Pig tummies inflamed by GM feed - what about humans?

Pig tummies inflamed by GM feed

Here’s an example of how GM feed affects animas…in this case, pigs. While humans aren’t pigs, they could well be considered guinea pigs in terms of clinical manifestations from altered food going into human bodies. It pays to be aware and make informed food choices rather than blindly trust that GM food is safe and a good thing. Apparently not even for pigs.

Many chronic ailments costing mega millions of care dollars the medical system could be sourced from GM food reactions. Of course, in third world countries, what medical care?

Note the last report included in what is just a minor amount of information that exists on this broad topic brings up detoxification issues with GM foods and involves the Cytochrome P450 pathway. If you can’t detox efficiently, you’re in big trouble. Many doctors do not test the detox pathway so ailments continue to compound as a result of failure to eliminate toxins from the body efficiently.

Forewarned is forearmed.

Jackie




GM Feed Inflamed Animals’ Guts

GM corn and soy also enlarged pigs’ uteruses; findings affirm earlier signs of harm

6/24/2013
By Craig Weatherby

We reject genetically modified foods and support labeling of same.

So we urge you to join us in supporting the Yes on 522 campaignto require labeling of GM foods in Washington State … home to Bellingham, our own coastal base.

Vital Choice supports GM-food labeling for two reasons: Lack of required, thorough safety studies and generally lax U.S. regulation.

U.S lacks serious labeling, testing, and monitoring laws
Industry research has often been woefully inadequate to establish safety.

Testing isn’t even required when a biotech firm asserts that a new GM crop carries no human allergens and is “substantially identical” to its non-GM counterparts.

Current science and technology lack the capacity to ensure that GM crops are “substantially identical” to non-GM ones in safety and nutrition terms.

In part, this is because researchers aren’t even close to understanding the infinitely complex interplay among genes, and may never be.

Accordingly, stringent labeling, testing, and monitoring must be required of GM foods.

Absent those laws, we can’t possibly know the truth about the safety of any specific GM food product ... and animal test results often do not match what humans experience.

The existing evidence of possible harm is enough to demand much more pre-market safety research, and tougher regulations overall.

Now, a large, lifelong animal study reveals alarming evidence of intestinal harm from GM crops.

And it occurred among pigs … animals whose digestive tracts resemble people’s guts very closely.

GM feed crops inflamed pigs’ intestines and enlarged uteruses
Independent scientist from Australia and America report the disturbing results of a very credible study in a common breed of pigs raised on large farms in Iowa.

The team included scientists from Australia’s University of Adelaide, Flinders University, and Institute of Health and Environmental Research … plus Iowa-based veterinarians experienced with commercial pigs.

The scientists divided 168 pigs into two groups:
• Half ate a diet of non-GM soy and corn.
• Half ate an equivalent mixture of GM Roundup Ready soy and BT corn.
Roundup Ready soy resists the herbicide glyphosate and Bt corn is a GM strain engineered to produce bacterial proteins that damage insects’ intestines.

The pigs spent 22.7 weeks indoors on concrete floors, and lived under other conditions typical of factory-style “confined feeding operations” (CFOs).

The Iowa veterinarians performed necropsies (animal autopsies) on all of the pigs, but didn’t know which pigs ate GM or conventional feed.

Between the two groups, there were no significant differences in weight, blood chemistry, feed intake, mortality … or intestinal inflammation.

However, pigs fed genetically modified corn and soybeans were more than twice as likely to develop severely inflamed stomachs, versus the animals given non-GM feed.

Specifically, as the authors wrote, “Pigs fed the mixed GM soy and GM corn diet showed 2.6 times the rate of severe stomach inflammation compared to non-GM fed pigs.” (Carman JA et al 2013)

And the uteri of female pigs fed GM crops were 25 percent heavier than the uteri of female pigs in the non-GM group.

The authors expressed worry: “Given the widespread use of GMO feed for livestock as well as humans this is a cause for concern.” (Carman JA et al 2013)

As they stressed, “Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs, and these GM crops are widely consumed by people, particularly in the USA, so it would be be prudent to determine if the findings of this study are applicable to humans.”

They also offered very reasonable regulations (Carman JA et al 2013):
“The results indicate that it would be prudent for GM crops that are destined for human food and animal feed, including stacked GM crops, to undergo long-term animal feeding studies preferably before commercial planting, particularly for toxicological and reproductive effects.”

By “stacked GM crops” they meant two or more GM crops consumed in a person or animal’s regular diet.

One GM crop may be safe when eaten alone, but might produce negative effects when eaten along with certain other GM crops.

How can anyone argue against this kind of sensible precaution … one that would not involve undue cost or time, given the short lifespans of pigs and other animals?

Why would GM corn or soy induce severe inflammation?
The study authors pinned possible blame on two CRY-type proteins produced within Bt corn.

Organic and conventional farmers have long sprayed crops with the spores or proteins produced by a microbe (Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt), as a safe, natural alternative to synthetic, neurotoxic pesticides.

CRY proteins destroy insects’ digestive tracts, though it's thought that humans and other mammals – such as pigs – aren’t harmed because they lack the necessary gut environment and receptors.

Spores or CRY proteins from Bt microbes do not persist on plants sprayed with them.

But livestock and people do consume the Bt proteins in GM corn engineered to produce them ... and consumption of Bt proteins may present health risks: See “Genetically Modified Corn Found Toxic to Animals” and “Natural Pesticide from GM Crops Found in Fetuses”.

In addition to those studies, French scientists reported this year that the CRY1Ab protein produced from Bt corn harmed human kidney cells in the test tube:
“Here, we document that modified Bt toxins are not inert on human cells, but can exert toxicity, at least under certain in vitro conditions.” (Mesnage R et al. 2013)

Hopefully, increasing demands for labeling of GM foods will prompt Congress and industry to get serious about GM crop safety.


Sources
• Carman JA et al. A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. Journal of Organic Systems, 8(1), 2013. Accessed at [www.organic-systems.org]
• Mesnage R, Clair E, Gress S, Then C, Székács A, Séralini GE. Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt insecticidal toxins alone or with a glyphosate-based herbicide. J Appl Toxicol. 2013 Jul;33(7):695-9. doi: 10.1002/jat.2712. Epub 2012 Feb 15.

Reprinted with permission of Vital Choice
[www.vitalchoice.com]

==================================================================================================================

6/3/2013
GMO Critiques May Miss Another Danger

Is a popular pesticide used with some GM crops a bigger problem than GM crops themselves?

What is the problem with genetic modification of food crops?

Critics point to the gene splicing technology used to create GM crops.

But that technique changes a plant’s genome much less than the methods used to create commercial seed strains ... including some certified organic crops.

Instead, most independent scientists cite two potential eco and health risks from GM food crops.

First, the technology could introduce genes that would produce toxic or allergenic compounds in foods.

Why we reject GM foods
People worldwide have consumed copious amounts of GM foods over the past two decades, without any evidence of harm.

With regard to the animal research most widely cited by anti-GM authors, many independent scientists find itscientifically unpersuasive
... but other studies seem credible (see “Genetically Modified Corn Found Toxic to Animals”).

Despite the apparently clean human-safety record of GM foods so far, we have little confidence that U.S. laws and regulators are up to the task of ensuring ongoing safety.

Examples of sloppy, distorted science abound on the pro-GM side, with most independent scientists dismissing a recent U.S. safety review of proposed GM salmon as astonishingly lame. (See “GM Salmon Hit by Consumers Union, Congress”.)

At Vital Choice, we’ve supported labeling of GM foods, and declined to carry them ... mostly because of lax safety testing laws, the secrecy surrounding patented GM food crops and animals, the risk of “gene flow” from GM crops and animals to non-GM counterparts, and the notably irresponsible and/or obnoxious behavior of some biotech companies.

This writer recommends two books that present credible, nuanced views of the GM-foods debate:
Food, Inc.: Mendel to Monsanto–The Promises and Perils of the Biotech Harvest by Peter Pringle, an investigative journalist who’s written for
The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Atlantic, and others. (This book bears no relationship to the documentary film of the same name.)

Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food, by husband-wife team Pamela C. Ronald (a plant geneticist at UC Davis) and R. W. Adamchak (an organic farming professor at UC Davis).

(The makers of GM crop seeds must tell regulators which genes they will introduce, and certify that none can produce toxic or allergenic compounds.)

A second concern is that the DNA changes produced by gene splicing can “flow” to other food crops or wild plants, causing undesirable changes in their genomes.

(This second risk applies as much or more to the many non-GM crop strains created by making random, chemical- or radiation-induced gene mutations in seeds.)

Both fears are supposed to be allayed by existing U.S. laws and regulations ... but those rules are notably weak, and underfunded, politically pressured regulatory agencies often perform poorly.

For more on GM foods, and the fight over labeling, see the Genetic Engineering & Modification section of our news archive.

Is glyphosate (Roundup) the real risk?
The heated debate over the inherent safety of foods produced using GM technology may distract attention from a related risk.

Glyphosate (gly-foh-sate) is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup product, and is now the most heavily used herbicide in the world.

(Monsanto's last patent expired in 2000, and Roundup is just one of hundreds of herbicidal products containing glyphosate.)

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), American farmers applied some 185 million pounds of glyphosate in 2007 … double the amount in 2001.

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready widely planted (and consumed) corn and soy are genetically engineered to resist glyphosate.

Monsanto and other glyphosate makers say it has proven far safer than standard herbicides … thus, adoption of Roundup Ready crops should reduce the toxic burden on soil, water, animals, insects, and people.

The authors of a 2000 review concluded that “under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans”, and a 2002 review by the European Union came to a similarly sanguine conclusion (Williams GM et al. 2000; EC 2002).

Monsanto also claims that the combination of Roundup Ready crops and Roundup (glyphosate plus additives) allows farmers to kill weeds with less mechanical tillage – which damages soil – and less risk to the crops being protected.

Over the past decade-plus, accelerating use of glyphosate by farmers, golf courses, commercial lawn services, and private consumers has steadily created more weeds resistant to it … see “Monsanto's GM Herbicide Failing”.

And Roundup-treated soil apparently fosters growth of a mystery pathogen that’s been linked to increased crop disease and reduced fertility in livestock … see “GMO-Linked Herbicide Begins to Backfire”.

Evidence continues to mount suggesting that glyphosate products like Roundup may pose more risks than GM crops themselves … due in part to the toxic effects of “inactive” ingredients, including the detergents used in many glyphosate-based herbicidal formulas.

The authors of a new evidence review claims that Roundup could be harmful in ways different from – and more insidious than – the harm caused by the older herbicides it’s displacing.

But are they right?

One observer – who possesses far greater expertise in human biology – deemed the report “a tissue of assertions and allegations, a tendentious brief for the prosecution that never should have been published in … any scientific journal.” (Lowe D 2013)

New report asserts unique health risks from Roundup
April of 2013 witnessed the release of a report that reviewed studies on Roundup, looking for possible effects on human health.

The authors were MIT electrical engineer Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and retired environmental scientist Anthony Samsel, Ph.D. Neither author is an expert in human biology or chemical toxicity.

Their report appeared in the open-source journal Entropy, and claims to reveal evidence that glyphosate residues in food could harm beneficial gut bacteria and a key class of enzymatic processes (cytochrome P450 or CYP).

The authors infer that glyphosate might kill bacteria in the human gut, including the beneficial bugs essential to health and disease protection. (Monsanto reportedly holds a patent for glyphosate’s use as an antimicrobial agent.)

If eating food laced with Roundup damages our intestinal bacteria, and/or disrupts a critical class of enzymes, that could promote major health problems.

Frankly, it’s not clear that glyphosate poses the risks the authors say it may.

Those who read their paper carefully may find it hard to disagree with the thrust of an April 30, 2013 critique by pharmaceutical chemist Derek Lowe, Ph.D., titled “Is Glyphosate Poisoning Everyone?”:

“This paper is a tissue of assertions and allegations, a tendentious brief for the prosecution that never should have been published in … any scientific journal.”

That may sound harsh, but the authors consistently ignored, overlooked, misinterpreted or over-interpreted evidence in papers they cite … including evidence clearly contradicting their claims about glyphosate and CYP enzymes.

What’s next for glyphosate/Roundup?
The EPA is conducting a standard registration review of glyphosate and has set a deadline of 2015 for determining if glyphosate use should be limited.

Perhaps its use should be limited ... but not on the basis of farfetched claims based on sloppy research.

Given the known toxicity of the herbicides glyphosate has largely replaced, caution is in order before we trade the frying pan for the fire.

Of course, the best course is to minimize or eliminate all toxic pesticides, and publicly subsidize organic farming the way our society subsidizes big agribusinesses.

In the meantime, it seems obvious that only the least damaging agri-chemicals should be permitted, only for sparse use, and only with ongoing independent testing required.


Sources
• Bradberry SM, Proudfoot AT, Vale JA. Glyphosate poisoning. Toxicol Rev. 2004;23(3):159-67. Review.
• European Commission (EC). Review report for the active substance glyphosate. Glyphosate 6511/VI/99-final. 21 January 2002. Accessed at [ec.europa.eu]

• Lowe D. Is Glyphosate Poisoning Everyone? Accessed at [pipeline.corante.com] is_glyphosate_poisoning_everyone.php

• Williams GM, Kroes R, Munro IC. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000 Apr;31(2 Pt 1):117-65. Review.

Reprinted with Permission by Vital Choice
=========================================================================================¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬-


A recent Dr. Mercola report asks this:

Will Detection of Unapproved Genetically Modified Wheat Decimate US Economy?

By Dr. Mercola

Monsanto has really done it this time.

As recently reported by CNBC1 and other media outlets,2, 3 an unapproved strain of genetically engineered (GE) wheat has been found growing on a farm in Oregon. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the anomaly on May 29.
As it turns out, the Roundup Ready (i.e. glyphosate-resistant) strain of wheat was developed by Monsanto and field tested in 16 different states between 1998 and 2005.

Plans to bring it to market were abandoned due to opposition against genetically engineered wheat. Many countries importing US wheat do not permit GE ingredients in their food, or require such foods to be labeled.

About 50 percent of the wheat grown in the US is exported. The finding of illegal GE wheat contamination may dramatically alter this ratio however.
Japan and Korea has already suspended orders of US wheat4 in response to the findings. The EU has ordered member states to test imported wheat for contamination.

The economic impact to wheat farmers could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Washington and Kansas wheat farmers have already filed lawsuits against Monsanto due to the immediate harm this disaster has created.

The effects will not be limited to wheat, as importing countries question what other genetic experiments may have escaped the lab and contaminated natural varieties. Monsanto has clearly stated they will leverage the fact they followed government protocol and therefore cannot be held accountable for this mess. The biotech industry is also defending Monsanto, suggesting 'activists' must have set them up.

The biotech industry has so strongly infiltrated and influenced the government agriculture and 'health' agencies they should be considered subsidiaries.

How Did Unapproved GE Wheat Survive More than a Decade After Last Field Trial?

Continue:
[articles.mercola.com]

==================================================================================================================


Of course, don’t forget the classics… (use the Look Inside feature at Amazon.com)

Jeffrey Smith’s Seeds of Deception
[www.amazon.com]

Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation
William F. Engdahl (Author)
[www.amazon.com]

====================================================================================================

The following first segment explains one of many concern over GM foods’ – this one on the impact on the detoxification pathway Cytochrome P450…

These various GMO labeling initiatives are especially important in light of a recent report that links glyphosate—the pesticide Roundup, for which the genetically engineered Roundup Ready crops were created so that more and more of the pesticide could be used without damaging the plant—to a wide range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson’s, infertility, and various cancers.

There’s a family of fifty different enzymes collectively known as Cytochrome P450, which are the detoxification heavy hitters in the human body. According to the report, glyphosate destroys the CYP450 detoxification pathways. Not only is the expanded use of Roundup increasing our exposure to this toxic herbicide; it’s also reducing the body’s ability to detoxify many xenobiotics. It’s a potentially very dangerous double whammy.

When the CYP450 pathways are destroyed, it results in altered gut bacteria and ultimately all the western-related, chronic diseases such as diabetes. If the plants were not genetically altered to withstand such high concentrations of the pesticide, we wouldn’t be exposed to such toxic and health-destroying levels.

[www.anh-usa.org]

Action Alert!
Please contact your senators and your representative and tell them to support the Boxer–DeFazio bills.


April 2013 Announcement from Alliance for Natural Health

GMO Labeling Bill Introduced in Congress
April 30, 2013

The bill has some teeth. The question is whether it has legs.

The Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act was introduced last Wednesday in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) with nine cosponsors in the Senate and twenty-two in the House, would require food manufacturers to clearly label any product that has been genetically engineered or contains genetically engineered ingredients, or else the product would be classified as “misbranded” by the FDA.

Both Boxer and DeFazio have previously sponsored GMO labeling bills, but this is the first labeling bill that has both bicameral and bipartisan support (though the latter is decidedly modest: only one cosponsor in each chamber is a Republican, and both are from Alaska).
The new labeling requirement does not apply to food used in restaurants, or in hospitals or other medical environments. Nor does it apply to food produced using a GE vaccine or a “processing aid” such as yeast. Food manufacturers are protected so long as they have a statement from the grower that the food contains no GMOs.

The bill also protects producers whose food was unintentionally contaminated by GMOs, so long as the contamination did not occur as a result of negligence. Enforcement would be left up to the FDA rather than through civil action.

Both Sen. Boxer and Rep. DeFazio note that the public has been pressuring the government to label GMOs. Sen. Boxer also listed some of the many businesses and organizations that support the GMO labeling bill—including ANH-USA.

Although we are extremely pleased that the legislation has been introduced, at this stage it is unlikely to have enough support in the Senate (much less in the House) to pass. Only about five percent of either chamber has signed on as a cosponsor, and support from the Republicans on this bill is notably weak.

On top of that, many elected officials are in bed with the biotech industry—which, it should go without saying, immediately pushed back against the bill. The very day the bill was introduced, representatives of Monsanto and the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), a GM trade group, objected to the bill even while acknowledging they had not actually read it, saying that they oppose GMO labeling on general principle: “Advocates of mandatory GMO labeling are working an agenda to vilify biotechnology and scare consumers away from safe and healthful food products.” Once again Monsanto seems to be saying that it is so proud of its product that it doesn’t want consumers to know they are getting it.
What this means is that your voice is even more important now. Our Action Alert (see below) is aimed at strengthening the bill’s chances, and the more pressure you can put on your legislators, the better. Our sort of grassroots activism is definitely starting to bear fruit—overt opposition from the food industry for a federal labeling standard is weakening, and may even have sparked some preemptive action on their part:

• Some food companies recently met with the FDA to discuss GMO labeling in a meeting sponsored by the AGree Foundation;
• Walmart announced that the company would no longer take a lead in opposing GMO labeling efforts; and
• Whole Foods says that by 2018, all products sold in their stores throughout the US and Canada must be labeled if they contain GMOs.

As heartening as it is to see the food industry beginning to respond to the public’s calls for labeling, it’s extremely important that this also happen at the federal level, especially considering that GM salmon is on the verge of approval. As we reported earlier this year, the FDA released an environmental assessment on AquaBounty’s GM salmon that concluded that the fish would have “no significant” environmental impact—thus pushing “Frankenfish” one step closer to approval. If this happens, it will create a dangerous precedent—in essence, a regulatory approval pathway—for other genetically engineered animals which the biotech industry has waiting on the sidelines.

At the state level, over 65 bills concerning GMOs have been introduced so far in 2013, the majority of them about labeling. None so far has been enacted into law; thirteen of them have been defeated. A few, though, have positive momentum:

• Alaska already has a law requiring labeling of GMO shellfish and fish, and on March 25 the legislature unanimously approved resolution HJR 5, opposing a petition by AquaBounty Technologies to commercialize GM salmon.
• Connecticut: Two GMO labeling bills (HB 6519 and HB 6527) passed out of committee by an overwhelming majority. Supporters have until June 5 to get the full legislature to pass them.
• Maine: LD 718 has more than 120 bipartisan cosponsors. Maine’s legislative session ends on June 13.
• Vermont: H 112 has over 50 sponsors and the support of Gov. Shumlin (despite opposing the bill last year after Monsanto threatened to sue the state if a GMO-labeling bill passed). The bill has already passed the House Ag Committee.
• Washington: After an extensive grassroots campaign, ballot initiative I-522 was able to gather 353,331 valid signatures. The initiative will be on the ballot in November 2013.

Editors
Deborah A. Ray, MT (ASCP)
Craig R. Smith
The Pulse of Natural Health. This newsletter is copyrighted material (© 2012 by Alliance for Natural Health USA) but we hope you will forward, copy, or reprint it without prior authorization. Just remember to note the source and date, and please link to original content on the ANH-USA website.

Round-Up safe !! Give me a break!! [www.yourhealthbase.com]

Hans

Jackie: Surely you can't expect a commercial organization like Vital Choice to be anywhere close to objective on anything connected to what they sell. To justify the prices they charge they have to reach way out there to destroy the competition. I have no idea who Craig Weatherby, the author you quote, is; and I see more references to Dr. Mercola, whom we all know for what he is.

Perhaps a more balanced approach to the GMO issue comes from Dr. Weil, whom we all know and respect:

[www.drweil.com]

Regarding glyphospate, (Roundup), certainly it can have terrible effects but the EPA rates it to be a safe herbicide. Obviously commercial growers need herbicides or we couldn't grow any significant crops that people would actually buy. Also, Roundup having been in general use over 40 years, the studies are pretty conclusive. What is the alternative? There is nothing without some risk. We all take calculated risks daily. Nobody ever died of nothing. Roundup certainly seems to be in the very low risk category for humans. Here are some details on Glyphosate - note that it does not bioaccumulate in animals:

<Glyphosate toxicity

Glyphosate has a United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxicity Class of III (on a I to IV scale, where IV is least dangerous) for oral and inhalation exposure.[48] Nonetheless, as with other herbicides, the EPA requires that products containing glyphosate carry a label that warns against oral intake, mandates the use of protective clothing, and instructs users not to re-enter treated fields for at least 4 hours.[48][49] Glyphosate does not bioaccumulate in animals. It is excreted in urine and faeces. It breaks down variably quickly depending on the particular environment. Health, environmental and food chain effects from alteration of gut flora by wide use of glyphosate are largely unexplored. [50] [51] [52]
Human

Human acute toxicity is dose related. Acute fatal toxicity has been reported in deliberate overdose.[53][54]Chronic toxicity due to long low level environmental and food chain exposures coincident with various human disease epidemics since its introduction in the 1970's has not been established but is questioned. [55] [56] [57]Public health effects of monoculture agricultural practices associated with glyphosate use causing low biodiversity are of concern. [58] [59] [60]

Based on an assessment completed in 1993 and published as a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) document, the EPA considers glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic and relatively low in dermal and oral acute toxicity.[48] The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects would be expected under such conditions. No mention of consideration of potential alteration of human gut flora as it does in other species and its public health implications to humans directly or via the plant animal human food chain was mentioned in the summary.[48] [61] [62]
Effects on fish and amphibians

Glyphosate is generally less persistent in water than in soil, with 12 to 60 day persistence observed in Canadian pond water, yet because glyphosate binds to soil, persistence of over a year has been observed in the sediments of ponds in Michigan and Oregon.[48] In streams, maximum glyphosate concentrations were measured immediately post-treatment and dissipated rapidly.[48] Glyphosate in ecological exposures studied is "practically nontoxic to slightly toxic" for amphibians and fish.[63]

More at: [en.wikipedia.org]

Gordon

Gordon - I'm in favor of labeling all GM foods. Full disclosure. Not in favor of GM anything. Not in favor of using Round-up Ready seeds for crops or anything to do with pesticides/herbicides sprayed on crops or the agenda by Monsanto - world-wide.

I posted the articles for the science presented..... not the business interests of either Dr. Mercola or Craig Weatherby.

No debate. Just creating awareness. Many people are totally unaware of the potential harm GM foods can cause as foreign substances once in the body.

Jackie

40 Tons of GMO Crops TORCHED in America, Media Blackout.
[www.realfarmacy.com]

GOOGLE search. Theres other countries burning GMO crops also.
[fficial&client=firefox-a" rel="nofollow">www.google.com]

GMO Crops are Antibiotic Resistant
Corn, Plums, Melon, Canola, Rice, Soybean, Sugarbeet, Squash, SugarCane, Papaya, Tobacco and Tomato are all Gentically Modified and Antibiotic Resistant.
[www.isaaa.org]

Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria in Bees
Genetically Modified Crops Threaten bees.
[santostrading.com.au]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/27/2013 01:22PM by Todd.

Jackie: I appreciate that we're not debating. My thought was that people can more reasonably make up their minds if both sides of an issue are presented as Dr. Weil frequently does, not just one as you frequently do.

Do you really see no use for any herbicides ever and do you never eat a GMO food? If so you must have a lot of weeds in your yard and not like veggies much. And I see organic food can be GMO as well. [blogcritics.org]

Gordon

Do you think that is a great idea to torch tons of food? Millions are starving to death, I guess some of you tree huggers rather a person die a slow painful death to eating GMO foods, Some thinking.

Your URL about torching food will not come up.

Liz



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/27/2013 07:27PM by Elizabeth H..

Go through the Google search.
This one seems to be working.
[unifiedserenity.wordpress.com]

The FDA's efforts to try to gloss over the dangers of GMO Salmon

[www.tbyil.com]

At hearings on the GMO salmon many are referring to as “Frankenfish, the FDA noted evidence of abnormalities that had been detected in the fish, including "“increased frequency of skeletal malformations, increased prevalence of jaw erosions and multi-systemic inflammation”. While such findings would seem to be cause for alarm, the FDA instead dismissed the abnormalities as being “within the range observed in rapid growth phenotypes of non-genetically engineered Atlantic salmon.”