Tag Archives: Genetically Modified
The Zika virus is related to dengue fever, yellow fever, Japanese encephalitis and West Nile viruses.
So far, drugs aren’t effective against it. A vaccine if developed will do more harm than good. Most infected individuals suffer mild illness, called Zika disease.
Potentially deadly Guillain-Barre syndrome at times occurs. Fetuses are at risk for microcephaly, an abnormally small head in relation to the rest of the body and underdeveloped brain, permanent damage.
Zika has been around for decades, occasional outbreaks occurring in Africa and Asia – currently in Central and South America, Brazil its epicenter.
It’s being spread by genetically engineered mosquitos. Is it the latest example of US biowarfare? America’s sordid history suggests it.
In 1931, Dr. Cornelius Rhoads infected human subjects with cancer cells – under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations. He later conducted radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.
In 1932, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study infected 200 unwitting Black men, using them as human guinea pigs, denying them treatment, following the progression of their disease, deliberately letting them suffer and die.
In 1940, 400 Chicago prisoners were infected with malaria to study the effects of new and experimental drugs.
At least since the 1940s, America had an active biological warfare program, using controversial methods to test bioweapons.
VA hospital patients have been used as human guinea pigs for medical experiments. Biological agents were released in US cities (including New York and San Francisco) to test the effects of germ warfare.
America’s deplorable history at home and abroad includes numerous other examples. Washington uses biological, chemical, radiological and other banned weapons in all its wars.
Are US-unleashed genetically modified mosquitos being used to wage biological warfare in Central and South America?
The Zika virus outbreak is linked to GM mosquitos released in field trials funded by Bill Gates.
The corporate-controlled World Health Organization (WHO) said Zika “is now spreading explosively” in the Americas, hyping an estimated three to four million people at risk over the next year.
Central and South American nations urged women to avoid pregnancy for at least two years. Is Zika being used as an attempted population control scheme?
GM mosquitos allegedly released to keep dengue fever, yellow fever, chikungunga (a crippling mosquito-borne virus) and zika from spreading are facilitating its outbreaks in numerous Central and South American countries – notably Brazil and Colombia.
The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) warned of potential small Zika outbreaks in southern Florida and Texas.
UK biotech company Oxford Insect Technologies developed GM mosquitos with Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funding – a profit-making enterprise, masquerading as a charitable one.
One critic called its operations “vulture philanthropy,” investing in companies causing health problems they claim to be combatting.
Not coincidentally, Zika’s outbreak occurred where GM mosquitos were released last year in Brazil, now affecting about 20 Central and South American countries.
Maybe areas in southern US states will follow. What’s happening has the earmarks of state-sponsored biowarfare.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected]. His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”. www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html Visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com.
What resulted from the two hush-hush meetings between GMO labeling advocates and the industries (biotech and Big Food) that are desperate to keep the words “produced with genetic engineering” off of food labels?
Which food companies attended the meeting to argue against your right to know? According to PoliticoPro, stepping up to the plate for Big Food were: J.P. Bilbrey, chairman and CEO of the Hershey Company and chairman of Grocery Manufacturers Association’s (GMA) board of directors; and Paul Grimwood, president and CEO of Nestle USA.
Maybe it’s time to resurrect our Hershey and Nestle boycotts?
Also representing Corporate America were Randy Russell, president of the Russell Group, which represents the GMA; Charles Conner, president and CEO of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; and Steve Censky, CEO of the American Soybean Association.
What’s next, now that the two sides have reached a stalemate? Assuming the courts hold up Vermont’s GMO labeling law, set to take effect July 1, Monsanto and friends will likely try to introduce a Senate bill, similar to the DARK Act (HR 1599), which would preempt Vermont’s mandatory labeling law.
Meanwhile, a number of states are pushing forward with their own GMO labeling laws. Here’s a quick rundown of the states that have GMO labeling bills in play right now. If you live in one of these states, please contact your state lawmakers and ask them to support mandatory labeling of GMOs:
Organic Consumers Assoc.
(The Real Agenda) In 1947, disease hunters from the Rockefeller Foundation were in Uganda, studying yellow fever using rhesus macaque monkeys. The animals were placed in cages that were perched in trees in the Zika Forest (meaning “overgrown” in the Luganda language). On April 18, 1947, one of the Asian Rhesus monkeys took ill with a previously unknown virus, which the researchers dubbed Zika. In a lab in Entebbe, the Rockefeller scientists injected the new virus into mice, which then developed the feverish illness, thereby proving the virus they had discovered was the cause of the disease. The first human case of Zika fever was identified in Nigeria in 1954.
How would globalists who favor mass depopulation go about decimating a country’s fertility rate? Normally they do it through two methods. One of them is loud, bloody and generally unwanted, although often used. That method is war.
One can see the application of this technique in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, where western organizations and governments spend billions of dollars a year to promote and maintain the destabilization of nations by financing opposition groups that carry out civil wars.
The second method is stealthy, silent, and consequently more effective in achieving its goal. This second method is spreading bio-weapons over a determined population to affect their reproductive health.
War as method of depopulation is very effective, but it is not very popular. The sounds of war can be heard loudly, way before the first bomb is dropped. People usually have some time to prepare or run away.
In the case of a bio-weapon it is quite the contrary. There is usually no escape, unless you are in the know. The malignant beauty of a bio-weapon is that it achieves its goal of reducing fertility quietly and over a long period of time.
A bio-weapon may not be the choice in many occasions because it takes longer to achieve its end goal. In this respect, war is more effective, because it destroys property and human lives instantly.
The release of bio-weapons in the form of experimental trials with viruses, bacteria and other pathogens is not new, but it continues to be used by private entities funded by philanthropic organizations and government agencies.
Experiments are conducted in highly secured labs which follow standard protocols, but scientists who cozy up to their funding partners find it difficult not to deploy a bio-weapon outside their labs in an attempt to make it perfect. Of course, this is not spoken of publicly. The excuse is always ‘research’, ‘general well-being’ and other things of the sort.
Recently, philanthropists from all origins have advocated strongly for carrying out depopulation campaigns in order to ‘save the planet’ from humanity. The same people are also involved in efforts to reduce carbon emissions by banning certain cars from circulating or imposing high taxes on what they publicly allege are the greatest environmental offenders. Privately, though, these philanthropists believe that the greatest offenders are humans, which is why they have been working for decades to eradicate a big segment of the world’s population. These same people are behind genetically engineered products, such as food, animals and insects.
As we have widely reported, independently conducted experiments show that GMOs are responsible for serious health complications which are irreversible by the second or third generation. This means that if a person is chemically castrated, for example, his or her offspring or those of their children may be born infertile.
Due to the growing body of evidence about the dangers of GMOs, those who seek to drastically reduce the world’s population have already moved to the next phase of their plan: creating genetically engineered diseases whose cure is not available yet; at least not for the wide majority of the population.
Their modus operandi includes deploying those diseases via vectors such as mosquitoes, viruses and bacteria. During one of his speeches, Bill Gates, who has stakes in Monsanto and experiments with GM mosquitos, spoke of his idea to turn these insects into vectors to help improve vaccination rates.
The mosquito would allegedly “carry the vaccine” which would be injected into people via the traditional mosquito bite. Sounds like science fiction? Well, this technology is already being worked on.
The world has witnessed the appearance of diseases that are far from being naturally occurring or that have naturally mutated from older strains of viruses, for example. The H1N1 scare is one of those examples. The Ebola outbreak is another case of a laboratory made disease that was later released or let out of a lab to better understand how the affected population would react to it. And now, some countries seem to be facing another open-air experiment: The Zika Virus.
Generally speaking, the Zika virus is explained as a mild form of dengue. Its victims suffer from the same symptoms than a patient who contracts a flu, which is what dengue used to be confused with before being studied in depth.
Today, dengue is understood as a completely different disease and Zika is in the process of going through the same process. The Zika virus has been connected to the Tiger mosquito, which is said to be the transmitter. The question is, where and how do mosquitoes acquire the virus?
Zika has gone from appearing in a few Brazilian states and Caribbean islands to spreading fast in the South American country, the United States and even Europe in just a couple of months. Right now, 22 different countries have reported cases of Zika.
In Brazil, which seems to be one of the origins of the disease, the government has deployed the army in some states in an attempt to help stop the contagion. An immediate question people ask is, why didn’t the governments in Brazil and elsewhere prevent the appearance of Zika? Why did the virus spread so widely before governments reacted to it? But perhaps a more important question is, how did Zika appear on the face of the Earth?
The Zika virus can affect anyone who is bitten by a transmitting mosquito, but it is pregnant women and their unborn children who are most affected by the disease. This is surely not a coincidence if we take into account the ongoing depopulation campaign.
The consequences for fetuses are devastating, as children are born, if they make it, with severe brain damage. Health authorities have identified Zika as the cause of microcephaly, a condition that causes a child to “be born with a smaller-than-normal sized head which results in impaired brain development.”
It turns out that previous to the Zika virus appearing in Brazil, an experiment was conducted by a group of Brazilian and foreign entities. Such experiment consisted in releasing genetically engineered mosquitoes which would allegedly reduce native mosquitoes’ ability to transmit dengue fever.
The GE mosquitoes were released in the state of Bahia, in the Northeast of Brazil. That state along with Recife, a neighbor state, became ground zero for the outbreak of Zika in the country. Along with Brazil, entities like a company known as Oxitec, also conducted similar experiments in the Cayman Islands, where another outbreak of Zika was detected.
The experiment carried out with Oxitec mosquitoes was supported by the University of Sao Paulo (USP). According to Oxitec, the desired outcome of its experiment was to measure how effective their GM mosquito proved to be in eliminating Aedes aegypti, the mosquito that transmits dengue fever. Apparently, the experiment was a success and the GM mosquito eliminated between 90 and 95 percent of the adult population of Aedes aegypti.
The experiment by Oxitec and USP was also aided by Moscamed, a company that specializes in “environmentally friendly pest control”. At least 1,800 people were exposed to the GM mosquitoes in the city of Itaberaba, in the state of Bahia. Since the experiment started, Brazil alone has reported 3,893 cases of microcephaly, while countries with fewer cases are warning women not to travel to any of the 22 nations where Zika has become a national health threat for pregnant women and their fetuses.
The suspicion that the GM mosquitoes are responsible for the spread of Zika has not stopped the World Health Organization (WHO) from recommending that more experiments like the one conducted in Brazil and the Caribbean be replicated in other countries. “According to published mathematical models reviewed and recommended by the World Health Organization working group on dengue, it would also reduce the number of biting mosquitoes below the disease transmission threshold. The next step is to scale up to even larger studies and run mosquito control projects on an operational basis,” reports Genetic Literacy Project.
The WHO’s plan to carry out more open-air experiments with GM mosquitoes is also supported by Brazilian health and academic authorities. “This invasive mosquito and the diseases it carries is a real challenge,” said Professor Margareth Capurro of São Paulo University.
“Aedes aegypti is developing resistance to insecticides, and even when we remove breeding sites they continue to reproduce and transmit diseases because they live in areas that are difficult to treat. This is why we need new tools. We knew that the Oxitec mosquito was a promising tool, so we wanted to independently evaluate its effectiveness here in Brazil.”
As of right now, there isn’t an effective treatment against Zika and it is estimated that it will take between three and four years for some kind of treatment to be developed. Potential treatments undoubtedly include vaccines, which are now being worked on by the same people who are behind the push to use mosquitoes as delivery tools for ‘pest control’.
There seems to be a neatly closing circle behind every single health scare that we have seen in the last decade. Prominent people express their desire to force mass depopulation in order to ‘save us from ourselves’, then, all of a sudden, plagues such as H1N1, Ebola, Chikungunya, and Zika vírus appear from nowhere just right after an open-air experiment is conducted among vulnerable populations, which by the way, were not warned about it. Mass disease breaks out and the solution is always a new vaccine, which will be produced by the same people who advocate depopulation, reduction in carbon emissions, limits to standards of living and so on.
As of today, Brazilian health authorities expect to have some 4 million cases of Zika virus by the end of 2016.
Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.
According to its website, Cornell University’s mission is “to discover, preserve, and disseminate knowledge; produce creative work; and promote a culture of broad inquiry throughout and beyond the Cornell community.”
You would think such a lofty mission would preclude the Ivy League institution from selling out to Monsanto. Yet thanks to a $5.6 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Cornell is running a propaganda campaign that promotes GMOs and pesticides.
U.S. Right to Know, an independent nonprofit funded in large part by OCA, looked into the Gates-funded Cornell Alliance for Science, launched in 2014:
A review of the group’s materials and programs suggests that beneath its promise to “restore the importance of scientific evidence in decision making,” CAS is promoting GMOs using dishonest messaging and PR tactics developed by agrichemical corporations with a long history of misleading the public about science.
So much for the hallowed and ivied halls of learning.
(pressfortruth.ca) Monsanto has decided to move forward with suing California over the listing of a particular herbicide ingredient as a carcinogen. The company is allegedly seeking to prevent the main ingredient of their Roundup product from being added to the state’s list of known carcinogens and they’ve filed a lawsuit against the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). They are allegedly working to keep their ingredient glyphosate off the Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.
Last year, the OEHHA said that it had the intention to add glyphosate to the list of carcinogens after the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) effectively classified the ingredient as a probable human carcinogen. Monsanto doesn’t agree with the allegations or assessment, they continue to claim that the chemical is safe and that it is unlikely to cause cancer. Glyphosate is one of the most commonly used agricultural chemicals in the United States. If this chemical does make it onto the list, then Monsanto and other companies who use it would need to start warning their customers that the chemical is known to cause cancer.
If glyphosate does end-up on the Prop. 65 list, then the use of any product containing it would also be limited; as many municipalities look to avoid and even prohibit the use of chemicals on the Prop. 65 list. Monsanto says that this move will damage their reputation and negatively impact their sales. Just in 2015 alone, Roundup earned Monsanto over $4 billion in revenue. The Vice President of regulator affairs at Monsanto, Phil Miller, maintains that glyphosate is “an efficient, effective, and safe tool for weed control.”
Despite the glowing reassurance from Monsanto officials that there is nothing to worry about when it comes to their company or its products, an increasing number of countries have been turning to avoid using GMO products from biotech companies like Monsanto. Now that technology has made it easier than ever for consumers to research and find out the truth behind various products and companies in the market, and to share that knowledge with others around the world, there remains an increasing consumer awareness trend that isn’t showing much affection for Monsanto and the products that it puts out.
– See more at: http://pressfortruth.ca/top-stories/monsanto-sues-over-action-classify-glyphosate-carcinogen/#sthash.p3LMlrTx.dpuf
If you’re one of the nearly 12 million people who visit WebMD.com every month, you’re getting a healthy dose of Monsanto propaganda along with your “health research.”
Monsanto is one of the many corporate “sponsors” of WebMD. That means Monsanto pays WebMD in order to pepper WebMD’s website with advertisements and advertorials, disguised as legitimate journalism.
WebMD Health Corp. (NASDAQ: WBMD) is a publicly held corporation that answers first and foremost to its shareholders. The company, with its long history of deceiving consumers and partnering up with drug, junk food and biotech companies, is not, and never was, in the business of caring about consumers—a fact meticulously documented in an article published this week (January 19, 2016) by Mercola.com.
Why bother to ask one corrupt corporation, WebMD, to cut ties with another, equally or exceedingly corrupt corporation (Monsanto)?
Because Monsanto’s WebMD propaganda is cleverly disguised as legitimate health advice. So cleverly, that millions of visitors to the site probably have no idea that they’re being duped.
Whether to require labeling on GMO foods should be the easiest and simplest of decisions. If health and safety is really a mandate of federal agencies, where is the beef in their policies? Come on people, banning such modifications is not even remotely being considered, so why will the government not lead the way and allow the public to be reasonably informed with full disclosure of exactly the makeup and alterations to the very essence of the food we eat.
Advocates stressing caution provide Top 10 Reasons to Label Genetically Engineered Foods. Where are the warning labels that sheer common sense demands?
- The Convention on Biodiversity recognizes that genetic engineering is a threat to amount and variety of life on the planet.
- Scientists reviewing data from Monsanto’s own studies “have proven that genetically engineered foods are neither sufficiently healthy or proper to be commercialized.”
- Biotech’s scattershot technique of spraying plant cells with a buckshot of foreign genes that hit chromosomes in random spots would trigger the expression of new allergens and change the character of plant proteins.
- Milk and dairy products from cows injected with genetically engineered growth hormones ARE different from conventional and organic milk and dairy products.
- The third generation of hamsters fed genetically engineered soy suffered slower growth, a high mortality rate, and a bizarre birth defect: fur growing in their mouths. Many also lost the ability to have pups.
- Animals fed genetically engineered feed ARE different from animals fed conventional and organic feed.
- A single serving of genetically engineered soy can result in horizontal gene transfer, where the bacteria in the human gut adopts the soy’s DNA.
- Genetically engineered foods ARE different from conventional and organic foods.
- Genetically engineered foods have not been tested to determine whether they are safe for human consumption.
- Almost all non-organic processed food and animal products in the U.S. today contain ingredients that come from genetically engineered crops or from animals given genetically engineered feed, vaccines or growth hormones.
Health concerns are on the minds of responsible consumers, especially since Obamacare rationing lowers the quality of care. Proponents of limited government are cautious to expand regulations and bureaucratic regulation. However, how can a consumer accept the risk when meaningful labeling is absent?
If you think you are diligent in avoiding selecting such genetically engineered food with your shopping, think again because, What Are We Eating?
“We Currently Eat Genetically Engineered Food, But Don’t Know It.
A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria, in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature, and is experimental. The correct scientific term is “transgenics,” and is also often referred to as (GE) genetically engineered.
Example: Genetically Modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO Corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an Insecticide, but is sold unlabeled. [EPA Pesticides ]”
So what is the nutrimental value of this laboratory designed foods? Should there be open transparency so that full disclosure can evaluate exactly what comprises this new source of sustenance? If you listen to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), think again. CSPI Refuses to Debate Consumers Union on Labeling of GMO Foods presents suspect reasoning.
“Gregory Jaffe, CSPI’s director of Biotechnology told a reporter last year — “we don’t feel it should be mandated on labels that foods are produced with GM crops.”
“You could argue for example that non-GMO label claims are misleading since they falsely imply that food made without GE ingredients is safer or superior in some other way,” Jaffe said.”
Attempts to equate natural foods with a genetically engineered menu are no surprise. That bistro of fine dining, Monsanto falls back on the select club of government authorities and medical experts of chemically toxic healers to justify the limits on warnings of known risks. In Labeling Food and Ingredients Developed from GM Seed, establishment science protects the corporate benefactors of the designer disease and drug treatment cycle.
“Within the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees food labeling. FDA guidance requires labeling of food products containing ingredients from GM seed if there is a meaningful difference between that food and its conventional counterpart. The American Medical Association (AMA) supports FDA’s approach and approved a formal statement asserting that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of foods containing GM ingredients.”
Skyrocketing cancer associated with processed foods promises to be dwarfed by the hidden consequences of GMO experimentations. Yet, the government simply ignores their mission of promoting public health.
Overcoming this threat is no easy process. When Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods provides a list of pros and cons for mandatory labeling, their negative reasons fall short of reassuring that a GMO food system is safe. Their argument follows a familiar pattern, Caveat Emptor “Let the buyer beware”.
“Mandatory labeling would extend much further and would require, at a minimum, that all food products containing any GM ingredient (above a certain threshold for trace amounts) to indicate that fact. Stronger mandatory labeling requirements could include identification of each specific GM ingredient and its level of content in the product. Mandatory labeling requires further regulatory interventions including monitoring and enforcement. Under a mandatory labeling system, all consumers—both those that are concerned about the GM ingredients and those that are not—help bear the costs associated with being able to verify that foods do or do not use GM ingredients.”
Since our health is ultimately our own responsibility, having reliable labeling on all GMO foodstuffs should be a prudent requirement to enhance public knowledge. Taking actions like those listed in 10 Things You Can Do to Stop GMOs, should not necessitate a full scale crisis. Putting people before corporate profits needs to become the standard every consumer deserves.
SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed, former political operative. This pundit’s formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. As a small business owner and entrepreneur, several successful ventures expanded opportunities for customers and employees. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. He is retired and lives with his wife in a rural community. “Populism” best describes the approach to SARTRE’s perspective on Politics. Realities, suggest that American Values can be restored with an appreciation of “Pragmatic Anarchism.” Reforms will require an Existential approach. “Ideas Move the World,” and SARTRE’S intent is to stir the conscience of those who desire to bring back a common sense, moral and traditional value culture for America. Not seeking fame nor fortune, SARTRE’s only goal is to ask the questions that few will dare … Having refused the invites of an academic career because of the hypocrisy of elite’s, the search for TRUTH is the challenge that is made to all readers. It starts within yourself and is achieved only with your sincere desire to face Reality. So who is SARTRE? He is really an ordinary man just like you, who invites you to join in on this journey. Visit his website at http://batr.org.
Monsanto’s Herbicide Linked To Groundwater Contamination
In a groundbreaking study published in the journal Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry last year, evidence surfaced that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the Monsanto’s patented herbicide Roundup, is flowing freely into the groundwater in areas where it is being applied.1 The researchers found that 41% of the 140 groundwater samples taken from Catalonia Spain, had levels beyond the limit of quantification – indicating that, despite the manufacturer’s claims, glyphosate herbicide does not break down rapidly in the environment, and is accumulating there in concerning quantities.
Why Is Groundwater Contamination An Important Finding?
Groundwater is water located beneath the ground surface, that supplies aquifers, wells and springs. If a chemical like glyphosate is mobile enough to get into the groundwater and is intrinsically resistant to being biodegraded (after all, it is being used to kill/degrade living things – not the other way around), significant environmental exposures to humans using the water are inevitable. After all, according to the USGS, 88,000 tons were used in the US in 2007 alone.
Keep in mind that glyphosate is considered by the EPA as a Class III toxic substance, fatal to an adult at 30 grams, and has been linked to over 20 adverse health effects in the peer-reviewed, biomedical literature.
This groundwater contamination study adds to another highly concerning finding from March, 2011, published in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, where researchers found the chemical in 60-100% of all air and rain samples tested, indicating that glyphosate pollution and exposure is now omnipresent in the US. When simply breathing makes you susceptible to glyphosate exposure, we know we are dealing with a problem of unprecedented scale.
In fact, glyphosate’s broad spectrum toxicity has been identified to be one potential cause for the disturbing loss of indispensable food-starter bacteria from soils and cultured foods within certain regions of the world, indicating that GMO farming may be depleting the microbial biodiversity of the soil, and ultimately its ability to remain fertile.
Who Is Responsible For The Groundwater Contamination?
Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation, presently dominating the global genetically engineered seed market, with 90% market share in the US alone. It is also the world’s largest producer of the herbicide glyphosate, marketed as “Roundup,” among other brand names. If you are eating corn and soy, or any of their ten thousand plus byproducts – and it does not have a USDA organic logo – you are getting the Monsanto “double whammy”: the genetic modification (GM) of your health (and gene expression) that follows the consumption of GM food (because we are – literally – what we eat), and ceaseless chemical exposure to glyphosate, as all Monsanto-engineered foods have been designed to be glyphosate-resistant, and therefore are saturated with it.
Is Monsanto’s Herbicide A New Agent Orange?
Roundup is not Monsanto’s first entry into the systemic herbicide market. Monsanto admits it manufactured the herbicide/defoliant Agent Orange from 1965 to 1969, which Vietnam estimated killed and maimed 400,000 people and resulted in the 500,000 children being born with birth defects.
The true devastation caused by Agent Orange was covered up for many years. We may find that Monsanto’s Roundup, and its primary active ingredient glyphosate, may be causing a similar degree of devastation to both environmental and human health under the lidless, though not very watchful eye (as far as business interests are concerned), of our regulatory agencies.
Indeed, glyphosate is a powerful endocrine disrupter. Exceedingly small amounts are capable of mimicking and/or disrupting hormonal pathways, cell receptor sites and signaling. Research culled from The National Library of Medicine links it to 17 adverse pharmacological actions, including carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, neurotoxicty, hepatoxicity, and nephrotoxicity.
But what is most disturbing, and which may make its comparison to Agent Orange all the more appropriate, is its potential teratrogenicity, i.e. ability to cause fetal malformations.
A 2003 study of pregnant, glyphosate/Roundup-exposed rats indicated the formulation exhibited significant tetragenicity. The researchers commented: “We may conclude that glyphosate-Roundup is toxic to the dams and induces developmental retardation of the fetal skeleton.”2
A study published in 2004 revealed that glyphosate exhibits endocrine-disruptive and embryotoxic effects. Researchers found the chemical alters the expression of the enzyme aromatase in both fetal and placental cells and tissue — changes which indicate it may contribute to birth defects and abnormal fetal development.3
Another study published in 2009 showed that glyphosate formulations induce cell death and necrosis in human umbilicial, embryonic and placental cells.4
Now that glyphosate has been found in the majority of air and rain samples tested in the US, and is now likely contaminating our wells, springs and aquifers, exposure is not only likely, its inevitable — the difference being only a matter of degree.
Eating, Breathing, Drinking … Dying?
The precautionary principle, which is not employed here in the US, would require that if a company produces a novel chemical compound like glyphosate, and would like to use it commercially, it would have to prove its safety to humans before it is released into the environment.
Animal and cell research clearly shows glyphosate is harmful, but because we use a “weight of evidence standard” in this country, the burden of proof that it is harmful to humans is on those being exposed to it.
Had Monsanto been required to prove its safety in humans, it is doubtful they would have been able to. There was already enough damning animal research available, and proving a toxic chemical in human studies would require harming them, which is unethical.
This is why the precautionary principle is so powerful and necessary to protect us from corporations like Monsanto. We would not be eating, drinking and breathing glyphosate today, if it had been employed earlier. Instead, chemical companies use animal experiments to determine a LD50 (the dose at which 50% of the animals die), from which an “acceptable level of harm” is extrapolated and applied to humans, in what is called a toxicological risk assessment.
An acceptable level of harm? This way of thinking is abusive, especially when applied to the unborn and infants.
Will it take additional decades of cumulative “acceptable” exposures, and thousands of “mysterious” miscarriages, birth defects, and developmental problems for us to understand how serious the problem is? Or, should we listen to Monsanto, their scientists, and the governmental regulatory agencies that they populate with elected and unelected officials on their payroll, who say it is relatively harmless?
Act Now! Support The California Ballot Initiative
Learn about the California ballot initiative that will force GMO foods to be labeled. This is the front line of the struggle against the continued assault on human and environmental health by corporations like Monsanto.
1Determination of glyphosate in groundwater samples using an ultrasensitive immunoassay and confirmation by on-line solid-phase extraction followed by liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2011 Nov 20. Epub 2011 Nov 20. PMID: 22101424
2 The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup in Wistar rats. Toxicol Lett. 2003 Apr 30;142(1-2):45-52. PMID: 12765238
3 Time- and dose-dependent effects of roundup on human embryonic and placental cells. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007 Jul;53(1):126-33. Epub 2007 May 4. PMID: 17486286
4 Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells. Chem Res Toxicol. 2009 Jan;22(1):97-105. PMID: 19105591
Article Contributed by Sayer Ji, Founder of GreenMedInfo.com.
Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the National Health Federation. He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is internationally recognized as the largest and most widely referenced health resource of its kind.
In part 3 we examine current examples of covert human experimentation in the US and look into the very near future’s ethical and legal implications of GMO humans, human animal-hybrids, the use of GMOs as covert weapons of mass destruction and ethnic-specific bio-weapons as “useful” political tools. We also look into the use of foreign populations (Africa & Puerto Rico) as convenient human guinea pigs lab for US corporate science, the US military and the US government with the blessing of the legal system.
Waldemar Perez is a Mechanical Engineer who worked for the Department of Defense and a military contractor. He is an independent researcher, political atheist and an on-line activist living in the Pacific Northwest. His interests include, finance, secret human experimentation, modern day eugenics, covert medicine, geopolitics, false flag operations, mainstream media as a weapon of war, high-tech propaganda tactics (like the use of actors and staged massacres to manipulate public opinion), 9/11, police militarization and other conspiracies of the shadow government and the elite. As an activist his passion includes exposing the lies and deceptions of the deep state and educating the public on key historical facts not well advertised to the public like Operation Northwoods. His Youtube channel Verify Events Research covers a wide variety of subjects.
Alternative health author Catherine Frompovich returns to the program to discuss the impact of RF radiation, geoengineering and genetically modified organisms on human health and the environment.
Catherine is a retired natural nutritionist who’s probably more active in retirement than most people are in their current professional lives. She has advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, and is also certified in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice, in addition to Paralegal Studies.
Catherine’s work has been published in national magazines since the early 1980s. She has authored several books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher for over 35 years.
Catherine’s latest book, published in 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.
Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.
Catherine is a regular contributor at Activist Post. More information is available at www.catherinefrompovich.com
Professor James F. Tracy is an Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University. James Tracy’s work on media history, politics and culture has appeared in a wide variety of academic journals, edited volumes, and alternative news and opinion outlets. James is editor of Union for Democratic Communication’s Journal Democratic Communiqué and a contributor to Project Censored’s forthcoming publication Censored 2013: The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2011-2012. Additional writings and information are accessible at memoryholeblog.com.
You probably want to know what’s actually in what you’re eating, right? Of course you do. That’s probably why you read the ingredients label. But even if you’re making responsible choices, there still might be more to that meal than you realize. There’s a movement that’s trying to keep you in the dark about genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), not to mention a host of other nasties in your food. You’ll want to stick around while I tell you seven things that you should really know about GMOs.
1. Money is Being Spent to Ensure You Stay Uninformed
Giant corporations like Dupont and Monsanto spent millions of dollars recently in Colorado and Oregon to thwart labeling campaigns that would list genetically-modified ingredients.  In Colorado, for example, these two giants outspent supporters of GMO labeling by 22-1. These labeling movements are all part of the ‘Right to Know’ campaigns, but apparently manufacturers don’t feel Americans need to know what’s in their food.
2. GMO Labels Wouldn’t Cost Much
Those same labels these corporations are so afraid of would actually cost the taxpayer a tiny amount—about two dollars a year—but it’s not really about spreading the cost to the consumer.  Corporations want to turn a profit, and if the product you’ve been buying for years suddenly proclaims that is has GMOs, you’ll likely stop buying it. In an effort to stop the pro-GM labeling, TV ads even tried to tell voters that these labels would cost them between $400 and $800 dollars a year. An ECONorthwest report, however, proved that inflated figure wrong. 
3. Major Food Companies are Willfully Ignorant
General Mills was in the news recently when GMOs were taken out of Cheerios, so the next logical step should have been to take GMOs out of the entire cereal lineup. Well that didn’t happen for two main reasons: removing GMOs from Cheerios hasn’t translated to higher sales, and the company still doesn’t fully believe GMOs aren’t safe. As almost every company shareholder voted against removing GMOs, I think it boils down to what the company thinks will make the most money. This focus on profit is seen in the policies of many of the food giants. Companies aren’t going to ban GMOs when they’re making money.
4. Not All Requests for GMO-Free are Being Ignored
Lately, there’s been so many anti-GMO stances that some progressive and forward thinking companies are jumping on the non-GMO bandwagon. In the case of a vegetable that’s a cross between a Brussels sprout and kale, a non-GMO label is arguable. Hybrid plants are created when you crossbreed two compatible plants; no DNA is genetically modified or enhanced, but some people might still consider a hybrid a GMO.  The bottom line is most companies want to make money, and the anti-GMO movement is a big moneymaker.
5. GMO-Free Can Be a Good Business Model
For large and small companies, profits matter. Consider, though, the power of the organic food market right now. Everyone wants organic, and farmers and ranchers are taking note. Using organic practices can add as much as $100 to a head of cattle, so from a market standpoint, the organic movement makes sense.  While most farmers and ranchers are driven by profits, we, as the consumers, are presented with more organic and non-GMO options.
6. “Natural” Doesn’t Mean GMO-Free
Let’s talk again about those labels on your food. Have you ever bought something that claimed it was ‘natural’ without it mentioning anything about GMOs?  Buyer beware! A recent study found that a lot of those products actually do contain GMOs. Consumer Reports tested over 80 different processed foods with corn or soy and found most of them had GMO ingredients.   If you want to make sure you aren’t getting genetically-modified corn or soy, look for non-GMO or organic labels.
7. GMOs Have Created a Crisis
Not only are GMOs bad for our health, genetically-modified crops are causing a big land crisis. Corn and soy are two crops that are genetically modified to tolerate multiple herbicides; however, what we’re left with is two-fold: crops dosed heavily with herbicides and superweeds! These superweeds are resistant to all the common herbicides and are quickly becoming an issue–especially for farmers in the southern US where most of these weeds grow. It’s estimated that almost 70 million acres of U.S farmlands are now infested with superweeds, and no one knows how to handle it. 
The Bottom Line: Avoid GMOs!
So yes, there are a lot of reasons to avoid GMOs, and many businesses are taking note of what consumers want and making adjustments. Progress is slow–and in some cases nonexistent–but eventually there will be change. After all, we have the right to know what’s in our food.
What about you? What do you think about GMOs? Leave a comment below and share your thoughts.
- Goldenberg, S. Pro-GM labelling campaign hugely outspent in Colorado and Oregon ballot. The Guardian.
- Tims, D. Median GMO labeling would cost consumers $2.30 per year: New pro-Measure 92 study. The Oregonian.
- ECONorthwest. GE FOODS LABELING COST STUDY FINDINGS. Consumers Union.
- Sheets, C. Companies Pursuing Non-GMO Products For Competitive Edge, Experts Say. International Business Times.
- Ortiz, E. Market speaks louder than science: GMO-free animals a good business model. The Sacramento Bee.
- Gillam, C. U.S. foods labeled ‘natural’ often contain GMOs, group reports. Reuters.
- Consumer Reports. Food Safety and Sustainability Center Report on GMOs in Corn and Soy. Consumer Reports.
- Consumer Reports. Food Safety and Sustainability Center Test Results of GMOs in Corn and Soy. Consumer Reports.
- Keim, B. New Generation of GM Crops Puts Agriculture in a ‘Crisis Situation’. Wired.
Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM has studied natural healing methods for over 20 years and now teaches individuals and practitioners all around the world. He no longer sees patients but solely concentrates on spreading the word of health and wellness to the global community. Under his leadership, Global Healing Center, Inc. has earned recognition as one of the largest alternative, natural and organic health resources on the Internet.
For two decades, Monsanto has randomly inserted the genes of one species into a non-related species, or genetically “interfered” with the instructions of an organism’s RNA—using viruses, antibiotic-resistant genes and bacteria as vectors, markers and promoters—to create gene-spliced seeds and crops.
All the while, Monsanto and its industry-paid scientists have claimed that GMO crops and foods, and the chemicals that accompany them, are perfectly safe. And therefore need no labeling or independent safety-testing.
Self-appointed GMO labeling “leaders” such as Scott Faber, a former lobbyist for the pro-GMO Grocery Manufacturers Association and now executive director of the Just Label It campaign, need to stop repeating Monsanto and Big Food’s lies that there is no “evidence” that GMOs are dangerous for human health or the environment.
It simply isn’t true. Here’s why. Along with 12 ways consumers can drive these dangerous, pesticide-laden foods off the market.
By: Christina Sarich | Natural Society –
Many individuals have heard it a million times, but for the uninformed, or those just looking to fuel their 2014 fire to finally defeat Monsanto and their cronies, you’ll be interested to know that Monsanto’s Bt-toxin is far from ‘safe’ as the chemical company claimed it would be when filing their papers with the FDA. New research from Canada show that BT toxins are showing up in pregnant women, and low and behold – they are killing human embryo cells. 2014 is the year of the horse, but we’re not through beating this one to death.
It’s called reproductive toxicology, and just like their suicide seeds, these Bt toxins are starting to kill our own unborn children. This is no exaggeration. Hopefully reading further will compel you to take action. It is time to put Monsanto to rest, bankrupt them, and let the world know their ‘secrets’ near and far.
Bt toxins are prominent in genetically altered crops such as corn, soy, wheat, and others, called Cry1Ab – and they can be lethal. Not only do these cry-toxins target the kidney cells of developing human fetuses, but when Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac are combined with RoundUp, they can delay apoptosis of human cancer cells. What’s worse, glyphosate, the main ingredient in RoundUp, also causes necrosis – i.e. the death of human tissue, and this happens even when the substance is found in much smaller amounts than what is currently being used on our agricultural crops. The stuff is still carcinogenic in the parts per trillion range.
In its rush to remain the ‘agricultural leader’ of the world, the US government erected defunct regulatory bodies that have no means to truly examine the ramifications of biotechnology on our food. The National Institute of Health (NIH) is a joke and the FDA gave Monsanto an indefinite hall pass to cause mayhem on the food supply.
More people need to file lawsuits against this company until they are without one red cent to continue poisoning the planet and killing our unborn babies. The Organic Seed Grower’s Association sued Monsanto in 2011, and Idaho wheat growers are suing Monsanto for cross-contamination, but what about parental groups? Mother’s Against Drunk Driving was formed when a mom lost her baby to a drunk driver. Perhaps the mothers who face reproductive failure due to Monsanto’s hand can sue them collectively.
The FDA’s internal memos about their concerns surrounding GMO seed crops recently surfaced in one lawsuit, though the public was never meant to see them. GMO foods are not the foods we have always eaten. This is an outright lie.
Any lawyers out there willing to go against the monopoly? I’d sign a class action suit today. Would you? In the meantime, utilize these 5 tips for avoiding GMOs while you write your local senator, state representatives, congressman, and president.
On November 2, 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first genetically modified food animal—an Atlantic salmon that grows twice as fast as natural salmon, thanks to the insertion of genes from Chinook salmon and eelpout (an eel-like fish).
This approval is so wrong, on so many levels, that it’s hard to know where to start.
For one, the FDA regulates GMO salmon as a drug, not a food—”because the recombinant DNA (rDNA) construct introduced into the animal meets the definition of a drug.”
If that’s the case, you would think this new “drug” should be labeled. But it won’t be, because out of the other side of the FDA’s mouth, the agency has declared GMO salmon to be nutritionally equivalent to conventional farm-raised Atlantic salmon.
As this article on Mercola.com says:
In the eyes of the FDA, it’s a perfectly normal fish, but it’s also a drug, but since it’s a fish that is comparable to other fish, it doesn’t need to be labeled, even though all drugs typically need to be labeled…
But of course the new frankenfish is not nutritionally equivalent to farmed salmon. Worse yet, the FDA approved GMO salmon on the basis of flawed studies, none of which included long-term safety testing to prove genetically engineered salmon is safe for human consumption.
It’s a veritable Frankenfish Fraud Fest. And with an estimated 35 other species of genetically altered food animals in the pipeline, it will only get worse. Unless consumers boycott GMO salmon, and every retailer or restaurant that sells it.
The appropriations bill, essentially a budget bill, must pass by midnight December 11. Or the federal government will shut down.
Contrary to FDA claims, the AquAdvantage® salmon is not the same as farmed salmon that has not been genetically engineered. Developed in a laboratory by inserting the genes of a Chinook salmon and eelpout (an eel-like fish) into an Atlantic salmon, “frankenfish” is less nutritious than normal salmon, more likely to trigger an allergy, and could increase cancer risks by raising levels of IGF-1, a hormone linked to prostate, breast and colon cancers in humans.
Right now, the only states where GMO salmon will have to be labeled are Alaska and Vermont. But those laws could be wiped out by a last-minute “sneak attack” rider to the appropriations bill preempting states from enacting laws on any foods containing GMOs, including frankenfish.
Disturbing new research published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology indicates that genetically modified (GM) crops with “stacked traits” – that is, with multiple traits such as glyphosate-herbicide resistance and Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) insecticidal toxins engineered together into the same plant, are likely to be far more dangerous to human health than previously believed, and all of this is due to their synergistic toxicity.
The natural resistance that most plants have to the chemical glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, has been engineered into many GM plants, so that fields can be sprayed indiscriminately with herbicide without the plants having to worry about destroying the crops. While the GM glyphosate-resistant plants survive, they subsequently contain residues of glyphosate and its various metabolites (e.g. aminomethylphosphonic acid) that present a significant health threat to the public.
In this latest study the glyphosate-containing herbicide Roundup was tested on human embryonic kidney cells at concentrations between 1 to 20,000 parts per million (ppm). It was found that concentrations as low as 50 ppm per million, which the authors noted were “far below agricultural dilutions,” induced cell death, with the 50% of the cells dying at 57.5 ppm.
The researchers also found that the insecticidal toxin produced by GM plants known as Cry1Ab was capable of causing cell death at 100 ppm concentrations.
Taken together the authors concluded
“In these results, we argue that modified Bt toxins are not inert on nontarget human cells, and that they can present combined side-effects with other residues of pesticides specific to GM plants.”
These disturbing findings follow on the heels of other recent revelations that have discovered that Roundup is toxic by several orders of magnitude more than previously believed. Only 5 days ago (Feb. 14, 2012) the journal Archives of Toxicology reported that Roundup is toxic to human DNA even when diluted to concentrations 450-fold lower than used in agricultural applications. This effect is likely due to the presence of the surfactant polyoxyethyleneamine within the Roundup formulation which may dramatically enhance the absorption of glyphosate exposure into exposed human cells and tissue.
Article Contributed by Sayer Ji, Founder of GreenMedInfo.com.
Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the National Health Federation. He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is internationally recognized as the largest and most widely referenced health resource of its kind.
By: Susan Patterson, The Alternative Daily |
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), you know that group of good guys that are charged with protecting the health and welfare of Americans, has just approved the first ever genetically modified animal to be sold in American supermarkets. And that is not the worst of it… this Franken-salmon won’t even be labeled. WHAT????
I am so sick and tired of these regulating agencies speaking out of both sides of their mouth. How can they sleep at night making such a decision? How can they be for us when their actions clearly indicate they are for something, anything, other than us?
Here is the mission of this regulating agency, in case you are not familiar with it:
“FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.”
We reported in 2013 about AquaBounty Technologies that claims its monster fish are safe to eat. Of course, we were all hoping it would never come to be.
If approved, AquaBounty’s GMO salmon would be the first genetically engineered animal to be sold for human consumption and could appear in restaurants and supermarkets as early 2015.
Farmed salmon are raised in pens in coastal waters along Washington, Maine and British Columbia. The fish being raised are Atlantic salmon and when they escape they will compete with already endangered native stocks. Between 400,000 and 1 million Atlantic salmon have already escaped into the wild from the 75 operations in British Columbia.
A Purdue University study showed that if 60 transgenic fish bred in a population of 60,000 wild fish, the wild fish would be extinct in 40 generations.
“We’ve seen assurances in the past from industry and regulators that there won’t be catastrophic consequences like the Gulf oil spill,” said George Kimbrell, a senior staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety. “We have a cultural amnesia about these things.”
No one gets excited at a genetically raised fish. Why put a different genetic makeup into your body? Some scientists don’t see it this way.
AquaBounty, which calls its super salmon an “advanced hybrid” rather than a transgenic fish, said the fish are safe to eat and would be raised in contained farming operations that could be based inland rather than along coastal waters. And the modified fish, all females, would be sterile so that they couldn’t breed with wild fish if any escaped, the company said.
Very comforting, sterility.
AquaBounty’s fish grow faster but not bigger than normal Atlantic salmon. The company says that genetically modified salmon are identical to regular salmon in every way except for the genes that have been added.
That’s not identical!
The difference between males and females is the Y chromosome. The company has added a growth hormone gene from the Chinook salmon as well as a gene from the ocean pout, a distant relative of the salmon, to a normal Atlantic salmon’s roughly 40,000 genes. Salmon normally feed only during the spring and summer, but when the on-switch from the pout’s gene is triggered, they eat year round.
We have another oil-rig-like catastrophe waiting to happen in our oceans.
The result is a transgenic salmon that grows to market size in about half the time as a normal salmon – 16 to 18 months, rather than three years.
The FDA doesn’t comment on pending applications, though a public hearing on the AquaBounty application could come as early as this fall. Such public hearings can signal the FDA is close to a decision.
How many times has the FDA’s decisions affected the lives of millions of people?
There have been no independent, long-term scientific studies of AquaBounty’s patented salmon. The human health impacts of GMO salmon are not known. The FDA has relied on scant scientific documents provided by AquaBounty itself. In fact, some of the FDA’s own assessment of AquaBounty’s studies to determine whether GMO salmon are safe for human consumption states that the studies contain “technical flaws” and provide “insufficient data.”
For two of the studies submitted, AquaBounty used sample sizes so small that they have no scientific credibility, with only 12 fish tested for one study, while another study on possible allergic reactions in humans involved only 6 fish.
Still, the FDA is currently on the verge of approving the company’s GMO salmon.
What will happen to people who eat the engineered fish over time? How far can genetically manipulated traits impact human health?
Once approved, AquaBounty said it could start marketing the eggs from transgenic salmon within two or three years. The company also is reportedly developing transgenic tilapia and trout. Ask for it in your favorite restaurant.
Once again, unknowing humans will be tested and the product in question will be recalled after many ill effects on humans. But in this case, genetically modified organisms can’t be recalled from the wild.
In 2014, we reported that the two largest national grocery stores, Kroger and Safeway, had announced that they would not sell the salmon should it receive FDA approval. I sure hope that they hold fast to this.
Kroger is the largest grocery chain in the United states, with 2,424 stores nationwide. Safeway follows in second place with 1,406 stores. Many other grocers have publicly stated that they will not sell Frankensalmon, including Target, Meijer, Giant Eagle, Marsh and H-E-B. Three of the first retailers to refuse the salmon were Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s and Aldi, who announced their decisions in July 2013.
To date, over 60 different food retailers have taken a stand against selling GM salmon, totaling over 9,000 stores across the U.S. Additionally, millions of people have protested the FDA’s consideration of the salmon in writing.
The FDA has cotton in its ears
It’s astounding to me that the FDA could turn such a deaf ear to the cries from environmentalists, health officials, researchers and consumer groups. The research just isn’t there to bring any assurance that these monster fish are safe. No one knows the long-term impact of eating genetically modified fish on human health. However, once again… common sense has evaded the FDA — this time in a massive way.
A glimmer of hope: The Center for Food Safety has not let any grass grow under its feet — it has announced it would file a lawsuit challenging the approval.
More Franken-fish to come
There are currently at least 35 other species of GM fish in various stages of engineering — and this is a truly disturbing fact for many people who do not want GMOs in circulation, especially if they are not labeled.
It’s just wrong… my two cents
I believe in Creation… I believe that the natural world was created and that our job is to be stewards of this Creation. However, we continue to mess where we don’t belong, impose our so-called advanced and “good” technology for the betterment of mankind.
If we just left things the way they were meant to be, cared for the land, cared for the plants, cared for the animals, and stopped exploiting the Earth for our desire to be bigger, better and wealthier… we would have enough for everyone. But… we want more and more. Our greedy tendencies drive the desire to rule over a Creation that was made to work harmoniously in partnership with us, to keep delicate ecosystems balanced and humankind healthy.
Why does anyone even think that raping Creation will yield anything more than trouble?
It’s time for the FDA to pull its head out of the sand and do the job it is called to do!
Susan Patterson is the Content Director at The Alternative Daily, a Certified Health Coach, Certified Metabolic Typing Advisor and Master Gardener. With an extensive knowledge of whole foods and wellness, Susan enjoys educating others on how to live healthy and sustainable lives. She presently lives off grid in the middle of the New Mexican high desert with her three children and numerous animals.