In a few hundred thousand years, after all weather effects of 21st century climate change have disappeared from the earth’s surface, after our quietly smoldering nuclear waste has been extinguished, two destructive impacts traceable to George Bush’s policies will yet remain.
The first is extinctions. Species that have died out, including the subset resulting from Bush’s environmental policies, will forever deprive our evolving biosphere of their contribution.
The second is genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—animals, plants, bacteria, and viruses, who’s DNA have been mixed and mangled by insertions from foreign species. Once released into the ecosystem, by intention or accident, the genetic pollution self-propagates. No recall by the Obama administration can clean up Mexico’s indigenous corn varieties, now contaminated by our genetically modified (GM) corn. No executive order can remove or even identify the wild mustard plants now carrying altered genes bestowed on it by the pollen from its cousin, GM canola.
We all know stories that illustrate the exponential effects of invasive species. Here’s my favorite, recalled in my book Genetic Roulette:
On Christmas Day 1859, the Victorian Acclimatization Society released 24 rabbits into the Australian countryside so that settlers could hunt them for sport and feel more “at home.” The rabbits multiplied to well over 200 million, spreading out over 4 million square kilometers. That Christmas present now costs Australian agriculture about $600 million per year.
Will GMOs of today show up as the “Australian rabbits” of the future? While their impact on our ecosystem and diet is largely unstudied, that has not stopped the current and past administrations from presiding over the release of millions of acres of GM crops. Not only does each plant carry a gene from bacteria or viruses, its DNA has hundreds or thousands of mutations resulting from the disruptive process of genetic engineering. Reports suggest that the side effects of GMOs are quite dangerous.
Bush policies institutionalize GMO contamination
If we were to ban GMOs today, as is more than justified, some contamination from commercialized GM food crops will nonetheless carry forward in the gene pool of those (and related) species. This includes contaminants from our largest farmed GM crops, including soybeans, yellow corn, cotton, and canola, as well as the smaller crops: Hawaiian papaya, zucchini, and crookneck squash. Newly added—in this year’s harvest—are GM sugar beets and white corn. There are also GM tomatoes and potatoes no longer on the market, but whose genes and seeds, to some degree, continue to persist “out there.” But the dirty laundry list actually includes over 100 different experimental GM crops, field trialed at more than 50,000 sites in the US since 1986.
Although the government is supposed to make sure that these trials won’t contaminate the surrounding environment, a 2005 report by the USDA Office of Inspector General harshly condemned the USDA’s abominable oversight. “Current regulations, policies, and procedures,” said the report, “do not go far enough to ensure the safe introduction of agricultural biotechnology.” The agency’s weaknesses “increase the risk that regulated genetically engineered organisms will inadvertently persist in the environment.”
But George Bush’s pro-biotech response was to further weaken the agency’s GMO oversight—and he’s trying to do it quickly, before Obama steps in. The proposed ruling makes gene escape more likely, even from GM crops designed to produce pharmaceutical drugs and industrial chemicals.
Monsanto admits more contamination
As a backdrop to Bush’s rushed proposal, Monsanto just admitted that an acre of its field trialed, not-yet-approved GM cottonseeds, was inadvertently harvested and mixed with approved cotton. It then entered our food chain as animal feed and cottonseed oil. Oops.
But the FDA, EPA, and USDA employed another of the Bush administration’s institutionalized abdications of GMO oversight. They declared the cottonseed contamination safe, in spite of insufficient data to support their claim.
If Bush gets his new USDA rule into effect, let’s hope Obama heeds the advice of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which “recommends that the new administration make revocation, revision and strengthening a top priority.”
No that won’t fully clean up our altered gene pool. But it will start to contain the runaway long-term genetic pollution that is now out of control.
© copyright Institute For Responsible Technology 2008
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of publication Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, which presents 65 risks in easy-to-read two-page spreads. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the top rated and #1 selling book on GM foods in the world. He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. www.responsibletechnology.org, which is spearheading the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America. Go to www.seedsofdeception.com to learn more about how to avoid GM foods.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/AboutGeneticallyModifiedFoods/index.cfm
US Consumers Have Been Given a False Sense of SecurityAbout the Safety of Our Food Supply
You may have heard the FDA and food industry claims that genetically modified (GM) foods are safe, properly tested, and necessary to feed a hungry world. UNTRUE! Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are one of the most dangerous and radical changes to our food supply. These largely unregulated ingredients found in 60-70% of the foods in the US, are well worth the effort to avoid them.
Many consumers in the US mistakenly believe that the FDA approves GM foods through rigorous, in-depth, long-term studies. In reality, the agency has absolutely no safety testing requirements. Instead the agency relies on research from companies like Monsanto, research that is meticulously designed to avoid finding problems.
It’s easy to understand the FDA’s industry-friendly policy on regulation of GMOs when you see the revolving door between agency regulators and the companies they regulate. The White House mandate to the FDA (under the first George Bush) was to promote biotechnology and the person in charge of developing the agency’s policy at that time was a former Monsanto attorney, who later returned to Monsanto as their vice president.
The FDA has claimed it was not aware of any information showing that GM crops were different “in any meaningful or uniform way,” from non-GMO crops and therefore didn’t require testing. But 44,000 internal FDA documents made public by a lawsuit show that this was a complete lie. The overwhelming consensus among the FDA’s own scientists was that GM foods were quite different and could lead to unpredictable and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. It turns out that FDA scientists, who had urged superiors to require long-term studies, were ignored. See, Failed Government Regulation.
Even though evidence of this apparent fraud at the FDA was presented at a Washington, D.C. press conference in 1999 with major media in attendance, the media didn’t alert the public. In fact, most Americans know so little about this subject, that only about 1 in 4 consumers even know if they’ve ever eaten a GM food in their lives, even though the vast majority of processed foods contain derivatives from the four major GM crops: soy, corn, cottonseed and canola. See, GM Foods at a Glance
You may have heard the FDA and food industry claims that genetically modified (GM) foods are safe, properly tested, and necessary to feed a hungry world. UNTRUE! Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are one of the most dangerous and radical changes to our food supply. These largely unregulated ingredients found in 60-70% of the foods in the US, are well worth the effort to avoid them.
Many consumers in the US mistakenly believe that the FDA approves GM foods through rigorous, in-depth, long-term studies. In reality, the agency has absolutely no safety testing requirements. Instead the agency relies on research from companies like Monsanto, research that is meticulously designed to avoid finding problems.
It’s easy to understand the FDA’s industry-friendly policy on regulation of GMOs when you see the revolving door between agency regulators and the companies they regulate. The White House mandate to the FDA (under the first George Bush) was to promote biotechnology and the person in charge of developing the agency’s policy at that time was a former Monsanto attorney, who later returned to Monsanto as their vice president.
The FDA has claimed it was not aware of any information showing that GM crops were different “in any meaningful or uniform way,” from non-GMO crops and therefore didn’t require testing. But 44,000 internal FDA documents made public by a lawsuit show that this was a complete lie. The overwhelming consensus among the FDA’s own scientists was that GM foods were quite different and could lead to unpredictable and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. It turns out that FDA scientists, who had urged superiors to require long-term studies, were ignored. See, Failed Government Regulation.
Even though evidence of this apparent fraud at the FDA was presented at a Washington, D.C. press conference in 1999 with major media in attendance, the media didn’t alert the public. In fact, most Americans know so little about this subject, that only about 1 in 4 consumers even know if they’ve ever eaten a GM food in their lives, even though the vast majority of processed foods contain derivatives from the four major GM crops: soy, corn, cottonseed and canola. See, GM Foods at a Glance
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Do Genetically Modified Hormones Given to Dairy Cows Pose a Health Hazard?
Do Genetically Modified Hormones Given to Dairy Cows Pose a Health Hazard?
The answer to the above question is unfortunately a resounding "maybe" according to researchers writing in the current issue of The Western Journal of Medicine.
"Milk from cows treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH in the US, rBST in Europe) has significantly elevated IGF-I levels," state physician Joseph Mercola and researcher Cory Mermer. IGF-I (insulin-like growth factor-I) is a growth factor responsible for a wide variety of biological functions.
"In addition, the IGF-I in the milk of rBGH-treated cows is potentially more bioactive than the naturally occurring form, and this bioactivity may be increased further by pasteurization," they continue.
Children may be particularly vulnerable to adverse effects, because of their rapid growth rate and their more permeable intestinal tract. In addition, other segments of society may also be at an increased risk, such as those with celiac disease, Crohn's disease, autism, cirrhosis, cow's milk allergy, and people taking certain medications.
"It is not enough to look at healthy adults and say that the intestinal absorption of IGF-I is negligible. Rather, the vulnerable in society need to be protected," state the authors. "Let's not put corporate profits ahead of children's health. The use of growth hormones in livestock has certainly not been proven safe, and no overriding benefits would justify such risks."
Increased IGF-1 levels are not the only concern when it comes to "genetically modified" (GM) milk, says Samuel Epstein, MD, Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition.
"This milk is qualitatively and quantitatively different from natural milk," states Epstein. "In addition to the issue of increased IGF-1 levels, these differences include:
contamination of milk by the GM hormone rBGH;
contamination by pus and antibiotics resulting from the high incidence of mastitis in rBGH injected cows;
contamination with illegal antibiotics and drugs used to treat mastitis and other rBGH-induced disease;
increased concentration of the thyroid hormone enzyme thyroxin-5'-monodeiodinase; increased concentration of long chain and decreased concentration of short chain fatty acids;
and a reduction in levels of the milk protein casein."
Dr. Epstein has recently completed his latest book, which is entitled Got (Genetically Engineered) Milk? The Monsanto rBGH/BST Milk Wars Handbook, and is available as an eBook at Seven Stories Press.
For additional information please see the full text version of the letter on the journal’s website at http://www.ewjm.com/cgi/content/full/175/6/378 or contact Dr. Epstein (see contact info below).
Source: Western Journal of Medicine, December 2001;175:378-379.
Contact:
Samuel Epstein, MD, Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition, Professor of Environmental Medicine, University of Illinois School of Public Health, Phone: (312) 996-2297, Fax: (312) 996-1374, Email: epstein@uic.edu, URL: http://preventcancer.com.
The answer to the above question is unfortunately a resounding "maybe" according to researchers writing in the current issue of The Western Journal of Medicine.
"Milk from cows treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH in the US, rBST in Europe) has significantly elevated IGF-I levels," state physician Joseph Mercola and researcher Cory Mermer. IGF-I (insulin-like growth factor-I) is a growth factor responsible for a wide variety of biological functions.
"In addition, the IGF-I in the milk of rBGH-treated cows is potentially more bioactive than the naturally occurring form, and this bioactivity may be increased further by pasteurization," they continue.
Children may be particularly vulnerable to adverse effects, because of their rapid growth rate and their more permeable intestinal tract. In addition, other segments of society may also be at an increased risk, such as those with celiac disease, Crohn's disease, autism, cirrhosis, cow's milk allergy, and people taking certain medications.
"It is not enough to look at healthy adults and say that the intestinal absorption of IGF-I is negligible. Rather, the vulnerable in society need to be protected," state the authors. "Let's not put corporate profits ahead of children's health. The use of growth hormones in livestock has certainly not been proven safe, and no overriding benefits would justify such risks."
Increased IGF-1 levels are not the only concern when it comes to "genetically modified" (GM) milk, says Samuel Epstein, MD, Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition.
"This milk is qualitatively and quantitatively different from natural milk," states Epstein. "In addition to the issue of increased IGF-1 levels, these differences include:
contamination of milk by the GM hormone rBGH;
contamination by pus and antibiotics resulting from the high incidence of mastitis in rBGH injected cows;
contamination with illegal antibiotics and drugs used to treat mastitis and other rBGH-induced disease;
increased concentration of the thyroid hormone enzyme thyroxin-5'-monodeiodinase; increased concentration of long chain and decreased concentration of short chain fatty acids;
and a reduction in levels of the milk protein casein."
Dr. Epstein has recently completed his latest book, which is entitled Got (Genetically Engineered) Milk? The Monsanto rBGH/BST Milk Wars Handbook, and is available as an eBook at Seven Stories Press.
For additional information please see the full text version of the letter on the journal’s website at http://www.ewjm.com/cgi/content/full/175/6/378 or contact Dr. Epstein (see contact info below).
Source: Western Journal of Medicine, December 2001;175:378-379.
Contact:
Samuel Epstein, MD, Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition, Professor of Environmental Medicine, University of Illinois School of Public Health, Phone: (312) 996-2297, Fax: (312) 996-1374, Email: epstein@uic.edu, URL: http://preventcancer.com.
Aspartame
One Woman's Astonishing Experiment With Aspartame
Victoria Inness-Brown’s family was addicted to diet soda. After researching the effects of aspartame, she strongly believed the artificial sweetener might one day lead to their illness or even their early deaths.
So she decided to perform her own aspartame experiment -- with 108 rats for 2 years and 8 months. Daily, she fed some of the rats the equivalent, for their body weight, of two-thirds the aspartame contained in 8-oz of diet soda.
Eleven of the females who took aspartame -- 37 percent -- developed tumors, some of massive size.
For details of Inness-Brown’s amazing experiment, click the link below.
Sources:
My Aspartame Experiment
Toxins and Impurities Could Be Lurking Inside Your Body
Find Out More
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
A picture is worth a thousand words, they say, and the photos taken by Mrs. Inness-Brown of her diseased and genetically deformed test rats truly speak for themselves.
The fact that aspartame is endorsed by the U.S. FDA as a safe product, and is recommended by many doctors as a good alternative sweetener in lieu of sugar is enough to make you go speechless with rage.
But I’m not known for being chocked and dismayed into silence. Instead I wrote the book Sweet Deception. If you or your loved ones drink diet beverages or eat diet foods, this book will explain how you've been deceived about the truth behind artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose -- for greed, for profits ... and at the expense of your own health.
The book took several years to write and I had five physicians work on it full time. It is the most comprehensive book on the market addressing this issue. I had to be very careful as the makers of Splenda had their NY law firm write me a 30-page long threatening letter telling me they would sue me if I published the book. It has been two years since the book was published and no lawsuits yet. I guess they realized when you tell the truth it is difficult to prevail in any litigation.
There is so much evidence showing aspartame to be a potentially deadly agent that several prominent, well-educated doctors and even judges have written books on the subject. H.J. Roberts three-pound tome Aspartame Disease -- An Ignored Epidemic is another must-read if you’re anywhere near the fence on this issue. Dr. Roberts' excellent article Aspartame Disease -- An FDA Approved Epidemic is also posted on my site.
Biochemical Warfare Agent in Your Food Supply
Does it make sense that what was once listed by the Pentagon as a biochemical warfare agent is now an integral part of your modern diet?
That’s exactly what happened with aspartame – it’s the poster child for unconscionable greed coupled with political power that may run as deep as the CIA.
That aspartame is a profitable business should be no surprise. As an example, the Maryland-based biotech company Genex Corporation went from reporting $14.3 million in revenues in 1985, to a paltry $2.8 million in 1986 after they lost their aspartame business. Genex had been one of the main suppliers of aspartame up until October 1985, at which time the NutraSweet Company began manufacturing the chemical themselves.
Sold commercially under names like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Equal-Measure and Canderel, aspartame can be found in more than 6,000 products, including:
Diet sodas, juice drinks, and flavored waters
Chewing gum
Table-top sweeteners
Diet and diabetic foods
Breakfast cereals, such as Fiber One
Fiber supplements, such as orange flavored Metamucil
Jams
Sweets
It’s even found in vitamins, as well as prescription and over the-counter drugs such as Alka Seltzer Plus, and some Tylenol medications.
Food For Thought
One 12 ounce diet soda contains about 180 mg of aspartame, or 15 mg of aspartame per ounce, which equals approximately 4.5 packets of NutraSweet.
According to the industry-run Aspartame Information Center website – a propaganda masterpiece, if I ever saw one -- the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), as set by the FDA, is 50 mg/kg. That equates to about 20 cans of 12-ounce diet soda if you’re a 150 lb. adult, or six 12-ounce cans for a 50-pound child.
The ADI for tabletop sweeteners is 97 packets for adults, and 32 packets for children.
Based on the photos from Mrs. Inness-Brown’s experiment, using the equivalent of two-thirds of the aspartame contained in one 8 ounce can of soda per day, these ADI’s do not appear to be anywhere near “safe” limits.
The Aspartame Information Center’s “myth” section goes on to make this statement:
“Despite the overwhelming documentation of aspartame’s safety, unfounded allegations that aspartame is associated with a myriad of ailments, including multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and lupus, have continued to be spread via the Internet and the media by a few individuals who have no documented scientific or medical expertise.
Recently, several governments and expert scientific committees (including the Scientific Committee on Food of the European Commission, the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency, the French Food Safety Agency and Health Canada) carefully evaluated the Internet allegations and found them to be false, reconfirming the safety of aspartame.”
Really, now…
Well, certain parts are partially true. For example, the Scientific Committee on Food of the European Commission did come out with a report named Update on the Safety of Aspartame in December of 2002, concluding aspartame was safe.
Whether or not the Committee could get an A for accuracy, attention and impartiality is debatable, however. This Independent Analysis of the EU report in question states:
“This response will demonstrate that:
1. Members of the European Commission Scientific Committee on Food have ethical and financial conflicts of interest with the food industry that should have disqualified them from participation on the Committee.
2. Members of the Scientific Committee on Food did not read some or most of the research papers they cited.
3. The report ignored independent research related to aspartame and instead relied heavily on and frequently cited articles in books and reviews put together by employees or consultants of the aspartame manufacturers (Monsanto and Ajinomoto).
4. Persons ingesting aspartame are being exposed to significant amounts of formaldehyde that has been shown by independent research to accumulate throughout the body.
5. Aspartame manufacturer-sponsored studies are designed in a way as to avoid the possibility of finding adverse effects, yet the Committee accepted these studies without any question. In contrast, nearly all independent research on aspartame in humans and animals has found that it can cause problems.
6. Human studies and clinical reports published in the medical literature linking aspartame use to fibromyalgia, seizures, panic attacks, mania, brain cancer, migraines / headaches, vertigo, symptoms related to depression, memory loss, hives, irregular heart beats, and numerous other symptoms were largely ignored by the Committee.”
The Aspartame Danger is NO MYTH!
Contrary to what the PR machine says, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that aspartame is exactly as dangerous as we say it is, and whenever you root around to see who gave aspartame its latest “clean bill of health,” invariably you will find ties to the industry.
By the Aspartame Information Center’s statement above, you’d be led to believe that Dr. Morando Soffritti of the European Foundation of Oncology in Bologna, Italy is a home schooled scientist with “no documented scientific or medical expertise” either.
But as Mrs. Inness-Brown details in her article, Dr. Soffritti’s 8-year mega-experiment with 1,800 rats, completed in 2005, is perhaps one of the most telling studies performed to date.
The results of his experiment also showed a dose-related increase of lymphomas and leukemias in female rats, observable at the dose level of 20 mg/Kg of body weight – just 40 percent of the accepted daily intake permitted by current regulations.
And what about the photos? Do they lie?
They show the visual manifestation of many of the common symptoms associated with aspartame, according to FDA’s own records, including:
Tumors
Eye problems, including: protruding eyes, retinal detachment, blindness and bleeding eyes
Partial paralysis
Spasmodic Torticollis (involuntary spasms in head and neck)
Unsteady gait
Skin problems and lesions
Obesity
Genetic damage and birth defects
I have a large assortment of information about aspartame -- its chemical makeup and biological impact – posted on my site. A good place to start is by reading the Related Articles listed below, or simply enter “aspartame” in the search box on my home page for more information.
How to Kick the Artificial Sweetener HabitIf you consume a lot of diet foods and beverages, it’s likely because you have sweet cravings (yet you think you are making a healthy choice by avoiding sugar).Your body, however, is craving sweets because you are not giving it the fuel it needs. Finding out your nutritional type will tell you exactly which foods you need to eat to feel full and satisfied. It may sound hard to believe right now, but once you start eating right for your nutritional type, your sweet cravings will disappear.Additionally, don’t underestimate the power of the emotional component of your food cravings. I recommend using an energy psychology tool such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT). More than any traditional or alternative method I have used or researched, EFT works to overcome food cravings and helps you reach dietary success.And, if diet soda is the culprit for you, be sure to check out Turbo Tapping, which is an extremely effective and simple tool to get rid of your soda addiction in a short period of time.
Last, but not least, neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D. also has a great web page describing what to do if you have used aspartame, with tips and directions for detoxing safely.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
6 months.
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
lol my silly boy..... been busy these days.. when am i not......
-35lbs bout time..... 100 more to go. cant wait to post my progress pics:o) i miss you guys ttyl. hugs
Sunday, July 27, 2008
i love you. :)
I am so sorry that i seem to use this blog only for political moments. I'm so busy working on becomig a "skinny chick" . (-22lbs in 1 month.)
ps try to post more.
ps try to post more.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
A Franciscan blessing
A Franciscan Blessing for my friends....
May God bless us with DISCOMFORT at easy answers, half truths and superficial relationships, so that we may live deep within our hearts.
May God bless us with ANGER at injustice, oppression and exploitation of people, so that may work for justice and freedom and peace.
May God bless us with TEARS to shed for those who suffer from pain, rejection, starvation, and war, so that we may reach out our hands to comfort them and turn their pain into joy.
May God bless us with ENOUGH FOOLISHNESS to believe that we can make a difference in this world, so that we can do what others claim cannot be done.
And may the blessing of God who creates, redeems and sanctifies be upon you and all you love and pray for this day, and forevermore.
May God bless us with DISCOMFORT at easy answers, half truths and superficial relationships, so that we may live deep within our hearts.
May God bless us with ANGER at injustice, oppression and exploitation of people, so that may work for justice and freedom and peace.
May God bless us with TEARS to shed for those who suffer from pain, rejection, starvation, and war, so that we may reach out our hands to comfort them and turn their pain into joy.
May God bless us with ENOUGH FOOLISHNESS to believe that we can make a difference in this world, so that we can do what others claim cannot be done.
And may the blessing of God who creates, redeems and sanctifies be upon you and all you love and pray for this day, and forevermore.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)