10 Things to Know About the Seralini GM Corn Study

It has been almost a year now since French researcher and scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini published his groundbreaking study on the deleterious effects of eating Monsanto’s genetically-modified (GM) corn, and there are still millions of people out there who are confused about its controversial findings. To help sort things out, here are ten facts about the study that you probably heard nothing about from the mainstream media:

1) Seralini’s study was a chronic toxicity study, not a cancer study. Not long after being published, Seralini’s study was maliciously ripped apart by “skeptics,” the media and many industry-backed institutions that claimed it was a badly-designed cancer study. But the truth is that Seralini’s study was actually a chronic toxicity study, and one that met or exceeded all accepted scientific standards.

2) No other long-term studies have ever been conducted on NK603 GM corn. The chorus of whining that ensued about how Seralini’s study allegedly contradicted all other similar studies is also invalid, as no other similar studies have ever been conducted — Seralini’s study is the only long-term study involving Monsanto’s NK603 GM corn that has ever been conducted.

3) There was nothing wrong with the types of rats Seralini used. Another popular criticism involves the Sprague-Dawley (SD) variety of rat used by Seralini in his study. This same variety has been used by Monsanto on many occasions in its 90-day “safety” studies on GMOs.

4) SD rats and humans are almost equally prone to developing cancer. Contrary to what you may have heard, SD rats are not inherently more prone to cancer than humans, and in fact have almost an equal risk with humans. This makes them a perfect choice for a long-term safety study on GMOs, vindicating Seralini in his use of them.

5) Seralini’s study far more in-depth than any ‘safety’ study ever conducted by Monsanto. It is hypocritical for the mainstream scientific community to criticize Seralini’s study methodologies, especially considering the fact that they were far more rigorous than those used by Monsanto to gain GMO approval. Seralini’s sample sizes, testing protocols and other methods all exceed those routinely used by the biotechnology industry.

6) Rejecting Seralini’s study means rejecting all industry-backed safety studies. Logically speaking, there is no way to reject Seralini’s findings about the dangers of GM corn without also rejecting the findings of industry-backed studies that claim GM corn is safe. Using the same arguments of the vested scientists and media outlets that have attacked Seralini, the bulk of published data on GMOs is thus false, which means GMOs have no place on the consumer market.

7) Seralini’s study proves industry studies to be fraudulent. The only one of its kind conducted for longer than 90 days, Seralini’s study also shows that the dangers of GMOs, which are often denied, are actually real. They just show up past the time threshold used in all industry-backed studies — the first tumors appeared no earlier than four months into Seralini’s study.

8) Toxicity observed in Monsanto studies confirmed by Seralini’s study. Though it often goes unreported, Monsanto’s own GMO safety studies have observed toxicity from exposure and consumption. But this toxicity is routinely written off as being “not biologically meaningful.” But Seralini’s study confirms that, if Monsanto’s studies were performed for longer than 90 days, these same markers of toxicity would develop into the diseases observed by Seralini.

9) Governments do not require the types of long-term studies conducted by Seralini. The reason why Seralini’s study was accused of being out in left field is that no other similar long term studies are ever conducted, due to the fact that governments around the world simply don’t require them. If they did, the world would have a much different understanding about the alleged safety of GMOs.

10) Even short-term studies have observed toxicity from GMOs. Despite a lack of proper long-term safety testing, a number of independent, short-term laboratory and farm studies have, indeed, observed toxicity due to GMO exposure. Any claim to the contrary is simply a lie, and Seralini’s study helps affirm this other research.

To learn more, visit:
http://gmoseralini.org

Sources for this article include:

http://gmoseralini.org

http://www.naturalnews.com

All GMO Approvals in Brazil are Illegal, Says Whistleblowing Regulator

It may not come as much of a surprise to our regular readers, but the biotechnology industry as we currently know it is intrinsically corrupt. And a government official-turned-whistleblower from Brazil recently admitted in a government report that every single industry-prompted approval for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in his country has taken place outside the realm of sound science and without proper legal precedent, which means all current plantings of GM crops in Brazil are illegal.

These are sweeping claims, but they are backed by a lengthy report recently published by Brazil’s National Council for Food and Nutrition Security. In this report, a man by the name of Leonardo Melgarejo divulges key information about how GMOs have never lived up to the promises made about them by their creators, nor have any of the studies used to back their approval proven to be legitimate. To the contrary, most of the currently accepted safety data on GMOs is utter rubbish, he claims, because it relies on flawed methodologies and dishonest protocols.

One of the hallmarks of GMO technology has always been that GM crops will help end world hunger by increasing crop yields. During the last 20 years that GMOs have been on the scene, however, this simply has not been the case. Yields have remained the same or even decreased as a result of GMOs, while the use of dangerous and potentially deadly crop chemicals to keep weeds and pests under control has increased dramatically, a fact that is often omitted from mainstream reports about the “benefits” of GMOs.

“The argument that world hunger will be overcome by productivity gains offered by genetic engineering remains an unfulfilled promise,” writes Melgarejo in an English translation of his report compiled byGMWatch.org. “In these 20 years of development of transgenics, almost all … GMOs involve Bt and herbicide-tolerant (HT) technologies, which are not designed to achieve productivity gains.”

Most NaturalNews readers are probably already aware of the “superweed” consequences of spraying mass amounts of pesticides and herbicides on GM crops, but Melgarejo also says that GM crops themselves are becoming superweeds — that is, GM crop weeds are becoming so robust and chemical-resistant that not even the strongest chemical treatments are able to mitigate them. Superweeds, of course, have been showing up all across the U.S., and now throughout Brazil, where GMOs have also been widely adopted.

All industry-funded GMO studies are pseudoscientific garbage, suggests Melgarejo

So why, exactly, has Melgarejo gone so far as to declare GMOs in Brazil to be illegal? According to his report, all filings for GMO approvals in Brazil have thus far been in breach of established legal norms, which require strict corresponding safety studies that follow very specific scientific guidelines. Every single GMO approval, he says, has ignored these important requirements, whether by failing to use proper sample sizes or by using sample materials that were not the same as those that occur in the real world. In every case, he insists, GMOs have been illegitimately approved to serve corporate interests.

“Fundamentally, it should be said that none of the cases so far approved by CTNBio (CTNBio is the regulatory authority that governs GMO approvals in Brazil) incorporates studies required by the legal norms,” adds Melgarejo. “Long-term impacts (of GMO use and consumption) are not evaluated. All tests submitted for evaluation to CTNBio examine short-term reactions. The longest is 90 days — not allowing the identification of cumulative damage.”

Besides this, industry-backed tests routinely test the effects of grains and other GM materials that do not contain pesticide and herbicide residues, despite the fact that these same materials would contain such residues in a real-world environment. Tests involving GM proteins are also flawed, in that they use proteins derived from separate bacteria rather than from the GM plants themselves, which leads to false outcomes.

You can read Melgarejo’s full report, as translated into English by GMWatch.org, here:
http://gmwatch.org

Sources for this article include:

http://gmwatch.org

http://www2.planalto.gov.br

http://www.sustainablepulse.com

France Confirms it Will Continue Ban on GMO Corn

It has been confirmed that France will extend its moratorium on the cultivation of Monsanto’s genetically-modified (GM) MON810 corn within its borders, despite a recent ruling by the French Council of State that the longstanding ban violates European Union (EU) law. As reported in a recent AFP article translated into English byGMWatch.org, French Head of State Francois Hollande made an official public announcement that the moratorium will, indeed, be extended in order to ensure the integrity of the nation’s agricultural system.

France first enacted a temporary ban on MON810 more than six years ago, citing an array of environmental threats posed by the untested “Frankencorn.” The decision came after theEuropean Commission (EC), of which France is a member, failed to suspend approval of the crop after studies had shown that the transgenic corn carries with it “important risks” to the environment. After consulting with the European Food Safety Authority(EFSA), the EC ultimately decided to ignore the tests and approve the GM crop anyway, forcing France to unilaterally reject it.

“Because of the proximity of the planting period, the Agriculture Ministry has decided … to take a precautionary measure that means to temporarily prohibit the cultivation of the corn MON810 on the national territory in order to protect the environment,” read a statement issued by the French government last year.

Fast forward roughly a year and a half and the EC still has not provided a shred of solid evidence showing that MON810 will not contaminate other crops or otherwise harm the environment. As such, France has decided to extend the ban, presumably indefinitely, rather than jump on the GMO bandwagon. Setting a bold example for the rest of the world to follow, France has chosen to exercise the precautionary principle and protect its agricultural heritage rather than succumb to biotechnology industry pressures.

“Why did we impose the moratorium on GMOs? Not because we do not want progress, but in the name of progress,” said Head of State Francois Hollande recently about the decision to extend the ban. “We cannot accept a maize (corn) product that may have adverse effects on other [agricultural] products.”

Nine EU member states have rejected MON810 ‘Frankencorn’

According to EuropaBio.org, MON810 is one of only two GM crops currently permitted for planting anywhere in the EU. Besides MON810, a GM potato variety known as Amflora was approved back in 2010. But France and several other EU member states, including Austria, Hungary, and Switzerland, have all implemented full bans on GM crops, thanks to a precedent set by the EC that recognizes the freedom of individual member states to reject GMOs.

However, the Council of State is now saying that bans on GM crops can only be autonomously enacted by EU members states in cases of “an emergency” or if a situation poses “a major risk,” two scenarios that the advisory body obviously does not accept as valid in this case, considering its attempted overruling. Still, President Hollande, Agriculture Minister Stephane Foll, and others have repeatedly stressed that France will continue to oppose GM crops for the protection of French agriculture.

“We cannot accept that a product — corn — have [sic] bad consequences on other produce,” added Hollande. “[We will] secure this decision legally, at a national level and especially at a European level.”

Sources for this article include:

http://gmwatch.org

http://www.commondreams.org

http://www.bloomberg.com

http://www.reuters.com

http://www.europabio.org

http://www.nature.com

Monsanto Gives Up On GM Crops in Europe, Pursues Patenting of Conventional Crops

The world’s most evil corporation, Monsanto, has announced it will cease trying to introduce any new genetically-modified (GM) crops into Europe following years of widespread public opposition to the controversial and untested technology. Instead, the multinational biotechnology behemoth will re-focus its efforts on controlling the conventional seed market in the European Union (EU), an outlandish move that proves the seed giant is still determined, in one way or another, to dominate global agriculture.

Monsanto’s President and Managing Director for Europe, Jose Manuel Madero, recently told Reutersin a phone interview that his company will be withdrawing all existing approval requests for new GMOs in Europe within the next few months. These include five pending approval requests for at least one new variety of GM corn (maize), as well as GM soybeans and GM sugar beets. As of this writing, there is only one GM crop, Monsanto’s MON810 maize, currently approved for cultivation anywhere in Europe.

No matter how hard Monsanto and various others in the biotechnology industry have tried in years past to force GMOs on Europe, the result has almost always been the same: failure. The people of Europe have repeatedly expressed loudly and clearly that they do not want to eat GMOs, and the European Commission (EC) has tended to align its approval process for GMOs with this public sentiment in mind. Thus, GMOs continue to remain largely absent from the European market, with the exception of widely-used animal feed.

“(The requests) have been going nowhere fast for several years,” says Brandon Mitchener, a Monsanto spokesman, about the company’s failed efforts to force GMOs on Europe. “There’s no end in sight.”

Monsanto: If we can’t force Europeans to accept GMOs, we will instead take over their conventional crops

This is good news for Europeans, of course, who will finally have the opportunity to rest a little easier as far as the integrity of their food supply is concerned — this is with the exception of GM animal feed, of course, which is currently imported into the country from places like the U.S. and South America at a rate of more than 30 million metric tons yearly, according to Reuters.

But what Europeans will now have to worry about, sadly, is Monsanto’s new pursuit of controlling their conventional crops. As we here at NaturalNews have been reporting on recently, Monsanto has been taking advantage of a little-known loophole in European patent law that allows the company to literally draw patents on natural crops like broccoli and green beans.

“In the coming weeks, around a dozen new patents will be granted (to Monsanto), covering species such as broccoli, onions, melons, lettuce and cucumber,” explains the food freedom watchdog coalitionNo Patents on Seeds! about Monsanto’s new business approach. “Monsanto and Syngenta already own more than 50 percent of seed varieties of tomato, paprika and cauliflower registered in the EU.”

In other words, since it could not have its way with GMO’s in Europe, Monsanto simply turned to the earth’s natural bounty and gradually claimed it as its own — and the European Patent Office (EPO) continues to facilitate this takeover of the natural food supply in Europe, mostly because the European people remain in the dark about what is actually happening to their agricultural system.

You can help fight Monsanto’s takeover of the European food supply by signing the No Patents on Seeds! online petition:
http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org

Sources for this article include:

http://www.reuters.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org

http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org

http://science.naturalnews.com

Soy-Based Lunch Kills 22 Children in India: Have GMOs and Pesticides Become Instant Killers?

At least 22 children in India have died as a result of eating soy-based school lunches served to them in the country’s Bihar state, according to new reports. The tainted lunches, which were loaded with genetically-modified (GM) soybeans and pesticide chemical residues, were given to the student victims as part of a U.K.-based government meal program similar to the one currently being implemented in the U.S. by Michelle Obama for American public schoolchildren.

The U.K.’s Independent reports that the culprit meals contained a blend of rice, soybeans and potatoes, and had apparently been doused with an unidentified new cooking oil that was later determined to be tainted with toxic crop insecticides. Early on, the school’s cook warned her superiors that the new oil appeared “discolored and dodgy,” but her concerns were ignored when school officials insisted that the oil was safe.

Not long after students ate the first meal served with the new oil, dozens of them began to vomit profusely and some developed severe diarrhea. Several of them had to be immediately rushed to the hospital for emergency care, which sent the school’s headmaster running for the hills — according to reports, she literally fled the school after first learning that students were becoming ill from eating the food.

“We feel that some kind of insecticide was either accidentally or intentionally mixed in the food, but that will be clear through investigations,” said R.K. Singh, the medical superintendent at the local children’s hospital in Patna, Bihar’s capital. “We prepared antidotes and treated the children for organic phosphorus poisoning,” he added, noting that early tests identified the presence of a toxic organophosphate chemical in the tainted food.

But the school itself appears to have dropped the ball in helping its sick children in the immediate aftermath of the poisoning. Reports indicate that it took about 15 hours after the first child fell ill to evacuate the rest. It was only after 17 children died that school officials began to take the situation seriously by trying to actually help the children.

After learning about the school’s mismanagement of the situation, many parents began rioting in the streets and demanding answers. Protesting villagers reportedly set ablaze four police vehicles out of anger, and police reinforcements had to be sent in from elsewhere to quell the unrest. In the aftermath of the disaster, Bihar has offered to provide compensation of 200,000 rupees, or about $3,500, per dead child to affected families.

All government food programs, including those in US, a threat to children

Though this incident took place in one of India’s poorest regions, where corruption is rampant, the moral of the story is that this type of situation could happen anywhere. In the U.S., for instance, where the federal government is currently seizing control of school lunch programs nationwide, children are being fed some of the very same soy- and chemical-laden garbage for lunch.

Just last year, prisoners in Illinois actually filed a lawsuit against the state for serving them too much soy, which was causing them to become seriously ill. And a district court judge has since acknowledged the merits of the case, recognizing that high amount of soy, and particularly GM soy, can lead to severe gastrointestinal problems, hypothyroidism, infections, and even death.

“In the U.S., we allow Big Agra to provide insecticide laced GMOs for our children everyday,” wrote one concerned and insightful commenter on a piece published by The New York Times (NYT). “We have no idea how much damage this stuff is doing to our children or the rest of the humans who are being slowly poisoned for the benefit of high profits and obscenely paid CEOS.”

“At least the Indian government intends to prosecute the ones who did this. We (in the U.S.) put them at the head of the FDA and give them complete immunity through specially drafted legislation. This is our shame and our tragedy.”

Sources for this article include:

http://www.independent.co.uk

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/034800_prisoners_lawsuit_soy.html

Soy Products Linked to Cancer in Lab Tests

As time goes by, people are steadily waking up to some of the proven facts about soy, such as the knowledge that most soy is GMO. If that is the case, one can deduce that to solve the problem one can simply buy organic soy products. While it’s true that organic soy is healthier for you than GMO soy, there are other facts about soy that pose serious health risks. Here are four facts that debunk soy as a healthy food choice.

Four reasons to phase-out most soy products on the market

1. Soybeans contain large amounts of toxins.Unlike with other foods where any toxins are destroyed or deactivated during cooking, the toxins in soybeans remain intact. Some of these toxins, or “enzyme inhibitors,” block the actions of enzymes needed for the digestion of protein. The enzyme inhibitors in soy are linked to cancer in lab animal tests. Test animals fed enzyme inhibitors developed enlargement and pathological conditions of the pancreas, including pancreatic cancer.

2. Soybeans can interfere with nutrient absorption during digestion. This is because soy is high in phytic acid, which has been shown to block absorption of minerals calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc.

3. Soybeans are among the most highly pesticide-contaminated foods on the market. As you probably know, pesticides are a toxic, distorted-energy-spin substance, linked to a variety of ailments. Soy products also contain high levels of aluminum, a life-force sapping heavy metal which does not belong in foods that we put in our bodies, as it has bio-accumulative negative health effects. The aluminum in soy comes from the aluminum tanks in which the beans are acid washed and heat-processed.

4. Soybeans contain haemagglutinin, nitrites, soy protein isolates, and goitrogens. Each of these substances has a particular negative effect on your health. Haemagglutinin is a blood clot-promoting substance which causes red blood cells to clump together. Nitrites are powerful carcinogens which form when soybeans are spray-dried (carcinogens are potential cancer-causing agents). Soy protein isolates have been shown to enlarge the pancreas and thyroid gland and also increase fatty acid deposits in the liver. Goitrogens are found in soy-based foods in large amounts. They block thyroid hormone production. All of the above substances have the effect of disrupting body chemistry and hormones.

Wait a minute! I thought soy was good for me

Like me, you’ve probably been under the impression that soy was healthy for years. In which case, the truth turns out to be shocking as it was to me. And still, proponents of soy will assert that Asian cultures have been safely eating soy for thousands of years. However, this has been debunked as only a partial truth. Asians began eating soybeans 2,500 years ago only after figuring out how to ferment it. Ancient Asian cultures knew that soybeans contain multiple toxic substances even after cooking. It is only through the process of fermentation that toxins in soy are safely neutralized.

Soy: Healthy in the right form

The distorted half-truth about soy having beneficial, health-enhancing properties is actually based on fact. The truth however, is that the beneficial properties of soy are only made available during fermentation when a special mold grows on the beans. Fermentation has the dual purpose of making the nutrients in soy bio-available, while simultaneously destroying the toxins.

Fermented soy products include tempeh, miso, and natto. As for tofu, the toxic enzyme inhibitors live in the soaking liquid around the tofu, not the tofu curd itself. Thus, the toxins in tofu are reduced in quantity but not eliminated.

Sources for this article include:

http://thedeliciousrevolution.com/cleanse/why-avoid-soy/

http://www.optimumchoices.com/Soy.htm

http://www.mindbodyhealth.com/avoidsoy.htm

First Ever Non-GMO Meat and Egg Product Label Hits The Market

Healthy shoppers in Northern California are getting the first taste of certified biotech-free meat and egg products at the grocery store, thanks to the valiant efforts of the Non-GMO Project in successfully convincing the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA) to allow certified non-GMO labels to be placed on foods within its regulatory jurisdiction.

According to a recent press release issued by theNon-GMO Project, the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) has finally agreed to allow third-party certifying organizations like the Non-GMO Project to certify meat and egg products that meet its strict integrity standards, as long as the claims made are truthful, accurate and not misleading.

Most of the food on the market today is regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which does not require this type of pre-approval of third-party labels. The USDA, on the other hand, which regulates meat and liquid egg products, has not traditionally held any third-party labeling standards, and had previously denied requests made by meat companies like Mary’s Chicken to allow non-GMO labels because of this.

With the help of the Non-GMO Project, however, Mary’s Chicken and others in the industry have been able to work with regulators to carefully develop non-GMO labeling standards that are honest, accurate and transparent, three things health-conscious individuals are looking for these days. And with their goal finally achieved, consumers will now be able to identify the highest quality meat and egg products while shopping.

“It was a thoughtful process, that’s most certainly the case,” says Claire Herminjard, head of pastured beef company Mindful Meats, about working with the USDA on non-GMO labeling standards, as quoted by TakePart.com. “They took their time to do their due diligence to understand how the Non-GMO Project verifies products – what their standards are, how they control that and how they audit it.”

Rigorous testing methods ensure Non-GMO Project verified meat, eggs free of transgenic contaminants

However, meat and eggs cannot simply be tested on their own for GMO content because the animals that produced them may or may not have been fed GM soy, corn, and other types of transgenic feed. The process is much more complicated, in other words, and in order to properly certify such products, the Non-GMO Project had to establish a more thorough assessment and evaluation process.

“Meat and eggs cannot be tested themselves for GMOs,” says Megan Westgate, Executive Director of the Non-GMO Project in a recent statement posted at the organization’s website. “That’s why we test the animal feed. The supplemental language will help clarify that.”

Now that the details of the new regulatory process have been fully fleshed out, meat companies like Mindful Meats and Mary’s Chicken, egg company Hidden Villa Ranch and others are beginning to sell certified non-GMO products on the consumer market. And there are sure to be many other companies with similar philosophies that will join their ranks in the coming months.

“It means everything to have this label and we’re very thankful that FSIS worked with us to get this approved,” says David Pittman from Mary’s Chicken, which currently has 17 Non-GMO Project verified products on the market and many more in the process of being verified.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.nongmoproject.org

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/06/21/first-non-gmo-meat-label

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com