Notochemo's Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

GM site

Great site to look out for what they’re doing to your health.

http://gmwatch.org/

Advertisements

September 27, 2009 Posted by | GMO Alert, Important Books Movies Websites | Leave a comment

Are You Feeding Your Family Wannabe Food – Look At This List!

Found this list of genetically altered foods – are you feeding these to your family?  LOOK AT HOW THE NEW GENES ARE INTRODUCED INTO THE ORIGINAL FOOD – BY WAY OF A BACTERIA/VIRUS.

This is why foods must be labeled properly!

How would you know if you are feeding your family real food as nature intended or wannabe food for profit by big corporations?

___________________

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/engineered-foods-allowed-on.html

Engineered Foods Allowed on the Market

Product

Institution(s)

Engineered Trait(s)

Sources of New Genes

Name
Date Allowed on Market

Alfalfa

Monsanto

Resist glyphosate herbicide to control weeds

Bacteria, virus

Roundup Ready
2005

Canola

Bayer

Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds

Bacteria, virus

LibertyLink 2000

Canola

Monsanto

Resist glyphosate herbicide to control weeds

Arabidopsis, bacteria, virus

Roundup Ready
1999

Canola

Monsanto

Altered oil (high lauric acid) for soap and food products

Calif bay, turnip rape, bacteria, virus

Laurical
1995

Canola

Bayer

Male sterile to facilitate hybridization; resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds

Bacteria

SeedLink
2000

Chicory (radicchio)

Bejo Zaden

Male sterile to facilitate hybridization

Bacteria

SeedLink
1997

Corn

Bayer

Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds/male sterile to facilitate hybridization

Bacteria, virus

SeedLink
Date unknown

Corn

Bayer

Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds

Bacteria, virus

LibertyLink
Date unknown

Corn

Bayer

Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds/Bt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer)

Bacteria, virus

StarLink
1998 (approved only for animal feed)

Corn

Dow/Mycogen

Bt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer)

Corn, bacteria, virus

NatureGard
1995

Corn

Dow/Mycogen

Bt toxin to control insect pests (corn rootworm)/Resist glufosinate herbicide

Bacteria, virus

Herculex Rootworm 2005

Corn

Dow/Mycogen
DuPont/Pioneer

Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds/Bt toxin to control insect pests (Lepidopteran)

Corn, bacteria, virus

Herculex I
2001

Corn

DuPont/Pioneer

Male sterile to facilitate hybridization

Potato, corn, bacteria, virus

Name unknown
1998

Corn

Monsanto/
DeKalb

Bt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer)

Bacteria

Bt-Xtra
1997

Corn

Monsanto/
DeKalb

Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds

Bacteria, virus

Name, date unknown

Corn

Monsanto

Bt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer)

Bacteria

YieldGard
1996

Corn

Monsanto

Resist glyphosate herbicide to control weeds/Bt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer)

Arabidopsis, bacteria, virus

Name unknown
1998

Corn

Monsanto

Resist glyphosate herbicide to control weeds/Bt toxin to control insect pests (corn rootworm)

Bacteria

Name unknown 2006

Corn

Monsanto

Resist glyphosate herbicide to control weeds

Arabidopsis, bacteria, virus

Roundup Ready
1998

Corn

Renessen (Monsanto and Cargill)

Higher levels of lysine to enhance animal feed

Bacteria

Mavera High Value Corn with Lysine
2006

Corn

Syngenta

Bt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer)

Bacteria

Bt11
1996

Corn

Syngenta

Bt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer)

Corn, bacteria, virus

Knock Out
1995

Corn

Syngenta

Bt toxin to control insect pests (corn rootworm)

Bacteria

Name unknown 2007

Corn (pop)

Syngenta

Bt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer)

Corn, bacteria, virus

Knock Out
1998

Corn (sweet)

Syngenta

Bt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer)

Bacteria

Bt11
1998

Cotton

Bayer/Aventis

Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds

Virus

Name unknown 2003

Cotton

Monsanto/
Bayer

Resist bromoxynil herbicide to control weeds/Bt toxin to control insect pests (cotton bollworms and tobacco budworm)

Bacteria

Name unknown
1998

Cotton

Monsanto/
Bayer

Resist bromoxynil herbicide to control weeds

Bacteria, virus

BXN Cotton
1995

Cotton

Monsanto

Bt toxin to control insect pests (cotton bollworms and tobacco budworm)

Bacteria

Bollgard
1995

Cotton

Monsanto

Resist glyphosate herbicide to control weeds

Arabidopsis, bacteria, virus

Roundup Ready
1996

Cotton

Mycogen/Dow

Bt toxin to control insect pests/Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds

Bacteria, virus

Bollgard II 2002

Cotton

Mycogen/Dow

Bt toxin to control insect pests/Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds

Bacteria, virus

HerculexT I 2001

Flax

Univ Saskatchewan

Resist sulfonylurea herbicide to grow in soils with herbicide residues

Arabidopsis, bacteria

CDC Triffid
1999

Papaya

Cornell Univ/
Univ Hawaii

Resist papaya ringspot virus

Bacteria, virus

Sunup, Rainbow
1997

Potato

Monsanto

Bt toxin to control insect pests (Colorado potato beetle)

Bacteria

NewLeaf
1995

Potato

Monsanto

Bt toxin to control insect pests (Colorado potato beetle)/resist potato virus Y

Bacteria, virus

NewLeaf Y
1999

Potato

Monsanto

Bt toxin to control insect pests (Colorado potato beetle)/resist potato leafroll virus

Bacteria, virus

NewLeaf Plus
1998

Rice

Bayer

Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds

Bacteria, virus

LibertyLink
2004

Soybean

Bayer

Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds

Bacteria, virus

Name unknown
1998

Soybean

DuPont

Altered oil (high oleic acid) to increase stability, reduce polyunsaturated fatty acids

Soybean, bean, bacteria, virus

Name unknown
1997

Soybean

Monsanto

Resist glyphosate herbicide to control weeds

Petunia, soybean, bacteria, virus

Roundup Ready
1995

Squash

Seminis
Vegetable Seed

Resist watermelon mosaic 2 and zucchini yellow mosaic viruses

Bacteria, virus

Freedom II
1995

Squash

Seminis
Vegetable Seed

Resist watermelon mosaic 2, zucchini yellow mosaic, cucumber mosaic viruses

Bacteria, virus

Name unknown
1997

Sugar

beet

Bayer

Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds

Bacteria, virus

Name unknown
2000

Sugar

beet

Monsanto/
Syngenta

Resist glyphosate herbicide to control weeds

Bacteria, virus

Name unknown
1999

Tomato (cherry)

Agritope

Altered ripening to enhance fresh market value

Bacteria

Name unknown
1996

Tomato

DNA Plant Technology

Altered ripening to enhance fresh market value

Tomato, bacteria, virus

Endless Summer
1995

Tomato

Monsanto/
Calgene

Altered ripening to enhance fresh market value

Tomato, bacteria, virus

FlavrSavr
1994

Tomato

Monsanto

Altered ripening to enhance fresh market value

Bacteria

Name unknown
1995

Tomato

Zeneca/
PetoSeed

Thicker skin and altered pectin to enhance processing value

Tomato, bacteria, virus

Name unknown
1995

Notes

1. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) determined that all crops listed above were not plant pests under the Federal Plant Pest Act and allowed the crops to be grown at commercial scal

September 9, 2009 Posted by | GMO Alert | Leave a comment

GM Potatoes Cause Cancer!

Besides the link and extract below, there is growing research that GM foods are unhealthy, toxic and damage DNA.

Potatoes – a staple – can you believe it, can cause cancer if you eat the GM ones?  Are they labeled accordingly so you know what you are feeding your family?

Do you know if you are eating a real potato or a wannabe potato?

__________________



http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/09/05/Chickens-Not-Fooled-by-GM-Crops.aspx

“If GM Crops Harm Animals, What are They Doing to You?

GM corn found itself in the hot seat late last year, after a highly reputable study commissioned by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety discovered that mice fed GM corn had significantly smaller and fewer offspring compared to the control group.

The lead author of the study stated there was a direct link between the GM diet and reduced fertility.

Likewise, Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette, has documented 65 serious health risks from GM products of all kinds. Among them:

  • Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce
  • Male mice fed GM soy had damaged sperm
  • The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning
  • Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties

So the question is, what do these foods do to your body?

Personally, I strongly believe that genetically modified foods are a significant threat against the very sustainability of the human race.

The available research shows incriminating links between the side effects of GM foods and diseases that have skyrocketed since the release of GM ingredients into our food supply, such as autoimmune diseases and severe food allergies.

GM Foods are Flawed Scientific Dogma Run Amok

The well-known scientist Dr. Arpad Pusztai stated in an article last year,

“Reality really started to dawn on genetic scientists with the completion of the human genome project showing that the dogma of genetic determinism, the science basis of genetic engineering was untrue, as the less than 30,000 genes could not possibly code for the about 200,000 cellular proteins.

It was also realized that the about 97 percent non-gene “junk” DNA has a decisive role in the genome. Our primitive splicing techniques together with our inability to direct the transgene into “safe” zones in the genome, if such zones exist at all, were shown to lead to insertional mutagenesis with unpredictable consequences.

Although it is impossible to forecast in advance what these consequences for health and the environment will be, a few independent studies have already shown… new anti-nutrients, toxins, and allergens were formed as by-products of gene-splicing, and other, mainly unpredictable immunity-related problems also occurred.

… the industry still hangs on to the less costly but unscientific principle of “substantial equivalence”, i.e. the near identity of the GE crop with its parent line, as their main “safety testing,” and only commission simple contract animal feeding/production studies as a last resort to support their case of human/animal safety.

In fact, there are hardly more than over two dozens of published academic animal safety studies, and the results of only one human trial have been published, and even that was not a full clinical study (Netherwood et al. 2004).”

Dr. Pusztai’s earlier research into the effects of GM potatoes showed that rats suffered from weakened immune systems and stunted growth of their internal organs, including the liver, kidneys and brain, on such a diet. There is also compelling evidence indicating GM potatoes may cause cancer.”

______________

NOTOCHEMO’S CONCLUSION:  Can’t trust these big corporations, all that money spent on pretty packaging – give me a simple label that tells me what food I am feeding my family.

September 9, 2009 Posted by | GMO Alert | Leave a comment

No GMO in Europe, Asia – GMOs Linked To Increase In Allergies, Asthma, Autism, and ADD – What Are You Feeding Your Family?

Are you eating GMO food without knowing?

Outside the USA, so many countries refuse to feed GMO foods to their people.

__________________

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/why-gmo-foods-have-failed.php

“GMO Food and Human Health: The Hidden Consequences

Whether genetically modified foods are safe for human consumption will remain a controversial issue. Yet some scientists who have been quieted or marginalized have found serious concerns about the safety of GMOs in laboratory animal studies. In many investigations involving GMO-fed animals, there have been cases of underdeveloped organs, reproductive problems, accelerated aging and even death.

As the four As (allergies, asthma, autism, and ADD) rapidly increase in U.S. health statistics, we must consider that GMOs could certainly be one of the causes. As a matter of fact, in a recent position paper by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, physicians across the country called for a moratorium on GMO foods because “there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects.”

In the last few decades most of these health concerns have more than doubled, and, at times, tripled. The human body has not changed, but our diet undoubtedly has, and as of the 1990s, GMOs have become increasingly prevalent in our food supply. In her new book, The Unhealthy TruthRobyn O’Brien outlines the logical connection between the astronomical increase in allergic response among our American population and our unbridled consumption of these altered foods. She states that almost 75 percent of our processed foods now contain neurotoxins, novel proteins, and allergens.

In Search of Safe Food
Meanwhile, we continue to consume these foods every day. Thanks to legislation and regulations shaped by the expansive lobbying efforts of GMO giants like Monsanto, we are not allowed to know which foods contain modified genes. Many European, Asian, and African countries have banned GMOs to protect their farming systems and food supplies, yet we are seemingly complacent that these controversial seeds have entered our food supply. In reality, about 92 percent of all U.S. soybean acreage is planted with GMO seed. Although you may not consume soy products outright, say in the form of soy milk or tofu, you are surely getting a heavy dose of GMO soy if you regularly eat non-organic processed foods. (Thanks to certification standards, when you buy organic you buy food grown without GMO seeds.”

_____________

NOTOCHEMO’S CONCLUSION: Read food labels, ask questions, children need us to do that for them until they can take care of themselves.

September 8, 2009 Posted by | GMO Alert | Leave a comment

Monsanto’s Roundup – Atrazine – We Will Be Gone But What About Our Children?

I wonder what future generations will be facing if we continue  to poison the earth.

Full article and more at the link.  Monsanto is again cited as a major culprit.

______________


http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-31-food-system-ecosystem-nitrogen

“In June, a study emerged showing that so-called inert ingredients in Roundup, Monsanto’s widely used flagship herbicide, can kill human cells even at low levels—“particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells,” reports Scientific American. This is an herbicide that’s used on virtually all of our nation’s corn and soy fields, covering tens of millions of acres of cropland. (It’s also widely used by landscapers and on home lawns.)

Then there was the recent atrazine imbroglio. For years, the EPA has been assuring the public that the highly toxic herbicide, still widely used in the Corn Belt, wasn’t showing up in drinking water in worrisome levels. Turns out that was a lie, as some excellent muckraking by the Huffington Post Investigative Fund revealed. Atrazine exposure has been strongly associated with reproductive health maladies, including arise in hermaphroditism among frog populations.

Note that corn and soy production, as practiced today, is completely reliant on these two broad-spectrum herbicides.

Now comes news about the hazards of another input critical to the project of industrial agricultire: synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. When farmers apply nitrogen to farm fields, a certain amount enters the atmosphere as nitrous oxide. And according to a study conducted by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and published in Science, human-generated nitrous oxide is now the No. 1 contributor to ozone-layer depletion.

The study is the first ever to look closely at nitrous oxide’s role as an ozone destroyer. The results are alarming. From a summary of the study on the NOAA website:

For the first time, this study has evaluated nitrous oxide emissions from human activities in terms of their potential impact on Earth’s ozone layer. As chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which have been phased out by international agreement, ebb in the atmosphere, nitrous oxide will remain a significant ozone-destroyer, the study found. Today, nitrous oxide emissions from human activities are more than twice as high as the next leading ozone-depleting gas.

The withering away of the ozone layer, which was slowed but not stopped by the 1987 Montreal Protocol phasing out CFCs, is no trivial matter. As the NOAA summary puts it:

The ozone layer serves to shield plants, animals and people from excessive ultraviolet light from the sun. Thinning of the ozone layer allows more ultraviolet light to reach the Earth’s surface where it can damage crops and aquatic life and harm human health.

Moreover, the Montreal Protocol does not regulate nitrous oxide.

Of course, agriculture-induced nitrous oxide isn’t just eating the ozone layer. It’s also a greenhouse gas with 300 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide.

Thus the implications of agriculture’s reliance on synthetic nitrogen fertilizer are literally earth-shaking: The way we’re feeding ourselves is contributing dramatically to two processes—climate change and ozone depletion—that could literally make the planet uninhabitable by humans.

Worse still, we may be seriously underestimating industrial agriculture’s nitrous oxide emissions. When considering agriculture’s contribution of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere, scientists have assumed that about 1 percent of the nitrogen fertilizer applied by farmers ends up in the atmosphere as nitrous oxide. The EPA operates under that assumption, as did the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the real number may be considerably higher. A 2008 study [PDF] by the Nobel-winning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen found that as much as 5 percent of nitrogen fertilizer applied by farmers turns into nitrous oxide—which would make agriculture a much larger contributor to climate change (and ozone depletion) than is currently assumed.

On top of all of that, nitrogen runoff from agriculture is also strongly implicated in the creation of coastal dead zones—large algae blooms that suck oxygen out of the sea and snuff out marine life.

What all of this points to is the need to bring ecological considerations into agriculture. And in fact, there’s already a budding field known as agroecology. Agrocecology is now at best a fringe field in academia; as public funding for university research dries up, giant agribusiness firms like Monsanto increasingly finance—and control—the research agenda. They have little interest in ecology and vested interests in pushing their own proprietary products.

Grist food editor Tom Philpott farms and cooks at Maverick Farms, a sustainable-agriculture nonprofit and small farm in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. Follow Tom’s Twitter feed here.”

___________________


September 4, 2009 Posted by | GMO Alert | Leave a comment

Kansas Vetoes – Milk in Kansas is Safer Unless it is Monsanto AGAIN!

It can be done – look at what Kansas accomplished.

Now, families in Kansas can feed their families with milk they know they can trust.

BUT – REMEMBER – a cow may not be fed rbgh (recombinant bovine

growth hormones) but if not grass fed, very possible is fed by Monsanto

genetically altered soy or corn – look for organic milk, or better still, raw

milk.

________________

______________________

http://current.com/1jt364c

Kansas Governor Vetoes Milk Labeling Bill!

Posted on April 23, 2009 by Heather

In a victory for local dairy farmers and consumers, Gov. Sebelius vetoes controversial bill that would have limited rbGH labeling on dairy products in the state

To support Kansas dairy farmers and consumers, Governor Kathleen Sebelius has vetoed legislation concerning the labels on milk products. The bill, HB 2121, faced massive opposition from dairy, consumer, health, animal welfare and environmental organizations across the country; nearly 30 of which wrote a letter to Governor Sebelius, President Obama’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, urging her to veto HR 2121. The bill passed by the Kansas State Legislature would have required an additional disclaimer on labels for dairy products produced from cows not treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST), a genetically engineered, artificial hormone that induces cows to produce more milk.”

August 30, 2009 Posted by | GMO Alert | Leave a comment

Another Monsanto In The Making? GE Trees?

Another Monsanto In The Making?

Please take a moment to go to “TAKE ACTION” and do something about this impending disaster.


_________________

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18966.cfm

Please, take a moment to do something.  In one of the highlights, you will see a link that takes you there.

International Paper Wants to Be the Monsanto of GM Trees

EXTRACTS: Approval would set ArborGen on a path to sell 275 million
[genetically] engineered seedlings a year by 2018.

“There is a potential to explode once they get these trees approved,” said David
Knott, who manages $1.3 billion as chief executive officer of Dorset Management
in Syosett, New York. He said he increased his stake in Rubicon to 70.5 million
shares this year to bet on ArborGen because it has a customer base of large
landowners and little competition. “This could take off faster than Monsanto.”

TAKE ACTION: Please click here to take action against ArborGen’s plan to plant
260,000 GM-trees.
http://globaljusticeecology.org/stopgetrees.php

QUOTE: “Here’s a great idea: Let’s bring into our country a genetically-engineered,
non-native tree that is known to be wildly invasive, explosively flammable, and
insatiably thirsty for ground water. Then let’s clone thousands of these living
firecrackers and plant them in forested regions across seven Southern states,
allowing them to grow, flower, produce seeds, and spread into native
environments. Yes, this would be irresponsible, dangerous, and stupid – but
apparently “Irresponsible, Dangerous, and Stupid” is the unofficial slogan of
the U.S. Department Agriculture.” – Jim Hightower
http://jimhightower.com/node/6900
Listen to Jim Hightower’s commentary:

For updates and action items, visit http://www.nogetrees.org.


International Paper Treads Monsanto’s Path to ‘Frankenforests’
Jack Kaskey
Bloomberg, August 28 2009
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aEHNB…

International Paper Co., the world’s largest pulp and paper maker, plans to
remake commercial forests in the same way Monsanto Co. revolutionized farms with
genetically modified crops
.

International Paper’s ArborGen joint venture with MeadWestvaco Corp. and New
Zealand’s Rubicon Ltd. is seeking permission from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to sell the first genetically engineered forest trees outside China.
The Australian eucalyptus trees are designed to survive freezes in the U.S.
South.

Plantations of engineered trees would give International Paper a competitive
advantage by providing a reliable supply of lower cost wood at a time when
timberlands are dwindling because of development, said David Liebetreu, the
Memphis, Tennessee- based company’s vice president of global sourcing. Opponents
are concerned that alien genes may contaminate natural forests, echoing
objections to modified crops that Monsanto still faces.

“There is a potential to explode once they get these trees approved,” said David
Knott, who manages $1.3 billion as chief executive officer of Dorset Management
in Syosett, New York. He said he increased his stake in Rubicon to 70.5 million
shares this year to bet on ArborGen because it has a customer base of large
landowners and little competition. “This could take off faster than Monsanto.”

________________

_______________

August 30, 2009 Posted by | GMO Alert | Leave a comment

Non-GMO Labeling – Hooray!

Group enforces Non-GMO label so that we, as consumers, can be assured that products are largely (no more than 0.9 percent) free of biotech ingredients.

I feel this is a good move – I want to know if organics are indeed organics.


_______________

‘Non-GMO’ Seal Identifies Foods Mostly Biotech-Free

By WILLIAM NEUMAN

Published: August 28, 2009

Alarmed that genetically engineered crops may be finding their way into organic and natural foods, an industry group has begun a campaign to test products and label those that are largely free of biotech ingredients

With farmers using gene-altered seeds to grow much of North America’s corn, soybeans, canola and sugar, ingredients derived from biotech crops have become hard for food companies to avoid. But many makers of organic and natural foods are convinced that their credibility in the marketplace requires them to do so.

The industry group, the Non-GMO Project, says its new label is aimed at reassuring consumers and will be backed by rigorous testing.

“There’s a vulnerability here that the industry is addressing,” said Michael J. Potter, the founder and president of Eden Foods and a board member of the Non-GMO Project, the organization responsible for the testing and labeling campaign.

As plantings of conventional crops with genetic modifications soared in recent years, Mr. Potter put in place stringent safeguards to ensure that the organic soybeans he bought for tofu, soy milk and other products did not come from genetically engineered plants. He even supplies the seed that farmers use to grow his soybeans.

But many other companies have not been so careful, and as a result, Mr. Potter said, the organic and natural foods industry is like “a dirty room” in need of cleaning.

“What I’ve heard, what I know, what I’ve seen, what’s been tested and the test results that have been shared with me, clearly indicate that the room is very dirty,” Mr. Potter said.

Hundreds of products already claim on their packaging that they do not contain genetically modified ingredients, but with little consistency in the labeling and little assurance that the products have actually been tested. The new labeling campaign hopes to clear up such confusion.

The initials GMO stand for genetically modified organism. Participants in the Non-GMO Project include major players in the oganic and natural foods business, like Whole Foods Market.

Whole Foods plans to place the project’s seal on hundreds of products it markets under its “365” store brand. Nature’s Path, a leading manufacturer of organic packaged foods like cereals, frozen waffles and granola bars, has also embraced the initiative.

The project’s seal, a butterfly perched on two blades of grass in the form of a check mark, will begin appearing on packaged foods this fall. The project will not try to guarantee that foods are entirely free of genetically modified ingredients, but that manufacturers have followed procedures, including testing, to ensure that crucial ingredients contain no more than 0.9 percent of biotech material. That is the same threshold used in Europe, where labeling is required if products contain higher levels.

Dag Falck, a project board member who is the organic program manager of Nature’s Path, said testing and labeling were needed to protect the industry from the steady spread of biotech ingredients. His company has been testing for such ingredients for several years and is strengthening those measures.

“The thing is, if we have a contamination problem that’s growing in organics, what will happen one day when someone tests something and finds out that organics is contaminated beyond a reasonable amount, say 5 or 10 percent?” he said. “Consumers would lose all faith in organics.”

While a consensus has developed among scientists that the genetically modified crops now in cultivation are safe, many biotech opponents say that questions remain over whether such foods pose health risks and whether the crops, and agricultural practices associated with them, could damage the environment.

The genetic modifications used in major crops in the United States largely involve traits beneficial to farmers. Some make the plants resistant to insects while others allow them to tolerate sprayings of a common herbicide used to combat weeds.

Plantings of crops with genetic modifications have risen sharply over the last decade, to the point that about 85 percent of corn and canola and 91 percent of soybean acreage this year was sown with biotech seed. Few food products in the supermarket lack at least some element derived from these crops, including oils, corn syrup, corn starch and soy lecithin.

The most recent agricultural sector to convert is sugar beets. Once this year’s crop is processed, close to half of the nation’s sugar will come from gene-engineered plants.Monsanto, a major developer of such seeds, has said it plans to develop biotech wheat, and scientists are moving forward on other crops.”

____________

NOTOCHEMO’S CONCLUSION:   I read labels of food but unless there is proper labeling, I may be denied pertinent information.  However, I hope small farmers who uphold organic standards will not suffer fees as a result of this additional “labeling” and compromise their profit margins, their livelihoods, or that too high prices are passed on to the consumer.

August 30, 2009 Posted by | GMO Alert | Leave a comment

GM Food – See What Happened to the Experimental Rats!

Goodness knows if these are anything to go by, no time to fact-check but they seem very plausible to non-scientific me.

There are lot s more summaries at the link.

______________

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/utility/showArticle/?objectID=932

SUMMARY 1 of 65

1.1 GM potatoes damaged rats

  1. Rats were fed potatoes engineered to produce their own insecticide.
  2. They developed potentially precancerous cell growth in the digestive tract, inhibited development of their brains, livers and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, enlarged pancreases and intestines and immune system damage.
  3. The cause was not the insecticide, but in all likelihood was the process of genetic engineering.
  4. GM foods on the market—which were created with the same process—have not been subject to such an extensive testing protocol.
SUMMARY 1 of 65

1.1 GM potatoes damaged rats

  1. Rats were fed potatoes engineered to produce their own insecticide.
  2. They developed potentially precancerous cell growth in the digestive tract, inhibited development of their brains, livers and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, enlarged pancreases and intestines and immune system damage.
  3. The cause was not the insecticide, but in all likelihood was the process of genetic engineering.
  4. GM foods on the market—which were created with the same process—have not been subject to such an extensive testing protocol.”

_______________

NOTOCHEMO’S CONCLUSION:  GM foods is not an option for the health of our families.

August 29, 2009 Posted by | GMO Alert | Leave a comment

Myth Or Reality – GMO – Non-GMO

This is a good myth and reality check between Non-GMOs and GMOs.

Most facts are already apparent – this article is good for anyone who needs to pass info to others.

_________________________

http://www.happyhippie.com/articles/foodfight.htm

“Food Fight: The Truth About GMOs
from TRUEFOODNOW.ORG

Right now a debate is raging in the United States about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food. The biotech industry claims that GMOs will save the environment and solve the hunger crisis. But Greenpeace considers GMOs a threat to the planet, and organizations like Christian Aid and the Institute for Food and Development Policy say GMOs are likely to increase world hunger. How can you make sense of this tricky subject? Read on to find out the truth behind the genetic engineering myths.

MYTH #1:
Genetic engineering is merely an extension of traditional breeding.

REALITY:
Genetic engineering is a new technology that has been developed to overcome the limitations of traditional breeding. Traditional breeders have never been capable of crossing fish genes with strawberries. But genetically engineered “fishberries” are already in the field. With genetic engineering, these types of new organisms can be created and released into the environment.1

Food and Drug Administration scientists stated that genetic engineering is different from traditional breeding, and so are the risks.2 Despite this warning, the FDA continues to assert that GMOs are not different and don’t require special regulations.

MYTH #2:
GMOs can make foods better, more nutritious, longer-lasting and better-tasting.

REALITY:
The reason for almost all of the 70 million acres of GMO crops grown in this country today has nothing to do with nutrition, flavor or any other consumer benefit. There is little benefit aside from the financial gains reaped by the firms producing GMOs. Nearly all of the GMO corn, soy, potatoes and cotton grown in the United States have been genetically altered so that they can withstand more chemicals or produce their own insecticides.

MYTH #3:
GMO crops eliminate the need for farm chemicals and are necessary for environmentally sustainable farming.

REALITY:
The most widely grown GMO crops actually require the use of chemical herbicides. For example, Monsanto created Roundup-Ready (RR) soy, corn, canola and cotton specifically so that farmers would continue to buy Roundup, the company’s best-selling chemical weed killer, which is sold with RR seeds.

Instead of reducing chemical use, one study of more than 8,000 university-based field trials found that farmers who plant RR soy use two to five times more herbicide than non-GMO farmers who use integrated weed-control methods.3

GMOs may be the greatest threat to sustainable agriculture on the planet. Many organic farmers rely on a natural bacterial spray to control certain crop pests. The advent of genetically modified, insect-resistant crops is likely to lead to insects that are immune to this natural insect control. When this biological pesticide is rendered ineffective, other farmers will turn to increasingly toxic chemicals to deal with the “superbugs” created by GMOs. Meanwhile, organic farmers will be out of options.

MYTH #4:
The Government ensures that genetic engineering is safe for the environment and human health.

REALITY:
Neither the FDA, the Department of Agriculture (USDA), nor the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has done any long-term testing of GMOs in food or the environment.. The FDA has acknowledged that it has not established any regulation specific to bioengineered food.4 Biotech companies are on the honor system. They have virtually no requirements to show that this new technology is safe.

FDA scientists and doctors warned that GMO foods could have new and different risks such as hidden allergens, increased plant-toxin levels and the potential to hasten the spread of antibiotic-resistant disease.5

The USDA has reviewed more than 5,000 applications for biotech crop field trials without denying a single one.6

USDA officials say they will start long-term studies of GMO crops, but the agency has not required any pre-market or pre-release assessment. Studies conducted after our environment and food supply have been contaminated will be too late.

MYTH #5:
There is no scientific evidence that GMOs harm people or the environment.

REALITY:
There is no long-term study showing that GMOs are safe, yet the biotech industry and government have allowed our environment and our families to become test subjects in these experiments.

Doctors and scientists around the world have warned that GMO foods may cause unexpected health consequences that may take years to develop.7

Laboratory and field evidence shows that GMOs can harm beneficial insects, damage soil and transfer genes in the environment, modified, contaminating neighboring crops and potentially creating uncontrollable weeds. Already GMO canola in Canada has become resistant to three different herbicides becoming a problem weed in other fields.8

MYTH #6:
GMOs are necessary to feed the developing world’s growing population.

REALITY:
In 1998, African scientists at a United Nations conference strongly objected to Monsanto’s promotional GMO campaign that used photos of starving African children under the headline “Let the Harvest Begin.” These scientists, who represented many of the nations affected by poverty and hunger, said gene technologies would undermine the nations’ capacities to feed themselves by destroying established diversity, local knowledge and sustainable agricultural systems.9

Genetic engineering could actually lead to an increase in hunger and starvation. Biotech companies are still eagerly pursuing a genetic engineering technique named “terminator” technology that would render a crop’s seed sterile, making it impossible for farmers to save seed for replanting.10 Half the world’s farmers rely on saved seed to produce food that 1.4 billion people rely on for daily nutrition.”

___________________

NOTOCHEMO’S CONCLUSION:  It is unfortunate that the ones who will truly suffer are the children who will grow up to a world that we left them – their diseased bodies trying to survive a chemically polluted earth.

August 27, 2009 Posted by | GMO Alert | Leave a comment