African Center for BioSafety Orders Mnsanto to StopMaking False Claims about GMOs

6 April 2014
by Christina Sarich
Source: Nation of Change

The Advertising Standards Authority in South Africa recently banned a Monsanto radio ad claiming it was making unsubstantiated claims about GMO. Mariam Mayet, the executive director of the African Centre for Biosafety (ACB), is enraged by the arrogance of corporations like Monsanto.

Since the 1970s Monsanto has falsely advertised their products – from insecticides to DDT, even when independent research proved how vile these substances truly were. DDT was eventually banned, overturning Monsanto’s then claims, that the substance was ‘safe.’ It now seems that the African Center for Biosafety is among the clear-headed, realizing that Monsanto’s GMO crops are nothing but another false advertising campaign gone amuck.

Furthermore, the Advertising Standards Authority in South Africa recently banned a Monsanto radio ad claiming it was making unsubstantiated claims about GMO. Mariam Mayet, the executive director of the African Centre for Biosafety (ACB), is enraged by the arrogance of corporations like Monsanto. She believes, like others, that they are trying to control the world of agriculture through falsifying information and promoting their propaganda with deep pockets.

“We are elated with this decision,” said Mariam Mayet, executive director of the African Centre for Biosafety. ”Monsanto has already been warned by the ASA as far back as 2007, that it needs to substantiate its claims from an independent and credible expert … regarding its claims of the so-called benefits of [GMO] crops. However, it appears Monsanto does not have much regard for South African law as it is hell bent on disseminating false information to the South African public.”

Mayet and the ACB lodged a formal complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa, reporting that Monsanto’s radio ads are unsubstantiated, and they upheld the complaint, according to AllAfrica.

The ad played on radio 702 claimed that GM crops used fewer resources and have been “strictly regulated and have been extensively researched and tested for safety.” The ad touted increasing crop yields, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and less pesticide use also — all unproven. Monsanto also claimed that they ‘produced more food sustainably,’ even though their Round Up Ready chemicals and GMOs have destroyed butterflies, bees, and other pollinators. How is this more sustainable farming?

The ASA also warned Monsanto to “ensure that it holds proper substantiation for its advertising claims” or risk attracting further sanctions.Perhaps South Africa is paying heed to other countries who have banned Monsanto from more than their airwaves – but also their agricultural markets. France and Sri Lanka recently banned Monsanto’s seed and Sri Lanka is banning the use of glyphosate – the main ingredient in Round Up, completely.

Link:  nationofchange.org/african-center-biosafety-orders-monsanto-stop-making-false-claims-about-gmos-1396797498.

Blatant Corruption Exposed as EU Blocks France's Ban on Monsanto's GMO Maize

24 May 2012
By Anthony Gucciardi
Source: Nation of Change

France legislators and officials moved to ban Monsanto’s genetically modified strain of GMO maize over environmental and health concerns, the European Union has decided to step in and re-secure Monsanto’s presence in the country — against the very will of the nation itself. This should come as no surprise when considering the fact that the United States ambassador to France, a business partner to George W. Bush, stated back in 2007 that nations who did not accept Monsanto’s GMO crops will be ‘penalized’. In fact, ambassador Craig Stapleton went as far as to say that the nations should be threatened with military-styled trade wars.

That’s right, it appears the reason for the unprecedented move to maintain Monsanto’s deeply-rooted foothold in France has to do with the fact that the United States and other nations are continually pushing Monsanto’s agenda — even going as far as to threaten military-styled trade wars to those who oppose the company. Monsanto has major connections with political heads that have actually threatened trade wars against nations opposed to GMOs on record. As I reported back in January, WikiLeaks cables surfaced revealing startling information concerning Monsanto’s deep involvement with back-end politics.

One of the most telling details involves a statement made by Craig Stapleton, in which he said:

“Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.”

NationofChange fights back with one simple but powerful weapon: the truth. Can you donate $5 to help us?
And that is not even the most shocking part. WikiLeaks cables go on to state that United States diplomats actually work directly for Monsanto, furthering the agenda of the company across the globe. Is it any wonder that France is being assaulted by the EU over its decision to secure the health of its citizens?

It becomes even more obvious when examining the ridiculous reasoning as to why the EU had to step in and block France’s in-house legislation. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) rejected the ban on the grounds that “there is no scientific evidence” that shows “risk to human and animal health or the environment.” Of course there is an overwhelming amount of research showing that Monsanto’s creations do in fact threaten not only human health, but the planet as a whole. Even the EPA has warned over the fact that Monsanto’s GMO crops are spawning ‘mutant’ resistant insects and subsequently requiring substantially more pesticides.

Consumers are waking up to Monsanto’s agenda and the dangers associated with their modified creations. Over 45,000 comments were submitted on the USDA website in opposition to Monsanto’s new genetically modified strain, and only 23 in favor. The corruption of Monsanto is now out in the open, and only serves to show how deeply rooted the company is within the United States government. Is it any coincidence that a major head of the FDA was a leading employee of Monsanto?

New Guidance Allows Nations to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

7 July 2011
by: Mike Ludwig
Source: Truthout

Consumer advocates across the world are celebrating an international agreement that will allow countries to label genetically engineered (GE) foods without facing legal challenges from the World Trade Organization.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, which is composed of food safety regulators from more than 100 countries, adopted a guidance document during its annual summit in Geneva, Switzerland, on Tuesday that prevents any country's GE food labeling policies from being legally challenged

as barriers to trade. The commission was created in 1963 to create international food safety standards.

The guidance does not mandate the labeling of GE foods, but allows countries to develop their own labeling policies.

The US delegation to the Codex Commission reportedly reversed its position on the guidance document, allowing for the commission to reach consensus after 20 years of debate, according to Consumers International.

The US often finds itself at odds with countries that are reluctant to jump on the GE bandwagon. The Obama administration generally considers GE foods to be no different from conventional foods and is opposed to mandatory labeling of foods containing GE ingredients.

Other countries, however, are eager to regulate food crops genetically engineered by agribusiness companies like Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF.

"Peru's recent introduction of GM food labeling faced the threat of a legal challenge from the WTO," said Edita Vilcapoma, a spokesperson for a Peruvian consumer group. "This new Codex agreement now means that this threat has gone and the consumer right to be informed has been secured. This is major victory for the global consumers movement."

Consumer groups in the United States and across the world have called for foods containing GE ingredients to be labeled as such for years. Consumer advocacy groups are hailing the Codex agreement as a "consumer rights milestone," pointing out that labeling will lead to better oversight of GE food products.

"This is one of the key reasons we want all genetically modified foods to be required to be labeled - so that if consumers eat modified foods, they will be able to know and report to regulators if they have an allergic or other adverse reaction," said Dr. Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at the US Consumers Union.

GM Watch Introduction

Does mention of allergen-free peanuts, striga-resistant cowpeas, salt-resistant wheat, beta-carotene rich sweet potatoes, virus-resistant cassavas make you think of GM?

If so, you've missed the great unpublished story – all the non-GM breakthroughs solving precisely the kind of problems (drought-resistance, salt-resistance, biofortification etc.) that GM proponents claim only genetic modification can provide the answer to.

While often speculative claims of potential GM "miracles" win vast amounts of column inches, the non-GM success stories generally get minimal if any reporting in the popular media. Without GM's often exaggerated crisis narratives and claimed silver bullet solutions, it seems there is no story!

The biotechnology industry and its PR people are keen to keep it that way, particularly because the non-GM solutions are often way ahead of the work on GM. They also bring none of the uncertainties that surround GM.

All of this makes keeping track of the many non-GM success stories especially important.
The GM breakthroughs that never were

Another reason it's important is because - thanks to the lack of success with GM "solutions" - non-GM success stories can end up being claimed as GM breakthroughs!

A classic instance is provided by the UK Government's former chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, who has repeatedly used non-GM breakthroughs as evidence of why we need to embrace GM. In one case, King claimed a big crop yield increase in Africa was due to GM, when it did not involve the use of any GM technology at all. On another occasion, King claimed a big success for GM flood resistant rice when what he was referring to was in reality a non-GM crop!

In both cases King was under pressure to provide compelling examples of why GM crops were needed. But far from King's examples showing why we need to embrace GM, they show the exact opposite, i.e. that we need to stop being distracted by GM and to get the funding and support behind the non-GM solutions to the problems we so badly need to address.

If you look at the menu above it gives links to just some of the many non-GM successes we have come across. It's worth noting, incidentally, that some of this progress is being made with the help of biotechnological approaches, like marker assisted selection, that do not involve the same kind of risks and uncertainties as GM, and which are in fact making GM obsolete. You can read more about this here.
What the biotech industry doesn't want you to know about GM "improved" crops

There's another way in which crops touted as GM breakthroughs are not always what they seem – and it's the best-kept secret of the biotech industry. Most of the crops that are touted as GM breakthroughs are nothing of the sort.

In summer 2010 Monsanto bought out part of a West Autralian cereal breeding company, Intergrain. An Intergrain spokesman explained Monsanto's interest like this: "A really important concept is that biotech traits by themselves are absolutely useless unless they can be put into the very best germplasm."

Biotech company raid the germplasm of natural crop varieties that have been developed by farmers and breeders over centuries for the traits they want. It uses conventional breeding and sometimes marker assisted selection – not GM – to get the plant it wants. Its own proprietary genes are added primarily so that it can patent and own the seed and resulting crop.

This GM tweak often adds nothing to the agronomic performance of the crop but is usually either a Bt toxin to kill insects or a herbicide-resistance gene that allows it to be drenched in herbicide. But it has one magical effect – on the biotech company's profit margins.

This process is never disclosed in the industry's hyping of its new crop varieties to the media. The questions we should all be asking are these: which natural parent variety or varieties did the company pirate for its GM variety? How much improvement was made in the parent variety by conventional breeding and marker assisted breeding, aside from the GM tweak? How do the natural parent variety, the non-GM improved variety, and the final GM variety compare with each other with regard to the desired trait in side-by-side field trials?

In other words, how much value was added by the GM manipulation?

The answers would be educational. But we won't usually get to hear them because the information is commercially confidential. And so the biotech companies are able to maintain their seductive lie that GM is necessary for the future of plant breeding.

One instance where do know how the trick was pulled is Vistive soya, which has been described as the first GM product with direct benefits for consumers. These supposedly healthier low linolenic acid soya beans, which make the use of unhealthy trans fats by food manufacturers less necessary, were created by non-GM means. But Monsanto deliberately turned them into a GM crop by adding a GM trait - resistance to its Roundup herbicide - that has absolutely nothing to do with consumer benefits. Interestingly, Iowa State University conventionally bred an even lower linolenic acid soybean variety than the Monsanto one and did not add any GM traits to it. Unsurprisingly, very little has been heard about it, compared to Monsanto's Vistive.

In late 2010 came news of an important breakthrough. Syngenta, we were told, "is leading the charge on a new generation of corn designed by its scientists to withstand drought". Syngenta's Agrisure Artesian drought resistant corn will be a GM corn but not because GM lead to the breakthrough - it didn't. The drought resistance was via (marker assisted) conventional plant breeding. But unrelated herbicide tolerant and pesticidal trangenes were subsequently added to turn it into a GM variety. As one critic noted, "They could have released the non-GM variety without the added transgenes... This could have benefited many farmers in countries which are suffering from droughts but which do not allow GM crop production. So much for trying to solve global food security."

Although there has been a massive amount of hype about how GM is the way to deliver drought-resistant crops, non-GM plant breeding has been much more succesful. To date there is not a single GM-bred drought resistant variety on the market.

Controversial ag spending bill defunds local food systems, promotes meat monopoly

June 24, 2011

Rady Ananda, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Plutocrats aimed another weapon at the nation’s poor and at small and midsized farmers, this time thru the 2012 agriculture appropriations bill, H.R. 2112, which the House passed on June 16. The 82-page bill returns some federal spending to 2006 levels and others to 2008 levels.

Now being reviewed by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, the final version of HR 2112 will lay the terrain on which the 2012 Farm Bill will be crafted. The House Agriculture Committee began preparatory hearings on the 2012 Farm Bill this week, reports NSAC.

Key sections provide deep cuts to domestic food programs, threatening food banks, low-income seniors, women and children, and farmers markets supported by WIC vouchers issued thru the Women, Infants and Children program.


HR 2112 also made deep cuts to rural development, conservation and eco-remediation programs, and to local and regional food system development programs. This can be seen as nothing other than a punitive response to the growing local food sovereignty movement.

Earlier this year, Maine and Vermont enacted home rule ordinances to protect small farms from the overreaching hyper-regulation of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FMSA), which became law in January. On June 10, the State of Maine passed a Joint Resolution in support of local food sovereignty.

One positive provision in HR 2112 prohibits the Food and Drug Administration from spending any funds to authorize genetically modified salmon. Contrary to some media reports, Congress did not “ban GM salmon,” nor did the House “pass a law” thru HR 2112. A federal law is enacted only after Congress (both the Senate and the House of Representatives) passes it and the US President signs it.

GIPSA Rules Defunded

By far, though, the most controversial cut in HR 2112 relates to “GIPSA Rules,” which would begin ending unfair trade practices in the meat industry. Everyone who eats animal products should understand how this works, because these rules not only benefit small operators, but also product quality, food security and the environment.

HR 2112 prohibits GIPSA – the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration – from using funds to finalize antitrust rules in the meat industry.

This overturns a key provision in the 2008 Farm Bill, which required the USDA to develop those rules.

“Some question whether the Appropriations Committee can overturn national legislation,” said National Farmers Union president Roger Johnson in a press conference today.

Speaking for a coalition of cattle and hog producers and poultry growers, Johnson demanded that President Obama keep his campaign promise to reform livestock and poultry markets.

“The GIPSA Rule reinstates the USDA’s long-held interpretation of the Packers and Stockyards Act that was overturned by 2005 and 2006 court cases,” he said.

In both those cases, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s rejection of the jury verdict. In the 2005 case, London v. Fieldale Farms, the jury awarded London $164,000. In the 2006 case, Pickett v. Tyson, the jury awarded $1.28 billion to Pickett for eight years of price fixing by Tyson.

Substantively, the London court held that an operator must show harm to the entire industry, not just the plaintiff.

Under the GIPSA rules, “Farmers and ranchers no longer have to prove unfair practices harm the entire industry, only that the abuses damaged plaintiff,” said Johnson.

This is the usual standard in tort law. Can you imagine being hit by a car and having to prove the defendant’s action was harmful to all drivers? Of course not. The court ruling flies in the face of common sense and entrenches monopolistic power.

In Pickett, U.S. District Court Judge Lyle Strom absurdly reasoned that price manipulation is allowed if the perpetrator has a business interest in doing so. By this logic, companies can do whatever they want to improve profits, despite laws against such actions.

Judicial corruption aside, the USDA’s failure to fully enforce the Packers & Stockyards Act of 1921 and other anti-corporate farming laws has resulted in the loss of nearly a million operators in the beef, pork, poultry and specialty meat market over the past 30 years.

This chart shows figures just for the pork industry, from info derived from the National Pork Board’s 2010 Quick Facts. Ninety percent of family hog operations and 95% of midsized operations have folded in the past 34 years.

When Congress passed the Packers & Stockyards Act of 1921 (PSA), it sought to bust the monopoly of the Big 5: Armour, Swift, Wilson, Morris, and Cudahy, which then controlled 75% of the meat packer market.

Today, four firms control 85% of the market: Tyson (IBP), Cargill (Excel), ConAgra (Monfort), and Farmland National Beef.

Clearly, PSA enforcers have not done their job.

Though mandated over three years ago, the USDA still has not formalized the GIPSA rules. At today’s meat coalition press conference, speakers urged the USDA to finalize the rules.

Defunding the GIPSA Rules clarifies federal priority to protect the rich at the expense of the rest of us.

The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA) explains that these firms use their monopoly power to “manipulate markets, deny or severely restrict market access to independent livestock producers, and use unfair practices like confidentiality clauses to the detriment of both contract producers and independent producers.”

Mike Callicrate of R-CALF USA calls it “predatory pricing.”

“The big packers, so called, stand between hundreds of thousands of producers on one hand and millions of consumers on the other. They have their fingers on the pulse of both the producing and consuming markets and are in such a position of strategic advantage they have unrestrained power to manipulate both markets to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of over 99 percent of the people of the country.”

So spoke Wyoming Senator John Kendrick in 1921, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, arguing the need for the Packers and Stockyard Act.

Market concentration is even worse today.

Food, Bombs and Wall Street

While lawmakers claim the need to cut government spending, they won’t touch the military’s outrageous budget for domestic surveillance and illegal resource wars. Instead, cuts apply to the US social safety net thru HR 2112.

There’s the $1.2 trillion US military budget that could use substantial reduction. And, the Obama Administration reported to Congress last week that the Libya invasion alone will cost $1.1 billion by September.

Certainly, food not bombs is a more sane policy after Wall Street collapsed the global economy with its criminal trading schemes.

Instead of arresting anyone from Wall Street, authorities instead continue to arrest Food Not Bombs members, who refuse to obey a law against feeding hungry people in Florida.

Just last month, the FDA cited the Food Safety Modernization Act for authority in declaring it no longer needs credible evidence to seize food that may be contaminated, entirely ignoring the Fourth Amendment. Given the increasing frequency of the FDA’s illegal raids on small ops not involved in interstate commerce and whose product sickened no one, we can expect more small producers to be shut down.

Food prices have spiked because of Wall Street commodities trading, explained in lay terms by Ellen Brown who cites the detailed work of Frederick Kaufman.

In HR 2112, efforts to control trading in futures by the Dodd-Frank Act are stymied by funding cuts. In commenting on the bill, Congressmen Sam Farr and Norman Dicks describe the cut this way:

“The bill provides $171.93 million for Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), a reduction of $136 million (44%) below the request (which proposed an increase for the implementation of the landmark Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation) and $30 million (15%) below 2011. At a time of volatile commodity prices, including oil and energy, and only three years after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, inadequate funding of CFTC is an unacceptable risk to the markets on which our economy depends.”

Source:www.activistpost.com

The cost-effective way to feed the world

Jun. 20, 2011

By MARGARET MELLON AND DOUG GURIAN-SHERMAN

By 2050, the world will have to feed 9 billion people, adapt to climate change, reduce agricultural pollution, and protect fresh water supplies - all at the same time. Given that formidable challenge, what are the quickest, most cost-effective ways to develop more productive, drought-, flood- and pest-resistant crops?

Some will claim that genetically engineered (GE) crops are the solution. But when compared side-by-side, classical plant breeding bests genetic engineering. Coupled with ecologically based management methods that reduce the environmental harm of crop production, classical breeding could go a long way toward producing the food we will need by mid-century.

Producing better crops faster certainly would help the world feed itself, but genetic engineering has no advantage on that score. Not only can classical breeding programs introduce new varieties about as fast as genetic engineering, technical improvements are making classical practices even faster.

Click here to find out more!

Early steps in the genetic engineering process avoid the multiple rounds of cross-breeding inherent in classical plant breeding by directly inserting engineered genes into the crop. But seed companies then use classical breeding to transfer engineered genes to the crop's numerous varieties for different markets and climates - and that takes time. And just as in classical breeding, new engineered varieties must be tested in the field for several years to ensure they perform as expected.

Second, GE crops are significantly more expensive to develop. Industry estimates of the cost of developing a single GE trait are in excess of $100 million. By contrast, a classical breeding program for similar traits typically costs about $1 million. Most of the cost differential is attributable to GE crops' research and development requirements, which include DNA synthesizers and sequencers and other expensive equipment, in addition to classical breeding facilities.

Genetic engineering might be worth the extra cost if classical breeding were unable to impart such desirable traits as drought-, flood- and pest-resistance, and fertilizer efficiency. But in case after case, classical breeding is delivering the goods.

Plant breeders have already produced drought-tolerant varieties of sorghum, corn, rice, cassava and pearl millet - all critical for poor farmers in developing countries. Genetic engineering, meanwhile, has yet to commercialize its first drought-tolerant crop varieties. U.S. biotech companies have been working for years on drought tolerance, but two of the three varieties they plan to introduce within the next two years are the result of classical breeding.

Scientists using classical breeding enhanced with genomic information - a process called marker-assisted breeding - also have produced rice varieties that can tolerate flooding. These varieties, now cultivated in the Philippines, Bangladesh and India, are expected to increase food security for 70 million of the world's poorest people.

Classical breeders likewise have developed papaya resistant to ringspot virus and corn that can fend off destructive rootworms - traits previously touted as requiring genetic engineering. And in Uganda, scientists have successfully bred sweet potatoes to resist virus diseases, while a multimillion-dollar, multi-year project in Kenya to genetically engineer similar virus resistance failed.

Finally, classical breeding and better farm management are responsible for all the yield increases for soybeans and most of the yield increases for corn in the United States. Recent yield increases are often erroneously attributed to genetic engineering, but data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and academic scientists show that even during the past 15 years that GE crops have been commercialized, classical breeding and crop management improvements contributed the large majority of the increases, not the newly inserted genes.

Public sector crop breeders have succeeded despite shoestring budgets at public universities, international institutes and the USDA. By contrast, the biotech industry's lavish budgets have produced commercial crops with only two types of GE traits. More than 60 percent of all GE crops planted worldwide are merely designed to survive being doused with herbicides.

So if the conventional wisdom is wrong, and classical breeding is superior, what does that mean for public policy?

Federal and state governments should dramatically increase their support for tried-and-true, cost-effective classical breeding technology - including better funding for breeding programs at public universities and nonprofit institutes where breeders can work with farmers to develop a wider range of farmer-ready crop varieties. Big biotech companies do not focus on small-acreage crops, which include most fruits and vegetables. Nor do they market many classically improved varieties without including their patented engineered traits, which doesn't help farmers who don't want to grow GE seeds or pay the high prices biotech companies charge for them.

We are not suggesting that genetic engineering has no role to play in developing improved crops. But its modest contributions come with an extremely high price tag. If we are going to meet the challenges of feeding a growing population and protecting the environment, the scientific evidence says we place our bets on technology that works - classical breeding.

ABOUT THE WRITERS

Margaret Mellon is the director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Food and Environment Program. Doug Gurian-Sherman is a senior scientist in same program. Readers may write to them at: Union of Concerned Scientists, 1825 K Street NW, Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20006-1232; website: www.ucsusa.org.

Source: The Bellingham Herald

GM Food Conference in Jordan

May 20, 2011
Crop Biotech Update

The 5th International Conference on Genetically Modified Food will be held in Amman, Jordan on June 6 to 7, 2011. Topics up for discussion include the following: implementation strategies of agricultural biotechnology in developing countries; utilization of agri-biotech; public-private partnerships; biosafety and biosecurity issues; and GM seeds.

For details of the conference visit http://www.tc-center.com/conferences2.htm

Study Found Toxin from GM Crops is Showing up in Human Blood

May 31 2011
By Dr. Mercola
From Dr. Mercola's Website

A new study is causing fresh doubts about the safety of genetically modified crops. The research found Bt toxin, which is present in many GM crops, in human blood.

Bt toxin makes crops toxic to pests, but it has been claimed that the toxin poses no danger to the environment and human health; the argument was that the protein breaks down in the human gut. But the presence of the toxin in human blood shows that this does not happen.

India Today reports:

“Scientists ... have detected the insecticidal protein ... circulating in the blood of pregnant as well as non-pregnant women. They have also detected the toxin in fetal blood, implying it could pass on to the next generation.”
Sources:
India Today May 11, 2011
Reproductive Toxicology February 18, 2011

Dr. Mercola's Comments:



Cry1Ab, a specific type of Bt toxin from genetically modified (GM) crops, has for the first time been detected in human and fetal blood samples. It appears the toxin is quite prevalent, as upon testing 69 pregnant and non-pregnant women who were eating a typical Canadian diet (which included foods such as GM soy, corn and potatoes), researchers found Bt toxin in:

* 93 percent of maternal blood samples
* 80 percent of fetal blood samples
* 69 percent of non-pregnant women blood samples

Writing in the journal Reproductive Toxicology, the researchers noted:

"This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating PAGMF [pesticides associated with genetically modified foods] in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities."

This GM insecticide toxin is already showing up in fetal blood, which means it could have an untold impact on future generations.

Bt Toxin is a Built-In Pesticide

Upwards of 85 percent of U.S. corn crops contain a special gene added that allows them to produce an insecticide. This way, when bugs attempt to eat the corn they're killed right away (specifically their stomach is split open) because the plant contains an invisible, built-in pesticide shield.

The particular gene added to most corn crops is a type of Bt-toxin -- produced from Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria. Genetic engineers remove the gene that produces the Bt in bacteria and insert it into the DNA of corn (and cotton) plants.

They claim that Bt-toxin is quickly destroyed in human stomachs -- and even if it survived, it won't cause reactions in humans or mammals ...

But studies are now showing that this is not the case, as Bt toxin is readily passing into the human bloodstream and animal studies have already shown that Bt-toxin does cause health effects in animals, including potentially humans. As Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, wrote:

"Mice fed natural Bt-toxin showed significant immune responses and caused them to become sensitive to other formerly harmless compounds. This suggests that Bt-toxin might make a person allergic to a wide range of substances.

Farm workers and others have also had reactions to natural Bt-toxin, and authorities acknowledge that "People with compromised immune systems or preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt."

In fact, when natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions—mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms. Six people had to go to the emergency room.

… The Bt-toxin produced in the GM plants is probably more dangerous than in its natural spray form. In the plants, the toxin is about 3,000-5,000 times more concentrated than the spray, it doesn't wash off the plants like the spray does, nd it is designed to be more toxic than the natural version.

In fact, the GM toxin has properties of known allergens and fails all three GM allergy tests recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others."

GM Insecticide Poisons Also Showing Up in Waterways

Given that Bt toxin has now been confirmed in the human bloodstream, it should come as no surprise that it has also infiltrated the environment. According to one study, 50 of the 217 streams, ditches and drains near cornfields that researchers tested were found to contain Cry1Ab above six nanograms per liter.

The protein is getting into the waterways via corn stalks, leaves, husks and cobs that blow into the water -- a phenomenon that's incredibly common since farmers often leave such material in fields to help minimize soil erosion.

Eighty-six percent of the streams tested contained various corn material with the potential to transmit Bt-toxin into the water. Further, because the study was conducted six months after crops were harvested, it indicates that the GM protein lingers in the environment. Now that this GM toxin is showing up in waterways, it has the potential to devastate aquatic life and continue to spread, uncontrolled and unrestricted, across the entire United States and world.

GM Foods May be Leaving GM Proteins in Your Body

In case it's not clear, I want to reiterate that this new study in Reproductive Technology has confirmed that if you eat GM foods that contain the insecticidal Bt toxin, it appears likely that it will be transferred to your bloodstream.

As I mentioned earlier, as of right now about 85 percent of the corn grown in the United States 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 GM components unless it's certified organic by the USDA.

There's very convincing evidence that eating these genetically modified foods spells 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.

However, the GM-friendly UK government, who funded the study, chose not to fund any follow up research to see if GM corn -- which contains the BT toxin -- might also transfer and continue to create insecticide inside your intestines. Now the evidence has come through nonetheless, as the study in Reproductive Technology shows that it does transfer, at least to your bloodstream (and the bloodstream of your baby if you're pregnant).

This is extremely concerning, as 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


I've gone on record saying that due to the amount of GM crops now grown in the United States, 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.

How to Say "No" to 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 genetically modified organisms (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.


Related Links:
GMO Poisons Found in Indiana Waterways
Why Did Officials Approve this Toxic Corn Chip that Creates a ‘Pesticide Factory’ in Your Gut?
Enjoy Pesticides in Every Bite of GMO Food?