http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749?journalCode=crtoec

As a citizen concerned about the health, environmental, ethical, and socio-economic hazards of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and industrial-scale factory farms or CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations), I feel strongly that consumers have an inalienable right to know whether the food we are purchasing likely contains GM ingredients or comes from animals confined in CAFOs.

Up to 90% of U.S. soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets are now genetically engineered and routinely inserted into human and animal foods with no labels or safety testing.

Approximately 80% of current grocery food items contain GMOs; while according to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics, the majority of beef, pork, poultry, dairy, and eggs come from CAFOs.

Considering the growing concern over GMOs and CAFOs, all food packaging should clearly identify all non-organic ingredients containing soy, corn, cottonseed oil, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa or GM growth hormones with a label or shelf sign that says “May Contain GMOs” and identify all meat, dairy, and eggs that come from CAFOs with a label or shelf sign that says “CAFO.”

It was over the summer that an employee of Monsanto admitted to me they know the company has a horribly checkered past, but that they are now under “new leadership.” What I said to him was- I’ll believe that when the company leadership publicly admits that what they did was wrong, and not just settle class action lawsuits and hide behind a gag order. And that includes Dow and Bayer also, it’s not just Monsanto, though they bear the majority of the blame.

President Obama, I oppose your appointment of Michael Taylor, a former VP and lobbyist for Monsanto, the widely criticized genetically modified (GM) food multinational, as senior advisor to the commissioner at the FDA. Taylor is the same person who as a high-ranking official at the FDA in the 1990s promoted allowing genetically modified organisms into the U.S. food supply without undergoing a single test to determine their safety or risks. This is a travesty.

Taylor was in charge of policy for Monsanto’s now-discredited GM bovine growth hormone (rBGH), which is opposed by many medical and hospital organizations. It was Michael Taylor who pursued a policy that milk from rBGH-treated cows should not be labeled with disclosures. Michael Taylor and Monsanto do not belong in our government.

President Obama, Monsanto has been seen as a foe to family-based agriculture, the backbone of America, by introducing dangerous changes to plants and animals and by using strong-arm legal tactics against farmers for decades. Naturally occurring plant and animal species are permanently threatened by the introduction of DNA and hormonal modification, Monsanto’s core businesses.

FDA scientists once regarded genetic modification of the food supply as the single most radical and potentially dangerous threat to public health in history. As early as the 1991, a body of scientific research began to form which now includes articles in over 600 journals. As a whole, these offer scientific evidence that GM foods, hormones, and related pesticides are the root cause for the increase of many serious diseases in the U.S. Since GM foods were introduced, diagnosis of multiple chronic illnesses in the U.S. has skyrocketed. These illnesses include changes in major organs and in hormonal, immune, digestive, and reproductive systems. These modifications to foods and food production may also be contributors to colon, breast, lymphatic, and prostate cancers.

Experts are discouraged that regulators and GM companies systematically overlook potential side effects of GM. Monsanto’s objective to use biotechnology to change the world’s food supply is the opposite policy direction your administration should pursue. Your legacy of supporting Monsanto to have free rein in U.S. food policy is a nightmare scenario that is against the interest of all Americans and world citizens.
President Obama has appointed former Monsanto VP and lobbyist Michael Taylor to become senior advisor to the FDA’s commissioner. This unthinkable linkage between food safety and corporate interests that have little regard for the public health must be stopped. This example of a “fox watching the henhouse” is inexcusable. President Obama must reverse this unimaginably dangerous policy and isolate the FDA from corporate influence.

I am writing to urge you not to deregulate a new generation of genetically engineered crops designed to survive repeated spraying of the super-toxic herbicide 2,4-D, which was a major component of Agent Orange, the defoliant used by the U.S. in its herbicidal warfare campaign in Vietnam.

There is a large body of evidence indicating major health problems resulting from exposure to 2,4-D that include cancer, reproductive problems, neurotoxicity, and immunosuppression.

2,4-D contains dioxin, one of the dirty dozen group of extremely toxic chemicals that are resistant to environmental degradation through chemical, biological, or photolytic processes.

2,4-D has been banned in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Quebec and scores of Canadian municipalities after numerous epidemiological studies linked 2,4-D to non-Hodgkin s lymphoma.

Similarly, Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” corn, which was engineered to resist glyphosate, is responsible for new breeds of super-weeds that are toppling corn crops across the nation as well as the appearance of a deadly new micro-monster that attacks plants, animals and humans alike.

Please don’t make the same mistake of approving 2,4-D-tolerant GMO crops until definitive long-term testing proves beyond a reasonable doubt that these products are safe for animals and humans.

Once these novel genes are released into the environment it will be impossible to call them back. Do not approve another man-made environmental and human health disaster.

Anonymous Targets Biotech Giant Monsanto with Database Raid
By Gianluca Mezzofiore
International Business Times, March 1, 2012
Straight to the Source

Support Farmer Protection Legislation!

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA’s Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

The Anonymous collective has staged an indirect attack on the Monsanto corporation by publishing material related to the agricultural biotech company’s database on Pastehtml.

In December 2011, Anonymous targeted the Bivings Group, which handles PR for Monsanto, following a previous assault on the corporation.

The hacktivists initially attacked Monsanto in July 2011 over the company filing lawsuits against a number of organic dairy farmers, who had labelled their products as not containing growth hormones, which the corporation used to manufacture.

On that occasion, Anonymous released the contact details of 2,500 Monsanto employees.

The new attack was announced by YourAnonNews, who tweeted: “HACKED: Monsanto pwnt once more by # Anonymous – Old DB lifted and leaked | http://pastehtml.com/view/bpvygosbp.html.”

The collective published a statement on Pastehtml, accompanied by rapper B Dolan performing a song that draws on fellow rapper Jay-Z’s Lucifer, along with the contents of a long list of email messages hacked earlier from the Bivings Group.

>>> Read the Full Article

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/307504/20120301/antisec-monsanto-anonymous-opmonsanto-emails-bivings.htm#ixzz1oNRB3WcM

Please sponsor the Genetically Engineered Technology Farmer Protection Act. This bill establishes a set of farmers’ rights in regards to genetically engineered organisms and the business practices of biotech companies.

The intent of the act is:

To provide additional protections for farmers and ranchers that may be harmed economically by genetically engineered seeds, plants, or animals, to ensure fairness for farmers and ranchers in their dealings with biotech companies that sell genetically engineered seeds, plants, or animals, to assign liability for injury caused by genetically engineered organisms, and for other purposes.

Thank you for your attention to the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay Alaska. I am writing today to encourage you to use your authority under the Clean Water Act to take a hard look at how this proposed mine will impact our nation’s biggest wild salmon fishery, the commercial fishermen and Alaska Natives who depend on it, and the local businesses who make their living off of this wild landscape in Southwestern Alaska.

If built, Pebble mine will produce between 2 and 10 billion tons of toxic waste that will have to be treated for hundreds of years. This waste will threaten Bristol Bay, an area widely recognized as one of the last remaining strongholds for healthy salmon populations in North America and the world. The region provides pristine spawning grounds for trophy rainbow trout and all five species of Pacific salmon, including the largest sockeye salmon runs on Earth, and a variety of other fish and wildlife species that depend on the nutrients from salmon, clean water, and undisturbed habitat.

I urge you to initiate a Clean Water Act 404(c) process in Bristol Bay immediately. Alaska Natives, sportsmen, commercial fishermen, churches, and conservation organizations deserve a public and science-based process to determine if the Pebble Partnership’s plans to build the biggest open pit mine in North America will harm one of our nation’s greatest fisheries.

Please cosponsor S.1717, the Prevention of Escapement of Genetically Altered Salmon in the United States Act.

The jury is still out on the long-term effects of genetically engineered salmon on humans – there simply isn’t enough data. But, what we do know is that these genetic changes increase allergy risk, and produce a salmon with lower levels of Omega-3 fatty acids – the “good” fat which has important health benefits.

I am also concerned by the elevated levels of growth hormone in this fish. This poses a cancer risk, as elevated IGF-1 levels are linked to prostate, breast and colon cancers.

GMO salmon isn’t safe and shouldn’t be approved for human consumption.

In addition to the human health concerns, there’s also the danger that genetically engineered salmon could escape its pens. This would have devastating effects on wild and farmed salmon stocks.

A December 15 hearing held by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, titled Environmental Risks of Genetically Engineered Fish, covered many of the concerns related to the escape of GMO salmon.

But, news broke just after the hearing of yet another worry: that genetically engineered salmon could breed novel diseases.

AquaBounty’s genetically-engineered salmon tested positive for a new strain of Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA) in November 2009. ISA is a virus that has triggered devastating disease outbreaks (90% death rate) in stocks of farmed Atlantic salmon around the world.

Please protect human health and the environment by cosponsoring S.1717

Like most consumers, I want to avoid foods that contain genetically modified organisms, but they are not labeled.

In fact, the federal government does nothing to regulate, or guarantee the safety of, agricultural crops — and now food animals — that have been altered with foreign genes. There has never been a longitudinal scientifically rigorous health study on the impacts of eating genetically altered foods.

The little science there is shows that GMOs are more likely to trigger novel allergies, are less nutritious, sprayed with more herbicides, and contain elevated levels of hormones that correlate with common cancers. And, there’s no doubt that the most common GMO foods are linked to epidemic levels of obesity and diet-related diseases. These include artery-clogging meat and milk products from animals fed GMO grains, trans fats from GMO vegetable oils, and high fructose (GMO) corn syrup.

Public health depends on labeling GMO foods so consumers can avoid them. Mandatory GMO labels are popular with consumers, consistently earning polling numbers politicians dream of.

I am hoping that you and your colleagues in the state legislature can help. Please stand up for consumers’ right to know and truth in labeling by introducing a bill to label GMO foods this year.

I look forward to hearing from you on this important topic.

Heh, the government just doesnt want you to panic. Do you know that when radiation from the Fukushima plant made it into seafood and fruits and veggies, the Govt simply raised the level of what it considers a safe level of radiation? Do you really want to trust a government like that? How about a govt that conducted radiation experiments on its own people or injected them with LSD as a prelude to using that in torturing people? I think not. There are a ton of studies showing how bad Monsanto crops and pesticides are and linking them to cancer, birth defects, parkinsons, and thats why its banned in Europe. ALL of the research conducting in America was actually funded by Monsanto so you already know the outcome. BTW monsanto has lost multiple billions of dollars in lawsuits, for doing immoral things like polluting the groundwater of Anniston AL with PCBs for over 40 yrs. Why is this company even allowed to exist? Dont give me the science vs nonscience crap, most unbiased scientists (read: Europe) know how bad GMO and growth hormone in our foods is.

United States Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Gregory Parham, Administrator, APHIS
Tom Vilsack, Secretary, USDA

Re: Docket No. APHIS-2010-0103

Dear Secretary Vilsack and Administrator Parham,

We are writing to urge you not to deregulate a new generation of genetically engineered crops designed to survive repeated spraying of the herbicide 2,4-D. Simply put, 2,4-D resistant seeds are a bad idea. Allowing these seeds on the market will drive up use of an antiquated, dangerous herbicide that is associated with cancer, reproductive toxicity and endocrine disruption.

The history of glyphosate use in conjunction with RoundUp Ready crops tells us that widespread planting of 2,4-D resistant corn will lead inevitably to a surge in 2,4-D application.

2,4-D is well known to drift, both directly and through volatilization. This will devastate adjacent ecosystems and poses a very real threat to rural economies and farmers growing non-2,4-D-resistant crops. Conventional farmers will lose crops while organic farmers will lose both crops and certification, resulting in an economic unraveling of already-stressed rural communities.

2,4-D resistant corn follows the same short-sighted approach to farming taken by Monsanto’s “RoundUp Ready” corn, which was engineered to resist glyphosate. The RoundUp Ready seed line is responsible for new breeds of superweeds and superbugs that have afflicted millions of acres of farmland across the Midwest and South. Please don’t make the same mistake in approving 2,4-D-tolerant GE crops.

We urge USDA to reject Dow’s petition for approval of its 2,4-D resistant seed lines (whether corn, soy or cotton) and to devote more attention instead to research and development of safe and smart 21st century ecological approaches to weed management. These approaches can protect public health, conserve the environment and assure sustainable crop production by America’s farmers for generations to come.

Sincerely

Dear Commissioner Hamburg,

I am writing to urge the FDA to require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. I have a right to know about the food I eat and what I feed my family.

In America, we pride ourselves on having choices and making informed decisions. Under current FDA regulations, we don’t have that choice when it comes to GE ingredients in the foods we purchase and feed our families. Labeling is essential for me to choose whether or not I want to consume or feed my family genetically engineered foods.

Genetically engineered foods are required to be labeled in 15 European Union nations, Russia, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries around the world. As an American, I firmly believe I should also have the right to know if my foods have been genetically engineered.

A recent poll released by ABC News found that 93 percent of the American public wants the federal government to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. As ABC News stated, “Such near-unanimity in public opinion is rare.”

I hope you will listen to me and the other 93 percent of the American public who want mandatory labeling. Please show your support for the interests of the American people by labeling genetically engineered foods.

http://​topdocumentaryfilms.com/​the-world-according-to-mons​anto/

Lots of research done in Europe (non monetarily biased research I might add) that shows the side effects of the pesticides used on GMO crops (and now we add Agent Orange to the list? That speaks for itself.) These products have been linked to infertility, birth defects, Parkinson’s Disease and Leukemia. Not just in consumers, but farm workers also. Even the NIH published a study showing the metabolic cycle that lends itself to this outcome. Monsanto is also the single most litigated against corporation in the world, having lost notable cases of dumping PCBs and Mercury in Anniston, Alabama, for example. Here is the study:

Alex Reynolds Copies of all of the above have been sent to my senators as well as Obamas aide, even though you cant hope much since he hires lackeys like Michael Taylor and wants to deregulate this Nazi corporation. Doesnt matter though, as we saw with the internet privacy law, we can shut this company down if we protest and make our voices heard, join one of the various online petition groups, it worked for California, where they kicked Monsanto out, it can work for the rest of the country also! The US is alone in supporting Monsanto and its Gestapo tactics of hiring former Blackwater (Now XE employees) and wanting to use Agent Orange because Round Up is now ineffective (no wonder the govt supports it, it provided them with Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, which destroyed the lives of thousands of vets, as you can see nothing changes). Monsanto is outlawed in Canada and Europe, DO NOT let the United States fall prey to the plutocratic intents of the evil collusion between government, military and psychopathic corporations (yes corporations are psychopathic, read below):
31 minutes ago · Unlike · 1

Alex Reynolds http://siivola.org/monte/​papers_grouped/​uncopyrighted/Misc/​corporate_psychopathy.htm http://​www.politicususa.com/​corporations-people-psychop​aths-2-2.html http://www.nytimes.com/​2012/05/13/opinion/sunday/​fables-of-wealth.html http://​www.naturalnews.com/​032814_corporations_psychop​ath.html http://​www.independent.co.uk/news/​business/comment/​brian-basham-beware-corpora​te-psychopaths–they-are-s​till-occupying-positions-o​f-power-6282502.htmlCorporate Psychopathy
siivola.org
In psychiatry there is a diagnostic entity variously known as psychopath, socio…See More

27 minutes ago · Unlike · 1 ·

Alex Reynolds Fortunately, there is a solution http://www.csrwire.com/​blog/posts/​308-the-benefit-corporation​-transforming-corporations​-from-psychopaths-to-good-​citizens http://​www.philfilms.utm.edu/1/​corporat.htm http://www.csrwire.com/​blog/posts/​313-the-benefit-corporation​-chang

Just now!
Alex Reynolds Force Food Companies to Reveal GMOs: Join GMO Free USA

Diana Reeves was furious when her state legislators caved into threats by Monsanto to sue the state of Connecticut if it passed a GMO labeling law. Lawmakers effectively told Connecticut’s voters, who had clearly expressed overwhelming support for GMO labeling, “oh well.”

Unlike her gutless state legislators who rolled over, Reeves is determined to keep the fight for transparency in GMO ingredients alive – and she’s taking her fight to the national level. She’s started a group called GMO Free USA which plans to pressure food manufacturers into revealing which of their products contain GMOs, and ultimately organize boycotts of those companies that refuse to switch to non-GMO ingredients.

And she needs your help! The group wants to have a minimum of 5000 members before it starts bombarding food companies with emails demanding the right to know about GMOs and threatening to boycotts companies that don’t respond.

Read Diana’s Story and Learn More About GMO Free USA Here

Join GMO Free USA on Facebook or Yahoo! .

Films of the Week

Evict Monsanto, Preserve Hawaii
For over 20 years, Hawai’i has been the global center for the open-field testing of GMO’s, including pharmaceutical crops. Over 5,000 experimental tests have been conducted that spray over 70 different chemicals.

Hawai’i has less than 3,000 acres of certified organic farmland, which is 0.27% of Hawaiian farmland. Kamehameha Schools is Hawaii’s largest private landowner with 363,000 acres of land. Despite Kamehameha’s public statements about sustainability and conservation, they lease substantial amounts of land for GMO open field tests and seed corn production. One of the participants in the film is Hawaiian musician and activist Makana, a longtime OCA member.

Watch

The Idiot Cycle
With the help of the public, JPS Films has decided to transfer the rights of the award-winning documentary The Idiot Cycle into the public domain. The film outlines the links between the chemical, GMO and cancer industries.

What does this mean? If the film is in the public domain, anyone, anywhere can distribute, copy, share and screen the film because it will belong to the public.

Because The Idiot Cycle was made with no commercial partnerships of any kind, no state funding and no distributor or television broadcaster, JPS Films financed the film completely independently. This was done to avoid financial conflicts of interest from anyone with agricultural, medical or other direct interests from swaying the content of the film.
13 minutes ago · Unlike · 1

BTW there’s a strong link between Monsanto and the Pharmaceutical Industry, the same industry that forges drug research, blacklists doctors who dont prescribe certain meds, injects healthy animals with growth hormones and antibiotics (that have led to increased resistant by germs as well as thyroid problems in teens and young adults) and has led to a rash of bills by state governments against whistleblowers, which we consumers have managed to fight off (nothing like the fear of a politician for being voted out of office, no matter how large bribes they are getting from the drug and agribusiness industry or how many industry insiders are put in charge of the USDA and FDA (fortunately America is finally waking up to the problem, as witnessed by the doctors in Fla who got arrested by taking bribes from the drug industry for overprescribing antidepressants and the FDA agents fired for taking paid vacations courtesy of the drug industry, and the problems that Merck and Astra Zeneca have faced (vioxx, avandia, and statins—– the latter when a Harvard prof was fired after berating a student for criticizing statins and it was found out he was in the pay of the drug industry, thats not any more of a surprise, when drug company sponsored research turns out to be false, which doctors are now finding out about and mobilizing against the industry and finding safer, more natural treatment methods that dont involve invasive chemical means, and its always fun to see drug ads on tv followed by lawyer ads for class action lawsuits against the same drug lol; I expect the same to happen soon with “corn sugar” ha, the industry always comes up with slick new ads to get around science and the letter of the law, but they cant get past consumer pressure and anger for their deceitful and corrupt ways.

Just now!
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/14018-gmos-should-be-safety-tested-ama

GMOs should be safety tested – AMA

Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:07

NOTE: U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by GM crop developers like Monsanto on an entirely voluntary basis, and those data are not normally published in journals or subjected to peer review. This is why many critics regard U.S. regulation of GM foods as a rubber-stamp approval process that does nothing to ensure the safety of GM foods.

The American Medical Association’s stance echoes what the British medical journal The Lancet said in an editorial more than a decade ago, “Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”
http://bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/29-regulatory-breakdown


GMOs should be safety tested before they hit the market says AMA
Monica Eng
Chicago Tribune, 20 June 2012
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/stew/chi-gmos-should-be-safety-tested-before-they-hit-the-market-says-ama-20120619,0,4405082.story

The American Medical Association called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods as part of a revised policy voted on at the AMA’s meeting in Chicago Tuesday.

Currently biotech companies are simply encouraged to engage in a voluntary safety consultation with the Food and Drug Administration before releasing a product onto the market.

Some activists concerned about foods made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, had hoped the association would have gone so far as to support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. But some still view the policy change as a major breakthrough.

“We applaud the AMA for taking the lead to help ensure a safe and adequate food supply,” said Anne Dietrich of the Truth In Labeling Campaign, which advocates labeling of genetically engineered foods. When Monsanto Co., the world’s largest biotech seed company, testified Sunday at the AMA committee hearing on the policy, its representative did not raise any objections to the mandatory safety assessment provision.

On Tuesday, however, Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher would not say whether or not the company supports mandatory pre-market testing, only that the current voluntary consultation process “is working,” he wrote to the Tribune. “All of Monsanto’s biotech products, and to our knowledge all those of other companies, go through the FDA consultation process, which provides a stringent safety assessment of biotech crops before they are placed on the market.”

The AMA’s Dr. Patrice Harris said the testing provision was aimed at addressing public interests and ensuring public health.

Just now!
The AMA’s Dr. Patrice Harris said the testing provision was aimed at addressing public interests and ensuring public health.

“Recognizing the public’s interest in the safety of bioengineered foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public,” Harris said in a statement. “We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods.”

Tuesday afternoon FDA officials would not say whether the department supported mandatory testing. “New foods have an obligation under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act to ensure that the foods they offer consumers are safe and in compliance with applicable legal requirements,” the agency said. “In meeting their legal obligation, firms do conduct premarket safety testing.”

The agency was referring to testing manufacturers commission for their own use. Critics, however, argue that independent testing overseen by regulatory authorities often produces different results than testing paid for by the manufacturer.

After the policy was announced Tuesday, Consumers Union senior scientist Michael Hansen released a statement saying: “We wholeheartedly commend AMA for coming out in support of mandatory pre-market safety assessment of (genetically engineered) foods, but are disappointed that AMA did not also support mandatory labeling. … Studies in the scientific literature have suggested that genetic engineering could introduce new food allergens, increase the levels of known allergens, raise or lower nutrient levels and have adverse effects on the animals that eat such foods.”

Just Label It, the national campaign for the labeling of genetically engineered foods (www.justlabelit.org), issued a statement saying “just the fact that the AMA even considered this measure is a significant win for the vast majority (91%) of Americans (see the Mellman Poll findings) who believe they have the right to know about the foods they eat and feed their families — a fundamental right already enjoyed by citizens in more than 50 countries worldwide, including all of Europe, Japan, Russia and China.”

The policy change happens as nearly 1 million petitioners await an FDA response on labeling genetically engineered foods and just five months before Californians vote on a ballot initiative to require mandatory labeling in the state.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents hundreds of the nation’s biggest food companies, released a statement Wednesday that focused not on the recent changes to the AMA resolution but rather on what hadn’t changed: the AMA’s continued stance that labeling genetically engineered foods is unnecessary because it considers them not to be materially different from other kinds of food.

“We commend the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates for its vote in support of the continued use of genetically engineered ingredients in the food supply,” the statement said.

The association did not respond immediately to queries about whether it supports mandatory pre-market testing provision.

Just now!
hmmm you’re on here but not answering, maybe because you’re a cold hearted bitch who wants to see kids die of cancer just so you can have more money? LOL people like you will never be successful. You always support the wrong people because you’re selfish and greedy, well I have big plans to take them down and I’m going to win because I am better than you, smarter than you and far more motivated. People like you deserve to be homeless and then you’ll learn how you’re on the wrong side. You will find out in a few weeks how I’m going to take these companies down 😉 Here’s a hint- a few years ago when we had that recession, I was somewhat responsible for it- call it my Robin Hood complex that I’m well known for on Anonymous.

Copies of all of the above have been sent to my senators as well as Obamas aide, even though you cant hope much since he hires lackeys like Michael Taylor and wants to deregulate this Nazi corporation. Doesnt matter though, as we saw with the internet privacy law, we can shut this company down if we protest and make our voices heard, join one of the various online petition groups, it worked for California, where they kicked Monsanto out, it can work for the rest of the country also! The US is alone in supporting Monsanto and its Gestapo tactics of hiring former Blackwater (Now XE employees) and wanting to use Agent Orange because Round Up is now ineffective (no wonder the govt supports it, it provided them with Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, which destroyed the lives of thousands of vets, as you can see nothing changes). Monsanto is outlawed in Canada and Europe, DO NOT let the United States fall prey to the plutocratic intents of the evil collusion between government, military and psychopathic corporations (yes corporations are psychopathic, read below):
31 minutes ago · Unlike · 1

Alex Reynolds http://siivola.org/monte/​papers_grouped/​uncopyrighted/Misc/​corporate_psychopathy.htm http://​www.politicususa.com/​corporations-people-psychop​aths-2-2.html http://www.nytimes.com/​2012/05/13/opinion/sunday/​fables-of-wealth.html http://​www.naturalnews.com/​032814_corporations_psychop​ath.html http://​www.independent.co.uk/news/​business/comment/​brian-basham-beware-corpora​te-psychopaths–they-are-s​till-occupying-positions-o​f-power-6282502.htmlCorporate Psychopathy
siivola.org
In psychiatry there is a diagnostic entity variously known as psychopath, socio…See More

27 minutes ago · Unlike · 1 ·

Alex Reynolds Fortunately, there is a solution http://www.csrwire.com/​blog/posts/​308-the-benefit-corporation​-transforming-corporations​-from-psychopaths-to-good-​citizens http://​www.philfilms.utm.edu/1/​corporat.htm http://www.csrwire.com/​blog/posts/​313-the-benefit-corporation​-changing-the-fabric-of-so​cietyThe Benefit Corporation: Transforming Corporations from Psychopaths to Good Citizens
http://www.csrwire.com
‎’The Benefit Corporation: Transforming Corporations from Psychopaths to Good Citizens’ blog post by Francesca Rheannon.

26 minutes ago · Unlike · 1 ·

Alex Reynolds Click here to tell your Senators that you support the Sanders-Boxer amendment to label GMOs in the 2012 Food and Farm bill.
http://​action.fooddemocracynow.org​/go/​602?t=9&akid=568.426570.LcP​erg
After you tell your Senators that you support the Sanders-Boxer GMO labeling amendment, please them tell that you support these other vital amendments for reform.Tell the Senate to Label GMOs, support organics!
action.fooddemocracynow.org
This week the Senate is hammering out the final details to one of the single mos…See More

16 minutes ago · Unlike · 1 ·

Alex Reynolds We won in Cali, we can win in the rest of the country too! Both dems and reps overwhelmingly support GMO labeling, its only the ones who profit from this evil who dont! California GMO Labeling Initiative Gains Ballot Status

After a year of intense organizing and fundraising, OCA and our allies have managed to put an historic mandatory labeling law on the ballot for November 6 in California. Passage of the bill, favored by 90% of California voters, will restore consumers right to know whether their food has been genetically engineered and dramatically increase sales of organic and non-GMO products.

Learn More

Support OCA and OCF
One Step Closer to GMO Labeling – Let’s Keep the Momentum Going!

On Monday night, the California Secretary of State’s office announced that the Right to Know initiative to label genetically engineered foods will be on the state’s November ballot.

On Tuesday morning, the anti-labelers came out fighting. The Coalition Against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition (CACFLP), an anti-labeling front group, issued its first press release loaded with lies intended to scare the public into thinking that all sorts of “bad things” will happen if food manufacturers are required to label GMO ingredients. Spokesperson for the CACFLP? None other than Kathy Fairbanks, who has a long history of working for huge corporations – and against consumers.

The anti-labelers have money. Lots of it.
14 minutes ago · Unlike · 1

Alex Reynolds Force Food Companies to Reveal GMOs: Join GMO Free USA

Diana Reeves was furious when her state legislators caved into threats by Monsanto to sue the state of Connecticut if it passed a GMO labeling law. Lawmakers effectively told Connecticut’s voters, who had clearly expressed overwhelming support for GMO labeling, “oh well.”

Unlike her gutless state legislators who rolled over, Reeves is determined to keep the fight for transparency in GMO ingredients alive – and she’s taking her fight to the national level. She’s started a group called GMO Free USA which plans to pressure food manufacturers into revealing which of their products contain GMOs, and ultimately organize boycotts of those companies that refuse to switch to non-GMO ingredients.

And she needs your help! The group wants to have a minimum of 5000 members before it starts bombarding food companies with emails demanding the right to know about GMOs and threatening to boycotts companies that don’t respond.

Read Diana’s Story and Learn More About GMO Free USA Here

Join GMO Free USA on Facebook or Yahoo! .

Films of the Week

Evict Monsanto, Preserve Hawaii
For over 20 years, Hawai’i has been the global center for the open-field testing of GMO’s, including pharmaceutical crops. Over 5,000 experimental tests have been conducted that spray over 70 different chemicals.

Hawai’i has less than 3,000 acres of certified organic farmland, which is 0.27% of Hawaiian farmland. Kamehameha Schools is Hawaii’s largest private landowner with 363,000 acres of land. Despite Kamehameha’s public statements about sustainability and conservation, they lease substantial amounts of land for GMO open field tests and seed corn production. One of the participants in the film is Hawaiian musician and activist Makana, a longtime OCA member.

Watch

The Idiot Cycle
With the help of the public, JPS Films has decided to transfer the rights of the award-winning documentary The Idiot Cycle into the public domain. The film outlines the links between the chemical, GMO and cancer industries.

What does this mean? If the film is in the public domain, anyone, anywhere can distribute, copy, share and screen the film because it will belong to the public.

Because The Idiot Cycle was made with no commercial partnerships of any kind, no state funding and no distributor or television broadcaster, JPS Films financed the film completely independently. This was done to avoid financial conflicts of interest from anyone with agricultural, medical or other direct interests from swaying the content of the film.
13 minutes ago · Unlike · 1

BTW there’s a strong link between Monsanto and the Pharmaceutical Industry, the same industry that forges drug research, blacklists doctors who dont prescribe certain meds, injects healthy animals with growth hormones and antibiotics (that have led to increased resistant by germs as well as thyroid problems in teens and young adults) and has led to a rash of bills by state governments against whistleblowers, which we consumers have managed to fight off (nothing like the fear of a politician for being voted out of office, no matter how large bribes they are getting from the drug and agribusiness industry or how many industry insiders are put in charge of the USDA and FDA (fortunately America is finally waking up to the problem, as witnessed by the doctors in Fla who got arrested by taking bribes from the drug industry for overprescribing antidepressants and the FDA agents fired for taking paid vacations courtesy of the drug industry, and the problems that Merck and Astra Zeneca have faced (vioxx, avandia, and statins—– the latter when a Harvard prof was fired after berating a student for criticizing statins and it was found out he was in the pay of the drug industry, thats not any more of a surprise, when drug company sponsored research turns out to be false, which doctors are now finding out about and mobilizing against the industry and finding safer, more natural treatment methods that dont involve invasive chemical means, and its always fun to see drug ads on tv followed by lawyer ads for class action lawsuits against the same drug lol; I expect the same to happen soon with “corn sugar” ha, the industry always comes up with slick new ads to get around science and the letter of the law, but they cant get past consumer pressure and anger for their deceitful and corrupt ways.

BTW there’s a strong link between Monsanto and the Pharmaceutical Industry, the same industry that forges drug research, blacklists doctors who dont prescribe certain meds, injects healthy animals with growth hormones and antibiotics (that have led to increased resistant by germs as well as thyroid problems in teens and young adults) and has led to a rash of bills by state governments against whistleblowers, which we consumers have managed to fight off (nothing like the fear of a politician for being voted out of office, no matter how large bribes they are getting from the drug and agribusiness industry or how many industry insiders are put in charge of the USDA and FDA (fortunately America is finally waking up to the problem, as witnessed by the doctors in Fla who got arrested by taking bribes from the drug industry for overprescribing antidepressants and the FDA agents fired for taking paid vacations courtesy of the drug industry, and the problems that Merck and Astra Zeneca have faced (vioxx, avandia, and statins—– the latter when a Harvard prof was fired after berating a student for criticizing statins and it was found out he was in the pay of the drug industry, thats not any more of a surprise, when drug company sponsored research turns out to be false, which doctors are now finding out about and mobilizing against the industry and finding safer, more natural treatment methods that dont involve invasive chemical means, and its always fun to see drug ads on tv followed by lawyer ads for class action lawsuits against the same drug lol; I expect the same to happen soon with “corn sugar” ha, the industry always comes up with slick new ads to get around science and the letter of the law, but they cant get past consumer pressure and anger for their deceitful and corrupt ways.’

‘BTW there’s a strong link between Monsanto and the Pharmaceutical Industry, the same industry that forges drug research, blacklists doctors who dont prescribe certain meds, injects healthy animals with growth hormones and antibiotics (that have led to increased resistant by germs as well as thyroid problems in teens and young adults) and has led to a rash of bills by state governments against whistleblowers, which we consumers have managed to fight off (nothing like the fear of a politician for being voted out of office, no matter how large bribes they are getting from the drug and agribusiness industry or how many industry insiders are put in charge of the USDA and FDA (fortunately America is finally waking up to the problem, as witnessed by the doctors in Fla who got arrested by taking bribes from the drug industry for overprescribing antidepressants and the FDA agents fired for taking paid vacations courtesy of the drug industry, and the problems that Merck and Astra Zeneca have faced (vioxx, avandia, and statins—– the latter when a Harvard prof was fired after berating a student for criticizing statins and it was found out he was in the pay of the drug industry, thats not any more of a surprise, when drug company sponsored research turns out to be false, which doctors are now finding out about and mobilizing against the industry and finding safer, more natural treatment methods that dont involve invasive chemical means, and its always fun to see drug ads on tv followed by lawyer ads for class action lawsuits against the same drug lol; I expect the same to happen soon with “corn sugar” ha, the industry always comes up with slick new ads to get around science and the letter of the law, but they cant get past consumer pressure and anger for their deceitful and corrupt ways.

BTW there’s a strong link between Monsanto and the Pharmaceutical Industry, the same industry that forges drug research, blacklists doctors who dont prescribe certain meds, injects healthy animals with growth hormones and antibiotics (that have led to increased resistant by germs as well as thyroid problems in teens and young adults) and has led to a rash of bills by state governments against whistleblowers, which we consumers have managed to fight off (nothing like the fear of a politician for being voted out of office, no matter how large bribes they are getting from the drug and agribusiness industry or how many industry insiders are put in charge of the USDA and FDA (fortunately America is finally waking up to the problem, as witnessed by the doctors in Fla who got arrested by taking bribes from the drug industry for overprescribing antidepressants and the FDA agents fired for taking paid vacations courtesy of the drug industry, and the problems that Merck and Astra Zeneca have faced (vioxx, avandia, and statins—– the latter when a Harvard prof was fired after berating a student for criticizing statins and it was found out he was in the pay of the drug industry, thats not any more of a surprise, when drug company sponsored research turns out to be false, which doctors are now finding out about and mobilizing against the industry and finding safer, more natural treatment methods that dont involve invasive chemical means, and its always fun to see drug ads on tv followed by lawyer ads for class action lawsuits against the same drug lol; I expect the same to happen soon with “corn sugar” ha, the industry always comes up with slick new ads to get around science and the letter of the law, but they cant get past consumer pressure and anger for their deceitful and corrupt ways.’

BTW there’s a strong link between Monsanto and the Pharmaceutical Industry, the same industry that forges drug research, blacklists doctors who dont prescribe certain meds, injects healthy animals with growth hormones and antibiotics (that have led to increased resistant by germs as well as thyroid problems in teens and young adults) and has led to a rash of bills by state governments against whistleblowers, which we consumers have managed to fight off (nothing like the fear of a politician for being voted out of office, no matter how large bribes they are getting from the drug and agribusiness industry or how many industry insiders are put in charge of the USDA and FDA (fortunately America is finally waking up to the problem, as witnessed by the doctors in Fla who got arrested by taking bribes from the drug industry for overprescribing antidepressants and the FDA agents fired for taking paid vacations courtesy of the drug industry, and the problems that Merck and Astra Zeneca have faced (vioxx, avandia, and statins—– the latter when a Harvard prof was fired after berating a student for criticizing statins and it was found out he was in the pay of the drug industry, thats not any more of a surprise, when drug company sponsored research turns out to be false, which doctors are now finding out about and mobilizing against the industry and finding safer, more natural treatment methods that dont involve invasive chemical means, and its always fun to see drug ads on tv followed by lawyer ads for class action lawsuits against the same drug lol; I expect the same to happen soon with “corn sugar” ha, the industry always comes up with slick new ads to get around science and the letter of the law, but they cant get past consumer pressure and anger for their deceitful and corrupt ways.

Then my own unbiased material
http://www.cdc.gov/narms/faq.html
Antibiotic Resistance and Food Safety
New! Antibiotic Use in Food Producing Animals: Tracking and Reducing the Public Health Impact Antimicrobial resistance is one of our most serious health threats. Infections from resistant bacteria are now too common, and some pathogens have even become resistant to multiple types or classes of antibiotics (antimicrobials used to treat bacterial infections). Antibiotic resistant infections can also come from the food we eat. The germs that contaminate food can be resistant because of the use of antibiotics in people and in food animals. We can prevent many of these infections with careful antibiotic use and by keeping Salmonella, and other bacteria out of the food we eat. Recent outbreaks in 2011, 2011-2012, and 2013 of multi-resistant Salmonella traced to ground beef and poultry show how animal and human health are linked.
http://www.cdc.gov/narms/animals.html
Antibiotic Use in Food-Producing Animals Tracking and Reducing the Public Health Impact Scientists around the world have provided strong evidence that antibiotic use in food-producing animals can have a negative impact on public health. More Antibiotics must be used judiciously in humans and animals because both uses contribute to the emergence, persistence, and spread of resistant bacteria. Resistant bacteria in food-producing animals are of particular concern. Food animals serve as a reservoir of resistant pathogens and resistance mechanisms that can directly or indirectly result in antibiotic resistant infections in humans. For example, resistant bacteria may be transmitted to humans through the foods we eat. Some bacteria have become resistant to more than one type of antibiotic, which makes it more difficult to treat the infections they cause. Preserving the effectiveness of antibiotic drugs is vital to protecting human and animal health. This website discusses: The public health impact of antibiotic use in food-producing animals. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria that cause human illness and are transmitted commonly by food. What CDC is doing to prevent antibiotic resistance in infections transmitted commonly by food.
http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/index.html
Report 2013 This report, Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013 gives a first-ever snapshot of the burden and threats posed by the antibiotic-resistant germs having the most impact on human health.
Each year in the United States, at least 2 million people become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and at least 23,000 people die each year as a direct result of these infections. Many more people die from other conditions that were complicated by an antibiotic-resistant infection.
Antibiotic-resistant infections can happen anywhere. Data show that most happen in the general community; however, most deaths related to antibiotic resistance happen in healthcare settings such as hospitals and nursing homes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/puberty-before-age-10-a-new-normal.html?pagewanted=all
For many parents of early-developing girls, “normal” is a crazy-making word, especially when uttered by a doctor; it implies that the patient, or patient’s mother, should quit being neurotic and accept that not much can be done. Allomong listened intently. He nodded and took notes, asking Tracee detailed questions about her birth-control history and validating her worst fears by mentioning the “extremely high levels” of estrogen-mimicking chemicals in the food and water supply. After about 20 minutes he asked Ainsley to lie on a table. There he performed a lengthy physical exam that involved testing the strength in Ainsley’s arms and legs while she held small glass vials filled with compounds like cortisol, estrogen and sugar. (Kinesiologists believe that weak muscles indicate illness, and that a patient’s muscles will test as weaker when he or she is holding a substance that contributes to health problems.)
Finally, he asked Ainsley to sit up. “It doesn’t test like it’s her own estrogens,” Allomong reported to Tracee, meaning he didn’t think Ainsley’s ovaries were producing too many hormones on their own. “I think it’s xeno-estrogens, from the environment,” he explained. “And I think it’s stress and insulin and sugar.”
In the late 1980s, Marcia Herman-Giddens, then a physician’s associate in the pediatric department of the Duke University Medical Center, started noticing that an awful lot of 8- and 9-year-olds in her clinic had sprouted pubic hair and breasts. The medical wisdom, at that time, based on a landmark 1960 study of institutionalized British children, was that puberty began, on average, for girls at age 11. But that was not what Herman-Giddens was seeing. So she started collecting data, eventually leading a study with the American Academy of Pediatrics that sampled 17,000 girls, finding that among white girls, the average age of breast budding was 9.96. Among black girls, it was 8.87.
When Herman-Giddens published these numbers, in 1997 in Pediatrics, she set off a social and endocrinological firestorm. “I had no idea it would be so huge,” Herman-Giddens told me recently. “The Lolita syndrome” — the prurient fascination with the sexuality of young girls — “created a lot of emotional interest. As a feminist, I wish it didn’t.” Along with medical professionals, mothers, worried about their daughters, flocked to Herman-Giddens’s slide shows, gasping as she flashed images of possible culprits: obesity, processed foods, plastics.
Meanwhile, doctors wrote letters to journals criticizing the sample in Herman-Giddens’s study. (She collected data from girls at physicians’ offices, leaving her open to the accusation that it wasn’t random.) Was the age of puberty really dropping? Parents said yes. Leading pediatric endocrinologists said no. The stalemate lasted a dozen years. Then in August 2010, the conflict seemed to resolve. Well-respected researchers at three big institutions — Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, Kaiser Permanente of Northern California and Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York — published another study in Pediatrics, finding that by age 7, 10 percent of white girls, 23 percent of black girls, 15 percent of Hispanic girls and 2 percent of Asian girls had started developing breasts.
Now most researchers seem to agree on one thing: Breast budding in girls is starting earlier. The debate has shifted to what this means. Puberty, in girls, involves three events: the growth of breasts, the growth of pubic hair and a first period. Typically the changes unfold in that order, and the proc­ess takes about two years. But the data show a confounding pattern. While studies have shown that the average age of breast budding has fallen significantly since the 1970s, the average age of first period, or menarche, has remained fairly constant, dropping to only 12.5 from 12.8 years. Why would puberty be starting earlier yet ending more or less at the same time?
To endocrinologists, girls who go through puberty early fall into two camps: girls with diagnosable disorders like central precocious puberty, and girls who simply develop on the early side of the normal curve. But the line between the groups is blurring. “There used to be a discrete gap between normal and abnormal, and there isn’t anymore,” Louise Green­span, a pediatric endocrinologist and co-author of the August 2010 Pediatrics paper, told me one morning in her office at Kaiser Permanente in San Francisco. Among the few tools available to help distinguish between so-called “normal” and “precocious” puberty are bone-age X-rays. To illustrate how they work, Greenspan pulled out a beautiful old book, Greulich and Pyle’s “Radiographic Atlas of Skeletal Development of the Hand and Wrist,” a standard text for pediatric endocrinologists. Each page showed an X-ray of a hand illustrating “bone age.” The smallest hand was from a newborn baby, the oldest from an adult female. “When a baby is born, there’s all this cartilage,” Greenspan said, pointing to large black gaps surrounding an array of delicate white bones. As the body grows, the pattern of black and white changes. The white bones lengthen, and the black interstices between them, some of which is cartilage, shrink. This process stops at the end of puberty, when the growth plates fuse.
One main risk for girls with true precocious puberty is advanced bone age. Puberty includes a final growth spurt, after which girls mostly stop growing. If that growth spurt starts too early in life, it ends at an early age too, meaning a child will have fewer growing years total. A girl who has her first period at age 10 will stop growing younger and end up shorter than a genetically identical girl who gets her first period at age 13.
That morning one of Greenspan’s patients was a 6½-year-old girl with a bone age of 9. She was the tallest girl in her class at school. She started growing pubic hair at age 4. No one thought her growth curve was normal, not even her doctors. (Eight used to be the age cutoff for normal pubic-hair growth in girls; now it’s as early as 7.) For this girl, Greenspan prescribed a once-a-month shot of the hormone Leuprolide, to halt puberty’s progress. The girl hated the shot. Yet nobody second-guessed the treatment plan. The mismatch between her sexual maturation and her age — and the discomfort that created, for everybody — was just too great.
So why are so many girls with no medical disorder growing breasts early? Doctors don’t know exactly why, but they have identified several contributing factors.
Girls who are overweight are more likely to enter puberty early than thinner girls, and the ties between obesity and puberty start at a very young age. As Emily Walvoord of the Indiana University School of Medicine points out in her paper “The Timing of Puberty: Is It Changing? Does It Matter?” body-mass index and pubertal timing are associated at age 5, age 3, even age 9 months. This fact has shifted pediatric endocrinologists away from what used to be known as the critical-weight theory of puberty — the idea that once a girl’s body reaches a certain mass, puberty inevitably starts — to a critical-fat theory of puberty. Researchers now believe that fat tissue, not poundage, sets off a feedback loop that can cause a body to mature. As Robert Lustig, a professor of clinical pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco’s Benioff Children’s Hospital, explains, fatter girls have higher levels of the hormone leptin, which can lead to early puberty, which leads to higher estrogen levels, which leads to greater insulin resistance, causing girls to have yet more fat tissue, more leptin and more estrogen, the cycle feeding on itself, until their bodies physically mature.
In addition, animal studies show that the exposure to some environmental chemicals can cause bodies to mature early. Of particular concern are endocrine-disrupters, like “xeno-estrogens” or estrogen mimics. These compounds behave like steroid hormones and can alter puberty timing. For obvious ethical reasons, scientists cannot perform controlled studies proving the direct impact of these chemicals on children, so researchers instead look for so-called “natural experiments,” one of which occurred in 1973 in Michigan, when cattle were accidentally fed grain contaminated with an estrogen-mimicking chemical, the flame retardant PBB. The daughters born to the pregnant women who ate the PBB-laced meat and drank the PBB-laced milk started menstruating significantly earlier than their peers.
One concern, among parents and researchers, is the effect of simultaneous exposures to many estrogen-mimics, including the compound BPA, which is ubiquitous. Ninety-three percent of Americans have traces of BPA in their bodies. BPA was first made in 1891 and used as a synthetic estrogen in the 1930s. In the 1950s commercial manufacturers started putting BPA in hard plastics. Since then BPA has been found in many common products, including dental sealants and cash-register receipts. More than a million pounds of the substance are released into the environment each year.
The possibility that these early “normal” girls are reacting to estrogens that are not coming from their ovaries is compelling. Part of the comfort is that a girl who is not yet in puberty may not have developed an adolescent brain. This means she would not yet feel the acute tug of her own sexual urges. She would not seek thrills and risk. Still, the idea that there are enough toxins or fat cells in a child’s body to cause breast development is hardly consoling. Besides, some of the psychosocial problems of early puberty derive from what’s happening inside a girl’s body; others, from how people react to her. “If a girl is 10 and she looks 15, it doesn’t make any difference if her pituitary is turned on or if something else caused her breast growth,” Biro says. “She looks like a middle adolescent. People are going to treat her that way. Maybe she’s not interested in reciprocal sex, but she might be pressured into sex nonetheless, and her social skills will be those of a 10-year-old.”

Junk science? More like it’s an issue of business sponsored “science” vs science that does not have any bias. Unfortunately, in America, research is sponsored by companies that have a vested interest in the results. Here is what is on the CDC website (Centers for Disease Control) as well as NEW research from 2012-13. I did the same with the Monsanto issue- they got caught redhanded dumping PCBs in the water supply AND they poisoned our soldiers with Agent Orange not to mention settled a lawsuit quietly for a chemical that caused 500,000 children to be born with birth defects, why is this company still allowed to exist? Because America is a plutocracy with specific employees of these companies working inside the government (Michael Taylor and Tom Wilczak), but we’re working on remedying the situation with mandatory labeling. Hormone infested milk is already banned from most of our supermarkets and we labelling laws have been passed. Usage of GMO pesticides that damage the environment and cause cellular damage in humans (and were linked in a Stanford study to the exponential increase in childhood leukemia, birth defects and autism when consumed by pregnant women) has greatly been curtailed. The enemy is on the retreat- as well they should be for what they’ve done.
Okay here is some easy to understand research on just these specific issues we’ve addressed here:

http://​www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/​articles/PMC2952409/
Abstract
We summarize the major points of international debate on health risk studies for the main commercialized edible GMOs. These GMOs are soy, maize and oilseed rape designed to contain new pesticide residues since they have been modified to be herbicide-tolerant (mostly to Roundup) or to produce mutated Bt toxins. The debated alimentary chronic risks may come from unpredictable insertional mutagenesis effects, metabolic effects, or from the new pesticide residues. The most detailed regulatory tests on the GMOs are three-month long feeding trials of laboratory rats, which are biochemically assessed. The tests are not compulsory, and are not independently conducted. The test data and the corresponding results are kept in secret by the companies. Our previous analyses of regulatory raw data at these levels, taking the representative examples of three GM maize NK 603, MON 810, and MON 863 led us to conclude that hepatorenal toxicities were possible, and that longer testing was necessary. Our study was criticized by the company developing the GMOs in question and the regulatory bodies, mainly on the divergent biological interpretations of statistically significant biochemical and physiological effects. We present the scientific reasons for the crucially different biological interpretations and also highlight the shortcomings in the experimental protocols designed by the company. The debate implies an enormous responsibility towards public health and is essential due to nonexistent traceability or epidemiological studies in the GMO-producing countries.
Keywords: GMOs, Health risks, Pesticides, Regulatory toxicology, Animal testsDebate on GMOs Health Risks after Statistical Findings in Regulatory Tests
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
We summarize the major points of international debate on health risk studies for…See More
http://​www.independent.co.uk/​environment/​gm-food-banned-in-monsanto-​canteen-737948.html
Monsanto, the biggest promoter of genetically modified food, was hoist with its own petar when it was disclosed that it has a staff canteen in which GM produce is banned.
Monsanto, the biggest promoter of genetically modified food, was hoist with its own petar when it was disclosed that it has a staff canteen in which GM produce is banned.
The firm running the canteen at Monsanto’s pharmaceuticals factory at High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, serves only GM-free meals, Friends of the Earth said. In a notice in the canteen, Sutcliffe Catering, owned by the Granada Group, said it had taken the decision “to remove, as far as practicable, GM soya and maize from all food products served in our restaurant. We have taken the above steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve.”
Monsanto confirmed the position. “Yes, this is the case, and it is because we believe in choice,” said the company’s spokesman, Tony Coombes. But employees at Monsanto’s agribusiness plant at Cambridge were happy to eat GM produce, he said. “The notice in the restaurant there says some products may contain GMOs [genetically modified organisms] – because our staff are happy to eat food sprayed with fewer chemicals.”
Monsanto says crops engineered to be tolerant of its own weedkillers need less pesticide, but critics say that though the dosage may be less, the impact on the environment of these pesticides is much greater. Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth’s food campaigner, said: “The public has made its concerns about GM ingredients very clear – now it appears that even Monsanto’s own catering firm has no confidence in this new technology.”GM food banned in Monsanto canteen
http://www.independent.co.uk
Monsanto, the biggest promoter of genetically modified food, was hoist with its …See More
http://​www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/​pubmed/17356802
Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007 May;52(4):596-602. Epub 2007 Mar 13.
New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity.
Séralini GE, Cellier D, de Vendomois JS.
Source
Committee for Independent Information and Research on Genetic Engineering CRIIGEN, Paris, France. criigen@unicaen.fr
Abstract
Health risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cultivated for food or feed is under debate throughout the world, and very little data have been published on mid- or long-term toxicological studies with mammals. One of these studies performed under the responsibility of Monsanto Company with a transgenic corn MON863 has been subjected to questions from regulatory reviewers in Europe, where it was finally approved in 2005. This necessitated a new assessment of kidney pathological findings, and the results remained controversial. An Appeal Court action in Germany (Münster) allowed public access in June 2005 to all the crude data from this 90-day rat-feeding study. We independently re-analyzed these data. Appropriate statistics were added, such as a multivariate analysis of the growth curves, and for biochemical parameters comparisons between GMO-treated rats and the controls fed with an equivalent normal diet, and separately with six reference diets with different compositions. We observed that after the consumption of MON863, rats showed slight but dose-related significant variations in growth for both sexes, resulting in 3.3% decrease in weight for males and 3.7% increase for females. Chemistry measurements reveal signs of hepatorenal toxicity, marked also by differential sensitivities in males and females. Triglycerides increased by 24-40% in females (either at week 14, dose 11% or at week 5, dose 33%, respectively); urine phosphorus and sodium excretions diminished in males by 31-35% (week 14, dose 33%) for the most important results significantly linked to the treatment in comparison to seven diets tested. Longer experiments are essential in order to indicate the real nature and extent of the possible pathology; with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product.
PMID:
17356802
[PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
Publication Types, MeSH Terms
GMOs should be safety tested – AMA
Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:07
NOTE: U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by GM crop developers like Monsanto on an entirely voluntary basis, and those data are not normally published in journals or subjected to peer review. This is why many critics regard U.S. regulation of GM foods as a rubber-stamp approval process that does nothing to ensure the safety of GM foods.
The American Medical Association’s stance echoes what the British medical journal The Lancet said in an editorial more than a decade ago, “Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”
http://bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/29-regulatory-breakdown


GMOs should be safety tested before they hit the market says AMA
Monica Eng
Chicago Tribune, 20 June 2012
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/stew/chi-gmos-should-be-safety-tested-before-they-hit-the-market-says-ama-20120619,0,4405082.story
The American Medical Association called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods as part of a revised policy voted on at the AMA’s meeting in Chicago Tuesday.
Currently biotech companies are simply encouraged to engage in a voluntary safety consultation with the Food and Drug Administration before releasing a product onto the market.
Some activists concerned about foods made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, had hoped the association would have gone so far as to support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. But some still view the policy change as a major breakthrough.
“We applaud the AMA for taking the lead to help ensure a safe and adequate food supply,” said Anne Dietrich of the Truth In Labeling Campaign, which advocates labeling of genetically engineered foods. When Monsanto Co., the world’s largest biotech seed company, testified Sunday at the AMA committee hearing on the policy, its representative did not raise any objections to the mandatory safety assessment provision.
On Tuesday, however, Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher would not say whether or not the company supports mandatory pre-market testing, only that the current voluntary consultation process “is working,” he wrote to the Tribune. “All of Monsanto’s biotech products, and to our knowledge all those of other companies, go through the FDA consultation process, which provides a stringent safety assessment of biotech crops before they are placed on the market.”
The AMA’s Dr. Patrice Harris said the testing provision was aimed at addressing public interests and ensuring public health.
“Recognizing the public’s interest in the safety of bioengineered foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public,” Harris said in a statement. “We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods.”
Tuesday afternoon FDA officials would not say whether the department supported mandatory testing. “New foods have an obligation under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act to ensure that the foods they offer consumers are safe and in compliance with applicable legal requirements,” the agency said. “In meeting their legal obligation, firms do conduct premarket safety testing.”
The agency was referring to testing manufacturers commission for their own use. Critics, however, argue that independent testing overseen by regulatory authorities often produces different results than testing paid for by the manufacturer.
After the policy was announced Tuesday, Consumers Union senior scientist Michael Hansen released a statement saying: “We wholeheartedly commend AMA for coming out in support of mandatory pre-market safety assessment of (genetically engineered) foods, but are disappointed that AMA did not also support mandatory labeling. … Studies in the scientific literature have suggested that genetic engineering could introduce new food allergens, increase the levels of known allergens, raise or lower nutrient levels and have adverse effects on the animals that eat such foods.”
Just Label It, the national campaign for the labeling of genetically engineered foods (www.justlabelit.org), issued a statement saying “just the fact that the AMA even considered this measure is a significant win for the vast majority (91%) of Americans (see the Mellman Poll findings) who believe they have the right to know about the foods they eat and feed their families — a fundamental right already enjoyed by citizens in more than 50 countries worldwide, including all of Europe, Japan, Russia and China.”
0 0 Rate This

Advertisements