – or those exposed to Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller – suffered tumors and multiple organ damage, causing them to die prematurely.
Monsanto immediately went into spin mode, issuing a press release over the weekend claiming that toxicologists and public health experts had found “fundamental problems with the study design,” without specifically explaining what those problems were.
Given the fact that Monsanto-funded scientists are routinely wheeled out in public to attack the abundance of evidence confirming the link between GMO and cancer, the reaction to the French study was unsurprising.
As Sayer Ji explains, the two previous studies before the French inquiry, the results of which claimed that there was no link between Monsanto’s Roundup Ready herbicide and cancer, were both funded by Monsanto itself.
A study published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology which exonerated Monsanto contained this glaring admission of a conflict of interest;
“The authors have disclosed the funding source for this research. JSM [study author] has served has a paid consultant to Monsanto Company….This research was supported by the Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri.”
Is it really just a coincidence that the first study in recent years not to be funded by Monsanto produces completely different results?
“There is no plausible mechanism for the results reported with genetically modified maize and the results are inconsistent with an extensive body of experience and scientific study,” Monsanto claimed in response to the French study.
However, the results are only inconsistent with previous (Monsanto-funded) studies because the French study went beyond the 90-day period which Monsanto had previously been able to hide behind in claiming their GMO products were safe.
As The Grocer highlights, the French investigation “Was the first study to look at the long-term effects of Roundup and NK603, which has been approved for human consumption based on 90-day feeding trials. Scientists found that rats developed mammary tumours and severe liver and kidney damages as early as four months in males and seven in females, compared with 23 months and 14 months respectively in a control group.”
Since tumors and other ailments were only discovered after a four month period, this throws into serious doubt previous (Monsanto-funded) studies the biotech giant pointed to as proving the safety of GMO because they failed to extend beyond a 90 day period, whereas the French study looked at the effects of GMO throughout the whole life span of the rats.
This again illustrates the fact that far from being inadequate or badly modeled, the French study was more extensive and more complete than any previous study – with the added bonus that it was not funded by Monsanto – it was completely impartial.
As we reported last week, apologists for Monsanto have jumped on the bandwagon in an effort to discredit the findings of the French study, lying by omission in an attempt to cast doubt on its findings.
David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge tried to question the accuracy of the study by highlighting that “The study’s untreated control arm comprised only 10 rats of each sex, most of which also got tumors.”
However, Spiegelhalter failed to acknowledge that it took these rats anything up to 19 months longer to develop tumors compared to those fed on Monsanto’s GM corn.
Having had its nose bloodied in various European countries and facing being kicked out of the European marketplace altogether, Monsanto is in panic mode right now. California’s Right to Know Act – otherwise known as Prop 37 – could spell the beginning of the end not only for Monsanto’s business model but for the whole GMO agenda across the globe.
Establishment trots out “experts” in desperate bid to debunk fact that genetically-engineered food is a threat to humanity
Paul Joseph Watson
September 21, 2012
A shocking new study conducted by French scientists which shows that rats fed on Monsanto’s genetically modified corn suffered cancer and premature death has been met with a furious response from GMO apologists, who are desperately trying to cast doubt on the the study in an effort to discredit its findings.
50 percent of male and 70 percent of female rats fed on a diet containing NK603 – a genetically modified corn produced by Monsanto – or those exposed to Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller – suffered tumors and multiple organ damage, causing them to die prematurely, the study found.
The study was conducted by French scientists at the University of Caen and published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.
Almost immediately after the findings were made public at a press conference in London, numerous other scientists rushed to Monsanto’s defense and claimed that the study was inaccurate.
“This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted,” said Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King’s College London. “The statistical methods are unconventional … and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip.”
However, the statistical methods are perfectly straightforward. Only 30 percent of males and 20 percent of females in the control group of rats that were not exposed to Monsanto’s products died prematurely – meaning males were 30 per cent more likely to die prematurely after eating Monsanto corn and females a whopping 50 per cent more likely to die.
Sanders’ point about that particular breed of rat being prone to tumors treats the study as if it was conducted without using a control group of rats as a comparison, which is completely untrue.
David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge also tried to cast doubt on the accuracy of the study by highlighting that “The study’s untreated control arm comprised only 10 rats of each sex, most of which also got tumors.”
That statement again completely ignores the fact that the rats, whether they developed tumors or not, were statistically far more likely to die prematurely if they were exposed to Monsanto products. The figures don’t lie.
Monsanto continually points to studies they claim confirm the safety of GMO food, and did so again in the aftermath of the latest French study. However, all of those studies did not go beyond the 90 day reporting period unlike the Caen study which tracked the health of the rats throughout their life span. It was only after four months that the tumors and organ damage suffered by the rats became evident.
Monsanto is already very much on the ropes in Europe and faces being kicked out of the European marketplace altogether if its reputation continues to be denigrated – that’s presumably why a gaggle of “experts” have been trotted out by the establishment Universities – a lot of which routinely receive huge grants from Monsanto itself – in order to desperately try and debunk the study.
Meanwhile over in the United States, Monsanto and other GMO corporations have spent a combined sum of over $19 million dollars in an attempt to shoot down Proposition 37, the California bill that merely seeks to require genetically-modified foods and food ingredients to be labeled at the retail level.
If Monsanto and other GMO producers like DuPont, Bayer, Dow, BASF, and Syngenta are so confident that their genetically-engineered products are safe – why have they spent so much money attempting to prevent the public from knowing that they are in the food supply?
As Mike Adams points out, no matter how many apologists the establishment wheels out to cover-up for the fact that GMO represents an unparalleled environmental threat to humankind – the cat is already out of the bag.
“The era of GMO deception is history. A food revolution is upon us. And if governments will not halt the mass poisoning of our world by evil corporations, I have no doubt that the People will, by themselves, eventually invoke other necessary methods of halting this great evil,” he writes.
Monsanto goes on offensive over GM/cancer study
24 Sep 2012 | By Elinor Zuke
Monsanto has moved to discredit research linking its GM maize and best-selling weedkiller Roundup to increased rates of cancer in rats.
The biotech giant claimed the peer-reviewed study, published last week in the journal Food & Chemical Toxicology, did not meet minimum scientific research standards.
It concluded that rats fed NK603 maize or drinking water containing small traces of Roundup developed multiple organ failure and died earlier than rats supplied with conventional maize and drinking water free from Roundup.
That was the first study to look at the long-term effects of Roundup and NK603, which has been approved for human consumption based on 90-day feeding trials. Scientists found that rats developed mammary tumours and severe liver and kidney damages as early as four months in males and seven in females, compared with 23 months and 14 months respectively in a control group.
“This study does not meet minimum acceptable standards for this type of scientific research, the findings are not supported by the data presented and the conclusions are not relevant for the purpose of safety assessment,” Monsanto claimed in a statement over the weekend.
“Toxicologists and public health experts find fundamental problems with the study design. Critical information about how the research was conducted is absent, and the data presented do not support the author’s interpretations.”
Monsanto said the research protocol fell short of standards set by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development. It claimed the source and quality of maize used was unclear, that critical details on diet preparation and intake were absent, there was lack of statistical analysis for mortality or tumour endpoints and a lack of data to support assertions about liver and kidney disease.
Monsanto also claimed the mortality and tumour incidences fell within the norm for the strain of lab rat used in the study.
“There is no plausible mechanism for the results reported with genetically modified maize and the results are inconsistent with an extensive body of experience and scientific study,” the company argued.
“Extensive animal and in-vitro (test-tube) data has demonstrated that glyphosate does not cause cancer or tumours, nor is an endocrine disrupter. This study does not provide information which calls into question the extensive safety evaluations of glyphosate or Roundup herbicides.”
September 24, 2012
During his 2008 campaign for president, Barack Obama transmitted signals that he understood the GMO issue. Several key anti-GMO activists were impressed. They thought Obama, once in the White House, would listen to their concerns and act on them.
These activists weren’t just reading tea leaves. On the campaign trail, Obama said: “Let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.”
Making the distinction between GMO and non-GMO was certainly an indication that Obama, unlike the FDA and USDA, saw there was an important line to draw in the sand.
Beyond that, Obama was promising a new era of transparency in government. He was adamant in promising that, if elected, his administration wouldn’t do business in “the old way.” He would be “responsive to people’s needs.”
Then came the reality.
After the election, and during Obama’s term as president, people who had been working to label GMO food and warn the public of its huge dangers were shocked to the core. They saw Obama had been pulling a bait and switch.
The new president filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:
At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.
As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.
As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.
As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.
As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.
As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had preciously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.
We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.
Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.
The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He wasn’t just experiencing a failure of short-term memory. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.
And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.
Monsanto GMO alfalfa.
Monsanto GMO sugar beets.
Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.
Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.
Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.
Syngenta GMO stacked corn.
Pioneer GMO soybean.
Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.
Bayer GMO cotton.
ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.
A GMO papaya strain.
And perhaps, soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.
This is an extraordinary parade. It, in fact, makes Barack Obama the most GMO-dedicated politician in America.
You don’t attain that position through errors or oversights. Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture.
From this perspective, Michelle Obama’s campaign for home gardens and clean nutritious food suddenly looks like a diversion, a cover story floated to obscure what her husband has actually been doing.
Nor does it seem coincidental that two of the Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Gates and George Soros, purchased 900,000 and 500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively, in 2010.
Because this is an election season, people will say, “But what about Romney? Is he any better?” I see no indication that he is. The point, however, is that we are talking about a sitting president here, a president who presented himself, and was believed by many to be, an extraordinary departure from politics as usual.
Not only was that a wrong assessment, Obama was lying all along. He was, and he still is, Monsanto’s man in Washington.
To those people who fight for GMO labeling, and against the decimation of the food supply and the destruction of human health, but still believe Obama is a beacon in bleak times:
Ethan A. Huff
September 19, 2012
(NaturalNews) In fewer than two months, Californians will have the unique opportunity to vote YES on Proposition 37, a ballot measure that will require retail food items made with or containing genetically-modified (GM) ingredients to be labeled as such. And in the face of concerted opposition to GMO labeling by Monsanto and the corporate food industry, which would rather keep the presence of GMOs in your food a secret, it is important that voters are aware of why passing a law requiring mandatory GMO labeling is crucial to food freedom.
As compiled by Hemi Weingarten over at the blog Fooducate.com, here are 37 reasons why California’s Prop. 37 ballot measure must pass:
1) The alleged environmental superiority of GM crops is questionable at best, and GMO production still requires the heavy use of pesticides and other toxic chemicals.
2) A popular misconception, selective breeding and hybridization are not the same thing as genetic modification. GMOs contain foreign genes for which the harmful side-effects are largely unknown.
3) Contrary to popular belief, there has never been a single long-term safety study conducted on any GMO.
4) Cultivation of GMOs leads to the proliferation of herbicide-resistant “superweeds,” for which there are no known solutions.
5) Monsanto, the largest purveyor of GMOs, is responsible for thrusting Agent Orange on the world — can this chemical company really be trusted?
6) Labeling GMOs will not increase food costs, as GMOs have been labeled throughout Europe for more than a decade without consequence.
7) Animal studies have shown that GMOs cause sterility within three generations — are GMOs really something we should be feeding our children?
8) There have been no long-term studies on the environmental impact of GMO cultivation.
9) GMOs are produced using “terminator” seeds, requiring farmers to buy new seeds every year from biotechnology firms.
10) GM corn, which is used in livestock feed, has been shown to severely harm animals — what must it be doing to humans?
11) GMO labeling has nothing to do with excessive government intervention and regulation, and everything to do with promoting honesty and transparency.
12) More than 90 percent of Americans in numerous surveys have indicated they support mandatory GMO labeling.
13) GM crops have never been shown to produce higher yields than conventional and organic crops, despite industry propaganda.
14) GMOs are extremely expensive to produce, which means the biotech industry is eager to market them whether they are proven safe or not.
15) Passage of Prop. 37 will boost sales for small manufacturers and producers, and increase crop diversity. It will steer agriculture away from the corporations and back into the hands of local communities.
16) Many GMOs contain inbred genes and pesticides that cannot simply be washed off before consumption. Bt corn, for instance, contains its own built-in pesticides.
17) GM crops poison useful insects, which become more prone to deadly infections and disease.
18) GMO cultivation is creating “superbugs” that are quickly evolving to develop resistance to pesticides.
19) GMOs contaminate non-GMOs through cross-pollination, a process that cannot be undone.
20) GMO cultivation eliminates biodiversity and ruins the heritage of farming wherever it is introduced.
21) Once introduced into the environment, GMOs can never be withdrawn.
22) Since GMOs were first introduced, rates of allergies and autoimmune disease have skyrocketed — coincidence?
23) All studies that claim GMOs are safe have been industry-funded. All studies that raise serious concerns about GMO safety have been independently funded.
24) The companies responsible for producing GMOs do not want them labeled — why?
25) The scientific community is divided on whether or not GMOs are safe, so how is it ethical for them to remain unlabeled?
26) GM crops are not the same as their non-GMO counterparts, both nutritionally and compositionally.
27) Consumers have a right to know whether or not they are eating GMOs.
28) Studies showing health consequences of GMO consumption are being blocked from scientific publication.
29) GMOs eliminate biodiversity and deplete soil nutrients.
30) GM traits have been shown to induce allergy transfer. Eating a GM soybean that contains a Brazil nut trait, for instance, can induce Brazil nut allergy.
31) Passage of Prop. 37 will cause major food manufacturers to improve product quality.
32) How can individuals be expected to “eat healthy” if they do not even know what their food contains?
33) Passage of Prop. 37 will cause a “ripple effect” throughout the U.S., benefiting everyone.
34) Passage of Prop. 37 is a bipartisan issue — no matter what your political affiliation, you have a right to know what is in your food!
35) Big Ag and Big Biotech are spending tens of millions of dollars to spread lies about Prop. 37′s “deceptive” nature — who are the ones really doing the deceiving here?
36) Revolving door between government and industry has prevented GMO labeling in the U.S. for almost 20 years — is it not time for the people to have their voices heard?
37) Transparency is the best way to “air out corruption,” for which the biotech industry is fraught.
Sources for this article include:
Tuesday, June 19th 2012 at 11:00 am
Monsanto-funded research has been proliferating as uncontrollably as their genetically modified (GM) plants, and the bugs increasingly resistant to them.
The context within which these new studies are appearing is the growing body of experimental research indicating that the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, along with the surfactants and related "inactive" ingredients found within glyphosate-based formulations, cause genetic damage associated with cancer initiation, and at levels far below those used agricultural applications and associated with real-world exposures.[iii] [iv] [v] [vi] [vii]
This has put manufacturers and proponents of glyphosate, as well as "Roundup Ready" GM plants in a vulnerable position. If, the precautionary principle is employed and a much-needed reclassification of glyphosate as a class III carcinogen to a class II or I occurs, the increasingly global dominance of GM-based food crop systems will come to a screeching, regulation-induced halt.
So, given the threat posed by non-industry funded research on glyphosate’s toxicity, Monsanto has been putting money into research and development — but not in the reputable sense of the phrase — by paying for research to develop the storyline that, despite damning research to contrary, Roundup is still safe.
The newest study, published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology titled, "Epidemiologic studies on glyphosate and cancer: A review," declared its glaring conflict of interest in the following manner:
Even if no such conflict was explicitly declared, industry-funded research is almost exclusively positive, minimizing or denying harms to exposed populations associated with the products they are evaluating.
A salient example is the recent summary of 176 studies by Baker[viii] which found that published research looking into the impact of Bisphenol A on human health resulted in exclusively pro-industry findings:
Adding to the problem, the editorial boards of some of the journals within which the questionable science is printed are populated by paid consultants of the very industries they publish ostensibly impartial research on.
For example, the editor of the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology within which latest Monsanto-funded glyphosate-cancer review was published, Gio Batta Gori, is notorious for being a tobacco industry consultant and for publishing junk science in his journal, which has been called: "A Scientific Journal with Industrial Bias as Its Specialty."
His journal published research in 2003, provided by the same company, Exponent, which employs three of the researchers who authored the latest glyphosate-cancer study, as well as one author on the 2011 glyphosate-cancer study, on the purported non-carcinogenicity of dioxin, a highly toxic ingredient in Agent Orange.
Given these obvious conflicts of interest, from the bottom up and the top down, the time has come for people to enact reform with their dollars and their forks, and when worthwhile ballot initiative emerge, their votes.
#1: Stop buying anything not explicitly labeled non-GMO or certified organic, which amounts to the same assurance.
#2: Grow it yourself, or support local organic growers.
[i] Developmental and reproductive outcomes in humans and animals after glyphosate exposure: a critical analysis. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2012 ;15(1):39-96.
[ii] Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and non-cancer health outcomes: a review. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2011 Nov ;61(2):172-84. Epub 2011 Jul 21.
[iii] Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., Boulben, S., Hureau, D., Durand, G., and Belle, R. 2002. Pesticide Roundup provokes cell division dysfunction at the level of CDK1/cyclin
B activation. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 15: 326–31.
[iv] Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., Durand, G., and Belle, R. 2003. Embryonic cell cycle for risk
assessment of pesticides at the molecular level. Environnemental. Chemistry. letters. 1: 8–12.
[v] Marc, J., Belle, R., Morales, J., Cormier, P., and Mulner-Lorillon, O. 2004a. Formulated
glyphosate activates the DNA-response checkpoint of the cell cycle leading to the
prevention of G2/M transition. Toxicol. Sci. 82: 436–42
[vi] Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., and Belle, R. 2004b. Glyphosate-based pesticides affect
cell cycle regulation. Biol. Cell. 96: 245–49.
[vii] Marc, J., Le Breton, M., Cormier, P., Morales, J., Belle, R., and Mulner-Lorillon, O. 2005.
A glyphosate-based pesticide impinges on transcription. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.
Sayer Ji is the founder and director of GreenMedInfo.com and co-author of the bookThe Cancer Killers: The Cause Is The Cure with New York Times best-seller Dr. Ben Lerner and Dr. Charles Majors. His writings and research have been published in the Wellbeing Journal, the Journal of Gluten Sensitivity, and have been featured on Mercola.com, NaturalNews.com, Reuters.com, GaryNull.com, and Care2.com. Check out his newest project: Dr. Gourmet.
French Study Finds Tumors and Organ Damage in
Rats Fed Monsanto Corn
Wednesday, 19 September 2012 13:36By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | Report
(Image: JR / TO; Adapted: ressaure, NedraI)Rats fed a lifetime diet of Monsanto’s genetically engineered corn or exposed to the company’s popular Roundup herbicide developed tumors and suffered severe organ damage, according to a French study released on Wednesday.
The study could have a big impact on the battle over a California ballot proposal that would require groceries containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled as such. Monsanto has already donated $7.1 million to the campaign to defeat the proposal, known as Proposition 37.
The study links varying levels of both the Roundup herbicide and the transgenes in Monsanto’s patented NK603 corn to mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage.
The rats were either fed the NK603 corn alone, corn treated with agricultural levels of Roundup, or given water treated with Roundup at low levels commonly found in contaminated drinking water and used in agriculture in the United States. In each group, there were two to three more deaths among female rats compared to control groups, and the rats on the Monsanto diet tended to die more quickly.
Gilles-Eric Séralini, a professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen who lead the research team, told reporters on Wednesday that the rats’ diet reflected the kind of exposure that humans who eat genetically engineered food should expect.
"This is around the level [that] the American population may eat, where, unfortunately GMOs are not labeled," Séralini said. "In Europe, we have this labeling, and it helps us to avoid these compounds if necessary and promote personal choices."
The research team concluded that NK603’s transgenic traits and the endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup herbicide could explain the results. The study is the first of its kind to link enzymes overexpressed by transgenes to health problems, Séralini said.
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals cause health problems and cancers by impacting hormonal glands in mammals and are especially dangerous to children. Pesticide and herbicide critics often fear that chemicals used to kill weeds and pests could potentially be endocrine disruptors in humans.
Monsanto’s NK603 and other varieties of corn are genetically engineered to tolerate Roundup herbicide, which contains the plant poison glyphosate and other additives, so that farmers can spray whole fields of crops to kill weeds while sparing the genetically modified corn. Genetically engineered crops are also known as genetically modified organisms, or GMO’s.
Good News for Proposition 37
"The results of this study are worrying," said Gary Ruskin, who manages a campaign to pass the food-labeling initiative in California. "They underscore the importance of giving California families the right to know whether our food is genetically engineered, and to decide for ourselves whether we want to gamble with our health by eating GMO foods that have not been adequately studied and have not been proven safe."
Ruskin’s Yes on Proposition 37 campaign, which is supported by organic food companies and alternative health groups, has been vastly outspent by a campaign to defeat the ballot initiative funded by millions of dollars in donations from biotech chemical companies and food manufacturers such as Monsanto, DuPont, Bayer and Nestle.
Polls taken this summer, however, show that Proposition 37 remains popular among a majority of voters despite a multimillion-dollar campaign against the initiative.
GMO Information War
A spokesperson for Monsanto told Truthout that the company will thoroughly review the data, but pointed out that scientific claims made by Séralini in regards to previous studies on rats have been refuted by a European food regulatory agency.
In the past, Séralini, an independent scientist celebrated by biotech critics, has publicly wrangled with peer scientists, pro-industry groups and regulators over interpretations of data from 90-day studies on rats conducted by biotech companies that were used to justify regulatory approvals of Monsanto crops in several countries.
Séralini and his team believe the study released this week is more conclusive because it spans two years and followed the rats’ entire lifecycle.
"It’s bizarre and dramatic for us that the US government," said Séralini, "has not requested to make serious tests before releasing these products into the environment because these GMOs are pesticide sponges, and we know that pesticides can be harmful to humans."
Séralini also pointed out that his team started to see tumors after four months, while the industry studies on rats were limited to a three-month period.
"It shows the genetically modified foods should be withdrawn," said biotech critic and author Jeffrey Smith. Smith said the study further confirms reports he has heard from doctors and veterinarians who say they’ve seen their patient’s health improve after they stopped eating genetically engineered foods.
In 2010, a lead embryologist in Argentina named Dr. Andrés Carrasco survived an attacked by an angry mob determined to keep him from speaking at a public event about his own research on Roundup, which found that the herbicide caused deformations in chicken embryos that resembled birth defects in humans being reported in the country’s agricultural areas where the herbicide is heavily used.