Open Letter to Chris Brown
Open Letter to Chris Brown
March 29, 2011
March 28, 2011
Revolutionary and Still Grindin'
Revolutionary and Still Grindin': an interview wit' Stic.man of dead prez
Last year the legendary rap group dead prez celebrated 10 years since they dropped their monumental classic album "Lets Get Free". Since then, they have dropped a lot of music together, including a dead prez album that they did with the Outlawz called "Can't Sell Dope Forever", and they also have done solo albums. The group consists of Stic.man and M1, and at this point the dj is Mike Flo. They will be coming to the Bay Area to perform at Yoshi's in San Francisco, this Friday. we wanted to catch up wit' dead prez to talk a little bit about what has been going on with them lately since they dropped their free mixtape, "Revolutionary But Gangsta Grillz", which was one of the dopest albums dropped in 2010. Don't take my word for it, you can get it at deadprez.com. Here is Stic.man, one half of the revolutionary rap group in this exclusive Q&A....
M.O.I. JR: You just dropped a free mixtape called "Revolutionary But Gangsta Grillz", what inspred y'all to do this mixtape?
Deline in bee numbers
UN alarmed at huge deline in bee numbers
AFP
March 10, 2011
The UN on Thursday expressed alarm at a huge decline in bee colonies under a multiple onslaught of pests and pollution, urging an international effort to save the pollinators that are vital for food crops.
Much of the decline, ranging up to 85 percent in some areas, is taking place in the industralised northern hemisphere due to more than a dozen factors, according to a report by the UN’s environmental agency.
They include pesticides, air pollution, a lethal parasite that only affects bee species in the northern hemisphere, mismanagement of the countryside, the loss of flowering plants and a decline in beekeepers in Europe.
Read full article
February 23, 2011
Fake rice out of plastic
Chinese companies mass producing fake rice out of plastic
(NaturalNews) The Chinese food contamination freak show is back in full swing with new reports out of Singapore indicating that certain Chinese companies are now mass producing and selling fake rice to unwitting villagers. According to a report in the Korean-languageWeekly Hong Kong, the manufacturers are blending potatoes, sweet potatoes, and plastic industrial resin to produce the imitation rice.
April 29, 2010
Massachusetts makes disobedience vaccine mandatory
Future News: Massachusetts makes disobedience vaccine mandatory
Written by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com
(NaturalNews) (Editor's Note: This story is a fictional future news story that depicts one possible future under an American medical dictatorship.) Taking aim at the growing spread of Obedience Defiance Disorder (O.D.D.) -- a mental disease striking both children and adults -- Massachusetts health authorities have joined with the state legislature to make O.D.D. vaccine mandatory across the state beginning this Thursday.
O.D.D. is a serious health disorder that causes people to act in defiance of authority figures. Symptoms of O.D.D. include disobeying public school teachers, refusing to take vaccine shots and engaging in home schooling activities. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has called O.D.D. a "modern pandemic" that has destroyed the lives of tens of millions of Americans who currently lack treatment.
Drug maker Merck launched its FDA-approved O.D.D. vaccine late last year, and clinical trials funded by Merck have scientifically shown that the vaccine works to quell disobedience in over 65% of those given the shots. The vaccines contain an unusually large dose of squalene, a vaccine adjuvant that helps magnify the effects of the vaccine on the human nervous system. Some critics are extremely angry about the vaccine, claiming it causes brain damage, but as was pointed out by a Merck spokesperson, those critics are themselves suffering from O.D.D. and need more treatment.
One of the more obvious symptoms of O.D.D. is any expression of opposition to vaccines. Citizens who notice their neighbors displaying any symptoms of O.D.D. are encouraged to call the national O.D.D. reporting hotline: 1-800-ODD-HELP
Bill Gates donates millions to help end O.D.D.
The move by the Mass. legislature to make O.D.D. vaccines mandatory is designed to bring treatment to millions of O.D.D. sufferers who currently receive no treatment. "These people need help," said State Senator Jack McClane. "It is our moral responsibility to make sure that every child in Massachusetts receives this vaccine for their own good."
Parents who resist having their children vaccinated are, of course, suffering from O.D.D. themselves and will also receive mandatory treatment. "We will have law enforcement officials standing by, ready to go door to door to administer this medicine to all the children across the state who need treatment," McClane added.
Software entrepreneur Bill Gates has reportedly donated $265 million to the state to aid in the purchase and injection of O.D.D. vaccines. In an email statement sent to the Associated Press, Gates explained that Massachusetts "could serve as a model for success" and that if the O.D.D. vaccine program were successful there, he planned to support its nationwide expansion to help treat all Americans with O.D.D. vaccines.
Parents are also finding huge benefits from the O.D.D. vaccines. Twenty-seven year old Linda Johanson, who took part in the 7-day clinical trial that proved the vaccines were both safe and effective, told the Associated Press that the vaccine "...made my child far easier to handle as a parent. He no longer spoke out against me or had his own ideas. He simply did what I told him, and now our household feels like family again."
Public school teachers are also supporting O.D.D. vaccination programs, claiming the vaccines make children "more obedient" in classrooms. Academic performance appears to be somewhat reduced in those who receive the vaccines, but this loss of intellectual capacity is "a small price to pay for obedience," say teachers.
The stock price of Merck surged by nearly $2 a share on today's news that the vaccine would be made mandatory in Massachusetts.
About this fictional story:
FUTURE NEWS is a NaturalNews.com feature that seeks to print important news before it happens. It is not merely satire or comedy: These news stories are based on the logical progression of current events. They are provided as a public education service to warn readers about the future that may be coming soon if meaningful changes are not made to end the health care dictatorship that has now taken hold across the United States of America.
April 28, 2010
You Are What You Eat
You Are What You Eat: Pictures Of Factory Farms.
I have been on a real “clean up my food” kick lately, after watching Food Inc. and King Corn and reading The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food Life, and Eating Animals. I mean, I knew about how our food is being grown and genetically screwed with, and how factory farmed animals are treated brutally prior to us eating them, but until you start really seeing these things it is very easy to push them aside and continue eating the way that you always have. And while it is sometimes hard to eat out at restaurants and know where the food came from, it’s quite simple to do it at home – where the majority of my meals are eaten. I have not given up eating meat altogether yet, but I do buy chicken from the happiest and most local of them that I can find (Can you really be happy if you are awaiting death? Doubt it – I know I wouldn’t be!) have stopped eating red meat entirely. Is it enough? Probably not – and I don’t want to turn this post into an article pitting one side against the other. That’s not what this is about at all. Everyone has to make their own decisions about what they eat. I basically just wanted to show what the inside of factory farms looks like to those of you who don’t know yet…and it ain’t pretty. Caution – I am warning you right now that there are a few somewhat graphic pictures below of the way we treat animals prior to us eating them.
November 23, 2009
H1N1 Vaccine Side effects
H1N1 Vaccine Side effects
Flu shot is it Dangerous?
Dear readers i have attached a round up of swine flu vaccine side effects emanating from this particular H1N1 vaccine. Please pass this information to as many people you can or even possibly to your physician. In a nutshell the vaccine contains mecury derivatives as as other adjavents that can cause Cancer and fertility problems.
There has been a lot of controversy surrounding this in America. Please have a look at FDA approved document and see for your self. Biologists are welcome to educate us more on this issue.
[Download full FDA document]
3 DOSAGE FORMS AND STRENGTHS
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine is a sterile suspension for intramuscular injection. [see DESCRIPTION (11) for the complete list of ingredients]
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine is available in two presentations:
1) Prefilled single dose syringe, 0.5-mL. Thimerosal, a mercury derivative used during manufacture, is removed by subsequent purification steps to a trace amount (? 1 mcg mercury per 0.5-mL dose).
2) Multidose vial, 5-mL. Contains thimerosal, a mercury derivative, added as a preservative. Each 0.5-mL dose from the multidose vial contains 25 mcg mercury.
4 CONTRAINDICATIONS
4.1 Hypersensitivity
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine should not be administered to anyone with known systemic hypersensitivity reactions to egg proteins (eggs or egg products), or to any component of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine, or who has had a life-threatening reaction to previous influenza vaccinations [see DESCRIPTION (11)].
5 WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS
5.1 Guillain-Barré Syndrome
If Guillain-Barré syndrome has occurred within 6 weeks of receipt of prior influenza vaccine, the decision to give Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine should be based on careful consideration of the potential benefits and risks.
5.2 Altered Immunocompetence
If Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine is administered to immunocompromised persons, including individuals receiving immunosuppressive therapy, the expected immune response may not be obtained.
5.3 Preventing and Managing Allergic Reactions
Prior to administration of any dose of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine, the healthcare provider should review the patient’s prior immunization history for possible adverse events, to determine the existence of any contraindication to immunization with Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine and to allow an assessment of benefits and risks. Appropriate medical treatment and supervision must be available to manage possible anaphylactic reactions following administration of the vaccine.
5.4 Limitations of Vaccine Effectiveness
Vaccination with Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine may not protect all individuals.
3 DOSAGE FORMS AND STRENGTHS
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine is a sterile suspension for intramuscular injection. [see DESCRIPTION (11) for the complete list of ingredients]
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine is available in two presentations:
1) Prefilled single dose syringe, 0.5-mL. Thimerosal, a mercury derivative used during manufacture, is removed by subsequent purification steps to a trace amount (? 1 mcg mercury per 0.5-mL dose).
2) Multidose vial, 5-mL. Contains thimerosal, a mercury derivative, added as a preservative. Each 0.5-mL dose from the multidose vial contains 25 mcg mercury.
4 CONTRAINDICATIONS
4.1 Hypersensitivity
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine should not be administered to anyone with known systemic hypersensitivity reactions to egg proteins (eggs or egg products), or to any component of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine, or who has had a life-threatening reaction to previous influenza vaccinations [see DESCRIPTION (11)].
5 WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS
5.1 Guillain-Barré Syndrome
If Guillain-Barré syndrome has occurred within 6 weeks of receipt of prior influenza vaccine, the decision to give Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine should be based on careful consideration of the potential benefits and risks.
5.2 Altered Immunocompetence
If Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine is administered to immunocompromised persons, including individuals receiving immunosuppressive therapy, the expected immune response may not be obtained.
5.3 Preventing and Managing Allergic Reactions
Prior to administration of any dose of Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine, the healthcare provider should review the patient’s prior immunization history for possible adverse events, to determine the existence of any contraindication to immunization with Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine and to allow an assessment of benefits and risks. Appropriate medical treatment and supervision must be available to manage possible anaphylactic reactions following administration of the vaccine.
5.4 Limitations of Vaccine Effectiveness
Vaccination with Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 Monovalent Vaccine may not protect all individuals…
Read more in document [Download full FDA document]
October 16, 2009
The Unnecessary Death of My Aunt, Hazel
The Unnecessary Death of My Aunt, Hazel
Cynthia McKinney
Continue reading "The Unnecessary Death of My Aunt, Hazel" »
September 01, 2009
Doctors Will Refuse To Take Swine Flu Shot
Polls: Half Of Doctors Will Refuse To Take Swine Flu Shot
Healthcare workers revolt against vaccination while government plans mass immunization programmes
Steve Watson - Infowars.net - Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Two separate polls of GPs in Britain have revealed that one in two doctors have severe reservations over the safety of the forthcoming H1N1 flu vaccine, raising serious questions over the government's planned mass vaccination programme.A poll of doctors for Pulse magazine found that 49% would reject the vaccine with 9% still undecided.
56 of the 115 GPs surveyed said they did not intend to receive the jab, according to the UK's leading medical weekly publication for health professionals.
A second poll conducted by GP magazine reveals that Up to 60% of GPs have severe doubts over the proposed vaccine. Of 216 GPs surveyed, 29% say they will outright refuse to be vaccinated, while a further 29% remain unsure. Only 41% of doctors said they would definitely take the shot.
Of those who said they would not take the shot, 71% said they were concerned that the vaccine had "not been through sufficient trials to guarantee its safety". Over half, 50.4%, said they "believe that swine flu is too mild to justify taking the vaccine".
The Department of Health sought to dismiss the results, declaring that the small number of responders to the surveys was not reflective of the opinions of all doctors.
However, these figures also dovetail with those from a much larger Nursing Times magazine poll, that revealed 30% of all NHS nurses said they would refuse to be immunized, with another 33% saying they were unsure.
Of the 30% of nurses who said they would refuse to be vaccinated, 60% said the reason was due to fears about the safety of the vaccine, following revelations that the shots will contain mercury and squalene and have also been linked with the killer nerve disease Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Another 31% said they would refuse the vaccine because they did not consider the risk from swine flu to be great enough.
The government has promised to vaccinate all health workers before Christmas at the latest, to deal with what it has described as the "second wave" of swine flu.
The vaccine is being rushed through safety procedures while the government has provided pharmaceutical companies with blanket immunity from lawsuits arriving out of the vaccine causing deaths and injuries.
Richard Hoey, editor of Pulse told the Daily Mail "The view among many doctors is that the Government hasn't yet made its case for why such a huge vaccination programme needs to be rushed in for what seems to be an unusually mild illness."
Continue reading "Doctors Will Refuse To Take Swine Flu Shot" »
June 04, 2009
Senate Votes to Ban Bisphenol
California Senate Votes to Ban Bisphenol A in Baby Food and Beverage Products
Despite heavy industry lobbying, Senate votes on the side of science and children’ health
Hormone-Altering Cosmetics
May 03, 2009
Black Seed: Blessed Seed Oil
Blessed Seed Oil,
By | E. Wilson "music lovher |
 |
If you've done any kind of research at all on Nigella Sativa oil (aka black seed oil, black cumin seed oil, onion seed oil, etc.) then you have to have heard about it's curative and health properties. Well I concur. I mix black seed oil with virgin coconut oil and use it on my skin and hair and it's truly miraculous. As nearly prohibitive as the price is, I'd be a fool NOT to cut it but the black seed oil shines right on through the coconut oil. I put some of my mixture on my son's skin with his eczema and chronic itchy skin and it kept his skin moisturized, healed his scratch marks where he'd scratched his skin up in his sleep and left him with a wonderful glow. I use it on my skin and hair as well and I love it. I also consume the oil on sprouted grain bread. The oil has a peppery/citrusy taste and is quite different from any other oil that I've ever tasted but there is no denying that if you care about your health, you must have this oil.
What Is BTH And Why You Should Avoid It.
What Is BTH And Why You Should Avoid It.
This past week I got an email from Shayna about an ingredient she has been seeing in a lot of skincare products called BHT, which is short for butylated hydroxytoluene. This lipophilic (fat-soluble) phenol is primarily used as an antioxidant food additive as well as in cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, jet fuels, rubber, petroleum products, and embalming fluid. Those things all belong in the same category, right? I mean, who doesn’t love using an ingredient that goes into jet fuel or embalming fluid…on their skin!
As for food use, while the United States still allows it to be used as an additive to slow the rate of autoxidation in food, Japan, Australia, Sweden and Romania have banned it’s use in food. Sweet!
In skincare products, it is kind of used in the same way - to preserve the product. But some studies have shown that large doses may cause tumors in lab animals and it can cause allergic contact dermatitis, so why in the world would we want to use it on our skin? Because the FDA says it is safe, that’s why! BHT also contains the chemical Toluene, which has a Material Safety Data Sheet that says:
POISON! DANGER! HARMFUL OR FATAL IF SWALLOWED. HARMFUL IF INHALED OR ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN. VAPOR HARMFUL. FLAMMABLE LIQUID AND VAPOR. MAY AFFECT LIVER, KIDNEYS, BLOOD SYSTEM, OR CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM. CAUSES IRRITATION TO SKIN, EYES AND RESPIRATORY TRACT. INHALATION: INHALATION MAY CAUSE IRRITATION OF THE UPPER RESPIRATORY TRACT. SYMPTOMS OF OVEREXPOSURE MAY INCLUDE FATIGUE, CONFUSION, HEADACHE, DIZZINESS AND DROWSINESS. PECULIAR SKIN SENSATIONS (E. G. PINS AND NEEDLES) OR NUMBNESS MAY BE PRODUCED. VERY HIGH CONCENTRATIONS MAY CAUSE UNCONSCIOUSNESS AND DEATH. INGESTION: SWALLOWING MAY CAUSE ABDOMINAL SPASMS AND OTHER SYMPTOMS THAT PARALLEL OVER-EXPOSURE FROM INHALATION. ASPIRATION OF MATERIAL INTO THE LUNGS CAN CAUSE CHEMICAL PNEUMONITIS, WHICH MAY BE FATAL. SKIN CONTACT: CAUSES IRRITATION. MAY BE ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN. EYE CONTACT: CAUSES SEVERE EYE IRRITATION WITH REDNESS AND PAIN. CHRONIC EXPOSURE: REPORTS OF CHRONIC POISONING DESCRIBE ANEMIA, DECREASED BLOOD CELL COUNT AND BONE MARROW HYPOPLASIA. LIVER AND KIDNEY DAMAGE MAY OCCUR. REPEATED OR PROLONGED CONTACT HAS A DEFATTING ACTION, CAUSING DRYING, REDNESS, AND DERMATITIS. EXPOSURE TO TOLUENE MAY AFFECT THE DEVELOPING FOETUS.
Awesome! Personally, I would refuse to use an ingredient found in embalming fluid to make my skin smoother or my lips look better, wouldn’t you?
Source: http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/02/20/what-is-bth-and-why-you-should-avoid-it/
May 02, 2009
Health Hazards of Genetically-Manipulated Foods
How to Avoid Genetically-Manipulated (GMO) Food Ingredients
In North America, all soy that is labeled "organic soy" is guaranteed to not be genetically-manipulated and not be treated with herbicides. Look for soy products and ingredients (e.g., tofu, tempeh, miso, soy sauce, soy milk, etc.) which are organic. All other soy ingredients are almost always genetically-manipulated and herbicide-treated. The same is true for canola, corn, dairy products and potatoes. Look for organic corn, potato and dairy ingredients at your local health food store. Check the ingredients labels carefully. It may be best to avoid canola altogether because it is rarely organic and is usually chemically-treated as detailed by world expert, Udo Erasmus. Outside of Europe and Asia it may not be possible at this time to avoid genetically-manipulated ingredients 100% of the time, but it is a good idea to avoid them when possible. The List of Companies Pledging to Remove GMO Ingredients is another very useful resource.
Health Hazards
There are a number of compelling reasons to completely avoid genetically-manipulated and herbicide-treated food ingredients from soy, corn, canola, dairy and potatoes. Children should be particularly careful to avoid such non-organic food ingredients.
Scientists attending the Open-ended Working Group on Biosafety of The UN-Convention on Biological Diversity (13-17 October, 1998) implored "all governments to use whatever methods available to them to bar from their markets, on grounds of injury to public health, Monsanto's genetically manipulated (GM) [herbicide-resistant] Roundup-Ready (RR) soybean." Non-organic soy ingredients are made with Roundup-Ready soybeans. Full Text of News Release and Scientists' Statement.
A recent experiment conducted by independent expert Dr. Alpad Pusztai in the United Kingdom has shown that genetically-manipulated foods can, when fed to animals in reasonable amounts, cause very gradual organ damage and immune system damage.
The food used in the experiment was genetically-manipulated potatoes. Two sets of potatoes were grown in the same pot and greenhouse: 1) a genetically-manipulated variety altered to produce a non-toxic "GNA lectin", and 2) a normal variety of potato. The normal potato was fed to animals with no adverse effects. The genetically-manipulated potato caused gradual organ damage and immune system damage.
A separate followup experiment conducted by Dr. S.W.B. Ewen, a Senior Pathologist at the University of Aberdeen, has confirmed that it was not the "GNA lectin," but toxic or infectious by-products of the genetic manipulation process led to the immune system damage and organ damage in the animals fed genetically-manipulated potatoes. Because it was not the lectin in the potatoes, but the genetic manipulation process itself which led to toxicity, similar results might be seen in animals or humans fed genetically-manipulated soy, canola, and corn over a long period of time (i.e., years or decades).
There were initial reports of flaws in the research when government agencies audited the Dr. Pusztai's preliminary notes. But since that time, over 20 top scientists around the world have peer-reviewed the Final Report and stated that the conclusions are justified. Parts of these experiments conducted by Dr. Pusztai and Dr. Ewen were recently published in the scientific journal, The Lancet. Most of The Lancet reviewers deemed it acceptable research for publication.
A couple of reviewers and other scientists and organizations receiving biotech money have been critical of the research. They have made the following statements (paraphrased below):"Raw potatos should not have been fed to the animals in the experiment." However, the animals eating non-genetically manipulated raw potatos did fine. It was only the genetically manipulated food which caused health problems.
"Too few animals were used." Initial objections of The Lancet's statistician reviewer were satisfied. Enough animals were used to show a statistically significant difference between the test group and control group.
"There was an inadequate control group." This is a non-specific criticism. The experiment wasn't perfect. But the only difference between the two groups of animals was that one group ate genetically manipulated foods and the other didn't.
"One cannot take the results of this experiment and apply it to all genetically manipulated foods." The only difference was the genetic manipulation of the potatos. The same hazards may or may not be found in genetically manipulated soy, canola, etc. It is prudent to assume that all genetically manipulated ingredients have the same slow toxic effects until long-term, independent research can be conducted on each genetically manipulated crop.
On ocassion, news reports of flaws in the research are mistakenly repeated, but almost independent scientists who have seen the Final Report of Dr. Pusztai's research and are aware of the results of Dr. Ewen's research agree that the conclusions are justified.News Report on Dr. Pusztai's Research
Interview with Dr. Pusztai
Summary of the Peer-Review by Researchers
Confirming Research by Dr. S.W.B. Ewen (Scroll Down to Text)
There are several differences between the normal breeding process and the artificial genetic manipulation process. One key difference is the use of highly-infectious viruses for artificial genetic manipulation as a promoter to switch on the introduced gene. One commonly-used virus is a highly-infectious form of the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV). (The form of CaMV virus found in normal foods is not highly-infectious and cannot be absorbed by mammals.) The dangers were described in detail by reknowed geneticist Dr. Mae-Wan Ho in a meeting on March 31st 1999 at the invitation of UK Environment Minister, Michael Meacher. Additional scientific information about the dangers presented by infectious promoter viruses such as CaMV are described by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Dr. Joe Cummins, Emeritus Professor of Genetics, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Western Ontario. Finally, a recent scientific report by Molecular Biologist, Angela Ryan provides further concerns regarding the use of the CaMV virus to create genetically-manipulated foods.
Another key difference between normal breeding and artificial genetic manipulation is that the genetic manipulation greatly increases the risk that the plant (e.g., soy) will develop toxic or allergy-causing compounds. Such unexpected changes have already been shown to occur in some genetically-manipulated crops.
The insertion of a new gene can sometimes alter the synthesis of chemicals in the plant. Such an alteration can lead to the change in existing chemical compounds in the plant (including a possible significant increase in existing levels of toxic compounds) or the development of new toxic or allergy-causing compounds. There would be no way to predict these effects in advance and it would be difficult to test for these effects without many years of careful, independent research on human test subjects. Gradual toxic effects could occur over weeks, months, years, or even decades and society would not be aware of the health damage until it was too late.
Genetic Manipulation industry representatives often point out that such unexpected hazards could be seen when breeding plants. This is true. However, the evidence demonstrates that there is a much greater likelihood of these unexpected toxic and allergic effects from genetically-manipulated plants/food ingredients. These potentially dangerous effects and their greater likelihood in genetically manipulated crops/food ingredients were discussed in some detail in by one of the world's top experts on genetically manipulated crops:Scientific principles for ecologically based risk assessment of transgenic organisms
P.J. Regal, Published in Molecular Ecology (1994) 3:5-13
(NOTE: Scroll down to the heading: "Ecologically adaptive pleiotropic effects?" approximately 3/5 of the way down the document)
For an excellent summary related to toxic and allergy-causing substances appearing in genetically-manipulated foods, please see the summary of "Assessing the Safety and Nutritional Quality of Genetically Engineered Foods" by Dr. John Fagan, Professor of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry. At the end of the summary, there are examples provided of genetically-manipulated crops/ingredients that unexpectedly produced toxic or unusual chemical compounds.Another major risk from genetically-manipulated foods is the possibility that regular exposure to foreign DNA and RNA material inserted into these artificial foods could cause allergic reactions or autoimmune diseases. Recent scientific research has shown that fragments of DNA from genetically-manipulated food ingredients can be detected in the brains of animals fed these food ingredients. Dr. Sharyn Martin, Ph.D. discusses the evidence that DNA and RNA fragments can cause adverse immune system reactions including autoimmune disorders in Immunological Reactions to DNA and RNA.
Scientists in the United Kingdom measured a 50% increase in soy allergies in one year. They believe that the increase in soy allergies may be caused by the increase use of genetically-manipulated soy ingredients.Finally, some genetically-manipulated crops are changed so that they produce their own high levels of pesticides. For example, genetically-manipulated "Bt" crops have been shown to emit very high levels of toxins. Plants genetically-manipulated to produce Bt toxin produce at least 1000 times more Bt toxin per acre than does a heavy application of Bt directly on the plants. This may lead to problems with long-term ingestion of such foods (such as non-organic corn and corn-based sweeteners). Other hazards related to crops manipulated to produce their own pesticides are discussed in more detail by Dr. Joseph Cummins, Professor of Genetics in "Plant-Pesticides in GE-food: A Potential Health Risk". Even if the genetically-manipulated plant does not produce its own pesticides, it has been shown conclusively in scientific research that the herbicides used on some of these non-organic, genetically-manipulated plants (e.g., soy, canola, corn) are extremely toxic and can cause birth defects.
Additional authoritative information written by some of the world's leading scientific experts for laypersons, physicians and scientists can be found at:
Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology
Is Genetically Engineered Food Safe?
Genetic Engineering and Its Dangers: Essays Compiled by Dr. Ron Epstein
Bio-Safety - Risks From Genetically Engineered Organisms (GEOs)
Environmental Hazards
The risks of irreversible damage to the environment have caused scientists around the world to demand a moratorium on the release of genetically-manipulated crops. This document focuses on health hazards. For a discussion of the environmental risks, please see the Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology web page.
web page. Regulation of Genetically-Manipulated Foods
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not test nor require significant safety tests for genetically-manipulated foods. It has recently become known that the FDA's own scientists have been warning FDA officials that they are ignoring the potential hazards of genetically-manipulated foods. Neither the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) nor the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) require any significant tests for the health effects of these crops.
As has been widely-reported, FDA, EPA, and USDA officials are often rewarded with lucrative jobs at companies that they were regulating. A recent report by the Edmonds Institute lists several of hundreds of possible examples of the revolving door between the regulators and the companies they are supposed to regulate.
Many organizations have expressed concern that officials at these government agencies regularly ignore concerns of their own scientists and the general public and then go out of their way to please companies that they regulate. For example, the health department in the U.K. raised the allowable food residue levels of Roundup (Monsanto's soybean and canola herbicide) by 200 times the existing level. This was done despite dangers expressed by the leading food safety experts. Similar increases in allowable pesticide and herbicide residues have been granted in the U.S. and other countries at the request of companies involved in genetically-manipulating foods.
FDA officials that they are ignoring the potential hazards of genetically-manipulated foods. Neither the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) nor the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) require any significant tests for the health effects of these crops.As has been widely-reported, FDA, EPA, and USDA officials are often rewarded with lucrative jobs at companies that they were regulating. A recent report by the lists several of hundreds of possible examples of the revolving door between the regulators and the companies they are supposed to regulate.Many organizations have expressed concern that officials at these government agencies regularly ignore concerns of their own scientists and the general public and then go out of their way to please companies that they regulate. For example, the health department in the U.K. raised the allowable food residue levels of Roundup (Monsanto's soybean and canola herbicide) by 200 times the existing level. This was done despite by the leading food safety experts. Similar increases in allowable pesticide and herbicide residues have been granted in the U.S. and other countries at the request of companies involved in genetically-manipulating foods. Worldwide Condemnation of Genetically-Manipulated Crops/Foods
In many other countries, reknowned scientists, medical trade organizations and government officials are detailing the known health hazards and potential health hazards from genetically- manipulated food ingredients. For example, in the last several months, a top UK Scientist has warned about potential hazards from genetically-manipulated foods, the British Medical Association (BMA) has called for a ban on genetically-manipulated foods and the French President and German Chancellor listed genetically-manipulated foods under "Global Threats" at a recent summit meeting. Top scientists in Asia and other parts of the world are speaking out as well. This has caused many manufacturers and grocery stores chains all around the world (outside of North America) to ban genetically-manipulated food ingredients. In order to keep up with news from around the world, please read through the following compilation of news articles:
about potential hazards from genetically-manipulated foods, the British Medical Association (BMA) has and the French President and German Chancellor at a recent summit meeting. Top scientists in Asia and other parts of the world are speaking out as well. This has caused many manufacturers and grocery stores chains all around the world (outside of North America) to ban genetically-manipulated food ingredients. In order to keep up with news from around the world, please read through the following compilation of news articles: Corporate Public Relations (PR) Strategies
The multinational companies trying to sell genetically-manipulated foods (Monsanto, Dupont, Novartis, Agrevo [Hoechst and Schering]) have spared no expense in their public relations campaign. They have sometimes been successful in getting newspaper and magazine articles or television shows created to help promote genetically-manipulated crops. In addition, these multinational companies give huge sums of money to dietetic associations, farming and seed associations, grocery associations, and PR organizations (e.g., IFIC) in order to obtain help in propogating PR statements to the media and general public. Common PR statements include:
"Genetic Engineering is exactly like breeding and has been done for hundreds of years."
As described above, artificial genetic manipulation of plants/food ingredients is different from breeding and has significant hazards associated with it including toxicity hazards seen in recent research."Careful tests by the FDA, EPA, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have proven that these ingredients are safe." (Alternative: "We have the strictest regulatory process in the world"!)
These government agencies have not conducted, nor required any significant safety testing. Scientists around the world are calling for a moratorium on genetically-manipulated food ingredients and long-term, independent human studies lasting many years before these food are allowed for sale on the market. Because these government agencies are ignoring the hazards of genetically-manipulated foods, a very large alliance of scientists, consumer groups, environmental groups, and religious groups are suing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration."Europe and Asia are not making scientific evalations of the issue, but relying on emotional arguments."
Many of the top scientists around the world are speaking out about the hazards of genetically-manipulated crops/food ingredients. A small selection of these scientists have signed the following referenced document calling for a moratorium on genetically-manipulated crops. These are independent scientists who do not receive money from companies researching, creating or selling these genetically-manipulated crops and food ingredients. When U.S. officials make these sorts of public comments (quoted above), they are insulting much of the population of Europe and Asia and perhaps will strengthen the desire of European and Asian countries to avoid imports of food ingredients from the United States and Canada."Genetically-manipulated crops are safer because less pesticides and herbicides are used."
In fact, recent research has shown that farmers growing genetically-manipulated crops use, on average, an equal amount or more pesticides than farmers growing non-genetically-manipulated, non-organic crops."Farmers are Reaping Rewards of Growing Genetically-Manipulated Crops."
Farmers are being victimized as well. Evidence of problems they are experiencing include:Research showing reduced yields from genetically-manipulated crops.
More money spent on herbicides and pesticides for genetically-manipulated crops.
Potential of reduced farm land values.
Possible lawsuits and intimidation from Monsanto.
Increased costs in order to segregate their crops
Risk of possible permanent damage to their soil by growing genetically-manipulated crops.
The scientific journal Nature (September 9, 1999) has reported that some farmers are considering class-action lawsuits because the seed and chemical companies (e.g., Monsanto) were misrepresenting their products as benign. The Washington Post reported (September 18, 1999):"American farmers planted [gene-altered crops] in good faith, with the belief that the product is safe and that they would be rewarded for their efforts," the American Corn Growers Association said in a statement last week. "Instead they find themselves misled by multinational seed and chemical companies and other commodity associations who only encouraged them to plant increased acres of these crops without any warning to farmers of the dangers associated with planting a crop that didn't have consumer acceptance."
Wheat farmers should prepare to avoid these genetically-manipulated seeds when they come on the market in the next year or two."Genetically-Manipulated crops have the potential to produce "functional foods" with extra nutrients and drugs which can save lives!"
The reality is that these nutrients or drugs can be taken separately when needed. The high cost of drugs is largely due to drug commpanies trying to recoup the millions of dollars of research money spent and is rarely due to high production costs. The costs of developing a drug-producing, genetically-manipulated plant is quite high. The costs of drugs will remain high wheather they are genetically-manipulated into plants or not. Therefore, these drugs and nutrients can be produced without genetic manipulation as been the case in the past. It is also important to keep in mind that Alternative Medicine techniques are now begining to replace the use of pharmaceuticals in some cases of disease treatment.
Originally, the corporate PR strategy was to say that genetically-manipulated crops would help "feed the world." But when it was pointed out that the world grows 1-1/2 times the amount of food needed to feed the population, that the problem was food distribution, and that genetically-manipulated crops have reduced yields, the companies changed their PR to say that genetically-manipulated crops will grow drugs and save lives.
There is a very serious danger of pollen from these manipulated crops infecting normal crops of the same species or of different species leading to the unintentional ingestion of drugs by the general population. Pollen can travel a very long way from fields to infect other crops. In addition, scientists are concerned that accidental inhalation of pollen from these genetically-manipulated plants might lead to adverse health effects in some people.
What You Can Do (7 Steps)
Do what you can to remove genetically-manipulated food ingredients from your diet and your family's diet. You can begin to do this by locating stores in your area which sell foods with organic soy, corn, dairy, and potato ingredients. The stores with the largest selection of such products include:
Large natural food supermarket chains (e.g., Wild Oats Market, Whole Foods Market)
Smaller health food stores
Food Cooperative Markets ( directory 1, directory 2)
Online Sources (e.g., Wild Oats Market, Whole Foods Market)
Print this web page out and share it with others!
Join others in creating web page links to the Soy Info Online! web page or this subpage.
Examine the organizations and web page resources below to determine which group(s) you want to work with so that we can keep food free of genetic manipulation.
Keep up-to-date on the latest news by subscribing to a discussion group listed in the Resource section below and/or by checking the Ethical Investing page for news updates on genetically-manipulated food issues.
Move your investments out of stocks, mutual funds, retirement funds, etc. which involve companies that produce genetically-manipulated crops and foods (Monsanto, Dupont, Novartis and Agrevo [Hoechst and Schering]). Europe's largest bank recently warned large investors that " GMOs [investments] are dead". These companies' stocks are falling quickly and you will lose money or certainly not make as much money as you can if you have stocks or mutual fund and retirement fund investments that involve these companies. Please check the list of mutual funds (e.g., Fidelity, Janus) that invest in Monsanto stock. Also, please join others by checking the Ethical Investing Web Page for ideas on moving your investments.
Please contact grocery stores to ask them to carry more organic foods including soy products, corn, potatoes and other produce. Contact food product manufacturers and ask them to replace any non-organic soy, corn, potato, dairy or canola ingredients they have with organic, non-genetically-manipulated ingredients. Sometimes the manufacturer will listen to consumer requests as is happening all over Europe. Sometimes they will claim that there are no non-genetically-manipulated sources for the ingredients they use. That is rarely the case as manufacturers all over Europe and Asia are removing gentically-manipulated ingredients from their products (Examples). Other times, they will respond with statements which originated with the genetic manipulation industry. However, it will only take a few major manufacturers in the U.S. to switch to non-genetically-manipulated ingredients and the rest will follow in order to avoid losing market share. So, please be persistent!
Resources
Organizations/Web Pages
Campaign for Food Safety
Consumer Association dedicated to protecting food safety. Excellent information on genetically-manipulated foods and actions you can take. They also have a 4-page GE Factsflyer that you can download.People's Earlth Network
Large and quickly-growing consumer organization managing a letter-writing campaign to encourage companies to eliminate GMO ingredients from their products. Campaign has had enormous success and is looking for others to get involved.Mothers for Natural Law
"Mothers for Natural Law was founded in June 1996 to transform the overwhelming problems facing Americans into simple, practical action steps everyone can take to safeguard the future for us all. Our agenda originally embraced everything from the environment to crime, education, health and the economy. However, because of its extreme urgency, we have made genetic engineering our only focus, and put all of our other plans on hold." Impressive, easy-to-follow set of web pages including a detailed, How to Avoid Genetically Manipulated Food (How to Shop, What to Eat) web page.Women Say NO to GMOs
"Like Paul McCartney and his family, we believe GMOs to be one of the most important issues we face in our lifetime. Should it go wrong, genetic engineering could have devastating consequences for our health and the environment. This is why as women we feel we have to make a stand TODAY." Petition signing. Press releases. How you can help section.Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology
Articles from the top scientists around the world. Scientists and Physicians are encouraged to become a member.Genetic ID Inc.
Testing Lab that offers "Non-GMO Certification" to all growers, processors, handlers and manufacturers of non-genetically modified food products. Also offers the industry's first dual certification: Farm Verified Organic plus Genetically Natural (TM)Campaign to Ban Genetically Engineered Foods
An international organization which provides many useful articles and perhaps the most comprehensive News on genetically-manipulated food issues.Ethical Investing
Dedicated to provided resources to help make responsible investment choices. Helpful for removing investments from mutual funds, retirement accounts, etc. which help support the genetic manipulation industry.Greenpeace International
Greenpeace has been effective in getting European and some U.S. manufacturers to remove genetically-manipulated food ingredients. They have a web site specific to genetically-manipulated foods. On the Greenpeace USA page, you can join the GE Action Network or sign up to receive action alerts.True Food Campaign
Sponsored by Greenpeace, the True Food Campaign aims to ban GM food, phase-out industrial farming, and promote organic food. The website will tell you about the issues and how to get involved in the campaign - not just in terms of the food you buy, but through action to set a proper agricultural agenda.Friends of the Earth (FoE) USA Safer Foods, Safer Farms Campaign
A federation of autonomous environmental organizations. Great place to get addresses of food companies to write and ask them to use organic ingredients to eliminate genetically-manipulated foods. FoE UK site has extensive information and action suggestions for those in the United Kingdom. International FoE site has links to FoE web pages around the world. You can join FoE as well.UK Genetic Engineering Network
A network of most of the UK organizations working to eliminate genetically-manipulated crops. Network was set up to exchange information between groups. Sponsors an online discussion group and newsletter.Devinder Sharma
Articles on Links Between Biotechnology, Trade and Food SecurityWild Oats Supermarket Chain
Excellent page on genetically-manipulated foods. Includes a easy-to-understand "Claims vs. Facts" section.Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin)
Excellent United Kingdom-based site with UK and international news, articles, news releases and GM food guide (applicable to residents of the United Kingdom only). NGIN has a great links page that links to additional useful and fun web sites.Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI)
International organization dedicated to the conservation and sustainable improvement of agricultural biodiversity and to the socially responsible development of technologies useful to rural societies. RAFI was instrumental in getting Monsanto to distance themselves from their own deadly Terminator Technology.Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods
"To create a national grassroots consumer campaign for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United States."Natural Law Party
A growing political party that recognizes the hazards of genetically-manipulated foods and is willing to stand up for the people.Genetix Snowball
"A Campaign of Nonviolent Civil Responsibility." Publishes the handbook, "A Guide to Safely Removing Genetically Modified Plants From Release Sites in Britain." The Campaign section has articles, press releases, chronology of the campaign, GE Data Center, legal action Monsanto and others have brought against the campaigners, statements, photos, etc.Alliance for Bio-Integrity
An alliance of scientists, consumer groups, environmental groups and religious groups "dedicated to the advancement of human and environmental health through sustainable and safe technologies." The alliance filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in May 1999.Edmonds Institute
The Institute is a non-profit, public interest organization committed to the health and sustainability of ecosystems and their inhabitants. The Edmonds Institute has published some groundbreaking scientific and policy-oriented publications including A Manual for Assessing Ecological and Human Health Effects of Genetically Engineered Organisms and A Brief History of Biotechnology Risk and Policy Debates in the US.Third World Network: Biotechnology/Biosafety
Articles written by experts from around the world relating to biotechnology and biosafety. International news updates.Biotechcentury.com: A Project of the Foundation on Economic Trends
Jeremy Rifkin's organization that is helping to spearhead a multi-billion dollar antitrust lawsuit against companies involved in genetic manipulation of foods.Australian Gene Ethics Network
Information on genetics ethics and genetically-manipulated foods (in the "Food" section).Richard Wolfson, PhD Web Page
Articles, Information on Subscribing to Genetic Engineering News.Mutanto Web Page
Spoof on Monsanto's Web Site. Instead of "Food, Health and Hope" Mutanto offers "Fraud, Stealth and Hype." Mutanto has it's own statement on genetically-manipulated foods.Super Heros Against Genetix (S.H.A.G.)
U.K.-based group which takes action to alert people to the dangers of genetically-manipuated foods. Fun site. Has copies of a few Monsanto internal memos online.Seize the Day
Includes the MonSatan web site and a free song about Monsanto. Also has a good synopsis of Monsanto's history along the right-hand side of the page. Fun site.Students for Alternatives to Genetic Engineering
Continue reading "Health Hazards of Genetically-Manipulated Foods" »
Consumer Alert
Consumer Alert AVOIDING DANGEROUS FOODS
You bite into what you perceive to be a carefully prepared, lovingly seasoned, perfectly cooked potato casserole tonight during your evening meal. You assumed the food to be safe. You had no idea that the chemical and genetic engineering industries had used a radical new technology to artificially mutate the DNA in your potatoes. The genetically altered potatoes were sold unlabeled, as if they were normal, natural potatoes. In this three-part communication, you will learn about genetically engineered food and the fictional Dr. Frankenfood, and about how the chemical and genetic engineering industries have done exactly the same things that Dr. Frankenfood would have done. You will learn about the immediate dangers of genetically engineered foods, and why national governments and the genetic engineering industry are now releasing untested genetically engineered foods on the world population. You will also learn how to protect yourself and your family by shopping to avoid these foods, and finally, how we can stop the proliferation of these experimental foods.
Let us imagine that the fictional Dr. Frankenstein had a modern day descendent, the evil Dr. Frankenfood. For those people in various parts of the world who do not know the horror story, Dr. Frankenstein created a monster using electricity and various dead body parts. The evil Dr. Frankenfood, like his famous forefather, might also want to do bizarre technical research. But let us imagine that Dr. Frankenfood has a great personal fondness for the food industry. Let us imagine Dr. Frankenfood's mad experimentations. Being in the food industry, and following in his ancestor's recombinant footsteps, he might want to make strange, bizarre food products combining vastly different species. He might create radical new species in the laboratory that could never exist in nature. If he did so, let us imagine what he would do. He would go deep with electon microscopes and sever nature's potato DNA, for example. He would cut the DNA, the precious, living, twirling genetic nucleotide staircase guiding nature's potato with complete instructions of how to build itself and how to interact in any environment thousands of generations hence. He would cut the genetic code formed through millions of years of reproductive natural evolution, natural selection, and reproductive crossbreeding and hybridization.
With a radical experimental technology utilizing a new instrument known as a gene gun, Dr. Frankenfood would replace natural selection with his own unnatural personal selection. He would create a Frankenfood potato by splicing wax moth insect DNA and the DNA of genetically engineered bacterium onto the severed natural potato DNA. He would also use his gene gun to dice and splice the DNA of fish with tomato, pig with human, bacteria with soy, virus with corn.
What if Dr. Frankenfood was also in charge of the USDA (the United States Department of Agriculture), the FDA (the Food and Drug Administration); and what if he was also in charge of giant multi-national chemical companies such as Monsanto, DuPont, Calgene, and Novartis that have become major players in the new global genetically engineered food business? He would then have access to immense capital resources for his strange experimentations. He would wield nearly limitless power, and he could learn how to manipulate the rest of the government, the laws, and even the courts with his influence. He would give grant money to labs in the USDA and to university labs and technicians all over the world. He would have universities, the USDA and the FDA under his control. They would carry out his recombination experiments with the DNA of different species as he directed, and then he would feed these experimental foods to the population unlabeled and without careful testing. He would stealthfully export his mad experimental products to other countries, and if they refused his products, Dr. Frankenfood would use his money, power, influence, and connections to threaten them with trade war.
Of course Monsanto, DuPont, Calgene, Novartis, the chemical corporations, the USDA, and the FDA cannot really have such evil intentions. They are doing their best to do their jobs. Dr. Frankenfood is a mere dramatization. But the chemical companies, the USDA, the FDA, and all of their hardworking food technicians are doing the exact same things that the evil Dr. Frankenfood would do if he was in charge. The multi-national chemical companies, the USDA and the FDA, although well-meaning, operate based on short-range vision and greed. As scientific technicians, they appear to have minimal ability to see long-range consequences. The chemical/genetic engineering industry and the USDA recombine the DNA of vastly different species creating new organisms that have never before existed on earth. The genetic engineering industry then lobbies for regulatory loopholes that allow them to rush their experimental foods to market. Due to large PAC money payments (legalized bribes), good-ole-boy networks, corporate welfare, and continuing conflicts of interest between the USDA, FDA and multi-national chemical/genetic engineering companies, the U.S. and many other governments have encouraged and approved these synthetic foods. The genetic engineering industry sells these products untested and unlabeled. And finally, the U.S. government threatens other nations with WTO sanctions and trade war if they label or reject genetically engineered foods.
We as global consumers have the right to know what we are eating. We have the right to decide whether we want to eat these foods. We have the right to decide whether our children should eat these foods.
Wherever you may live in the world, food markets sell these unlabeled and untested Frankenfoods. Beginning back in 1994, the chemical/genetic engineering industry began to sell genetically engineered tomatoes and milk laced with genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH). Now in 1997, these companies want to quickly earn back their accelerating research costs, and rush approximately 30,000 untested new genetically engineered food products to market.
SPECIFICALLY WHAT ARE THE DANGERS?
Genetically altered supplements and foods have already caused debilitating allergies, permanent cripplings, and deaths simply because consumers were unaware. Fifty-one people died and 1500 people were permanently disabled from toxic and deadly bacteria created during the production of genetically engineered tryptophan. Severe allergies resulted from the introduction of mutated genetically engineered soy combining DNA from brazil nuts. One can predict that more deaths and negative side effects will continue to emerge. Without clear labeling, health problems cannot be avoided or properly traced back to their source.
Genetic damages to the environment and ecosystem can never be cleaned up, reversed, or recalled. Once released, once the microorganisms, plants, and living beings in the food chain and ecosystem become polluted with these mutant foods, destruction of health and virulent, irreversible, permanent, and incomprehensible living mutations will spiral wildly into the future. Genetic pollution becomes immediately locked-in and self-sustaining -- hosted in the very DNA of living organisms. This contrasts, for example with the threats of hazardous nuclear waste and the potential destruction of nuclear war, which, although devastating, can be eventually reversed and cleaned up with the passage of time.
WHY ARE THEY DOING THIS?
Widespread sales of genetically altered foods increase the profitability of the chemical/genetic engineering industry. The chemical industry wants to quickly recoup their billions of dollars in accumulated genetic research and investment costs. Their strategy involves rushing genetically-altered Frankenfoods to market en masse as quickly as possible.
The USDA, FDA, and their wealthy supporters, the genetic engineering companies, claim that they intend to solve problems of world hunger. But careful scrutiny shows their true motives. Primarily, the U.S. government intends to ensure the continuing success and prosperity of their wealthy yet irresponsible supporters, the genetic engineering industry, and secondly the chemical/genetic engineering industry intends to dominate the global food markets with their experimental products. We appreciate that governments want to support major businesses and industries. We also understand that big business wants to make money. However, in pursuing these goals, the USDA, FDA, and chemical (bio-tech) companies have chosen to disregard the long-range effects of these products on human life.
The chemical industries have genetically altered foods for the following specific traits: to increase profits by artificially increasing product shelf life; to increase profits by increasing the compatibility of plants with the chemical industry's own pesticides and herbicides; and to increase profits by creating seeds that cost more but save producers money because the vegetables or plants create their own pesticide internally.
While taking these actions for immediate short-term profits, the chemical industry claims that their work represents the cutting edge of science.
TRUE SCIENCE AND FRAUDULENT SCIENCE
If Dr. Frankenfood was in charge, his diabolical scheme would not be true science, because he would never bother to safety-test his experimental foods before putting them on our family's plates and serving them up to the world community. True science uses the "Scientific Method." The Scientific Method involves alternating between theory and observation, checking theory to see if it matches past observations and can correctly predict new observations. The checking comes in the form of experience, in other words: experimentation. New technology should not be applied directly to human life until it has proven itself beyond doubt through the test of time to be safe, useful, beneficial. True science does not make the human race into experimental animals, into guinea pigs. Again, we look and see that the chemical industry does exactly what Dr. Frankenfood would have done, marketing these foods to the world population untested and unlabeled.
We know Dr. Frankenfood's history as a descendent of Dr. Frankenstein. Let us also look at the past, at the track record of one of the major chemical/genetic engineering companies, Monsanto. A look at the past may give some indication of what we can expect from this company and other chemical companies now and in the future.
Monsanto marketed herbicide 2,4,5-T used as a defoliant in Agent Orange in Vietnam. The version tainted with dioxin killed people. Monsanto also was the sole maker of PCBs, (poly-chlorinated-biphenyls), banned by the U.S. Congress in 1976 because of cancer risk and reproductive harm. Recent studies link it to significant developmental harm in children at minute doses. All humans now carry some level of PCBs in their bodies because the chemical is lipophilic and biomagnifies in the food chain, as does dioxin. This means that it gradually spreads into the physiology of all living beings on earth. Monsanto owns and markets Aspartame, the artificial chemical sweetener marketed as Nutra-Sweet, widely known as a cancer-risk-associated drug yet pushed through the regulatory loopholes as a food additive instead of a drug. In recent years Monsanto, the USDA, and the FDA have worked together to add rBGH, bovine growth hormone -- widely implicated in making cows sick and increasing cancer risk, to consumer's milk. Now Monsanto and other chemical companies want to genetically engineer the global food supply. Can we trust these companies with the food supply?
The chemical companies have now genetically engineered not only potatoes, but also tomatoes, corn, soy, squash, canola, cotton seed oil, and milk. The chemical industry claims that these practices come as a normal, natural extension of time-tested reproductive crossbreeding and hybridization techniques. In reality, this is a new, bizarre experiment on the human race utilizing a radical new technology. Dr. Frankenfood would be well pleased.
Distributors export these mutant foods all over the world. A global crisis now exists because many governments have implicit trust in the U.S. government and its decision to promote these foods. Naive trust of the FDA and the USDA creates complacency in the U.S.A. These chemical companies have made global consumers out to be experimental animals, guinea pigs. Although this is a serious crisis, we can stop the proliferation of these Frankenfoods now.
Pesticides, GMOs, Food Irradiation, and Eating Well On A Budget
Pesticides, GMOs, Food Irradiation, and Eating Well On A Budget
Organically grown produce reduces the potential health and environmental hazards posed by pesticides, GMOs, irradiation and additives. Pesticides can cause developmental delays, behavioral disorders, and motor dysfunction, and can even infect children in the womb.
You've made a commitment to healthy eating, adapting the new Food Pyramid to your age, gender, fitness level and lifestyle. This is a great start! Beyond eating more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and good fats, however, there is the question of food purity. How foods are grown or raised can impact your health. Food labeling can leave you confused as to what terms such as "organic," "natural," "free-range," and "non-GMO" really mean. Understanding this terminology is essential to selecting foods that are the healthiest for you and your loved ones.
Conventional vs. organic foods
The terms "conventional" and "organic" refer to the ways in which food is grown, handled and processed. Whereas conventional farmers use synthetic or chemical means to fertilize soil, control weeds and insects, and prevent livestock disease, organic farmers opt for less invasive methods, such as manure or compost fertilizer, crop rotation and giving animals room to roam.
The USDA has developed the following legal standards for the "organic" certification:
For fruits, vegetables and grains:
Safe soil, free of sewage sludge, lead salts and potassium chloride, among many other substances, for at least three years prior to the first organic harvest;
No modification: GMOs, irradiation and additives are prohibited (see below for details);
Separate storage: handlers, food processors and food manufacturers must separate organic products from non-organic products and take steps to ensure that organic foods don't come into contact with forbidden chemicals or substances.
For meat, milk, eggs and other animal products:
Timing: animals must be raised organically from the last third of gestation (for livestock) or no later than the second day of life (for poultry).
Organic feed: livestock feed products must be 100 percent organically grown.
Hormone- and antibiotic-free: sick animals must be treated—but if an animal has been treated with a prohibited medication, it can't be labeled and sold as organic.
Outdoor access, including pasture land for animals that graze. Each animal must have shade, shelter, fresh air, direct sunlight and room to exercise appropriate for its species.
No commingling. Organic animal products must be separated from non-organic products. Organic animal products must not come into contact with prohibited chemicals or substances.
One important caveat:
"Natural" does not equal organic! "Natural" is an unregulated term that can be applied by anyone, and is therefore potentially misleading. While the commonly seen food labels "all natural", "free-range" or "hormone-free" signify that the food has been raised or grown humanely, only the "USDA Organic" label indicates that a food is certified organic.
Pesticide residues in food
We don't tend to think about what is invisible to us, or to calculate the accumulated build-up of years of pesticide exposure in our bodies. While some sources believe the benefits of pesticides to human nutrition outweigh any potential health risks, the research suggests otherwise.
When veteran journalist Bill Moyers had his blood and urine tested as part of a study of pollutant loads in the human body conducted by Mount Sinai School of Medicine, 84 distinct chemicals were found—including some that had been banned more than a quarter of a century before.
This chemical "body burden," as it is medically known, is even more insidious for children, whose developing bodies and brains are more vulnerable. A 2005 Journal of the American Medical Association study reported the incidence of illness linked to pesticide use in and around U.S. schools is on the rise.
Organophosphates—the same class of insecticides detected in Moyers' blood—were most frequently responsible for these poisonings, which have been linked in animal studies to:
developmental delays,
behavioral disorders,
and motor dysfunction.
Because organophosphates are persistent pesticides that remain in the environment and in the human body for many years, they can be passed from mother to child in the womb, as well as through breast milk. Some exposures can cause delayed effects on the nervous system, even years after the initial exposure.
Fruits and vegetables wtih the highest and lowest pesticide levels
These 12 popular fresh fruits and vegetables are consistently the most contaminated with pesticides—buy these organic.
Highest in Pesticides | |
|
|
These 12 popular fresh fruits and vegetables consistently have the lowest levels of pesticides.
Lowest in Pesticides | |
|
|
Will washing and peeling fruits and vegetables help reduce exposure to pesticides?
Excerpted from Shoppers Guide to Pesticides in Produce (Environmental Working Group)
Nearly all of the data used to create these lists already considers how people typically wash and prepare produce (for example, apples are washed before testing, bananas are peeled). While washing and rinsing fresh produce may help reduce pesticide residues, it does not eliminate them. Peeling reduces exposures, but valuable nutrients often go down the drain with the peel. The best option is to eat a varied diet, wash all produce, and choose organic when possible to reduce exposure to potentially harmful chemicals.
GMOs - Genetically Modified Organisms
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are life forms that have been genetically engineered. Genetic engineering (GE) is the process of taking genes from one strain of a plant, animal, or virus and inserting them into another, with the goal of reproducing characteristics of the original species in the receiving species. The U.S. government first sanctioned pharmaceutical gene splicing in 1982. However, GE/GM foods didn't make their way onto supermarket shelves until 1994.
Although three government agencies are involved in the GMO approval process (the USDA, EPA and FDA), there are no mandated pre-market safety studies. As with pesticides and drugs, safety testing for GMOs is done by the companies that produce them, raising concern about ethics and conflict of interest.
Unintended health impacts from GMOs can include:
Allergens. Because the addition of new genetic material changes protein sequences, the GMO could produce known or unknown allergens—especially in children.
Nutritional deficiency. Altered DNA could decrease levels of important nutrients in the GE crop.
Increased toxins. Genetic engineering could inadvertently increase naturally occurring plant toxins—or introduce a new toxic strain created by the marriage of genes.
Antibiotic resistance. An antibiotic resistant gene inserted into most GM crops may pose the most serious health hazard, since there is the possibility that these genes might transfer to pathogenic bacteria in our bodies and create new, antibiotic-resistant super-diseases.
Food irradiation
Given consumer concern about food safety and the growth of food-borne illness, nearly 40 countries have approved food irradiation, a process in which foods are exposed to a controlled amount of "ionizing radiation" in order to kill harmful bacteria such as E. coli and Salmonella. The process can also control insects and parasites, reduce spoilage, and inhibit ripening and sprouting. It does not make food radioactive.
The FDA says, "The (irradiation) process may cause a small loss of nutrients but no more so than with other processing methods such as cooking, canning, or heat pasteurization."
However, the EPA recognizes that all forms of ionizing radiation, including the cobalt-60 and cesium-137 used in food irradiation, are known carcinogens. Irradiation plant workers suffer the highest risk, but consumers are also in jeopardy.
A Washington-based watchdog group, The Center for Food Safety, says the FDA has ignored growing evidence that a new class of chemicals, formed when food is irradiated, could be harmful. The new chemicals, a class of cyclobutanones, were found to cause genetic and cellular damage in human and rat cells.
You may be unwittingly eating irradiated foods containing cyclobutanones. Though most irradiated food sold in stores must be labeled, there is no such requirement for restaurants, schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other institutional settings.
Mercury and other toxics in seafood
Mercury is a highly toxic heavy metal that poses a major public health threat. Because mercury can interfere with development, pregnant women and children are most at risk. Due to the high methylmercury levels that the following species contain, the USDA warns women who are pregnant, women who might become pregnant, and children, to avoid eating:
swordfish,
shark,
tilefish,
king mackerel,
and to reduce their intake of tuna.
Mercury is not the only culprit to consider, however. More than 70 percent of the world's fish resources have been overfished, depleted, or mismanaged in ecologically destructive ways.
By becoming an informed seafood consumer, you help your health and support seafood sustainability. When you're seafood shopping, ask where the catch of the day was caught. For example, wild, Alaskan and California salmon are all classed as "good fish": plentiful, sensibly managed, with minimal pollutants. Atlantic salmon, by contrast, is "bad"—not because of mercury levels, but because methods of capture damage habitats and kill other wildlife.
Take the following seafood guide along when shopping, so you can tell at a glance whether the fish you're contemplating buying is good for you and for the environment:
The California Academy of Sciences provides a mercury calculator and clip-and-carry seafood guide that lists good fish, iffy fish, and bad fish and is a handy reference to use while shopping.
Advantages of organic produce
In addition to eliminating the potential health and environmental hazards posed by pesticides, GMOs, irradiation and additives, organically grown produce actually confers health benefits, according to new research. Organic foods are better for the body and the environment because they:
Have more nutritional value. Organic foods contain higher levels of vitamin C, calcium, magnesium, iron.
Contain more antioxidants. Food scientists at the University of California, Davis, found that organically grown fruits and vegetables show significantly higher levels of cancer-fighting antioxidants than conventionally grown foods. Pesticides and herbicides reduce the production of phenolics—chemicals that act as a plant's natural defense and are also good for human health. Organic fertilizers, however, appear to boost the levels of these anti-cancer compounds.
Promote biodiversity. According to a study called The Biodiversity Benefits of Organic Farming, "organic farms had five times as many wild plants and 57% more species." The organic farms also had more birds, spiders, and non-pest butterflies than non-organic farms.
Protect the next generation. As explained above, the effects of pesticides and other harmful additives to children are especially acute. Most children today are born with pesticide build-up in their bodies. Feeding your children organic foods and teaching them about the health benefits of organics will promote their good health and well being as well as that of generations to come.
Where can I find organic foods?
In some areas buying organic produce may require a little ingenuity. However, there are numerous resources available. Consider the following ideas:
Ask your local grocery store manager to carry more organic produce.
Look into joining a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farm, in which individuals and families join up to purchase "shares" of produce in bulk, directly from local farms (see References and resources).
Find out whether there is a natural foods co-op, also called a cooperative grocery store, in your area. Co-ops typically offer lower prices to members, who pay an annual fee to belong. However, you do not need to be a member to shop at a food co-op.
Start a buying club. A buying club is typically comprised of at least seven families who pool their money and order food in bulk from a cooperative distributor. Buying clubs operate very similarly to CSAs, except that the former purchases food through a distributor rather than directly from the grower.
Shop the Farmers' Markets. Many cities as well as small towns host a weekly Farmers' Market, where local farmers bring their wares to an open-air street market and sell fresh produce direct to you, often for less than you'd pay in the grocery store or supermarket. Bonus: it's a great opportunity to socialize and get to know like-minded people in your neighborhood who might want to join a CSA or start a buying club with you.
How can I eat healthfully on a budget?
CSAs, co-ops, Farmers' Markets and buying clubs are all great ways to save money on organic food. In addition, you can:
buy non-perishable foods (packaged soups and non-dairy beverages, whole grains, beans, nut butters, etc.) in bulk and store them in your freezer or pantry;
shop at discount stores for non-perishable items (e.g., Price Club, Costco, Sam's Club);
buy the store brand, which is often less expensive than the name brand for the same quality;
clip coupons for healthy foods you like and would buy anyway;
make a big pot of soup at the beginning of the week or whenever you go food shopping. When you don't feel like cooking, help yourself to a hearty bowlful along with a green salad. This makes a nutritious lunch or dinner anytime.
Continue reading "Pesticides, GMOs, Food Irradiation, and Eating Well On A Budget" »
May 01, 2009
Our Hunger For Cheap Meat Has Created Swine Flu
Our Hunger For Cheap Meat Has Created Swine Flu
A swelling number of scientists believe swine flu has not happened by accident
A swelling number of scientists believe swine flu has not happened by accident. No: they argue this global pandemic – and all the deaths we are about to see – is the direct result of our demand for cheap meat. So is the way we produce our food really making us sick as a pig?
At first glance, this seems wrong. All through history, viruses have mutated, and sometimes they have taken nasty forms that scythe through the human population. This is an inescapable reality we just have to live with, like earthquakes and tsunamis. But the scientific evidence increasingly suggests that we have unwittingly invented an artificial way to accelerate the evolution of these deadly viruses – and pump them out across the world. They are called factory farms. They manufacture low-cost flesh, with a side-dish of viruses to go.
To understand how this happens, you have to compare two farms. My grandparents had a pig farm in the Swiss mountains, with around twenty swine at any one time. What happened there if, in the bowels of one of their pigs, a virus mutated and took on a deadlier form? At every stage, the virus would meet stiff resistance from the pigs’ immune systems. They were living in fresh air, on the diet they evolved with, and without stress – so they had a robust ability to fight back. If the virus did take hold, it would travel only as far as the sick hog could walk. So if the virus would then have around twenty other pigs to spread and mutate in – before it would hit the end of its own evolutionary path, and die off.
If it was a really lucky, plucky virus, it might make it to market – where it would come up against more healthy pigs living in small herds. It has little opportunity to fan out across a large population of pigs or evolve a strain that could be transmitted to humans.
Now compare this to what happens when a virus evolves in a modern factory farm. In most swine farms today, six thousand pigs are crammed snout-to-snout in tiny cages where they can barely move, and are fed for life on an artificial pulp, while living on top of cess-pools of their own stale faeces.
Instead of having just twenty pigs to experiment and evolve in, the virus now has a pool of thousands, constantly infecting and reinfecting each other. The virus can combine and recombine again and again. The ammonium from the waste they live above burns the pigs’ respiratory tracts, making it easier yet for viruses to enter them. Better still, the pigs’ immune systems are in free-fall. They are stressed, depressed, and permanently in panic, making them far easier to infect. There is no fresh air or sunlight to bolster their natural powers of resistance. They live in air thick with viral loads, and they are exposed every time they breathe in.
As Dr Michael Greger, director of Public Health and Animal Agriculture at the Humane Society of the United States, explains: “Put all this together, and you have a perfect storm environment for these super-strains. If you wanted to create global pandemics, you’d build as many of these factory farms as possible. That’s why the development of swine flu isn’t a surprise to those of us in public health community. Back in 2003, the American Public Health Association – the oldest and largest in world – called for a moratorium of factory farming because they saw something like this would happen. It may take something as serious as a pandemic to make us realise the real cost of factory farming.”
Many of the detailed studies of factory farms that have been emerging in the past few years reinforce this argument. Dr Ellen Silbergeld is Professor of Environmental Health Sciences at Johns Hopkins University. She tells me her detailed on-the-ground studies led her to conclude there is “very much” a link from factory farms to the new, more powerful forms of flu we are experiencing. “Instead of a virus only having one spin of the roulette wheel, it has thousands and thousands of spins, for no extra cost. It drives the evolution of new diseases.”
Until yesterday, we could only speculate about the origins of the current H1N1 virus killing human beings – but now we know more. The Centre for Computational Biology at Columbia University has studied the virus and found that it is not a new emergence of a triple human-swine-bird flu virus. It is a slight variant on a virus we have seen before. We can see its family tree – and its daddy was a virus that evolved in the artificial breeding ground of a vast factory farm in North Carolina.
Did this strain evolve, too, in the same circumstances? Already, the evidence is suggestive, although far from conclusive. We know that the city where this swine flu first emerged – Perote, Mexico – contains a massive industrial pig farm, and houses 950,000 pigs. Dr Silbergeld adds: “Factory farms are not biosecure at all. People are going in and out all the time. If you stand a few miles down-wind from a factory farm, you can pick up the pathogens easily. And, like in the US, the manure from these farms isn’t disposed of according to any regulations, even though we know viruses can remain alive in it for more than a month. They can just sit in cesspools. The viruses can be transmitted from there by flies.”
It’s no coincidence that we have seen a sudden surge of new viruses in the past decade at precisely the moment when factory farming has intensified so dramatically. For example, between 1994 and 2001, the number of American pigs that live and die in vast industrial farms in the US spiked from 10 percent to 72 percent. Swine flu had been stable since 1918 – and then suddenly, in this period, went super-charged.
How much harm will we do to ourselves in the name of cheap meat? We know that bird flu developed in the world’s vast poultry farms. And we know that pumping animal feed full of antibiotics in factory farms has given us a new strain of MRSA. It’s a simple, horrible process. The only way to keep animals alive in such dirty conditions is to pump their feed full of antibiotics. But this has triggered an arms race with bacteria, which start evolving to beat the antibiotics – and emerge as in the end as pumped-up, super-charged bacteria invulnerable to our medical weapons. This system gave birth to a new kind of MRSA that now makes up 20 percent of all human infections with the virus. Sir Liam Donaldson, the British government’s Chief Scientist, warns: “Every inappropriate use in animals or agriculture [of antibiotics] is potentially a death warrant for a future patient.”
Of course, agribusinesses is desperate to deny all this is happening: their bottom line depends on keeping this model on its shaky trotters. But once you factor in the cost of all these diseases and pandemics, cheap meat suddenly looks like an illusion.
We always knew that factory farms were a scar on humanity’s conscience – but now we know they are a scar on our health. If we carry on like this, bird flu and swine flu will be just the beginning of a century of viral outbreaks. As we witness a global pandemic washing across the world, we need to shut down these virus factories – before they shut down even more human lives.
Continue reading "Our Hunger For Cheap Meat Has Created Swine Flu" »
Poisonous Politics: Arsenic in the Water
Poisonous Politics: Arsenic in the Water
The latest political alarm is about arsenic in our drinking water. Yes, Virginia, there is now, has been in the past, and may forever in the future be arsenic in our drinking water. Obviously not a lot or I wouldn't be writing this and you wouldn't be reading it.
As science develops the ability to detect ever more minute traces of all sorts of impurities in water and in the air, politicians have developed propaganda to scare the daylights out of the public, in pursuit of votes, money or power. Who can be against "clean water" or "clean air"? But those things have never existed and probably never will.
The most that we can do is reduce the impurities to a level that does not threaten our health. This can usually be done at a reasonable cost and no one doubts that it should be done. But the economic reality is that making the water or air 99 percent free of some impurity can cost twice as much as making it 98 percent free -- and making it 99.9 percent free can cost ten times as much as making it 99 percent free. Trying to find and eliminate ever more minute traces gets costlier and costlier.
If the impurity is something deadly, then of course we pay whatever it costs to make the water 99.999 percent free of it, if that is what it takes for our health. With arsenic, the standard is no more than 50 parts per billion….
( Click here to read full article )
What Mandatory Health Insurance Really Means
What Mandatory Health Insurance Really Means
by Richard E. Ralston
When talking about health insurance, "mandatory" is an increasingly popular term among politicians of both major parties, including presidential candidates. What do they really mean by it? Put simply, being uninsured would no longer be a misfortune or a choice, but a crime. And for the insured, the issue is much more complicated.
No politician is going to use the force of law to require you to buy insurance without going further to specify in detail exactly the kind of insurance and what it must cover. Many states now have a long list of requirements for all insurance policies, and that list is sure to get longer if insurance becomes mandatory. And sure to follow will be regulations governing who the insurance companies may, may not or must sell to, and when. A mandate forcing millions more to buy these policies with so many things requiring coverage will create a tremendous magnet for any special interest with an agenda to pile on even more requirements. Then, as costs of such policies go into orbit, more government intervention will be called for to subsidize those increasing costs.
Once all of the regulations are in place, there is plenty of opportunity for regulators or politicians to expand on what mandates can really mean. For example, Senator John Edwards says that his plan for national mandatory insurance would require every individual to take regular physical examinations. What kind of examinations? That would not be left up to you either. After all, if you…( click here to read full article )
Bioengineering and the Fate of Africa
Bioengineering and the Fate of Africa
What Is Biodiversity? Biodiversity is defined as “the variety of all forms of life, from genes to species, through to the broad scale of ecosystems” ("Biodiversity," 2003). From this definition we include all of Africa’s agriculture and native species of plants, which means that any change in the African environment results in a change in biodiversity. But how exactly do GMO crops change or have the potential to change African biodiversity? There are few possibilities: the development of a super weed, extinction of native crops, and the adaptability of pests.
One of the most prominent concerns is that the growth of GMO crops will produce a “super weed." The opponent of GMO crops concerns stem from the claims that have been made of GMO crops. These crops have been advertised as “improving crop yields and reducing crop lost” (McDonald, 2004). This enhancement was brought about through the altering of the plants' DNA to increase their resilience and make them immune to drought and disease.
The concern is that this modification can be passed to other non target crops which could mutate them into super weeds. By possessing this gene the weed would be more resilient and harder to clear out of fields. The development of these "Super Weeds" would make farming more difficult, and also threaten delicate plants in other parts of Africa. The threat is becoming worse; some of GMO crops that are coming onto the market are now being enhanced with Roundup pesticide resistance. If these crops passed the resistance gene to weeds, then they would be almost unstoppable.
Another problem of the growth of GMO crops is the possibility that they could wipe out the native crops of Africa. This problem stems from the common practice of artificial selection. The artificial selection happens at harvest time when a farmer goes through his crop selecting the biggest and best of his crop to be used as seeds for the next planting. When this practice is continued for a few seasons the seeds that are inferior are eliminated and the farmer gets a bigger yield.
The method only becomes a problem when GMO and non GMO seeds are mixed. The modified seeds will grow the biggest and yield the most produce and will be selected for planting the next crop--but they are engineered to be sterile and can't germinate. Logic holds that by mixing the GMO seeds and the selection method could “lead to the extinction of native stocks” (Marsh, 2002). Unfortunately for scientists, the loss of native genetic material could even lead to the extinction of bioengineering, as they return to endemic species in order to create more GMOs (Marsh, 2002).
From Fig. 1, it is easy to see that Africa is a biodiverse nation with many threatened plants. Native plant stocks, which are already troubled by rapid deforestation and population growth, could be devastated by GMOs. This could lead to more starvation in Africa and other economic and social issues, which will be discussed later. The scariest part of this diagram is the fact that the country in blue (the most biodiverse) is South Africa, the only place where GM crops are grown commercially.
The mixing of seeds may have already begun. A study done in South Africa found that “Of the 58 products selected and sampled randomly, 44 tested positive for the presence of GM” (Viljoen, 2006 ). GMO fields must be completely isolated in order to prevent gene transfer, which is impossible. To test the transfer of genes over distances, two studies were conducted with alfalfa crops.“Both studies indicated that although gene flow can be detected over 1500 feet from the pollen source, and is reduced to less than 0.5% at 900 feet and less than 0.2% at distances greater than 1500 feet.” (Deynze, 2004) While this might not sound like a far distance, it takes up a circumference of 9420 ft. This is unfeasible situation for Africa, where crop land is at a premium.
Critics of GMO crops have also questioned the wisdom of switching from dusting their crops with pesticide to growing crops with pesticide in its genes. Scientists believe that by incorporating Bacillus thuringiensis into the crop insects will better adapt to the bacteria. This is not an unlikely concept since insects that survive pesticide applications will often have offspring that are resistant to those pesticides (Ando, 2000). This would eliminate a useful pesticide for farmers, especially useful for organic farmers who are limited in pesticide choices na doften use Bt. If insects did adapt to Bt then farmers would have to switch harsher pesticides that would kill non targeted species, harming Africa’s biodiversity In contrast, the relatively safe Bt is "harmful only to members of a single family of insects: Lepidoptera” (Ando, 2000).
It seems that GMOs are only solutions to the problems that modern agriculture has presented. Where monocropping is present, farmers often have more difficulties with pests and disease. The circle of destruction continues as farmers use GMOs and the accompanying pesticides to temporarily relieve the stress of monocroppping on the environment. It is unwise to utilize technology that is only a quick fix for problems that should be addressed by teaching Africans more stable methods of farming. Sustainable farms include many varities of plants, and could help with the Africa's biodiversity issues.
April 30, 2009
USDA Unable to Weed Out Unapproved Genetically Modified Foods
USDA Unable to Weed Out Unapproved Genetically Modified Foods
Source: Reuters
16/01/2009
Washington, 16 Jan - The U.S. food supply is at risk of being invaded by unapproved imports of genetically modified crops and livestock, a USDA internal audit report released Wednesday said.
The report, released by the U.S. Agriculture Department's Office of Inspector General, said the USDA does not have an import control policy to regulate imported GMO animals.
Its policy for GMO crops, though adequate now, could become outdated as other nations boost production of their own GMO crops, the report added.
The Office of Inspector General recommended the department develop an overall control policy for all GMO imports and implement a strategy to monitor GMO crop and livestock development in foreign nations.
The audit found that the USDA needs to develop screening measures to weed out undeclared GMO crops and livestock. The department currently has no measures in place to identify a shipment of unapproved GMO imports unknown to the U.S. regulatory system, the report said.
The United States has been a forerunner in developing GMO plants and animals since the 1990s, but other countries are beginning to invest more in biotechnology.
The report noted that China has pledged $500 million toward biotechnology by 2010 and has developed a new form of GMO rice.
Although the implications associated with Americans consuming unapproved GMO food are unknown, the health and environmental concerns that it poses could threaten commerce.
The USDA's lack of policies and monitoring capability on the matter reflect the United States' dominance over the global market concerning genetic modification.
"Department officials stated that they have not needed such a strategy because most transgenic plants were first developed within the U.S. regulatory system, and it was unlikely that anything unfamiliar would be imported," the report said.
"And transgenic animals have not been commercialized," the report also said of officials' reasoning behind being slow to develop regulations.
The USDA, for the most part, agreed with the report's recommendations.
In a letter to the Office of Inspector General, the USDA said it would create a plan for monitoring GMO plant and animal developments worldwide by November 30. But further action on policy would require approval from the incoming administration.
GMO ban causing enforcement quandary
GMO ban causing enforcement quandary
by Jim Quirk
West Hawaii Today
jquirk@westhawaiitoday.com
HILO -- Hawaii County's top law enforcement official doesn't know how island authorities will enforce the ban on genetically modified taro and coffee.
The County Council voted 7-0 Thursday in favor of overriding Mayor Harry Kim's veto of a bill to ban the genetic modification of taro and coffee on the Big Island.
Now, the problem facing island law enforcement officials is how to enforce the ban.
Prosecuting Attorney Jay Kimura, the island's top law enforcement official, said Friday he doesn't know how the ban will be enforced and believes a meeting is warranted between his office, the Police Department, the state Department of Agricultural and the council to figure it out.
"It's uncharted and almost unenforceable because it requires expertise that doesn't necessarily lie in the Police Department for these violations," he said.
Kimura said the ban will be difficult to enforce "because a lay person looking at a plant would not know if it's genetically contaminated."
As an example, he said marijuana is illegal, "but it doesn't necessarily stop people from growing it."
Police Chief Lawrence Mahuna was unavailable for comment Friday because of illness but stated in Kim's recent veto message that the ban would be difficult for his department to enforce.
Kim could not be reached for comment Friday, and Managing Director Dixie Kaetsu deferred comment to Mahuna because the police will be the entity responsible for enforcement.
When Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida was asked Friday if he has any idea on how the county will enforce the ban, he replied, "Nope, I have no idea."
Council Chairman Pete Hoffmann, Kohala, said Friday he believes the approach to enforcing the ban will be similar to how the Planning Department enforces building codes. When a structure is suspected of not meeting county codes, a building inspector is sent to investigate, he said.
If a scientist is suspected of growing genetically modified taro or coffee, an expert -- either from the Department of Agriculture or Department of Health -- that would be able to make a determination will be sent to investigate, Hoffmann said.
"It's not a case of having police handle this type of action, you use other available agencies to do it who have the expertise," he said.
Kimura said even if the county is able to determine whether somebody has violated the ban, there could be other factors that may make prosecution impossible.
"The person may have conflicting permissions from state or federal agencies to actually do what they're doing," he said.
Source:http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/articles/2008/11/15/local/local02.txt: November 15, 2008 7:20 AM
January 26, 2009
African Holistic Health - Llaila O. Afrika
Very Helpful, April 7, 2004 | By | Lee Thompson |
 |
Amazon: HIP HOP, Reggae, Books, R&B |
My first encounter with this book was about 1995 a friend presented it to me, at the time I had no knowledge of Holistic health, reading this book open my eyes to many thing's that were unknown, even though there were things I didn't understand and had a hard time believing, I found myself drawn to at least try that which I felt pertain to me and I must say I owe yrs of pain free living because of this book. I lived with a lot of pain within my stomach from 1983 until 1995 doctors of traditional medicine were not able to tell me the cause or even a cure from what I was dealing with but soon after reading this book I found myself pain free and I could throw away the medicines I was prescribed and now I live life better with out the pain. I am thankful for this book. I recommend it to any one no matter the ethnic back ground it's a great book and a great author Thank you Dr Llaila O. Afrika
Amazon: HIP HOP, Reggae, Books, R&B
Nutricide: The Nutritional Destruction of the Black Race
Excellent Information!,| By | Nefertiti AfriKa "Born Again Afrikan" |
 |
This book is excellent! It was insightful and I fully recommend it for the person who wants to open their "Third Eye!" I have always felt that the way I feel (mentally and physically) could be better and have always thought that there was some underlined destruction to our diet! If you want to save yourself from physiscal destruction as well as metal slavery, then get this book. If your are an africausian, then you will not be able to fully except what Mr. Afrika will enlighten you with. If we are taught european history in school and you except that, then why question someone who is a scholar and teacher of the YOUR his-story! This book is not for the eurocentrically brainwashed!
Amazon: HIP HOP, Books, Reggae & R&B
Heal Thyself Natural Living Cookbook: A Complete Guide to Natural Living Through Vegetarian Cooking and Holistic Juicing
Wellness intro, April 5, 2007 | By | M. Cadabes |
 |
| |
Amazon: HIP HOP, Books, Reggae & R&B
I have been introduced to wellness and new ways of living a healthier and wealthier life. This book coupled with Queen Afua?s books have been great ways for me to begin. As a mother of a happy toddler, there are so many recipes within this book that I can cook to satisfy my son?s nutritional needs as well as his palate.
Amazon: HIP HOP, Books, Reggae & R&B
