GMO Food — It's Worse Than We Thought - Dr. Russell Blaylock (Video)

[donnay]

[donnay]

Report: 81% of GM Crops Approved Without Adequate Safety Studies thanks to biotech-government ties

by Christina Sarich

What’s a recipe for environmental mayhem and the destruction of human health? The approval of genetically modified organisms by governments worldwide without any scientific safety studies. A new study published by the risk-assessment journal Environment International states that of the GM crops approved for planting and marketing globally, 81% were not studied for possible health and environmental safety risks.

Nevertheless, the biotech industry keeps touting GMO ‘benefits’ like a narcissistic madman on steroids. This chest beating continues – despite a complete lack of published, peer-reviewed research supporting the safety of genetically modified organisms.

The researchers of the risk-assessment study looked at GM crops engineered either for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) or engineered to produce pesticides in their tissues due to the expression of cry1Ab or cry3Bb1 genes. Of all the bioengineering tricks up Monsanto and Syngenta’s sleeves, these are the most commonly used in commercial GM crops.

A whopping 47 GM crop varieties meet these conditions and have been given approval by agencies like the USDA, the FDA, and other regulatory bodies around the world.

When the researchers did a search for peer-reviewed studies on these crops prior to their approval so that they could tell if the agencies were relying on published vs. secret, industry-led studies, their findings were indeed telling.

The approval of these crops was based entirely on industry-biased data.

Only 18 peer-reviewed studies could be found which assessed the safety of any of the 47 GM crops that have been given a rubber stamp, and only 9 of the 47 crop varieties were studied. This means that the remaining 38 GMO varieties were approved with zero credible scientific evidence of their safety.

This is an incontrovertible piece of evidence that Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, Bayer, Cargill, the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association, and others have completely swayed government opinion about GMO safety based on manufactured to appease ‘experts.’ Experts who are supposed to assess the possible toxicity of any food or beverage we consume. This means that GMOs got the green light without safety assessments by independent scientists. No government-appointed shills should be making decisions about our food supply with such little risk assessment conducted.

Continued...

[donnay]

6 GMO Loaded Brands You Should Avoid Buying

by Christina Sarich
Posted on November 22, 2014

Ever wonder which companies you should totally avoid, whether it’s because they create low-quality food or because they infringe on our food rights? Below you will see 6 huge players in the food industry to avoid and boycott. You can boycott their products for the best effect or you can petition them and ask them to stop throwing money at the anti-labeling campaigns.

Here are 6 huge conglomerates aiming to ruin your right to know what is in your food.

1. Pepsi-Co (Including Frito-Lay and Doritos)

This behemoth has hardly been touched by consumer frustration with GMOs, even it is just as guilty as many other companies when it comes to food secrets. This is also the company who had to settle a $9 million class-action lawsuit over Naked Juice false advertising – claiming the products were ‘all natural’ and ‘100% juice’ when they are actually full of GMOs. Pepsi-Co was also revealed as one of the big spenders behind the anti-labeling campaigns illegally filtered through the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association. The company topped the list with a $1,620,899 donation to keep you in the dark about GMOs.

2. Kellogg’s

GMO Loaded Brands You Should Avoid BuyingThis company is downright shady. Kellogg’s company recently paid $5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit for falsely labeling Kashi products as “All Natural” or “Nothing Artificial.” They have also contributed a total of $1.6 million to defeat GMO labeling initiatives. In a consumer lab test, it was also found that Kellogg’s uses 100% GMO corn in several of their breakfast cereals and other products. Kashi products even made it onto the Non-GMO project’s list of safe foods, but they aren’t safe at all.

3. General Mills

GM says: “We don’t use genetically modified ingredients in original Cheerios. Our principal ingredient has always been whole grain oats – and there are no GMO oats. We use a small amount of corn starch in cooking, and just one gram of sugar per serving for taste. But our corn starch comes from non-GMO corn, and we use only non-GMO pure cane sugar.”

This is only in one type of cereal they sell, though. Only two percent of the company’s shareholders favor a complete GMO ban. GM’s CEO says, he “sees no reason within the United States to bar ingredients grown from biotech crops.”

4. Nestle/Gerber Co

This company puts GMOs in baby food. Need I say more? The company removed GMOs from baby formulas in South Africa after public pressure forced them to, but it continues to put them in American-sold versions. Formulas like Good Start and others contain GM soybean oil, GM soy lecithin, and GM maltodextrin, as well as corn syrup derived from GM crops. Along with Pepsi-Co and Coca-Cola, the company spent over $1 million to defeat GMO labeling in Washington, and more to defeat labeling in Oregon.

5. Hershey’s

Just how much will you like that chocolate bar after finding out that Hershey’s donated $800,000 to defeat California’s Prop 37 and Washington’s I-522, and another $500,000 to defeat this year’s initiatives in Oregon and Colorado? The company has only one organic brand—Dagoba. Time for a boycott? After all, there are hundreds of non-GMO fair-trade chocolate makers out there. Try some of these non-GMO sweets instead.

6. Coca-Cola

This soda empire has contributed more than $1.5 million to keep your teeth rotting from consuming their GMO-filled sodas. They also utilize high fructose corn syrup that is almost entirely GMO-corn derived. Here are other sodas that contain GMOs, too.

A Few Smaller Corporate Bullies

Unilever, owner of Ben & Jerry’s, donated $467,000 to help defeat Prop 37 in California, but sat out the battle over I-522 in Washington. Unilever is still a member of the GMA, though. The company also recently picked a legal fight with a small vegan company because they were competing too vigorously with Unilever’s Hellmann’s mayonnaise. Imagine that – consumers purchasing foods that don’t cause health issues!

Kraft is also a big GMA supporter. Its website says:

“The use of genetically modified (GM) ingredients is not only safe for people and our planet, but also has a number of important benefits.”

For a full listing of the corporate bullies you need to voice your outrage too, take a look below:

Top Contributors to Colorado’s No on 105 Campaign

Monsanto, $4.7 million
DuPont/Pioneer, $3.04 million
Pepsico, $1.65 million
Coca-Cola, $1.1 million
Kraft Foods, $1.03 million
General Mills, $820,000
The Hershey Co., $380,000
J.M. Smucker Co., $345,000
Dow Agrosciences, a Dow Chemical Company, $300,000
Kellogg Co., $250,000
Conagra Foods, $250,000
Flowers Food Inc., $250,000
Smithfield Foods, $200,000
(*Source: No on 105 Campaign)

Top Contributors to Oregon’s NO on 92 Campaign

Monsanto – $4.8 million
Pepsi -$1.4 million
Coke – $702,000
Kraft – 870,000
Land O’Lakes – $760,000
General Mills – 695,000
Dow – $368,300
Hershey – $320,000
Smuckers’ – 295000
Kelloggs – 250 000
ConAgra-250,000

- See more at: http://naturalsociety.com/take-foods....CPWucWGq.dpuf

[donnay]

Biotech study claims GMOs completely safe for mammals - study took place over the course of just three months

Monday, November 24, 2014
by: Jonathan Benson

A new study published in the journal Archives of Toxicology makes the audacious claim that MON810 biotech corn, a genetically-modified (GM) cash crop owned by Monsanto, exhibits no toxicological effects in mammals. But the study has several major flaws that render it null, including the fact that data appears to have been intentionally removed to make the corn appear safer than it actually is.

According to Testbiotech, the study took place over the course of just three months, which isn't nearly long enough to make a proper assessment about the safety of a synthetic organism. Additionally, the study failed to even try to discover a dose threshold at which MON810 might pose health problems, a basic data point that any legitimate study on the matter would have included.

Archives of Toxicology Editor-in-Chief co-authored BPA review with employee of BPA manufacturer
Another major issue is the journal in which the study was published, which has major conflicts of interest with the biotech industry. The journal's Editor-in-Chief Jan Hengstler was caught back in 2011 writing a review on the plastics chemical bisphenol-A (BPA), which like the MON810 study found it to be safe. The only problem is Hengstler's review was co-authored by an employee from Bayer AG, a leading BPA manufacturer.

Likewise, the authors of the MON810 study also have questionable ties to the biotech industry. One of them works for a biotech consultancy firm with a vested interest in promoting GMO technologies, while another works in the agricultural genomics department of a major university. There are also co-authors who work for plant biotechnology research organizations.

"...the failure in this study to determine a concentration of MON810 at which there were no observable toxic effects makes the entire study more or less invalid," explains Testbiotech. "Testbiotech also criticizes the authors (who) purposely published the results of the study in a scientific journal with close affiliation to industry."

European Commission used taxpayer dollars to fund bogus GMO study
The purpose of the study, of course, was to provide further "evidence" that GMOs are safe in order to push them in Europe, where the general population is much more skeptical about biotechnology. But it was funded by the European Commission using public money, meaning taxpayers ultimately foot the bill for this atrocious, pro-industry junk science.

As it turns out, Hermann Bolt, the deputy Editor-in-Chief at Archives of Toxicology, also has ties to the biotech industry. And the lead author of the larger GRACE study, under which the MON810 feeding trials were conducted, has collaborations with industry-funded groups like the International Life Science Institute (ILSI) as well [4].

"We are shocked by the outcome of our own evaluation," stated Christoph Then from Testbiotech about what his group discovered. "According to the EU Commission, the outcome of these feeding studies will be decisive for future standards of risk assessment for genetically engineered plants in the EU."

"Now, it looks as though the outcome was manipulated to eradicate doubts concerning the safety of these products."

Testbiotech is calling for the immediate retraction of the MON810 study, with possible republication only in the event that a rigorous peer review is conducted.

"If toxicological studies are publicly funded we must demand the highest standards in scientific quality and in the avoidance of conflicts of interest," added Then. "This is not the case with this project. This case shows that the mechanisms for securing quality scientific work are not functioning."

Sources:

[1] http://testbiotech.de

[2] http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org

[3] http://link.springer.com

[4] http://www.gmwatch.org

http://www.naturalnews.com/047770_GM...#ixzz3Jzmxx9GI

[Working Poor]

IBZ