FDA won't allow food to be labeled free of genetic modification

[donnay]

FDA won't allow food to be labeled free of genetic modification

Raw Story
Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:44 CDT


That the Food and Drug Administration is opposed to labeling foods that are genetically modified is no surprise anymore, but a report in the Washington Post indicates the FDA won't even allow food producers to label their foods as being free of genetic modification.

In reporting that the FDA will likely not require the labeling of genetically modified salmon if it approves the food product for consumption, the Post's Lyndsey Layton notes that the federal agency "won't let conventional food makers trumpet the fact that their products don't contain genetically modified ingredients."

    The agency warned the dairy industry in 1994 that it could not use "Hormone Free" labeling on milk from cows that are not given engineered hormones, because all milk contains some hormones.

    It has sent a flurry of enforcement letters to food makers, including B&G Foods, which was told it could not use the phrase "GMO-free" on its Polaner All Fruit strawberry spread label because GMO refers to genetically modified organisms and strawberries are produce, not organisms.

"This to me raises questions about whose interest the FDA is protecting," House Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) told the Post. Kucinich has repeatedly introduced bills in the House that would require the labeling of genetically modified foods.

Continue...

[citizenx]

It seems like you should still be able to state that your strawberries in your  spread were from "organisms" (plants) that were not genetically modified, and that your milk was from cows that were not injected with (additional or artificial) hormones.  Seems like there should be a legal way around this crap.

Damn FDA (no sarcasm).

[Freeski]

Who owns who? I forget.

[citizenx]

Since, they don't do any of their own testing, and since their regualtions were written pretty much by big business for big business, it is pretty clear who "owns" the FDA -- and it ain't us.

[Monkeypox]

Kucinich is trying to do the right thing again.

He's a Socialist, but he's one of the few in Congress who are honest and actually care about the people.

[citizenx]

+1

Agreed.  His heart, if not his head, is in the right place IMO.

[worcesteradam]

once again we see what regulators are really for

[Freeski]

Kucinich is trying to do the right thing again.

He's a Socialist, but he's one of the few in Congress who are honest and actually care about the people.

How can he be an American and a socialist? Socialists don't actually believe in the principles upon which America was found, things like small government.

[citizenx]

Freeski, if we kicked everybody out of the club for having dumb ideas, there wouldn't be any Americans.

[Freeski]

Then I guess we have work to do.

[Dig]

Why does the FDA even exist?

What is their purpose if they cannot even allow us to distinguish between food and genetically modified insanity.

[Monkeypox]

How can they tell us that we don't have the right to know what we're putting in our bodies?  How can they possibly justify that?

[iks83]

Well its fascism. A food producer can put any lable he wants on his product as long as it is true. I bet the FDA wouldnt care if he wrote "Not extracted from Spacealiens" on it. I would go to court if they wont let me lable it GMO free. I really want to hear their justification why not and how a judge would see it. Its totally insane. Why not? The GMO producers are scared because if you have to kinds of the same product side by side and one says GMO free, I bet most people would buy the GMO free one even if it costs a few cents more. So that would force other producers to lable their products as well except those who really have GMO crap in theirs. I think a labeling of GMO products will destroy the GMO giants and thats why the FDA wont allow it.

Now if the labels are allowed its only a matter of time till the GMO contamination will get so serious that all products have GMO stuff in them. Then Monsanto shows up saying it tested a supposed non GMO product and found traces of GMOs. Then they will scream it into the world that all the non GMO labels are false statements.

[Anti_Illuminati]

Why does the FDA even exist?

What is their purpose if they cannot even allow us to distinguish between food and genetically modified insanity.

Now we know why they need terrorist traitors like CIA Blackwater to defend them.  Things like this might actually rightfully endanger the lives (because of the unalienable right of self defense to be able to be free of people threatening to murder them) of tens of thousands of employees working for the NWO.  The FDA is declaring that no one is allowed to prevent themselves from being soft-killed (or just murdered) by the same treasonous fascist corporations who put their logos on the f*cking RUNAMAH in Turkmenistan.

This is the U.S. taking a step further towards the level of tyranny in Turkmenistan.  I REJECT Genetically modified DNA in foods because it is wholesale bioterrorism, sponsored by the puppet U.S. Government.

Well its fascism. A food producer can put any lable he wants on his product as long as it is true. I bet the FDA wouldn't care if he wrote "Not extracted from Spacealiens" on it. I would go to court if they wont let me lable it GMO free. I really want to hear their justification why not and how a judge would see it. Its totally insane. Why not? The GMO producers are scared because if you have to kinds of the same product side by side and one says GMO free, I bet most people would buy the GMO free one even if it costs a few cents more. So that would force other producers to label their products as well except those who really have GMO crap in theirs. I think a labeling of GMO products will destroy the GMO giants and thats why the FDA wont allow it.

Now if the labels are allowed its only a matter of time till the GMO contamination will get so serious that all products have GMO stuff in them. Then Monsanto shows up saying it tested a supposed non GMO product and found traces of GMOs. Then they will scream it into the world that all the non GMO labels are false statements.

David Edwards, director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, told the Post that "extra labeling only confuses the consumer. ... It differentiates products that are not different. As we stick more labels on products that don't really tell us anything more, it makes it harder for consumers to make their choices."

What a disgusting, intellectually insulting sh*tbag fascist traitor.  Guess what motherf*cker, I'm not confused.  Monsanto can burn in hell and shouldn't even exist anywhere on the face of the Earth because it is a REAL BIO-TERRORIST organization (NOT THE FAKE BOOGEYMAN THREATS THAT THE ANSER INSTITUTE UNDER NEO-NAZI FASCIST DR. RUTH A. DAVID PROPAGANDIZED IN THE DARK WINTER PROGRAM.)

Non-GMO labels MAKE IT HARDER FOR FASCIST NEW WORLD ORDER CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS TO SHOVE THEIR BIOWEAPON TRASH DOWN MY THROAT.  BOO-F*CKING-HOO, YOU PEOPLE AREN'T EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE IN BUSINESS ANYWAYS.  MAYBE YOU SHOULD CATCH A CLUE FROM THE RESPONSE YOU GOT FROM PEOPLE IN EGYPT WHO REALLY SAW HOW MUCH OF A THREAT YOU SCUMBAGS WERE.

[Anti_Illuminati]

http://blog.friendseat.com/rosa-delauro-hates-small-farms1/

You May Be Arrested Soon For Growing A Tomato

As our government hands over billions to Wall Street bankers, jobless Americans live in tent cities and collect food stamps in record numbers. Now when we need it the most, growing our own food may be against the law and punishable by a fine of up to $1,000,000. Think I’m joking? Meet Bill HR 875, The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, introduced by Rosa DeLauro whose husband Stanley Greenburg works for Monsanto. The insanity doesn’t stop there—fishing boats, hotdog stands, neighborhood vegetable booths and farmers’ markets will be federally regulated under the same draconian law. As always, the spin is designed to make you (the public) believe these new provisions are for your own good. Under the deceitful guise of protection, the goal of this bill is crystal clear: to prevent us from locally growing our own food so multinational agribusiness can completely control the production and distribution of our food supply. I refer you to the usual suspects—Monsanto, ADM, Sodexo, Tyson, and Smithfield.

This bill is designed to allow corporations, with the help of their hired government guns, to force small competitors (you and me) out of business. This is as evil as it gets, folks. Since the dawn of man we have hunted and farmed our own food——it’s second nature. To be stripped of the most fundamental act of survival is equivalent to the kind of mass enslavement you only read about in history books, like the kind under Pharaohs in ancient Egypt.

Lurking within the maze of technical lawyer-like jargon, the bill places wildly restrictive regulatory incumbrances on the average vegetable growing Joe-The-Plumber, small organic farmer, or anyone for that matter who may one day decide to grow a small garden. The bill would require anyone associated with growing, storing, transporting or processing food to be subject to inspections by federal agents of their property and all records related to food production; you would be required to conduct specials tests, maintain samples and records, and allow government officials to mandate the use of chemical pesticides, fertilizers, specific types of nutrients, packaging, and temperature controls. Violation of any of these provisions would subject the offender to property seizure, imprisonment and fines up to $1,000,000. The implementation of these bogus regulations are designed to be so cost and time prohibitive, no one would bother to grow their own food or risk being jailed and fined for participating in a black market.

Linn Cohen-Cole with Oped News writes:

“The bill is monstrous on level after level – the power it would give to Monsanto, the criminalization of seed banking, the prison terms and confiscatory fines for farmers, the 24 hours GPS tracking of their animals, the easements on their property to allow for warrantless government entry, the stripping away of their property rights, the imposition by the filthy, greedy industrial side of anti-farming international ‘industrial’ standards to independent farms – the only part of our food system that still works, the planned elimination of farmers through all these means.

“The corporations want the land, they want more intensive industrialization, they want the end of normal animals so they can substitute patented genetically engineered ones they own, they want the end of normal seeds and thus of seed banking by farmers or individuals. They want control over all seeds, animals, water, and land.”

[Satyagraha]

This is a WAKE UP CALL for the millions of Americans who shop at local co-ops, local farmer's markets, Whole Foods Markets, Wild Oats Markets, and any other natural foods stores.

Even if they are not AWAKE to the 911 Inside Job, or if they have not paid attention to the other FF's that have been perpetrated, they will PAY ATTENTION to this issue, because this issue will be sitting on their DINNER PLATES, and will affect the food they feed their children.

This is our OPPORTUNITY to make them aware of the people Obama has put in place:
=================================================


Michael Taylor, former Monsanto Attorney, now runs the FDA. He is our FOOD SAFETY CZAR!
The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.

Here's the back story.

When FDA scientists were asked to weigh in on what was to become the most radical and potentially dangerous change in our food supply -- the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods -- secret documents now reveal that the experts were very concerned. Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried "serious health hazards," and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply..."

Elena Kagan, now Supreme Court Justice, was a former attorney working on behalf of MONSANTO.
"... Monsanto, however, didn't back down and appealed the Ninth Circuit's decision to the US Supreme Court. In stepped Elena Kagan, whose role as solicitor general is to look out for the welfare of American citizens in all matters that come before the high court.

Unfortunately, Kagan opted to ditch her duty and instead side with Monsanto. In March 2010, a month before the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case, the solicitor general's office released a legal brief despite the fact that the US government was not a defendant in the case. Monsanto appealed the lower court's decision so the USDA was not party to the suit. The Solicitor General's office produced an amicus brief during the petitioning stage of the appeal at the behest of the Supreme Court. "

=================================================

Pay attention to the bumper stickers you see in the parking lots of the natural foods stores and co-ops... you will see "OBAMA" bumper stickers way more often than McCain or Bush... these are Obama's people by and large, and they need to be aware of the actions of their 'messiah' - the fact that he is presiding over the biggest assault on our food supply in history. This blows the left/right paradigm right out of the water.

WAKE PEOPLE UP!! - Get this message out - scream bloody murder and spread the word -- Because this IS bloody murder: slow-kill style. I'll post a flyer you can print out and hand out to people outside the natural foods markets and at farmers' markets. Pass it out to everyone. They need to be aware of this. We can use Rahm Emmanuel's own motto: take this crisis and make it an opportunity to wake people up.

Anyone with the capability to copy CD's and hand them out along with the flyers, should consider including copies of "The World According to Monsanto" with the flyers.

[jofortruth]

If you want to see the FDA Rules on Food Labeling or 2 cases decided in favor of the FDA on this topic: (See the VMAC Doc): (much more info on this topic also)
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=187061.0



THIS IS AN IMPORTANT TOPIC FOR PEOPLE TO BE AWARE OF (BOTH THREADS). This is the FIRST time the FDA is considering an application for a genetically engineered animal intended for food use!

The fact that this will be genetically engineered MUST BE ON THE LABEL for consumers to know. If the current FDA rules don't allow that, then IMO they should CHANGE THE RULES!

[agentbluescreen]

How can he be an American and a socialist? Socialists don't actually believe in the principles upon which America was found, things like small government.

All government of any form, size and/or function is a "socialism".

Capitalism is "capitalist-socialism". Corporatism is "corporatist-socialism". Monetarism is monetarist-socialism, Zionism, Marxism, Christianism, Judaism and Islamism are "religious-socialisms". Monarchism is "monarchist-socialism". Racism is "racist-socialism". Conservatism is "status-quo-socialism". Communism is community-socialism. Establishmentarianism is "establishment-socialism".

Whenever someone tells you how high "your" grass can be or how long "your" hair can be, or how high "your" pants must be or how much tax you need pay them for "your" property, that is "socialism".

Only established Libertarianism (Libertarian-socialism) is unique from all the rest of the "special-interest"-socialisms!

It alone is unique because it alone's adherence to BOTH the absolute rule of constitutional law and democracy ONLY WITHIN those bounds is "disestablishmentarian" of all other "established" special-interest socialisms...

Liberty's enemies are all always "antidisestablishmentarians"

And incidentally by the way, noting much about Libertarianism (established Liberty) ever contradicted the broadest common interest, from being it's centerpiece within the reasonable bounds of limited and responsible "governist-socialism"..

The alternative is anarchist-socialism

[donnay]

This is why our food needs to be regulated by Big Brother... 

Murder Suspect: Excessive Caffeine Made Me Kill Wife

Kentucky man uses 'caffeine intoxication' defense
By Evann Gastaldo,  Newser Staff

  (Newser)  – A Kentucky man charged with killing his wife has come up with a creative defense: excessive caffeination. Woody Will Smith, 33, is accused of strangling his 28-year-old wife with an extension cord last May, but his lawyer says Smith ingested enough caffeine (in the form of soda, energy drinks, and diet pills) to render him temporarily insane in the days before the murder.

“Caffeine intoxication” has in fact succeeded as a defense in at least one other case, the AP reports: that of a man who was cleared of injuring two people with his car last year.

Continue...



Comment:  A lot of this comes from lawyers--you know the rat bastards that make the laws, break the laws and know all the loop holes!!!   

[agentbluescreen]

All government of any form, size and/or function is a "socialism".

Capitalism is "capitalist-socialism". Corporatism is "corporatist-socialism". Monetarism is monetarist-socialism, Zionism, Marxism, Christianism, Judaism and Islamism are "religious-socialisms". Monarchism is "monarchist-socialism". Racism is "racist-socialism". Conservatism is "status-quo-socialism". Communism is community-socialism. Establishmentarianism is "establishment-socialism".

Whenever someone tells you how high "your" grass can be or how long "your" hair can be, or how high "your" pants must be or how much tax you need pay them for "your" property, that is "socialism".

Allow me to be a bit more precise:

Whenever someone anyone else or some special-interest group of someones tell you how high "your" grass can be or how long "your" hair can be, or how high "your" pants must be or how much tax you need pay them for "your" property, or how much tax you need to pay them to buy someone else's property that is "socialism".

Societies are social constructs and mankind are social creatures. All "SOCIETIES" and "SOCIALISMS" are "socialist-socialism". Democracy is the essence of "socialist-socialism", regardless of wether it's at a union hall, a student council, a Washington Post poll, a city council or a board of directors meeting.

[chris jones]

This is a WAKE UP CALL  CZAR![/size][/color][/url]
"... Monsanto, however, didn't back down and appealed the Ninth Circuit's decision to the US Supreme Court. In stepped Elena Kagan, whose role as solicitor general is to look out for the welfare of American citizens in all matters that come before the high court to wake people up.
 "The World According to Monsanto" with the flyers.

Hi Pilikia, that name alone represents pure unadultered evil.Though.. I have no stats ( I wish I did)on the number of  humans have been effected by their poison. Then we have their seeds, well gee wilikers, guess what, their plants  genetically modified do not produce seeds, they must be bought, no heritage seeds, sterility. (India is one example of their intent). This fact alone shoud cause a revolt, its comparible to them dictating, you want to eat you buy with us, end of story. And what they are selling is slow death, mutilation of agriculture, in short multiple segemnts of depopulation. They got us in Nam with their AO, yet here they are now with Gov backing..

[Protean]

Kucinich is trying to do the right thing again.

He's a Socialist, but he's one of the few in Congress who are honest and actually care about the people.

Whoa--Denny's pushing for another ride in Soetoro's Air Force One.
 

[Satyagraha]

Critical Faith-Based Perspectives On Biotech
And Genetically Modified Organisms GMOs
http://www.familyfarmdefenders.org/pmwiki.php/GeneticEngineering/CriticalFaith-BasedPerspectivesOnBiotechAndGeneticallyModifiedOrganismsGMOs

compiled by John E. Peck for Bioethics 2006

According to a 2001 poll by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 57 percent of Protestants (62 percent of Evangelicals) oppose biotech based on their religious or ethical views while 37 percent are in favor; Catholics followed closely behind with 52 percent opposed and 42 percent in favor. Among Muslims, 46 percent said they are opposed, with 32 percent in favor. Jews were the most favorable towards biotech, with 55 percent in favor and 35 percent opposed. In all religious groups, women were more opposed to biotech than men (46% of Jewish women, 49% of Muslim women, 60% of Protestant women, and 61% of Catholic women).

Judaism:

The Orthodox Union, a leading kosher authority, has ruled that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) do not violate kosher or kashrut. It asserts that since genes are microscopic, they are therefore botul, or nullified, in the new plant or animal. Of course, this is not true based upon scientific knowledge. On the other hand many rabbis, kosher supervisors, and Jewish groups dispute this position on moral grounds, citing the explicit prohibition in Leviticus 19:19: “Do not crossbreed your livestock with other species. Do not plant your field with different species of seeds. Do not wear a garment that contains a forbidden mixture of fabrics.”

In 1990 the FDA approved the use of a GMO enzyme cheese production. Historically, the enzyme – rennet - had been isolated from calves' stomachs. Jewish dietary laws prohibit combining meat and milk products -- even preparing the two products with the same utensils -- but Jewish leaders have approved cheese containing the GMO enzyme as kosher, though it is still not fit enough for consumption during Passover.

Lubavitch Rabbi Yossi Serebryanski of Crown Heights, a kosher supervisor for OK Labs Brooklyn, NY said he has “stopped eating tomatoes and only eats potatoes he knows are organic. The rabbi said he fears that genes from non-kosher foods, such as pigs or insects, could be implanted in vegetables and Jews may unwittingly break kosher laws by eating them.” (New York Post, May 23, 1999). One Jewish man has even sued the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) for failing to require labeling of products containing genetically modified foods, on the grounds that because of the laws of kilayim , his religious freedoms as a Jew are being violated if he cannot distinguish between GMO foods and non-GMO foods.

One progressive Jewish organization that has been highly critical of GM Os and is a helpful resource on this issue is the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, 443 Park Avenue South, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10016 (212) 532-7436 http://www.coejl.org/

Islam:

According to the Islamic Jurisprudence Council (IJC), foods derived from biotechnology-improved (GMO) crops are halal - fit for consumption by Muslims. Some scholars, though, have suggested that foods derived from biotechnology-improved crops could possibly become haram (non-halal) if they contain DNA from forbidden foods. For example, swine DNA in soy could make the soy product haram. This issue is still the subject of some debate among scholars and certifying organizations. Should a product be brought to market with a gene from a haram source, today it would at least be considered Mashbooh -- questionable -- if not outright haram. Shireen Pishdadi with the Chicago group, Faith in Place (www.faithinplace.org) has produced an excellent brochure titled “Faith and Food – An Islamic Perspective” which includes many relevant critiques of industrial agriculture and genetic engineering based upon passages of the Quran. She also wrote a good article on this topic, titled "Unwholesome Harvest - the Food Crisis in the World and the Need for Genuine Halal Selling and Labeling" which appeared in the June/July 2006 issue of Al Jumuah.

Hinduism:

In Hindu religion, there is a story of "parallel creation" engineered by Rishi Aagust, and how he was stopped by the Hindu Trinity from interfering in the existing Creation. Hinduism does not sanction human beings donning the mantle of spiritual authority, and this applies to the manipulation of species and their genetics.

Christianity:

The World Council of Churches has collected an ecumenical listing of biotech positions. Many of these deal with human cloning and stem cell research, but others include GM Os: http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/biodocs.html

This largely overlooked document, released in the summer of 2005, shows how the World Council of Churches - an international fellowship of Christian churches from more than 120 countries in all continents from virtually all Christian traditions - has come out strongly against GM
www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/ecearth-biotech.html Discussion of biotechnology on World Council of Churches website

The UK-Based Christian Ecology Link has produced a simple Christian oriented anti-GMO brochure for distribution to congregations: http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk/gmo.htm

Catholism:

“We can only look with deep concern at the enormous possibilities of biological research. We are not yet in a position to assess the biological disturbance that could result from indiscriminate genetic manipulation and from the unscrupulous development of new forms of plant and animal life, to say nothing of unacceptable experimentation regarding the origins of human life itself. It is evident that in any area as delicate as this, indifference to fundamental ethical norms, or their rejection, would lead humankind to the very threshold of self-destruction.” – Pope John Paul II, 1990 World Peace Day Message
 
“One cannot use with impunity the different categories of beings, whether living or inanimate – animals, plants, the natural elements – as one wishes, according to one’s own economic needs.”  Pope John Paul II, 1987 Social Concern of the Church, # 34

Following is excerpted from Lesseps, Roland, SJ and Peter Henriot SJ “Church’s Social Teaching and the Ethics of GM Os” – paper presented at the Int. Symposium on "Genetically Modified Organisms, Threat or Hope?", held in Rome 10-11 Nov. 2003, organized by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (Full paper available online at: http://www.jctr.org.zm/publications/cst-gmos.htm)

==========================================

You can see that, for the most part, the major world religions have come out against GM foods.
The failure to label foods as GM is a direct attack on the religions of the world, consistent with the NWO agenda.

[Satyagraha]

Genetic engineering: The world's greatest scam?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H9WZGKQeYg&feature=player_embedded

This video produced by Greenpeace Switzerland: Brief, to the point and calls GMCrops a scam.

They make the point that the rationale for GM Crops is increased crop production, and there is no evidence that GM Crops yield more overall than normal crops. Also in the following video, they point out that
there are no longterm studies of the effects of gm crops on humans...
We are the "long term" study group! Right now.

[Satyagraha]

Study on Monsanto's "Round Up Ready" Seeds...
DIFFERENT ROUNDUP FORMULATIONS LEAD TO EMBRYONIC, UMBILICAL CORD
AND PLACENTAL CELL DEATH AND ARE POORLY ASSESSED
Date: 01.05.2009
Source: Committee of Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering, France
URL: http://www.criigen.org/images/stories/nosdossiers/roundup/pressrelease_rup_0109.pdf

For the first time, the toxicity mechanisms of four different Roundup formulations were studied in human cells. They act at doses where they are not herbicides anymore. The cells were neonatal cells freshly isolated from the umbilical cord, or less sensitive cell lines specially used to measure pollutant toxicity. The various components of these major herbicides were tested because they are among the most common in the world. Their residues are among the major pollutants, and moreover they are authorized as residues contaminating GM foods and feed at the tested levels.

As a matter of fact, Roundup formulations are the most common herbicides used with cultivated GMOs. Roundup Ready soya, the main GMO imported in Europe for food and feed, contains Roundup residues. In this research, the formulations were diluted at minimal doses (up to 100 000 times or more) and they programmed cell death in a few hours in a cumulative manner.

We also noted membrane and DNA damages, and found that the formulations inhibit cell respiration. In addition, it was shown that the mixture of the components used as Roundup adjuvants amplified the action of the active principle called glyphosate; one of its metabolites may be even more toxic. These effects are greatly underestimated by the legislation, which does not take these phenomena into account, but instead simply sets arbitrary contaminant thresholds in food or feed. The rules apply to glyphosate whatever its formulation may be, this is wrong.

The authorizations for using these Roundup herbicides must now clearly be revised, since their toxic effects depend on, and are multiplied by, other compounds used in the mixtures placed on the market; and glyphosate is only one of them. The detailed blood analyses of each mammal which has received this herbicide during regulatory tests before commercial release must be published immediately, since our research points to undesirable effects which are currently masked or hidden from scientific scrutiny.

This independent work was performed by Nora Benachour and Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini in the University of Caen in France. It is published in the Scientific American journal Chemical Research in Toxicology. It was supported by CRIIGEN and the Regional Council of Basse Normandie. The support of the Human Earth Foundation and Denis Guichard Foundation is also acknowledged.

Contact in France: Pr Gilles-Eric Séralini, Biochemistry, Institute of Biology, University of Caen, Esplanade de la Paix, 14032 Caen, France. Tel: 33(0)2-31-56-56-84. Fax: 33(0)2-31-56-53- 20. Corinne Lepage President of CRIIGEN criigen@unicaen.fr

”Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic and Placental Cells” by Nora Benachour and Gilles-Eric Séralini.

(http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n)

[Satyagraha]

GM Maize Reduces Fertility & Deregulates Genes in Mice
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=2554
Date: November 19, 2008
Source: ISIS Press Release
URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/

Comprehensive long term studies commissioned by the Austrian government reveal that mice fed GM maize produced fewer and smaller litters with many genes affected compared to controls.

Austrian scientists carried out long term studies that showed GM maize fed to mice significantly reduced their fertility over three to four breeding cycles within one generation [1]. Similar effects were found in mice fed GM maize and bred over four generations; although the results did not reach statistical significance in any one generation, the trend was unmistakable, more pups lost and smaller litters in the GM-fed mice.

The studies are by far the most meticulous and comprehensive feeding trials to-date, and confirm deleterious reproductive and health impacts obtained by scientists independent of the biotech industry and farmers’ observations in the field.

The new research results are a landmark in the safety assessment of GM food. Most feeding trials were short-term and restricted to a single generation or a single breeding cycle. The “multi-generational” study widely cited as evidence of no long term adverse impacts from GM feed is highly misleading as the experiment did not involve trans-generational feeding, but merely breeding mice that were not GM fed for three generations, and carrying out a separate experiment with GM feed for each generation [3] There were other serious flaws in that experiment, not least the failure to ascertain by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) that the processed GM feed used actually contained GM soya.

Targeting long term effects

The new studies were commissioned by the Austrian government several years ago, when it became clear that proper feeding trials were very thin on the ground, and regulators all over the world were largely dependent on companies submitting data that were inadequate and unreliable in many ways, but which they accepted without question [4]

Alberta Velimirov at Research Institute on Biological Agriculture (Forschungsinttitut für biologishen Landbau) and Claudia Binter and Jürgen Zentck at the Institute for Nutrition (Institut für Ernährung) both in Vienna, monitored changes in gross morphology, reproductive performance, and sub-microscopic analyses of tissues and cells, as well as gene expression. (They found no immunochemical or other microscopic differences in the tissues.)

Three series of experiments were done. The first was a multigeneration feeding trial in which the mice were fed and bred for four successive generations, beginning with the F0 parents that were fed on the diets from birth. The second was a multi-cycle breeding trial lasting 20 weeks in which breeding pairs of mice were fed beginning 1 week prior to co-habitation until the end of experiment, and allowed to go through four breeding cycles in the same generation. The third was a life-term trial involving feeding the mice without breeding from conception (via the pregnant mothers) to their eventual death.

A laboratory non-inbred strain of mice was used for all experiments, in order to avoid the effects of inbreeding, so that the results would be more generally applicable to natural populations.

The researchers report that it was not possible to obtain a GM test crop plus parental line from the agro-business companies, which was why the test diets consisting of 33 percent GM maize had to be compared with a non-GM maize variety (also at 33 percent) that was closely related to the GM maize. Both were grown under identical conditions in the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada in Nova Scotia, in 2005 and 2007. The GM maize was the transgene hybrid NK603 x MON810 containing three gene cassettes, two conveying glyphosate herbicide tolerance and one insect resistance coding for endotoxin Cry1Ab. The transgenic protein was estimated to be 0.11-0.24 microgram per gram of fresh grain.

The multigeneration study also included one group with a non-GM maize variety cultivated in Austria.

The herbicides dicamba, atrazine and s-metalochlor were used with non-GM

Maise, while glyphosate only was used with the GM maize. Contamination levels of the maize grains with herbicides were determined to be less than 0.01 percent of each of the herbicides. This was important to make sure that effects due to herbicides were not confounded with those from the GM feed.

Main effects on reproduction

In the multigeneration study, the parental generation was fed since birth with either GM or nonGM maize diet, and 4 generations were bred. Less pups were born in successive generations in both control and GM fed mice. But the controls tended to do better than GM fed. The average litter size and weight as well as number of weaned pups were in favour of the non-GM maize group. None of the differences reached statistical significance in any one generation, although the trend was clear.

Over all generations, about twice as many pups were lost in the GM group as compared with the control group (14.59 percent vs 7.4 percent). More litters with 8 or more pups were seen in the control compared with GM group. And a greater number of pups were lost at weaning in the GM fed.

Comparison of organ weights did not indicate direct dietary effects in the multigeneration study, except for the kidneys. Kidney weight of females in the GM-fed group were significantly lower in the F2, F3 and F4 generations than controls; and males in the GM-fed group also had significantly lower kidney weight than controls in the F2 generation

The electron microscope investigations revealed differences in the liver cells indicative of reduced core metabolism in the GM-fed mice. In addition, DNA microarray analyses showed  important differences in gene expression between both groups fed non-GM maize and the group fed GM maize.

In the multi-cycle breeding trial, the same differences between GM-fed and controls were evident. and reached statistically significant levels in the 3rd and 4th litters.

There were clearly fewer and smaller litters in the GM-fed mice.

The average number of pups born was always lower in the GM fed but did not reach statistical significance before the 3 rd and 4th deliveries. The number of pups at weaning was also always smaller in the GM-fed group. Over all the deliveries, more pups were born in the controls than in the GM group (1035 vs 844).

Consistent with these findings, the life-term feeding trial showed no significant differences in the average life-span of the GM-fed mice compared with controls.

Epigenetic effects of GM maize feed

In the F3 generation of the multigeneration trial, DNA microarray analyses were performed on the lower small intestine. This identified 2 374 genes that were significantly abnormally expressed in GM fed compared with non GM fed mice; with 421 of these showing a 2-fold or greater change from controls. This was more than 3.2 percent of the total 13 034 genes expressed in the lower small intestine. The reproductive and other effects observed could be just the tip of the iceberg as far as the epigenetic changes are concerned. The impacts could take more generations of GM feeding to become fully manifest.

The genes were functionally classified and found to predominate in the pathways of protein biosynthesis and protein metabolism and modification, interleukin signalling and cholesterol biosynthesis.

Epigenetics – the study of heritable changes in gene expression that do not involve alterations in DNA sequence – is a maturing discipline with growing applications in toxicology, cancer, nutrition, and brain and behavioural sciences [5-8]. A change in our diet as far-reaching and profound as GM food cannot be entertained without detailed long term studies of the kind carried out by the Austrian scientists together with analyses using DNA microarrays, proteomics, and metabolic profiling, which are now routine in laboratory and field studies.

Contact Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

References

Velimirov A, Binter C and Zentek J. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Report, Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3. Institut für Ernährung, and Forschungsinttitut für biologischen Landbau, Vienna, Austria, November 2008.
Ho MW. GM is dangerous and futile. Science in Society 40 (in press).
Ho MW. Letter to Nature Biotechnology, systematic bias in favour of finding no adverse impacts of no adverse impacts from GM feed. Science in Society 37, 10, 2008.
4. Ho MW, Cummins J and Saunders PT, GM food nightmare unfolding in the regulatory sham. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 2007, 19, 66-77.
5. Newbold RR, Padilla-Banks E and Jefferson WN. Adverse effects of the model environmental estrogen diethylstilbestrol are transmitted to subsequent generations. Endocrinology 2006, 147, S11-S17.
6. Reamon-Buettner SM, Mutschler V and Borlak J. The next innovation cycle in toxicogenomics: environmental epigenetics. Mutation Res 2008, 639, 158-65.
7. Weidman JR, Dolinoy DC, Murphy SK and Jirtle RL. Cancer susceptibility: epigenetic manifestation of environmental exposures. Cancer J 2007, 13, 9-16.
8. McGowan PO, Meaney MJ and Szyf M. Diet and the epigenetic (re)programming of phenotypic differences in behaviour. Brain Research 2008, 1237, 12-24.

[Satyagraha]

Austrian Government Study Confirms GM Crops Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety
Advocates Call for Immediate Ban of All GM Foods and GM Crops
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=2468
Date: November 18, 2008
Source: Aruna Rodrigues

Austrian Government Rat Feeding Study with Bt Corn and Monsanto’s Herbicide Roundup Ready.

A long-term multi generational feeding study commissioned by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, carried out by Veterinary University Vienna, confirms that feeding mice with genetically modified corn developed by the US-based Monsanto Corporation led to lower fertility and body weight. Lead author of the study Professor Zentek said that there was a direct link between the decrease in fertility and the GM diet, and that mice fed with non-GE corn reproduced more efficiently.

In the study, Austrian scientists performed several long-term feeding trials over 20 weeks with laboratory mice fed a diet containing 33% of a GM variety (NK 603 x MON 810), and a closely related non-GE variety used in many countries. Statistically significant litter size and pup weight decreases were found in the third and fourth litters in the GM-fed mice, compared to the control group. 

The evidence of Science and of Indian Farmers is the same.

Hissar, (Haryana) Investigation of Bt Cotton health impacts in mid November ‘08

Aruna Rodrigues (Petitioner No1 to the SC of India with co-petitioners Rajeev Baruah, PV Satheesh and Devinder Sharma,) has just returned from an investigation in four villages in the area of Hissar, of about 20 village house-holds. She was accompanied by two experienced vets from Anthra, Pune. The findings are deeply worrying & serious. They include reproductive problems in buffalo and shepherd herds of sheep and goats (reduced fertility, aborted foetuses, premature deliveries and calf deaths), toxic effects leading to sudden unexplained deaths, as well as reduced milk yields and fat content. The allergenicity incidents are more easily correlated to the Bt cotton harvesting season and cotton-picking. So also reduced milk yields are more easily identified with the introduction of Bt cotton and feeding with Bt cotton meal and boiled Bt cotton seed, given to milch cattle to increase milk yields and fat content. Instead of a rise in both, as winter approaches, there is a marked reduction of an average of around 25%.

These reports are in common with those reported earlier from Maharashtra, Andhra, MP & Punjab over the last few years. Yet, it is curious that the GEAC has consistently ignored farmers and their experience and knowledge of their fields, soil, animals, children and their labour. The refusal to undertake anything less than the most exhaustive and rigorous investigation through long term  rat feeding studies and other measures is a clear indication of their pro GM agenda at the expense of public health and the environment. This is directly attributable to the proven conflict of interest within the GEAC and the official Government policy to promote GM crops.

The Indian Government does not subject GMOs to sound bio-safety studies and rigorous, long term risk assessment. The Nation is greatly imperilled by their unscientific approach. A moratorium has been called for in the Supreme Court. 

[Monkeypox]

Whoa--Denny's pushing for another ride in Soetoro's Air Force One.
 

Maybe this time they'll toss him out the door.

[freedom_commonsense]

It's worse in the UK - Blair presided over a change of law that allows GMOs to be labelled organic.

[Overcast]

This would be a fantastic candidate for a class action lawsuit.

Alex - you need a non-profit legal wing now.

[Geolibertarian]

FDA won't allow food to be labeled free of genetic modification

If you tell this to a non-reading, MSNBC-watching Obama cultist, and he responds by claiming the Republicans are solely to blame for this, after bitch-slapping him a few times, show him the following:

---------------------------------

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-puts-monsanto-lobbyist-in-charge-of-food-safety.html

Obama Puts Monsanto Lobbyist In Charge Of Food Safety

Alexis Baden-Mayer, Esq.
Organic Consumers Association
Friday, July 24, 2009

Genetically modified foods are not safe. The only reason they’re in our food supply is because government bureaucrats with ties to industry suppressed or manipulated scientific research and deprived consumers of the information they need to make informed choices about whether or not to eat genetically modified foods.

Now, the Obama Administration is putting two notorious biotech bullies in charge of food safety! Former Monsanto lobbyist Michael Taylor has been appointed as a senior adviser to the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner on food safety. And, rBGH-using dairy farmer and Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff is rumored to be President Obama’s choice for Under-Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety. Wolfe spearheaded anti-consumer legislation in Pennsylvania that would have taken away the rights of consumers to know whether their milk and dairy products were contaminated with Monsanto’s (now Eli Lilly’s) genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH).

[Continued...]

---------------------------------

[Anti_Illuminati]

http://terroirseeds.net/235/non-gmo-labeling-is-a-hit-with-consumers/


Non- GMO Labeling is a Hit with Consumers

This is an interesting report from the Nielsen company- the same company doing the familiar Nielsen Ratings.

The consumer interest in Non-GMO labeled foods is skyrocketing. In 2009, this micro market segment was worth $60.2 Million and grew at 67% over 2008, making it the #1 healthy eating trend in store brands for 2009. Store brands are like Topco Full Circle and Safeway “O” Organics. Store brands like these now make up almost 40% of products with no preservative claims, 25% of all organic product sales, and nearly one-fifth of all products with “natural” claims in food/drug/mass merchandise retailers. Whole Foods Market, one of the largest U.S. natural foods retailers, have started the process to certify that all of their store brands are GMO free.

What is even more interesting is the early adoption of the Non-GMO labeling by store brands, which are taking the lead in offering healthy products instead of trailing the major brands as they used to do. Consumer sentiment against genetically modified foods (GM or GMO) is growing- despite all of the marketing and press support by genetic engineering companies like Monsanto- and market brands are reflecting that. With GMOs being linked to organ damage, crop failures, increased water usage, soil contamination and worse, consumers are becoming aware of the dangers of these products. Another major winner is the “No high fructose corns syrup” label worth $13 Million and growing at 28% over 2008. That gives it a #10 rank.

These dollar amounts are big numbers to most of us consumers, but are small potatoes to the large national brands, such as Lays and Kraft. What makes them take notice is the growth percentage. They will be watching the growth in several of these segments to see if there is consistent, sustained growth that makes it financially feasible or even necessary for them to switch suppliers from conventional to non-GMO. If there is enough movement in the market towards GMO free products, they will switch, as they will not stand by and watch a large market share evaporate.

This happened in the recent past with RBGH or RBST, the bovine growth hormone developed, not suprisingly, by Monsanto to increase the milk output from cows. It created many other problems, such as increased infections in the milk and disease in the cows. The FDA stated RBGH did not alter the milk, and sued several dairies that labeled their milk RBGH free. Enough consumers found out the truth and started requesting RBGH free milk. Not long afterwards, the major players saw the movement in the market and made the switch to RBGH free suppliers. Surprisingly, this didn’t take a majority of consumers, only 5-7% of Americans, as they represent several hundred millions of dollars to the major national brands. This is money they will not lose when they can make a switch in suppliers and keep their customers happy.

Monsanto is worried, of course. When, not if, the major national brands make the switch, Monsanto will find itself with many highly expensive bio-engineered products that no one wants. They are already in trouble in Europe, as they have lost several recent lawsuits they filed to force their way into European markets and agriculture. The nations of the European Union and more importantly- it’s people- have rejected genetic engineering of food almost out of hand.

What this means for you and I is great news. Safe, wholesome and sustainable food is at the core of our needs, next to clean air and water. With people starting to actively request GMO free labeling on their foods, safer foods are closer and easier to get for everyone.

9 out of 10 Americans surveyed said that they are opposed to unlabeled GMO food.

The local food movement- including CSA’s, Farmer’s Markets, Slow Food Conviviums, and the like are growing faster every day, as more and more people start questioning what is in their food, and start making choices to eat more healthy, more sustainable and increasingly local food. This has the industrial petrochemical agribusiness giants worried that we won’t want what they have for sale…

[Anti_Illuminati]

http://www.purefood.org/gefood/traderjoesge.cfm

Trader Joe's & US Supermarkets Claim Impossibility of Going GE-Free

USA: GM FREE CLAIMS A TRICKY ISSUE FOR ORGANIC LABELING
May 14, Fairchild Publications, Inc
From <www.organicts.com>

As retailers see the sales of organic foods increase, and as national organic standards soon take effect, rising awareness of genetically modified foods seems to be the next issue.

Organically certified products are supposed to be, by definition, free of GMOs, according to the newly adopted USDA standards. Some retailers are having a hard time ensuring that their suppliers are really GMO-free. Others don't want to make it a rallying point.

Pat St. John, vice president of marketing for Trader Joe's West Coast division in South Pasadena, Calif., said the chain sources organic products whenever possible, and objects to being targeted by Greenpeace for selling GM foods, "when 60% to 70% of the food on anybody's shelf is likely to contain GMOs. "We don't carry, nor do we claim to carry, GMO-free products. It is a goal of ours, but due to certain standards, we are unable to guarantee it at this point," St. John said. "Trader Joe's is not going to say we aim to do something that we are not sure we will ever be able to do.² Regarding labeling, St. John said, "The state of the industry right now is very much in flux, and even well-meaning people are finding it very difficult. [For GMOs,] if the FDA, or USDA choose to mandate labeling, they will have to agree on what the labeling will be. To test down to the zero percent is impossible now.

Topco Associates, a private-label cooperative in Skokie, Ill., has a natural organic line called Full Circle, which puts on its packages of soy milk, for example, a reference saying "produced from organic non-GMO soybeans" instead of claiming GMO-free, because that allows for a possible trace level, explained Fred Arnal, who heads the Full Circle program. "It's a matter of good quality assurance, and like kosher, you have to have a paper trail.

Producers are testing corn in the field, manufacturers testing again when it's received -- that's what it's going to come to," Arnal said. "Everyone is going to have to test at every stage of the process, which could put some cost into the system. Until they require labeling, it won't have the impact."

Although Hy-Vee Food Stores, West Des Moines, Iowa, is seeing more organic sales, the chain's director of public affairs, Ruth Mitchell, said: "We are doing a lot more as a company to promote them and showcase them throughout the stores. We don't think it's due to people avoiding GMOs. Our newer stores group those items into a Hy-Vee Health Market section, organic and natural and containing a lot of the special dietary needs products and low-fat products. We are finding that customers are all over the board with reasons why those products appeal to them. In some cases, it's concern over GMOs or pesticides; in other cases, it's dietary restrictions. We are getting a lot of questions now about [celiac disease and] gluten-free foods.

People have environmental reasons for wanting products certified that they are grown in an environmentally healthy area; also, some desire low-fat products. A real cross section of consumers come to this section. And something new for us here in the heartland is more people following vegetarian or vegan diets. The Midwest is not noted for that, but [vegetarianism] is becoming more mainstream.

Joanne Gage, speaking for Price Chopper, Schenectady, N.Y., said, "If it is going to be called 'organic,' then it cannot contain any genetically modified organisms. At this point, genetically modified food has not become a raging consumer issue for us. But I can say it's very difficult for us to be able to tell a customer whether or not a food contains GMO. We pride ourselves, as retailers, on being able to provide our customers with information about the packages of food they buy. This is a touchy issue, but at least this gives us the ability to tell them if you have any concern about GMO foods, you will be able to buy something certified organic."

Gage said Price Chopper has written letters to all of its private-label suppliers, to find out what they can tell the retailer. "We have not taken a stand on whether it does or it doesn't contain GMOs. We just want to know.  And we wouldn't play it up. By doing that, you'd be giving the feeling that there is something wrong with GMOs, but that it is not what we believe. We just all want the right to know. We are not talking about adding any additional costly labeling, but just some guidelines. There has got to be a way for the consumer to have access to this information."

The big issue on standards for the Grocery Manufacturers of America is to be sure that people don't perceive "organic" as superior, said Gene Grabowski, vice president of communications for the Washington, D.C.-based industry association, which represents 144 manufacturers of branded consumer packaged goods.

[Overcast]

You know - just the FACT that they won't allow this labeling is pretty much proof that it's bad for you. Otherwise, the debate would be no more than labeling them because they contain peanut/dairy products.

[BrandonHeat]

The companies who provide food free from gmo need to find a loop-hole.  Having noticed some products declaring ingredients such as "modified corn", where the word "genetically" is clearly omitted, the same can be applied in reverse in a manner of speaking.  For example use a label such as "Source Corn" or "Corn v1.0" or "Mother Nature's Corn".  The word "Source" would refer to a design of corn prior to human re-design.  Probably a million ideas out there.

If the gmo producers usurp these names, then perhaps a web-site database needs to be kept with all the food out there clearly marked gmo / non-gmo.  Also aspertame / aspertame-free, etc..  I've seen iPhone apps which read bar-codes.  Some whizz could write an app where if in doubt you scan your can (or whatever really) and the app returns the ingredients - and specify gmo / gmo-free etc. at the top.

[wvoutlaw2002]

When I was in the Kroger in Teays Valley last week, I saw jars of I.M. Healthy Soy Nut Butter (basically a faux peanut butter made from roasted soybeans), and they were labeled "non-GMO". I guess the FDA is selective in their enforcement.

[Overcast]

When I was in the Kroger in Teays Valley last week, I saw jars of I.M. Healthy Soy Nut Butter (basically a faux peanut butter made from roasted soybeans), and they were labeled "non-GMO". I guess the FDA is selective in their enforcement.

Or just have a price....

[BrandonHeat]

I need to make a correction to my previous posting.  I made a comment about that the word 'genetically' being dropped from some labels.  However, there is usage of modified corn in food and other products and is not necessarily gmo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_starch

I'll be avoiding it anyway.