Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:20 pm



Over the past few years, a number of countries have completely banned GMOs and the pesticides that go along with them, and they are doing so for a reason. The latest country to consider a complete ban is Russia after top government scientists recommended at least a 10-year ban.

The truth is, we don’t know enough about GMOs to deem them safe for human consumption. Believe it or not the very first commercial sale of them was only twenty years ago. There is no possible way that our health authorities can test all possible combinations on a large enough population, over a long enough period of time to be able to say with absolute certainty that they are harmless.

There are a multitude of credible scientific studies that clearly demonstrate why GMOs should not be consumed, and more are emerging every year. There are also a number of scientists all around the world who oppose them.

By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment. The FDA has said that genetically modified organisms are not much different from regular food, so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this, geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it horizontally into a totally unrelated species. Now David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot and exchange genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other without regard to the biological constraints. It’s very very bad science, we assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically, applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion – Geneticist David Suzuki

If anybody ever tells you that we know with one hundred percent certainty that GMOs are totally safe to eat, they haven’t done their research. There is no reason GM foods should be approved safe for consumption, we just don’t know enough about them. We could easily feed the planet through organic, GMO-free methods, so there is absolutely no reason we need GM foods around.

Below I’ve presented just a bit of information to get you started on your research.

1. Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood

Research from Canada (the first of its kind) has successfully identified the presence of pesticides -associated with genetically modified foods in maternal, fetal and non-pregnant women’s blood. They also found the presence of Monsanto’s Bt toxin. The study was published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology in 2011.

Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed, particularly those using the placental transfer approach. Thus, our present results will provide baseline data for future studies exploring a new area of research relating to nutrition, toxicology and reproduction in women. Today, obstetric-gynecological disorders that are associated with environmental chemicals are not known. Thus, knowing the actual concentration of genetically modified foods in humans constitutes a cornerstone in the advancement of research in this area.”

The study used blood samples from thirty pregnant women and thirty non-pregnant women. The study also pointed out that the fetus is considered to be highly susceptible to the adverse affects of xenobiotics (foreign chemical substance found within an organism that is not naturally produced.) This is why the study emphasizes that knowing more about GMOs is crucial, because environmental agents could disrupt the biological events that are required to ensure normal growth and development.

2. DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them

In a new study published in the peer reviewed Public Library of Science (PLOS), researchers emphasize that there is sufficient evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments carry complete genes that can enter into the human circulation system through an unknown mechanism.

In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The study was based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies. PLOS is an open access, well respected peer-reviewed scientific journal that covers primary research from disciplines within science and medicine. It’s great to see this study published in it, confirming what many have been suspected for years.

Our bloodstream is considered to be an environment well separated from the outside world and the digestive tract. According to the standard paradigm large macromolecules consumed with food cannot pass directly to the circulatory system. During digestion proteins and DNA are thought to be degraded into small constituents, amino acids and nucleic acids, respectively, and then absorbed by a complex active process and distributed to various parts of the body through the circulation system. Here, based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies, we report evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments which are large enough to carry complete genes can avoid degradation and through an unknown mechanism enter the human circulation system. In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The plant DNA concentration shows a surprisingly precise log-normal distribution in the plasma samples while non-plasma (cord blood) control sample was found to be free of plant DNA. 

This still doesn’t mean that GMOs can enter into our cells, but given the fact GMOs have been linked to cancer it is safe to assume it is indeed a possibility. The bottom line is that we don’t know, and this study demonstrates another cause for concern.

3. New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans

This study was recently released by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), and uses data from the US department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection Agency, medical journal reviews as well as other independent research. The authors relate GM foods to five conditions that may either trigger or exacerbate gluten-related disorders, including the autoimmune disorder, Celiac Disease:

Intestinal permeability

Imbalanced gut bacteria

Immune activation and allergic response

Impaired digestion

Damage to the intestinal wall

The Institute for Responsible technology is a world leader in educating policy makers and the public about GMO foods and crops. The institute reports and investigates on the impact GM foods can have on health, environment, agriculture and more.

4. Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors

In November 2012, The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled ‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’ by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University. 

It was a very significant study, which obviously looks bad for the big biotech companies like Monsanto, being the first and only long-term study under controlled conditions examining the possible effects of a diet of GMO maize treated with Monsanto roundup herbicide.

This study has since been retracted, which is odd, because the journal it was published in is a very well known, reputable peer reviewed scientific journal. In order for a study to be published here it has to go through a rigorous review process.

It’s also important to note that hundreds of scientists from around the world have condemned the retraction of the study. This study was done by experts, and a correlation between GMOs and these tumors can’t be denied, something happened.

The multiple criticisms of the study have also been answered by the team of researchers that conducted the study. You can read them and find out more about the study here.

GM Crop Production is Lowering US Yields and Increasing Pesticide Use

5. Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors

A study is published in the US National Library of Medicine and will soon be published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. Several recent studies showed glyphosate’s potential to be an endocrine disruptor. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can interfere with the hormone system in mammals. These disruptors can cause developmental disorders, birth defects and cancer tumors. 

Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer. We found that glyphosate exhibited a weaker estrogenic activity than estradiol.

Furthermore, this study demonstrated the additive estrogenic effects of glyphosate and genisein which implied that the use of contaminated soybean products as dietary supplements may pose a risk of breast cancer because of their potential additive estrogenicity. 

Researchers also determined that Monsanto’s roundup is considered an “xenoestrogen,” which is a foreign estrogen that mimics real estrogen in our bodies. This can cause a number of problems that include an increased risk of various cancers, early onset of puberty, thyroid issues, infertility and more.

6. Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects

A group of scientists put together a comprehensive review of existing data that shows how European regulators have known that Monsanto’s glyphosate causes a number of birth malformations since at least 2002. Regulators misled the public about glyphosate’s safety, and in Germany the Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety told the European Commission that there was no evidence to suggest that glyphosate causes birth defects.

Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable. In this report, we examine the industry studies and regulatory documents that led to the approval of glyphosate. We show that industry and regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s and 1990s that glyphosate causes malformation – but that this information was not made public. We demonstrate how EU regulators reasoned their way from clear evidence of glyphosate’s teratogenicity in industry’s own studies to a conclusion that minimized these findings in the EU Commission’s final review report. 

Here is a summary of the report:

Multiple peer-reviewed scientific literature documenting serious health hazards posed by glyphosate

Industry (including Monsanto) has known since the 1980s that glyphosate causes malformations in experimental animals at high doses

Industry has known since 1993 that these effects could also occur at lower and mid doses

The German government has known since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes malformations

The EU Commission’s expert scientific review panel knew in 1999 that glyphosate causes malformations

The EU Commission has known since 2002 that glyphosate causes malformations. This was the year DG SANCO division published its final review report, laying out the basis for the current approval of glyphosate

Another study published by the American Chemical Society, from the university of Buenos Aires, Argentina also showed that Glyphosate can cause abnormalities

The direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to glyphosate in agricultural fields

7. Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s

When you ingest Glyphosate, you are in essence altering the chemistry of your body. It’s completely unnatural and the body doesn’t resonate with it. P450 (CYP) is the gene pathway disrupted when the body takes in Glyphosate. P450 creates enzymes that assist with the formation of molecules in cells, as well as breaking them down.

CYP enzymes are abundant and have many important functions. They are responsible for detoxifying xenobiotics from the body, things like the various chemicals found in pesticides, drugs and carcinogens. Glyphosate inhibits the CYP enzymes. The CYP pathway is critical for normal, natural functioning of multiple biological systems within our bodies. Because humans that’ve been exposed to glyphosate have a drop in amino acid tryptophan levels, they do not have the necessary active signalling of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease. 

8. Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans

A new study out of Germany concludes that Glyphosate residue could reach humans and animals through feed and can be excreted in urine. It outlines how presence of glyphosate in urine and its accumulation in animal tissues is alarming even at low concentrations. 

To this day, Monsanto continues to advertise its Roundup products as environmentally friendly and claims that neither animals nor humans are affected by this toxin.

Environmentalists, veterinarians, medical doctors and scientists however, have raised increasing alarms about the danger of glyphosate in the animal and human food chain as well as the environment. The fact that glyphosate has been found in animals and humans is of great concern. In search for the causes of serious diseases amongst entire herds of animals in northern Germany, especially cattle, glyphosate has repeatedly been detected in the urine, feces, milk and feed of the animals. Even more alarming, glyphosate was detected in the urine of the farmers.

9. Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs

A study by scientist Judy Carman, PhD that was recently published in the peer-reviewed journal Organic Systems outlines the effects of a diet mixed with GMO feed for pigs, and how it is a cause for concern when it comes to health. Scientists randomized and fed isowean pigs either a mixed GM soy and GM corn (maize) diet for approximately 23 weeks (nothing out of the ordinary for most pigs in the United States), which is unfortunately the normal lifespan of a commercial pig from weaning to slaughter. Equal numbers of male and female pigs were present in each group. The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs. GM-fed pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32% compared to 125 of non-GM fed pigs.

The study concluded that pigs fed a GMO diet exhibited a heavier uteri and a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation than pigs who weren’t fed a GMO diet. Because the use of GMO feed for livestock and humans is so widespread, this is definitely another cause for concern when it comes to GMO consumption. Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs, and these GM crops are consumed widely by people, especially in the United States.

10. GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence in the sense that the testing methods recommended are not adequate to ensure safety

Deficiencies have been revealed numerous times with regards to testing GM foods.

The first guidelines were originally designed to regulate the introduction of GM microbes and plants into the environment with no attention being paid to food safety concerns. However, they have been widely cited as adding authoritative scientific support to food safety assessment. Additionally, the Statement of Policy released by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States, presumptively recognizing the GM foods as GRAS (generally recognized as safe), was prepared while there were critical guidelines prepared by the International Life Sciences Institute Europe and FAO/WHO recommend that safety evaluation should be based on the concept of substantial equivalence, considering parameters such as molecular characterization, phenotypic characteristics, key nutrients, toxicants and allergens. Since 2003, official standards for food safety assessment have been published by the Codex Alimentarius Commission of FAO/WHO. Published reviews with around 25 peer-reviewed studies have found that despite the guidelines, the risk assessment of GM foods has not followed a defined prototype.

The risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops for human nutrition and health has not been systematic. Evaluations for each GM crop or trait have been conducted using different feeding periods, animal models and parameters. The most common results is that GM and conventional sources include similar nutritional performance and growth in animals. However, adverse microscopic and molecular effects of some GM foods in different organs or tissues have been reported. While there are currently no standardized methods to evaluate the safety of GM foods, attempts towards harmonization are on the way. More scientific effort is necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods.

So, if anybody ever tells you that GMOs are completely safe for consumption, it’s not true. We just don’t know enough about them to make such a definitive statement. A lot of evidence actually points to the contrary.

[1]



It is no secret that Monsanto is making life difficult for countless farmers in America with its parented seeds. After all, the biotech giant has already filed 145 lawsuits, or on average about 9 lawsuits every year for 16 straight years, against farmers who have “improperly reused their patented seeds.” But did you know that Monsanto is also leading hundreds of thousands of farmers to suicide?

Biotech has attempted dismiss the rise in farmer suicides in India due to the introduction of genetically modified crops, but the problem is too pervasive to wipe under the rug. While there are numerous contributing factors to farmer suicides in India, debt is the largest concern, which is largely fueled by non-viable crops.

According to figures outlining farmer suicide rates, 17,638 Indian farmers committed suicide in 2009 — about one death every 30 minutes. Oftentimes, the farmers would commit the act by drinking the very same insecticide that Monsanto supplied them with — a terrible end in which Monsanto has wrecked the lives of independent and traditional farmers.

Now, Monsanto has caused a massive 291,000 suicides in India with its GMOs, chemical creations, and shameless business practices.

“. . . the motivations for these suicides follow a familiar pattern: Farmers become trapped in a cycle of debt trying to make a living growing Monsanto’s genetically engineered Bt cotton. They always live close to the edge, but one season’s ruined crop can dash hopes of ever paying back their loans, much less enabling their families to get ahead. Manjusha’s father, like many other suicide victims, killed himself by drinking the pesticide he spreads on his crops.”

[2]

The Global GMO Food War against Humanity. Devastating Health and Environmental Impacts Worldwide

After decades of rearing hogs, Danish farmer IbBorup Pedersen was alarmed at the growing incidence of malformations and biological defects among his newborn piglets. Deformities included gaps in piglets’ skulls, deformed bones, missing limbs and even a female piglet with testicles. Never having witnessed such large numbers of deformed pigs before, Pedersen realized that it was after switching three years earlier to Monsanto’s GMO feed– which had been grown with glyphosate–that these birth defects began to appear. Pedersen had the piglets’ bodies sent to a Danish laboratory for analysis. The results were clear; there were high concentrations of Monsanto’s glyphosate pesticide, commonly known as Roundup,in the piglets’ organs. The analyses’ findings were subsequently published in a recent Journal of Environmental and Analytical Toxicology.

In early 2014, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health published a study linking glyphosate runoff in Sri Lanka’s water systems to an epidemic rise in a fatal unknown chronic kidney disease or CKDu. Until recently scientists were unable to offer up evidence of what has been causing this new form of illness affecting the kidneys. Similar observations have been made in El Salvador and Nicaragua where more men die of CKDu than AIDS, diabetes and leukemia. However, in each regional population studied, Roundup exposure is rampant. Sri Lankan scientists hypothesize that glyphosate, originally discovered to act as a chelating chemical in 1964, takes up toxic heavy metals and binds them in the kidney without the body’s detection. According to the researchers, the buildup of these heavy metals ultimately leads to kidney failure and death.[7]

In early 2014, the Ministry of Health in Cordoba, Argentina noted a dramatic rise in deaths from cancerous tumors– twice the national average. It just so happens that the elevated rates of malignancies were being reported in those regions where GM crops and toxic agrochemicals are most readily used.

A new study in rats conducted by Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini at the University of Caen identified changes in gene expression in sperm cells capable of altering androgen and estrogen sex hormones. The study suggests that glyphosate may be altering human reproduction. The rate of male fertility in the US has been dropping steadily since GM foods started to saturate the average American diet. Today, according to the American Pregnancy Association, 1 out of every 6 men in couples is infertile.

An article in India’s Hindustani Times states that “There are over 500 research publications by scientists of indisputable integrity, who have no conflict of interest, that establish harmful effects of GMO crops to human, animal and plant health, and on the environment and biodiversity… On the other hand, virtually every paper supporting GM crops is by scientists who have declared conflict of interest or whose credibility and integrity can be doubted."

Monsanto must rely on a veil of secrecy, claiming to protect its proprietary information, in order to avoid revealing to the public its actual data about GMO safety. In the absence of credible science to engage in an honest debate with the scientific community opposing the proliferation of GMOs, the company must resort to the lowest and most vicious tactics. Attacking the integrity of scientists, launching smear campaigns against GMO labeling advocates, organic farmers, cyber attacks on anti-GMO organizations, and threats of lawsuits against state governments and media outlets advocating or even suggesting mandatory labeling are becoming more frequent. For example, supporters of GMOs have recently pressured Reuters to fire veteran journalist Carey Gillam for reporting fairly on GMOs. With approximately 50% of its revenues generated from the sale of GM seeds, it is highly unlikely that Monsanto will ever admit defeat. Rather it will use whatever means necessary, except acknowledging scientific evidence, to silence its enemies.

[3]

President Obama has signed into law the notorious Monsanto Protection Act legislation hidden inside of the Continuing Resolution spending bill, which protects Monsanto and its genetically modified creations from federal courts.

Passing up the chance to veto the bill in favor of stopping Monsanto’s increasing monopoly on the food supply, Obama pushed the bill through into a law in a move that reminds us of his failed 2007 promise to ‘immediately’ label GMOs upon his election.

Contained in the rider (Farmer Assurance Provision, Sec. 735) of HR 933, Monsanto is now even protected (at least under this law) from the United States government.







Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO): Profit, Power and Geopolitics


In his book ‘Seeds of Destruction’, William Engdahl traces how the oil-rich Rockefeller family translated its massive wealth into political clout and set out to capture agriculture in the US and then globally via the ‘green revolution’ [6]. Along with its big-dam, water-intensive infrastructure requirements, this form of agriculture made farmers dependent on corporate-controlled petroproducts and entrapped them and nations into dollar dependency and debt. GMOs represent more of the same due to the patenting and the increasing monopolization of seeds by a handful of mainly US companies, such as Monsanto, DuPont and Bayer.

Only the completely naive would believe that rich institutional investors in land and big agribusiness and its backers in the US State Department have humanity’s interests at heart. At the very least, their collective aim is profit. Beyond that and to facilitate it, the need to secure US global hegemony is paramount.

The science surrounding GMOs is becoming increasingly politicized and bogged down in detailed arguments about whose methodologies, results, conclusions and science show what and why. The bigger picture however is often in danger of being overlooked. GMO is not just about ‘science’. As an issue, GMO and the chemical-industrial model it is linked to is ultimately a geopolitical one driven by power and profit.

[4]



avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1781
Points : 5111
Reputation : 2559
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 24
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:52 pm

Posted by shillsmacker on 07/22/2015

Took a moment to skim through what has been posted and had to laugh at this shill, what a waste of life.

Want to know the shill's character?



If you've met one shill you've met them all. Just another pathetic fake loser with absolutely no integrity or courage whatsoever.

Funny how they all love the internet so much since throwing insults at people they cannot outsmart and will never be brave enough to say a thing to in reality since they are such spineless cowards is the closest they can come to convincing themselves they are a man and somehow not a joke ahaahahahahahahahaha.

Maybe if you post some more garbage the spraying you are too weak and scared to acknowledge will magically disappear to suit what you need to pretend.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1781
Points : 5111
Reputation : 2559
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 24
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:52 pm

Monsanto and Others Caught Paying Internet ‘Trolls’ to Attack Activists

By Anthony Gucciardi, Natural Society, April 20, 2015



Have you ever seen a post, comment, or reply that absolutely reeked of behind-the-scenes compensation by corporations like Monsanto? In the growing age of internet activism, and the expansion of social media as a tool to spread the word on real issues, paid internet trolling is becoming a new career path.

Now, in case you’re not familiar with what ‘trolling’ really is, I think Wikipedia has a great definition. According to Wikipedia, an internet troll is:

    “…a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.“

Does this sound like some posts you’ve seen before? Now, let’s be clear: there are tons of internet trolls out there that are absolutely not on the pay roll. Most of these people are genuinely just messing with others to get a laugh, a reaction, or whatever. Not arguing on behalf of multi-billion dollar corporations for up to 8 hours per day.

There’s the real difference. And, besides common sense dictating that corporations would surely hire a fleet of internet warriors to protect their brand reputation in the age of open source online communication, we now know for sure that companies like Monsanto have in fact dedicated ‘entire departments’ to trolling scientists and ‘discrediting’ those who oppose their GMO creations.

Monsanto Paying Fleet of Trolls to ‘Discredit’

Surprisingly, it was actually a Monsanto employee that unintentionally let the truth behind their ‘discrediting operation’ slip in a conference with students that he may have forgotten was open to the public. In a conversation with students, Dr. William “Bill” Moar raved that Monsanto had established:

    “An entire department” (waving his arm for emphasis) dedicated to “debunking” science which disagreed with theirs.”

That’s huge news. We told you about this first back on the 6th of April — but I am absolutely shocked how it has not been covered to the extent it should have. Because, after all, how does a company ‘discredit’ and ‘debunk’ those who go against their destructive, cancer-linked products? By attacking them online through blogs, comments, and character assassination. In other words, by internet trolling.

It’s so much easier to say someone is a ‘quack,’ or create some fictitious and anonymous accusation to plague their search data than it is to actually have a scientific debate on issues like Roundup’s admitted probable carcinogenic nature.

It also brings into question whether or not the Monsanto employee truly did ‘slip up’ or if he was attempting to help get the word out about the corporation he represents. You have to wonder if Dr. Moar was secretly passing off some information to the press in the form of a slip about his company.

This is a question I often wondered after hearing about Coca-Cola’s similar operations that extended deeper than just internet trolls. After reading the March 16th article in the Associated Press that broke down how Coca-Cola paid off health leaders in exchange for these ‘experts’ to back their chemical-laden sodas as health drinks.

The AP report reads:

    “In February, several of the experts wrote online posts for American Heart Month, with each including a mini-can of Coke or soda as a snack idea. The pieces — which appeared on nutrition blogs and other sites including those of major newspapers — offer a window into the many ways food companies work behind the scenes to cast their products in a positive light, often with the help of third parties who are seen as trusted authorities.”

A mini-can of Coke as a ‘snack idea.’ What amazing health leaders these individuals truly are.

Next time you’re scrolling through social media, YouTube, or even this website’s comment section, remember that the trolls attacking you for no apparent reason may in fact be receiving an annual salary.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1781
Points : 5111
Reputation : 2559
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 24
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:52 pm

avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1781
Points : 5111
Reputation : 2559
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 24
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:53 pm

Who are Really the Top Shareholders of Monsanto?

People like to talk nasty about Hugh Grant, Monsanto’s CEO, and obviously a shareholder. The same goes for Bill Gates. He purportedly owns millions of shares of Monsanto stock as well. But who are the real owners of Monsanto? The answer might be shocking.

The real owners of Monsanto stock are institutions, and people who hide behind those institutions, not individuals like Gates and Grant. According to multiple sources, five investment funds are the top shareholders in Monsanto, with the Vanguard Group, Inc. at the top. You can view the rest below.

As you can see, the number of shares held by institutions dwarfs the number held by individuals, including those who do Monsanto’s dirty work in the public arena.

The Vanguard Group owns over $3 trillion in investments in different, and mostly hated, companies like Monsanto. They also hold the world’s largest companies such as: Bank of America, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley. State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, Capital Research Global Investors, and FMR (Fidelity) are all the key owners of – well, essentially the world. And this includes Monsanto. You could say that just four companies control all the big banks and all the major companies on the planet.




Furthermore, the Federal Reserve is comprised of 12 banks, represented by a board of only seven people, which comprises representatives of the “big four,” …which in turn are present in all other entities.

An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy – including Agribusiness.

What should really be concerning is who owns Vanguard. Why are they not in the public eye as GMO labeling is heavily debated, and countries claim suicide rates, death of their food supplies, and poisoning from GM Agrichemicals?

What should be concerning is the money trail supporting the ‘funny’ science that keeps coming out about biotech foods. Or that according to a report that was released last summer, the global elite have up to 32 TRILLION dollars stashed in offshore banks around the globe, which can fund lawsuit after lawsuit against the people who are tired of being poisoned.

It means that seven people and their overlords are likely poisoning the entire planet through biotech, Big Ag, Big Pharma, and Big Banks.

It is the invisible tentacles of this octopus that are strangling us. This is what must be stopped 
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1781
Points : 5111
Reputation : 2559
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 24
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:53 pm

Who Was Really Paid to Bury GMO Labeling via the DARK Act?

Want to know where the dirty money is which is helping to make GMO labeling illegal?

Shockingly, or perhaps not to the individuals who have been observing the biotech charade, house members who voted to keep the public from knowing what is in their food in the latest land-slide win for Big Food supporters of The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 (known to its critics as the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know Act) were paid three times as much as representatives who voted to give us the right to label or ban GMO foods.

It seems odd that the bill would float through Congress so easily with a 275 to 150 vote when so many Americans have expressed a wish to have their food labeled. The Center for Food safety says that 93% of Americans want their food labeled if it contains GM ingredients. And that is just one of many surveys showing similar results:

Surveys repeatedly show that 80 percent to 95 percent of people want foods that contain genetically modified organisms to be labeled (in the least). Here is a simple breakdown of some reported polls on consumer demand for GMO labeling:

The New York Times: 93% found to be in support of labeling GMOs

MSNBC: 96% in support

Reuters/NPR: 93% in support of full labeling

Washington Post: 95% in support of full labeling

Consumer Reports: 95% agree GM animals should be labeled

ABC News: 93% want federal GM labeling mandate

PetitionSTOP the DARK Act Which Would Make GMO Labeling Illegal!

Really – we label everything from pillows with warning labels – ‘this tag not to be removed’ to our pants. Why not GM foods? What is it that Big Ag is trying to hide from us?

Usually, if everyone wants to purchase something, the free market dictates that companies jump on the bandwagon and try to sell that something – but not with genetically modified food. Our rights have been trampled on, and you have the right to know who has bought in this recent landslide vote in favor of the biotech industry and business as usual that protects profits instead of people.

According to opensecrets.org, this is where the money trail leads:

…the campaigns of Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), Rodney Davis (R-Ill.), Mike Conaway (R-Texas) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), all cosponsors of the legislation (most of whom also sit on the House Agriculture Committee), received six-figure dollar amounts from providers of agricultural services and products — one segment of the agribusiness sector — during the 2014 election cycle. That put them high among the top 20 recipients of funds from the industry.

Cosponsors such as Reps. David Valadao (R-Calif.), Steve Fincher (R-Tenn.), Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) aren’t on the Agriculture Committee, but nevertheless pulled in six-figure dollar amounts from the crop production and basic processing industry (another part of agribusiness; think Cargill Inc. and the National Corn Growers Association) during the midterm cycle — landing them among the 20 members who received the most from that industry.

Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), two original sponsors of the legislation, were the top two current House members receiving the most money from the Grocery Manufacturers Association in 2014. The grocery manufacturers — who have spent $4.1 million lobbying on all issues so far this year, almost as much as they spent in all of 2014 — havelobbied on the bill more than any other organization, mentioning the measure on 14 lobbying reports this year.

Do you see your representative in this list? If you do, they certainly weren’t representing you.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1781
Points : 5111
Reputation : 2559
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 24
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:54 pm

Posted by thinkforyourself on 09/19/2015

Here is a great 10 minute long documentary about the evil Monsanto, made by Neil Young:



The farmer in the documentary confirms that Monsanto threatened to murder him, that they claimed to have murdered someone else, and that they had to admit to this in court. In future, instead of arguing with people about the supposed 'pros' and proven 'cons' of GMO food, we should all simply reply that we wouldn't trust Ted Bundy or Ian Brady to tell us what is healthy or not, so why should we listen to the admitted killer that is Monsanto?

Another great fact to point out to those who claim that GMO is cheaper, is that seed prices have only gone up since Monsanto started to dominate farming, with an inflation of 300%. This proves that GMO isn't cheaper, it is much more expensive.

In reality GMO is simply a filthy, unnatural poison created by a greedy, murdering, NWO corporation, with the intention of copyrighting plants, in order to make millions of people die under their population control measures.

Make sure to never eat GMO or non-organic food.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1781
Points : 5111
Reputation : 2559
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 24
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:54 pm

Monsanto Teams Up With World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to Convert Amazon Rain Forest into Giant GMO Plantation
By L.J. Devon
Global Research, September 18, 2015

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), a charity that began in 1961, is on the verge of destroying everything it stands for. For decades, the charitable organization played an integral role in conserving important regions while working on behalf of animal welfare around the world. In the new millennia, however, the WWF has strayed from its roots. It has been watered down and infiltrated by the nature-destroying ideas of the biotech industry.

The WWF is not what they once were. In the recently published book, PandaLeaks: The Dark Side of the WWF, German author Wilfried Huismann exposes everything, from the charity’s outrageously high salaries to its recent partnership with agrochemical giant Monsanto.

Suppressed book exposes dangerous relationship between WWF and Monsanto

When the book came out in 2012, the WWF legal team tried to censor it. They succeeded for several months, afraid of being exposed for promoting Monsanto’s genetically modified crops. In the fall of 2014, the book was re-released, shedding light on the funds the WWF took from Monsanto. The book endured several lawsuits and revealed the dark side of the WWF’s relationship with the multinational agrochemical seed engineer. The book reveals that the WWF collaborated with Monsanto to create a “Round Table on Responsible Soy.” This means WWF leaders discussed ways to unleash GMO soy around the world while convincing entire countries that GMOs and agrochemicals are the most environmentally-conscious method of farming.

Monsanto is infamous for “green washing” their products, making people think they are for the environment. The corporation calls their GMO soy a “responsible” choice for protecting the environment. This deceit ultimately infected the WWF, which went along with plans to unleash GMO soy in the Amazon. Now Brazil and Argentina are being turned into GMO plantations as the Amazon is cut down to make way for Monsanto’s GMO “save the planet” brainwashing.

The clever operatives at Monsanto have found a way to convince environmentally conscious charities such as the WWF to go along with their plans for agricultural control and world dominance. Every donation that is made to the WWF is now supporting the very ideas that destroy the natural environment. Monsanto’s agrochemicals have been linked to mass die-offs of honey bee and monarch butterfly populations. Without these key pollinators, many vegetables and herbs can’t reproduce. Monsanto’s agrochemicals pose a threat to ecosystems, all the way down to wiping out the good bacteria in the soil and the human gut. When the quality of the soil is ignored, the nutrition of the crop reduces over time, ultimately affecting people’s health.

Amazon rain forest being cut to pieces to make room for GMO plantations

The Amazon GMO soy boom is causing millions of acres of rain forest to be cleared. Between 2007 and 2008, nearly 3 million acres were destroyed in the Brazilian Amazon rain forest as logging, soy plantations and cattle ranching took over the region. The WWF has no interest in protecting these regions any more because they are infiltrated by the ideas of Monsanto, which is all for clearing out the rain forest and taking over the area’s agriculture.

Monsanto is not feeding the world. They are raping the natural diversity on this planet and controlling what farmers can grow to stay in business. Brazilian soy is now over 90 percent genetically modified. Much of the GM soy is used to sell animal feed back to farmers as their free range, biodiversity-rich farming practices are taken from them and replaced by fields of GMO soy.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1781
Points : 5111
Reputation : 2559
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 24
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:55 pm

Monsanto money letter to Kevin Folta emerges: Discredited Univ. of Florida professor promised 'a solid return on the investment' just two days before receiving $25K from Monsanto

Discredited Monsanto shill Kevin Folta, a University of Florida agricultural professor, just doesn't know when he's been caught. He's still screaming that he never took money from Monsanto while claiming he's an "independent" scientist who writes for GMO Answers to spread pro-GMO propaganda while expecting nothing in return from Monsanto.

But today, the jig is up. Monsanto's letter to Kevin Folta -- confirming the $25,000 donation to him -- has now surfaced. We're publishing it below.

Here's $25,000 to use for whatever you want
The letter is dated August 8, 2014 and confirm that Kevin Folta is receiving an "unrestricted grant" in the amount of $25,000, which "may be used at your discretion... in support of outreach projects."

This means the money can be used for travel expenses, trips to Hawaii, luxury hotels or anything else Kevin Folta wants to use it on.

But it gets even better:

Two days earlier, Kevin Folta wrote Carolyn A. Daly of Monsanto (carolyn.a.daly@monsanto.com) with the subject line of "Re: Hotel for visit to St. Louis", saying:

"I'm grateful for this opportunity and promise a solid return on investment."

The "return on investment," of course, refers to serving as Monsanto's propaganda puppet in exchange for $25,000. This is the very definition of academic corruption. Payola. Bribery. Folta has been caught red-handed taking money from Monsanto and promising results in return!

After receiving this money from Monsanto, Kevin Folta went on to viciously smear clean food activists like the Food Babe by lying to media organizations like The Atlantic, loudly proclaiming he had no financial ties to Monsanto even after cashing their check for $25,000 and promising them a "return on investment."

Here's Monsanto's confirmation letter to Kevin Folta:



And here's Kevin Folta's email to Monsanto, promising a "return on investment" just two days before receiving the money:



Case closed: Kevin Folta accepted a bribe from Monsanto to push GMO propaganda

Case closed on Kevin Folta. As GM Watch correctly points out, Folta is now a "documented liar."

"In addition, the emails reveal a near constant communication between Kevin Folta, Monsanto's top lobbyists, the crisis public relations firm Ketchum and a handful of U.S. scientists working behind the scenes to manipulate public perception on the safety of GMOs and Monsanto's flagship herbicide Roundup dating back to at least 2013," writes Dave Murphy in thisEcowatch.com story.

"The emails between Folta, Monsanto and Ketchum PR are especially damning as they indicate that agents from the New York crisis management PR firm wrote answers specifically for Folta that he then cut and paste and posted on the GMO Answers website under his own name."

What's even more hilarious (or pathetic, perhaps) in all this is that Kevin Folta still claims he never took money from Monsanto and never did anything wrong.

In other words, the mind of Kevin Folta is so twisted and corrupted that he can't even recognize academic corruption when he's engaged in it!

There's even talk in theKevin Folta document dump of how Monsanto operatives in academia can hide money from public reporting. As found in page 104 of the Folta document dump:



Folta ran a scam and got caught; now he's mad at the world

If the "scientists" of our day are so blind to corporate influence and corruption that they fail to recognize it, then they have no chance whatsoever of resisting it (even if they wanted to). Folta's intentions seem clear from the start: Whore himself out to Monsanto, take the money, push the propaganda, lie to the world and hope nobody finds out.

The problem is, we did find out, and now Kevin Folta looks like a Monsanto douchebag (and the University of Florida looks like a science shill diploma mill!).

"Might it be possible to just ask the powers that be to do an 'unrestricted gift' for the amount to UF? I can then just charge the travel to the account," Folta says in an email to Lisa Drake at Monsanto. He then explains he doesn't want to "...end up getting taxed on the dollars as income... long after my brain is erased."



Yep, his brain was erased after all. And then it was repopulated with Monsanto propaganda. (Monsanto's Manchurian Candidate!)

After being exposed as Monsanto shills, academic whores now want to operate in total secrecy

What's the response to all this from the Monsanto shills and science whores working at taxpayer-funded universities?

They are now demanding black box science -- absolute secrecy and the shutting down of the Freedom of Information Act.

Apparently, these corrupt douchebags now believe they should conduct science in total secrecy, absent all public scrutiny or oversight. Yep, it's the new "science" of corrupt academia: Everything's a secret, and the public isn't supposed to know how this science is being conducted or who's being paid off by which corporations.

The stench of scientific corruption in America has now reached the point of projectile vomiting. It's no longer science at all: It's a RELGION of scientific fundamentalism that demands total obedience, absolute secrecy, and unlimited money for secret research projects that the public is never allowed to see.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1781
Points : 5111
Reputation : 2559
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 24
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:55 pm

Coca-Cola fined $3.3 billion for defrauding Americans out of tax money while buying off state GMO-labeling elections

Recently, Coca-Cola made a disclosure that most Americans heard nothing about, even though it affects nearly everyone.

Tucked into a corporate filing, the company announced that it would be paying $3.3 billion in back taxes to the U.S. government – money the government uses to fund everything from national defense to, ironically, the people charged with collecting Coca-Cola's back taxes.

The reason for the tax, according to the company filing, is for the company's allegedly inappropriate use of transfer pricing in order to shift tangible property out of the U.S. and into low-tax havens around the world.

"Put another way," says a blog post at Citizens for Tax Justice, an advocacy group, "the company appears to be pretending, for tax purposes, that some of the income it earns each year in the United States was actually generated in another country.

That is another issue all on its own. Like many other Fortune 500 companies, Coca-Cola keeps a huge portion of its liquid assets offshore in order to escape the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world of 35 percent. Congress is, once again, looking into how the U.S. government can legally get its hands on what would be a major cash cow. For Coke, the company disclosed at the end of 2014 that it had an astounding $33.3 billion in permanently reinvested foreign earnings, which is the 16th highest amount on the Fortune 500 list. These are earnings that the company has said will remain offshore for the foreseeable future, which means they won't have to pay one dime of tax on the money.

Not "The Real Thing"

As Citizens for Tax Justice further noted:

Even without the help of an official notice from the Internal Revenue Service, one could be forgiven for suspecting that all was not right with Coca-Cola's statements about the location of its profits. In 2014, the company generated 43 percent of its worldwide revenue in the United States, but somehow that only translated into 17 percent of its income being in the U.S.

In addition, a 2014 CTJ report found that Coke had at least 13 subsidiaries located in known foreign tax havens, including three in the Cayman Islands.

These facts alone do not constitute proof that Coca-Cola is aggressively shifting U.S. profits over to tax havens, but it only follows that the most likely reason to have three subsidiaries in places like the Caymans is to shift profits there – and the IRS is accusing the company of doing just that.

Coke is spending some money in the U.S., however
In all, Coke's $33 billion in offshore cash is a big chunk of what some estimates put at about $2 trillion total from all U.S. corporations sitting offshore – a sum that has many in Congress salivating. On one side of the aisle, some lawmakers say those are legitimate foreign earnings that big corporations would like to bring back into the country if the Legislative Branch and the President approve a measure lowering the corporate tax rate.

However, "skeptics argue that these companies are simply moving their U.S. profits offshore on paper in hopes of reaping tax rewards," the CTJ blog said. "The latest disclosure from Coca-Cola strengthens the argument that this mountain of allegedly 'foreign' offshore profits are not, in fact, 'the real thing' at all.

The loss of tax revenue is one thing, but by selling its unhealthy products and worsening Americans' health overall, Coke is not only contributing to poor dietary habits but also avoiding having to contribute anything to the cost of making them well.

Not a bad gig if you can get it.

This doesn't mean Coke isn't spending money in America at all. Coke – along with special interest groups like the Grocery Manufacturers Association – has put millions into defeating statewide GMO labeling efforts, even as they continue to make money peddling their poisons to the general public.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1781
Points : 5111
Reputation : 2559
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 24
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:55 pm

Over 40 Rodent Feeding Studies Show Genetically Modified Food is Disastrous to Health

...Why aren't these foods labeled?

GMO Free USA has published a listing of more than 40 rodent studies showing that animals fed GM corn and soy suffer dire results. For those who say there is no ‘science’ to prove that GMOs are unsafe, I enjoin them to peruse the following list. 

Among the ailments suffered by the rats fed Roundup Ready or Bt-toxin GM-feed were:

Increased intestinal infections
High cholesterol
Birth defects
Weight-increase and higher incidence of mortality
Organ pathologies in the liver, kidneys, pancreas, ovaries, testes, and adrenals
Major issues with both the intestinal tracts and immunity of the animals tested

And why again are we still eating GM food? These studies suggest they should all be banned as Russia is doing – if not at least labeled.

“1. E. Abdo, et al. “Feeding Study with Bt Corn (MON810: Ajeeb YG) on Rats: Biochemical Analysis and Liver Histopathology,” Food and Nutrition Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 2, 2014, pp. 185-195.

2. Battistelli S., Baldelli B., Malatesta M. (2008), Influence of a GMO-containing diet on pancreatic acinar cells of adult mice: effects of a short-term diet reversion, “Microscopie”, 10, pp. 36-43

3. S. Battistelli, B.Citterio, B. Baldelli, C. Parlani, and M. Malatesta (2010) Histochemical and morpho-metrical study of mouse intestine epithelium after a long term diet containing genetically modified soybean Eur J Histochem. September 26;54(3): e36

4. Brasil FB, Soares LL, Faria TS, Boaventura GT, Sampaio FJ, Ramos CF.(2009) The impact of dietary organic and transgenic soy on the reproductive system of female adult rat. Anat Rec(Hoboken).292(4):587594.

5. B Cisterna, F Flach, L Vecchio, SML Barabino, S Battistelli, TE Martin, M Malatesta, M Biggiogera (2008) Can a genetically modified organism-containing diet influence embryonic development? A preliminary study on pre- implantation mouse embryos. Cisterna.Vol.52(4)

6. Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, François Roullier, Dominique Cellier, Gilles-Eric Séralini (2009) A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health Int J Biol Sci; 5(7):706-726.

7. O. P. Dolaychuk, R. S. Fedoruk (2013) Biological Effects of Different Levels of Soybeans Conventional and Transgenic Varieties in the Second-Generation Female Rats Ration. The Animal Biology, 2013, vol. 15, no. 2

8. Thanaa A. El-Kholy, Mohammad Abu Hilal, Hatim Ali Al-Abbadi, Abdulhalim Salim Serafi, Ahmad K. Al-Ghamdi, Hanan M. Sobhy and John R. C. Richardson (2014) The Effect of Extra Virgin Olive Oil and Soybean on DNA, Cytogenicity and Some Antioxidant Enzymes in Rats. Nutrients, 6(6), 2376-2386

9. El-Shamei ZS et al. Histopathological changes in some organs of male rats fed on genetically modified corn (Ajeeb YG). J Am Sci. 2012;8(10):684–696.

10. Ermakova IV (2006) Genetically modified soy leads to weight loss and increased mortality of pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies. EkosInform. Federal Environmental Law Gazette. a | -1,, p. 4-10.

11. Ermakova IV (2007) New data on the impact of GMOs on physiological state and the higher nervous activities mammals. All-Russia Symposium TRANSGENIC PLANTS AND BIOSAFETY Moscow, October 22 – 25, pages 38-39

12. Irina Ermakova (2007) GM soybeans—revisiting a controversial format NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY VOLUME 25 NUMBER 12 DECEMBER 1351-1354

13. Ermakova IV, IV Barskov (2008) Study of the physiological and morphological parameters in rats and their offspring using a diet containing soybean transgenic EPSPS CP4 Biological sciences. 6. p.19-20.

14. Ermakova IV (2009) Influence of soybean gene EPSPS CP4 on the physiological state and reproductive functions of rats in the first two generations Contemporary Problems in Science and Education Number 5, p.15-20.

15. Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, Monastra G, Ambra R, Turrini A, Mengheri E. (2008) Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric Food Chem. Dec 10;56(23):11533-9.

16. Gab-Alla AA et al. Morphological and biochemical changes in male rats fed on genetically modified corn (Ajeeb YG). J Am Sci. 2012;8(9):1117–1123.

17. Т. V. Gorbach, I. U. Kuzminа, G. I. Gubina-Vakulik, N. G. Kolousova (2012) HORMONAL REGULATION OF SEXUAL FUNCTION AND OVARIAN HISTOLOGICAL FEATURES IN THE EXPERIMENT WITH GMO-SOYA USE IN FOOD. TAVRICHESKY LIFE SCIENCES BULLETIN 2012, Volume 15, № 2, Part 2 (58) pages 235-238

18. G.I. Gubin-Vakulik, S.A. Denisenko, T.V. Horbach, N.G. Kolousova, T.M. Popova (2012) MORPHOFUNCTIONAL STATE OF ADRENAL GLAND IN FEMALE RATS WISTAR WITH GENETICALLY MODIFIED SOY INCLUSION IN THE DIET. TAVRICHESKY LIFE SCIENCES BULLETIN 2012, Volume 15, № 3, Part 1 (59) pages 85-88

19. GI-Gubin VAKULIK TV, GORBACH BB, NG KOLOUSOVA HS, GOPKALOV (2013) THE METABOLIC AND HISTOLOGICAL CHANGES OF KIDNEYS IN FEMALE RATS AND THE FIRST GENERATION AFTER CONSUMPTION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED SOYBEANS. SCIENTIFIC STATEMENTS Series Medicine. Pharmacy. 2013. № 11 (154). Issue 22 pages 150-155

20. G.I. Gubina-Vakulik, S.A. Denisenko, T.V. Gorbach, N.G. Kolousova, A.V. Andreev (2014) Morphofunctional Adrenal State in Adults Descendants With the Diet by Genetically Modified Soy. ЕКСПЕРИМЕНТАЛЬНА І КЛІНІЧНА МЕДИЦИНА. 2014. № 2 (63)

21. SERDAR KARAKUŞLU (2014) THE INVESTIGATION OF THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GMO) MAIZE (Zea mays L.) ON SWISS ALBINO MICE. JUNE 2014, 25 Pages

22. Kiliç A, Akay MT. (2008) A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem Toxicol. 2008 Mar;46(3):1164-70.

23. Hasan Kiliçgün, Cebrail Gürsul, Mukadder Sunar, Gülden Gökşen (2013) The Comparative Effects of Genetically Modified Maize and Conventional Maize on Rats J Clin Anal Med ;4(2): 136-9

24. MA Konovalova, VA Blinov (2006) Influence of genetically modified soybean in mice and their offspring. Commercial Biotechnology 2006

25. Konovalova, MA, VA Blinov (2007) Morphometric parameters and features of the spectrum Blood enzymes mice receiving GENETICALLY MODIFIED SOY. All-Russia Symposium TRANSGENIC PLANTS AND BIOSAFETY Moscow, October 22 – 25, page 48

26. Konovalova MA, Potemkin EG (2007) Influence of genetically modified soybean on transport of carbohydrates in tissue.

27. Kuzmin, J. Yu, A. Kuzmin, and N. Pasieshvili (2012) Histological and Hormonal Features of Ovaries in an Experiment at Application of GMO-Soya in Nutrition. Journal of Research. 2012. № 4

28. Magaña-Gómez JA, Cervantes GL, Yepiz-Plascencia G, de la Barca AM. (2008) Pancreatic response of rats fed genetically modified soybean J Appl Toxicol. Mar;28(2):217-26.

29. Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MB, Serafini S, Tiberi C, Gazzanelli G. (2002) Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Funct. Aug;27(4):173-80.

30. Manuela Malatesta, Chiara Caporaloni, Luigia Rossi, Serafina Battistelli, Marco BL Rocchi, Francesco Tonucci, and Giancarlo Gazzanelli (2002) Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean J Anat. November; 201(5): 409–415

31. Malatesta M., Biggiogera M., Manuali E., Rocchi M.B., Baldelli B., Gazzanelli G.(2003) Fine structural analysis of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on GM soybean. Eur J Histochem. 47,3858.

32. Malatesta M, Tiberi C, Baldelli B, Battistelli S, Manuali E, Biggiogera M. (2005) Reversibility of hepatocyte nuclear modifications in mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem. Jul-Sep;49(3):237-42.

33. Malatesta M, Boraldi F, Annovi G, Baldelli B, Battistelli S, Biggiogera M, Quaglino D. (2008) A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. Nov;130(5):967-77.

34. Maligin AG, Ermakova IV (2008) Soy diet suppresses reproductive function rodents. Modern problems of science and education № 6. (Annex “Biological sciences”). – C. 26

35. Nazarova AF, Ermakova IV (2010) Effect of soy diet on reproductive function and testosterone levels in rats and hamsters. Academy Trinitarism, № 77-6567, publ.15788, 12.02.

36. SG Nimbueva, R. Shirokov, SA Polyakov, SD Evgaldaev (2012) Influence of long term use of genetically modified soybeans on some morphofunctional indicators in pancreas of rats in the experiment. Articles XVII International Ecological Student Conference “Ecology Russia and adjacent territories “: in 2 volumes. Volume 2 / Novosibirsk State. Univ. Novosibirsk, 2012. Pages 119-120.

37. Oliveri et al (2006) Temporary depression of transcription in mouse preimplantation embryos from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry. Lake Maggiore(Italy), Sept.7- 10.

38. Hanaa ORABY, Mahrousa KANDIL, Nermeen SHAFFIE, Inas GHALY (2014) Biological impact of feeding rats with a genetically modified-based diet. Turk J Biol (2014) 38:

39. Séralini GE, Cellier D, de Vendomois JS.(2007) New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. May;52(4):596-602.

40. Gilles-Eric Séralini, Emilie Clair, Robin Mesnage, Steeve Gress, Nicolas Defarge, Manuela Malatesta, Didier Hennequin and Joël Spiroux de Vendômois (2014) Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environmental Sciences Europe , 26:14

41. AV Surov, NY Feoktistov, MV Ushakov, AV Gureeva (2010) Changing the physiological parameters of mammals feeding genetically modified ingredients of vegetable origin. Institution of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Ecology and Evolution behalf ANSevertsov RAS (IEE RAS)

42. Vecchio L, Cisterna B, Malatesta M, Martin TE, Biggiogera M. (2004) Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem. Oct-Dec;48(4):448-54.

43. Irena M Zdziarski, John W Edwards, Judy Carman, Adrian Jones, Marni Spillanie, Ysabella Van Sebille, Julie I Haynes (2012) GM feed and its effect on the stomach mucosa of rat. 6th Australian Health and Medical Research Congress 2012

44. ZHOU Ze-wei et al. (2012) Comprehensive Evaluation on Functions & Safety of Imported GM Soybean Using BDI-GS System Soybean Science Oct. Vol. 31 No 5″
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1781
Points : 5111
Reputation : 2559
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 24
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:56 pm

Newly Unsealed Documents Reveal EPA & Monsanto Always Knew Round-Up Was Deadly Toxic

If you get all of your news from mainstream media and cable TV infotainment, then you’re probably unaware that glyphosate (the active ingredient in RoundUp herbicide) has been linked to cancer. The World Health Organization stated in March that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen, and California will soon label it as such.

The MSM addict will also be unaware that long-term exposure to glyphosate—even tiny amounts deemed “safe” by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—can lead to liver and kidney damage.

The “safe” level of glyphosate for U.S. drinking water was set at 0.7 ug/L in 1994, and this has not been revised, despite studies over the years showing glyphosate’s toxicity. For comparison, the European Union’s safe glyphosate level for drinking water is 0.1 ug/L.

Several countries have banned or restricted the herbicide’s use, and other leading nations are considering legislative bans.

Nowhere is glyphosate more prevalent than in the U.S., which uses 20% of the world’s RoundUp, or more than 280 million pounds per year. These incredible figures have to do with the fact that Monsanto’s GMO “RoundUp Ready” brands now comprise most of the corn and soybean crops grown in the U.S. This has brought staggering profits to the multinational corporation that now controls vast swaths of the global food supply.

As more research is carried out, we are finding that glyphosate is far more toxic than its maker Monsanto, along with corrupted federal agencies, have led us to believe.

Now the grand deception has been confirmed.

Forty years ago the biotech giant began its own research on glyphosate, and these studies have just been unearthed. The documents reveal that Monsanto always knew about the human health hazards of glyphosate.


“There is now an enormous cache of evidence on both scientific and legal grounds that Monsanto in fact conducted numerous studies in the 1970s and 1980s on glyphosate’s toxicity and health risks and intentionally sealed this research from independent and public review and scrutiny.”

Equally astonishing is the fact that this body of research was given to EPA, who hid it from the public at Monsanto’s demand on the basis of proprietary trade secrets.

The EPA sat on these documents for decades, but the dedication of independent research scientist Anthony Samsel pierced that shroud of secrecy. After trying unsuccessfully to gain access through Freedom of Information requests, Samsel managed to acquire the research documents through his senator’s office.

Samsel and his co-investigator, Dr. Stephanie Seneff of MIT, analyzed 15,000 pages of scientific documents covering Monsanto’s complete glyphosate research. They have concluded that Monsanto’s claims of safety are patently false, and it knew that glyphosate was responsible for a variety of cancers and organ failures.

When the company’s research showed adverse effects, it used deceitful tricks to hide and obscure those conclusions, so the lackluster EPA would simply nod its head in acquiescence.

Monsanto misrepresented the data and deliberately covered up data to bring the product [glyphosate] to market,” said Samsel in an interview.

Samsel and Seneff will be presenting their findings in a peer-reviewed paper approved for publication this month, titled Glyphosate Pathways to Modern Diseases IV: Cancer and Related Pathologies.

In the meantime, analyst Richard Gale and documentarian Gary Null provide a comprehensive review of the scientists’ devastating findings.


“In order to minimize and cancel out its adverse findings, Samsel explained that Monsanto had relied upon earlier historical animal control data, toxicological research with lab animals afflicted with cancer and organ failures, and completely unrelated to glyphosate. In some cases the control animals displayed kidney, liver and pancreatic diseases. Many of Monsanto’s own studies required the inclusion of extraneous studies in order to cancel out damaging results. This is not an uncommon industry habit, particularly in toxicological science. It enables corporations to mask undesirable outcomes and make claims that observable illnesses and disease are spontaneous occurrences without known causal factors. 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. By ignoring cause and effect relationships behind the onset of multiple cancers and other life-threatening diseases throughout many of its research trials, Monsanto engaged in a radical scientific denialism that has since raked in tens of billions of dollars.

In addition, Monsanto’s studies included doses from low to high range. Samsel observed that low glyphosate doses were equally if not more toxic than higher doses. The company later discontinued low dose trials, relying only on higher levels because it is customarily assumed to have greater toxicological risks. Samsel’s observation has recently been confirmed by a study published in the August issue of the Environmental Health Journal by scientists at Kings College London and the University of Caen in France. 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 altered over 4000 gene clusters in the livers and kidneys of rats. These alterations, the study reports, “were consistent with fibrosis, necrosis, phospholipidosis, mitochondria membrane dysfunction and ischemia.”[14] Consequently low doses of Roundup are far more toxic than US EPA limits.

During its years investigating glyphosate’s bioactivity, Monsanto conducted hundreds of trials on mice, rats, beagle dogs, rabbits and other life. Among the many cancers and diseases Monsanto’s own research found associated with glyphosate are:

Adenoma cancer in the pituitary gland

Glioma tumors in the brain

Reticular cell sarcomas in the heart

Malignant tumors in the lungs

Salivary mandibular reticular cell carcinoma

Metastatic sarcomas of the lymph gland

Prostate carcinoma

Cancer of the bladder

Thyroid carcinoma

Adrenal reticulum cell sarcomas

Cortical adenomas

Basal cell squamous skin tumors

In female mammals there were cancers of the lung, liver, thymus, stomach, bladder adrenal glands, ovaries, colon, uterus, parathyroid and mammary glands.

Samsel and Seneff also noticed that Monsanto had conducted many long-term studies, as much as two years, on mice and rats. When Gilles-Eric Seralini and his French team reproduced and extended the length of Monsanto’s 3-month GMO maize rat-fed study for the life of the animals, they observed profuse cancer and tumor development started after the 4th month of the study. Monsanto continues to stand by its 3-month study as sufficient proof of GM maize’s safety. Yet the thoroughness and variety of Monsanto’s research operations should give strong reason to suspect that Monsanto has likewise conducted long term studies and knows all too well the deleterious effects of its pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified crops.

One of Monsanto’s claims is that glyphosate doesn’t bio-accumulate in tissues, rapidly bio-degrades and is excreted from the body readily. Contrary to this claim, Monsanto carried out meticulous studies to determine levels of accumulation and the organs, tissues and cells glyphosate reaches. Glyphosate was radio labeled with carbon 14 and given in 10 mg doses to seven groups of animals, male and female. After only 24 hours, the toxic chemical was found in the lungs and all body fluids: lymph, blood, urine and cerebral spinal fluid. Glyphosate also accumulated in the bone by 30 ppm and in the bone marrow by 4 ppm. Monsanto’s studies were comprehensive. It found an accumulation of the chemical in red cells, thyroid, uterus, colon, testes and ovaries, shoulder muscle, nasal mucosa, heart, lung, small intestine, abdominal muscle and the eyes.

Samsel and Seneff noted that the bioaccumuilation in the pancreas was not reported. Why would such meticulous efforts be made to measure radio labeled carbon 14 laced glyphosate levels in all the other organs, tissues and bodily fluids and then ignore the pancreas? The scientists believe this was deliberate.”

Monsanto developed glyphosate in 1973, at a time when many of its products such as dioxin, saccharin and the herbicide Lasso, were being banned or facing intense scrutiny.

As sales were falling and profits taking a hit, Monsanto put all its chips into RoundUp. Through an enormous onslaught of falsified data and unscrupulous research, Monsanto got the green light from health regulators and proceeded to spread its toxic product across the country and the world.

If Sansel and Seneff manage to voice their findings through the scientific community and alternative media, they just may be able to stand strong against the immense noise machine of biotech’s propaganda network.

Monsanto’s body of falsified research and its willful poisoning of the human population on the altar of profit are tantamount to crimes against humanity. The EPA’s withholding of this damning evidence, putting “proprietary data” above human health, also constitutes a grievous crime.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1781
Points : 5111
Reputation : 2559
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 24
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

Post by lizardking on Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:57 pm

Major Lawsuit Against Monsanto Completely Blacked out by Media

What happens when one courageous attorney and a few citizens try to take down Monsanto? The MSM doesn’t cover it, for starters.

Efforts to publicize a class action lawsuit against Monsanto for false advertising it’s best-selling herbicide Roundup filed in Los Angeles County Court on April 20, 2015 have been rejected by almost every mainstream media outlet.

It’s no different than Fox, NBC, CNN, or ABC refusing to cover the DARK ACT which would give Monsanto legal immunity and disallow states to demand GMO labeling.

You would think that coverage of something the whole world wants to see – the first step toward the successful downfall of Monsanto –would be a hot news item; a newsworthy tidbit that every paper, radio station, and blog would want to spread across their pages with double bold headlines. But wait. . . just six corporations own ALL of the media in America, so there isn’t much luck there.

Matthew Phillips, the attorney suing Monsanto in California for false advertising on Roundup bottles, has asked the LA Times, New York Times, Huffington Post, CNN, and Reuters, one of the world’s largest news agencies to report on the lawsuit (Case No: BC 578 942), and most enforced a total media blackout.

When I spoke with Phillips over the phone, he said that he has tried posting the suit in Wikipedia’s Monsanto litigation section, but it keeps ‘disappearing.’ He says that he has also noticed posts on Facebook about this lawsuit get removed.

Phillips points out that as long as Monsanto can keep this lawsuit off of most of America’s radar, then his client base would be relegated to just the citizens of California.

If other attorneys were to follow his template-style lawsuit, which he wrote in English, devoid of extraneous legal-speak to encourage others to also take action against Monsanto, then suddenly the plaintiff count could be closer to several million. That is if you were to tally up all the citizens in the US who have purchased a bottle of Roundup from their local DIY store (Lowe’s, Home Depot or Ace Hardware, for example) in the last four years, not suspecting it could demolish their gut health.

Another possibility, according to Phillips, is that Monsanto could try to bump the case up to federal court in order to try to side-step a likely adverse judgment. But in this case the class action suit would also be open to residents other than those of just California. This is surely an idea that Monsanto doesn’t want seeded in the American psyche.

Phillips is extremely confident he has the goods on Monsanto in this case, and barring a sold out judge:

“This is a slam-dunk lawsuit that exposes Monsanto for LYING about Roundup. Contrary to the label, Roundup does indeed target and kill enzymes found in humans — in our gut bacteria — and this explains America’s chronic indigestion!”

His enthusiasm is palpable, as many well-known scientists and professors emeritus have offered to be key witnesses in this suit when it goes to trial. The attorney says he refuses to ‘settle’ the case and hopes that 49 additional attorneys in 49 states use his case as an example. He joked:

“When we allege that Roundup’s targeted enzyme is found in humans, it’s like alleging that the Golden Gate Bridge is found in California.”

The facts of the case really are that obvious.

Phillips also states that ‘false advertising’ and ‘misleading’ are synonyms in California law, so the fact that Monsanto has stated that there are enzymes in its product that don’t target humans – well that’s beyond just misleading. This obvious misjudgment by Monsanto is a well-known secret among many anti-GM scientists. This enzyme is definitely found in humans.

Here is how ‘misleading’ Monsanto’s statement that, “Round Up targets an enzyme only found in plants and not in humans or animals,” truly is:

EPSP synthase, also known as (3-phosphoshikimate 1-carboxyvinyltransferase) is found in the microbiota that reside in our intestinal tracts, and therefore the enzyme is “found in humans and animals.” It is partly responsible for immunity activation and even helps our gut and our brains communicate with one another.

EPSP synthase is among other beneficial microbes that produce neurometabolites that are either neurotransmitters or modulators of neurotransmission.

“These could act directly on nerve terminals in the gut or via ‘transducer’ cells such as enterochromaffin cells present throughout the intestinal tract and are accessible to microbes and in contact with afferent and efferent nerve terminals. Some of these cells may also signal and therefore modulate immune cell activity.”

Furthermore, although this will not be addressed in Phillip’s lawsuit:

“There is increasing evidence that exposure to Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup, may be an underlying cause of autism spectrum disorders (see [19]). Glyphosate, the active ingredient, acts through inhibition of the 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS synthase) enzyme in the shikimate pathway that catalyses the production of aromatic amino acids. This pathway does not exist in animals, but it does exist in bacteria, including those that live in the gut and are now known to be as much a part of our body as our own cells. A widely accepted dogma is that glyphosate is safe due to the lack of the EPSPS enzyme in our body. This however does not hold water now that the importance of our microbiota to our physiology is clear.”

Though Monsanto is only being sued for false advertising in this case, it is an important precedent to set in order to eventually take down one of the biotech giants that is poisoning the planet. It should send a clear message to Dow, Bayer, Cargill, and Syngenta as well.

Please show the corporate media that we will not be silenced, and pass this information along however you can. If you live in California, consider being a part of the suit yourself. If you are an attorney, Phillips is happy to discuss his suit with you in hopes that you will add your state to the growing list of those standing up to Big Ag.

You can read more about Phillips’ his case, here. The plaintiff also has a go fund me site for this lawsuit.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1781
Points : 5111
Reputation : 2559
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 24
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

Post by Thinkforyourself on Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:21 pm

Here is a great quote from a new Guardian article, which attacks the current mass produced and cruel industrial scale food system:



''For decades now, any challenge to the contention that the best way to deal with food poverty is to upscale production and drive down prices has been dismissed as selfish, Marie Antoinette-style heresy coming from an affluent elite that has never struggled to put food on the household plate. Get real, we’re told. Only a full-blown industrial food model predicated on large volumes and low prices can feed a booming world population.

If we factor in the hidden costs to society, from public health to climate change, it doesn't constitute a bargain

But by going along with this pseudo-democratic, apparently inclusive propaganda, we’ve aided and abetted a food system that wrecks the environment, treats animals inhumanely, makes serfs of workers, undermines the genuine artisan, seriously threatens our nation’s food security, diverts money from local businesses to distant shareholders’ dividends and cooks up public health problems. And all the while it is spawning a never-ending stream of ever more innovative, painstakingly engineered products that just happen to have the effect of making us fat and ill. This bankrupt paradigm is failing hopelessly but it supports and justifies the activities of the real parasites on our food system: the corporate food producers who so profitably churn out huge quantities of bad quality, nutritionally compromised food and drink at unprecedentedly low prices.''

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/03/cheap-easy-food-easyjet-stelios-haji-iannou

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2080
Points : 5768
Reputation : 2805
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 26
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

Post by Thinkforyourself on Sat Feb 20, 2016 7:05 pm

Monsanto's Pesticide Is Top Suspect Behind Mysterious Kidney Disease




(Photo: Spraying Crops via Shutterstock; Edited: LW / TO)

For several years now, a mysterious kidney disease epidemic has been underway in several parts of the global South. The victims are young, male outdoor workers - far from the usual demographic of older patients with sedentary lifestyles and a history of diabetes or high blood pressure. In Central America, thousands of young men who work in the sugar cane plantations have died of failing kidneys; in Sri Lanka and parts of rural India, it is rice farmers who are similarly afflicted. Although the "mystery disease" has garnered medical attention - at first as an anomaly, but increasingly as an inexplicable mass killer - for over 20 years now, the causes remain unknown. In fact, the disease goes by the moniker "chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology" (CKDu) to distinguish it from the ordinary form, CKD. 


Numerous medical studies have considered heat stress (prolonged exposure to the sun, often in conjunction with insufficient access to drinking water) and exposure to chemicals in pesticides and fertilizers to be possible causes. However, the results are far from conclusive. What is conclusively evident, however, is that there are an inexcusable number of lives being cut short with no concrete effort at prevention. Most evidence points to one (or a combination) of the two above-mentioned factors. Accordingly, it would be relatively simple for interested parties to devise a preventive strategy on this basis. However, the response has been woefully inadequate.


Although definitive knowledge of causal factors is lacking, a name that is repeated in medical papers is that of the pesticide glyphosate. Marketed most notably by the Monsanto Corporation under the brand name Roundup, this chemical has been noted in academic literature, as well as in the media, as likely to be an aggravating factor.


A paper co-authored by Channa Jayasumana, an academic who has published several papers on the issue, says, "Results being produced through the current study that is ongoing in the California State University, Long Beach are highly supportive of this hypothesis." On being confronted with his findings, Monsanto has, predictably, categorically rejected the veracity of these findings. Subsequently, the Sri Lankan government banned a number of agrochemicals, including Roundup; however, their enforcement has been placed on hold due to severe political opposition.


Meanwhile, Central American activist groups such as Fairfood International have hauled up the Bacardi Corporation for sourcing sugar from plantations whose workers are afflicted with CKDu. The inhumane working conditions, specifically the long hours and heat stress, have been the focus of these campaigns. Bacardi has responded by recognizing the risks posed by CKDu (or CKDnt, as it is commonly referred to in the Central American context), but by denying the claim that its supply chain extends back to afflicted regions.


The problem caused by CKDu is further exacerbated by the poverty of the people affected and by the expensive nature of the treatment. The treatment is often unaffordable, and the workers often cannot opt out of the profession, leaving them trapped with the disease. In an interview with Sasha Chavkin from The Center for Public Integrity, a Nicaraguan laborer who lost his father to CKDu and was himself diagnosed with the condition at age 17, having worked in the fields since the age of 14, explained his helplessness, saying, "We work there because the company is the only option we have." As a result of their poverty, farmers in Sri Lanka are alsohesitant to discontinue their use of pesticides, as it would result in a decrease in yield.


In Andhra Pradesh in India, the issue is compounded by the fact that the closest hospital with dialysis facilities is 200 kilometers away, and in the words of a village leader, the villagers "cannot go to that place because of lack of money, so they are staying here and dying here." Afraid of whatever unknown reason that is causing all the deaths, and feeling helpless to do anything about it, people are abandoning their villages in search of a safer place to live.


Meanwhile, as many as 40,000 Sri Lankan rice farmers and up to 37 percent of the population in villages in Uddanam District, Andhra Pradesh, are slowly and painfully dying, according to The Center for Public Integrity. CKDu is already one of the leading causes of death in Central American countries such as El Salvador and Nicaragua, overtaking the number of deaths caused by HIV and diabetes combined. It is only a matter of time before it reaches similar proportions in South Asia, through a combination of ignorance and inaction.

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2080
Points : 5768
Reputation : 2805
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 26
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

Post by Thinkforyourself on Sat Feb 20, 2016 7:11 pm

Scientist who discovered that GMO's cause tumors wins lawsuit

Sean Adl-Tabatabai
yournewswire.com

A court has ruled that French Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini was correct when he concluded that GMO food, when fed to rats, caused serious health problems including tumors. 

March-against-monsanto.com reports:

Now, Prof. Séralini is in the news again - this time for winning a major court victory in a libel trial that represents the second court victory for Séralini and his team in less than a month. 

On November 25, the High Court in Paris indicted Marc Fallous, the former chairman of France's Biomolecular Engineering Commission, for "forgery" and the "use of forgery." The details of the case have not been officially released.

But according to this article from the Séralini website, Fallous used or copied the signature of a scientist whose name was used, without his agreement, to argue that Séralini and his co-workers were wrong in their studies on Monsanto products, including GM corn.
A sentencing for Fallous is expected in June 2016.


Second Court Victory Reached 

This was the second such court victory for the professor's team, following a November 6 victory in a defamation lawsuit over an article in the French Marianne magazine which categorized the Séralini team research as "scientific fraud". 

What few people realize about the original Séralini study on GMOs is that it was only retracted after a serious PR offensive from Monsanto and the Biotech industry, one that included the creation of a whole new position on the original Food and Toxicology journal: Associate Editor for Biotechnology. 

The new position was actually filled by a former Monsanto employee who helped convince the journal's author to retract the study. 

Now more than 2 years later, these are the facts: Séralini and his team's original study has been republished in a different peer-reviewed journal, Environmental Sciences Europe; they have won two key lawsuits against those who have attempted to ruin their reputations; and a recent peer-reviewed letter even asserted that Séralini and his team may have been right after all on their discovery showing tumors in lab rats fed GMOs. 

In other words, the jury is still out on GMO safety to say the very least, just as countless independent scientists have warned, and Séralini's study stands as yet another cause for concern with the ongoing GMO experiment. It also shows the lengths that the Biotech industry will go to in order to discredit any independent science that clashes with their own version of science.

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2080
Points : 5768
Reputation : 2805
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 26
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Complete History Of Monsanto, “The World’s Most Evil Corporation”

Post by George Tirebiter on Thu Mar 17, 2016 4:12 pm

avatar
George Tirebiter

Posts : 55
Points : 853
Reputation : 133
Join date : 2016-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

Post by lizardking on Wed Mar 23, 2016 6:13 pm

Is the USDA Just a Corporate Lobbyist Group?

By Dr. Mercola

Many, if not most, of our regulatory agencies have a long history of protecting industry interests over public and environmental health. Most recently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has come under increasing scrutiny following mounting charges of harassment and censorship.
In the first week of November 2015, Jonathan Lundgren, who spent the last 11 years working as an entomologist at the USDA, filed a whistleblower complaint against the agency, claiming he'd suffered retaliation after speaking out about research showing that neonicotinoids had adverse effects on bees.1
In the U.S., nearly all corn, about 90 percent of canola, and approximately half of all soybeans are treated with neonicotinoids. As the use of these pesticides has gone up, bee and Monarch butterfly populations have plummeted.
After publicly discussing his findings, Lundgren claims that "USDA managers blocked publication of his research, barred him from talking to the media, and disrupted operations at the laboratory he oversaw."
The Washington Post recently published an article that details Lundgren's complaints and the retaliation waged against him.2
According to Agri-Pulse,3 the Agriculture Department's inspector general, Phyllis Fong, has now received so many complaints about harassment and censorship, she's opening a broad investigation to assess "whether there is a systemic problem in the department."

Charges of Censorship Mount Against USDA


Food and Water Watch4 recently followed up on this issue, noting that "when independent, government scientists produce research that threatens corporate agribusinesses, the USDA — according to at least 10 government scientists — censors the results, waters down the findings and punishes the researchers."
Jonathan Lundgren is one of these 10 scientists. The other 9 have all chosen to remain anonymous for fear of even more reprisals.
Lundgren's research at the USDA shows that neonicotinoids are instrumental in the decline of bee and Monarch butterfly populations. But his work, and his criticism against factory farming, goes even deeper than that.
He has become convinced and has spoken out about the fact that toxic insecticides like neonics are not some sort of necessary evil. We don't actually need these types of chemicals at all in agriculture.
As he notes in the video above, organic or regenerative farming actually produces higher yields and requires less land. This, I believe, even more so than his critique of neonics, poses a major threat to corporate agribusinesses.
It does not, however, detract from the USDA's mission, which is why the agency's mistreatment of scientists like Lundgren is so revealing.

Whistleblower Sets Up Nonprofit Science Lab and Sustainable Farm


Fortunately, Lundgren has become very outspoken about his whistleblower suit. So much so, the Shafeek Nader Trust presented him with a civic courage award last November, for taking an open stand against the USDA.
Moving forward, he's also setting up two new businesses: Blue Dasher Farm, which he intends to be a model for large-scale sustainable farming using crop diversity and other regenerative methods, and Ecdysis, a nonprofit science lab for independent research.
According to Lundgren:5 "I don't think science can be done, at least on this subject, in any of the conventional ways. I think we need truly independent scientists — not funded by government or industry."

USDA Policy Encourages Suppression of Unpopular Science


This charge was made by Jeff Ruch, Executive Director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), who on March 26, 2015 filed a Petition For Rulemaking with the Secretary of Agriculture.6 (PEER is also the alliance representing Lundgren's whistleblower case.) In it, he notes that:

"The stated purpose of USDA's scientific integrity policy is to ensure 'the highest level of integrity in all aspects of the executive branch's involvement with scientific and technological processes and analyses.'
However, the Policy fails to clearly prohibit political suppression and interference. While the Policy defines political suppression and interference, it does not include these acts in its definition of misconduct.
The USDA, by its own admission, has yet to develop procedures for handling scientific integrity complaints. To compound the problem, an overly broad provision within the Policy actively encourages USDA to suppress scientific work for political reasons.
The provision states that scientists "should refrain from making statements that could be construed as being judgments of or recommendations on USDA or any other federal government policy, either intentionally or inadvertently."
USDA management routinely relies up this vague but expansively worded provision a pretext for suppressing technical work solely because the scientific conclusions expressed draw the ire of USDA corporate stakeholders."

The Case of USDA Scientist Jeffery Pettis


The case of Jeffery Pettis adds even more weight to the notion that there's a definitive agenda at work within the USDA to officially downplay any risks associated with neonicotinoids.
Pettis, who like Lundgren is an entymologist, headed up the USDA's bee laboratory in Beltsville for 9 years. His career was suddenly derailed after he presented testimony about neonics before the House Agriculture Committee in the spring of 2014. As reported by The Washington Post:7

"Pettis had developed what he describes as a 'significant' line of research showing that neonics compromise bee immunity.
But in his opening remarks before Congress, he focused on the threat posed by the varroa mite, often put forward by chemical company representatives as the main culprit behind bee deaths.
Only under questioning by subcommittee Chairman Austin Scott (R-Ga.) did Pettis shift. Even if varroa were eliminated tomorrow, he told Scott, 'we'd still have a problem.' Neonics raise pesticide concerns for bees 'to a new level,' he said. About two months later, Pettis was demoted, losing all management responsibilities for the Beltsville lab ....
Pettis said, the USDA's congressional liaison told him that the Agriculture Committee wanted him to restrict his testimony to the varroa mite. 'In my naivete,' he said, 'I thought there were going to be other people addressing different parts of the pie. I felt used by the whole process, used by Congress.'
The hearing was 'heavily weighted toward industry,' he said, 'and they tried to use me as a scientist, as a way of saying, 'See, it's the varroa mite,' when that's not how I see it.'... He said he walked up to Scott afterward, to make small talk, and the congressman 'said something about how I hadn't 'followed the script.'"

Is USDA Shielding Corporations Like Monsanto?


While you would think that the USDA exists to protect you against the vagaries of industry, this is not the case. The chemical and agricultural industries spend millions of dollars to lobby for regulations that are favorable to them, and there's a constantly revolving door between the agency and private corporations.
For example, USDA Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is widely regarded as a shill for Monsanto, and he's always been a strong supporter of genetically engineered (GE) crops, regardless of the scientific evidence against it.
The undemocratic and highly unpopular 2005 seed pre-emption bill was also Vilsack's brainchild. The law stripped local government's right to regulated GE seed, including where GE can be grown. Overall, Vilsack's record is one of aiding and abetting concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) or factory farms and promoting both genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and animal cloning.
Roger Beachy is another example. Between 2009 and 2011, he was the head of National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the USDA's main research arm, and he too is a proponent of GMOs, and has ties to Monsanto. As reported in a previous Grist article:8

"In his short stint at USDA, Beachy never hid his enthusiasm for ag biotechnology — or his disdain for organic ag. When I ... asked him about funding for organic research, he came up with a novel slander against synthetics-free ag: 'I'm concerned about the safety of organic food … I'm concerned about the issue of microbial contamination with organic.'"
To get an idea of just how broad and deep Monsanto's reach is, take a look at the following chart. Over the years, this biotech giant has successfully infiltrated an ever increasing number of high-level federal regulatory positions in the U.S. government; many of which are positions meant to protect your food safety, including a number of top positions within the USDA.



Top USDA Official Goes to Work for DuPont


The most recent person to walk their way through the revolving door between government and industry is Krysta Harden, who spent over 6 years at the USDA — first as chief of staff to Secretary Tom Vilsack, and then deputy secretary. She's  been hired by chemical giant DuPont to head up its "public policy and government affairs strategies" department. You would think this activity would be illegal and prohibited but it is actually encouraged.
The New York Times recently published an in-depth exposé9 on the legal battle fought against DuPont for the past 15 years over PFOA contamination and its toxic effects. The Intercept also published a three-part exposé10 titled "The Teflon Toxin: Dupont and the Chemistry of Deception" last year, detailing DuPont's history of covering up the facts.
Earlier this month, they came out with a fourth part in the series,11 covering DuPont's contamination of the Cape Fear River with "a new generation of replacement compounds" that likely have "the same chemical performance properties as the older generation of PFCs."
DuPont is now working on a merger with Dow, and once the merger is completed, that chemical-seed company will be even larger than Monsanto. Considering DuPont's history of covering up the toxic effects of their products, this gigantic entity is going to Monsanto in terms of being a serious threat, and the most perniciously evil company on the planet.

Federal Agencies Aid and Abet Corporate Stronghold


So why exactly is a "public servant" like Harden supporting and defending this toxic corporate cesspool? Probably because she's no stranger to playing both sides of the field. In the 1990s, she worked for Gordley Associates,12 a government relations corporation that handles "legislative initiatives" for the American Soybean Association. Now, as noted by Mother Jones:13

"[H]er recent experience as a top U.S. agriculture policy official may come in handy. The anticipated DowDuPont agrichemical/seed division would not only own a massive position in the two most lucrative U.S. seed markets — corn (41 percent market share) and soybeans (38 percent); it would also sell 17 percent of the pesticides consumed globally ...
Citing 'less competition in the marketplace and fewer choices for farmers,' the National Farmers Union has urged the Department of Justice to block the deal. Because of such pushback, an analyst ... wrote in a December 14 note to investors, 'We expect regulatory and political challenges will be greatest in ag.'
Going forward, a combined DowDuPont ag division would deal directly with the USDA, which (nominally) vets all new GMO seed products before they can be planted on US farm fields. Both DuPont and Dow boast of robust ag-biotech product pipelines going forward."
There are many other examples in addition to these. The problem is quite clear. The revolving doors between industry and the agencies created to regulate them have led to the breakdown of these agencies.
They no longer fulfill their stated functions, and instead they aid and abet some of the most toxic and harmful industries on the planet to continue business as usual, even when their own scientists are raising red flags. They've simply become the middlemen who legalize fraud and unconscionable corporate behavior.

FOIA Lawsuit Reveals White House Administration Killed FOIA Reform


If it seems like virtually all federal agencies are working against transparency, it's because they are. Vice News14 recently drove home this point in an article discussing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that led to the disclosure of documents showing the White House Administration has "worked aggressively behind the scenes to scuttle congressional reforms designed to give the public better access to information possessed by the federal government."
This despite, and completely contrary to, its own assertion that President Obama's administration is "the most transparent administration in history." According to Vice News:

"The documents were obtained by the Freedom of the Press Foundation ... using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) — the same law Congress was attempting to reform. The group sued the DOJ last December after its FOIA requests went unanswered for more than a year.
The documents confirm longstanding suspicions about the administration's meddling, and lay bare for the first time how it worked to undermine FOIA reform bills that ...were unanimously passed by both the House and Senate in 2014 — yet were never put up for a final vote.
Moreover, a separate set of documents ... provides new insight into how the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also tried to disrupt Congress's FOIA reform efforts, which would have required those agencies to be far more transparent when responding to records requests.
The disclosures surface days before Sunshine Week, an annual celebration of open government, and a renewed effort by the House and Senate to improve the FOIA by enacting the very same reforms contained in the earlier House and Senate bills — the seventh attempt in at least 10 years by lawmakers to amend the transparency law. But the administration is again working to derail the legislation, according to congressional staffers."

Most Transparent Administration in History? I Think Not



On his first day in office, President Obama signed a presidential memorandum instructing all government agencies to "adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government."
Five years later, in 2014, the FOIA Oversight and Implementation Act was brought forth, which would have codified the President's memorandum into law. The bill passed by a unanimous vote, 410-0. But then all progress stopped. According to Vice, the documents show that it was actually the White House Administration itself that put the brakes on, and "strongly opposed passage" of the House bill. Why?

"The White House claimed it would increase the FOIA backlog, result in astronomical costs, and cause unforeseen problems with processing requests ... [Committee Chairman Jason] Chaffetz, who co-sponsored the latest FOIA reform bill passed by the House in January, told VICE News in a statement that the Obama administration's promises of transparency have never materialized.
'President Obama promised the 'most transparent' administration in history. I see no evidence to support that statement,' Chaffetz said. 'Time and time again this administration has aggressively thwarted efforts for a more open and transparent government.'"
There's more to the story, and if you're interested, I suggest reading through the original article. The point I'm trying to make here is that the push-back against transparency goes all the way to the top, and we're actually moving in the wrong direction. This is particularly true when it comes to toxic chemicals.
While it's becoming clear that we need far more stringent regulations on chemicals, proposed updates to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act may actually hinder efforts to protect Americans against hazardous chemicals by nullifying chemical regulations enacted by individual states.
The Senate's bill (The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act), which was passed in December 2015, makes it more difficult for states to regulate chemicals once the EPA has evaluated them. It also prohibits states from taking any action against any chemical that the EPA is currently investigating.
The House version (the TSCA Modernization Act) — which preempts states from regulating new chemicals, and is supported by more than 100 industry groups — was passed in June 2015. At present, they're trying to reconcile the two bills.15

The Death of Democracy, Knowledge, and Science


Our society is largely built on the concept that science can help us make rational decisions that serve the people and promote public health. But now we're facing a world so rife with corruption and conflict of interest facilitated by the very sciences that were supposed to keep us healthy, safe, and productive, it's quite clear that we're heading toward more than one proverbial brick wall.
In a sense, the fundamental role of science itself has been hijacked for selfish gain. Looking back, you can now see that the preferred business model of an industry was created first, followed by "scientific evidence" that supports the established business model.
When the science doesn't support the company's economic gains, it's swept under the rug, even if people are dying and the planet is becoming irreparably poisoned as a result. Today we live in a world where chemical companies and biotech giants can easily buy and pay for their own research studies, as well as the lobbying to support whatever legislation they need passed in their favor.
Their tentacles also reach deep within federal agencies, so that even the scientists hired to work on the public's behalf are thwarted as soon as their research clashes with the corporate agenda. Conflicts of interest have become the norm within virtually all fields of science, which creates a completely unworkable — and dangerous — situation in the long run.
The first step toward change is awareness that there's a problem, and whistleblowers like Lundgren make it abundantly clear that the agencies that are there to protect us are not only failing, but are actively working to protect an industry agenda. There are no simple answers to this conundrum, but the reality of the situation must be brought to light nonetheless, and every effort must be made to push for greater transparency and accountability in all areas of government.
Putting an end to the revolving door between private industry and government would be one step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it appears we need a law against it, as public shaming has so far failed to deter any of it.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1781
Points : 5111
Reputation : 2559
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 24
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

Post by lizardking on Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:56 am

How Monsanto Invaded, Occupied and now CONTROLS Government Regulators

By Ethan A. Huff
Global Research, July 12, 2016





If you’ve ever wondered why corporations seem to hold so much sway over our government, look no further than who’s making all the decisions in Washington – and more importantly, where many of these people worked before being handed comfy, high-level positions at top government agencies.

You might be surprised at the number of senior advisors, chiefs of staff, judges, commissioners and others employed at agencies like the Department of Justice (DoJ), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who all have one thing in common: they used to hold executive-level positions at multinational corporations like Monsanto.The infographic below depicts a revolving-door relationship between Monsanto and the federal government that dates back many decades. You’ll probably recognize many of the names on the list, but chances are you had no idea these folks used to work for Monsanto or advocate for its interests before taking key positions of power on the taxpayer dime.


Both conservative and liberal politicians share history of affiliation with Monsanto


Donald Rumsfeld is one of the more prominent names that probably jumps out at you, as this former Secretary of Defense under both Gerald Ford and George W. Bush is remembered as one of the key Bush administration warmongers who helped propel forward the “War on Terror” following 9/11. Rumsfeld also just so happens to have been a former CEO for G.D. Searle, a pharmaceutical company that has since merged with Monsanto.

Another prominent, and probably surprising, name on the list is Clarence Thomas, a U.S. Supreme Court justice who many conservatives respect for his supposedly far-right stances on most issues. Thomas is a former lawyer for Monsanto who cast the deciding vote to hand the contested 2000 election over to George W. Bush.

Michael Taylor, who recently resigned from his position as deputy commissioner of the FDA, is another former attorney for Monsanto who fought on behalf of the company’s interests for seven years. Taylor also served as head of Monsanto’s Washington, D.C., office, an obvious conflict of interest considering the FDA’s job is to regulate the activities of corporations like Monsanto.

The very first Chief Administrator for the EPA, William D. Ruckelshaus, is another Monsanto hack who served on the company’s Board of Directors. Ruckelshaus, who was appointed back in 1970, later went on to become the acting director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and even held the position of Deputy U.S. Attorney General.

The EPA, as you probably already know, has a reputation for being lax in regulating chemicals manufactured by large corporations, and now you know why – from the beginning, the agency was steered by Monsanto operatives to push a very different agenda than environmental protection.



Other key names include:

• Michael Kantor, a Monsanto lawyer and board member who served as campaign chair for the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1992, U.S. Trade Representative from 1993–1996, and U.S. Secretary of Commerce from 1996–1997.

• Margaret Miller, a top Monsanto scientist who oversaw getting the genetically-engineered growth hormone rBGH commercially approved despite a lack of evidence assuring its safety, and who in 1991 was appointed Deputy Director for the FDA.

• Islam Saddiqui, former vice president of CropLife America – a Monsanto affiliate – who was later appointed as Chief Agricultural Negotiator for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

• Anne Veneman, a former board member for the Monsanto biotech subsidiary Calgene, who in 2001 was appointed as head of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

• Rufus Yerxa, former Chief Counsel at Monsanto, who in 1993 was nominated as U.S. Deputy to the World Trade Organization.

• Richard J. Mahoney, former Monsanto CEO for 14 years, who served as Director of the U.S., Soviet, Japanese and Korean Trade Councils, as well as member of the U.S. Government Trade Policy Committee.
avatar
lizardking

Posts : 1781
Points : 5111
Reputation : 2559
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 24
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum