The Nightmare of GM Foods

[StriperAddict]

Some health info few are getting because of the cover up by Big Agra (Big Agricultural companies), read on:


The Nightmare of GM Foods

Filed Under Food Toxins, Future of Food, GMO Foods

“You have to know where your food is coming from.” These words of warning were spoken by biologist and plant expert, Arpad Puszati at a gathering of concerned citizens in St. Catherine’s, Ontario earlier this year.(1)

As far back as 1998, Dr. Puszati’s research at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland showed that genetically modified potatoes caused health problems in rats, including a weakened immune system and abnormal growth. For blowing the whistle on Big Agra, he was dismissed from his job.

Eleven years later, as companies like Monsanto successfully silenced their critics, genetically modified organisms have gained a stronghold in taking over the world’s food supply —in spite of the fact that a growing body of evidence shows the alarming health effects that are being seen in people and animals who are consuming GM foods. But unlike years ago, concerned physicians and scientists are now banding together and advising their patients and the general public to avoid GM foods altogether.

The latest professional group to voice their warnings is the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) who is advising physicians to educate their patients and the medical community about the health risks of GM foods — including “infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.”(2)

Why are these medical professionals so sure that GM foods are to blame for the growing list of health problems? Because of the reason and method they were manufactured. GM corn and cotton for example, are produced with a built-in pesticide called Bt. When the insect bites the plant, the poison kills it. The problem is that the Bt toxin in GM plants is thousands of times more concentrated and toxic than the spray version — and it cannot be washed off — it’s part of the plant.
And as health professionals for the AAEM have pointed out, there are precious few human studies to document the safety of GM foods. The animal studies however, tell a frightening story.(2)

Here are just a few examples:

* When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy. When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles turned from a natural pink to dark blue.

* In India when grazing animals fed on the remainder of harvested GM cotton plants, all of them died including thousands of sheep. Those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.

* In the US, farmers have reported that thousands of pigs became sterile after eating GM corn.

* In Germany, GM corn is thought to have caused the death of both cows and horses.

There is only one human study so far that demonstrates what GM foods might be doing to us — and it is chilling indeed. The modified gene that is inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of our intestinal bacteria and is still functional. This means our own gut flora could continue to produce the pesticide long after we have eaten the food — perhaps forever.(2)

Could GM foods be the cause of skyrocketing numbers of obesity, diabetes, autism, and even cancer? According to researchers, it may be, but we may never know for sure. The link to GM foods can’t be traced and the onset of the disease may take several years.

But that doesn’t mean we should take any chances, or wait for the results to come in. If Big Agra has its way, any ****ing evidence that links GM foods to chronic diseases will be stifled and the epidemic of immune and degenerative diseases will continue to rise.

What you can do is stay away from all processed food unless it clearly states on the package that it is organic or made from non-GMO ingredients. According to the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, you should also steer clear of soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oils, and GM sugar beets. These two organizations provide a down loadable Non-GMO Shopping Guide for consumers to refer to help with their food choices.

Let’s not be lab rats for the benefit of Big Agra. Together we can take a stand and just say no to the foods that are not fit for human or animal consumption.

References
1. Scientist Issues Genetic Food Warning, January 19, 2009, The St.
Catherines Standard (Canada).
2. Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food

This article appears courtesy of Early to Rise’s Total Health Breakthroughs which offers alternative health solutions for mind, body and soul.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/190460-The-Nightmare-of-GM-Foods (Scroll down after clicking the site)

 

[NOYDB]

For those that haven't been following this issue, the above is propaganda by the food Luddites.

Don't have time to write a book on the subject, others have done so.

Couple of points to be aware of.

Names: Like "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine" or "Handgun Control" groups, they are often one person fronts with an email account and a fax machine. They choose names that sound good, but actually have no or few members.

The examples given are pure scare tactics. At the least mis-representations of data and very often outright lies.

I've been following this subject since the advent of modern genetic modification. Think of the anti-fluoridation movement back in the Fifties.

 

[patchestc]

sounds like a bunch of hooey to me.

 

[StriperAddict]

Guess if a few dead rats don't convince ya, nothing will.

 

[NOYDB]

Guess if a few dead rats don't convince ya, nothing will.

You mean like Saccharin?

You have a LOT of reading to do to become up to speed on this debate. It's been going on for decades.

The above post is like a laundry list of all the discredited nonsense that has been put out by the anti-growth, anti-tech crowd. There's more to it than just people supposedly worried about food.

 

[StriperAddict]

I have. Here's enough concern for me:

Why are GM foods produced?
GM foods are developed – and marketed – because there is some perceived advantage either to the producer or consumer of these foods. This is meant to translate into a product with a lower price, greater benefit (in terms of durability or nutritional value) or both. Initially GM seed developers wanted their products to be accepted by producers so have concentrated on innovations that farmers (and the food industry more generally) would appreciate.

The initial objective for developing plants based on GM organisms was to improve crop protection. The GM crops currently on the market are mainly aimed at an increased level of crop protection through the introduction of resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance towards herbicides.

Insect resistance is achieved by incorporating into the food plant the gene for toxin production from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (BT). This toxin is currently used as a conventional insecticide in agriculture and is safe for human consumption. GM crops that permanently produce this toxin have been shown to require lower quantities of insecticides in specific situations, e.g. where pest pressure is high.

Virus resistance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from certain viruses which cause disease in plants. Virus resistance makes plants less susceptible to diseases caused by such viruses, resulting in higher crop yields.

Herbicide tolerance is achieved through the introduction of a gene from a bacterium conveying resistance to some herbicides. In situations where weed pressure is high, the use of such crops has resulted in a reduction in the quantity of the herbicides used.


From:

20 questions on genetically modified foods

 

[StriperAddict]

Also, playing the other side, I give ya this one:

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]AAEM states, “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the “potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”[28][/FONT]​

From May 30, 2009:
DOCTORS WARN: AVOID GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

 

[NOYDB]

Ok, now you've lost me.

Everything listed is considered a "good thing".

Why are you concerned?

Everything grown that you eat is a result of genetic modification. Plants are selectively bred for certain desirable traits and to remove un-desirable ones. GM only reduces the time and number of generations needed. It has the added benefit of allowing selection of traits from different species to be combined into the plant we want to have the trait.

Higher yields, pest resistance, drought resistance, less use of chemicals, less use of land and other resources to achieve results.

"Good things".

 

[StriperAddict]

More. Guess these Harvard guys don't count:


Hundreds of Scientists, Including the FDA's Own Experts, Have Warned That Genetically Engineered Foods Pose Higher Human Health Risks Than Do Other Foods

• Professors of molecular biology at leading universities such as Harvard, M.I.T., and the University of California, Berkeley have issued cautions about the abnormal health risks of GE foods.
• Professor Philip Regal, a renowned expert at the University of Minnesota, has written: "…there are scientifically justified concerns about the safety of genetically engineered foods, and some of them could be quite dangerous." Declaration, 5/28/99 www.biointegrity.org
• The editors of the respected UK medical journal The Lancet have strongly criticized the presumption that GE foods entail no greater risks of unexpected effects. They stated there are "good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist" and that "governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health." Vol. 353, No. 9167, p. 1811 (May 29, 1999).
• The Public Health Association of Australia analyzed Monsanto's data from controlled studies on three of its GE plants (herbicide resistant corn and canola, and pesticide-producing corn) and in all three cases found several statistically significant differences in amino acid composition between the GE organism and its non-GE counterpart. Their report (October 2000) states that the differences cannot be attributed solely to the known products of the inserted genes and cautions that these plants may contain unexpected - and to date unidentified - new proteins that could be harmful to humans.
• Recent investigation by scientists at Japan's Nagoya University reveals that Monsanto's data on the "Roundup Ready" soybean actually shows important differences between it and its conventional counterpart. For instance, after heat processing of both the GE and non-GE beans, the concentrations of three harmful substances were significantly higher in the GE samples.(Technology and Human Beings, Nov.2000, p24-33)
• The January 2001 report of the expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada states that (a) it is "scientifically unjustifiable" to presume that GE foods are safe and (b) the "default presumption" for every GE food should be that the genetic alteration has induced unintended and potentially hazardous side effects. In describing the report's criticism of the current approach to regulating GE foods, the Toronto Star stated: "The experts say this approach is fatally flawed … and exposes Canadians to several potential health risks, including toxicity and allergic reactions."
• The scientists at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also recognized the unique hazards of GE foods and repeatedly warned about them. This was exposed when a lawsuit headed by our organization forced the FDA to divulge its files.
• The FDA's scientists concluded that genetic engineering is inherently hazardous and can produce unintended new toxins that are unpredictable and difficult to detect. They cautioned that no GE food could be considered safe unless it has passed rigorous toxicological tests. (Photocopies of 24 key FDA memos are at www.biointegrity.org )
• An FDA official summarized the experts' opinions by stating: "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks." (Document #1 in the set of photocopies of FDA memos at www.biointegrity.org/list.html )
• Nevertheless, FDA administrators, who admit they are following a directive to foster the biotechnology industry, disregarded their experts' input and claimed there is an overwhelming consensus among experts that GE foods are so safe they don't need to be tested. They did so despite their knowledge that no such expert consensus exists outside the FDA either - as evidenced by a letter from FDA's biotechnology coordinator to a Canadian health official. (FDA Document #8 at www.biointegrity.org ) Based on this false claim, they have allowed GE foods to be marketed without any testing.

 

[NOYDB]

To see where some of them are coming from research "Precautionary Principle".

 

[StriperAddict]

Higher yields, pest resistance, drought resistance, less use of chemicals, less use of land and other resources to achieve results.

Ok...

THE POOR PERFORMANCE OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS

 

[StriperAddict]

To see where some of them are coming from research "Precautionary Principal".

Just find me evidence that the rat tests (post 1) were bogus and I'll cool my jets.

No hard feelings!

 

[StriperAddict]

One bottom line, I'd like to think that us hunter/fisherfolks who try to live off the land have something going good on this issue, and can make some reasonable choices about what we bring to the table for dinner. Mind ya, I'm not always one to buy organic, and I wish I had a yard to grow fresh veggies, but anything we can do to help our health this way and stay away from as much pre-packaged food is always a good thing.

 

[NOYDB]

None at all.

I'll just suggest you look into the backgrounds and connections of the opponents of GM foods. Their "concerns" have nothing to do with proven problems. If as they say no testing has been done, how do they know they cause problems? If the tests they claim show problems, why aren't they reproduced by others? If all the problems they claim are occurring? Why do farmers, *who do not have to buy GM seed* continue to use them? I reject the premise that farmers are so un-sophisticated that they can't figure out their own costs or profits. That they somehow don't know if their yields are up down or the same. Or if they are using less or more pesticide, herbicides or whatever.

If something costs more or produces less, farmers will drop it like a hot rock. Todays' farmers are computerized, use technology and the WEB and run businesses. They are not hicks in overalls at the mercy of the evil big AGRA.

 

[shortround1]

Some health info few are getting because of the cover up by Big Agra (Big Agricultural companies), read on:


The Nightmare of GM Foods

Filed Under Food Toxins, Future of Food, GMO Foods

“You have to know where your food is coming from.” These words of warning were spoken by biologist and plant expert, Arpad Puszati at a gathering of concerned citizens in St. Catherine’s, Ontario earlier this year.(1)

As far back as 1998, Dr. Puszati’s research at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland showed that genetically modified potatoes caused health problems in rats, including a weakened immune system and abnormal growth. For blowing the whistle on Big Agra, he was dismissed from his job.

Eleven years later, as companies like Monsanto successfully silenced their critics, genetically modified organisms have gained a stronghold in taking over the world’s food supply —in spite of the fact that a growing body of evidence shows the alarming health effects that are being seen in people and animals who are consuming GM foods. But unlike years ago, concerned physicians and scientists are now banding together and advising their patients and the general public to avoid GM foods altogether.

The latest professional group to voice their warnings is the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) who is advising physicians to educate their patients and the medical community about the health risks of GM foods — including “infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.”(2)

Why are these medical professionals so sure that GM foods are to blame for the growing list of health problems? Because of the reason and method they were manufactured. GM corn and cotton for example, are produced with a built-in pesticide called Bt. When the insect bites the plant, the poison kills it. The problem is that the Bt toxin in GM plants is thousands of times more concentrated and toxic than the spray version — and it cannot be washed off — it’s part of the plant.
And as health professionals for the AAEM have pointed out, there are precious few human studies to document the safety of GM foods. The animal studies however, tell a frightening story.(2)

Here are just a few examples:

* When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy. When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles turned from a natural pink to dark blue.

* In India when grazing animals fed on the remainder of harvested GM cotton plants, all of them died including thousands of sheep. Those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.

* In the US, farmers have reported that thousands of pigs became sterile after eating GM corn.

* In Germany, GM corn is thought to have caused the death of both cows and horses.

There is only one human study so far that demonstrates what GM foods might be doing to us — and it is chilling indeed. The modified gene that is inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of our intestinal bacteria and is still functional. This means our own gut flora could continue to produce the pesticide long after we have eaten the food — perhaps forever.(2)

Could GM foods be the cause of skyrocketing numbers of obesity, diabetes, autism, and even cancer? According to researchers, it may be, but we may never know for sure. The link to GM foods can’t be traced and the onset of the disease may take several years.

But that doesn’t mean we should take any chances, or wait for the results to come in. If Big Agra has its way, any ****ing evidence that links GM foods to chronic diseases will be stifled and the epidemic of immune and degenerative diseases will continue to rise.

What you can do is stay away from all processed food unless it clearly states on the package that it is organic or made from non-GMO ingredients. According to the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, you should also steer clear of soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oils, and GM sugar beets. These two organizations provide a down loadable Non-GMO Shopping Guide for consumers to refer to help with their food choices.

Let’s not be lab rats for the benefit of Big Agra. Together we can take a stand and just say no to the foods that are not fit for human or animal consumption.

References
1. Scientist Issues Genetic Food Warning, January 19, 2009, The St.
Catherines Standard (Canada).
2. Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food

This article appears courtesy of Early to Rise’s Total Health Breakthroughs which offers alternative health solutions for mind, body and soul.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/190460-The-Nightmare-of-GM-Foods (Scroll down after clicking the site)

omg! no wonder i can't reproduce, and i blaimed it on the vasectomy!

 

[SGADawg]

More. Guess these Harvard guys don't count:


Hundreds of Scientists, Including the FDA's Own Experts, Have Warned That Genetically Engineered Foods Pose Higher Human Health Risks Than Do Other Foods

• Professors of molecular biology at leading universities such as Harvard, M.I.T., and the University of California, Berkeley have issued cautions about the abnormal health risks of GE foods.
• Professor Philip Regal, a renowned expert at the University of Minnesota, has written: "…there are scientifically justified concerns about the safety of genetically engineered foods, and some of them could be quite dangerous." Declaration, 5/28/99 www.biointegrity.org
• The editors of the respected UK medical journal The Lancet have strongly criticized the presumption that GE foods entail no greater risks of unexpected effects. They stated there are "good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist" and that "governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health." Vol. 353, No. 9167, p. 1811 (May 29, 1999).
• The Public Health Association of Australia analyzed Monsanto's data from controlled studies on three of its GE plants (herbicide resistant corn and canola, and pesticide-producing corn) and in all three cases found several statistically significant differences in amino acid composition between the GE organism and its non-GE counterpart. Their report (October 2000) states that the differences cannot be attributed solely to the known products of the inserted genes and cautions that these plants may contain unexpected - and to date unidentified - new proteins that could be harmful to humans.
• Recent investigation by scientists at Japan's Nagoya University reveals that Monsanto's data on the "Roundup Ready" soybean actually shows important differences between it and its conventional counterpart. For instance, after heat processing of both the GE and non-GE beans, the concentrations of three harmful substances were significantly higher in the GE samples.(Technology and Human Beings, Nov.2000, p24-33)
• The January 2001 report of the expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada states that (a) it is "scientifically unjustifiable" to presume that GE foods are safe and (b) the "default presumption" for every GE food should be that the genetic alteration has induced unintended and potentially hazardous side effects. In describing the report's criticism of the current approach to regulating GE foods, the Toronto Star stated: "The experts say this approach is fatally flawed … and exposes Canadians to several potential health risks, including toxicity and allergic reactions."
• The scientists at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also recognized the unique hazards of GE foods and repeatedly warned about them. This was exposed when a lawsuit headed by our organization forced the FDA to divulge its files.
• The FDA's scientists concluded that genetic engineering is inherently hazardous and can produce unintended new toxins that are unpredictable and difficult to detect. They cautioned that no GE food could be considered safe unless it has passed rigorous toxicological tests. (Photocopies of 24 key FDA memos are at www.biointegrity.org )
• An FDA official summarized the experts' opinions by stating: "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks." (Document #1 in the set of photocopies of FDA memos at www.biointegrity.org/list.html )
• Nevertheless, FDA administrators, who admit they are following a directive to foster the biotechnology industry, disregarded their experts' input and claimed there is an overwhelming consensus among experts that GE foods are so safe they don't need to be tested. They did so despite their knowledge that no such expert consensus exists outside the FDA either - as evidenced by a letter from FDA's biotechnology coordinator to a Canadian health official. (FDA Document #8 at www.biointegrity.org ) Based on this false claim, they have allowed GE foods to be marketed without any testing.

Which Harvard guys? It says "such as Harvard". All these quotes and only 1 "expert" named and he says they COULD be dangerous. Remember the Alar scare on apples a few years ago? Public hysteria and sensational news reporting blew a minor problem all out of proportion. If this was a real concern the mainstream media would have all these animal deaths and studies showing dangers plastered all over the papers, tv and the net.

Remember, believe nothing you hear, only 1/2 of what you read and not everything you see.