With all the food and pet products now coming from China, make sure to
scrutinize the labels. But no matter what the front of a box or package
says, turn it over and study the bar code. Many products no longer show
where they were made; they show only where the distributor is located. The
bar code will show the product’s origin.

Below are the first three digits of the barcode, and where the product is
made:

00 – 09 . . . . . . . . .     USA and/or Canada.
30 – 37 . . . . . . . . .     France
40 – 44 . . . . . . . . .     Germany
49 . . . . . . . . . . . . .      Japan
50 . . . . . . . . . . . . .      UK
471 . . . . . . . . . . . .     Taiwan
690 – 692 . . . . . . .    China

Also, if a product says “made in PROC,” this is People’s Republic of
China-China.

Garry F. Gordon MD,DO,MD(H)
President, Gordon Research Institute
www.gordonresearch.com

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/opinion/25schlosser.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Excerpt:

EVERY day, about 200,000 Americans are sickened by contaminated food. Every year, about 325,000 are hospitalized by a food-borne illness. And the number who are killed annually by something they ate is roughly the same as the number of Americans who’ve been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003.

Those estimates, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suggest the scale of the problem. But they fail to convey the human toll. The elderly and people with compromised immune systems face an elevated risk from food-borne pathogens like listeria, campylobacter and salmonella. By far the most vulnerable group, however, are children under the age of 4. Our food will never be perfectly safe — and yet if the Senate fails to pass the food safety legislation now awaiting a vote, tens of thousands of American children will become needlessly and sometimes fatally ill.

Almost one year ago, the House of Representatives passed the Food Safety Enhancement Act with bipartisan support. A similar bill, the F.D.A. Food Safety Modernization Act, was unanimously approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in November. This legislation would grant the Food and Drug Administration, which has oversight over 80 percent of the nation’s food, the authority to test widely for dangerous pathogens and improve the agency’s ability to trace outbreaks back to their source. Most important, it would finally give the agency the power to order the recall of contaminated foods — and to punish companies that knowingly sell them.

In the 2010 growing season Monsanto plans to unleash its latest Frankenfood experiment on the American and Canadian public, a new version of genetically mutated corn with eight abnormal gene traits called Genuity SmartStax corn. It is the culmination of an astonishing scandal that has been steadily building over the past decade. During this time Monsanto’s mutated seeds have grown to 90% of the U.S. soy crop and 85% of the corn crop – and wheat is next on their agenda. Their efforts have been marked by corporate bullying and have drawn the attention of the Justice Department who is conducting an antitrust investigation. All the while they have been spending millions on lobbying to fast track their agenda before the American public even realizes what hit them. Monsanto is making an ominous power play to corner the worldwide market on food and seeds. In the process they are adversely altering the very nature of food itself.

Few people would eat Monsanto’s “food” if they understood what it was or knew that they were eating it. President Obama and his family won’t eat it. Neither did the Bush family. Even a Monsanto employee cafeteria rejects it. This is no laughing matter. Your health and the health of your children and grandchildren are at stake. It seems more like a scene from a horror flick than something happening in modern day America. Imagine your digestive tract turned into a Roundup Ready herbicide factory and other warped genetic signals slowly and progressively rotting away your health. Unlike acute food poisoning from infectious E.coli, it is a slow and insidious poisoning.

2009 GM Crop Fact File

ARE GM CROPS TAKING OVER GLOBAL AGRICULTURE? 

• GM plantings make up a mere 2.4% of global agricultural crop land
• Nearly 80% of the global area planted to GM crops was in just three countries – the US, Argentina and Brazil
• The US alone plants over 50% of the world’s GM crops
• Less than 3% of cropland in India and China is planted with GM crops, almost exclusively just 1 crop – GM cotton

ARE GM CROPS EXPANDING IN EUROPE? 

• In the 27 countries of the European Union, GM crop cultivation represents a mere 0.21% of agricultural land
• The number of hectares of GM crops fell last year in Europe
• EuropaBio inflated the figures for GM crops grown in Europe by almost a quarter to mask the decline in the area of GM crops being grown has actually fallen in Europe every year since 2005.

WHAT GM CROPS ARE BEING GROWN? 

• Most investment has gone into a small number of crops and traits targeted toward large-scale commercial farming
• Only four crops – soya, maize, cotton and canola (oilseed rape) – comprise virtually 100% of GM agriculture
• GM rice, wheat, tomatoes, sweetcorn, potatoes and popcorn have all been rejected as unacceptable in the global marketplace
• GM papaya cultivation in Hawaii has been declining over several years.

DO GM CROPS MATCH THE HYPE? 

Regards,
Linda

Full article:
 http://www.seedsofdeception.com/GMFree/GMODangers/2009FactSheet/index.cfm

Excerpts:

2009 GM Crop Fact File

ARE GM CROPS TAKING OVER GLOBAL AGRICULTURE? 

• GM plantings make up a mere 2.4% of global agricultural crop land
• Nearly 80% of the global area planted to GM crops was in just three countries – the US, Argentina and Brazil
• The US alone plants over 50% of the world’s GM crops
• Less than 3% of cropland in India and China is planted with GM crops, almost exclusively just 1 crop – GM cotton

ARE GM CROPS EXPANDING IN EUROPE? 

• In the 27 countries of the European Union, GM crop cultivation represents a mere 0.21% of agricultural land
• The number of hectares of GM crops fell last year in Europe
• EuropaBio inflated the figures for GM crops grown in Europe by almost a quarter to mask the decline in the area of GM crops being grown has actually fallen in Europe every year since 2005.

Big biotech claims that genetic engineering is a necessary step towards feeding the world’s growing population.  And yet debate still rages as to whether GM crops actually increase yields at all.  Furthermore, the UN recently stated that 30,000 people a day were starving to death, but not because of underproduction of crops.  It’s simply through lack of access.

Independent scientific studies raised serious alarm bells over the safety of GM foods over a decade ago.  But while this made front-page headlines in European newspapers, the North American mainstream media were conspiratorially silent.

Biotech companies stand to make billions from their seed patents.  Governments and supreme courts have sanctioned the patenting of life itself.  The planet’s food supply is becoming increasingly dominated by fewer and fewer players.

If the biotech industry’s stated intention of feeding the world is misguided or even misdirecting, is there another political agenda behind GM food? Have we been mis-sold?  Were we even given a choice in the first place?

Jeffrey M. Smith, international bestselling author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, reveals the shocking truth behind GM foods and the huge effort by governments and Biotech corporations to keep it out of the mainstream media and outside of your awareness.

WORDS: Jeffrey M. Smith

It looks the same-the bread, pies, sodas, even corn on the cob. So much of what we eat every day looks just like it did 20 years ago. But something profoundly different has happened without our knowledge or consent. And according to leading doctors, what we don’t know may already be hurting us big time.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) publicly condemned genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food supply, saying they posed “a serious health risk.” They called on the US government to implement an immediate moratorium on all genetically modified (GM) foods, and urged physicians to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients.

GM-What?

Genetic engineering is quite distinct from selective breeding because it involves taking genes from a completely different species and inserting them into the DNA of a plant or animal. The long term effects of this for our health and our planet’s biodiversity are unknown.

AAEM, an “Academy of Firsts,” was the first US medical organization to describe or acknowledge Gulf War Syndrome, chemical sensitivity, food allergy/addiction, and a host of other medical issues. But the potential for harm from GMOs dwarfs anything they have identified thus far. It can impact everyone who eats.

More than 70% of the foods on supermarket shelves contain derivatives of the eight GM foods on the market-soy, corn, oil from canola and cottonseed, sugar from sugar beets, Hawaiian papaya, and a small amount of zucchini and crook neck squash. The biotech industry hopes to genetically engineer virtually all remaining vegetables, fruits, grains, and beans (not to mention animals).

The two primary reasons why plants are engineered are to allow them to either drink poison, or produce poison. The poison drinkers are called herbicide tolerant. They’re inserted with bacterial genes that allow them to survive otherwise deadly doses of toxic herbicide. Biotech companies sell the seed and herbicide as a package deal, and US farmers use hundreds of millions of pounds more herbicide because of these types of GM crops. The poison producers are called Bt crops. Inserted genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus Thuringiensis produce an insect-killing pesticide called Bt-toxin in every cell of the plant. Both classes of GM crops are linked to dangerous side effects.

Doctors and Patients: Just Say No to GMOs

“Now that soy is genetically engineered,” warns Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles, “it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.” How dangerous are GM foods? World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava, PhD, believes they are the major reason for the recent rise in serious illnesses in the US.

The range of what GMOs might do to us is breathtaking. “Several animal studies,” according to the AAEM, reveal a long list of disorders, including: “infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, [faulty] insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.”

“There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects,” says the AAEM position paper. Based on established scientific criteria, “there is causation.”

Difficult to Trace the Damage

Outside the carefully controlled laboratory setting, it is more difficult to confidently assign GMOs as the cause for a particular set of diseases, especially since there are no human clinical trials and no agency that even attempts to monitor GMO-related health problems among the population. “If there are problems,” says biologist David Schubert, PhD, of the Salk Institute, “we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.”

GM crops were widely introduced in 1996. Within nine years, the incidence of people in the US with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled-from 7% to 13%. Visits to the emergency room due to allergies doubled from 1997 to 2002. And overall food related illnesses doubled from 1994 to 2001, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Obesity, diabetes, gastrointestinal disorders, and autism are also among the conditions that are skyrocketing in the US.

The Lyme Induced Autism Foundation, a patient advocacy group, is not waiting for studies to prove that GMOs cause or worsen Lyme, autism, and the many other diseases on the rise since gene-spliced foods were introduced. Like AAEM, the LIA Foundation says there is more than enough evidence of harm in animal feeding studies for them to “urge doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets” and for “individuals, especially those with autism, Lyme disease, and associated conditions, to avoid” GM foods.

Another patient group, those suffering from eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS), is more confident about the GMO origins of their particular disease. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan in the late 1980s. It killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. The characteristics of EMS made it much easier for authorities to identify the epidemic and its cause. It only affected those who consumed the pills; symptoms came on almost immediately; and its effects were horrific-including unbearable pain and paralysis. There was even a unique, easy-to-measure change in the white blood cell count. But even though EMS was practically screaming to be discovered, it still took the medical community more than four years-and it was almost missed.

“The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” David Suzuki, renowned Canadian geneticist.

What if the GMOs throughout our food supply are creating common diseases which come on slowly? It would be nearly impossible to confirm them as the cause. “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients,” says AAEM president Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, “but need to know how to ask the right questions.” The patients at greatest risk are the very young. “Children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods, says Dr. Schubert. They become “the experimental animals,” our collective canaries in the coal mine.

Warnings by Government Scientists Ignored and Denied

Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems back in the early 1990s. According to secret documents made public from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, new “super” diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests. But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of the scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies-who have a long history of lying about the toxicity of their earlier products-to determine if their own foods are safe.

After overseeing GMO policy at the FDA, Mr. Taylor worked on GMO issues at the USDA, and then later became Monsanto’s vice president. In the summer of 2009, he went through the revolving door again. Taylor was appointed by the Obama administration as the de facto US food safety czar at the FDA.

Dangerously Few Studies, Untraceable Diseases

“Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?” This was the concluding question posed in a 2007 review of published scientific literature on the health risks of GM plants, showing that the number of studies and available data are “very scarce.”

“The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs,” says renowned Canadian geneticist David Suzuki. He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”

When consumers realize the dangers of GM foods and that the FDA has abdicated its responsibility to protect us, they usually want to opt out of this massive feeding experiment. In fact, most Americans already say they would avoid GMO brands if given a choice.

It wouldn’t take a majority of us to kick GMOs out of our food supply. Kraft and other food companies wouldn’t wait until half their market share is gone before telling their suppliers to switch to the non-GM corn, soy, etc. By using GM ingredients, they don’t offer customers a single advantage. The food doesn’t taste better, last longer, or have more nutrients. Thus, if even a tiny percentage of US consumers-say 5% or 15 million people-started avoiding GMO brands, the millions in lost sales revenue would likely force brands to remove all GM ingredients, like they already have in Europe.

But the FDA doesn’t want to give us the choice. They ignore the wishes of nine out of ten Americans for mandatory GMO labeling in order to promote the economic interests of just five biotech companies.

The Shocking Evidence of Harm from GMOs

Genetically modified (GM) foods have not been scientifically tested on human beings. (The only published human feeding study had ominous results – see later.) Instead, animals are used as our surrogates, but the few published animal safety studies are generally short-term and superficial. In fact, industry-funded research is widely criticized as designed to avoid finding problems.  They’ve got bad science-down to a science. Even still, the accumulated evidence of harm is compelling people to read ingredient labels and avoid brands with genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Infant Mortality and Reproductive Disorders

When GM soy flour was added to the diets of female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks-compared to only a 10% death rate among mothers fed natural soy. The babies from the GM-fed group were also smaller and later had problems getting pregnant.

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color-from the normal pink to dark blue. Mice testicles also showed changes, including damaged young sperm cells. And the DNA in mice embryos functioned differently when their parents ate GM soy. Mice fed GM corn had fewer babies, and their children were smaller than normal.

About two dozen US farmers say that thousands of their pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn. Investigators in the state of Haryana, India, report that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had reproductive complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died.

In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.

Food, A Registered Pesticide?

When insects bite genetically modified Bt corn and cotton, they get a mouthful of a built-in toxin, produced by every cell of the plant. The poison splits open their stomach and kills them. The GM plants are registered as pesticides with the Environmental Protection Agency.

Biotech companies claim that Bt-toxin has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert genes from the bacteria into the DNA of the corn and cotton, so the plants themselves do the killing.

They fail to point out that the Bt-toxin produced in GM plants:

• Is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray;
• Is designed to be more toxic;
• Has properties of an allergen; and
• Unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.

But even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.

Those exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers handling Bt cotton grown in India. According to Sunday India, medical records confirm that “victims of itching have increased massively . . . related to Bt cotton farming.”

If GM crops kill animals, how safe are they for us to eat?

When sheep grazed on Bt cotton plants after harvest, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in their intestines and livers. Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.” In a small feeding study, 100% of sheep fed Bt cotton died within 30 days, while those grazing on natural cotton plants in the adjoining field had no symptoms.

Similarly, buffalo that grazed on natural cotton plants for years without incident are reacting to the Bt variety. In one village, for example, they allowed their 13 buffalo to graze on Bt cotton plants for a single day in January 2008. All died within three days.

Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines. Even Monsanto’s own 90-day rat feeding study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs due to their Bt corn. And a 2008 Italian government study found that Bt corn provoked immune responses in mice.

GMOs Contain Allergens

Immune system problems in GMO-fed animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies,” according to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine specifically notes an increase in cytokines, “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation.” While all three conditions are on the rise in the US, it is the upsurge in food allergies among children that has generated the most alarm nationwide.

There are many reasons why GMOs might be the cause:

• The GM proteins produced in GM soy, corn, and papayas have properties of known allergens. They actually fail the allergy screening protocol recommended by the World Health Organization.
• The process of creating a GMO can introduce new allergens or elevate existing ones. Both GM soy and corn contain new unintended allergenic proteins, and GM soy has as much as seven times higher levels of a natural soy allergen-trypsin inhibitor.
• Herbicide tolerant GM crops have considerably more residues of toxic herbicides, which may provoke reactions.
• Skin prick allergy tests confirm that some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy.

Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. But there are other non-GM foods that are also provoking more allergic responses now than in the past. Research shows, however, that consuming GM foods may still be the culprit by provoking sensitivity to other foods.

Mice fed Bt-toxin, for example, not only reacted to the Bt itself, they started having immune reactions to foods that were formerly harmless. Similarly, after mice ate GM peas, they started to react to other foods that previously had no impact. In addition, GM soy drastically reduces digestive enzymes in mice. If our ability to breakdown proteins is impaired, we could become allergic to a wide variety of foods.

GMOs and Liver Problems

As a primary detoxifier, the condition of the liver can point to toxins in our diet. The livers of mice and rats fed GM feed had profound changes. Some were smaller and partially atrophied, others were significantly heavier, possibly inflamed, and some showed signs of a toxic insult from eating GM food.

The Worst Finding of All?  GMOs Remain Inside Us!

The only published human feeding study revealed what many find to be the most disturbing discovery. The genes inserted into GM crops transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continue to function. This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Although scientists only tested this on soy, if Bt genes from corn chips also transferred, they could transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.

When doctors hear about this evidence, they often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.

Even if GMOs helped combat global hunger, which they don’t, it would be hard to justify putting these high-risk organisms into the food supply in their current state. Especially since GM crops cross-pollinate and contaminate the environment. Their self-propagating genetic pollution may outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste.

Shhhh!  Meet the Scientists Who Dared to Break the Silence on GMOs.

Arpad Pusztai
Biologist Arpad Pusztai had more than 300 articles and 12 books to his credit and was the world’s top expert in his field. But when he accidentally discovered that genetically modified (GM) foods are dangerous, he became the biotech industry’s bad-boy poster child, setting an example for other scientists thinking about blowing the whistle.

In the early 1990s, Dr. Pusztai was awarded a $3 million grant by the UK government to design the system for safety testing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). His team included more than 20 scientists working at three facilities, including the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, the top nutritional research lab in the UK, and his employer for the previous 35 years. The results of Pusztai’s work were supposed to become the required testing protocols for all of Europe. But when he fed supposedly harmless GM potatoes to rats, things didn’t go as planned.

Within just 10 days, the animals developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers, and testicles, partially atrophied livers, and damaged immune systems. Moreover, the cause was almost certainly side effects from the process of genetic engineering itself. In other words, the GM foods on the market, which are created from the same process, might have similar affects on humans.

With permission from his Director, Pusztai was interviewed on TV and expressed his concerns about GM foods. He became a hero at his Institute-for two days. Then came the phone calls from the pro-GMO Prime Minister’s office to the Institute’s Director. The next morning, Pusztai was fired. He was silenced with threats of a lawsuit, his team was dismantled, and the protocols never implemented. His Institute, the biotech industry, and the UK government, together launched a smear campaign to destroy Pusztai’s reputation.

Eventually, an invitation to speak before Parliament lifted his gag order and his research was published in the prestigious Lancet. No similar in-depth studies have yet tested the GM foods eaten every day by Americans and Canadians.

Irina Ermakova
Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist at the Russian National Academy of Sciences, was shocked to discover that more than half of the baby rats in her experiment died within three weeks. She had fed the mothers GM soy flour purchased at a supermarket. The babies from mothers fed natural non-GMO soy, however, only suffered a 10% death rate. She repeated her experiment three times with similar results.

Dr. Ermakova reported her preliminary findings at a conference in October 2005, asking the scientific community to replicate her study. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Her boss told her to stop doing anymore GM food research. Samples were stolen from her lab, and a paper was even set fire on her desk. One of her colleagues tried to comfort her by saying, “Maybe the GM soy will solve the overpopulation problem.”

Of the mostly spurious criticisms leveled at Ermakova, one was significant enough to raise doubts about the cause of the deaths. She did not conduct a biochemical analysis of the feed. Without it, we don’t know if some rogue toxin had contaminated the soy flour. But more recent events suggest that whatever caused the high infant mortality was not unique to her one bag of GM flour. In November 2005, the supplier of rat food to the laboratory where Ermakova worked began using GM soy in the formulation. All the rats were now eating it. After two months, Ermakova asked other scientists about the infant mortality rate in their experiments. It had skyrocketed to over 55%.

It’s been four years since these findings were reported. No one has yet repeated Ermakova’s study, even though it would cost just a few thousand dollars.

Andrés Carrasco
Embryologist Andrés Carrasco told a leading Buenos Aires newspaper about the results of his research into Roundup®, the herbicide sold in conjunction with Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready® crops. Dr. Carrasco, who works in Argentina’s Ministry of Science, said his studies of amphibians suggest that the herbicide could cause defects in the brain, intestines, and hearts of fetuses. Moreover, the amount of Roundup® used on GM soy fields was as much as 1,500 times greater than that which created the defects. Tragically, his research had been inspired by the experience of desperate peasant and indigenous communities who were suffering from exposure to toxic herbicides used on the GM soy fields throughout Argentina.

According to an article in Grain, the biotech industry “mounted an unprecedented attack on Carrasco, ridiculing his research and even issuing personal threats.” In addition, four men arrived unannounced at his laboratory and were extremely aggressive, attempting to interrogate Carrasco and obtain details of his study. “It was a violent, disproportionate, dirty reaction,” he said. “I hadn’t even discovered anything new, only confirmed conclusions that others had reached.”

Argentina’s Association of Environmental Lawyers filed a petition calling for a ban on Roundup®, and the Ministry of Defense banned GM soy from its fields.

Terje Traavik
Prominent virologist Terje Traavik presented preliminary data at a February 2004 meeting at the UN Biosafety Protocol Conference, showing that:

• Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield developed serious symptoms while the corn was pollinating;
• Genetic material inserted into GM crops transferred to rat organs after a single meal; and
• Key safety assumptions about genetically engineered viruses were overturned, calling into question the safety of using these viruses in vaccines.

The biotech industry mercilessly attacked Dr. Traavik. Their excuse? He presented unpublished work. But presenting preliminary data at professional conferences is a long tradition in science, something that the biotech industry itself relied on in 1999 to try to counter the evidence that butterflies were endangered by GM corn.

Ironically, three years after attacking Traavik, the same biotech proponents sharply criticized a peer-reviewed publication for not citing unpublished data that had been presented at a conference. The paper shows how the runoff of GM Bt corn into streams can kill the “caddis fly,” which may seriously upset marine ecosystems. The study set off a storm of attacks against its author, ecologist Emma Rosi-Marshall, which Nature described in a September 2009 article as a “hail of abuse.”

Nothing to Hide?

When Ohio State University plant ecologist Allison Snow discovered problematic side effects in GM sunflowers, Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Dow AgroSciences blocked further research by withholding GM seeds and genes. After Marc Lappé and Britt Bailey found significant reductions in cancer-fighting isoflavones in Monsanto’s GM soybeans, the seed seller, Hartz, told them they could no longer provide samples. Research by a plant geneticist at a leading US university was also thwarted when two companies refused him GM corn. In fact, almost no independent studies are conducted that might find problems. According to a scathing opinion piece in an August 2009 Scientific American, “Agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers. . . . Only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal.”

Restricted access is not limited to the US. When a Japanese scientist wanted to conduct animal feeding studies on the GM soybeans under review in Japan, both the government and the bean’s maker DuPont refused to give him any samples. Hungarian Professor Bela Darvas discovered that Monsanto’s GM corn hurt endangered species in his country. Monsanto immediately shut off his supplies. Dr. Darvas later gave a speech on his preliminary findings and discovered that a false and incriminating report about his research was circulating. He traced it to a Monsanto public relations employee, who claimed it mysteriously appeared on her desk-so she faxed it out.

Why is Science and Debate Being Silenced?

The attacks on scientists have taken its toll. There appears to be a de facto ban on scientists asking certain questions and finding certain results.

New Zealand Parliament member Sue Kedgley told a Royal Commission in 2001: “Personally I have been contacted by telephone and e-mail by a number of scientists who have serious concerns about aspects of the research that is taking place . . . and the increasingly close ties that are developing between science and commerce, but who are convinced that if they express these fears publicly, …  or even if they asked the awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out of their institution.”

University of Minnesota biologist Phil Regal testified before the same Commission, “I think the people who boost genetic engineering are going to have to do a mea culpa and ask for forgiveness, like the Pope did on the inquisition.” Sue Kedgley has a different idea. She recommends we “set up human clinical trials using volunteers of genetic engineering scientists and their families, because I think they are so convinced of the safety of their products, I’m sure they would very readily volunteer to become part of a human clinical trial.”

Failing that, are you willing to continue your participation?

Tell us your opinion on genetically modified food: post a comment below.
To find out how to stop eating GMOs, visit: www.nongmoshoppingguide.com.
Videos:  The Future of Food, The World According to Monsanto

Linda’s comment:  The FIGHT program is a perfect example of how you can fight Lyme disease.  As Dr Patricia Gerbarg, MD has found out.  She has not experienced the FIGHT program to my knowledge, but the protocols she mentioned are all part of the FIGHT program.  It is a must that we reduce the total body burden of toxins and pathogens to fight the Lyme critters.  Lyme loves heavy metals.  We are slammed every time we walk out our front doors with 500 to 600 environmental toxins.  It is a daily battle, but I found the FIGHT program made this all very easy.  I only wish I had  the knowledge of the FIGHT program with the first Lyme infection.

I have never taken any antibiotics and don’t intend to, but I focused on the lifelong daily detox program FIGHT and cleaned up my lifestyle, home and diet.  I got rid of all the GMO foods, gluten, sugar, caffeine, alcohol and my body shakes if I pass a fast-food restaurant….the smell turns my stomach.  Once you clean  up your diet and clean up your homestead, you begin to feel better….Lifestyle is probably one of the hardest things I have ever done….Yes, I cheat, but at least now I have learned to cheat. and can neutralize a toxic food if I eat it.  Once you begin to feel better it makes the journey of cleaning up much easier. Just give the FIGHT program 90 days and you too will feel the difference.

Regards, Linda

Chronic Lyme Disease: Myth or Reality?

By Mehmet Oz, MD

Mehmet Oz, MD, host of The Dr. Oz Show, sorts out the truth. Lyme disease, a bacterial infection transmitted by the bite of a deer tick, can cause a variety of flu-like symptoms-achy joints, fatigue, fever, headache. But chronic Lyme disease is a different beast. Experts can’t agree on a case definition-or if the condition exists at all. What’s clear is that some Lyme patients, even after taking the standard treatment of antibiotics, continue to suffer long-term and often serious health problems, including poor mental function, migratory joint pain, and sleep disturbances. Whether the condition is an autoimmune or nervous system response triggered by the now-eradicated infection (sometimes called post-Lyme disease syndrome), or a chronic case of the disease directly attributable to an ongoing infection depends on whom you ask-as does the treatment.

The Case for Diagnosing CLD

“There is absolutely no doubt chronic Lyme disease [CLD] exists,” says Richard Horowitz, MD, president of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Educational Foundation. What’s more, he adds, many of those who contract Lyme disease can also have tick-borne coinfections like babesiosis, caused by parasites, and their symptoms can easily be mistaken for those of other ailments such as chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. “Like syphilis, chronic Lyme disease is a great imitator,” Horowitz notes. He has seen more than 11,000 patients whose CLD he has helped to pinpoint using his own broad differential diagnosis, which looks at all possible causes of symptoms. Along with specific treatments for any overlapping conditions, he often prescribes a combination of targeted antibiotics to beat the infection, and says he has seen dramatic recoveries.

The Case Against Diagnosing CLD

“There’s simply no scientific evidence that these symptoms are caused by an ongoing infection of Lyme disease,” says John Halperin, MD, chair of the department of neurosciences at Overlook Hospital in Summit, New Jersey, and professor of neurology at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. Halperin agrees that some Lyme disease patients can experience real, ongoing health issues. However, he says, “The best guess is that it has to do with how our nervous systems respond to different stressors. It’s probably due to a fundamental neurobiological trait of some people.” Halperin believes the way to treat the problem is symptomatically. That means everything from therapy for depression to surgery for severe arthritis-but not months of antibiotics, which can result in serious side effects, according to National Institutes of Health-funded studies.

Dr. Oz Says…

Let’s get past the fundamental argument over whether this is a chronic condition or an autoimmune response by acknowledging that it could be both. Someday we might discover that ticks aren’t giving people just a bacterial infection but also a virus or a hybrid bug. Patricia Gerbarg, MD, is the coauthor of How to Use Herbs, Nutrients, and Yoga in Mental Health Care as well as a former Lyme patient. What she found, and what I support, is that certain supplements strengthen the body’s ability to repair itself from the long-term problems associated with CLD. Taking vitamin B12, coenzyme Q10, chromium, folate, omega-3 fatty acids, and herbs such as Rhodiola rosea can improve energy and help with cellular repair-all key in recovering from conditions that can be as resistant as Lyme disease. Dr. Oz – Treating Lyme Disease – Oprah.com

Spilling the Beans | December 3, 2009

We’re really excited to share with you our new Non-GMO Shopping Guide website!

www.nonGMOShoppingGuide.com

The site features: Tips for Avoiding GMOs along with 16 food Product Categories listing both GMO and Non-GMO brands. There’s a section called Why Should I Avoid GMOs, and also How Can I Help, which gives everyone ways to help end the genetic engineering of our food supply. A Pocket Guide is available as a download or to order and share with friends. Since 53% of Americans say they would avoid GMOs if labeled, let’s make the Non-GMO Shopping Guide hugely popular and quickly achieve the tipping point. [Remember, when Europe achieved its tipping point of consumer rejection, within a single week nearly every major food company committed to stop using genetically modified (GM) ingredients.]

You can help us promote the Shopping Guide and reach tens of millions of people with these 5 easy steps:

1. Create Links to the Site
Link from your blog, website, and emails, and ask others to do the same. To introduce the link, choose from the text above, our press release, or the following blurb:

Learn how to buy foods without genetically modified organisms at www.nonGMOShoppingGuide.com. Find out why you should avoid GMOs, learn the 4 basic non-GMO shopping tips, reference brand names by category, and take steps to help end the genetic engineering of our food supply. You can also download or order a pocket version, so you can choose healthier non-GMO foods for yourself and your family.

2. Spread the Word on Facebook and Twitter

3. Ask Your Natural Food Store to Stock Free Non-GMO Guides for Customers
Download this PDF and take it to your natural food store manager. It invites them to order free bundles of 50 pocket guides (and accompanying GMO Health Risks brochure) from their own distributors. At the same time, be sure to order a bunch of guides from the store for yourself to give away. You can also buy the pocket guides online, just above our cost. An excellent stocking stuffer!

4. If You’re a Business or Organization, Support the Guide
Include your logo with other supporting companies on the Guide website and on the back of the pocket guide. This helps us distribute pocket guides free through stores and festivals (we have not yet broken even, so we really need your support). Phone (641) 209-7066 for more information.

5. Share This Email
Together, we can create the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMO food. Use the SHARE button below to choose the best way(s) to share this email with your contacts.

Visit the Site. Shop the Guide. Spread the Word.

As always, thank you for your continued support.

Jeffrey Smith

International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the executive director of the
Institute for Responsible Technology and the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette, documents 65 health risks of the GM foods Americans eat everyday.

Spilling the Beans | December 3, 2009

We’re really excited to share with you our new Non-GMO Shopping Guide website!

www.nonGMOShoppingGuide.com

The site features: Tips for Avoiding GMOs along with 16 food Product Categories listing both GMO and Non-GMO brands. There’s a section called Why Should I Avoid GMOs, and also How Can I Help, which gives everyone ways to help end the genetic engineering of our food supply. A Pocket Guide is available as a download or to order and share with friends. Since 53% of Americans say they would avoid GMOs if labeled, let’s make the Non-GMO Shopping Guide hugely popular and quickly achieve the tipping point. [Remember, when Europe achieved its tipping point of consumer rejection, within a single week nearly every major food company committed to stop using genetically modified (GM) ingredients.]

You can help us promote the Shopping Guide and reach tens of millions of people with these 5 easy steps:

1. Create Links to the Site
Link from your blog, website, and emails, and ask others to do the same. To introduce the link, choose from the text above, our press release, or the following blurb:

Learn how to buy foods without genetically modified organisms at www.nonGMOShoppingGuide.com. Find out why you should avoid GMOs, learn the 4 basic non-GMO shopping tips, reference brand names by category, and take steps to help end the genetic engineering of our food supply. You can also download or order a pocket version, so you can choose healthier non-GMO foods for yourself and your family.

2. Spread the Word on Facebook and Twitter

3. Ask Your Natural Food Store to Stock Free Non-GMO Guides for Customers
Download this PDF and take it to your natural food store manager. It invites them to order free bundles of 50 pocket guides (and accompanying GMO Health Risks brochure) from their own distributors. At the same time, be sure to order a bunch of guides from the store for yourself to give away. You can also buy the pocket guides online, just above our cost. An excellent stocking stuffer!

4. If You’re a Business or Organization, Support the Guide
Include your logo with other supporting companies on the Guide website and on the back of the pocket guide. This helps us distribute pocket guides free through stores and festivals (we have not yet broken even, so we really need your support). Phone (641) 209-7066 for more information.

5. Share This Email
Together, we can create the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMO food. Use the SHARE button below to choose the best way(s) to share this email with your contacts.

Visit the Site. Shop the Guide. Spread the Word.

As always, thank you for your continued support.

Jeffrey Smith

International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the executive director of the
Institute for Responsible Technology and the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette, documents 65 health risks of the GM foods Americans eat everyday.

Regards,
Linda

Scientific American
September 28, 2009

Wild Meat Raises Lead Exposure
Tests by the CDC show that eating venison and other game can raise the amounts of lead in human bodies by 50 percent
By Scott Streater and Environmental Health News

To Dr. William Cornatzer, it was an unforgettable image, one that troubled him deeply.

An avid hunter, Cornatzer was listening to a presentation on the lead poisoning of California condors when an x-ray of a mule deer flashed on an overhead screen. The deer had been shot in the chest with a high-powered rifle. Cornatzer was shocked that the deer’s entire carcass was riddled with dozens of tiny lead-shot fragments.

“My first thought had nothing to do with California condors; it had to do with what I had been doing as a hunter myself, and what I had been feeding our kids,” said Cornatzer, a clinical professor of medicine at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine & Health Sciences.

“I knew good and well after seeing that image that I had been eating a lot of lead fragments over the years,” he said.

That realization led Cornatzer and a radiologist last year to X-ray 100 packages of venison that had been donated by a sportsmen group to a food bank. About 60 percent of the packages contained lead-shot fragments, even though it’s common practice among hunters to remove meat around the wound.

The discovery prompted North Dakota to warn pregnant women and children 6 and under not to eat venison killed with ammunition containing lead.

It also sparked a flurry of new research that raises questions about the safety of eating wild game, as well as a renewed debate about eliminating lead ammunition.
ecosystems
Earlier this year, the National Park Service announced a controversial plan to ban lead ammunition and fishing tackle in the parks, which Acting Director Dan Wenk said “will benefit humans, wildlife, and  inside and outside park boundaries.”

Cheap, durable and readily available, lead has been used in weapons and other products since the Romans first mined it more than 2,500 years ago. Bullets have contained lead, which upon impact mushrooms to create a larger wound, since the 14th century.

But lead is a dangerous neurotoxin, particularly for children and fetuses. Low levels can harm children’s developing brains, causing learning disabilities and reduced IQs. High levels can trigger severe neurological problems.

Sporting groups are opposed to any restrictions on lead-based ammunition, arguing that there’s no clear evidence that it is dangerous when used to hunt deer and other animals.
“The use of traditional ammunition does not pose a health risk to human beings,” said Ted Novin, director of public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearms, ammunition and hunting industries.

Novin added that “there has never been a documented case of lead poisoning among humans who have eaten game harvested with traditional ammunition.”

New research, however, has shown that eating venison and other game can substantially raise the amounts of lead in human bodies. The findings have prompted some experts to recommend bans on lead ammunition.

“We want to avoid having people exposed to lead to the extent that it’s feasible and practical, and it’s clear that one of the key ways to minimize exposure is to use alternatives to lead ammunition,” said Dr. Michael Kosnett, a medical toxicologist at the University of Colorado at Denver School of Medicine. “You’re putting food on the table to nourish your family. Why not nourish them with healthy food if that’s a possible alternative?”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tested 736 people, mostly adults, in six North Dakota cities and found that those who ate wild game had 50 percent more lead in their blood than those who did not eat it. The lead exposure was highest among people who consumed not only venison, but also birds and other game, according to the study published last month in the journal Environmental Research.

Those who ate wild game meat had average lead levels of 1.27 micrograms per deciliter, compared with 0.84 for those who ate no game. Most said they either hunted the animals themselves or obtained the meat from friends or family members.

“What was most troubling is that as wild game consumption increases, the blood-lead levels increase,” said study co-author Mary Jean Brown, chief of the CDC’s lead poisoning prevention branch. “The strong recommendation we would make is that pregnant women should not consume this meat.”

The CDC is planning a second round of testing this year involving hunters in Wisconsin, Brown said.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation argues that everyone in the North Dakota study had blood-lead levels below the CDC’s health guideline of 10 micrograms per deciliter.

However, recent research has reported that children’s mental abilities are reduced by lead at levels far below the CDC guideline. Brown and others say there is no threshold below which lead does not cause harm, particularly with children.

As a result, the CDC recommends that “all nonessential uses of lead should be eliminated,” according to a 2005 statement. Less than 2 percent of children in the United States have lead levels that exceed the amount that the CDC considers safe. Most exposure comes from old, deteriorating lead-based paint, which was banned in 1978.

Another study, published in April, showed that eating venison containing lead-shot fragments can quickly raise blood-lead levels.

Researchers at Washington State University and Boise State University fed lead-tainted venison to four pigs and lead-free venison to a separate control group of pigs. The pigs that ate the venison containing lead fragments reached a lead level of 3.8 micrograms per deciliter after only two days—more than three times higher than the highest level in the control group of pigs, according to the study, which was sponsored by The Peregrine Fund, a group that advocates for the removal of lead shot to protect condors.

“At risk in the U.S. are some ten million hunters, their families, and low-income beneficiaries of venison donation,” the report says. One program, Sportsmen Against Hunger, donates the meat to low-income people.

The National Park Service posted the results of The Peregrine Fund study on its Web site, noting “that while the results are preliminary and much further study needs to be done to better assess risks to humans, it appears that if lead bullets are used, odds are high that you will ingest lead particles in ground meat.”

Mostly to protect wildlife, the park service plans to end the use of lead bullets and fishing gear in all parks. A public comment period will be held next year, said Jody Lyle, an agency spokeswoman.

“Our goal is to eliminate the use of lead ammunition and lead fishing tackle in parks by the end of 2010,” Wenk said when announcing the proposal in March. “We want to take a leadership role in removing lead from the environment.”

Although hunting is prohibited in most national parks, it is allowed on some park properties. Rangers also would have to stop using lead ammunition when culling herds or killing wounded or sick animals.

Hunting groups say any restriction on traditional ammunition will price many people out of hunting, because the alternatives–steel, copper or tungsten shells–can cost as much as six times more.

This is not the first time the federal government has considered restrictions on lead ammunition. The United States in 1991 phased out lead-shot for hunting waterfowl, mostly because bald eagles that prey on them were being poisoned.

Twenty-nine other countries have adopted voluntary or legislative restrictions. Some of the most aggressive regulations have been adopted in Europe, where lead-shot poisoning has killed white-tailed eagles and endangered Spanish Imperial eagles.

While there is no European Union standard for lead ammunition, Denmark was the first to ban lead shot for waterfowl in wetlands in 1985, followed throughout the 1990s by Norway, the Netherlands, Finland, England, Spain and Sweden. France did so in 2006. Denmark, followed by Norway and the Netherlands, extended the lead-shot ban to all hunted species in 2000.

California and Arizona also have taken action, implementing mandatory and voluntary bans, respectively, on lead bullets and shot in an effort to protect condors.

Pressure to ban lead-based ammunition in the U.S. intensified last year with the release of a report on threats to wildlife commissioned by The Wilderness Society and the American Fisheries Society.

The report said that lead fishing sinkers have poisoned brown pelicans, mute swans and Canada geese. Even more dangerous is lead shot in gut piles left behind by hunters and consumed by scavengers, including endangered condors, said Barnett Rattner, a wildlife toxicologist with the U.S. Geological Survey and a co-author of the review.

John H. Schulz, a resource scientist at the Missouri Department of Conservation, has calculated that as many as 15 million mourning doves are killed in North America each year from lead poisoning, mostly from eating spent lead shot that looks like the weed seed they depend on for food. That’s almost as many as the estimated 20 million mourning doves legally shot and killed each year by hunters.

But it’s the science pointing to possible human health impacts that has Schulz convinced that there’s more than enough scientific evidence to begin a phase-out of lead ammunition.

“Let’s not spend any more time studying whether the problem is significant. It is real. It is serious. It is significant,” Shulz said. “Now, how are we going to address it in a thoughtful and sensitive manner so no affected stakeholders are disenfranchised?”
This article originally ran at Environmental Health News, a news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.