Editors comment: The worlds food supply is becoming toxic. Caveat Emptor
One of the most basic things we all have in common as human beings is the requirement for food. We all have to eat.
With that said….
A gross distortion has been laid upon us all by big government, big corporations and big food who are driven by a primary motive to maximize their profits.
This gross distortion is that the food we consume simply consists of protein, fat, carbohydrates and a handful of vitamins and minerals all carefully laid out on the side of some government label…as if every item you consume can all be compared on these simple minded characteristics.
This is a gross distortion; a dangerous oversimplification.
Governments and global mega food conglomerates would like you to draw little or no distinction between food and health. If you don’t have rickets, you’re ok. If you do, take a pill.
If you become ill, it has nothing to do with the food you have been consuming or not consuming. What you are supposed to buy into is the idea that If the essential vitamins are listed on the package, this is all you need to guide your eating habits. This is how their medical establishment is trained. It is a gross simplification or even a nullification of common sense. It is an attempt to dump inferior quality profit maximized food on the public while passing it off as “the same thing” or “as good as” wholesome natural food.
Recent studies confirm that our food consists of not just what you are eating, but rather a culmination of everything in the food chain that went into what you are eating. The food chain cannot be dissected and compartmentalized. Everything affects everything.
It is entirely possible and even likely that entire classes of compounds exist in our food which have yet to even be identified, and yet have an impact on human health.
Most of the commercial food we consume today has been heat treated, irradiated or pasteurized to prevent contamination and yield a longer shelf life. Pasteurized orange juice for example tastes entirely different than Fresh Orange Juice. Why? What has been killed or altered during the heat treatment process that changes the taste? What important components or compounds of the food might we be killing with heat or radiation that we don’t even know exist?
While big corporations, big government and their shill agencies driven by the profit motive would like you to believe that it all boils down to a handful of essential vitamins, we are finding that food consists of millions of chemical compounds, some in minute quantities, which are beneficial or essential for good health and warding off disease.
Some of these compounds have been found to kill cancer cells or in general prevent diseased states or protect against disease states. When these important chemical constituents go missing from the food you eat, disease states will result. Many of the pharmaceuticals prescribed for disease are merely concentrations or man made versions of these natural compounds which should be present in the food we eat, but often aren’t.
The fish you eat is a product of what it ate, where it lived, and what was or was not contained in the millions of gallons of water it filtered through it’s gills and thus concentrated into it’s own body during it’s lifetime. Importantly, it is also a product of the health and genetic composition of it’s parents. For example, it has been found an animal raised on GMO feed passes the genetic changes associated with that food consumption on to it’s offspring. This is also true of you and the food you consume.
The milk you are drinking is a product of everything that went into the cow that made the milk and the health of the animal which produces it. Thus milk containing antibiotics and other drugs from a stall raised cow would in no way be expected to be nutritionally equivalent to milk produced from healthy grazing animals, although the labels on the two products would indicate they are the same thing.
The spinach you eat is a product of what nutrients were in the soil it was grown in, the water, the fertilizer, and every other nutrient or lack of nutrient present during it’s growth.
As human consumers we have several issues to deal with regarding the modern food supply
- -beneficial compounds which should be present in our food for good health, but aren’t
- -harmful and toxic compounds which should not be present in our food, but are
- -diets which contain very little of the beneficial compounds and a lot of harmful compounds
Given our limited but ever expanding knowledge about food, it is probable that we do not even know today the complete list of beneficial and harmful compounds.
We may not have yet identified all of the beneficial compounds in the food we eat, but we do know that the current mainstream food supply consists of a worrisome cadre of adulterants.
- -Genetic modifications
- -pollution and man made chemical compounds creeping into the food chain which may or may not be toxic
- -chemical adulterants and additives
- -lack of important compounds which traditional farming methods produce
- -additives which increase profits but which are void of important chemicals and compounds
One of the most frightening aspects of the modern food supply is genetic modification. When did the public give their consent to have their food engineered by chemical companies? It has already been found that the genetic modification of food not only affects what consumes it, but also it’s offspring. With 70 percent of the food on the shelves today being genetically modified, this food is changing our DNA. It will affect your children. In what ways, no one knows yet. For further reading, see Genetically Modified Food Will Cause a Global Humanitarian Disaster.
Another frightening aspect of the adulteration of our food supply is the known toxicity of certain man made chemicals at extremely low levels. Certain toxic waste such as dioxin is toxic at levels approaching one drop in an olympic sized swimming pool and yet the food chain is absorbing billions of pounds of these chemicals every year. It is already recommended that we limit our seafood consumption due to concerns about mercury poisoning. How many millions of man made chemicals are present in our food at very low concentrations which may still accumulate in our bodies and harm us? No one is able to tell us.Our food is not tested for these millions of man made chemicals. We make the assumption that all of these chemicals somehow just disappear and never end up in the food we eat.
It is probable that there are hundreds of thousands of chemicals in actual real food grown in the ground or killed in action as it was for thousands upon millions of years which are all required for good human health, and were all present in the diets of our healthy ancestors. It is also probable that because most of the food we consume no longer contains these compounds, that it is making us sick or more vulnerable to various disease states. Our bodies are large chemical processing plants. Our health is entirely dependent on the fuel we use to run our bodies. Our bodies have a finite capacity to deal with toxins and conversely to synthesize important compounds which should be, but aren’t in our food.
I’m sorry I can’t tell you exactly which chemicals do which things and why you need them, that is beyond our current capability as homo sapien tards. I am writing this because I know it to be true, even if I can’t necessarily prove it yet. Time and history will prove it for me.
The point is that the mcfood thing here in 2011 doesn’t have any of these things you need and does have everything you don’t want. It’s a bio engineered laboratory creation whose long term effect on your health is entirely unknown. It may taste good but it’s killing you.
The third generation of hamsters eating GMO food had hair growing out of their mouths. Does that help?
This is one of the primary reasons why human disease rates are set to skyrocket in the coming decades. The food doesn’t have the chemicals it should have in order for your continued health, and it has man made chemicals your body doesn’t know what to do with or how to handle; like radioactivity.
For the masses, food is becoming a toxic mcthing with a government label that indicates it has everything you need.
The dilemma for modern consumers is that the food on the shelves contain items which may range from good for you, to ok for you to mild or slightly toxic to carcinogenic to body altering or disease state producing all with identical labels. It is virtually impossible for even an informed consumer to know. Maybe those “organic” farm raised shrimp from asia were fed melamine and raised in a pond full of antibiotics to keep them alive. Do you want to eat that?
Given that most of us do not have the luxury of growing our own wholesome and nutritious food, the food you are shopping for is a shot in the dark. You’re supposed to look at two government labels and compare a twinkie to a handful of spinach grown in Fukishima or a New Zealand ranch. GMO corn is supposed to be the same thing as natural corn. A can of beans is supposed to be the same thing as beans you picked from your backyard garden. You’re supposed to equate a cloned engineered cow given enough antibiotics to keep it alive until they slaughter it to one who had a mother and grew up in the sun eating grass.
We are all on our own here. It’s your own health we’re talking about. The authors recommendation is to do some research on your own. Eat a wide variety of food which comes from sources as close to nature as possible. Avoid man made creations like diet sodas. Use your own common sense and endeavor to seek out healthy, wholesome food. Try growing some food yourself if you are able and if it is not prohibited by your government.
[and a lot of hard questions]
The promise of technology prior to the industrial and technological revolutions was a higher standard of living along with more freedom and independence…machines and robots would do all the things humans found repetitive and distasteful. We would all be afforded a utopian life.
Instead, here it is argued that technology is invading our privacy and dehumanizing us. We are becoming hostages to it. It is not improving the quality of our lives, it is turning us into slaves. Rather than more freedom and independence, the robot took someone’s job, the computer made your life amazingly complex, and the cell phone you carry everywhere you go has you on call 24/7.
The realities of the deployment of technology have not met our future expectations.
The reason for every technological development was to make something better, faster, easier, or more affordable. Necessity, the mother of invention. It’s hard to believe any of those motivations could have negative consequences. The wheel made a lot of things easier, faster, and cheaper. Few would argue about the utility of the wheel; that it reduced anyone’s standard of living or that it turned anyone into or a slave. Today, being able to buy goods and have them delivered to our doors with the click of a button seems to benefit everyone. There aren’t many complaints about air conditioning and heating. Certainly, technology has merits. Along with those merits however, are a host of negative consequences.
Technology involves machines and inventions. As technology progresses, machines get ever faster, ever more powerful, ever more demanding. The telephone was invented as a tool to improve communication, and yet less than 200 years after it’s invention, many people in the industrialized world are effectively on call. As the technology has increased, the expected human response time has been reduced. Paradoxically, instead of allowing humans more time, the technology has demanded that humans keep up with it’s pace.
When you look at the receiving end of better, faster, easier and more affordable, you get more complexity, more items to buy and maintain, a decrease in expected response time, and more choices to be made. Although your life may be more comfortable and efficient, it has also become more complex as a result of technology. More is expected of you.
Why do people on vacation today look forward to leaving their watch and cell phone at home? Could it be because the technology is making heavier and heavier demands on humans? Could the increased efficiency on the output side demand increased efficiency on the input side? The technology is demanding that you keep up with it’s pace and it is working at the speed of light.
The issue of course is that human beings are not developing along the moores law curve. Humans are relatively static compared to a transistor density that doubles every two years. Machines are becoming ever more powerful and ever more demanding while the human being being remains relatively constant.
An economist would call all of this increased productivity. As human beings however, is it our goal to have our productivity continuously increased? Is that what the evolution of our species is about? Is ever increased productivity the goal? Is it as simple as that? What IS our goal? Is our goal to be able to produce and consume at an ever faster more efficient and accelerated rate? This essay raises that as a philosophical question. The other philosophical question is, are we being forced into the use of it without a viable alternative?
We want technology to afford us a higher standard of living. Instead it is making more demands on our time and expecting us to keep up with it’s pace. As technology continues to progress, human response times will be expected to keep up, until what? Probably until we are physically integrated into it. Is any of that good? Is that really what we want? Do we have a choice?
As technology moves at an accelerated pace relative to you in your “constant human” state, your productivity becomes ever greater and that’s good, right? Why? Is a chicken that was grown in a cage and fed antibiotics to keep it alive during it’s 56 days to slaughter a better product than a pre technological revolution chicken? Is a chair made on an assembly line better than one made in a craftsman’s shop by hand? This idea revolves around what constitutes “better”. Higher productivity is not necessarily better. Better is not always faster, lower cost, or more efficient.
Because of this fact, is it possible that increased productivity has led to junk? Maybe our landfills are filling up with junk because technology is producing junk instead of products that might have taken far longer to create and been produced far less efficiently, but might have lasted for generations? Maybe technology is forcing us into a disposable society? Maybe technology is leading us to be living, breathing and eating in a sea of disposable junk all produced by robots with great precision and efficiency at the lowest possible cost.
Maybe we are consuming fast food/junk food because of our increased productivity and less free time? Maybe we are consuming junk media; watching junk TV and junk movies because technology is demanding ever higher productivity from us.
What are the consequences of our dependence on technology? 50 years ago, computers were not even a part of our daily lives and today we are utterly dependent on them.The industrialized world today is totally dependent on, and could not function without computers. If computers quit working you couldn’t get home from work because every single moving vehicle would be dead in it’s tracks.
Because of this, it could be argued that technology is making the fabric of our society more fragile and vulnerable. If computers everywhere were to fail, you would have no power, the car wouldn’t start, businesses wouldn’t open, you would not be able to obtain food. Simulations show how quickly our technology based civilization would grind to an immediate halt followed by anarchy if computers all failed. Although the risk of something like this is small, the consequences are so large that the risk of dependence should be considered, and yet it is not. Instead, technology marches on and we as humans are powerless to stop the progression of it. It is arguable, and many people have argued, that as technology becomes ever more powerful relative to a “constant human”, it will relentlessly take over more and more of our lives.
Today as we have autonomous killer drone planes deployed at war, some of these former concerns have already been realized. When autonomous computers are armed with advanced weapons systems, is that good for humanity or bad for humanity? What are the risks of arming computers? Will we eventually trust machines with our existence? Will machines be our rulers and protectors without even realizing it?
What about arming the computers with money? Computers now control banking as well as the stock exchanges. Do these trading computers have the ability to autonomously wipe out our equity before someone can pull the plug?
Technology has allowed us to live in greatly increased comfort, but that comes at a price. As our comfort level has increased, so has the amount of energy used. As technology delivers this greater level of comfort, are we increasingly using the resources of our host planet at an unsustainable rate? Along with higher population rates and longer overall life expectancy, what are the long term consequences of this trend all afforded by technology? Is all the technology worth going to the shore to see oily beaches and dead birds or washed up hypodermic needles? Is living in an air conditioned high rise or driving on the interstate at 70 miles an hour diminishing your interaction and enjoyment with nature and the planet? Are you using more resources than the planet can sustain? If not now, then when?
Would we be better off as a civilization if we didn’t have global media beaming the same thing into all of our living rooms and instead had local and community produced culture? Today our society spends endless hours being entertained by technology. Endless hours of video games. Television. Gadgetry. Is the technology helping or hindering human development? Does a youth spent mesmerized by entertaining video games leave a void that should have been filled by learning and life experience?
What about the arts? Is a guitar hero better than someone who took up a real musical instrument? Is a real athlete more self satisfied and healthy than a couch potato sports fan brought to us via the machines? As the world moves to social networking and instant messages rather than person to person contact, what has happened to human interaction? As we all sit on the couch pressing buttons to communicate with our thousands of “friends”, has technology stripped the meaning out of “friend”? Is a friend really someone who disappears when you press the off button? In the future, will our “friends” be machines…computers mimicking humans? Is the progression of technology enhancing the human experience or diminishing it? Maybe it all depends on how the technology is applied, but how are we choosing to apply it?
Technology was supposed to make everything easier, but it wasn’t supposed to strip humans of their dignity and privacy. As we are now set to have our bodies radiated and examined to get on an airplane so we can more efficiently and quickly get from point a to point b, one might ask if communities would have more character if there were no airplanes, nationwide mall chains and ever fewer large monolithic retailers? One might wonder if all of those security cameras would be necessary if the technology to produce them did not exist.
Computers have made it possible and probable that there is no such thing as privacy in any form of electronic communication, including the digital telephone. If desired, a person’s every movement can be tracked. The entire world can look into your backyard on a computer. Do we need that? Do we have a choice?
Is the fact that the technology exists going to ultimately lead to evil uses of it? No one ever really wants to talk about traits repeatedly demonstrated in the human species like self importance, ascendancy, irrational belief. What about hostility towards our own species, paranoia, lust for power and control, greed, domination, self extermination, genocide, intentional destruction, depletion or misuse of resources? That is the history of the human species.
We now have global gangs of hedge funds and banks who using fiat currency and 99% leverage can launch speculative attacks against entire countries. This sort of economic warfare was not possible without the computers and technology. It arguably provides another example of human development of a technology, then misuse of it.
Is it possible that technology itself isn’t the problem and that we as a species are simply incapable of handling the progression of it due to our shortcomings?
We have harnessed the power of the atom to make nuclear weapons. The question that needs to be asked is, has mankind benefited in any way from nuclear weapons? There are a long list of hazards associated with this technology. As weapons move along the technology curve with ever improving price vs performance, nuclear weapons technology proliferates and it becomes more and more affordable to acquire these weapons. Is that benefiting the human species? As political regimes and authority to use the weapons may come and go, the weapons remain. In this regard is technology a Sword of Damocles in wait of a world leader insane enough to use them? Because of the relentless progression of technology, does it become a countdown timer to extinction when at some point in the future the power of an atomic bomb can be held in your hand?
Our human leaders have embraced an ideology of pre emptive wars using technology to preserve the peace. Innocent people’s lives have become “collateral damage”. People are being killed from the air conditioned comfort of a command and control center. As the weapons move along the technology curve; as they become ever more powerful, ever more cost effective and ever more ubiquitous, how is it possible to believe that they won’t be used again with even more deadly consequences?
Studies will consistently show us a correlation with high technology, stress and a negative correlation with standard of living. Ten percent of the high tech US population take anti-depressant drugs. The society has a higher self inflicted death rate than a tribe living in the woods without any technology where antidepressants and suicide are unheard of. Is technology necessitating technology to cope with technology and doing a poor job at it?
Scientists are now modifying the plant, animal and human genome, the design of life itself. The food supply is being bio engineered and released into the wild with entirely unknown and almost certainly catastrophic consequences. Is this how technology is improving our lives or is it putting humanity and the planet at risk of technological development that outpaces the human maturity to handle it?
Virtually every fish on the planet is now contaminated with mercury. In some places even the rain is toxic. There are residuals of pharmaceutical drugs and industrial chemicals in our drinking water and ground water. We are producing annually billions of pounds of toxic pesticides, poisons, herbicides and man made toxic chemicals. All this waste is being released into the environment at an unsustainable rate of clearance. There was no promise of technology that it would pollute the planet, that was a side effect.
Ever larger machines are being developed to extract, transport and store toxic cargo’s. Safety precautions are always taken, but the error rate is not zero, so accidents and releases happen. As the machines become ever larger and more powerful, the number of accidents goes down, but when one happens it can be nearly catastrophic for the planet, the local inhabitants and ecosystem. No one told us of these ever increasing risks of technology. What happens when a satellite filled with plutonium crashes to the earth or vaporizes in the atmosphere?
Some would argue the benefits of technology have outweighed its negative consequences. Here it is has been argued that the consequences of the development and use of it has outweighed the good. Furthermore because of our human failings, we have as a species failed at the proper application and use of it.
We as human beings are not increasing our wisdom and maturity regarding how to use the technology as fast as the technology itself is progressing.
As a result, humans aren’t using technology, the technology is using humans. The rise of the machines will guarantee the eventual termination of the species by either poisoning the planet beyond it’s ability to host us, poisoning it’s inhabitants, or destroying ourselves. Possibly all three.
A non defective genome would not destroy itself. If it did, it would be a defective genome. The machines are just the tool, or not? Is it possible that the rate of increase of the rise of the machines relative to the constant human represent an exploit of a weakness in the human genome? Are we being attacked by ourselves?
Whatever the case may be, whether these arguments are all valid or not, a case is made here for debate and for an objective look at both the benefits and the drawbacks of technology and it’s progression.
Filed under: Philosophy, technology, thought experiments
100 Percent of Fish in U.S. Streams Found Contaminated with Mercury
Editor’s Note: Radio Bikini tells a story of US atomic bomb testing. Archival footage shows soldiers pegging the geiger counter after venturing into the blast zone to do reconissance. Now 50 years later those who are still alive show the grotesque effects of radioactive isotope exposure. This article will argue that in the same way the effects of this new nuclear technology were not well understood 50 years ago, we face a similar issue today with the pervasiveness of GMO food. This article will present a case that we are poisioning ourselves and the planet, and that it may become both catastrophic and irreversible 50 years from now. Maybe sooner.
At this point in time, there can be no remaining doubt regarding the presumed safety of genetically modified food.
You are a mammal.
A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health
The International Journal of Biological Sciences
Joël Spiroux de Vendômois1, François Roullier1, Dominique Cellier1,2, Gilles-Eric Séralini1,3
We present for the first time a comparative analysis of blood and organ system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), which are present in food and feed in the world. NK 603 has been modified to be tolerant to the broad spectrum herbicide Roundup and thus contains residues of this formulation. MON 810 and MON 863 are engineered to synthesize two different Bt toxins used as insecticides. Approximately 60 different biochemical parameters were classified per organ and measured in serum and urine after 5 and 14 weeks of feeding. GM maize-fed rats were compared first to their respective isogenic or parental non-GM equivalent control groups. This was followed by comparison to six reference groups, which had consumed various other non-GM maize varieties. We applied nonparametric methods, including multiple pairwise comparisons with a False Discovery Rate approach. Principal Component Analysis allowed the investigation of scattering of different factors (sex, weeks of feeding, diet, dose and group). Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded.
Please note that the study above considers only three varieties of genetically modified corn, all which were proven in the study to cause varying degrees of damage to mammalian health.
The study shows damage to major organ systems of the animals in the trials. Why would we expect the long term result to be any different in humans?
The most fundamental issue here is an implied assumption that any form of genetic modification to food is presumed to be safe, and therefore does not need to undergo decades of animal and human trials.
“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food,” “Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.” – Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications
Other scientific studies continue to roll in documenting adverse health effects from GM food. In the study below, hamsters fed a variety of GMO soybeans lost their reproductive capacity and had hair growing out of their mouths within three generations.
So the presumption of safety, the presumption that any kind of tweak will be safe, is now known to be false. This has the weighty implication that every type of modification that can be made could have a different effect on any organism that consumes it or any ecosystem it exists in.
Even more worrisome are recent studies that show consumption of genetically modified food by mammals causes DNA mutations and alterations in the consuming organism. This is cause for grave concern due to the entirely unpredictable results of man made life forms altering the dna of consuming organisms.
On the environmental side, pesticides from corn genetically modified to produce it’s own pesticides are showing up in fresh water bodies. This is proof that genetic modifications affect the entire ecosystem whether intended or not.
So we have a situation where food which has now proven to be dangerous is being developed with a caviler, careless attitude by chemical corporations. It is then rubber stamped and immediately released into the global food chain without any long term analysis or testing. The party responsible for oversight and testing (the FDA) is entirely funded by guess who? The chemical companies and the big pharma oligarchy themselves.
While not specifically related to GM food, this article below highlights the actions of the agency which was ostensibly chartered to protect the consumer. It is arguable that the FDA is an organization which has been entirely corrupted by money and the entities that fund their continued existence. Protecting the consumer is a mission in name only and therefore cannot be relied upon in any way to protect the genetically modified food consuming public.
If You Liked Bovine Growth Hormone, You’ll love Beta Agonists
While researchers and scientists investigate the cause of our diabetes, obesity, asthma and ADHD epidemics, they should ask why the FDA approved a livestock drug banned in 160 nations and responsible for hyperactivity, muscle breakdown and 10 percent mortality in pigs, according to angry farmers who phoned the manufacturer. The beta agonist ractopamine, a repartitioning agent that increases protein synthesis, was recruited for livestock use when researchers found the drug, used in asthma, made mice more muscular says Beef magazine. But unlike the growth promoting antibiotics and hormones used in livestock which are withdrawn as the animal nears slaughter, ractopamine is started as the animal nears slaughter. As much as twenty percent of Paylean, given to pigs for their last 28 days, Optaflexx, given to cattle their last 28 to 42 days and Tomax, given to turkeys their last 7 to 14 days, remains in consumer meat says author and well known veterinarian Michael W. Fox. Though banned in Europe, Taiwan and China–more than 1,700 people were “poisoned” from eating Paylean-fed pigs since 1998 says the Sichuan Pork Trade Chamber of Commerce– ractopamine is used in 45 percent of US pigs says Elanco Animal Health which manufactures all three products. How does a drug marked, “Not for use in humans. Individuals with cardiovascular disease should exercise special caution to avoid exposure. Use protective clothing, impervious gloves, protective eye wear, and a NIOSH-approved dust mask” become “safe” in human food? With no washout period?
Importantly, there is no distinction being made regarding the type of genetic modification.
One type of genetic modification causes plants to internally produce pharmaceutical products (drugs). The DNA of the plants is altered so the plant becomes a miniature and cost effective pharmaceutical producing laboratory. The obvious problem with this type of genetic modification has already happened. There have already been cases where these pharmaceutical producing crops have unintentionally cross pollinated natural crops, causing formerly natural grains to become drug manufacturing laboratories. This would be entirely unknown to a farmer or consumer, and could only be determined by DNA analysis or other testing of the plant. Once in the wild, genetic fragments of drug producing plants could end up contaminating everything else.
Since we now know that the GM foods tested have strange and unpredictable effects (like hair growing out of the mouth in hamsters), it is quite reasonable to assume that every single type of genetic tweak to nature may have entirely different, unknown and unpredictable consequences. Editorially speaking, if there ever was a case of monkeys playing with razor blades, this is it. Chemical companies are playing Russian roulette with people’s health and lives, and indeed, the entire planetary ecosystem.
We are now rapidly headed to a situation where “wild” or “natural” crops carry a wide variety of non intentioned, engineered genes as a result of unintentional cross pollination via bees, butterflies, wind and other pollination sources. Since it has been shown that organisms which consume GMO food have alterations in their own DNA, these changes will become ubiquitous and systemic. Everything affects everything.
What is the effect of healthy humans unknowingly eating plants that contain pharmaceutical drugs and other engineered products?
Further compounding this problem for consumers is that the large chemical companies who are pushing these products on the people of the world have lobbies that are so large and so strong, they own the political body.
Despite these long-term and wide-ranging risks, Congress has yet to pass a single law intended to address chemical companies and their GMO tinkering. The chemical companies retain junk scientists to claim their products are safe and run interference. As a result these global multinational chemical companies have a free hand to spread their untested lab creations worldwide, with entirely unknown and dangerous effects. Who will be held responsible 50 years from now when these companies have long since gone out of business and we are left with a problem which has no solution?
Their lobby has proven so powerful that their genetically modified products may show up throughout the food chain, without consumers even being aware this is the case. There are effectively no labeling requirements and GM grains are being used by virtually all major food producers. You are consuming these products, NOW. Currently, up to 45 percent of U.S. corn is genetically engineered as is 85 percent of soybeans. It has been estimated that 70-75 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves–from soda to soup, crackers to condiments–contain genetically engineered ingredients.
Is that enough to damage your health or kill you? How much of your DNA can be altered without cause for concern? How will this GMO consumption affect your own offspring? What will the long ranging effects be on the planet and the food chain? N o o n e k n o w s.
So we are risking the health of the entire planet, for what potential benefit? The benefit is that a few ultra rich oligarchs will be able to reap enormous profits from endeavoring to own patents on nature. GMO products have already proven to create more problems than they solve.
The people developing these products are interested in only one thing, maximizing corporate profits, money and power. Your health, and the fitness of the planet for human habitation has taken a back seat to unmitigated greed and corruption with effectively no oversight and a free hand to inflict their damage on you and the planet. No one speaks for earth.
Summarizing, with each passing day, new untested GMO products are being released into the wild. There is effectively no testing, regulation or oversight. This is a recipe for a future global disaster or more correctly, a disaster in process. Once these engineered organisms have cross pollinated into nature as they are doing right now, there is no effective recall. The damage is done and there is no recourse. Natural, or non genetically altered grains will cease to exist. The DNA of consuming organisms is forever altered. For this reason, we can be assured that the global food chain is becoming toxic. At some point in the future, a global humanitarian catastrophe will result.
- the products have already been proven dangerous while the assumption is that they are safe
- new products are being released into the wild and rapidly spreading across the globe, passing their engineered genes to natural crops
- there is effectively no oversight or testing. The consumer advocate has been corrupted by money
- the long term effects, side effects and potential undesired effects upon the entire food chain and the planet itself have not even been considered and are entirely unknown
A criminal investigation is warranted. A trial should be convened for crimes against humanity.
Filed under: GM Food
GM Food Safety: Whose Job Is It?
It’s not Monsanto’s job:
“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.” – Phil Angell, Monsanto’s Director of Corporate Communications, in “Playing God In The Garden,” by Michael Pollan, NYTs Magazine, 1998.
Why Has the FDA Allowed a Drug Marked ‘Not Safe for Use in Humans’ to Be Fed to Livestock Right Before Slaughter?
There’s a good chance you may be eating a livestock drug banned in 160 nations.
February 2, 2010
While researchers and scientists investigate the cause of our diabetes, obesity, asthma and ADHD epidemics, they should ask why the FDA approved a livestock drug banned in 160 nations and responsible for hyperactivity, muscle breakdown and 10 percent mortality in pigs, according to angry farmers who phoned the manufacturer.
Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food
By Jeffrey M. Smith
On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.” They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”
Is Monsanto playing fast and loose with Roundup Ready Soybeans in Argentina?
Crying not for Argentina but for lost patent fees, Monsanto’s legal hacks are in European courts suing to block millions of tons of Argentine soybean meal from docking on the continent. Monsanto says that much of the meal crossing the Atlantic to feed Europe’s cows and pigs contains traces of its genetically modified Roundup Ready Soybeans. Known as RR, the soybeans are tweaked to withstand the company’s Roundup herbicide. This resistance lets farmers blanket entire fields with the chemical mixture rather than surgically applying it to kill off weeds. Monsanto holds a patent for the seed in Europe, but not in Argentina, where a dispute over technology rights keeps the U.S.-based agri-giant from collecting technology fees on RR seed sales. By using its European patent to disrupt Argentina’s lucrative soy-meal trade with Europe, the company hopes to strong-arm Argentine farmers into paying up.
Is Organic Farming Killer Rep. Rosa DeLauro Becoming the Most Hated Woman in America?
March 20, 2009
Is Organic Farming Killer Rep. Rosa DeLauro Becoming the Most Hated Woman in America? (I Hope So) Mar. 20, 2009
From: John C. Hammell, President International Advocates for Health Freedom (IAHF)
Rosa DeLauro (The Bride of Satan?) Congresswoman Rosa De Lauro (Whose Husband Works for Monsanto)
IAHF List: Seems that Congresswoman Rosa De Lauro, the sponsor of HR 875, the (so called) Food Safety Modernization Act, has a husband employed by Monsanto, a company that would directly benefit from the provisions in her bill that threaten to destroy organic farmers and even backyard gardiners via threats of gigantic fines and massive red tape….
Farmers, Others Sue USDA Over Monsanto GMO Alfalfa
Author: Carey Gillam
Opening another front in the battle over genetically modified crops, the lawsuit contends that the US Department of Agriculture improperly is allowing Monsanto Co to sell an herbicide-resistant alfalfa seed while failing to analyse the public health, environmental, and economic consequences of that action. “The USDA failed to do a full environmental review when they deregulated this genetically engineered alfalfa,” said Will Rastov, an attorney for Center for Food Safety, one of the plaintiffs. “They’re going to wreak untold dangers into the environment.” The lawsuit asks the federal court in San Francisco to rescind the USDA’s decision until a full environmental review has been completed. The suit asserts that the genetically modified alfalfa will probably contaminate conventionally grown alfalfa at a fast pace, ultimately forcing farmers to pay for Monsanto’s patented gene technology whether they want the technology or not.
American Academy of Environmental Medicine Calls for Immediate Moratorium on All Genetically Modified Foods
by Jeffrey M. Smith
AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”
Monsanto Under Investigation by Seven U.S. States
Bayer admits GMO contamination out of control
You’re Appointing Who? Please Obama, Say It’s Not So!
The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.
Here’s the back story.
Russia Says Genetically Modified Foods are Harmful
Concerning the experiment carried out jointly by the National Association for Gene Security and the Institute of Ecological and Evolutional Problems, Dr. Alexei Surov had 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 they reached their sexual maturity more 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 ceasing to use these foods.
GM Crops Go to US High Court, Environmental Laws on the Line
Monday 26 April 2010
Conflict of Interest: Ex Monsanto Lawyer Clarence Thomas to Hear Major Monsanto Case
Clarence Thomas Fox, meet henhouse…
Monsanto Sues More Small Family Farmers
Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Saskatchewan Canada, whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto’s genetically engineered Round-Up Ready Canola by pollen from a nearby farm. Monsanto says it doesn’t matter how the contamination took place, and is therefore demanding Schmeiser pay their Technology Fee (the fee farmers must pay to grow Monsanto’s genetically engineered products). According to Schmeiser, “I never had anything to do with Monsanto, outside of buying chemicals. I never signed a contract. If I would go to St. Louis (Monsanto Headquarters) and contaminate their plots – destroy what they have worked on for 40 years – I think I would be put in jail and the key thrown away.” Rodney Nelson’s family farm is being forced into a similar lawsuit by Monsanto.
GM maize has polluted rivers across the United States
Bloomberg: Genetically Modified Corn Polluting Streams, Rivers and Lakes With Insecticides
by Alexander Higgins
October 3, 2010
GMO Study: You’re Eating Insecticide…
May 29, 2011
By Matt Spaeth – FIN
Most Americans remain blissfully unaware (or don’t care) they are eating genetically-modified (GM) organisms every day. Passivity and blind faith in the USDA, FDA and EPA have largely contributed to this attitude. Perhaps that will change now that a new study reveals an insecticide produced in GM corn actually gets absorbed into the human body.
Genetically modified canola found growing wild in Dakota
By Stephanie Dearing
Pittsburgh – A University of Arkansas researcher has found genetically modified canola growing wild in Dakota — in addition, she found two different GM varieties had interbred to produce a completely new GM canola.
Scientists Create GM Corn Which Prevents Human Conception
The Observer – London
September 9, 2001
Scientists have created the ultimate GM crop: contraceptive corn. Waiving fields of maize may one day save the world from overpopulation.
Scientist: GM food safety testing is “woefully inadequate”
What are the challenges of doing this type of research?
There are two major challenges. First, it is very hard to get GM seed to conduct the research. In order to buy GM seed, you have to go to a licensed seed dealer, and sign a technology licensing agreement, which states that you won’t do any research on the seed, which includes agronomic, health, and environmental research. Also, scientists who try to research health impacts of GM food get harassed and intimidated by people with vested interests in GM technology. I’ve had 10 years of abuse from such people who’ve defamed me, driven me out of a university, and tried to get me fired from jobs. With that kind of intimidation, scientists often decide not to do any research. Vested interests have been trying to find out about research I’m doing. They filed a freedom of information request with the Western Australian government to find out. The government denied their request. It could have ended up in court. My research protocol could have been stolen.
BREAKING NEWS: Alarm on Gene GM Crops: A Previously Unrecognised Effect on GM Plant Development
Global Research, June 3, 2011
New Delhi, June 2: Indian scientists have discovered that the genetic modification of plants with a gene already used in crops worldwide may severely damage the plants, a surprising finding that may stir a debate on current crop biotechnology science. The scientists at the University of Delhi have shown that inserting a bacterial gene that makes a protein named Cry1Ac into genomes of plants appears to cause developmental defects, growth retardation and sterility in the plants. Several experimental and commercial genetically-modified plants, including GM cotton cultivated in India and other countries, make the Cry1Ac protein which is toxic to some insects. The insects die when they try to eat parts of these GM crops.
Toxic pollen from genetically modified corn kills monarch butterflies, researchers find in lab tests
By Blaine P. Friedlander Jr.
An increasingly popular commercial corn, genetically engineered to produce a bacterial toxin to protect against corn pests, has an unwanted side effect: Its pollen kills monarch butterfly larvae in laboratory tests, according to a report by Cornell researchers.
Toxin from GM crops found in human blood: Study
Dinesh C. Sharma
New Delhi, May 11, 2011
France orders probe after rat study links GM corn, cancer
[filed under: Genetically modified food will cause a global humanitarian disaster]
A variety of genetically modified maize (corn). France’s government asked a health watchdog to carry out a probe, possibly leading to EU suspension of a genetically-modified corn, after a study in rats linked the grain to cancer.
AFP – France’s government on Wednesday asked a health watchdog to carry out a probe, possibly leading to EU suspension of a genetically-modified corn, after a study in rats linked the grain to cancer.
Address : <http://www.france24.com/en/20120919-france-orders-probe-after-rat-study-links-gm-corn-cancer>
Experts discuss the shocking findings of the peer-reviewed GMO cancer trial
The recent study undeniably linking genetically modified foods (GMOs) to cancer should shock the health world, especially in the United States where the overwhelming majority of grocery store food is derived from GMO-based crops.
Address : <http://www.activistpost.com/2012/09/experts-discuss-shocking-findings-of.html>
New Study Finds GM Corn and Roundup Causes Cancer In Rats
Sayer Ji, Contributor
In an alarming new study published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, researchers from The Committee for Research & Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) reported on the results of a 2-year feeding study in rats given either NK603 Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize, cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone, at levels permitted in drinking water and GM crops in the United States.
Address : <http://www.activistpost.com/2012/09/new-study-finds-gm-corn-and-roundup.html>
Monsanto Apologists Attempt to Spin Shocking GMO Study
Establishment trots out “experts” in desperate bid to debunk fact that genetically-engineered food is a threat to humanity
Paul Joseph Watson
September 21, 2012
A shocking new study conducted by French scientists which shows that rats fed on Monsanto’s genetically modified corn suffered cancer and premature death has been met with a furious response from GMO apologists, who are desperately trying to cast doubt on the the study in an effort to discredit its findings.
Address : <http://www.prisonplanet.com/monsanto-apologists-attempt-to-spin-shocking-gmo-study.html>
GM crops must be immediately outlawed; Monsanto halted from threatening humanity
The GMO debate is over
September 21, 2012
(NaturalNews) The GMO debate is over. There is no longer any legitimate, scientific defense of growing GM crops for human consumption. The only people still clinging to the outmoded myth that “GMOs are safe” are scientific mercenaries with financial ties to Monsanto and the biotech industry
Address : <http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-gmo-debate-is-over-gm-crops-must-be-immediately-outlawed-monsanto-halted-from-threatening-humanity.html>
Monsanto, pesticide companies have now spent more than $19 million to kill Prop. 37
Ethan A. Huff
September 21, 2012
(NaturalNews) The latest campaign finance disclosure records released by California’s Secretary of State reveal that the most evil corporation in the world, Monsanto, has forked over another $2.89 million to kill Proposition 37, the historic bill that, if passed, will require genetically-modified (GM) foods and food ingredients to be labeled at the retail level in California.
Address : <http://www.prisonplanet.com/monsanto-pesticide-companies-have-now-spent-more-than-19-million-to-kill-prop-37.html>