Playing Genetic Roulette With Your Body? I Smell A Crap-Out (R8 Re-Post)

The news that crops can be effectively immunized against the adoption of GM genes is a whiff of fresh air!


You can see that I changed my profile image - animals know better than to eat that stuff.


They can understand that the taste is just wrong. We have been conditioned to cover our foods in all sorts of garnishes, sweeteners and other obfuscators of taste.


It looks the same.


It seems to taste the same.


You can seem to do the same things to it that you did with real foods.


Understand, though...you aren't getting the same amount of nutrition.


You are also receiving a sizable amount of pesticide that doesn't necessarily wash off when you rinse.


Anywho...gotta get back to the old grind. Have a great weekend.


Playing Genetic Roulette With Your Body? I Smell A Crap-Out

posted by Vincent Nunes
Tue, 10/09/2012 - 5:47pm

I had a great time at my reunion this weekend, despite my not being in the best of shape. I did get to see quite a number of my fellow classmates, though I couldn't make the rounds completely - please forgive me, you guys.
I read a number of stories that really made me get up and speak to my mom in regards to the dangers of artificial sweeteners, specifically Splenda. Without further ado:

Stop Using Splenda - Tuesday, October 09, 2012 by: Melissa A. Bartoszewski, DC

(NaturalNews) Do you put Splenda in your coffee? Or use it in your baked goods, instead of regular sugar or other natural alternatives? You may think you are making a better choice, but in fact, you are doing more harm than good. Many foods labeled as "healthier for you," low calories, no/low fat, are typically worse for you than the real thing. Ingredients that are chemically altered and processed are not better for you. Although long-term studies performed on Splenda and their effects on humans have not been performed, willingly ingesting possibly carcinogenic materials is unsafe.
The Many Problems With Splenda
Splenda, also known as sucralose, is a combination of maltodextrin and dextrose and is 600 times sweeter than regular sugar. Splenda is a synthetic compound discovered in 1976 by scientists in Britain seeking a new pesticide formation and is similar in chemical composition to DDT. Splenda is found in countless products and advertised as a "safe" alternative to sugar. "The inventors of Splenda admit around fifteen percent (15 percent) of sucralose is absorbed by the body, but they cannot guarantee us (out of this 15 percent) what amount of chlorine stays in the body and what percent flushes out" (Brahmini, 2012). Chlorine is considered a carcinogen. Possible side effects of Splenda include: "gastrointestinal problems (bloating, gas, diarrhea, nausea), skin irritations (rash, hives, redness, itching, swelling), wheezing, cough, runny nose, chest pains, palpitations, anxiety, anger, moods swings, depression, and itchy eyes." (Brahmini, 2012)
A 12-week study performed by Duke University on rats determined that Splenda caused pH imbalances in the body, disrupted absorption in the intestinal tract, depletion of good bacteria, swollen livers, kidney calcification and promoted weight gain (Gerson, 2008). No long-term studies have been performed regarding the dangerous effects of Splenda on humans, yet this product continues to be put on the shelves of our grocery stores, advertised and bought by "health conscious" consumers, trying to make healthier decisions.

Au Naturale

Our society needs to get away from the common perception that sugar substitutes are safer, healthier options; they are NOT! Agave is an example of a natural sweetener that is not chemically processed. Sugar in the raw form and Stevia are some other examples of natural, healthy sweeteners. Organic honey can also be used to sweeten many things naturally. Just because a product is on the shelf, does not mean it is safe. The Food and Drug Administration has approved many unsafe products for human consumption. NutraSweet is a known neurotoxin that has been proven to cause tumors and had been previously banned in Europe; yet was previously deemed safe for human consumption, like Splenda has been today. The truth is, the long-term consequences of ingesting man-made chemical substitutes are unknown, but it is better to be safe than sorry, and avoid products containing such ingredients at all costs.

Always read labels and question anything that has a long name that you cannot pronounce; more than likely it is a chemical you should steer clear of.

Sources:

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/artificial-sweeteners.html
Myths and facts about aspartame and sucralose: a critical review Maganti Brahmini*, Tanikonda Keerthi, Birudugadda Priyadarshini, Idpuganti Sudheerbabu Sir C.R. Reddy College Of Pharmaceutical Sciences. Santhinagar, Eluru-534007 India

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.nycc.edu
Splenda, The Calorie-Free Artificial Sweetener, May Leave Consumers with Something Worse
Than a Bitter Aftertaste. (Total Health, Mar/Apr2009, Vol. 30 Issue 4, p17-17, 1/2p)
http://www.draxe.com

Gerson Healing Newsletter, Nov2008, Vol. 23 Issue 6, p8-9, 2p (http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.nycc.edu)

About the author:
Dr. Melissa Bartoszewski is a chiropractor at Estramonte Chiropractic & Wellness Center in Charlotte, NC. She is a graduate of New York Chiropractic College. Dr. Bartoszewski is also a raw food and natural healthcare advocate. Follow her on Twitter at PolishChiro.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037475_splenda_sucralose_chlorine.html#ixzz28q6hkkUO

There are four containers of La Yogurt in the refrigerator that contain sucralose. I advised everyone in the household to leave that garbage on the store shelves. It really should not be available for human consumption.
Let's segue into a review of Jeffrey Smith's latest film, Genetic Roulette, which can be seen at http://geneticroulettemovie.com/
From my notes:

• The human body does not see GMOs as foodstuffs; instead, the "organisms" promote inflammation, disease, etc.
• Crossing zones can create mutations in DNA
• GMO "science" is equivalent to an episode of Gunsmoke (check out the method by which genes are "fired" into other organisms)
• Pesticide producing crops destroy the stomachs of insects - why do we believe that the stomachs of other organisms are immune to this?
• Scientific consensus is equivalent to quackery
• Long-term studies to gauge effects of GMOs on organisms were never performed
• The FDA actually doesn't approve any GMO crops, and biotech firms are free to market their FrankenFoods as viable alternatives to naturally grown/organic crops
• The biotech firms have "bad science" down to a science
• The main ingredient in Monsanto's BT crops, Bacillus Thurgeniensis, breaks open stomach tissue - that is its primary function...so why would this affect only insects?
• The bacteria (BT) in Roundup soybeans persisted in the human gut - this would seem to account for the increase in gastro-intestinal ailments in the last few decades
• Food allergies/intolerances are caused by intestinal function disruption
• 35 years ago, there was no such thing as a "food allergy"
• There is a relationship between GMOs and autism, though the firm link has not been established
• Roundup functions as a deprivation agent (glyphosate is a chelator - it makes nutrients unavailable to the organism) - by definition, Roundup-ready crops have less nutritional value than conventional crops; Roundup can also affect the human body in the same way - those missing tace minerals adversely affect immune response
• Glysophate is genotoxic
• Fertility clinics now abound - once, they were scarce and unnecessary
• The mystery organism discovered by Dr. Don Huber is transferable and heat-tolerant; in examining aborted fetal tissue, it exhibited the functions of a fungus but was the size of a virus
• A number of testimonials from pet owners and from farms report adverse effects from GMO feed/pet foods, and the positive reactions once those GMOs are removed from their diets
• Monsanto's rBGH ingredient IGF1 is linked to breast and prostate cancer - scientists performing these experiments later refused to ingest rBGH-laced milk
• Children's immune systems are not prepared for GMOs - their young genes are mutable
• The WIC Program that assists low-income families with essential supplies actually promote GMO baby formulae (including Similac, Enfamil, Gerber)
• WHY GMOs? GMOs are a PRODUCT
• Monsanto's true mission statement should read: "To take control of the world's foodstuffs and to marry them with our chemicals"

Was that harsh?
The real question to ask is: is any of that UNTRUE?
There's much more you can take from the movie - watch it for yourself, and see if I am wrong. It's only 85 minutes of your time.
Watch it in segments, if you like - it's not a race. It's important that you are aware of the danger that GMOs pose to you, your family and your health.
GMOs ARE A PRODUCT.
GMOs MAY SIMULATE THE LOOK OF FOOD, BUT ARE NOT FOOD.
I'm going to give Monsanto a new goal.
Why don't you create a chelating agent that removes TOXINS from the human body? I mean, you found a way to capture necessay nutrients and successfully inoculate them; why not the opposite? It sounds like the kind of research you should have been involved with in the first place.
Think about it!
A chelating agent for HFCS! You could pop one of those, then drink all of the surgary soda pop you wanted, with nary an ill effect! It's all going out with the bathwater, so to speak.
Let's get back to the topic of GMOs - do you know that GMO crops have been banned pretty much all over the world?
Do you know that Monsanto itself serves only non-GMO foods in their cafeterias?
What, you say? These guys make FrankenFood, but they themselves won't eat it?
You tell me what that says to you. I know what it says to me. In fact, the current Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, I understand, is a big booster for the biotech companies, yet on his plane, the meals are certified organic.
From Jon Kirby's blog:

Does Monsanto Man Mitt Romney Secretly Eat Organic? Not just Mitt, All the Clintons,Bushes, and Obamas ; Michelle said Corn Syrup is Poison: One has to ask Does someone know something we don’t?!

September 26, 2012 by jonkirby2012

Repost mother Jones
By Tom Philpott
Wed Sep. 26, 2012 3:00 AM PD
Mitt Romney hasn’t divulged many details about what kind of agriculture policy he’d pursue as president. (Sound familiar?) But all signs suggest that he’d follow the agribiz party line. As Wayne Barrett showed in a recent Nation piece (my comment here), Romney has ties to agribusiness giant Monsanto that date to the ’70s, when GMO seeds were an R&D project, not a business model. According to Barrett, Romney, then a young Bain consultant, helped nudge Monsanto on its path away from disgraced industrial chemical concern toward its current status as world-beating agribiz player. Then there’s the agribiz execs and shills the GOP nominee tapped for his campaign’s Agriculture Advisory Committee.
But guess what? In the privacy of his campaign jet, the beleaguered presidential contender apparently eats organic, reports the Today show’s Peter Alexander:

And, while I’ve never been invited up front, sources close to the campaign tell me the shelves are stocked with a wide variety of healthy fare. Kashi cereals, hummus, pita as well as organic applesauce. Everything’s organic, I’m told, including the ingredients to Romney’s favorite, peanut butter and honey sandwiches.
Nor is this the first time the Romney family has been linked to organic food. Get a load of this 2002 profile of Ann Romney from the Worcester (Mass.) Telegram & Gazette:
Mrs. Romney was introduced to several practitioners of holistic medicine, who persuaded her to adopt alternative therapies. She now eats organic foods and very little meat. She practices reflexology and undergoes acupuncture treatments. She credits the lifestyle with turning her health around.
I have calls and emails into the Romney campaign to confirm these reports. I have yet to hear back. But if they’re true—and it’s hard to imagine either the Romneys or the journalists would make them up—Romney would hardly be the only prominent politician to publicly promote genetically modified foods while privately avoiding them by sticking to organics. (USDA organic code forbids GMOs from any food labeled organic, along with the application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides).
Indeed, he’s following a tradition that dates to Bill Clinton, includes George W. Bush and his family, and is alive and well in the White House of Romney’s opponent, Barack Obama. What’s my evidence that the Clintons and Bushes ate organic? Get this, from someone who knows—Walter Scheib, who served as White House executive chef during the Clinton and Bush years:
From 1994 to 2005 I was the executive chef at the White House. This offered me not only the personal honor of serving two unique and interesting first families, but the professional challenge of fulfilling Hillary Clinton’s mandate of bringing contemporary American cuisine and nutritionally responsible food to the White House.
This meant that nearly all the product used was obtained from local growers and suppliers. There was a small garden on the roof of the White House where produce was grown.
The ethic of the purchasing and the cooking at the White House under my direction and under the continuing direction of [current Obama White House executive chef] Cris Comerford is one of respect for the pedigree of the product and manner it is grown, gathered, raised or caught.
The Clinton and Bush families dined regularly on organic foods. Both wagyu and grass-fed beef were frequently used.
And here’s Scheib again, in an interview with the blog Obama Foodorama, on Hillary Clinton’s unheralded rooftop veggie garden:
“Not certified organic,” Mr. Scheib said. “But everything was absolutely grown without pesticides and fertilizers. I guess it’s what these days we call ‘natural.’”
And “the emphasis on organics became even more important when the Bushes arrived in the White House,” Obama Foodorama reported. “Laura Bush was ‘adamant’ about organics, according to Mr. Scheib.” Scheib also told the New York Times that Laura Bush “insisted that fresh, organic foods be served in the White House,” but she just didn’t talk “much about it outside the house.”
While the Clintons and Bushes quietly dined on organic and grass-fed, their administrations pushed policies that propped up industrial agriculture and the companies that dominate it. Clinton promoted GMOs to the very end of his term—a cause his wife Hillary has kept up as secretary of state. At least Clinton was fairly progressive on maintaining strict USDA standards for organic farming; Bush matched Clinton’s zeal for propping up industrial farming but also tried to weaken organic standards.
As for the Obamas, Michelle Obama, unlike her predecessors, was pretty open about her preference for organics—at least at first. For a pre-election 2008 profile, Ms. Obama told the The New Yorker that “in my household, over the last year we have just shifted to organic.” She added a little critique of a famous industrial-food sweetener:
And the fruit-juice-box thing, and we think—we think—that’s juice. And you start reading the labels and you realize there’s high-fructose corn syrup (BIOWEAPON) in everything we’re eating. Every jelly, every juice. Everything that’s in a bottle or a package is like poison in a way that most people don’t even know…
And, of course, soon after she moved into the White House, Ms. Obama famously broke ground on an organic garden on the lawn—and launched a campaign to inspire children to make healthier food choices.
But the agrichemical industry quickly chided the Obamas for not using “crop protection products” (i.e., pesticides) in their garden; the administration began making pro-agribiz appointments and policy moves (a trend that continues to this day); and Michelle Obama shifted her kids’ health campaign to emphasize exercise over diet change.
Now the Obamas appear to have settled into the pattern established by their predecessors: privately eat organic while publicly maintaining the food system status quo—a pattern that Romney, if he wins, seems ready to maintain. So, organic for the elite, GMOs for everyone else? That’s precisely the kind of exclusive mindset that gives organic food a bad name.
——–
One has to wonder what are politician for if they aren’t standing up for the poisons we are injesting.

Let's highlight this sentence: So, organic for the elite, GMOs for everyone else?
GMOs are NOT food. Consider the movement to keep GMOs unlabled.
A fellow in the film Genetic Roulette says it best - I paraphrase: "No one gets up in the morning anxiously awaiting their next bite of some GMO food - in the 30 years since the idea of GMOs, there has not at any point been any improvement in any GMO food compared to conventional/organic food."
Watch the film and see how he states it - much better than the above.
In California, Proposition 37 is on the ballot, to be voted upon on Election Day. The biotech firms and their benefactors are adamant upon you and I not knowing the origin of the foods upon our shelves.
I believe that, after watching this film, reading Jeffrey Smith's books, verifying the information I've imparted to you above and in past articles, you will implore everyone you know in California to vote YES! on Proposition 37.
Download a poster (4.2MB, PDF) listing both both the corporate charlatans who are selling organic while fighting Prop. 37 and the organic companies who have donated money in support of Prop. 37.
To help you eat safer, visit http://www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com or download the iPhone app ShopNoGMO.

Debunking Popular Myths about GE Crops Portrayed in the Media - CFS

Debunking Popular Myths about GE Crops Portrayed in the Media:

By Debbie Barker, International Programs Director, Center for Food Safety

September 19th, 2014

Response to The New Yorker “Seeds of Doubt” Article, August 25, 2014

Scientific Review & Contributions: Bill Freese; Doug Gurian-Sherman, Ph.D; Martha Crouch, Ph.D

The recent article, “Seeds of Doubt,” in the August 25, 2014 issue of The New Yorker by Michael Specter echoes common myths about genetically engineered (GE) crops and omits legitimate scientific critiques of the technology. The resulting article fails to deliver the high level of integrity and journalism that is expected of The New Yorker.
Biotechnology corporations spend hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising and marketing each year. Monsanto, one of the leading biotech companies, spends from $87 million to $120 million annually on advertising, much of it focused on GE crop technology. The industry spends millions more on lobbying, opposing ballot initiatives to label GE foods, and further promotional activities. Such massive spending has effectively framed a favorable narrative about GE crops and foods in several major media outlets, including The New Yorker.
The frame of this particular article presents Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., as the leader of an international movement in opposition to GE crops at the expense of science-based solutions to feed the world’s poor. However, it is the failure of this technology— not Luddite fear mongering—that has prompted scientists, academics, policymakers, governments and regular people to question the biotech industry.
Rather than fully examining important scientific literature on genetic engineering, the author reasserts some of the most common—and most debunked—myths about the technology. Here are a few of the myths that The New Yorker perpetuated:
Myth: Genetically Engineered (GE) Crops are a Solution to Hunger and Malnutrition—After spending hundreds of millions of dollars and over 30 years of research, the promises that GE crops would feed the world and provide enhanced nutrition have failed.
Myth: GE Crops Use Fewer and Safer Chemicals—Instead, GE crops have increased overall usage of pesticides by hundreds of millions of pounds, and next generation GE crops will further increase pesticide usage of even stronger, more toxic herbicides such as 2,4-D and dicamba.
Myth: GE Crops Increase Yields—Research has demonstrated that herbicide-resistant corn and soybeans in the U.S. have shown no yield increases. Yield increases seen in Bt crops, including The New Yorker article’s citation of yield increases for Bt cotton in India, are primarily due to conventional breeding or other factors, not genetic engineering.
Major studies affirm that inexpensive agroecological farming methods can increase yields as much or more than industrial agriculture systems while also reducing use of chemicals and water, and improving social and economic well- being.
These myths are debunked in further detail below and some of the great successes of ecological farming are highlighted.
Myth: GE Crops Are a Solution to Hunger and Malnutrition—The New Yorker article cites golden rice as an example of a GE crop that could alleviate malnutrition in poor countries. For at least two decades, biotech proponents have promoted golden rice—engineered to have high levels of carotenoids, which are precursors of vitamin A—as the solution to blindness due to vitamin A deficiency.
However, golden rice is not on the market because a host of intellectual property issues and technical problems have inhibited its development for over a decade. Only a few months ago, the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)—charged with research, analysis, and testing of golden rice—released a report revealing that the “average yield [of GE golden rice] was unfortunately lower than that from comparable local varieties already preferred by farmers.” IRRI also stated: “It has not yet been determined whether daily consumption of golden rice does improve the vitamin A status of people who are vitamin A deficient and could therefore reduce related conditions such as night blindness.”
Golden rice is not an anomaly. In early 2000, based on work carried out as a post-doctoral fellow at Monsanto, African plant pathologist Florence Wambugu directed a project to develop a virus- resistant GE sweet potato to be grown in Kenya. New Scientist reported on the project: “In Africa [GE] food could almost literally weed out poverty.” Forbes magazine reported, “While the West debates the ethics of genetically modified food, Florence Wambugu is using it to feed her country.” However, these articles were published a few years before field trials were even completed. The results of the failed field trials were quietly published in 2004. Kenya’s Daily Nation reported: “Trials to develop a virus resistant sweet potato through biotechnology have failed.”
Around the same time, breeders in Uganda and Mozambique successfully developed disease-resistant sweet potatoes with high beta-carotene content using conventional breeding, and which also had much higher productivity.
Similarly, the biotech industry touted that cassava, one of the most important starch crops in Africa, was enriched with greatly increased protein content using genetic engineering. However, the research article claiming the elevated protein was later retracted when it was found that the purported increased protein did not exist.
But, as with sweet potato and many other crops, non- GE breeding is making progress toward improving cassava for many traits, from yield and nutritional enhancement to drought tolerance. Several of these improved varieties are already being grown by farmers in Africa. Yet these successes are not often reported.
Myth: GE Crops Use Fewer and Safer Chemicals— Over 99 percent of GE crop acres are either: 1) herbicide-resistant (HR) crops that withstand repeated broad spectrum dousing of one or more herbicides to kill weeds without harming the crop; and/or 2) insect-resistant, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crops that produce toxins in their tissues that kill target pests.
Over five of every six acres of GE crops planted in the world today (85 percent) are herbicide-resistant; nearly all of them are Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn, soybeans, cotton, alfalfa, canola and sugar beets. The active ingredient in Roundup, the company’s flagship herbicide, is glyphosate. Roundup Ready crops have had several negative environmental impacts. A recent, peer-reviewed assessment based on pesticide data from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) shows that Roundup Ready crops have resulted in 527 million pounds more herbicides being sprayed in the U.S. than would likely have been the case without these crops (based on figures from 1996 to 2011).
The enormous use of glyphosate with Roundup Ready crops has also generated an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds, sometimes referred to as “super weeds.” Virtually unknown prior to Roundup Ready crops, these weeds now infest over 60 million acres of cropland in the U.S., an area the size of Wyoming, and represent one of the major challenges facing North (and South) American farmers. The rapid rate of Roundup resistant weeds contradicts the claims of the biotech industry that resistance would not be a problem. In its submission to the USDA for approval of the first GE soy crop, Monsanto stated, “…glyphosate is considered to be an herbicide with low risk for weed resistance.” It also claimed that several university scientists agreed “that it is highly unlikely that weed resistance to glyphosate will become a problem as a result of the commercialization of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans.”19
Next Generation of GE Crops—Stronger Chemicals
The New Yorker article omits that in response to the weed epidemic, biotech companies are now seeking approval for new GE crops that are resistant to older, toxic herbicides such as 2,4-D, developed in the 1940s. Dow AgroSciences is seeking USDA approval of corn and soybeans resistant to 2,4-D, which is linked to increased rates of immune system cancer, Parkinson’s disease and other health problems. Likewise, Monsanto is planning to seek approval for transgenic, dicamba-resistant soybeans, corn, and cotton. Dicamba has been tentatively linked to increased rates of colon and lung cancer in farmers by the National Cancer Institute.
Although advertised as the solution to glyphosate- resistant weeds, USDA projects that 2,4-D-resistant corn and soybeans will lead to a two- to seven-fold increase, from 26 million pounds per year currently to 176 million pounds per year. In addition to the health concerns raised by next-generation GE crops, USDA and weed scientists agree that weed resistance to 2,4-D would rapidly occur. Further, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) risk assessment of 2,4-D resistant crops identifies numerous potential risks to the environment as well as economic impacts to farmers from 2,4-D drift, which can damage sensitive crops.
Myth: GE Crops Increase Yields—Biotech corporations claim that GE crops result in higher yields and thus are an important tool for feeding the world and raising farmer incomes. An important precursor to discussing yield data is to note that the majority of today’s GE crops are not grown for humans but are instead cultivated for livestock feed and ethanol for cars.
Regarding yield, a landmark report, Failure to Yield, by Dr. Doug Gurian-Sherman, found that herbicide- resistant (GE) corn and soybeans have shown no yield increase in the U.S.28 This report and a major peer-reviewed research paper also show that since GE corn was introduced in 1996, the majority of increased corn productivity was due to conventional breeding and improved cultivation. Data from Europe suggests that productivity increases of corn have been about as high as in the U.S. without using genetic engineering.
Contrary to The New Yorker article’s claims, most of the increases in cotton yield in India are from sources other than genetic engineering. According to the primary cotton scientist of the Indian Central Institute for Cotton Research, K.R. Kranthi, almost all of the 59 percent yield increase in cotton between 2002 and 2011/12 occurred by 2005, when only about 5.6 percent of cotton acres were Bt varieties. Kranthi attributes most cotton yield increases in India during this period to the introduction of hybrid cotton, increased irrigation and other factors unrelated to Bt. In fact, between 2007/08 and 2011/12, when Bt cotton acreage went from 67 percent to 92 percent of India’s cotton acreage, cotton yields steadily fell. This is a far different scenario than The New Yorker article’s suggestion that Bt cotton was responsible for a 150 percent increase in cotton yield in India.
The Way Forward—Agroecological Farming Successes
The author of The New Yorker article is apparently unfamiliar with, or failed to include, information about the increasing body of research demonstrating that a variety of agroecological methods outperform GE and conventional crops in generating higher yields while reducing chemical and water usage.
GE crops require costly seeds, chemicals, and synthetic fertilizers that farmers in food insecure regions can ill afford, along with significant water resources not available in many developing countries. Further, GE crops perpetuate an industrial agriculture system that is responsible for at least 30 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The emerging consensus among scientists and international development experts is that solutions to hunger must work with local resources and be viable, inexpensive, low-input, and resilient, especially in times of climate change.
Research coordinated by the Department of Biological Sciences and Centre for the Environment and Society at the University of Essex has shown that agroecological methods on 286 farms in 57 poor countries covering 37 million hectares (3 percent of the cultivated are in developing countries) have increased the average crop yield by 79 percent. All crops had water use efficiency gains, carbon sequestration, and reduced pesticide use.
Further, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) is an authoritative source for the best way forward to address developing country agricultural issues. Funded by the United Nations and the World Bank, IAASTD was an exhaustive, four-year effort that engaged some 400 experts from multiple disciplines. IAASTD concluded that GE crops have little potential to alleviate hunger and poverty, and instead recommended agroecological approaches as the best means to achieve food security. And, in the U.S. corn belt, long-term research has shown that using agroecological farming can reduce fertilizer and herbicide use by over 90 percent, while increasing yields and maintaining or increasing profits.
There are several other issues in the article that were incorrectly represented, but these are too numerous to address in a concise response. One can come to different conclusions about proper risk assessment and regulation for genetic engineering, among other topics, but it is not scientifically justified to simply dismiss concerns and legitimate critiques.
If we are serious about feeding the hungry, raising standards of living, and protecting ecosystems for future food security we need honest, robust discussion. Instead of spending the majority of resources on high-cost technologies, we need to redirect substantial means toward food and farm systems that are sensitive to the complexities of local ecosystems, and incorporate broad criteria such as socio-economic policies, cultural histories, resource conservation, and social equity.

Artificial sweeteners linked to obesity epidemic, scientists say - CBCNews

 If any of you were readers of my Room Eight blog, you will know that I regularly took former NYC Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to task for claiming to want to deal with obesity; yet, not going after the main cause of said obesity - high fructose corn syrup, or HFCS.


He didn't have a problem with artificial sweeteners, and yet, here we are, finding out that it is yet but another cause of obesity:

Artificial sweeteners may exacerbate, rather than prevent, metabolic disorders such as Type 2 diabetes, a study suggests.
Calorie-free artificial sweeteners are often chosen by dieters in part because they are thought not to raise blood sugar levels.
In Wednesday’s issue of the journal Nature, researchers report that artificial sweeteners increase the blood sugar levels in both mice and humans by interfering with microbes in the gut. Increased blood sugar levels are an early indicator of Type 2 diabetes and metabolic disease.
The increase in consumption of artificial sweeteners coincides with the obesity and diabetes epidemics, Eran Segal of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, and his co-authors said.
"Our findings suggest that non-caloric artificial sweeteners may have directly contributed to enhancing the exact epidemic that they themselves were intended to fight."

Link to gut bacteria

The study included a series of experiments.
Mice whose drinking water was supplemented with glucose and a sweetener developed glucose intolerance compared with mice drinking water alone, or water with just sugar in it. The effect occurred both in mice fed normal chow and those on a high-fat diet.
When antibiotics were used to kill off gut bacteria, the artificial sweetener effect on glucose intolerance in mice fed either diet was restored to normal.
Taken together, the data indicate that artificial sweeteners "may contribute to, rather than alleviate, obesity-related metabolic conditions, by altering the composition and function of bacterial populations in the gut," Cathryn Nagler and Taylor Feehley of the pathology department at the University of Chicago said in a journal commentary.
In the human part of the research, gut bacteria were analyzed from 381 non-diabetics averaging age 43 who were participating in an ongoing nutrition study.  They found differences in the gut bacteria among those who consumed artificial sweeteners compared with those who did not.
Artificial sweetener consumers showed "markers" for diabetes, such as raised blood sugar levels and glucose intolerance.

More research needed

In the final portion of the study, seven human volunteers who didn’t normally consume artificial sweeteners added it to their diets for seven days. After four days, blood glucose levels rose and the makeup of their gut bacteria changed in half of the participants, just as in the mice experiment.
To confirm the findings, the researchers also transferred feces from people who consume artificial sweeteners into mice that were bred to have sterile intestines and never consumed it before. The mice who had saccharin became glucose intolerant, which suggests that the artificial sweetener caused the unhealthy effect.
It could be that artificial sweeteners lead to an expansion of bacterial species that extract energy from food that often gets stored as fat, contributing to obesity, Nagler said. It's also possible the sweeteners could suppress the growth of other bacteria that seem to stave off insulin resistance, she said.
The commentators suggested studies to identify specific bacterial populations that promote resistance to weight gain or improve glucose tolerance could be useful as treatments.
Other experts who were not involved in the research called the findings intriguing, but noted that the human findings in particular were very preliminary in terms of considering changes to nutrition recommendations.
"This research raises caution that [non-caloric artificial sweeteners] may not represent the 'innocent magic bullet' they were intended to be to help with the obesity and diabetes epidemics, but it does not yet provide sufficient evidence to alter public health and clinical practice," said Nita Forouhi, program leader at the Medical Research Council's epidemiology unit at Cambridge University.

Off-Topic Post...Or Bloody Marys On A Sunday Sure Are Tasty

It's a beautiful Sunday morning, two and a half years after something utterly horrible happened to me.

Three months later, I was forced to do something that has haunted me for over two years.

Two days ago...the haunting ended.

I can't tell you how happy I am now...but my happiness is mitigated by the fact that there are still FrankenFoods out there.

I

WANT

THEM

GONE.

Why?

The bees are being killed by their FrankenPoisons.

GMO crops are utterly devoid of nutrition.

To date, over 300,000 Indian (curry-in-a-hurry, not woo-woo) farmers have committed suicide over the non-gains from switching to GMO seeds.

Okay...maybe I haven't convinced you of anything...maybe those Indian farmers were just dopey; or bees are being "racist" against GMO plants...maybe you're drinking much more potent vodka than I am.

Here's the cement point for me (and should be, for you): TERMINATOR SEEDS.

Now, the name sounds great, doesn't it? Some bloody PR firm must have broken exactly 4 brain cells to come up with that.

When you first think "terminator seeds", one has to hearken back to the Governator's absolute best film, The Terminator. What's the most recognizable tagline?

"I'll be back."

Now, if one is attributing that to seeds...well, boy, did you FCUK up badly.

Terminator seeds are designed to do the ABSOLUTE BLOODY OPPOSITE; in other words, when you plant GMO crops, the seeds are only good for that planting. You have seeds left?

YOU

CAN'T

USE

THEM

It's all in the agreement forms you signed. I'm fairly certain that the print is in single digit type.

Ever since man became sedentary and learned the art of farming, saving seeds has been a staple part of maintenance.

Not if you partner with the myriad of chemical companies that are behind the push for replacing our crops with GMOs.

You have to buy the seeds EACH AND EVERY YEAR.

That's more money out of your pockets, farmers.

Let's not mention the crap one must spray upon these FrankenCrops. What do you think it's doing to the soil?

Of course, these idiots have never come across a simple term: ADAPTATION.

Now, thanks to these FCUKwads, we now have SUPERbugs and SUPERweeds.

Seriously - there are weeds that can now break machinery.

Who's behind these very capricious decisions?

Chemical companies.

I still have a couple of BASF video tapes...why are they messing with our foods?

Dow - Agent Orange, right? Something doesn't taste right.

Pioneer - didn't they produce turntables and other audio equipment?

Now, I have some money saved, but I know I can't do this alone. So this is my call out to those interested in saving our world from the bastards and scumbags who think that a short-term investment will safeguard the well-being of their offspring are not even well-meaning idiots. They are the worst of humanity, because they can be cheaply bought and sold.

I can't be bought, because my most useful commodity is PRICELESS.

Life is like that.

See you all soon.

2013 - A New Paradigm (R8 Re-Post)

2013 - A New Paradigm

posted by Vincent Nunes
Sun, 12/30/2012 - 3:29am

Let me begin by wishing all of you a very Happy New
Year - I hope that your holidays were joyous.
We are about to enter a new year - 2013.
Why not make this the beginning of a new paradigm?
Let's begin a new age of accountability and responsibility.
One step is to right those wrongs that are blatant and in your face.
I've written before that John O'Hara has a new petition - but many of you haven't signed. This is a wholly new effort, and the older signatures do not count, so please check it out and add your name to get justice for John. Click on this hyperlinked text to sign John's petition.
Not only are you doing this for John O'Hara - you're doing this in the memory of the Kung-Fu Judge, the dearly departed John Phillips. All of these wrongs come from the same source - a source who may be on the unemployment line come November of 2013 (Update - Breezy Point Joe got his ass booted out of the KCDA office).
I found this just a while ago - I am reposting it in its entirety, in the hopes that some of you out there will take this seriously and stop poisoning your families with FrankenFood:

19 Studies Link GMO Foods to Organ Disruption

A new paper demonstrates that consuming genetically modified (GM) food leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice. Researchers reviewed data from 19 studies and found that parameters including blood and urine biochemistry and organ weights were significantly disrupted in the GM-fed animals.
The kidneys of males were the most affected, experiencing 43.5 percent of all the changes. The livers of females followed at more than 30 percent. Other organs may have been affected too, including the heart and spleen, and blood cells.
According to the Institute for Responsible Technology:

"The GM soybean and corn varieties used in the feeding trials 'constitute 83 percent of the commercialized GMOs' that are currently consumed by billions of people. While the findings may have serious ramifications for the human population, the authors demonstrate how a multitude of GMO-related health problems could easily pass undetected through the superficial and largely incompetent safety assessments that are used around the world."

Further, the biotechnology firm Monsanto is only an FDA approval away from its latest monstrosity -- soybeans that have been genetically modified to produce omega-3 fats. That FDA approval is expected this year.
Monsanto plans to include GM soybean oil in every product it can -- baked goods, baking mixes, breakfast cereals, cheeses, frozen dairy desserts, pasta, gravies and sauces, fruit juices, snack foods, candy, soups, and more.
According to Forbes:

"Monsanto is so despised by environmentalists that Google's first suggested search term for the St. Louis company is 'Monsanto evil.' Readers ... voted Monsanto the world's most evil corporation in a January poll, giving the corporation a whopping 51 percent of the vote."

Scientists have also introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows in a process that they say will cause the cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk. They believe that this could provide an alternative to formula milk for babies.
Critics of GM technology questioned the safety of milk from genetically modified animals, and also its potential effect on the cattle's health.
According to the Telegraph:

"The researchers used cloning technology to introduce human genes into the DNA of Holstein dairy cows before the genetically modified embryos were implanted into surrogate cows ... [T]he researchers said they were able to create cows that produced milk containing a human protein called lysozyme."

  Dr. Mercola's Comments:

In the latest review of genetically modified organisms (GMO) -- an analysis of 19 animal studies -- it was revealed that nearly 10 percent of blood, urine, organ and other parameters tested were significantly influenced by GMOs, with the liver and kidneys faring the worst.
The studies involved animals fed GM soy and corn, which comprise more than 80 percent of all GMOs cultivated on a large scale, and exist in virtually every processed food sold in the United States.
Clearly the danger posed by GM crops is no longer theoretical, yet because GM foods are patented inventions that are protected under copyright and proprietary information laws, the corporations controlling the seeds only allow them to be studied under very limited conditions.
Rarely (if ever) do they permit them to be studied for safety by anyone but the USDA (who hasn't yet seen the need to conduct rigorous long-term studies), and rarely are they studied beyond 30 or 90 days.

The GM Foods You're Eating Have Only Been Studied for 90 Days – at Most!

As Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology states:

"Only two studies reviewed in this new publication were over 90 days—both were non-industry research."

In order to obtain the raw data from the 90-day studies, the researchers had to take court actions and make official requests, and the results suggested that the beginnings of chronic disease may have been starting in the animals' liver and kidneys. What would have occurred in six months, a year or five years down the line remains unknown, as the studies have never been done.
The researchers noted:

"The 90-day-long tests are insufficient to evaluate chronic toxicity, and the signs highlighted in the kidneys and livers could be the onset of chronic diseases. However, no minimal length for the tests is yet obligatory for any of the GMOs cultivated on a large scale, and this is socially unacceptable in terms of consumer health protection."

Further, when the data was reviewed in its entirety, the researchers found serious cause for concern that appeared to be overlooked by regulatory authorities:

"Some of these tests used controversial protocols which are discussed and statistically significant results that were considered as not being biologically meaningful by regulatory authorities, thus raising the question of their interpretations."

Given the obvious organ disruption that occurred in animals fed GM corn and soy for just 30-90 days, it is downright terrifying to think about what might happen to humans who eat these foods for a lifetime. The researchers state outright what the regulatory agencies have failed to acknowledge:

"We can conclude, from the regulatory tests performed today, that it is unacceptable to submit 500 million Europeans and several billions of consumers worldwide to the new pesticide GM-derived foods or feed, this being done without more controls (if any) than the only 3-month-long toxicological tests and using only one mammalian species, especially since there is growing evidence of concern.
This is why we propose to improve the protocol of the 90-day studies to 2-year studies with mature rats."

Why You Need to Think Twice Before Eating GMOs

There's very convincing evidence that genetically modified foods spell nothing but trouble for your health. As Smith discusses in this interview, scientists have discovered a number of health problems related to genetically modified foods in general, however, these studies have been repeatedly ignored by both the European Food Safety Authority and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
In the only human feeding study ever published on genetically modified foods, seven volunteers ate Roundup-ready soybeans. These are soybeans that have herbicide-resistant genes inserted into them in order to survive being sprayed with otherwise deadly doses of Roundup herbicide.
In three of the seven volunteers, the gene inserted into the soy transferred into the DNA of their intestinal bacteria, and continued to function long after they stopped eating the GM soy!
There are serious medical implications to this finding.
However, the GM-friendly UK government, who funded the study, chose not to fund any follow up research to see if GM corn -- which is engineered to produce an insecticide called BT toxin -- might also transfer and continue to create insecticide inside your intestines.
These kinds of studies are sorely needed, and fast, because as of right now, about 85 percent of the corn grown in the US is genetically engineered to either produce an insecticide, or to survive the application of herbicide. And about 91-93 percent of all soybeans are genetically engineered to survive massive doses of Roundup herbicide.
What this means is that nearly ALL foods you buy that contain either corn or soy, in any form, will contain GMO unless it's certified organic by the USDA.
In this interview, Smith also mentions an Italian study where they fed BT corn to mice. As a result, the mice expressed a wide variety of immune responses commonly associated with diseases such as:

Rheumatoid arthritis	Inflammatory bowel disease	Osteoporosis
Atherosclerosis	Various types of cancer	Allergies
Lou Gehrig's disease

In addition, Smith has documented at least 65 serious health risks from GM products of all kinds. Among them:

• Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce
• Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells
• The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning
• Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties
• Investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products

Beware of New GMO Products: Omega-3 Soybean Oil

GM crops have already invaded our food supply, and more GM –foods are in the pipeline, but you'd never know it because GM foods are unlabeled.
One of the latest creations from GM giant Monsanto is a  genetically modified soybean that produces omega-3 fats. " Stearidonic acid (SDA) soybean oil, as the new product is called,  is only one FDA approval away from becoming a reality, but although omega-3 fats are clearly healthy, omega-3 from GM soybean oil most likely certainly is not.
Not only do you need to get animal-based omega-3 fats in your diet for the most benefits, but also soybean oil is not a food you want to consume, especially if it has been manipulated to contain omega-3 fats. GM soy has been linked to an increase in allergies, as well as has the potential to cause infertility in future generations, It's also one of the polyunsaturated vegetable oils you need to cut down on in your diet if you want better health.

Unfortunately, as Forbes reported;"Monsanto plans to include SDA soybean oil in just about everything: "baked goods and baking mixes, breakfast cereals and grains, cheeses, dairy product analogs, fats and oils, fish products, frozen dairy desserts and mixes, grain products and pastas, gravies and sauces, meat products,
… milk products, nuts and nut products, poultry products, processed fruit juices, processed vegetable products, puddings and fillings, snack foods, soft candy, and soups and soup mixes, at levels that will provide 375 milligrams (mg) of SDA per serving."

It's unclear whether the new SDA soybean oil will be listed on labels, but if you see "stearidonic acid (SDA) soybean oil" on a label, now you'll know what it is so you can avoid it.

The Latest Creation: GM "Breast Milk" From Cows

Researchers are also trying to produce "human" breast milk using genetically modified cows.
Scientists used cloning technology to introduce human genes into dairy cows to produce milk they say has the same properties as human breast milk and could provide an alternative to formula or human breast milk for babies in about 10 years.
Producing GM food for babies is alarming, as the process of moving genes around carries unpredictable risks. One study that looked at the insertion of a single gene into a human cell found that up to 5 percent of the genes had significantly changed their level of output.
This means that hundreds or thousands of genes could change their levels of protein expression when a single gene is inserted -- and even one change can be dangerous. As The Telegraph reported, already there were signs of trouble with the GM "human" cow milk studies:
" … During two experiments by the Chinese researchers, which resulted in 42 transgenic calves being born, just 26 of the animals survived after ten died shortly after birth, most with gastrointestinal disease, and a further six died within six months of birth."

Do You Know … You're Probably Eating GMOs?

I've gone on record saying that due to the amount of GM crops now grown in the United States (over 90 percent of all corn is GM corn and over 95 percent all soy is GM soy) EVERY processed food you encounter at your local supermarket that does not bear the "USDA Organic" label is filled with GM components.
So you're eating GM foods, and you have been for the last decade, whether you knew it or not. You can thank Congress for this, and the USDA and Monsanto. What ultimate impact these GM foods will have on your health is still unknown, but increased disease, infertility and birth defects appear to be on the top of the list of most likely side effects.
As was recently stated in the NY Times:

"A majority of our foods already contain GMOs and there's little reason to think more isn't on the way. It seems our "regulators" are using us and the environment as guinea pigs, rather than demanding conclusive tests. And without labeling, we have no say in the matter whatsoever."

Are You Ready to Avoid GMOs?

If you don't already have a copy of the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, please print one out and refer to it often. It can help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Also remember to look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content.
You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
If you're feeling more ambitious, you can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure from the Institute of Responsible Technology in bulk and give it to your family and friends.
When possible, buy your fresh produce and meat from local farmers who have committed to using non-GM seeds and avoid non-organic processed foods as much as possible, as again these are virtually 100-percent guaranteed to contain GM ingredients.
Genetically modified foods are, from my perception, one of the most significant threats that we have against the very sustainability of the human race, so everything you can do to avoid them is a step in the right direction for humankind.

Original URL: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/27/19-studies-link-gmo-foods-to-organ-disruption.aspx
Being a Republican sure doesn't come with its good moments:

House Republicans Have Created Most Unproductive Congress Since Records Have Been Kept

Posted by icarus on 29 Dec 2012 /         

---

For a chart – click HERE.  I put this chart above together to highlight productivity by Congressional session (every 2 years) and color coded by the majorities in the House and Senate as well as the Executive branch.  The bar graph on the right is coded to represent control: blue = Dem control, red = GOP control and purple = Divided Control.  Since the days of Reagan – you can see there has not been another Congress that has done so little.  The 239 “bills passed” includes 219 bills actually signed by Obama and another 20 waiting on his desk (source).  And if you go back all the way to 1947 since the House Clerk’s office has been tracking this – you’ll see that there has never been a more unproductive Congress in modern history (source).
It isn’t an accident that the last two years of Congress have been the most unproductive in history.  In 2010 – Republicans decided to rebrand themselves “Tea Party” Republicans to highlight just how “conservative” they really were.  I make it a point never to refer to anyone as being a member of the “Tea Party” because it is a figment of our imagination just like supply-side, concealed carry Jesus; there is not one single “Tea Party” person that doesn’t have an R next to their name.  Not one.  Within this revolution – these newly elected officials promised to go to Washington and “shut it down”.  And that’s what they did.
It’s interesting though – in these last two years … the Republican led House of Representatives had no problem passing a bill to privatize Social Security and Medicare (twice); they were considered persona non-gratis in the Senate and didn’t even come up for a vote.  Republicans had no problems passing tax cuts for millionaires or bills to limit a woman’s availability to abortion services.  House Republicans had no problem passing a bill to make it legal for a woman’s employer to decide whether or not she should have access to contraception.  House Republicans had no problem cutting Medicaid, cutting funding for free lunch programs and rape crisis centers, pushing for anti-union laws, trying to neuter regulators that hold banks accountable like the CFTC, passing tax cuts for oil companies, expanding loopholes for multinational corporations, and eliminating capital gains taxes which would be a huge windfall to the rich.
It isn’t that conservatives couldn’t pass legislation – it’s that the legislation they passed was so horrific and they were so unwilling to compromise that everything ground to a halt.  Grover Norquist recently said if Obama didn’t like the original Tea Party’s conversatism then he’d really hate Tea Party 2.0 should he win re-election.  Except – we’ve seen Tea Party 2.0 out on the shelves.  The Christine O’Donnells and Richard Mourdocks and Todd Akins and Joe Millers of the world – they keep losing.  And that’s why the Republican party can’t win state wide races at the national level in large numbers; the only reason they even exist as a party right now is because they were able to gerrymander congressional districts with their temporary majorities from the 2010 Republican wave.
Americans are rejecting conservatism and they will continue to for the next generation if you look at what’s on the calendar for 2013.  House Republicans can’t even pass tax cuts for 99% of Americans because it would result in raising taxes on the rich.  House Republicans can’t take action on avoiding ruining the full faith and credit of the American treasury by increasing or eliminating the debt ceiling.  House Republicans can’t pass a farm bill that would prevent milk prices from going to $8 a gallon.  They can’t pass an extension of unemployment benefits.  They can’t stop the Post Office from being held hostage by Congress’s own ridiculous laws that no other government agency is held to the same standard.
And it’s intentional.  And it’s a scandal.  And every American should punish this party for its obstruction, its cowardice, its sabotage.

Original URL: http://www.classwarfareexists.com/house-republicans-have-created-most-unproductive-congress-since-records-have-been-kept2/
Is there any good news out there? Oh, yes indeed:

Icelandic bankers jailed for reckless loans made before crash

Two of Iceland's most senior former bankers have been jailed for making reckless business loans, following investigations stemming from the collapse of the country's banks in 2008.
Larus Welding, the former chief executive officer of failed Icelandic bank Glitnir, and Gudmundur Hjaltason, a former director at the bank, have each been sentenced to nine months in jail for fraud, a court ruled.
They were sentenced by the Reykjavik District Court after the two men were indicted a year ago on charges that they had "misused their position and grossly endangered the bank's funds" by lending €102m to a company called Milestone ehf without guarantees or collateral, the prosecutor said. At the time Milestone was a shareholder in the bank.
Collapse
They are the first bankers from Iceland's three largest lenders to be sentenced to jail for activities linked to the country's financial and economic collapse in 2008.
In 2008 Glitnir became the first of Iceland's big banks to fail, an event that triggered the biggest recession in six decades and led to an 80pc collapse in the value of the Icelandic currency (Krona) against the euro.
The scale of the country's banking collapse made it impossible to prevent. The domestic parts of the country's three biggest banks were saved, while their international arms were liquidated. Bondholders who had lent money to Iceland were "burned" with significant losses, but given control of the remains of the banks.
Mr Welding has been indicted on separate charges for his role in approving a smaller business loan to holding company FS38 ehf, a company linked to the former high-profile former chief executive of the Baugur Group, Jon Asgeir Johannesson.
Mr Johannesson, who has also been indicted in relation to the loan, became famous in business circles around the world in the years before the Icelandic crash for a debt-fuelled acquisition spree that included a string of high-profile retailers including department store chain House of Fraser, Hamleys toy shops, , frozen food chain Iceland, fashion chain All Saints and Woolworths.
Iceland's special prosecutor indicted the two former chief executives for their roles in approving the €35m loan just three months before the collapse of the bank. (Bloomberg)

Original URL: http://www.independent.ie/business/world/icelandic-bankers-jailed-for-reckless-loans-made-before-crash-3338474.html
Piers Morgan is sure getting slapped over his stance on Americans' ownership of guns. Guess what, gun grabbers - Operation: American Gladio isn't working. I'd advise you to stop the shenanigans right now.
Anti-gun is PRO-CRIME.
That's just the facts, jack. Everywhere gun control has been enacted, crime runs rampant. Conversely, any place where the citizenry has been made responsible for their firearms, crime doesn't prosper. Gun-free zones are target practice for the maniacs. Now, of course, when I got off the train at Union Square not long after the events of September 11th, 2001, I was a bit put-off to see guys in fatigues with assault weapons at the ready - I mean, were people hopscotching over turnstiles that boldly?
Do I want that kind of presence in our schools?
I don't think that's a great answer. Let's put our noses to the grindstones and really think about this.
What kind of future do you want for your children?
Do you want them to suffer fools who lie to them?
Do you want them to admire material worth, and to shun truth?
Do you want them to lead lives utterly bereft of poetry?
That way lies madness.

• email this blog
• || delicious
• || digg

• Categories: accountability Gladio GMOs Iceland John Kennedy O'Hara Kung-Fu Judge paradigm Piers Morgan responsibility

---

INDEX: KEY FDA DOCUMENTS REVEALING (1) HAZARDS OF GE FOODS

Submitted by Vincenzo (not verified) on Sun, 12/30/2012 - 7:25am.

It's incredible that I find stuff like this after I make my postings:

INDEX:
KEY FDA DOCUMENTS REVEALING
(1) HAZARDS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS--AND
(2) FLAWS WITH HOW THE AGENCY MADE ITS POLICY   Alliance for Bio-Integrity     HOME
About the Documents
You will see scanned reproductions (exact copies) of some of the Food & Drug Administration's (FDA) internal memoranda about the hazards of genetically engineered foods.  These documents became available through the Alliance for Bio-Integrity's lawsuit (Alliance for Bio-Integrity et al., vs. Shalala, et al.) to gain mandatory safety testing and labeling of these foods.  The large numbers on the bottom of each page (i.e. 18952) are the Administrative Record (A.R.) numbers affixed by the FDA.
How to View and Print
In order to make these documents easily accessible, we've saved each page in two different formats: one intended for viewing on your monitor using your internet browser (click on "View Document"), and one formatted in PDF suitable for printing onto a  8 1/2" X 11" sheet of paper (click on "Print Document").
To print the PDF files you will need free software called Adobe Acrobat Reader.  If you don't already have Adobe Acrobat Reader, you can download it here.  Depending on your computer and internet connection, downloading Adobe Acrobat Reader may take up to fifteen minutes.  You may find that the best way to view and read the documents on your monitor is to select the PDF files; they are larger files and therefore may take slightly longer to download, but the Acrobat Reader enables you to enlarge or reduce the image size to fit your monitor.
 
        A.  FDA Scientists Discuss Various Safety Concerns

1. Comments from Dr. Linda Kahl, FDA compliance officer, to Dr. James Maryanski, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator, about the Federal Register document "Statement of Policy: Foods from Genetically Modified Plants."  Dated January 8, 1992. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 
2. Memorandum from Dr. Edwin J. Mathews to the Toxicology Section of the Biotechnology Working Group. Subject: "Analysis of the Major Plant Toxicants."  Dated October 28, 1991. (2 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 
3. Memorandum from Dr. Samuel I. Shibko to Dr. James Maryanski, FDA Biotechnology Coordinator.  Subject: "Revision of Toxicology Section of the Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Plants." Dated January 31, 1992. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 
4. Comments from Dr. Louis J. Pribyl re: the "Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92." Dated March 6, 1992. (5 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 
5. Comments from Dr. Louis J. Pribyl re: "... the March 18, 1992 Version of the Biotechnology Document." Dated March 18, 1992. (1 page) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 
6. Comments from Division of Food Chemistry and Technology and Division of Contaminants Chemistry. Subject: "Points to Consider for Safety Evaluation of Genetically Modified Foods.  Supplemental Information."  Dated November 1, 1991. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 
7. Memorandum from Dr. Mitchell Smith, Head, Biological and Organic Chemistry Section, to Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator.  Subject: "Comments on Draft Federal Register Notice on Food Biotechnology, Dec. 12, 1991 draft."  Dated January 8, 1992. (2 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 
8. Letter from Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator, to Dr. Bill Murray, Chairman of the Food Directorate, Canada.  Subject: the safety assessment of foods and food ingredients developed through new biotechnology.  Dated October 23, 1991. (2 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 
9. Comments from Dr. Carl B. Johnson on the "draft statement of policy 12/12/91."  Dated January 8, 1992. (2 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 
10. Memorandum from Dr. Gerald B. Guest, Director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine, to Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator.  Subject: "Regulation of Transgenic Plants--FDA Draft Federal Register Notice on Food Biotechnology."  Dated February 5, 1992. (4 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  B.  Specific Objections to Use of Antibiotic-Resistant Marker Genes

11. Memorandum from Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator, to Dr. Murray Lumpkin.  Subject: "Use of Kanamycin Resistance Marker Gene in Tomatoes."  (1 page) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 
12. Memorandum from Dr. Murray Lumpkin to Dr. Bruce Burlington.  Subject: "The tomatoes that will eat Akron." Dated December 17, 1992. (7 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 
13. Memorandum from Dr. Albert Sheldon to Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator.  Subject: "Use of Kanamycin Resistance Markers in Tomatoes."  Dated March 30, 1993.  (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  C.  Safety Questions Raised by Tests on the Flavr Savr Tomato--the Most Thoroughly Tested      Bioengineered Food

14. Memorandum from Dr. Fred Hines to Dr. Linda Kahl.  Subject: "FLAVR SAVR Tomato:" ... "Pathology Branch's Evaluation of Rats with Stomach Lesions From Three Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies" ... "and an Expert Panel's Report."  Dated June 16, 1993. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 
15. Memorandum from Robert J. Scheuplein, Ph.D. to the FDA Biotechnology Coordinator and others. Subject: "Response to Calgene Amended Petition." Dated October 27, 1993. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 
16. Memorandum from Dr. Carl B. Johnson to Dr. Linda Kahl & Others.  Subject: "Flavr Savr(TM) tomato; significance of pending DHEE question." Dated Dec 7, 1993. (1 page) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 
17. Memorandum from Dr. Fred Hines to Dr. Linda Kahl.  Subject: "FLAVR SAVR Tomato"... "Pathology Branch's Remarks to Calgene Inc.'s Response to FDA Letter of June 29, 1993."  Dated December 10, 1993. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

  D.  Additional Evidence of Improprieties In The Formation Of FDA Policy On
    Bioengineered Foods

18. Note from Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator, to Mr. Michael Taylor.  Subject: "Food Biotechnology Policy Development."  Dated October 7, 1993. (1 page) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 
19. Document titled "FDA REGULATION OF FOOD PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM GENETICALLY ALTERED PLANTS: POINTS TO CONSIDER"  Not dated. (3 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 
20. Memorandum from Dr. James Maryanksi, Biotechnology Coordinator, to the Director of the Center for Applied Nutrition.  Subject: "FDA Task Group on Food Biotechnology: Progress Report 2." Dated August 15, 1991. (1 page) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 
21. Memorandum from David Kessler, Commissioner of Food & Drugs.  Subject: "FDA Proposed Statement of Policy Clarifying the Regulation of Food Derived from Genetically Modified Plants--DECISION." Dated March 20, 1992. (4 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 
22. Letter from Terry Medley, J.D. (of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service), to Dr. James Maryanski, Biotechnology Coordinator.  Subject: "Comments on FDA Draft Statement of Policy on foods derived from new plant varieties, including plants derived by recombinant DNA techniques. Dated April 2, 1992. (5 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 
23. Note from Eric Katz (Dept. of Health & Human Services) to John Gallivan.  Subject: "Food Biotechnology Policy Statement."  Dated March 27, 1992. (2 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 
24. Memorandum from James B. MacRae, Jr. (of the Office of Management and Budget), for C. Boyden Gray (President Bush’s White House counsel).  Subject: "FDA Food Biotechnology Policy."  Dated March 21, 1992. (2 pages) View Our Summary - View Document - Print Document

 

  Alliance for Bio Integrity    HOME I have downloaded the documents, in case this page disappears.

reply | email this comment

This cartoon says it all, people.

Submitted by Vincenzo (not verified) on Mon, 12/31/2012 - 10:28am.

This world belongs to We The People.

 

We can defeat the scumbags - for as long as we have subsisted with nothing, they cannot do without - their work at depriving us has only made us stronger.

Remember that - and we will WIN.

 

Happy New Year!