Overall Contents for All Blogs and Posts
Most posts are alphabetized by subject starting at the bottom of each blog except for the first one. To get a feel of the overall intent of the blogs and posts please read the first post below.
Introduction and an Idea of how to navigate through the blogs and posts.
Contents for Sources of Funding for New World Order
From Soft to Hard Tyranny
Government Officials Speak out on Corruption and/or the New World Order Part 1
Government Officials Speak out on Corruption and/or the New World Order Part 2
Contents for Health Care Trends
Contents for Hidden Powers, Hidden Interests
Links to Corruption, Tyranny and Trends Toward A New World Order Part 1
Links to Corruption, Tyranny and Trends Toward A New World Order Part 2
Links to Corruption, Tyranny and Trends Toward A New World Order Part 3
The above 3 posts Links to Corruption, Tyranny and Trends Toward a New World Order, Part 1, 2 and 3 contain most of the links from all the posts with very little political commentary or analysis.
News About the Fed, Banking and Finance Part 1
News About the Fed, Banking and Finance Part 2
Quotes Over Time About Monetary Policy and Banking and Finance in Relationship to Liberty and Tyranny
Slow Response/Gulf Oil Spill
Social Security and Other Entitlements
Symbols of Occult Power
The Modern Art and Science of Enslaving Others
The Constitution Verses Tyranny
The Relationship Between The Military Industrial Media Complex, Defense Spending, Semi-permanent and Permanent War and the Rise of Tyranny
Trends Toward a Tyrannical New World Order Part 1
Trends Toward a Tyrannical New World Order Part 2
Trends Toward a Tyrannical New World Order Part 3
The United Nations in Relationship to the New World Order Part 1
The United Nations in Relationship to the New World Order Part 2
Barter and Local Currency Survey
Members, Activities and Meetings
The War on Food
The War on Food Part 2
The War on Food
The War on Food Part 2
In all the blogs the titles for each of the articles are colored coded red, orange, green or black based on my subjective belief of how likely they are to be true.
Red title and bold font means I believe the article is very likely to be true and is very important!
Red title and regular font means I believe the article is very likely to be true but is less important.
Orange title and bold font means the article is likely to be true and is important!
Orange title and regular font means the article is likely to be true but is less important.
Green title and bold font means I believe the article could be true and is very important!
Green title and regular font means I believe the article could be true but is less important.
Black title and bold font means I have no opinion on the article because I have not researched it so I have no opinion on its veracity. However it is important!
Black title and regular font means I have no opinion on the article because I have not researched it so I have no opinion on its veracity or truthfulness. It is of lesser importance.
The War on Food Part 2
Can Food Be Employed As a Weapon?
In Depth Scientific Studies Of GMO Foods
Table of Contents.
Where Most of my Material Comes From Primary Link. 56
Myth 1.1 GMO Plants are just an extension of natural breeding. 56
Myth 1.2 Genetic engineering is precise and results are predictable 56
Myth 1.3 GMO’s are just another form of mutation breeding and you shouldn't worry about it. 57
Myth 1.3.4 How GMO’s are produced. 58
Insertional Mutagenesis 58
Genome Wide Mutation 58
Mutations Caused by Tissue Culture 58
Myth 1.3.5 Genetic Modification Technology is Precise 59
Myth 1.3.6 Why worry about mutations from genetic engineering? 4 arguments 61
Myth 1 Mutations happen all the time in nature. 61
Myth 2 Conventional breeding is more disruptive than genetic engineering breeding. 61
Myth 3 Mutations occurring in genetic engineering are no different than those occurring in natural breeding. 63
Myth 4 Scientists will eliminate harmful mutations from newly created GMO organisms 64
Myth 1.4 Cisgenic and intragenics are a safe form of GM because no foreign genes are involved. 65
Part 2 The Regulations and Flawed Science Supporting GMO Technology 67
Myth 2.1 Genetically Modified Food is Strictly Regulated 67
FDA Regulators Rely on Biotechnology company studies to determine regulations. 68
Biotechnology companies veto research they do not like. 69
Studies Funded by biotechnology companies are more likely to view their products more favorably than independently funded scientists studying the same products. 70
Tobacco companies employed the same tactics biotechnology companies employ today to manipulate science and hide the truth 72
GMO Studies Also Suffer from the Funders Effect in Science 76
As government sources of funding for scientific research decline, now private sources fund most scientific research impacting what is researched, how it is researched, and the conclusions of the research! 77
Some biotechnology utilize land grant colleges to conduct research then poach the research to create their patents. 79
Several examples of biotechnology companies funding of land grant colleges 80
Few Peer Reviewed Toxicity Studies Done by 2000 yet GMO Foods Major Part of Food Supply by 1996 81
Parallels between strategies of biotechnology companies and tobacco companies 81
The FDA’s sham of Equivalence between natural plants and their GMO counterparts 82
Other Serious GMO Food Issues 82
Notes on Jeffery Smith’s Genetic Roulette Movie. It contains some links for further study. I list one here. 84
Time Magazine Cover: Inflammation: The Secret Kille 86
Other studies Regarding GMO Foods 88
Round up Found Throughout Air and Water 88
Round up Found in Urine of City Dwellers in concentrations 5-20 times greater than the amount found in drinking water. 88
Pesticides Toxins Related to GMO found in Pregnant Women and fetuses. 88
Monsanto Hides Decades of Pollution/Washington Post 88
Round Up Toxic to Human Placenta Cells Within 18 Hours of Exposure 88
Secretary of Agriculture maybe able to suspend court decisions banning the growing of dangerous GMO plants. 89
An Initiative to Label Genetically Modified Food on the Arizona 2014 Ballot 90
An Initiative to Label Genetically Modified Food on the Arizona 2014 Ballot 90
A Lot of Info Was Taken From The Following Website http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3.pdfdf The article is called GMO Myths and Truths: An Evidence Based Examination of the Claims Made for the Safety and Efficacy of Genetically Modified Crops If the above link does not work google the title of the article.
Part 1 What are GMO Organisms? How Are They Produced? Various myths will be in bold print.
1.1 GMO plants are just an extension of natural breeding.
GMO’s are not naturally bred. Creating GMO’s involve taking DNA from totally different species of plant, animal, bacteria and or virus that would never breed under natural circumstances. The Flavor Savor Tomato was bred to withstand cold in order to extend the growing season. DNA from a cod was inserted into the tomato plant to create a GMO plant. These organisms never mate in the natural world. Many GMO crop plants produce their own pesticides. In order to produce this plant a soil bacterium that produces pesticide toxin was inserted into the plant so the GMO plant now produces that pesticide. Under natural conditions these two organisms would never mate.
1.2 Genetic Engineering is Precise and Results are Predictable.
Over all evidence does not support this. When a novel gene is inserted even in only one site on the host plant’s DNA, hundreds or thousands of other changes can occur. See The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559911/
Another study by the same author and others called Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and bio-safety implications. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev. 2006; 23: 209–238. http://www.somloquesembrem.org/img_editor/file/Wilson%2006%20BGER.pdf
Their views echo the above, but delves more into the possible dangers and the lack of more rigorous pre-market studies of these potentially dangerous materials. The first 2 paragraphs on page 210 provide numerous scientific studies that contradict the above myth. …” Agrobacterium-mediated transformation and particle bombardment (biolistic transformation) are the two plant transformation methods most commonly used to produce transgenic plants for both research and commercial purposes. For both Agrobacterium-mediated transformation and particle bombardment the mechanism of transgene integration into the plant genome is still poorly understood and has been
Page 57reviewed elsewhere (Pawlowski and Somers, 1996; Tinland, 1996; Somers and Makarevitch, 2004; Tzfira et al., 2004).
If plant transformation were precise, 20 transgenic plants, derived from the same parent plant material and carrying the same transgene, would be identical in phenotype. Furthermore, they would be identical to the non-transgenic parent plant, except for the transgenic trait. This, however, is usually not found in practice. Phenotypic variation is the norm within populations of plants from the same experiment (Hoekema et al., 1989; Conner et al., 1994; Bregitzer et al., 1998; Singh et al., 1998; Kaniewski and Thomas, 1999; Shu et al., 2002) and breeders and researchers must carefully screen numerous transformed plants to obtain one or a few plants which exhibit only the desired traits (Kumar et al., 1998; Dear et al., 2003). Despite this, even plants originally selected as having the appropriate phenotype are often found, during later experiments or commercial use, to have unexpected and unintended traits (Kuiper et al., 2001; Haslberger, 2003).”
In the conclusion of this article the authors discuss 3 serious dangers of creating GMO plants and their view that regulatory agencies are not adequately protecting the public against such dangers. I include paragraph 2 and 3 on page 223 of the article.
… “The seriousness of the risks arising from the presence of transformation-induced mutations in commercial cultivars depends on their phenotypic consequences. There are three general classes of unintended consequences that pose particular risks to the public. The first are alterations to the toxicity or nutritional value of a transgenic cultivar. This class would include mutations that increased the levels of allergens or toxins (known or unknown) or altered the levels of nutrients such as vitamins or antioxidants11. The second are changes that have ecological implications, such as mutations that increase out-crossing in transgenic cultivars or mutations which adversely affect beneficial insects (e.g. plant pollinators), soil organisms or other wildlife. The third are changes that have implications for food security. These include mutations that decrease resistance of transgenic crops to stresses, such as disease or pest attack, or which decrease drought or heat tolerance. Under certain environmental conditions, the use of transgenic cultivars carrying such mutations could result in wide-spread crop failures. Such crop failures have occurred in the past. For example, the use of non-transgenic maize that carried a mutation conferring both male sterility and susceptibility to a specific race of corn blight led to wide-spread failure of the 1970 U.S. corn crop. The large-scale production and consumption of crops having unintended mutations that result in one of these three classes of harmful phenotypes could thus result in serious consequences.
In theory, the commercialisation of transgenic cultivars carrying harmful unintended traits could be prevented by extensive pre-market phenotypic testing. This could include extensive mRNA profiling, metabolic profiling and specific analysis of nutrients and plant toxins, as well as extensive greenhouse trials and field trials12 (Kuiper et al., 2001; Freese and Schubert, 2004). However, recent reviews indicate that the current regulatory practices of both the U.S. and Europe are not likely to safeguard the public from unexpected biosafety issues, such as those arising from transformation-induced mutations (Freese and Schubert, 2004; Spok et al., 2004; Pelletier, 2005). The significance of these points is underlined by the fact that unexpected traits, including potentially harmful ones, are frequently found in transgenic plants (Kuiper et al., 2001; Haslberger, 2003; Cellini et al., 2004), including commercialised transgenic cultivars which have already passed through the regulatory process (Gertz et al., 1999; Lappe et al., 1999; Saxena and Stotzky, 2001; Ridley et al., 2002)…”
1.3 GMO’s are just another form of mutation breeding and you shouldn’t worry about it? Mutation breeding is using radiation or chemicals to induce mutations in plants to help create new varieties of plants. After WWII atomic
Page 58gardens with a radiation source in the middle of the garden and plants plant around the source were created to create crops. It was hoped that new types of plants would be created. It was not widely practiced or developed. Perhaps 3,000 types of plants were created. This is not much considering the millions of different types of plant species.
1.3.4 How GMO’s are produced
· Insertional Mutagenesis This involves the insertion of a foreign gene into the Genome of a host plant. The process of insertion is uncontrolled in that the site of where the gene is inserted into the plants genome cannot be controlled. Once it is inserted it disrupts the normal sequence of the genes. This can impact the plant in different ways.
Ø If the foreign gene lands in the middle of one of the plants natural genes then it knocks out the function of that gene. Less often it alters the function of the gene and the protein for which that gene is responsible.
Ø The foreign gene can land in a region of the plant that controls one or more of the plants genes unnaturally reducing or increasing the function of those genes.
Ø The mere presence of the foreign gene in a region impacts the ability of the genes to produce chromatin the combination of proteins and DNA that exists in the cells nucleuses. This impacts the ability of genes to be expressed. There is no way to predict before hand what genes in a plant will be impacted.
· Genome Wide Mutation Since inserting foreign genes into a host plant cannot be controlled precisely it is likely that a foreign gene will not only be inserted at one point in the genome but the same gene or pieces or fragments of the gene could impact other areas in the genome. The first study above estimates that there is a 53-55% chance that a gene insertion will disrupt the host gene. It is also likely that the foreign gene insertion can cause disruptions and mutations at various other sites on the plants genome.
· Mutations Caused by Tissue Culture To become a GMO plant the host plant goes through the following process in a tissue culture. First the foreign gene with an antibiotic marker gene is spliced or shot into the plant. Then the
Page 59scientists find the parts of the host plant that have taken up the foreign gene. Usually only 1 or 2 parts in a million take up the gene. The way the tell is to look for the antibiotic marker gene. They take those parts that took up the gene and its antibiotic marker and place them in a solution that causes the plant to grow roots and other structures to become a whole plant. The chemical solution they go into during this 3rd part can result in hundreds or thousands of more mutations. These mutations can impact any number of genes causing a variety of problems such as increased toxicity, allergic potential or decreased nutrition or immune resistance. Such effects may take some time to become known. See studies 1 and 2
· http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559911/ http://www.somloquesembrem.org/img_editor/file/Wilson%2006%20BGER.pdf
1.3.5 Is Genetic Modification Technology Becoming More Precise
· The technology is becoming more precise, however although they can often insert a foreign gene in a precise location, sometimes mistakes happen and it ends up in a different place and even if it ends up where the scientists desire, the foreign gene or genes still can have unexpected impacts on other areas of the plants genome. Such impacts can cause the new plant to be less nutritious, toxic, allergenic or be harmful to other organisms in the environment. Some of these potential impacts may not be apparent for a long time.
· In this link Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: analysis and biosafety implications, by Allison K. Wilson, Jonathon R Latham and Ricarda A Steinbrecher, http://www.somloquesembrem.org/img_editor/file/Wilson%2006%20BGER.pdf the authors discuss on page 210 when 20 new plants are created from the insertion of a foreign gene into the parent plant, each of the different plants will have differing characteristics from each other. If the technique were totally precise then all the plants would be similar to the parent plant except the inserted foreign gene. In addition, the offspring plants should be fairly similar to each other but this is not the case and plenty of evidence of this is given in this 2nd paragraph on page 210.
· In page 217 of this article the authors discuss studies of genome wide mutations that occurred with plants that had genes from a bacterium inserted into them. This means that although a gene may have been inserted into one place, often mutations occurred throughout the resulting plants genetic structure.
· On page 221 in the last paragraph they discuss the potential danger of genetically modified DNA from crop plants may be incorporated into the DNA of the gut bacteria of organisms that eat the plants and also incorporated into the micro-organisms that live in the soil adjacent to the plants. The authors lament the lack of study of these potential hazards.
· On page 222 under the section Conclusions they discuss the various mechanisms they believe operate causing the mutations when foreign genetic DNA is inserted into a host plant. On page 223 the second paragraph they discuss three potential hazards of this process including lessening of the plants nutritional value or increase in allergic potential for ingesting such plants. The second is the impact such mutations might have on other organisms in the environment such as pollinators, other organisms that consume the plant and the potential for the genetically modified DNA being incorporated into the gut bacteria of organisms that consume the plant or incorporated into the DNA of the micro-organisms living in the soil surrounding the plant. The third is how these mutations might impact food plants resistance to drought, heat, cold, disease or other environmental factors.
· The following article states that precision in inserting foreign genetic material into a host organism has not been fully achieved. I did not see the article for it is very costly to see it. Here is a link to the abstract. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11286920 The article is called Controlling transgenic integration in plants by Kumar S, and Fladung M.
· The following articles discuss in great detail how the process of inserting foreign genes into plants is done and some results. Recombinase-directed transgene placement by David Ow. This article describes techniques that may improve the precision of inserting foreign genes in specific parts of a plants genome in specific ways. http://www.gmo-safety.eu/pdf/biosafenet/Ow.pdf This next article goes into great detail on using gene stacking to increase oleic acid content in soybeans.
Page 61http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/154/2/622.full It is called Stacking Multiple Trangenes at a Selected Genomic Site via Repeated Recombinase-Mediated DNA Cassette Exchanges by Z Li.
1.3.6 Why worry about mutations caused by genetic engineering? GMO proponents present 4 arguments
· Mutations happen all the time in nature. Mutations occur from natural causes such as ultraviolet light or natural radiation. Actually mutations are rare in nature and often when they occur organisms are equipped with mechanisms to repair mutations. Until modern times a complaint of breeders was that some traits they desired for plants or animals could not be done because they rarely or never occurred in nature. In this article, by Jain SM. Mutagenesis in crop improvement under climate change, he discusses this in the first paragraph of his introduction.
Ø Organisms are exposed to ultraviolet light, natural radiation and chemicals that cause mutations during their lives. However they have mechanisms to repair these types of mutations that usually work.
Ø Crop plants do not have such mechanisms to fix man made mutations that occur when we splice foreign DNA into them. In addition, the chemical substances that are used in tissue culture during the GMO process overwhelm the mechanisms that normally would fix the rare mutation that might occur under natural conditions. However they are not equipped to handle the many mutations that occur because of the chemicals in the tissue culture.
Ø Comparing the mutations that occur with the GMO creation process to mutations that occur in nature is like comparing apples and oranges because the creation of GMO’s is different from mutations that occur in nature.
· Conventional breeding is more disruptive than genetic engineering breeding.
Ø Proponents of this view may come to this conclusion because they consider mutagenized plants breeding as part of the
Page 62conventional plant breeding program. Mutagenized plant breeding involves exposing plants to high levels of radiation to cause mutations. This process began after WWII. Consider the following study, Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes (changes in the genes) than transgene insertion (inserting foreign genes) by Batista R and colleges at this link, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2265136/ In this study 4 strains of rice were studied. Two strains were produced by mutagenesis while the other 2 were produced by GMO technology.
Ø If you look at the first few sentences in the abstract they consider using radiation to change plant DNA as conventional plant breeding. “Controversy regarding genetically modified (GM) plants and their potential impact on human health and the environment contrasts with the tacit acceptance of other plants that were also modified, but not considered as GM products (e.g., varieties raised through conventional breeding such as mutagenesis)” Also in the first paragraph below the abstract the authors claimed and I quote, “…Since the establishment of the joint Food and Agriculture Organization/International Atomic Energy Agency, Division of the Nuclear Techniques in Agriculture (www-infocris.iaea.org/MVD), 1,916 crop and legume varieties were released worldwide (40% γ-irradiated).” According to the authors of this study radiating plants to create new plant varieties is a conventional form of plant breeding.
Ø I can see how Batista and her colleagues might come to this conclusion considering that this form of plant breeding has been practiced since WWII however it is a small amount of the total conventional plant breeding and it is far different process than I producing tomatoes seeds in my garden in a way that has occurred for millions of years. Mutagenesis is bombarding plants with radiation causing mutations to occur in the offspring.
Ø According to Batista mutagenesis produced more mutations and the risk of unintended consequences was greater than with the GMO technology. However she also said that plants produced with either process can create detrimental side effects and should be carefully tested before entering the market!
Ø According to the article GMO Myths and Truths from the GMO free project, http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.31.pdf GMO proponents have misinterpreted this study. They say since conventional breeding is more disruptive to the genome of plants than the GMO process, conventional breeding should be more highly regulated than GMO technology that according to the study is less disruptive. The GMO proponents focus on mutagenesis that is a small fraction of conventional breeding. The vast majority of conventional breeding involves pollination as it has occurred for millions or billions of years.
· Mutations occurring in genetic modification are no different from those that occur in natural breeding
Ø The article GMO Myths and Truths on pages 16-17 go into a more detailed explanation of how genetic exchange occurs within a fertilized egg but in essence here is how the above argument is refuted. In the natural world in the vast majority of cases breeding only occurs among male and females of the same species. Mutations can occur but usually cellular processes repair the majority of mutations. Although there is literally thousands of possible exchanges that occur between the genes of the mother and the father they are done in process developed over hundreds of thousands of years in a precise way.
Ø On the other hand, with GMO technology DNA can be taken from any organism and inserted into another organism. This rarely if ever occurs in nature. We have not evolved the precision an accuracy that is found in a fertilized egg exchanging genes the natural way. Instead when we insert a foreign gene into a host organism, hundreds to thousands of mutations occur in that host’s genome. So instead of a few possible mutations that are usually corrected, with the GMO process hundreds or possibly thousands of mutations occur.
· We will select out harmful mutations
Ø To a certain extent scientists can cull out harmful mutations because the most lethal mutations will kill the cell or the plant. These scientists will also select the healthiest plants and they have marker genes to tell if the desirable trait is in the healthiest plants. More subtle harmful mutations may effect the plant but not kill it. The plant may adopt in some way just as humans do. However that gene will be passed on.
Ø All healthy species have a lot of variability in their genomes so that if some killer disease comes along there will be a few that survive because they are genetically resistant to the disease. Thus the species can go on. The same can be said for various environmental forces. Perhaps it gets hotter and drier. Or perhaps an ice age occurs. In either of these cases certain humans maybe more adaptable to the event and thus survive. Nobody knows which will survive until the event occurs.
Ø Once you take a plant and change it genetically adding foreign DNA from an entirely different species then hundreds to thousands of mutations are likely to occur in that plants genome. If that plant is selected commercially and planted
Page 65over a wide area many of those hundreds to thousands of mutations will be passed into the future. You may discover later that the plant is not resistant to certain diseases or pests and thus the plant perishes and that food source is lost. Perhaps one of the mutations makes the plant less resistant to heat, cold or drought. So if there is a slight change in climate suddenly the plant dies. You won’t know this until the change occurs! There is no way to test for all the possible scenarios. Monsanto discovered this problem with their Round Up Ready Soy Beans. These bean plants stems cracked open in heat resulting in up to 40% of their crops. http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=250 The article Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready soy beans cracking up was first printed in New Scientist on November 20, 1999 by A Coghland.
1.4 Myth: Cisgenics/intragenics is a safe form of GM because no foreign genes are involved
Truth: Cisgenic/intragenic foods are just as risky as any other GM food
Truth: Cisgenic/intragenic foods are just as risky as any other GM food
· Definitions As far as I can discern cisgenic means taking one gene from one organism and inserting it into an organism of the same species where the two organisms could mate or a closely related organism from a closely related species. The sequence orientation of the gene being inserted is not disturbed in any way. Intragenic is like the above except the sequence of elements within the inserted gene can be different from the original gene. According to findings from European regulators cisgenic processes may produce the same kind of hazards associated with traditional plant breeding. Intragenic breeding like transgenetic breeding (inserting foreign genes into a host plant) produce novel hazards. I presume that they have decided that intragenic and transgenetic are the most dangerous. This comes from an article titled EFSA GMo Newsletter February/March 2012. http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/642
· A different article gives slightly different definitions of the two terms. I quote from the article, Modifying Plant Growth the Cisgenic Way by Viswanath V. in the ISB news report on September 10, 2010. http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2010/Sep/Modifying-Plant-Growth-Cisgenic-Way.pdf “Cisgenes are a subset of intragenes. An intragenic plant, produced by insertion of an intragene, is defined as “a transformed plant that only contains genetic elements derived from within the sexual compatibility group”2, but does not constrain their order, arrangement, or preclude small changes in sequence or expression. Thus, intro- duced point mutations, promoter/coding region swaps, and the use of RNAi, amiRNA, or antisense suppression, are all legitimate. In contrast, cisgenes are flanked by their native regulatory regions, including their introns, and thus the gene is truly a part of a conventional breeder’s gene pool3.
· As GMO foods have entered the market there has been a backlash from the public primarily concerned with the insertion of foreign DNA into organisms often from unrelated species. As a response some scientists are developing processes where they claim only DNA from the same species or closely related species is inserted into the host targeted plant. According to the Myth and Truths about GMO’s they still have to use bacteria or viruses to insert the DNA into plant cells. In the process of bringing the targeted DNA into the host plant some DNA from the bacteria or virus vector gets into the host plant’s DNA so cisgenic or intragenic processes are still actually transgenic processes. Caius M. Rommens has done a lot of work in this field but most of his articles are costly to obtain. One article, Crop improvement through modification of the plant’s own genome in the 2004 American Society of Plant Biologists describes this process. He believes that DNA from a plant’s genome can be modified without inserting foreign DNA. http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/135/1/421.full
· A Canadian company is applying in Canada and the United States to market Arctic apples. Scientists have turned off the genes that produced browning so the apples always look fresh. In this case they claim no foreign genes were added so the company hopes this fact will positively sway consumers. http://fruitgrowersnews.com/index.php/magazine/article/non-browning-apples-cause-controversy Here is another reference to the article, Milkovich M. Non-browning apples cause controversy. Fruit Growers News. 29 April 2011. http://fruitgrowersnews.com/index. php/magazine/article/non-browning-apples-cause-controversy
Part 2 Science and Regulation2.1 Myth: GM foods are strictly regulated for safety
Truth: GM food regulation in most countries varies from non-existent to weak.
· Quotes to ponder.
Ø “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.” – Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications1 (the FDA is the US government’s Food and Drug Administration, responsible for food safety) Pollan M. Playing God in the garden. New York Times Magazine. 25 October 1998. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/25/ magazine/playing-god-in-the-garden.html
Ø Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”– US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)2 US Food and Drug Administration. Statement of policy: Foods derived from new plant varieties. FDA Federal Register. 29 May 1992; 57(104): 229.
I don’t think anyone would argue with the statement that corporations are committed to making profits because the bottom line for a corporate CEO is to provide profits to their stockholders. This is one of the essential tenets of our capitalistic system. What is unclear to many is that regulators do not regulate the large corporations that they are assigned to regulate. Instead the large corporations regulate the regulators. This is not hard to understand especially in these times. Governments are becoming more broke over time. The money is flowing to the corporations especially the big international ones. Since governments are becoming more broke they cannot hire enough regulators to keep watch over everyone. So the government regulators have to rely on the corporations to follow the rules. This is classically shown with FDA relationship to the biotech companies they are suppose to regulate. If you down load the FDA’s 1992 statement on food policy you will see who controls who, over and over again! The documents is about 66 pages long. If the link below is changed google Statement of Polcy – Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties FDA Federal Register Volume 57 - 1992 Friday, May 29, 1992 NOTICES
· http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm#contents and I found the regulators at the FDA rely on the companies that produce GMO foods to guarantee that their products are safe.
Ø Page 9 referring to section 402(a)(1) of the act, “Producers of new foods have an obligation under the act to ensure that the foods they offer consumers are safe and in compliance with legal requirements.”
Ø On page 22 right under the sub heading G. Plants Developed to Make Specialty Nonfood substances, the document states that the developers must insure that their plants do not contaminate plants that create food.
Ø On the bottom of page 24 and the top of page 25 under the section V. Regulatory Status of Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties, The FDA claim they can regulate new processes including genetic engineering but the food producers are the ones responsible for the food’s safety.
Ø Page 26 and 27 discusses how Congress modified the Food Act to require corporations to get FDA approval if they add some kind of additive to food they produce. The document discusses how food producers should use scientific methods to determine if their product may fall under this part of the law. Later in the document the FDA states that under certain conditions that newly produced plants might fall under this provision of the law. On page 28 the document again talks about how it is up to the companies to decide if they fall under this section of the law.
Ø Pages 30 and 31 discusses how newly created plants could fall under the above section of the law if they have toxic elements. Again the FDA states it is the responsibility of the food producer to place only safe food in the market place.
Ø Page 34 describes the FDA’s focus on proteins, fats, and oils. Before newly created plants are placed on the market, producers must determine if detrimental changes occurred in the structure of one or more of the proteins, fats or oils found in the newly created product. If the product is found to have a potentially dangerous substance, then the food producer would be responsible for submitting a form to the FDA for regulating their product for one or more food additives. They are told to refer to section VII for procedures for testing their product in either case. On the bottom of the FDA document I described above was a statement that it was last updated on March 19, 2010.
Ø In summary for the food industry, they are responsible for determining if their product is safe. Scientists who work for the company present their studies to the FDA to prove that their product is safe. It is not FDA scientists who determine the safety of their product!
· The FDA Regulators in the U.S. rely mostly on data from bio-tech company scientists and their studies are not published in journals and subject to scientific peer review. Below are several articles that support this contention. See pages 25-27 of GMO Myths and Truth Article for 4 or 5 more studies.
Ø http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research In the magazine Scientific American called Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research in the August 15, 2009 issue I found the following statements.
ü It is impossible to verify claims of biotech companies concerning GMO crops because they have veto power over independent research.
ü To purchase genetically modified seeds for some bio-tech companies consumers must sign a contract stating they will not conduct independent research with the seeds. Because of the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test various conditions under which that seeds might thrive or fail. They cannot compare seeds from different companies and they cannot study whether the seeds may have unintended harmful consequences.
ü Only studies that the seed companies approve are published in peer review journals. According to the article there are a number of cases where studies were going to be published but companies later blocked them because they deemed the results unflattering.
ü Most companies cannot quash information they do not like. Imagine car companies withholding crash result tests from Consumer Reports studies that they consider unflattering.
ü The author of the article suggests that before the EPA or FDA allow any more genetically modified crops on the market that independent scientists have unfettered access to any GMO product that the company has produced.
Ø Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research Andrew Pollack http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
26 corn insect specialists anonymously lodged a complaint with the EPA claiming that bio-tech companies are keeping university scientists from fully investigating the effectiveness and environmental impact of GMO crops. They did not include their names in the document for they feared that biotechnology companies might cut off funding for their research. However in interviews with the paper several scientists allowed their names to be used.
· As related above the FDA relies on the studies provided by Bio-tech companies produced by scientists paid by the bio-tech companies. In other industries where the companies pay their own scientists to conduct studies concerning the safety and value of their products there is evidence company scientists are more likely to see their products as valuable and safe than independent scientists not paid by such companies. To me this is common sense because I grew up when scientists from tobacco companies claimed smoking was not harmful while independent researchers claimed the reverse. I also watch countless commercials claiming that scientific studies proved the superior performance of their particular product. Yet the FDA still relies on company studies!
Ø The following study attempted to measure the impact of corporate sponsorship of biomedical research. The article called, Scope and impact of financial interest in biomedical research, looked at studies related to this topic from 1980-2002 in MEDLINE. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=195843#qundefined 1664 studies were initially screened while 37 finally met the authors criteria for selection for inclusion. The authors of the study found a significantly higher rate of positive results for the products being studied in those studies done by industry paid scientists. Some other findings stood out for me. Most important, is that there is very little research concerning how corporate sponsorship of research effects what scientist study, the types of questions posed in the studies, how the studies are structured and the results of the studies. Most studies found very little difference in the methodology between industry paid scientists verses independent scientists. Some claimed that independent studies were more rigorous however because they underwent a peer review process more often then studies conducted by company paid scientists. Also industry scientists often compared their product to a placebo or they manipulated the dosage of the control drug etc so that the company product they were comparing it to would look much better in comparison! The authors also reviewed how corporate funding of research has almost doubled in the past 20 years from 32% to 62% of the total funding.
Ø Pharmaceutical Industry sponsorship and research outcomes and quality: systematic review http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7400/1167 This group of scientists did a meta-analysis of studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and found that even though the methodology of these studies were sometimes better than studies done by independent scientists, they often were more favorable toward the products they produced than independent scientists that reviewed these products. The only reasons they could find for such findings were either the drugs they used for comparison were given at such high or low dosages that they would skewer the results or there were publication bias for those who published the studies. The nice thing about this site was there was a section where readers posted comments and there was criticism of the study.
Ø Those who have the gold make the evidence: how the pharmaceutical industry biases the outcomes of clinical trials of medications. Lexchin J. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21327723 Same author as above talks about how company studies are prevalent in the scientific literature and that their results are usually more positive for their products than independent studies not done by company scientists. Discusses how bias is introduced into studies.
Ø Reporting of conflicts of interest from drug trials in Cochrane reviews: cross sectional study. http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e5155 This related study is interesting because most scientific studies agree that your sources of funding for your studies often impact the results that you find. However few journals disclose funding sources of the authors of the studies that they publish. The author of this study provides data of how pervasive this practice is in England. I do not know data for the U.S.
Ø Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797826/ One wonderful aspect of this article is that the authors provide many links to studies of this issue of funding sources impact in other areas of science and industry. The authors found that scientists funded by telecommunications companies found the mobile cell phones were safer. Scientists funded by consumer interests groups or other government agencies may have been biased against the phones and came to more negative conclusions. They also felt that the most objective unbiased results came from scientists who received funding from both telecommunication sources and consumer interest groups.
· Before describing how this same process works with GMO biotechnology companies I would like to go into more detail about how the Tobacco companies manipulated scientific studies to hide the truth about the harmful effects of tobacco. I believe reviewing how tobacco companies manipulated the truth is critical because bio-technology companies maybe utilizing many of the same tactics to hide the truth about their GMO products.
Ø Tobacco industry manipulation of Research by Lisa A. Bero, PhD http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497700/pdf/15842123.pdf I include this article here because the tobacco companies were highly successful at manipulating scientific data during the 1950ties and 1960ties in hiding the truth of the harm of cigarette smoking. By the 1970ties it became generally agreed that smoking was bad for you. However, starting in the 1970ties and lasting into the 1990ties the tobacco industry published studies indicating that 2nd hand smoke was not harmful. One illustration of this power of manipulation was that internal tobacco industry documents show that the industry knew of the addictive power of nicotine by 1964 but they continued to deny this even in 1994 even though by this time the scientific evidence became overwhelming. Below I present some of the scientific strategies the article claims that the tobacco industry used to mislead the public and policy makers. Our biotechnology companies maybe employing the same types of strategies today! Interest groups such as the tobacco industry as soon as scientists began to study the effects of smoking devoted massive resources to create studies to refute the data that independent scientists found. By creating controversy around the science, they were able to postpone regulations that would be harmful to them. Below are the tactics they used to postpone regulations for so long!
ü Funding their own research to support their interests. Groups were established either funded openly by the industry or secretly by the industry to conduct supposedly independent research. Tobacco industry lawyers selected what studies were to be investigated and often helped determine what findings would be disseminated to the scientific journals or the public. Often industry scientists studied other possible confounding factors that could cause lung disease such as genetic factors or other possible air pollutants that could cause conditions taking the focus off tobacco as a possible culprit. The industry also funded experts to testify before Congress and other regulatory agencies. Finally these groups created by the industry conducted some studies that went through peer review but other special studies did not.
ü Publish research that supports their position. The research needed to be published so it could be cited. It was published in symposiums, books, letters to the editor in medical journals and in scientific journals. Most of the research cited came from symposiums. This research was not peer reviewed and according to the author usually was not at the same rigorous scientific standard found in peer reviewed journals. However the industry spokesmen cited these studies as if they were peer reviewed studies. Review articles published by the tobacco companies were of a higher standard and according to the author there were no differences in methodology. The only difference she could find was that the ones supporting the tobacco company position were written by scientists paid by the tobacco companies.
ü Suppress research that does not support the tobacco companies positions. The lawyers in charge of disseminating research did not publish research that might harm the company and would edit research to make it more favorable to the companies. The companies knew in 1964 of the highly addictive nature of tobacco. However even in 1994 the tobacco CEO’s denied this.
ü Criticize research that does not support the tobacco companies positions. Tobacco company scientists misused and misinterpreted data in their letters to the editors of various papers and scientific journals. Many of these scientists that wrote these letters did not disclose their ties to the industry but instead posed as independent scientists. They cited research claiming it was peer reviewed when it was not. They also attacked the character and integrity of scientists that disagreed with them. The tobacco industry hired teams of consultants whose job it was to attack independent scientists who wrote studies critical of their products.
ü Disseminate tobacco company data or interpretation of risk in the lay press. Even as consensus was building among independently funded scientists that cigarette smoking and second hand smoke was harmful, scientists from the tobacco companies generated data and studies indicating that both were not harmful creating in the mind of the regulators and the public that there was still controversy about this subject. Therefore regulation concerning this area was needlessly delayed.
ü Present interest group data or interpretation of risk directly to the regulators. To best understand how they effectively do this I quote directly from the article on the bottom of page 204. “In the United States, the processes for developing these risk assessments and regulations involves review of the relevant scientific literature by the appropriate government agency, preparation of a draft report, collection of written and oral public commentary, and revision of the report based on that public commentary. Public participation in the process is important for shaping the findings of the final risk assessment or regulation as well as for public acceptability of the findings” This author found that people representing and paid for by tobacco interests often submitted the majority of the opinions. However many of them did not state
Page 76directly that they were paid by these interests. The regulators have no way of knowing how many of these opinions were from the public, and how many were from tobacco interests. They are likely to believe that most claims were made by concerned citizens, when in fact, special interests groups were the majority of the opinions expressed. These stealth tactics delayed implementations of regulations as well. The author who works partially for the Institute for Health Studies may have her own biases but one of her solutions is that scientists who present studies need to submit their funding sources.
ü I present the above data to show how scientific studies and data can be easily manipulated depending on which interest group is conducting the study and interpreting the data. I freely admit that I come from a perspective that mistrust the government and mistrust the companies that produce the GMO products. I maybe relying on scientists that in their own way manipulate the data and the studies just as much as the GMO companies. They are as much an interest group with an agenda as the bio-tech companies or tobacco companies. This is why I believe all scientists be allowed to peer review studies done by the bio-tech companies regarding food. It is the fastest way to get at the truth regarding GMO products. To further explore how funding impacts the results of scientific studies, google The funding effect in science.
· Just as shown earlier, evidence exist that scientists that work for or are paid by a company to study their products are more likely to conclude that the product is both safe and valuable, scientists from bio-technology companies who study GMO foods are more likely to look at GMO foods more favorably than independent scientists who study the same foods.
Ø Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products by Diels, Johan. http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v36y2011i2p197-203.html#download The authors of this study found that as in the studies above, scientists studying genetically modified foods who were funded by biotechnology companies were significantly more likely to design studies and draw conclusions more favorable to the GMO foods created by their companies. The above link takes you to the abstract of the article. To view the complete article cost $37 dollars.Unfortunately the funding of scientific studies is a serious matter that can influence both what is studied, as well as the outcome of the studies. Over the last several decades funding for science in agriculture has shifted from government and state sources to private corporate sources. In the article mentioned above, Scope and Impact of Financial Interests in Biomedical Research, claim corporate funding of research has doubled in the last two decades so now it is the primary source of research for most academic institutions hovering around 62%! I believe this has been the case for GMO food
· Public Research Private Gain Corporate Influence Over University Agricultural Research. http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/PublicResearchPrivateGain.pdf An exhaustive study of how bio-tech companies have taken over research in the Universities for their own private gain. Some key points.
Ø Since their creation in 1862 by the Federal government, the public Land Grant Universities created better seeds, and helped farmers develop environmentally effective farming practices that were the envy of the world. These efforts were funded almost entirely by Federal and state money. According to this source for every dollar invested in these efforts 10 dollars were produced in economic activity.
Ø During the 1980tes the Federal Government encouraged the land grant universities to seek private funding and form partnerships with the private sector. Unfortunately reliance on the private sector corrupts the system.
Ø By 2010 a quarter of the funds for research comes from private interests. Unfortunately this reality steers the research toward the private industries interests that fund it. So it not only corrupts the public mission of the research but it distorts the science as well.
Ø By 2010 industry funding of research approached 25% while USDA funding fell to below 15%. At the same time state funding also continues to decline forcing the land grant universities to become more dependent on private funding.
Ø Many university boards that determine policy contain members of Monsanto and other biotechnology or large corporations. See the table on page 4.
Ø As private interests become more powerful they provide more funding for buildings and activities that curry favor with administrators. See the tables on page 5-6. All departments shown receive over a 1/3 of their funding through private corporate sources. Most of the departments receive over 50% of their funding from private corporate sources.
Ø Page 7 states some of the corporations that spent millions including Monsanto to endow faculty chairs at various institutions. The table on this page lists a snapshot of some professors and the percent of their grants received from private sources. Many professors are dependent on private sources for the majority of their research money. Nearly half of university land grant scientists surveyed in 2005 received funding from private sources. See footnote 59.
Ø The Funder Effect in science finds that researchers are more likely to come to conclusions favorable to their funding source. 15% of scientists openly admit to changing the design, methodology of results of scientific studies based on pressure from their funders. See footnote 67.
Ø Half of the scientists submitting peer reviewed articles studying the safety of GMO foods have connection to the GMO industry. Very few of these scientists admit their connection to the industry. All of these scientists found that GMO foods were safe. See footnotes 72 and 73. Many scientific journals do not require scientists to disclose their sources of funding and standards for disclosure in most other journals are varied or weak. See footnotes 74 and 75.
Ø Independent scientists can’t study patented GMO seeds for safety concerns unless they get permission from the inventor to study the seeds. According to this source biotechnology companies prohibit independent research of their patented products. Therefore, these scientists cannot evaluate the safety of their products. When these products are evaluated for regulation independently funded scientists are not part of the discussion process. See footnotes 103 and 104. Instead we have to rely on studies by scientists who are paid by the biotechnology company that produce the seeds and pay them. See footnote 78.
Ø Page 8 and 9 describes what happens to Scientists that question or criticize their sponsors. A remarkable case occurred with an famous international scientist Arpad Pustzai who was in favor of GMO Foods who was in charge of the first major study reviewing the effects of feeding GMO potatoes to rats for 10 days. In an interview on British T.V. after the study he related that growths occurred in some of the rats intestines and that he would not feed his children GMO foods. His former employers at Rowett Research accused him of flawed research and fired him. 20 other famous scientists signed a letter supporting him and protesting the secretive nature of his firing. http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/feb1999/food-f17.shtml In this next you tube clip Pustzai discusses that research. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNjMJIvI3RY
Ø Monsanto and other bio-technology companies utilized land grant public universities for research that fueled the development of signature products such as Bovine Growth Hormone. They then poach the research, patent it and realize tremendous profits. See footnote 89.
Ø Here are a few examples of Corporate Funding of Public Land Grant Universities. There are many more in the article.
ü Tyson Foods Establishes University of Arkansas Chair in Food Safety http://www.tyson.com/Corporate/Home/Media-Room/News-Releases/2004/04/Tyson-Foods-Establishes-University-of-Arkansas-Chair-in-Food-Safety.aspx See the quote from the article below. “In early 2003, Tyson Foods made a gift in kind which will be matched by 1.5 million from the Walton Family Charitable Support Foundation’s $300 million gift to the university in 2002. Investment returns on the total endowment will be used to enhance teaching, research and service programs conducted by the holder of the Wray chair.” According to the source Tyson Foods has donated over 15 million over the years. See footnote 111.
ü Monsanto Commits $250,000 to University of Illinois Ag Communications Program http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/university-of-illinois-ag-communications-program
Ø Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants: A Review of the Published Literature, Jose L Domingo. http://www.biosafety.ru/ftp/domingo.pdf This article’s findings show that up to the year 2000, there were very few published articles in scientific journals investigating the potential toxicity of GMO plants even though GMO modified crops had been widely introduced in the U.S. by 1994. However despite this the World Health Organization had deemed most of the GMO crops in use at that time as being safe. On the other hand, there were many commentaries, letters to the editor in various prestigious science journals and general news articles testifying to the safety of GMO crops citing industry studies as if they were peer reviewed studies! See page 721 of the article. If this analysis is correct this is the same tactic that the tobacco industry employed to protect their products. They relied primarily on industry funded studies, and the people who openly or secretly worked for these tobacco interests, cited these studies also as if they were peered reviewed when they wrote commentaries or letters to the editor in the prestigious magazines and also did so in the general press! This author also did a follow up study in 2007 reviewing the state of the literature concerning studies reviewing the possible toxicity of GMO foods up to that point. I summarize some findings below. Because of the structure of our laws in this country it is likely that the studies summarized below was done by scientists working for the bio-tech companies or were approved by these companies!
ü The first couple of studies indicated that rats fed GMO food verses the ones fed natural food had potentially damaging changes in their digestive tracks. However future short and medium length feeding studies of rats, pigs and other animals fed, both natural and GMO corn, soy, canola, etc did not have significant differences between the groups in terms of health effects. However, some scientists believe damage may emerge if longer term feeding studies are conducted.
ü It has not been clearly established also that all GMO DNA is completely broken down in the digestive tracks of animals that are fed GMO feed. It is not known if fragments of such DNA might be absorbed into bacteria in the gut changing the genome of the bacteria. Is it possible that gut bacteria could assimilate pesticide producing genes allowing them to produce pesticides in our bodies. Anti-biotic resistant genes are often used as marker genes in GMO plants letting scientists know if they have successfully inserted a foreign gene into a plant. If the antibiotic resistant gene is not completely broken down in the animals digestive track, perhaps bacteria can pick the gene up and become resistant to antibiotics!
ü Both of the above points show that scientists paid by the biotechnology companies may structure their studies consciously or unconsciously in such a way to make their product look more positive. Very few long term feeding studies have been done on GMO foods. Also questions regarding foreign DNA being absorbed into gut bacteria of humans or animals as of now has not been studied by industry scientists. The question is if independently funded scientists were allowed to study these GMO foods when they take as long to get around to conducting these studies?
Other Concerns Regarding GMO Foods Briefly (Not yet deeply investigated).
· GMO plants may have less nutritional value than natural counterparts and may contribute to obesity. Obesity is a major factor in many chronic conditions.
· GMO plants may impact the integrity of the soil by damaging soil microbes thus in the long run threatens our food supply.
· GMO planst contaminate DNA of natural plants when they cross pollinate and this impacts patent law. Farmers who do not purposely grew genetically modified crops can be sued by biotechnology companies when their crops become contaminated with the GMO crops!
· Few if any long term studies have been done on the long term impact of feeding animals and humans genetically modified food.
· Exposure and consumption of children to pesticides may lower their intelligence. (Terry Gross NPR)
· A few studies have implicated GMO foods with increasing fertility. In the last few decades fertility has decreased throughout the world. No one is sure why.
· We the American taxpayers are subsidizing the creation and growing of GMO foods. This is one of the reasons why GMO foods are far cheaper than natural or organic foods.2.1.2 Myth: The sham of Substantial Equivalence
· The FDA claims that GMO plants and their natural counterparts are the same for if you do an analysis of the fats, carbohydrates and proteins between the two sets of plants they would probably be over 99% the same. Thus in their logic the two foods are the same. Since the natural food is safe and since the GMO counterpart is virtually the same then it is safe also. Using common sense, one could easily refute such an argument. If you compare the meat from a healthy cow to the meat from a cow with mad cow disease you would find close to 100% match between the fats, carbohydrates and proteins between the two samples of meat. However, eating the meat infected with mad cow disease would alter your life’s course! Let’s give one more obvious example. Let’s assume two sisters are identical twins. Their protein, fat and carbohydrate composition would be very close to 100% identical so according to the FDA they are equivalent. However sister A is very promiscuous while sister B is not! If sister A has aids, and you have sex with her, the course of your life could drastically change for the worse even though the physical composition of both sister’s bodies are almost identical.
· So although the natural plant and it’s GMO counterpart are practically identical in physical composition, one maybe more nutritious than the other. One may have more toxic or allergenic elements than the other and one may fair much better given certain environmental conditions
Jeffery Smith’s Genetic Roulette Movie Notes
Notes from Jeffry Smiths Genetic Roulette Movie that describe the potential dangers of genetically modified foods. It is free online from 9/15-9/22. www.GeneticRouletteMovie.com
Looking at the first 6 minutes of the film the statements presented below agree with my research on the statements his film presented which I recorded below. I put a check at the end of each statement that I have verified already with government or scientific sources that can be found in the documents in http://unclesamenterstheendgamepart1.blogspot.com
(On the left side click on the link called Health Care trends. On pages 30-39 contains links supporting most of the statements below. More information somewhat related to some of the statements below can be found on the pages 40-61.) At the end of some of the statements in his film, I put at what point they can be found in the video, ___minutes___seconds. This video will be shown on line for free during the week of 9/15 – 9/22. Again here is a link to the video. www.GeneticRouletteMovie.com It cost about $30 to buy it. Below are statements from about the first 6 minutes of the 85 min movie.
· Americans get sick more than individuals in European and other industrialized countries. 14 sec
· Americans since the mid 1990ties have seen almost a doubling of those people who suffer from 3 or more chronic conditions. 25 seconds
· Infant mortality is also rising.
· 88% of U.S. corn genetically modified. 1 min 30 sec
· 94% of U.S. soy genetically modified. 1 min 36 sec
· GMO Genetically modified organisms are created when they take genes of 1 species and force them into another species. Species that would never mate have mixture of genes. 2 min 10 sec
ü Goats are created with spider genes then goats are milked to get spider protein webbing to produce bullet proof vests
ü Pigs with cow genes are created so pigs can have cow hides. 2 min 30 sec.
ü Human genes into corn to make spermicide. Although I have not seen the above articles supporting the above 2 statements I have seen countless other articles involving genetically modified plants and animals so I have no doubt that the statements could be true.
· For food we eat there are two main categories of GMO foods. Those with enhanced resistance to pesticides and those that produce their own pesticides. 3 min 15 sec
· This is how GMO’s are made. You take a gene and make millions of copies. You put the genes into some kind of gun and shoot them into millions of cells. Then you clone those cells into a plant. The process of inserting the gene then cloning produces massive collateral damage. There can be hundreds or thousands of mutations up and down the DNA chain and hundreds or thousands of genes that change their level of expression throughout the plant causing unpredicted side affects.
· Look up David Bronner, President of Bronner’s Magic Soaps. Says food regulating agencies full of people who have worked at Monsanto under Obama and prior administrations.
· Look up Robin A. Bernhoft M.D. Medical Director of Bernhoft Center for Advanced Medicine. Genetic engineering is not an exact science. Typically they put into that gun a virus or part of a virus to put that gene into the cells of a plant.
· Look up Arden Anderson PhD, DO, MPH. Author of Real Medicine, Real Health. From a bio-physics perspective when we look at the signature of that entire gene sequence that has been modified in a plant, it is completely foreign. It does not exist anywhere in nature. Therefore our immune system looks at that sequence that it is exposed to when we eat the genetically modified food and realizes that it has never seen that sequence ever, because it doesn’t exist in nature (it is foreign) so it attacks creating an inflammatory reaction. 4 min. √
· Martha Grout M.D. Medical Director of The Arizona Center for Advanced Medicine says, “Most of the diseases we deal with have as a source, inflammation. Many of them have as a source inflammation of the gut, the first interface between our food and our bodies. Here are graphs showing the increase in various diseases related to the gut that occurred as GMO foods were introduced into our diet. GMO foods were first introduced into the U.S. food supply in 1996. Both the amount of GMO foods and the incidence of these chronic conditions have steadily increased since then. Graphs show increases in inflammatory bowel disease, ulcerative colitis, chronic constipation, gastrointestinal intestinal infections, Crohn’s disease, and gastroesophageal reflux. 4 minutes 50 seconds. √ In the material, in http://unclesamenterstheendgamepart1.blogspot.com in the blog Contents for Healthcare Trends there are also links to many government documents and scientific articles documenting the recent rise in many inflammatory chronic conditions some of which are mentioned above.
· According to a recent Time magazine article chronic inflammation is closely related to many killer diseases. Google Time Magazine Cover: Inflammation: The Secret Killer – Feb. 23, 2004. Then click on the link, Health: The Fires Within – Time. The title on the cover of that issue is, The Secret Killer: The Surprising Link between Inflammation and Heart Attacks, Cancer, Alzheimer’s and other diseases. What you can do to fight it. Here is a direct link to the article. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993419,00.html ) √
· Martha Grout believes we should look at other diseases not directly connected to the gut but also involve inflammation such as allergies, auto-immune diseases, kidney disease, heart disease, thyroid disease. At the 5 min 45 sec mark a graph of diabetes shows a marked increase after the introduction of GMO foods in 1996. √ Again if you go to http://unclesamenterstheendgamepart1.blogspot.com and go to the blog Contents for Healthcare Trends you will see lots of links to government documents CDC and scientific papers showing recent alarming rates of increase in Diabetes and other inflammatory chronic conditions on pages 30-61.
· Just based on the first 5 or 6 minutes of the 85 minute film, it seems accurate so I think it is well worth seeing or purchasing to understand one plausible explanation for the recent increase of many chronic inflammatory life threatening conditions. Again it is available for free during 9/15-9/22 on line. www.GeneticRouletteMovie.com
More GMO Related Studies
Technical Announcement: Widely Used Herbicide Commonly Found in Rain and Streams in the Mississippi River Basin Released: 8/29/2011 8:19:35 AMhttp://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2909#.UFyPE47R1SU Roundup found in water of streams throughout area
Occurrence and fate of the herbicide glyphosate and its degradate aminomethylphosphonic acid in the atmosphere.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21128261 Glyphosate Found in 60 to 100% of Water and Rain Samples Collected in Agricultural Areas in Mississippi, Indiana and Iowa.
Roundup Found in Urine of City Dwellers. This study found the concentrations of roundup between 5-20 times that found in drinking water. http://www.sott.net/articles/show/241723-Roundup-in-City-dwellers-Urine
Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670 Pesticides and toxins related to GMO foods found in the bodies of pregnant women and fetuses.
Monsanto Hides Decades of Pollution http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A46648-2001Dec31
Differential effects of glyphosate and roundup on human placental cells and aromatase.http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articles/PMC1257596/reload=0;jsessionid=ho3Ed49hxL1NuItDns7S.4 This study concludes that not only is glyphosate toxic to human placenta cells within 18 hours of exposure but Roundup which glyphosate is the main ingredient is more toxic! Levels of exposure for the two different substances were lower than exposures used in agricultural use
Secretary of Agriculture Maybe Able to Reverse Court Decisions Suspending the Growing of Potentially Dangerous GMO Plants
Making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes.
http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills-112-hr-sc-ap-fy13-agriculture.pdf Section 733 of the bill starting on page 85 of the document seems to give the Secretary of Agriculture the Right to reverse court decisions suspending the growing of potentially dangerous GMO plants. Perhaps this regulation is to get around the court injunctions regarding the growing of GMO sugar beets and GMO alfalfa. http://www.anh-usa.org/dont-let-the-biotech-industry-sneak-this-in/ It looks like as far as I can tell, if this provision of the bill is passed by Congress then the courts will have no say in saying whether such foods can be grown or not. I don’t know if the provision passed Congress and was signed by the president because the article concerned about this bill was dated June 18, 2012.
In the beginning of section 733 it mentions sections 411-413 of the Plant Protection Act. A link to The Plant Protection Act is found below. The sections seemed to give the Secretary of Agriculture that right to determine what plants are dangerous and how they should be handled. Although somewhat difficult to understand, taking the two acts together, if this rider to the first bill is passed, it seems like the Executive Branch of our Federal government has snuck another power grab past us.
Plant Protection Act http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-106publ224/html/PLAW-106publ224.htm Section 411 starts if you scroll down about 4/5 through the document.
A Ton of GMO stuff http://twitter.com/i/#!/search/?q=%23gmo&src=hash
Initiative To Label Genetically Modified Foods in Arizona
Arizonians For Labeling GMO Foods
• I, John Underhill (Chairman) and Nicholas Guillermo (Treasurer), formed a political action committee, (PAC) in order to modify Arizona law so that all foods and substances ingested by humans, containing genetically modified ingredients shall be labeled so that consumers know the approximate percent of genetically modified material within any product. In addition, labeling would allow consumers to know the percent of genetically modified food any animal consumed in their diet.
• Political action committee created on the Secretary of State website called Arizonians for Labeling Genetically Modified Foods.
• We have registered with the IRS and have a tax ID number.
• A campaign finance statements are filed on the Secretary of State website.
• I am in contact with individuals from the GMO Free Project USA, the GMO Free Project Tucson and in contact with folks from the Just Label It organization.
To see us on line go to www.az.sos.gov/ On the left side go to the tab elections. Then in the drop down menu click on the third tab called campaign finance. From here go to the top tab called Search the Financial Reporting Database and click on it. You will be taken to a page called Campaign Finance Search - Candidates. Right underneath this title you will see the tabs: Candidate, Party, PAC, Ind Expnd, Seg Fund, Ballot Msr, etc. Click on the tab, Ballot Msr. Now scroll near or to the bottom of the page and click on the link Arizonians For Labeling Genetically Modified Foods. Click on it and you will see what has been filed so far. If you go to the bottom of the page you can click on 2012 Post Primary Election Report, to see our campaign finance reports. Since I have not set up fund raising accounts there has been no financial activities.
Goals and Questions
· First setting up the organization and fund raising accounts. Should it be set up as profit or nonprofit? Is there anyone with expertise in this area?
· Getting sponsors such as Trader Joes, Sprouts, Whole Foods,
· Once fundraising accounts established, write the initiative specifying what regulations would be deleted, added or modified then submit it to the legislative committee to check to see if it is constitutional. This can be in January 2013.
· Write a 100 word summary of the initiative to appear on the ballot in 2014.
· Hire legal counsel to help with the process.
End Game Many Fronts of the Hidden Ones War Against Humanity
FDA Scientists Question Food Safety Of GMO’s from Beginning Data Obtained From FOA Lawsuit
· Don’t place GMO foods on Market because no way to compare data from traditional breeding vs GMO because no data concerning GMO’s
· Changing genetic structure changes amounts of nutrition and toxins in plants. No way to tell unless carefully studied how plants will impact humans or environment.
· FDA glossed over risks of GMO technology favoring biotech industry. Traditional breeding and GMO have differing risks.
· GMO breeding can involve inserting genes between, plants, animals, bacteria and viruses with unknown consequences.
· Natural plants and GMO plants are not equivalent!
· GMO plants may increase the rates of allergies and scientific evidence existed at this point to show that this was a danger.
· Animals whose diets consist of 50 to 75% GMO plants may be harmed!
· The use of antibiotic marker genes in the GMO creation process may cause diseases in cattle or humans to become resistant to antibiotics.
· GMO foods should be carefully studied before entering the market place and they should be labeled so consumers have a choice to whether they should consume them.