Genetically Modified Organisms – Page 30

Monsanto, Syngenta, BASF And Others Working On GM Wheat

November 26, 2010November 26, 2010 by Infinite

This year, your bread dishes are probably not genetically modified — consumer and food industry opposition has so far prevented any GM wheat from making it to your table. So your biscuits, thickened gravy and turkey stuffing are made with flour from traditionally bred wheat.

But several seed companies, including Monsanto, Syngenta, BASF and others, are working on transgenic wheat. U.S. Wheat Associates, an industry group, said in early 2010 that GM wheat is still several years away, but efforts are ongoing to improve its acceptance among international consumers.

Monsanto Co., the world’s largest producer of genetically modified seed, backed off commercialization of “Roundup Ready” wheat several years ago, amid concerns it could hurt the U.S. wheat market. But earlier this month, the firm said it’s the “right time” to pursue development of drought-resistant and high-yielding wheat.

Scientists working to create genetically modified chocolate – to make you healthy (Sure!)

November 20, 2010November 20, 2010 by Infinite

From Mars.com:

Cocoa Sustainability

Certifying Our Commitment to Sustainability

For nearly 30 years Mars has been diligently pursuing a cocoa sustainability strategy. The company’s goal is to secure responsible cocoa production and the future supply of the crop. Our aim is for cocoa to thrive in harmony with the environment and to the benefit of the communities involved throughout the cocoa supply chain.

Sure!

Scientists working to create genetically modified chocolate – to make you healthy

FORGET penicillin, space travel and the silicon chip. Science is on the verge of its greatest discovery – chocolate that’s good for you.

DNA experts are working with sweet giants Mars to create genetically modified chocolate that fights heart disease and diabetes and won’t make you fat.

They’ve already been at it for two years. And they claim that in another five, they could unlock the secret of how to make chocolate healthy.

The scientists say the secret lies in the genetic code of the cocoa bean.

The beans contain chemicals called flavonols which lower blood pressure and help keep the heart healthy.

And the scientists believe they can change the DNA of the cocoa tree so it produces beans with far higher levels of flavonols.

70% of World’s Raw Chocolate Soon To Be Genetically Modified

November 20, 2010November 19, 2010 by Infinite

Cocoa Consuming Countries

Source: UNCTAD based on the data from International Cocoa Organization, quaterly bulletin of cocoa statistics

With the intention of flooding 70% of the global cocoa supply with genetically modified (GMO) cocoa tree hybrids, a collaboration involving Mars, USDA and IBM is accelerating this process.

With primary funding from US chocolate producer Mars, the partnership includes scientists based at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) of the US Department of Agriculture and Science as well as researchers working at IBM’s Thomas J Watson Research Center.

The scientists are determined to finalize gene sequencing of the cocoa genome which they say will “benefit” the chocolate industry and cocoa growers in West Africa where 70 percent of the world’s cocoa is produced, and in other tropical zones.

According to the global head of plant science and research at the confectionery firm, Howard-Yana Shapiro, the sequence is of great importance.

“As plant breeders, we’re always looking after the golden traits: pest and disease resistant, drought tolerance, the ability to adapt to climate change, tree architecture, yield quality, etc,” said Dr Shapiro.

The researchers including ARS based molecular biologist David Kuhn and geneticist Raymond Schnell said that they released the findings of sequencing into the public domain in order to assist scientists to begin applying the findings immediately.

The results have been published on the Cacao Genome Database website.

MIT Scientists Develop GMO Plant That Produces Pharmaceutical Drugs

November 14, 2010November 14, 2010 by Infinite

(NaturalNews) Splicing and dicing natural plant compounds and patenting them for profit may be a thing of the past for drug companies, at least in terms of them having to do it manually in a laboratory. It might seem like something out of a science fiction movie, but a team of scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has actually developed a way to genetically engineer plants that are programmed to create pharmaceutical drugs instead of their natural healing compounds.

You read that right. Sarah O’Connor and her colleagues from MIT added bacterial genes to periwinkle plants that altered their natural alkaloid production system, causing them to accept external chemical additions. Chemists then added halogens like chlorine and bromine to the plants’ biosynthetic mechanisms, which altered the composition of the final alkaloids. So instead of producing their natural alkaloids, the altered periwinkles literally started producing synthetic pharmaceutical drug versions of those alkaloids instead.

The process is similar to the type of genetic engineering that takes place with food crops, except this process goes a step further. Dubbed “metabolic engineering”, the process of altering the actual molecular output of plants shapes the very compounds they produce. And by manipulating these expressions, scientists can induce plants to grow a variety of different synthetic compounds that can be patented by drug companies.

The work is highly disturbing because periwinkles and other plants already produce natural, safe compounds that serve a therapeutic purpose. Vinblastine, the alkaloid naturally produced by periwinkles that was manipulated as part of the study, is already effective at treating cancer, for instance.

USDA Plans To Allow GM Sugar Beet Planting During Lawsuit

November 14, 2010November 14, 2010 by Infinite

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Federal agriculture officials have released a plan to let farmers plant genetically modified sugar beets while a lawsuit over them is resolved, but farmers fear a partial lifting of a court-ordered ban won’t come in time for next year’s crop.

A federal judge in California issued an order last summer halting the planting of genetically modified sugar beets until the U.S. Department of Agriculture completes an environmental impact study on how the beets could affect conventional crops. The ruling had a widespread effect since nearly all the nation’s sugar beet farmers had converted to genetically modified seed.

Half of the nation’s sugar comes from sugar beets, and 95 percent of them are grown using so-called Roundup Ready seed produced by St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. The seeds are engineered to withstand the weed killer Roundup, allowing farmers to reduce the use of other chemicals and limit tilling, which kills weeds but can contribute to erosion.

10 Freakiest Things About Frankenfish

November 12, 2010November 12, 2010 by Infinite

This article was written by the Organic Consumers Association’s Political Director, Alexis Baden-Mayer. To take action to stop Frankenfish, please click here.

10. Frankenfish Aren’t Animals, They’re “Animal Drugs”

Obama’s FDA is regulating genetically engineered salmon, a genetically modified organism (GMO) that is the first of its kind, not as an animal, but as an animal drug. Normally, a veterinary drug would be used for health purposes, but there’s no therapeutic benefit associated with jacking up an Atlantic salmon with the genes of a Chinook salmon and the eel-like ocean pout to make it grow twice as fast. On the contrary, genetic engineering increases the salmon’s mortality, disease and deformity. So, why would the FDA treat a the first genetically engineered animal for human consumption like a drug? The idea came from the biotech industry. They knew that the FDA’s animal drug process would keep companies’ “proprietary” information secret, while limiting public participation and downplaying food safety concerns. Genius.

9. The GMO Part of the GMO Salmon Isn’t Being Safety Tested

Since 1992, the FDA has operated under the legal fiction created by the Bush-Quayle Administration that there is no risk associated with the human consumption of genetically engineered plants and animals. The FDA explains that DNA is Generally Recognized as Safe, so genetically engineered DNA is safe, too, and it doesn’t have to be safety tested. Source: FDA’s Statement of Policy – Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties (PDF)

8. Frankenfish DNA Could Change the Bacteria of Your Gut

A human study conducted by the UK’s Food Standards Agency found that consuming genetically engineered soy can result in “horizontal gene transfer,” where the bacteria of the gut takes up the soy’s modified DNA. With GMO salmon, the bacteria of our digestive tracks could take up the engineered salmon genes, but the FDA isn’t looking into whether this would happen or how it might effect our health.

7. If It Swims Like a Salmon, FDA Says It’s Safe to Eat

Instead of reviewing the safety of consuming genetically engineered salmon DNA, the FDA food safety review is a simple quacks-like-a-duck-style comparison of genetically engineered and normal salmon for hormone levels, nutrition, and allergenic potency.

6. FDA Lets the Frankenfish Company Test Its Own Product’s Safety

GM Flax Contamination Detected in 35 Countries

October 16, 2010 by Infinite

“Canadian flax seed has been shut out of its largest market after traces of Triffid — a genetically modified form of the crop ordered destroyed 10 years ago — was found in shipments.

The European Union, which buys 70 per cent of Canada’s flax, has a zero-tolerance policy regarding genetically modified organisms and has been turning away shipments.

Officials say Canada’s entire $320-million industry is threatened.”

Source: CBC NEWS

Oct. 15 (NaturalNews) Since the Flax Council of Canada (FCC) first announced that genetically modified (GM) flaxseed not approved for human consumption had been detected in Europe, reports of such contamination have surfaced in a total of 35 countries.

The variety of flax detected is known as FP967 or Triffid, and was never approved for commercial use. In 2001, the Canadian government banned its use. Researchers are still unsure how commercial flax stocks around the world have become so widely contaminated by Triffid’s genetic material.

What is known is that by 2001, 40 different seed producers were growing 20,000 bushels of Triffid seed, anticipating future demand. When the GM crop was banned, the stocks were supposed to be destroyed. Some investigators suspect that instead, much of it was put into production anyway. Others have pointed the finger at the sample seed packets distributed to farmers in 2000. Although such packets were not intended for commercial use, some farmers may nevertheless have planted and eventually commercialized them. Alternatively, genetic contamination of non-GM flax could have taken place during Triffid’s testing phases, before it was banned and without widescale commercial planting.

How to Tell if Your Food is Genetically Modified, Organic or Conventional

October 16, 2010 by Infinite

(NaturalNews) We live in a world where genetic modification of the food supply is extremely prevalent. It is extremely important to be able to identify whether or not your food has been a target of genetic modification, or sprayed with pesticides. There are numerous methods of identifying the origins of your food by reading labels and looking for key indicators.

Reading the labels is the easiest way to determine if your food is safe to eat. Produce labels will contain a series of numbers. These numbers will tell you everything you need to know when it comes to identifying whether or not it is organic.

If the number on the label begins with a 4, it is conventional produce. This produce has most likely been sprayed with pesticides. Genetically modified produce will start with the number 8, and it often is identified with a string of numbers consisting of 5 digits. Organic produce will be labeled with 5 digits also but will begin with the number 9. Always check the label twice, as it is sometimes hard to tell at first glance.

As far as other food products, it is also all told in the labeling.

If a product is labeled as organic, it may not be fully organic. FDA regulations and rules allow for products that are not 100% organic to be labeled organic. Look for labels indicating that the product is 100% organic. When a product contains this label, it is truly organic. This means that it also does not contain any genetically modified ingredients.

Always read the ingredients of a product anyway to ensure there are no harmful additives, but the 100% organic label is the ideal label when it comes to searching for quality food products. So what if a product isn’t 100% organic? How do you know if it contains genetically modified ingredients? Products labeled “Non-GMO” or “GMO-free” are statements that indicate the absence of genetically modified ingredients. Keep in mind that high-fructose corn syrup is known for being genetically modified, so avoid products containing this ingredient. High-fructose corn syrup has also been found to contain mercury.

Malaysia to Use GM Mosquitoes to Fight Dengue Fever

October 31, 2011October 15, 2010 by Infinite

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia (AP) – Malaysia could be the first country in Asia to use genetically modified mosquitoes to battle a rise in dengue fever, government authorities said Monday.

The program calls for genetically engineered male mosquitoes to be released into the wild that would mate with females and produce offspring that live shorter lives, thus curbing the population.

Malaysian scientists say laboratory test trials have made them optimistic.

“It is a pilot project, and hopefully it will work,” Prime Minister Najib Razak told reporters on the sidelines of a World Health Organization conference in Malaysia.

Dengue fever, spread by the Aedes aegypti mosquito, is common in Asia and Latin America. Symptoms include high fever, joint pains and nausea, but in severe cases, it can lead to internal bleeding, liver enlargement, circulatory shutdown and death. There is no known cure or vaccine.

Efforts to urge Malaysians to keep neighborhoods clean and destroy stagnant sources of water — which are mosquito breeding grounds — have failed, and “innovative ways” are needed to combat dengue, Najib said.

In Malaysia, the number of dengue-linked deaths totaled 117 between January and early October — a 65 percent surge from last year, according to Health Ministry statistics. Dengue infections overall increased 17 percent from last year to more than 37,000 cases.

Malaysian authorities plan to release between 2,000 and 3,000 genetically modified mosquitoes in two areas, said Lim Chua Leng, a Health Ministry official. The plan, which cannot be undertaken without Cabinet approval, would be the first such release of genetically modified mosquitoes in Asia to combat dengue.

Study: GM Corn ‘Has Polluted Rivers Across The United States’

September 29, 2010 by Infinite

The benefits of GM corn:

– Monsanto: GM-Corn Harvest of 82,000 Hectares in South Africa Fails

– Monsanto GM Corn Causing Organ Failure In Rats: Study (Everything You Need To Know)

Germany:

– Monsanto sues Germany over GM corn ban

– Germany bans Monsanto’s GM maize

And now….

Sept. 28 — An insecticide used in genetically modified (GM) crops grown extensively in the United States and other parts of the world has leached into the water of the surrounding environment.

The insecticide is the product of a bacterial gene inserted into GM corn and other cereal crops to protect them against insects such as the European corn borer beetle. Scientists have detected the insecticide in a significant number of streams draining the great corn belt of the American mid-West.

The researchers detected the bacterial protein in the plant detritus that was washed off the corn fields into streams up to 500 metres away. They are not yet able to determine how significant this is in terms of the risk to either human health or the wider environment.

“Our research adds to the growing body of evidence that corn crop byproducts can be dispersed throughout a stream network, and that the compounds associated with genetically modified crops, such as insecticidal proteins, can enter nearby water bodies,” said Emma Rosi-Marshall of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, New York.

GM crops are widely cultivated except in Britain and other parts of Europe. In 2009, more than 85 per cent of American corn crops were genetically modified to either repel pests or to be tolerant to herbicides used to kill weeds in a cultivated field.

The GM corn has a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuriengensis (Bt) inserted into it to repel the corn borer beetle. The Bt gene produces a protein called Cry1Ab which has insectidical properties.

The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, analysed 217 streams in Indiana. The scientists found 86 per cent of the sites contained corn leaves, husks, stalks or cereal cobs in their channels and 13 per cent contained detectable levels of the insectidical Cry1Ab proteins.

FDA Refuses to Require Labeling of GM Salmon

September 29, 2010September 28, 2010 by Infinite

And the justification for that is that dumb Americans don’t need to know what they eat, or what?

(NaturalNews) As the FDA stands poised to approve genetically modified (GM) salmon safe for public consumption, the next logical question concerns how GM salmon would be labeled. Would the fish come with a large red warning that says, “Genetically modified salmon”?

As it turns out, no. In fact, the FDA has already gone on the record stating it will not require any special labeling of genetically modified salmon. You, the consumer, just have to take a wild guess because you’re not allowed to know what you’re really eating.

The biotech industry takes this absurdity one step further by claiming that labeling GM foods would just “confuse” consumers. David Edwards, the director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, explained it in this way: “Extra labeling only confuses the consumer,” he says. “It differentiates products that are not different.”

Except that they are different. If they were really no different, then AquAdvantage company wouldn’t be growing them. The whole point of genetically modified salmon is that they are modified with extra growth hormone genes to make them grow more quickly. I don’t know where David Edwards is getting his information, but in the rest of the world, when something is different, that means it’s different.

If it’s no different, then why are so many GM salmon processes patented? If it’s no different, there would be nothing to patent. The entire purpose of a patent is to make a legal claim that “we invented something different” and we own the monopoly rights to it.

The GM salmon industry can’t have it both ways, you see. They can’t claim it’s so unique that their technologies and animals should be proprietary or patented, yet when it comes to food labeling, they claim there are no differences. It’s either different or it isn’t, and in the case of GM salmon, only an outright liar would look you in the eye and claim GM salmon is identical to regular farmed salmon or wild-caught salmon.

FDA insists on keeping people in the dark

The FDA, for its sad part in this saga, claims that it would be against the law to require the honest labeling of GM foods. This agency claims that since GM salmon is identical to regular salmon (it’s “no different” once again, they say), they can’t require it to be labeled any differently.

GM Salmon Nears US Approval

September 29, 2010September 26, 2010 by Infinite

– US: GM Salmon May Go On Sale:

Among the considerations by the FDA is whether, if the fish is approved for consumption, it must be labelled as genetically engineered.

Consumer groups fear green light for engineered species will bring environmental disaster to the oceans

A genetically modified salmon, rear, and a non-genetically modified salmon, foreground. Photograph: AP

Buried in a prospectus inviting investors to buy shares in a fledgling biotech company is an arresting claim attributed to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation.

“Commercial aquaculture is the most rapidly growing segment of the agricultural industry, accounting for more than $60bn sales in 2003. While land-based agriculture is increasing between 2% to 3% per year, aquaculture has been growing at an average rate of approximately 9% per year since 1970.”

US: GM Salmon May Go On Sale

August 27, 2010August 27, 2010 by Infinite

Food and Drug administration begins 60-day process to approve animal critics call a ‘frankenfish’

A genetically-modified AquAdvantage salmon, top, next to a control salmon of the same age. (AP)

US authorities today began the process to approve the first GM animal for human consumption.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a 60-day period of consultation and public meetings over whether to permit a GM strain of salmon to be eaten by humans, even though it has been called a “frankenfish” by critics. The approval process could take less than a year, and if it gets the green light the fish could be on the market in 18 months.

Environmentalists and scientists see the decision as marking a threshold. If it is approved it is likely to open the door to a large range of GM animals being raised for consumption. If not, scientists say that will have a negative effect on research, in part because there will be no money to be made from it.

Among the considerations by the FDA is whether, if the fish is approved for consumption, it must be labelled as genetically engineered.

– GMO Alert: US Attempting Global Censorship of GMO Food Labeling

The AquAdvantage salmon – a modified North Atlantic salmon – has been created by AquaBounty Technologies in Boston, Massachusetts, over 14 years at a cost of $50m. The company says the salmon grows at twice the speed of similar fish, cutting costs for farmers and greatly increasing production.

The Age of Treason: 1958 Book Exposes Current Chemical Attack on Humanity

August 23, 2010August 22, 2010 by Infinite

Dr. R. Swinburne Clymer was in many ways a man ahead of his time, and most certainly controversial. He was attacked by the medical establishment for connecting diet with disease and mental health in his 1917 book Dietetics. Dr. Clymer received his medical degree in 1902 from the College of Medicine and Surgery in Chicago and began practicing Osteopathy. Accusations of fraud surround Dr. Clymer’s career, including this 1923 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association which claims that, “Our records fail to show that this man was ever regularly graduated by any reputable medical college.” What Clymer had to say more than likely had something to do with the denouncement that he received from the medical establishment.

Though Dr. Clymer may be surrounded with controversy, his 1958 book Your Health and Sanity in the Age of Treason exposes toxic food additives and fluoride with documentation – the majority of which are mainstream scientific studies – that can be verified many times over. What makes this book unique is the fact that Dr. Clymer was one of the first to point out that statements by the elite indicated that these toxins were to be deliberately released “…for the mental deterioration and moral debasement of the mass…”

The book is appropriately subtitled; “Food and Liquids Used as a Medium in Deliberately and Carefully Planned Methods Developed by the Vicious Element of Humanity, for the Mental Deterioration and Moral Debasement of the Mass, as a Means Toward Their Enslavement.”

Dr. Clymer introduces readers with a stark warning for the future, writing, “Imagine yourself if you can, becoming conscious that you are gradually losing your manhood; that your mind is rapidly deteriorating so that you are no longer capable of thinking clearly; unable to plan your future actions. Your resistance is becoming so weakened that you are no longer master of yourself. In short, you are rapidly developing into a moron, a robot, a zombie, readily subject to the dictates of others…”

Bertrand Russell’s 1953 book The Impact of Science on Society is cited by Clymer as one example of the elite’s desire to dominate the masses. Russell stated that under scientific tyranny, “Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.”

Diethylstilbestrol – Endocrine Disruption

Dr. Clymer identified the synthetic estrogen Diethylstilbestrol – developed in 1938 – as a means to achieve the aims of the elite. Clymer explains that some of the toxic additives discussed in the book may not have been employed for the express purpose outlined by the elite, but “…they served their purpose admirably…” Dr. Clymer elaborates,

“The employment of Stilbestrol by the laity with absolutely no knowledge of the dangerous agent they are employing, in conditioning chickens and meats, is mass medication without license, with a dangerous toxic drug that may have universal disastrous results on all who eat such adulterated foods. This is especially true as it concerns children, youths, young women and men, resulting as it may, in their sterilization or cancer – something fervently hoped for by the enemies of mankind.”

Because Stilbestrol is a synthetic chemical, “…the natural protective activity of the bodily organs are ineffective in prohibiting harmful results. Natural Estrogen, on the other hand, is decomposed, and any of its possible harmful effects may be more or less made ineffective,” writes Dr. Clymer. Stilbestrol was used as a treatment for various types of cancer and menopausal symptoms, but as Dr. Clymer states, “Physicians versed in the use of Endocrines agree generally that Stilbestrol is a dangerous drug in all except experienced hands.”

Dr. E. Malcolm Stokes, in an article published in the Western Journal of Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology, September 1948, wrote: “Single large doses of [natural] estrogen substances are quickly excreted… long continued, repeated administration in relatively small doses [as in daily consumption of meats permeated with stilbestrol] may intensify tissue response to the hormone.”

Dr. Clymer warns that such chemicals are to feminize men,

“Every vigilant human being should be concerned with several important factors involved: The methods or means by which it is possible to change man’s characteristics as easily as the animal’s. Man is a warrior by nature, the protector of his family, and his own rights and privileges; an individual, a free man… A being who has wrought great things and who, if not interfered with, will do even greater things. This being is to be turned into a lesser female; unable, even unwilling, to defend himself, much less his family or country; becoming a slave…”

GMO Sugar Beets – Monsanto Wins Again

August 18, 2010 by Infinite

Last Friday a federal judge imposed a nationwide ban on GMO sugar beets and it was overturned the next business day. Sugar beets comprise 50% of the sugar used in US food, and 95% of the sugar beets grown in the US are GMO. It is the jurisdiction of the US Department of Agriculture to determine whether plants are environmentally safe; this case is about whether the plants can cross pollinate (by wind, insects, etc) and contaminate other plants. This could have cost Monsanto billions of dollars.

Less than 2 weeks ago, wild growing canola in North Dakota was discovered to be 86% GMO. Because GMO crops are crossed with herbicide resistant plants (usually weeds), they grow like weeds and contaminate natural plants. Alarmingly, two of the canola samples collected by scientists showed that multiple genes from different species of GMO canola plants cross pollinated without cultivation, and probably for several generations. The implication of this is that GMO seeds can readily contaminate natural seeds and become out of control.

The GMO alfalfa ban lawsuit about contamination was the first GMO case ever heard by the Supreme Court, despite countless lawsuits from farmers whose fields have been polluted by GMOs. The sugar beet ban was overturned, based on a Supreme Court decision (7-1), which lifted the nationwide ban on GMO alfalfa in June.

The Supreme Court ruling stated that the nationwide GMO alfalfa ban was too broad, so it was lifted; an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be performed by the USDA is still pending. GMO crops are environmentally dangerous because they can readily spread, as proven by the wild GMO plants found in North Dakota. The Supreme Court never addressed the issue of whether GMO plants contaminate natural plants through cross pollination.

The GMO Catastrophe In The US, A Lesson For The World

August 18, 2010 by Infinite

Recently the unelected potentates of the EU Commission in Brussels have sought to override what has repeatedly been shown to be the overwhelming opposition of the European Union population to the spread of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) in EU agriculture. EU Commission President now has a Maltese accountant as health and enviromnent Commissioner to rubber stamp the adoption of GMO. The former EU Environment Commissioner from Greece was a ferocious GMO opponent. As well, the Chinese government has indicated it may approve a variety of GMO rice. Before things get too far along, they would do well to take a closer look at the world GMO test lab, the USA. There GMO crops are anything but beneficial. Just the opposite.

What is carefully kept out of the Monsanto and other agribusiness propaganda in promoting genetically manipulated crops as an alternative to conventional is the fact that in the entire world until the present, all GMO crops have been manipulated and patented for only two things-to be resistant or “tolerant” to the patented highly toxic herbicide glyphosate chemicals that Monsanto and the others force farmers to buy as condition for buying their patented GMO seeds. The second trait is GMO seeds that have been engineered genetically to resist specific insects. Contrary to public relations myths promoted by the agribusiness giants in their own self-interest, there exists not oné single GMO seed that provides a greater harvest yield than conventional, nor one that requires less toxic chemical herbicides. That is for the simple reason there is no profit to be made in such.

Giant super-weeds plague

As prominent GMO opponent and biologist, Dr Mae-Wan Ho of the Institute of Science in London has noted, companies such as Monsanto build into their seeds herbicide-tolerance (HT) due to glyphosate-insensitive form of the gene coding for the enzyme targeted by the herbicide. The enzyme is derived from soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Insect-resistance is due to one or more toxin genes derived from the soil bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis). The United States began large scale commercial planting of GMO plants, mainly soybeans and corn and cotton around 1997. By now, GM crops have taken over between 85 percent to 91 percent of the areas planted with the three major crops, soybean, corn and cotton in the US, on nearly 171 million acres.

The ecological time-bomb that came with the GMO according to Ho, is about to explode. Over several years of constant application of patented glyphosate herbicides such as Monsanto’s famous and highly Roundup, new herbicide-resistant “super-weeds” have evolved, nature’s response to man-made attempts to violate it. The super-weeds require significantly more not less herbicide to control.

ABC Television, a major US national network, made a recent documentary about the super-weeds under the rubric, “super weeds that can’t be killed.”[1]

They interviewed farmers and scientists across Arkansas who described fields overrun with giant pigweed plants that can withstand as much glyphosate as farmers are able to spray. They interviewed one farmer who spent almost €400000 in only three months in a failed attempt to kill the new super-weeds.

The new super-weeds are so robust that harvester combines are unable to harvest the fields and hand tools break trying to cut them down. At least 400000 hectares of soybean and cotton in Arkansas alone have become invested with this new mutant biological plague. Detailed data on other agricultural regions is not available but believed similar. The pro-GMO and pro-agribusiness US Department of Agriculture has been reported lying about the true state of US crop harvest partly to hide the grim reality and to prevent an explosive revolt against GMO in the world’s largest GMO market.

Superweed

One variety of super-weed, palmer pigweed can grow up to 2.4 meters high, withstands severe heat and prolonged droughts, and produces thousands of seeds with a root system that drains nutrients away from crops. If left unchecked, it takes over an entire field in a year. Some farmers have been forced to abandon their land. To date palmer pigweed infestation in GMO crop regions has been identified in addition to Arkansas, also in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, New Mexico, Mississippi and most recently, Alabama and Missouri.

Weed scientists at the University of Georgia estimate that just two palmer pigweed plants in every 6 meter length of cotton row can reduce yield by at least 23 percent. A single weed plant can produce 450 000 seeds. [2]

Roundup toxic danger being covered-up

US: Rice Farmer Awarded $500,000 In GM Rice Trial

July 23, 2010July 23, 2010 by Infinite

Greenpeace activists protest on a barge containing contaminated illegal GM rice shipped from the US in the harbour of Rotterdam.

The people don’t want GM food and protest all around the world against it.

And this is the result?:

– GMO Alert: US Attempting Global Censorship of GMO Food Labeling

GM food has to be stopped NOW:

– Bayer AG admits GMO contamination out of control

What more can the people do to make their voices heard?

ST. LOUIS (CN) – A federal jury awarded a rice farmer $500,000 for his claim that genetically modified rice contaminated his crop. It was the third of five “bellwether” trials involving hundreds of lawsuits that farmers have filed against Bayer CropScience.

The complaints are the result of an August 2006 announcement that LibertyLink, a herbicide-resistant rice, had somehow been released from testing facilities. The rice had not yet been approved for sale for human consumption, causing rice futures to plunge.

Greenpeace Investigation: GM Rice Contamination In China’s Emergency Grain Stores

July 23, 2010July 23, 2010 by Infinite

China’s ban on GM rice questioned as environmental activists discover unapproved transgenic products at two grain sources

A Chinese rice farmer in the Hunan province of China. (Getty Images)

China’s state grain reserves have been contaminated by illegal, genetically modified rice, according to an investigation by Greenpeace.

The environmental group says it has found tainted samples at two rice processing enterprises that source their products from the strategic food reserve.

It is feared the transgenic products, which have not been approved as safe for public consumption, will spread nationwide because the reserves sell food and distribute emergency supplies during floods, droughts and other disasters.

The affected rice is believed to have originated in Hubei province – a centre of grain production and the site of field tests for strains containing the Bt63 gene, which repels insects.

Earlier this year, Greenpeace activists said they had found batches of genetically modified rice seeds in Hubei and its neighbouring province, Hunan.

They also found illegal GM rice on sale at Wal-Mart and Zhongbai supermarkets.

Scientist Leading Taxpayer-Funded GM Crop Test Defends Links To US Biotech Giant Monsanto

July 19, 2010 by Infinite

Research professor Jonathan Jones says his verdict on a potato trial in Norfolk will not be influenced by his past commercial ties to Monsanto

Anti-GM campaigners say a trial to genetically protect potatoes against blight is a waste of taxpayers’ money because a naturally produced strain already gives immunity.

The scientist in charge of a taxpayer-funded trial that may determine whether genetically modified crops will be grown in the UK has been attacked for his close links to the US biotech giant Monsanto.

Professor Jonathan Jones, head of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the John Innes Centre, the UK’s leading plant research centre, has shrugged off the controversy, insisting he has never tried to hide his business relationship with Monsanto or the GM industry.

But as the scientist overseeing the first UK trials of a GM potato, Jones has found himself at the centre of a storm after anti-GM campaigners used social networking sites such as Twitter to highlight the close links between a company he founded, Mendel Biotechnology, and Monsanto.

Mendel’s website states: “Mendel’s most important customer and collaborator for our technology business is Monsanto, the leading agricultural biotechnology company in the world.”

Jonathan Matthews, spokesman for GM Watch, which campaigns against the technology, said: “The frontman for the latest GM push in the UK is being portrayed as a dedicated public servant doing science in the public interest, but it now appears he not only has vested interests in the success of GM but even commercial connections to Monsanto.”

Helen Wallace, of GeneWatch UK, a scientific campaign group critical of Monsanto, said the US company’s “PR strategy relies on seemingly independent scientists making empty promises about the future benefits of GM crops”.

UK Food Watchdog Battling The Food Industry To Be Abolished By Health Secretary

July 14, 2010 by Infinite

Victory for food manufacturers as health groups accuse Andrew Lansley of caving in to big business

Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, will ask Defra and the health department to take over the FSA’s responsibilities.

The Food Standards Agency is to be abolished by Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, it emerged last night, after the watchdog fought a running battle with industry over the introduction of colour-coded “traffic light” warnings for groceries, TV dinners and snacks.

The move has sparked accusations that the government has “caved in to big business”.

As part of the changes Lansley will reassign the FSA’s regulatory aspects – including safety and hygiene – to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

Its responsibilities for nutrition, diet and public health will be incorporated into the Department of Health.

“The functions of the FSA will be subsumed into the Department of Health and Defra,” a source told Reuters.

Andrew Burnham, Labour’s health spokesman, said: “Getting rid of the FSA is the latest in a number of worrying steps that show Andrew Lansley caving in to the food industry. It does raise the question whether the health secretary wants to protect the public health or promote food companies.”

US scientists develop ‘fake’ GMO blood for use on battlefield

July 10, 2010 by Infinite

darpa_blood-pharming-vision1

Darpa launched a search for a renewable blood supply in 2008 (Click on image to enlarge.)

American scientists have developed ‘artificial’ blood that could soon be used to treat wounded soldiers in battle.

The genetically-engineered blood is created by taking cells from umbilical cords and using a machine to mimic the way bone marrow works to produce mass quantities of usable units of red blood cells.

Known as ‘blood pharming’ the programme was launched in 2008 by the Pentagon’s experimental arm, Darpa, to create blood to treat soldiers in far-flung battlefields.

The firm Arteriocyte, which received $1.95 million for the project, has now sent off its first shipment of O-negative blood to the food and drugs watchdog in the US, the FDA.

U.S. soldiers carry a wounded soldier in Iraq. The breakthrough could help provide enough blood for battlefield transfusions

The blood is made by using hematopoietic cells taken from umbilical cords in a process called ‘pharming’ – using genetically engineered plants or animals to create mass quantities of useful substances.

One umbilical cord can be turned into around 20 units of usable blood. A wounded soldier in the field will require an average of six units during treatment.

Blood cells produced using this method are ‘functionally indistinguishable from red blood cells in healthy circulation’, the company claims.

Haitian Farmers to Burn Donated Monsanto Hybrid Seeds

May 26, 2010 by Infinite

Jonas Deronzil from Verrettes has been farming since 1974. Like small producers throughout Haiti, his meager income from corn, rice, and beans is threatened by new competition from Monsanto.

“A new earthquake” is what peasant farmer leader Chavannes Jean-Baptiste of the Peasant Movement of Papay (MPP) called the news that Monsanto will be donating 60,000 seed sacks (475 tons) of hybrid corn seeds and vegetable seeds, some of them treated with highly toxic pesticides. The MPP has committed to burning Monsanto’s seeds, and has called for a march to protest the corporation’s presence in Haiti on June 4, for World Environment Day.

In an open letter sent of May 14, Chavannes Jean-Baptiste, the Executive Director of MPP and the spokesperson for the National Peasant Movement of the Congress of Papay (MPNKP), called the entry of Monsanto seeds into Haiti “a very strong attack on small agriculture, on farmers, on biodiversity, on Creole seeds…, and on what is left our environment in Haiti.”[1] Haitian social movements have been vocal in their opposition to agribusiness imports of seeds and food, which undermines local production with local seed stocks. They have expressed special concern about the import of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

For now, without a law regulating the use of GMOs in Haiti, the Ministry of Agriculture rejected Monsanto’s offer of Roundup Ready GMO seeds. In an email exchange, a Monsanto representative assured the Ministry of Agriculture that the seeds being donated are not GMO.

Elizabeth Vancil, Monsanto’s Director of Development Initiatives, called the news that the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture approved the donation “a fabulous Easter gift” in an April email.[2] Monsanto is known for aggressively pushing seeds, especially GMO seeds, in both the global North and South, including through highly restrictive technology agreements with farmers who are not always made fully aware of what they are signing. According to interviews by this writer with representatives of Mexican small farmer organizations, they then find themselves forced to buy Monsanto seeds each year, under conditions they find onerous and at costs they sometimes cannot afford.

GMO Alert: US Attempting Global Censorship of GMO Food Labeling

May 4, 2010 by Infinite

Who would attempt to outlaw non-GMO labeling of foods? Criminals!

It’s a fact that the majority of consumers do not want GM-food.

Who would attempt to press it upon them anyway? Criminals!

AND who would sneak an anti-vitamin amendment into the Wall Street reform bill? Criminals!

– Congressman Henry Waxman Sneaks Anti-Vitamin Amendment Into Wall Street Reform Bill

Dr. Len Horowitz calls Waxman what he is:

– Dr. Len Horowitz: Profitable Depopulation Plot Links JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs to Vaccination Contaminations and Big Pharma Corruption:

Another gross example of corrupt government pharmawhores sucking Wall Street’s slime, is Congressman Henry Waxman’s (D-CA) treason against the American people for sneaking dietary supplement regulation language into ‘The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009,’ (H.R. 4173).

But don’t criticize the US government:

– Obama Takes Direct Aim at Anti-Government Rhetoric (ABC NEWS):

In a blunt caution to political friend and foe, President Barack Obama said Saturday that partisan rants and name-calling under the guise of legitimate discourse pose a serious danger to America’s democracy, and may incite “extreme elements” to violence.

Mr. President, the First Amendment gives Americans the right to speak up against their looting and lying elite puppet government. In fact the First Amendment was created for exactly this purpose.

And PS: America is a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy!

(NaturalNews) I received an urgent alert from Jeffrey Smith today about a dangerous situation taking place right now at the international CODEX conference. The U.S. is attempting to push its agenda to censor all GMO labeling of foods everywhere around the world. This would result in a global GMO cover-up as consumers are left in the dark about whether their foods and grocery products are genetically modified or not.

Your help is urgently needed to send a message to the Secretaries of State (Clinton), Agriculture (Vilsack), and Health and Human Services (Sebelius) to urge them to halt the USA’s nefarious attempts to install a global GMO deception.

Take part in this online petition, go here:
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/GMF…

Please understand that the U.S. is attempting to outlaw non-GMO labeling of foods, thereby making it illegal for a non-GMO food product to even claim “non-GMO” on the label. If the U.S. succeeds in this global GMO cover-up, the FDA could seize any products in the USA that make “non-GMO” claims. Additionally, the USA could file lawsuits through the World Trade Organization against any country that allows non-GMO labeling or claims on its products.

California Files Legal Brief Opposing Monsanto in US Supreme Court

May 3, 2010 by Infinite

– Conflict of Interest: Ex Monsanto Lawyer Clarence Thomas to Hear Major Monsanto Case:

In Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case which could have an enormous effect on the future of the American food industry. This is Monsanto’s third appeal of the case, and if they win a favorable ruling from the high court, a deregulated Monsanto may find itself in position to corner the markets of numerous U.S. crops, and to litigate conventional farmers into oblivion.

Here’s where it gets a bit dicier. Two Supreme Court justices have what appear to be direct conflicts of interest.

Stephen Breyer
Charles Breyer, the judge who ruled in the original decision of 2007 which is being appealed, is Stephen Breyer’s brother, who apparently views this as a conflict of interest and has recused himself.

Clarence Thomas
From the years 1976 – 1979, Thomas worked as an attorney for Monsanto. Thomas apparently does not see this as a conflict of interest and has not recused himself.

Fox, meet henhouse.

(Watch this video here. More important information at the end of the article.)

California is weighing in on a landmark Supreme Court case with far-reaching implications for agriculture the world over. The Attorney Generals of California, Oregon and Massachusetts have filed amicus briefs along with a coalition of scientists, organic and conventional farmers, food exporters, former government officials and legal scholars in support of the Center for Food Safety, an anti-GMO advocacy group opposing Monsanto.

In Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, the American biotech giant – currently under investigation for anti-trust law violations – is seeking to end an injunction on its patented “Roundup Ready” alfalfa imposed by a federal district court in 2007. Three years and two failed appeals later, Monsanto is taking their case to the the Supreme Court in what will be the first ever High Court ruling on a genetically engineered (GE) crop.

At issue in this case is a lower court’s ban on the planting of the GE alfalfa crop. The USDA approved its use in 2007 without submitting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to asses the ramifications transgenetic plants would have on farmers and surrounding environments. The court determined that by failing to comply with the environmental impact research requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the USDA was derelict in its administrative duties.

Russian Scientists Prove Genetically Modified Foods are Harmful, Suggest Ban on GM Foods

April 27, 2010 by Infinite

– Monsanto: GM-Corn Harvest of 82,000 Hectares in South Africa Fails

Russia has started the annual Days of Defence against Environmental Hazards from the 15th of April to the 5th of June with the announcement of sensational results of an independent work of research. Scientists have proved that Genetically Modified Organisms are harmful for mammals. The researchers discovered that animals that eat GM foodstuffs lose their ability to reproduce. Campbell hamsters that have a fast reproduction rate were fed for two years with ordinary soya beans, which are widely used in agriculture and those contain different percentages of GM organisms. Another group of hamsters, the control group, was fed with pure soya, which was found with great difficulty in Serbia because 95 percent of soya in the world is transgenic.

Concerning the experiment carried out jointly by the National Association for Gene Security and the Institute of Ecological and Evolutional Problems, Dr. Alexei Surov has this to say. “We selected several groups of hamsters, kept them in pairs in cells and gave them ordinary food as always,” says Alexei Surov. “We did not add anything for one group but the other was fed with soya that contained no GM components, while the third group with some content of Genetically Modified Organisms and the fourth one with increased amount of GMO. We monitored their behavior and how they gain weight and when they give birth to their cubs. Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs’ growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly. When we got some of their cubs we formed the new pairs of the third generation. We failed to get cubs from these pairs, which were fed with GM foodstuffs. It was proved that these pairs lost their ability to give birth to their cubs,” Dr. Alexei Surov said.

Another surprise was discovered by scientists in hamsters of the third generation. Hair grew in the mouth of the animals that took part in the experiment. It’s unclear why this happened. The researchers cannot understand why a programme of destruction is launched when animals take GMO foodstuffs. They say that this can be neutralized only by stopping to eat these foods. Consequently, scientists suggest imposing a ban on the use of GM foods until they are tested for their bio-security. The results of Russian scientists coincide with those of their colleagues from France and Austria. For one, when scientist proved that GM maize was harmful for mammals, France banned immediately its production and sale. The scientists who carried out the experiment say that it’s too early to make far-reaching conclusions about the health hazards of the GMO. They insist that there is a need to carry out comprehensive research. They suggest implementing the project, “Safety Gene Technology” at the innovation centre, “Skolkovo” which is being set up near Moscow.