I am the first to say that the anti GMOcadre has been promoted by the usual cadre of suspects whose idea of scientificrigor would shame a mining promoter. Problem is that I have only now come to review the body of literature tosee what the fuss is. It is actuallyappalling. It only starts with carefullyselected time periods on animal tests.
Let me be a little clearer. When you bring a new product into the humanfood chain, the first and simplest test to conduct is a feeding experiment withdecent numbers run until natural death. Anything other than that is a huge red flag and claims otherwise issimply gaming the system.
They did not even try to falsify theevidence, they simply cut the test time to a safe period.
After you read the first couple ofarticles, read the last one out of
There are no rebuttals and it appears thatthe stonewalling game is on. Recall thatany admission would trigger the class action lawsuit able to bankrupt this industry.
I do not see just how this story can besuppressed much longer. We have twoindependent studies effectively confirming the work done a decade ago by Pusztaiand it is bad. You do not want this crapin your diet.
For now we can likely safely assume thatindividual exposure in a balanced diet is fairly minimal but excessiveotherwise. Yet labeling is trulynecessary here and plenty of studies are required.
Scientistthat discovered GMO health hazards immediately fired, team dismantled
FRIDAY,OCTOBER 26, 2012
(NaturalNews) Though it barely received any media attention at the time, arenowned British biochemist who back in 1998 exposed the shocking truth abouthow genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) cause organ damage, reproductivefailure, digestive dysfunction, impaired immunity, and cancer, among many otherconditions, was immediately fired from his job, and the team of researchers whoassisted him dismissed from their post within 24 hours from the time when thefindings went public.
Arpad Pusztai, who is considered to be one of the world's most respected andwell-learned biochemists, had for three years led a team of researchers fromScotland's prestigious RowettResearch Institute (RRI) in studying the health effects of a novelGM potato with built-in Bt toxin. Much to the surprise of many, the teamdiscovered that, contrary to industry rhetoric, Bt potato was responsible forcausing severe health damage in test rats, a fact that was quickly relayed tothe media out of concern for public health.
But rather than be praised for their honest assessment into thisgenetically-tampered potato, Pusztai and his colleagues were chastised byindustry-backed government authorities, including British Prime Minister TonyBlair, whose office was discovered to have secretly contacted RRI just hoursafter Pusztai and his team announced the results of their study on television.For speaking the truth, Pusztai was immediately fired from his position, andhis team dismissed from their positions at the school.
Researchout of
As reported recently in
"I recorded the alteration of different organs, shrinkage of kidneys,change in the liver and spleen, appearance of malignant parts in the tissues,(and) kidney failure and hemorrhages in the intestine," said Kaoud aboutthe effects of GMOs as observed in the test rats. "The brain functionswere touched as well, and the rats' learning and memory abilities were seriouslyaltered."
In Kaoud's case, his groundbreaking findings will soon be published in therespected journals Neurotoxicology and Ecotoxicology. But it remains to beseen whether or not the scientific community at large, which is heavilyinfluenced by biotechnology interests, and the political structures thatcontrol it will accept the results as valid, or pull a similar characterassassination on Kaoud and his team as punishment for defying the status quo.
What all this clearly illustrates, of course, is that modern science can hardlybe considered the independent, truth-seeking, "gold standard" ofinterpreting and understanding reality that many people mistakenly think it is.The truth about GMOs, as uncovered by mounds of independent research, is thatthey are inadequately safety tested, at best, and deadly at worst. But thisfact remains shrouded in deception, thanks to the corporatized, pro-GMO cultureof mainstream science.
###
Tests on rats suggest genetically modified foodspose health hazards
Louise Saranthttp://www.egyptindependent.com/news/tests-rats-suggest-genetically-modified-foods-pose-health-hazards
When scientistHussein Kaoud decided to test genetically modified food on rats, he producedresults that were extremely alarming and corroborate the conclusions that someinternational, independent scientists have reached.
Mohamed Fathy, aplant pathologist at Monufiya University, is also in the process of publishingtwo papers related to the issue. In one of them, he fed genetically modifiedcorn to goats and sheep, which experienced liver and kidney deficiencies - justlike Kaoud’s rodents.
In 1998, Pusztaiwent public and announced the results of his experiment on TV. The next day, hewas fired and his research team was dismantled. A phone call from
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers
- Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in Indiadied after grazing on Bt cotton plants
- Mice eating GM corn for the long term had fewer, and smaller, babies
- More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, and were smaller
- Testicle cells of mice and rats on a GM soy change significantly
- By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies
- Rodents fed GM corn and soy showed immune system responses and signs of toxicity
- Cooked GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen
- Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the
- The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may lead to cancer.
- Studies showed organ lesions, altered liver and pancreas cells, changed enzyme levels, etc.
- If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics
- If the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.
by Stephanie Orford
http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/content/health-impacts-gmo-food
In the late ‘90s and early 2000s, genetically modified (GM) orgenetically engineered (GE) crops were a hot-button issue around the world.They were originally developed by corporations like Monsanto to increase yieldby keeping crops insect repellent and tolerant of herbicides. Companies spokeof crops that would feed impoverished countries, manufacture pharmaceuticalsand clean up the environment. Critics called GMOs (Genetically ModifiedOrganisms) a multi-pronged threat to human health, the environment, and evendemocracy.
In the National Film Board of Canada documentary, The Genetic Takeover,made in 2000, the biologist and author Arnaud Apoteker asks, "How can weknow the long-term effects when these products were only put on the market fouror five years ago? I believe a handful of multinationals are conducting ahealth and epidemiological experiment on the whole human race."
Now? Barely a peep from the populace.
Meanwhile, Monsanto, Bayer CropScience, Syngenta, and other "Agbiotech" companies have continued to create GM crops that flood themarketplace. These Ag biotech companies own over 35 percent of theinternational seed market. Their four largest crops, cotton, canola, soy, andcorn, take up over 99 percent of GM crop land. The International Service forthe Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) claims that GMO cropscover over 282 million acres worldwide. Greenpeace says 60 percent of processedfoods include some GMO.
Despite decreased public interest, researchers have continued to lookinto the effects of GMO foods on health, some with startling results. Theevidence for ill health effects caused by GM foods is limited, but so areindependent studies themselves, largely due to lack of government funding.However, the startling evidence for GM health effects available, from animalexperiments done since the late ‘90s, as well as anecdotes from around theworld, suggest that GM foods can indeed have serious wide-ranging healtheffects.
Ann Clark, an associate professor in the Department of PlantAgriculture at Guelph University says health issues of GM crops have emergednumerous times, starting with Arpad Pusztai in the late ‘90s, who was"crucified" for speaking out about his research on the health effectsof GM crops on animals. The regulatory bodies "just aren't paying anyattention," she says. Clark started researching GMOs on her own time inthe late ‘90s, and has since become an outspoken critic in
Jeffrey M. Smith's book, Genetic Roulette, published in 2007, is apainstakingly-researched account of the health effects of GM foods. Smithclaims that up until 2007 there had only been about 20 independent,peer-reviewed animal feeding studies on the health effects of GM crops. That'sa tiny number considering the size of the Ag biotech business and its impacts.According to Clark and Smith, the studies Ag biotech companies conducted togain approval from governments are poor. They do not investigate long-termeffects, use dubious statistical methods, and fail to measure many relevantfactors, such as inflammatory reaction and organ damage to the test animals.
In his book, Smith recounts several key observations and experimentsthat suggest GM foods indeed cause serious health effects.
Reaction to Bt Crops
Allergic reactions associated with GM Bt products have been found inhumans and animals. Bt is an insecticidal protein incorporated into the genomeof Bt plants by genetic engineering. In theory, Bt allows farmers to use lessinsecticides on their crops. In 2004 and 2005, cotton pickers in
Controlled experiments have also shown negative impacts of GM Bt crops.Rats fed Monsanto's MON 863 Bt corn in a 90-day trail showed significantlyincreased immune cell counts and blood sugar, and significantly decreasedkidney weight, compared to the control group. A scientist who assessed thesefindings for the French Commission For Biomolecular Genetics, Gilles-EricSéralini, said that the rats' reactions were similar to those caused bypesticides.
The Bt insecticide gene was also incorporated into potatoes. A study onmice compared the effects of these GM potatoes with non-GM potatoes which hadBt added to them. Results were similar between the groups, with animals fromboth groups displaying abnormally high cell proliferation in the intestines, aswell as abnormality of cells in the intestinal lining. These effects suggestthat the GM Bt potatoes may act as a carcinogen on the intestinal lining.
Put together, this evidence shows that Bt products may not actuallyreduce the effects of pesticides on the consumer, but may be just as harmful,causing problems from serious inflammation, to toxic organ damage, to cancer.
Rats and Roundup Ready Soy
In feeding trials of GM soy, 12 female rats fed Roundup Ready soy, a GMsoy crop which has herbicide tolerance genes incorporated into its genome,showed liver problems commonly associated with higher liver function. Theirlivers seemed to have been working harder to detoxify the effects of the GM soycompared to the rats who were fed non-GM soy. These effects mostly disappearedafter researchers replaced the GM soy with non-GM soy in the rats' diets.
In another experiment, mice fed Roundup Ready soy experienced reducedactivity of their testicular cells. This result could have serious implicationson human fertility.
In the dramatic results of a series of experiments, 25 of 45 ratoffspring died after their mothers were fed GM soy prior to and duringpregnancy. Compare this to three deaths out of 33 for non-GM soy-fed rats, andthree out of 44 for non-soy-fed rats. Many of the organs of the GM-soy-fedoffspring were much smaller than those of the non-GM groups. Even the youngrats themselves were much smaller. [See "She Fed the Rats GM Soy,"WS, January-February 2006].
Other Reactions
Studies of other GM crops have suggested other health effects,including infertility, allergies, and stunted growth in young animals. Farmersin
Australian GM developers cancelled release of their GM peas after theytriggered allergic inflammation in mice. The kidney beans that the insertedgene had come from did not produce an inflammatory reaction. It appears thatthe way the gene reacted with the pea genome and metabolism changed the body'sreaction to the gene's protein product.
Smith's examples of eyewitness reports and news stories are notscientific experiments, so they are inconclusive. However, they point to majorhealth effects that GM foods might cause, leading to potentially catastrophichuman health issues. At the very least Smith's anecdotal evidence shows thatthe health effects of GMOs desperately need international attention,regulation, and further study.
Smith writes that, in 1999, a study done on over 4000 people in the
In another twist, scientists are just beginning to investigate whetherGM foods can transmit their GM genes to human gut bacteria.
The results from these animal experiments should be taken with a grainof salt when applied to humans. Our bodies are similar, but not the same, asthose of rats and other lab animals. And unlike lab rats, we control our owndiets. Most people eat a large variety of foods, not all of them containinggenetically modified organisms. Increasing numbers of us are choosingunprocessed and organic foods that presumably don't contain GMOs. Nevertheless,the proportion of GMOs in the North American diet is high, especially forpeople who eat a lot of processed food. And labeling of GM foods is notmandatory in
The Case of LY038 Corn
Recently, Renessen, a joint venture between Monsanto and Cargill,produced a high-lysine GM corn called LY038 for livestock feed. It was approvedin Canada in 2006, but when the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), theorganization that recommends regulations for foods to the EU Commission, lookeddeeper at Monsanto's animal feeding trial and asked questions in fall 2009,Monsanto withdrew their application.
Critics, including Clark, and Lucy Sharratt, coordinator of theCanadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN), are asking why
In an email, EFSA told Watershed Sentinel they requested the companyuse a different comparison corn variety than the ones used in the studies - amajor change in the experiment's design that could drastically affect results."The panel considered that the tests were not sufficient to conclude onsafety and this issue needed further attention," EFSA stated..
In response to why they had withdrawn the application of LY038,Monsanto told Watershed Sentinel in an email that they had, "Absolutely NOsafety concerns whatsoever," over LY038 corn, and that they did notwithdraw their application due to health concerns. "There is no reason[for withdrawal], other than Renessen's decision not to commercialize due todecreased commercial value."
Outdated Genetic Model
"We now know that when you insert a gene - when you randomly throwthis thing in there, they don't know ahead of time where it's going toland," says
Clark uses the words "ludicrous," "embarrassing,"and "painful" to describe
Neither is Canadian regulation transparent to the public, saysSharratt. She says the Canadian public has no say in approval of GMOs.Independent scientists can't evaluate feeding studies the Ag Biotech companiessubmit because they are deemed confidential. "The Canadian regulatorysystem is supporting the biotechnology industry ahead of the health and welfareof Canadian consumers and farmers," Sharratt says.
How does CBAN suggest
The consequences of the Canadian government's method of dealing withGMOs could be dire, say Sharratt and Clark. The current evidence on thenegative effects GM foods have on human and animal health signals a grave needfor the Canadian government to take a closer look at GM foods and how they'reregulated.
For more information:
Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically EngineeredFoods, Jeffrey M. Smith, Yes! Books, 2006, 2007.
"A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties onmammalian health," Séralini et al, International Journal of BiologicalSciences, 2009; 5:706-726
The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, www.cban.ca
Greenpeace, GMO Compass,
Council of Canadians,
***
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder