Critical Observer

MONSANTO’S GLYPHOSATE DOUBLES CANCER RISK

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHrP2RWTeBuDhbBkivVO5_dad-vBuN1kozOXGPJi4MMXhi58apGr0o8km-I8kVZx-s516cvZBDZb7eiwRvzdvlyTt0YwC2xLPcDSlAcMJGs0Y17zXBcdVInyun8c941I0l7ehF6r-9izQ/s1600/00000.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="344" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHrP2RWTeBuDhbBkivVO5_dad-vBuN1kozOXGPJi4MMXhi58apGr0o8km-I8kVZx-s516cvZBDZb7eiwRvzdvlyTt0YwC2xLPcDSlAcMJGs0Y17zXBcdVInyun8c941I0l7ehF6r-9izQ/s640/00000.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
As news of Monsanto’s falling stock, and laid-off employees reaches the far stretches of the media circus, another dire report for the biotech company becomes common knowledge: glyphosate nearly doubles cancer risk.<br />
<br />
One particular type of cancer stands above the rest, even after the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said that glyphosate was probably carcinogenic. Glyphosate has been found to double the risk of the blood cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and increase the risk of a related cancer, multiple myeloma.<br />
<br />
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) points out that the IARC’s most recent report confirmed the findings of the Agency’s previous meta-analysis, which combined the results of several studies and concluded that farmers and others exposed to glyphosate suffer double the risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The more recent report also highlighted studies that found that farm workers’ glyphosate exposure increases their risk of multiple myeloma by 70 to 100%.<br />
<br />
This doesn’t bode well for a company that is having trouble selling ‘suicide’ seeds, and has long lost public support for GM crops. The fact that farm workers should start looking for life insurance policies if they work with Monsanto’s chemicals is not only shocking, but it is entirely unnecessary. There are less-toxic, more sustainable ways of farming that have been around for centuries,; ones that biotech always attempts to discredit.<br />
<br />
<br />
This should also be alarming to people who buy anything that isn’t organically-grown from US grocery store shelves. Some estimate that 90% of all processed food contains glyphosate residues. As a French court has found, this toxic chemical concoction certainly doesn’t ‘leave the soil clean’ or ‘biodegrade’ to become some inane, and innocuous magic soap scum that we can just wash away.<br />
<br />
Glyphosate should be restricted or banned around the world.<br />
<br />
This article originally appeared at Natural Society.

MONSANTO’S GLYPHOSATE DOUBLES CANCER RISK

As news of Monsanto’s falling stock, and laid-off employees reaches the far stretches of the media circus, another dire report for the bi...

Read Article »

MONSANTO COVERED UP GLYPHOSATE CANCER DATA

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9qz8TggS2rJBUjNqPrFSq9f0DhFET4mgY0IhpmdazKoJdnT05qr2_OZdchcL3-y0W-oRKH_r2pCXkUqZtQj2_D6SqPGYfES-axAtT9RLdsMoV-g8WvFoL2li7hdjOjhKBnqwGM0YCjco/s1600/0000.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="330" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9qz8TggS2rJBUjNqPrFSq9f0DhFET4mgY0IhpmdazKoJdnT05qr2_OZdchcL3-y0W-oRKH_r2pCXkUqZtQj2_D6SqPGYfES-axAtT9RLdsMoV-g8WvFoL2li7hdjOjhKBnqwGM0YCjco/s640/0000.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<h5 style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.1; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">
<br /></h5>
<h5 style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.1; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">
What will it take to shut down Monsanto’s doors irrevocably? Likely it will be the same type of lawsuit that finally pulled the shades on the tobacco industry. If Big Tobacco eventually had to pay a $206 billion settlement over 25 years for lying about the health impacts of cigarettes, what do you think Monsanto will have to pay for lying about glyphosate’s carcinogenic nature for almost 40 years?</h5>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
Some well-respected researchers are now saying that Monsanto demanded incriminating data and reports be sealed and locked away from public scrutiny as proprietary trade secrets, though they knew these documents would reveal glyphosate’s carcinogenic nature.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; float: left; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin: 5px 5px 5px 0px; max-width: 100%;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
Monsanto has yet to be caught red-handed lying about research, but the corp has been caught twice when they utilized outside laboratories that were later found to have been criminal. In 1978, the EPA busted Industrial Biotest Laboratories for rigging laboratory results; the company’s executives were found guilty for submitting fabricated data supporting glyphosate in positive light to the government. In 1991, another firm, Craven Labs, was found guilty on similar charges with 20 felony counts. Monsanto’s timeline of crime is undeniable. [1]</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
The EPA continually colludes with Monsanto to present glyphosate as ‘safe’ to the public, but during an exclusive interview on the Progressive Radio Network on September 4, Anthony Samsel stated that Monsanto used an industry trick to dismiss evidence about glyphosate’s risks in its own research.  “Monsanto misrepresented the data,” says Samsel, “and deliberately covered up data to bring the product [glyphosate] to market.”</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
Samsel, an independent research scientist and a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, explains, along with Dr. Stephanie Seneff, that in order to minimize and cancel out its adverse findings:</div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border-left-color: rgb(238, 238, 238); border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 5px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 10px 20px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: none !important; line-height: 1.25; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">“Monsanto had relied upon earlier historical animal control data, toxicological research with lab animals afflicted with cancer and organ failures, and <strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">completely unrelated to glyphosate</strong></em><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">. In some cases the control animals displayed kidney, liver and pancreatic diseases.</em></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: none !important; line-height: 1.25; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">Many of Monsanto’s own studies required the inclusion of extraneous studies in order to cancel out damaging results</strong></em><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">.  This is not an uncommon industry habit, particularly in toxicological science. It <strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">enables corporations to mask undesirable outcomes and make claims that observable illnesses and disease are spontaneous occurrences</strong></em><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">without known causal factors.</em></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: none !important; line-height: 1.25;">
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Frequently, Monsanto would have to rely on three external control studies to negate the adverse effects of a single one of its own. Samsel found other incidences in Monsanto’s data where 5, 7 and in one case 11 unrelated studies were necessary to diminish the severity of its own findings.  In effect, glyphosate received licensure based upon a platform of junk tobacco science.”</em></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
The researchers go on to explain that Monsanto covered up the fact that glyphosate was equally toxic in both low and high range doses. These findings are corroborated by a recent study from France published in the August issue of the <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Environmental Health Journal</em> by scientists at Kings College London and the University of Caen in France.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; float: none; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin: 5px 0px; max-width: 100%; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
The two year study found that glyphosate administered at an ultra-low dose of 0.1 ppb (the EU’s safety limit) in drinking water <strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">altered over 4000 gene clusters</strong> in the livers and kidneys of rats, though the biotech industry has been trying to debunk its findings.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
So what information is hiding in Monsanto’s sealed documents?</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
Among the many cancers and diseases associated with glyphosate are:</div>
<ul style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 0px;">
<li style="box-sizing: border-box;">Adenoma cancer in the pituitary gland</li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box;">Glioma tumors in the brain</li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box;">Reticular cell sarcomas in the heart</li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box;">Malignant tumors in the lungs</li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box;">Salivary mandibular reticular cell carcinoma</li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box;">Metastatic sarcomas of the lymph gland</li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box;">Prostate carcinoma</li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box;">Cancer of the bladder</li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box;">Thyroid carcinoma</li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box;">Adrenal reticulum cell sarcomas</li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box;">Cortical adenomas</li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box;">Basal cell squamous skin tumors</li>
</ul>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
Yet these were all hidden from public view. I think that hundreds of billions of dollars won’t come close to account for the 40 years of health damage Monsanto has potentially caused by hiding this information. But one thing is certain, just like the Tobacco industry – Monsanto will pay.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
Want to learn more? Watch these videos:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">Lobbyist who says you can drink glyphosate:</strong></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="320" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ovKw6YjqSfM" style="box-sizing: border-box; height: 425px; overflow: hidden !important; width: 620px;" width="620"></iframe></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">Documentary of the Monsanto Company:</strong></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="320" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/su0om5L4Bhg" style="box-sizing: border-box; height: 425px; overflow: hidden !important; width: 620px;" width="620"></iframe></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">Seeds of Death:</strong></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="320" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/a6OxbpLwEjQ" style="box-sizing: border-box; height: 425px; overflow: hidden !important; width: 620px;" width="620"></iframe></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
Monsanto has gotten away with murder for long enough. The world is starting to wake up, and hold them accountable. Our efforts are working; just don’t let up the pressure. Keep educating yourself and others and we will protect the food supply.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">This article originally appeared at Natural Society.</em></div>

MONSANTO COVERED UP GLYPHOSATE CANCER DATA

What will it take to shut down Monsanto’s doors irrevocably? Likely it will be the same type of lawsuit that finally pulled the shades ...

Read Article »

IS RAND PAUL PLAYING ON MONSANTO'S TEAM?

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhs6JO141xnBTzge3HWANJsVNMS5ou28sNlJwYX5yoFtSJDhi8XjMJnebc72iwXlOgIVVFIj1qDK9hXuFzRCggEy9zfHbrjSocwb1ywXZJThEcSk3q2y5miajkVmCVlg3KUGIGezp-vbR4/s1600/00000.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhs6JO141xnBTzge3HWANJsVNMS5ou28sNlJwYX5yoFtSJDhi8XjMJnebc72iwXlOgIVVFIj1qDK9hXuFzRCggEy9zfHbrjSocwb1ywXZJThEcSk3q2y5miajkVmCVlg3KUGIGezp-vbR4/s640/00000.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
In a strange twist, Rand Paul has recently allied with Monsanto and has joined the ranks of academic shill Kevin Folta after coming out against GMO labeling, stating that the labeling requirements would push up the price of food for consumers — particularly poor ones.<br />
<br />
To make matters worse, this year Rep. Mike Pompeo (from Kansas) proposed a bill that would block states' citizens from democratically mandating GMO labeling. (Pompeo is also the single largest recipient of campaign funds from the Koch Brothers.) This bill, also known as the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, would effectively block Vermont and other states from being able to vote on or enforce GMO labeling, making it impossible for them to protect their consumers. Pompeo's bill would instead set up a "voluntary labeling program" that companies could either opt in or opt out of; however, with Big Food's near monopoly, this approach amounts to little more than wishful thinking.<br />
<br />
Too, taking away states' rights constitutes the worst type of government overreach. With that in mind, it seems odd that a self-proclaimed libertarian like Rand Paul would say that "he has not yet decided how he will vote on the Pompeo bill," as reported by Agri-Pulse.com.<br />
<br />
Rand Paul's excuse for coming out against GMO-labeling falls flat. He is spreading a misconception by saying that requiring GMO labeling would drive up food costs, since most estimates show that GMO labels may cost consumers only $2.30 per person per year, assuming that these costs would be passed on to consumers at all, despite the fact that food corporations routinely change their product labels anyway. Why then does Cornell Professor William Lesser claim that GMO labels would cost each American family of four an average of $500 a year? Hmm... Is it because he was funded by the Council for Biotechnology Information, an industry front group that is dedicated to promoting the use of biotech and GMOs in agriculture? Could it be that industry money influenced Lesser's conclusions?<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, it sounds as though Rand Paul is getting his "facts" straight from the mouth of Monsanto. Consumers Union reported that the costs reported for GMO labeling are wildly overestimated:<br />
<br />
The Lesser study was funded by the Council of Biotechnology Information and is their intellectual property. The Council consists of major biotechnology companies Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, BASF, Bayer, and Dow, which are all in opposition to A3525 and have actively lobbied against labeling bills across the country.<br />
<br />
Consumers Union found that this industry-funded study is based on faulty assumptions and that A3525 will not lead to any appreciable increase in the price of food bought by consumers.<br />
<br />
Why then would Rand Paul say, "The labeling requirements are enormously expensive and just add to the cost of foods. Somebody who is poor can't buy as much food because of requiring labels to be stuck on things."<br />
<br />
Is it because Rand Paul has been in the pockets of Monsanto all along? In 2012, Paul voted against a GMO labeling amendment, put forth by Bernie Sanders, that would "permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient." In response to a question about why he voted down the GMO labeling amendment, Paul said, "So while there is evidence we should be concerned about GMOs, we should also be careful not to lose our constitutional perspective simply because the end result is one we may desire."<br />
<br />
If Rand Paul were that concerned about the Constitution, then he would presumably come out loud and clear against the DARK Act, which would limit states' rights to pass laws on whether or not they want GMO labeling. The People of Vermont have already decided that they are for GMO labeling, and the DARK Act would prevent them from moving forward. Rand Paul's persistent waffling on this issue is clearly in contradiction of his reported views on states' rights.<br />
<br />
Check out GMOFood.news to stay up to date on breaking news regarding the unlabeled GMOs in food.<br />
<br />
As Natural News Editor Mike Adams pointed out in 2013, the problem with believing that a free market, voluntary labeling program will create a level playing field for food companies is "magical thinking" when much of the country's food supply is an oligopoly controlled by only a handful of corporations:<br />
<br />
And here's where I slightly disagree with the libertarians: the free market alone cannot solve this problem. Corporations will NEVER disclose such things unless they are forced to. Some libertarians will argue that consumer pressure alone can force companies to engage in things like GMO labeling, yet experience tells us this is simply not so. When the food industry is so completely dominated by only a handful of companies, consumers have no real alternatives through which to apply market choice forces.<br />
<br />
Rand Paul has pathetically fallen for Monsanto's anti-labeling excuse, which claims that labeling is just too expensive to implement. If that's such a problem, then why require any labeling at all, since ALL labeling costs money? If labeling hurts the poor, then let's get rid of the Nutrition Facts label while we are at it. All those facts are useless anyway, when you're eating GMOs.<br />
<br />
In the end, the health costs of consuming GMO foods will outweigh the costs of food labeling, regardless of how inflated they may be. But if cost were really Rand Paul's concern, he would realize that eating GMOs will make people sick in the end. Perhaps his head is too clouded from GMO brain fog.<br />
<br />
From NaturalNews.com

IS RAND PAUL PLAYING ON MONSANTO'S TEAM?

In a strange twist, Rand Paul has recently allied with Monsanto and has joined the ranks of academic shill Kevin Folta after coming out a...

Read Article »

MONSANTO GUILTY OF CHEMICAL POISONING - FRENCH COURT

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXscTU5Jh47bPrkyMv7006_rN9VCbSghyMN6t2urNA6mTj7mj273dVHaDHjz1uxObUVIVP8ZaZPvrT_hD3geGW_kY7zj1rFG4g7UIrWfAWzUZYGOr566K2Ebz0X7C7AGki6Vws1SRzDF0/s1600/00000.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="330" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXscTU5Jh47bPrkyMv7006_rN9VCbSghyMN6t2urNA6mTj7mj273dVHaDHjz1uxObUVIVP8ZaZPvrT_hD3geGW_kY7zj1rFG4g7UIrWfAWzUZYGOr566K2Ebz0X7C7AGki6Vws1SRzDF0/s640/00000.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
A French court upheld on Thursday a 2012 ruling in which Monsanto was found guilty of chemical poisoning of a French farmer, who says he suffered neurological problems after inhaling the U.S. biotech company’s Lasso weedkiller.<br />
<br />
The decision by an appeal court in Lyon, southeast France, confirmed the initial judgment, the first such case heard in court in France, that ruled Monsanto was “responsible” for the intoxication and ordered the company to “fully compensate” grain grower Paul Francois.<br />
<br />
Monsanto’s lawyer said the company would now bring the decision before France’s highest appeal court.

MONSANTO GUILTY OF CHEMICAL POISONING - FRENCH COURT

A French court upheld on Thursday a 2012 ruling in which Monsanto was found guilty of chemical poisoning of a French farmer, who says he ...

Read Article »

CALIFORNIA TO LABEL MONSANTO’S ROUNDUP AS ‘CARCINOGENIC’

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiN_IBOH950aiVUENRHYPSWHqn-1dvAuo2w4u2o_ZXQrVuWX-pqG9lXWRNff9F_DhSCaimQA-FibQrP15FCc8CugLSkiLKD2zet7dkOTeMWd6sUxvW1fMOe3vhyHX0dSS9kw5eSn5cNJU/s1600/00000.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="330" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiN_IBOH950aiVUENRHYPSWHqn-1dvAuo2w4u2o_ZXQrVuWX-pqG9lXWRNff9F_DhSCaimQA-FibQrP15FCc8CugLSkiLKD2zet7dkOTeMWd6sUxvW1fMOe3vhyHX0dSS9kw5eSn5cNJU/s640/00000.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Sacramento, CA – The state of California’s Environmental Protection Agency has moved to begin labeling glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, as a known carcinogen.<br />
<br />
Biochemical giant Monsanto has found itself under increased scrutiny after the World Health Organization recently announced that glyphosate is likely carcinogenic to humans.<br />
<br />
Then just last week, researchers issued a warning about potential adverse long-term health effects. The warning comes after they found that long-term exposure to minuscule amounts (thousands of times lower than what is allowed in drinking water in the US) could lead kidney and liver damage.<br />
<br />
The EPA’s announcement is an official “notice of intent” to label the product as a known carcinogen, which allows the public to comment on the proposed listing through October 5, 2015.<br />
<br />
According to a report in the East Bay Express:<br />
<br />
The action falls under Proposition 65, a measure voters approved in 1986 that requires the state to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harms. The state regularly updates the list, which now includes hundreds of chemicals. Under Prop 65, businesses must provide a “clear and reasonable” warning before exposing people to a chemical on the list. The warning could be labels on a consumer product, workplace postings, distributed notices at apartment buildings, or a notice published in a newspaper.<br />
<br />
<br />
The listing neither restricts, nor bans the herbicide, but environmental activists are hopeful that the listing could eventually lead to more restrictions on the chemicals usage.<br />
<br />
“California’s taking an important step toward protecting people and wildlife from this toxic pesticide,” Nathan Donley, staff scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity, a conservation nonprofit based in San Francisco, said in a statement.<br />
“It’s nearly impossible for people to limit exposure to this toxin because it is just so widespread. That’s why we need much tighter controls on its use.” Donley said, adding that the US uses more than 250 millions pounds of glyphosate annually.<br />
The activist hopes these actions will serve as an impetus for greater federal involvement in regulating this potential carcinogen.<br />
<br />
The Center for Biological Diversity claims that glyphosate residue is now found on 90 percent of GM soy and that world use of the chemical is at an all-time high.<br />
<br />
by JAY SYRMOPOULOS | FREE THOUGHT PROJECT

CALIFORNIA TO LABEL MONSANTO’S ROUNDUP AS ‘CARCINOGENIC’

Sacramento, CA – The state of California’s Environmental Protection Agency has moved to begin labeling glyphosate, the main ingredient in...

Read Article »

OVER 4000 ‘GENES’ ALTERED WITH LOW-DOSE ROUNDUP EXPOSURE

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrELfuJIUWaSnUQvl0DZAfhprHTdpw3bnp0gOU189zQyHnLdpXKh4nmNv-T72SvP19JZZTjRdqAWme_wRsOw9PbhB8fy7EmPRwosA0oKvwSxhuLG09kTZBFHEZAlNt8VvWutkW-T72LJY/s1600/00000.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="330" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrELfuJIUWaSnUQvl0DZAfhprHTdpw3bnp0gOU189zQyHnLdpXKh4nmNv-T72SvP19JZZTjRdqAWme_wRsOw9PbhB8fy7EmPRwosA0oKvwSxhuLG09kTZBFHEZAlNt8VvWutkW-T72LJY/s640/00000.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Liver and kidney damage due to a diet full of genetically modified food has already been shown in a notable, yet controversial study that was once forced to be retracted, and then later republished by the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology. This study, titled the “Long Term Toxicity of Roundup Herbicide and a Roundup-Tolerant Genetically Modified Maize” is joined now by a new, peer-reviewed study showing that even at the levels of glyphosate the general public is exposed to in drinking water, over 4000 genes and their proper functioning are altered in the livers and kidneys of rats.<br />
<br />
Are we affected too?<br />
<br />
Published in the Environmental Health Journal, the new study suggests that even super low levels of Roundup exposure are deadly.<br />
<br />
The study results showed that exposure to low-dose glyphosate concentrations, in an established laboratory animal toxicity model system, can result in liver and kidney damage, with potential significant health implications for people as well as our pets and wildlife populations.<br />
<br />
<br />
Here is an overview given by the study abstract:<br />
<br />
“Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) are the major pesticides used worldwide. Converging evidence suggests that GBH, such as Roundup, pose a particular health risk to liver and kidneys although low environmentally relevant doses have not been examined. To address this issue, a 2-year study in rats administering 0.1 ppb Roundup (50 ng/L glyphosate equivalent) via drinking water…was conducted.<br />
<br />
A marked increased incidence of anatomorphological and blood/urine biochemical changes was indicative of liver and kidney structure and functional pathology….”<br />
This follow-up investigation conducted by Dr. Michael Antoniou’s team at King’s College London was a follow up to Seralini’s 2-year study of rats exposed to Roundup that the biotech industry tried desperately to silence. Sites like the Genetic Literacy Project are still attempting to dismiss Seralini’s findings, but with additional studies like Antoniou’s, their arguments become baseless.<br />
<br />
Here’s why:<br />
<br />
The Seralini investigation administered a commercial Roundup formulation at 0.1 ppb (parts per billion)/50 ppt (parts per trillion) glyphosate via drinking water for 2 years.Liver and kidney pathologies were found in the rats. The new study by Dr. Antoniou’s team investigated whether heightened liver and kidney pathology observed at an anatomical and biochemical level was reflected in the gene expression pattern. “Transcriptome” was analyzed, by comparing liver and kidney tissues from the Roundup treatment group with those of the control animals.Here’s what Dr. Antoniou said about what they found, “The findings of our study are very worrying as they confirm that a very low level of consumption of Roundup weedkiller over the long term can result in liver and kidney damage. Our results also suggest that regulators should re-consider the safety evaluation of glyphosate-based herbicides.”<br />
Dr. Antoniou and his team also found that a consistent pattern of alteration was found in the gene function of the liver and kidneys at this extremely low level of exposure.<br />
More than 4000 of the genes in the rats studied were found to have either increased or decreased function, and over 1300 of these affected both organs.<br />
The changes were highly statistically significant. This was not a small sample size that was affected.<br />
The gene changes affected important biological functions like respiration and metabolism.<br />
The gene changes caused health issues such as fibrosis (scarring), necrosis (the creation of areas of dead tissue), phospholipidosis (disturbed fat metabolism) and damage to mitochondria (the center of respiration in cells).<br />
These changes in pathology were confirmed at multiple levels: histological (through a microscope), and biochemical (by testing blood and urine samples.)<br />
Considering that the European Union and Australia have water which is 14,000 times lower in glyphosate levels than that permitted in drinking water in the USA, we can expect to see greater liver and kidney pathologies, as did the rats.<br />
<br />
The researchers noted that the observed liver and kidney pathologies may have arisen from glyphosate, the adjuvants present in the Roundup formulation, or a combination of the two. They also still do not understand how Roundup caused this increased pathology specifically, but given the extremely low doses at which pathology occurred, it is likely the upset happens through the endocrine system, and hormonal interference.<br />
<br />
With both Seralini and Antoniou’s work we now have more evidence that Roundup causes damage to the liver and kidneys. Despite this, and the numerous other findings, such as the recent news from Argentina that children are suffering from genetic damage at heavily sprayed GM soy sites in the country, there has been no international move to heavily examine Roundup, and hold Monsanto accountable for its poisoning of the people.<br />
<br />
Will we have to wait decades, as we did with lawsuits surrounding Monsanto-made Agent Orange or PCBs to finally receive partial restitution for the insidious actions of a corporation with no soul?<br />
<br />
“The backlog of Agent Orange cases needing attention at the Veterans Administration has been placed at half a million.  Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has declined to find the chemical companies responsible for Agent Orange health problems, in the US or Vietnam.”<br />
Will Monsanto and its best-selling herbicide, Roundup, have its way with the population to such a large degree that we will have to stand by idly and watch as multiple generations suffer physical and mental damage?<br />
<br />
The results rest largely on our shoulders, as we have seen our elected officials care little about the damage that Big Biotech unleashes on the world. I urge you to ask that farmers in your area stop spraying Roundup, tell that stores to stop selling it, only eat organic food (also demanding that grocery stores stop selling chemically covered GM foods) and of course, when you can, grow your own organic food.<br />
<br />
This article originally appeared at Natural Society.

OVER 4000 ‘GENES’ ALTERED WITH LOW-DOSE ROUNDUP EXPOSURE

Liver and kidney damage due to a diet full of genetically modified food has already been shown in a notable, yet controversial study that...

Read Article »

FARMERS SEE DANGER FROM GMOs; REJECT GMO SEEDS

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZIVVTCGJ7EELxPEnorvLZI6Ao01zCisgLAPEGUuiWk9KSsJY01uA_-TRXHQ9BpotwmmSgwuliSXlhQogIB5S226wicqAkM8HTt16gm-g6164agHdjNYmTuA8IAmla3V-JuIU_lIYesyI/s1600/00000.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="330" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZIVVTCGJ7EELxPEnorvLZI6Ao01zCisgLAPEGUuiWk9KSsJY01uA_-TRXHQ9BpotwmmSgwuliSXlhQogIB5S226wicqAkM8HTt16gm-g6164agHdjNYmTuA8IAmla3V-JuIU_lIYesyI/s640/00000.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
GM crops reportedly come with increasingly high costs and few benefits, and as a result, many farmers are refusing to plant them.<br />
<br />
On its website, Monsanto – the world’s biggest producer of genetically modified organisms – claims that these realities are false. The manufacturer says that by genetically building certain traits into seeds, such as insect and herbicide tolerance, it can “help to increase yields by protecting the yield that would otherwise be lost due to insects or weeds.” Monsanto goes on to list five countries that have seen rather drastic increases in crop yields since the introduction of GM traits.<br />
<br />
But nothing is more powerful than first-hand accounts from farmers who have tried to utilize GM crops in their own fields.<br />
<br />
Illinois farmer Dan Beyers told the San Jose Mercury News last week that he abandoned GM corn and soybean seeds that had been altered to withstand glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, because planting the crops no longer made sense financially.<br />
<br />
“As they added more traits, we didn’t really see a yield advantage. And every time they added a trait, they added cost,” said Beyers, who also worries that GMO seeds could be damaging his soil.<br />
<br />
According to the Mercury News, anecdotal evidence suggests that Beyers is far from alone in his rejection of GM crops. [1]<br />
<br />
As the world begins to wake up to and worry about the impact GMOs could have on humans and the environment, non-GMO foods – especially soybeans – are in high demand. Thus, they make farmers far more money. The demand for non-GMO crops is largely driven by foreign nations like Japan and South Korea, which are constantly in the market for conventional (non-GM) soybeans.<br />
<br />
Plus, non-GM seeds are just plain cheaper because they lack the need to recoup the massive costs of research and development that are basically built into the price of GM seeds. [1]<br />
<br />
Even if profit is the cornerstone on which this change is based, it is still telling. After all, experts project over $35 billion in sales for organic, non-GMO foods in 2015. As GMO corn, soy, and other GM grain prices rise, along with the costs to grow them (associated with more pesticide and herbicide use to control super weeds, for example), farmers are looking past the GMO propaganda which promised higher yields and more cash for farmers who grew their poison crops.<br />
<br />
This phenomenon is explained clearly in “The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science” (full text available for download here) published in The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food.<br />
<br />
Gilbert Hostetler, president of Illinois-based Prairie Hybrids commented:<br />
<br />
“Our non-GMO seed sales are significantly higher than last year.”<br />
Mac Ehrhardt, president of Minnesota-based Albert Lea Seed reports that he is selling more conventional (he describes conventional corn as non-GMO) corn seed by the end of November than he did all of last year. He says that farmers are turning to non-GMO to cut costs and to earn more money for their non-GMO yields.<br />
<br />
Farmers are also fearful of planting GM seeds in their fields because they see the damage already caused by GMOs and wearily wonder what kind of toll they might take on their businesses in the future. Glyphosate is becoming less effective as more weeds become resistant to the chemical. “Roundup isn’t cleaning up the fields the way it used to,” Beyers said.<br />
<br />
In order for a crop to be considered non-GMO, it must contain less than 1% of glyphosate.<br />
<br />
The ever-present nature of glyphosate is making it hard for non-GMO farmers to keep their crops “clean.” Sometimes glyphosate from neighboring farms finds its way onto non-GMO farmers’ crops, for example, making it hard for farmers to keep their crops separate from GMO crops. This is called GMO cross-contamination, and it’s a problem.<br />
<br />
GMO farmers have to be more cautious about where they spray herbicides, and non-GMO farmers simply have to hope that GMO farmers will be careful.<br />
<br />
This article originally appeared at Natural Society.

FARMERS SEE DANGER FROM GMOs; REJECT GMO SEEDS

GM crops reportedly come with increasingly high costs and few benefits, and as a result, many farmers are refusing to plant them. On its...

Read Article »

WHO: GMO Food Health Studies Over 90 Days Not Required

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCINO39UGYoeKTzLyMKMA1hGs9BC33tN0c3HNwHOeuFWPvuyKw2BgqAo7hOes2NgBlhtqCQouiKxWgfp2Atp0EMoDebv1bMHSmi43aDqNPxkb3G7y5JtbNt2TXO7BN3xx0v6r2toqvmx0/s1600/00000.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="330" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCINO39UGYoeKTzLyMKMA1hGs9BC33tN0c3HNwHOeuFWPvuyKw2BgqAo7hOes2NgBlhtqCQouiKxWgfp2Atp0EMoDebv1bMHSmi43aDqNPxkb3G7y5JtbNt2TXO7BN3xx0v6r2toqvmx0/s640/00000.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<h5 style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; line-height: 1.1; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 10px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small; line-height: 1.1;">Have you ever wondered why the World Health Organization (WHO) only requires 90 days of testing on GM crops before scientists are allowed to call them ‘safe’ or ‘statistically equivalent’?</span></h5>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Yeah, so have I.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Now that all of the suppressed science about GM food is coming out, it makes perfect sense why an agency that has such a heavy hand in the world food supply would act as though they were conducting a real investigation of genetically modified organisms, all while shoring up information they’ve had that GM food is toxic for decades.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Here is the WHO’s current statement on GMOs on its website, despite the WHO IARC’s recent findings that glyphosate is ‘probably carcinogenic.’</span></div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border-left-color: rgb(238, 238, 238); border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 5px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 10px 20px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: none !important; line-height: 1.25; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">“G</em><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">enetically modified (GM) foods are foods derived from organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally, e.g. through the introduction of a gene from a different organism. Currently available GM foods stem mostly from plants, but in the future foods derived from GM microorganisms or GM animals are likely to be introduced on the market. Most existing genetically modified crops have been developed to improve yield, through the introduction of resistance to plant diseases or of increased tolerance of herbicides.</em></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: none !important; line-height: 1.25;">
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In the future, genetic modification could be aimed at altering the nutrient content of food, reducing its allergenic potential, or improving the efficiency of food production systems. All GM foods should be assessed before being allowed on the market. FAO/WHO Codex guidelines exist for risk analysis of GM food.”</span></em></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Notice there is no mention whatsoever that GM foods have not been proven safe, or that their claims of giving plants resistance to disease or even increased resistance to herbicides has been found to be untrue.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In an FAQs section, the following answer is given to a commonly asked question:</span></div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border-left-color: rgb(238, 238, 238); border-left-style: solid; border-left-width: 5px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 10px 20px;">
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: none !important; line-height: 1.25; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">“<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">How is a safety assessment of GM food conducted?</em></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: none !important; line-height: 1.25;">
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The safety assessment of GM foods generally focuses on: (a) direct health effects (toxicity), (b) potential to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity); (c) specific components thought to have nutritional or toxic properties; (d) the stability of the inserted gene; (e) nutritional effects associated with genetic modification; and (f) any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion.”</span></em></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Notice how the requirement of only three months for testing all of these ‘unintended side effects’ is glaringly missing.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Notice how there is no mention of the fact that in a <a href="http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14" style="background: transparent; border: none; box-sizing: border-box; color: #025ab4; outline: none; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">widely used study</a>, rats who dined on a 33% GM diet for their full lifetimes, typically between 30 and 36 months, became seriously ill with health problems that started showing up at – guess which month? Four.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In just four months, a trifling four weeks after the WHO’s required duration for GM testing, we can see the truth of what genetically modified food does to our health. (Begin at minute <span data-term="goog_1446675872" style="box-sizing: border-box;">3:37.)</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
</div>
<center style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wA2GhOCtmBE" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow: hidden !important; width: 620px;" width="560"></iframe></span></center>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Australia’s Dr. Judy Carmen brings out this point of inadequate testing in her talk to the SHAKA movement. You can watch that video in full here.</span></span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin-bottom: 10px;">
</div>
<center style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3D6z0HqpZWQ" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow: hidden !important; width: 620px;" width="560"></iframe></span></center>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">The WHO could have picked any arbitrary number of months to ensure that GMOs were safe, and make sure that the public wasn’t dining on food that would cause serious damage to their intestines, their livers, their reproductive organs, and their brains. But I suppose just THREE months will do just fine when </span><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border-color: initial; border-width: initial; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">experimenting with the global food supply</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"> and global population.</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; line-height: 25.7142868041992px;">by</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 25.7142868041992px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-weight: bold; line-height: 25.7142868041992px; text-transform: uppercase;">CHRISTINA SARICH |</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 25.7142868041992px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; line-height: 25.7142868041992px; text-transform: uppercase;">AUGUST 27, 2015</span></span>

WHO: GMO Food Health Studies Over 90 Days Not Required

Have you ever wondered why the World Health Organization (WHO) only requires 90 days of testing on GM crops before scientists are allowed...

Read Article »

Germany Seeking Ban on GMO Seeds just like Scotland

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDvFeAuc91YfW22-tqSUy1e1_29kVgqdvm68ma9aavsBYzWt2oNBZDiaSR7jfqD1CHdbzBBDaO_4kGhByrVy2pBrBeDtJqVTJCwPfSc66sT5dag1DvK84kVrF_g3WezXFQS8buCC2syCU/s1600/00000.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="264" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDvFeAuc91YfW22-tqSUy1e1_29kVgqdvm68ma9aavsBYzWt2oNBZDiaSR7jfqD1CHdbzBBDaO_4kGhByrVy2pBrBeDtJqVTJCwPfSc66sT5dag1DvK84kVrF_g3WezXFQS8buCC2syCU/s640/00000.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Germany is taking steps to outlaw the cultivation of genetically modified crops in Europe’s biggest economy. The Agriculture Ministry plans to officially request that producers of GMOs exclude Germany when applying to sell seeds in European Union, Christian Fronczak, a spokesman for the ministry, said Tuesday. Scotland took similar measures earlier this month.<br />
<br />
“The German government is clear in that it seeks a nationwide cultivation ban,” Fronczak said by phone from Berlin. “There’s resistance from all sides, from the public to the farmers.”<br />
<br />
Germany is taking advantage of new measures allowing countries to opt out of growing gene-modified crops. Switzerland’s Syngenta AG and U.S. rival Monsanto Co. have been among the strongest proponents of the seeds, which are mostly banned in the EU because of what some say are uncertain environmental and health effects. Monsanto maintains the products are safe.<br />
<br />
The Agriculture Ministry has asked for the backing of state ministries in a letter sent in the past few days, Fronczak said. Germany gave state governments a deadline until Sept. 11 to reply. If it doesn’t hear any objections from the states, it will ask that companies exclude Germany from their applications to sell GMO seeds, Fronczak said.<br />
<br />
There is one genetically modified crop, a variety of corn designed to be pest-resistant, already grown in the EU and eight pending applications for GMO seeds, according to an April statement from the European Commission.<br />
<br />
By: Stefan Nicola of Bloomberg Business

Germany Seeking Ban on GMO Seeds just like Scotland

Germany is taking steps to outlaw the cultivation of genetically modified crops in Europe’s biggest economy. The Agriculture Ministry pla...

Read Article »

HAWAII’S SPIKE IN BIRTH DEFECTS PUTS FOCUS ON GM CROPS

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4XY7JrWF0M3d0kwrzCL6i4IfGyxM5N679L0XV7-_tiZOqQ2PeKMYRDX_3NXp2AE5FRjEIr8Om7d6UOYre0lLvuCKNQBsch4h78QfYuZ7UuW0CsqPz3NO0TyNVl8YSYafU4AK6-Gg9KUM/s1600/120514dhs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="330" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4XY7JrWF0M3d0kwrzCL6i4IfGyxM5N679L0XV7-_tiZOqQ2PeKMYRDX_3NXp2AE5FRjEIr8Om7d6UOYre0lLvuCKNQBsch4h78QfYuZ7UuW0CsqPz3NO0TyNVl8YSYafU4AK6-Gg9KUM/s640/120514dhs.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Pediatrician Carla Nelson remembers catching sight of the unusually pale newborn, then hearing an abnormal heartbeat through the stethoscope and thinking that something was terribly wrong.<br />
<br />
The baby was born minutes before with a severe heart malformation that would require complex surgery. What worried her as she waited for the ambulance plane to take the infant from Waimea, on the island of Kauai, to the main children’s hospital in Honolulu, on another Hawaiian island, was that it was the fourth one shehad seen in three years.<br />
<br />
In all of Waimea, there have been at least nine in five years, she says, shaking her head. That’s more than 10 times the national rate, according to analysis by local doctors.<br />
<br />
Nelson, a Californian, and other local doctors find themselves in the eye of a storm swirling for the past three years around the Hawaiian archipelago over whether a major cash crop on four of the six main islands, corn that’s been genetically modified to resist pesticides, is a source of prosperity, as the companies claim – or of birth defects and illnesses, as the doctors and many others suspect.<br />
<br />
by CHRISTOPHER PALA | THE GUARDIAN | AUGUST 24, 2015

HAWAII’S SPIKE IN BIRTH DEFECTS PUTS FOCUS ON GM CROPS

Pediatrician Carla Nelson remembers catching sight of the unusually pale newborn, then hearing an abnormal heartbeat through the stethosc...

Read Article »