Frankenfoods for YOU

I use butter and coconut oil or olive oil, grapola, flax oil...a few vegetable oils-as the price of oils are very high-especially good ones






I know they have used MSG to fatten up lab rats for obesity studies

MSG...bad stuff overall and used like water in almost all processed foods





alert for those suffering OBESITY














humans are 5 times more sensitive to msg than mice are...

The Truth about MSG Monosodium Glutamate Clinical Nutrition

What effects does MSG have on diet, obesity, health and food cravings?

Because MSG is absorbed very quickly in the gastrointestinal tract (unlike glutamic acid-containing proteins in foods), MSG could spike blood plasma levels of glutamate. Glutamic acid is in a class of chemicals known as excitotoxins, high levels of which have been shown in animal studies to cause damage to areas of the brain unprotected by the blood-brain barrier and that a variety of chronic diseases can arise out of this neurotoxicity.

Dr. Vincent Bellonzi is a chiropractor and a Certified Clinical Nutritionist. He has been in practice for over 12 years. He received his Doctorate from Los Angeles College of Chiropractic in 1991.

Since 1998, Dr. Bellonzi has practiced in the Austin area. He works with athletes at every level to provide sports conditioning and rehabilitation.

Visit Dr. Bellonzi's website at
[link to www.bewellrx.com]
[link to www.austinwellnessinstitute.com]

Charlotte Iserbyt served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America's classrooms.

[link to www.deliberatedumbingdown.com]

[link to www.americandeception.com]

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." ~Ronald Reagan, 40th president of U.S.

USA vs. US: [link to www.gemworld.com]

bewell.com is a great site for health info-check it out

Last Edited by ShadowDancer on 12/01/2009 11:00 AM

1. Now this would explain Bush's 2002 mandate that newborns
blood samples for DNA tracking be taken!

2. Don't rely on the FDA for anything!

WHO OWNS THE FDA?
A recent cover story in the British Medical Journal, underneath a photograph of the Parklawn Building in Rockville, Maryland, where much of the FDA is located, carried the caption “Who Owns the FDA?” In several articles in that issue, the planned re-entry onto the market of Lotronex, Glaxo's previously withdrawn dangerous drug for irritable bowel syndrome, illustrates the pernicious new relationship between the FDA and the drug industry, related in part to the 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). That Act required companies to pay fees directly to the FDA for drug regulation.5 Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet wrote, also referring to alosetron, “This story reveals not only dangerous failings in a single drug's approval and review process but also the extent to which the FDA, its Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) in particular, has become the servant of industry.”6

Codex Alimentarius is going to be forced through



solstice timing

Frankenfoods


genetically modified corn found TOXIC...I have read other papers recently as well stating sterility is one of the problems with rats who ingested it...

A study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences demonstrates the toxicity of three genetically modified corn varieties from the American seed company Monsanto, the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (Criigen, based in Caen), which participated in that study, December 11

“For the first time in the world, we’ve proven that GMO are neither sufficiently healthy nor proper to be commercialized. [...] Each time, for all three GMOs, the kidneys and liver, which are the main organs that react to a chemical food poisoning, had problems,” indicated Gilles-Eric Séralini, an expert member of the Commission for Biotechnology Reevaluation, created by the EU in 2008.

Caen and Rouen University researchers, as well as Criigen researchers, based their analyses on the data supplied by Monsanto to health authorities to obtain the green light for commercialization, but they draw different conclusions after new statistical calculations. According to Professor Séralini, the health authorities based themselves on a reading of the conclusions Monsanto has presented and not on conclusions drawn from the totality of the data. The researchers were able to obtain complete documentation following a legal decision.

“Monsanto’s tests, effected over 90 days, are obviously not of sufficient duration to be able to say whether chronic illnesses are caused. That’s why we ask for tests over a period of at least two years,” explained one researcher. Consequently, the scientists demand a “firm prohibition” on the importation and cultivation of these GMOs.

These three GMOs (MON810, MON863 and NK603) “are approved for human and animal consumption in the EU and especially the United States,” notes Professor Séralini. “MON810 is the only one of the three grown in certain EU countries (especially Spain); the others are imported,” he adds. A meeting of EU ministers over MON810 and NK603 is scheduled Monday. [link to www.darkgovernment.com]

Germany has now become the sixth country in the European Union to take a stand against GM corn — a wise move that unfortunately the United States has yet to do.

Whereas close to 9,000 acres slated to be planted with MON 810 corn in Germany will now be GM-free (assuming the ban stands up in court if necessary), the acres to be planted with GM corn in the U.S. is in the tens of millions.

German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner announced she was banning not only the cultivation of GM corn but also the sale of its seeds, saying she had “legitimate reasons to believe that MON 810 posed a danger to the environment.”

Why GM Corn is Dangerous

French Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, molecular endocrinologist at the University of Caen and a member of two French government commissions evaluating GM food, found that MON 810, along with several other varieties of GM crops, showed statistically significant problems in animal studies that regulators have not pursued with follow-up research.

Seralini said the effects of the GM crops were similar to that of pesticides, including inflammation disorders, and problems with livers and kidneys, two major organs involved with detoxification.

Further, biology professor Bela Darvas of Hungary‘s Debrecen University discovered that Monsanto’s Mon 810 is lethal to two Hungarian protected species and one insect classified as rare. Now Monsanto refuses to give him any more Mon 810 corn to use in his tests. They also refused his request for Mon 863, another GM variety.

So not only has MON 810 been shown to cause serious damage to animals, but it may also wipe out protected plant and insect species. Of course, adding to the potential devastation is the fact that corn is a wind-pollinated plant, which means it depends on the wind for pollination.

While growers of GM food often say their crops will be contained and unable to contaminate nearby fields, from an environmental perspective contamination between GM and non-GM crops is generally acknowledged to be unavoidable.

Really what can stop wind, tornadoes or other weather from blowing or transporting GM pollen or seeds over onto non-GM crops?

Not a whole lot.

So by planting even a few thousand acres of land with GM crops, there’s a very real possibility that a much greater area could become contaminated with the altered seeds, and subject to the potential health and environmental insults as a result.

The United States government‘s support for biotech is no secret. In fact, it is the official policy in several U.S. agencies to promote the industry, and some of them have attempted to push acceptance of GM crops in Europe — but let’s hope they continue to hold out.

MON 810 was currently the only GM crop approved for cultivation in Germany, so in choosing to ban GM corn, Germany will become an entirely GM-free country — a wise, wise move.

Of course, it’s not just GM corn that’s the issue here; all GM crops have the potential to cause great, irreversible harm.

Are GM Crops Threatening the Future of Humankind?

GM crops routinely create unintended proteins, alter existing protein levels, or even change the components and shape of the protein that is created by the inserted gene.

This results in brand new proteins that have never before existed in food, some of which may be causing severe allergic reactions.

Creating a GM crop can also produce massive changes in the natural functioning of the plant‘s DNA. Native genes can be mutated, deleted, permanently turned on or off, or change their levels of protein expression. No one knows how this will impact human health, but so far Jeffrey Smith has documented at least 65 serious health risks related to GM foods.

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 young sperm cells
• The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning
• Several US farmers reported(cont

I have said repeatedly it will cause LIVER and KIDNEY problems

Here you go:


“For the first time in the world, we’ve proven that GMO are neither sufficiently healthy nor proper to be commercialized. [...] Each time, for all three GMOs, the kidneys and liver, which are the main organs that react to a chemical food poisoning, had problems,” indicated Gilles-Eric Séralini, an expert member of the Commission for Biotechnology Reevaluation, created by the EU in 2008.

Caen and Rouen University researchers, as well as Criigen researchers, based their analyses on the data supplied by Monsanto to health authorities to obtain the green light for commercialization, but they draw different conclusions after new statistical calculations. According to Professor Séralini, the health authorities based themselves on a reading of the conclusions Monsanto has presented and not on conclusions drawn from the totality of the data. The researchers were able to obtain complete documentation following a legal decision.

“Monsanto’s tests, effected over 90 days, are obviously not of sufficient duration to be able to say whether chronic illnesses are caused. That’s why we ask for tests over a period of at least two years,” explained one researcher. Consequently, the scientists demand a “firm prohibition” on the importation and cultivation of these GMOs.

These three GMOs (MON810, MON863 and NK603) “are approved for human and animal consumption in the EU and especially the United States,” notes Professor Séralini. “MON810 is the only one of the three grown in certain EU countries (especially Spain); the others are imported,” he adds. A meeting of EU ministers over MON810 and NK603 is scheduled Monday.



I am serious avoid GMO/GE/Frankenfoods/Terminator seeds and plants/STERILE seeds...they have no life in them.

Proof of organ damage from GMO/GE(Frankenfoods)


Other problems with Monsanto's conclusions

When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.

Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests “lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases,” wrote Seralini, et al. in their Doull rebuttal. [See “How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals.” IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]

Further, Monsanto's analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, “In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic non-GM equivalent.”

The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.

They have called for “an immediate ban on the import and cultivation of these GMOs and strongly recommend additional long-term (up to two years) and multi-generational animal feeding studies on at least three species to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods.”

Human health, of course, is of primary import to us, but ecological effects are also in play. Ninety-nine percent of GMO crops either tolerate or produce insecticide. This may be the reason we see bee colony collapse disorder and massive butterfly deaths . If GMOs are wiping out Earth's pollinators, they are far more disastrous than the threat they pose to humans and other mammals.

[link to www.countercurrents.org]






In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto’s GM maize.

All three varieties of GM corn, Mon 810, Mon 863 and NK 603, were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities. Made public by European authorities in 2005, Monsanto’s confidential raw data of its 2002 feeding trials on rats that these researchers analyzed is the same data, ironically, that was used to approve them in different parts of the world.

The Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and Universities of Caen and Rouen studied Monsanto’s 90-day feeding trials data of insecticide producing Mon 810, Mon 863 and Roundup® herbicide absorbing NK 603 varieties of GM maize.

The data “clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system,” reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.

Although different levels of adverse impact on vital organs were noticed between the three GMOs, the 2009 research shows specific effects associated with consumption of each GMO, differentiated by sex and dose.

Their December 2009 study appears in the International Journal of Biological Sciences (IJBS). This latest study conforms with a 2007 analysis by CRIIGEN on Mon 863, published in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, using the same data.

Monsanto rejected the 2007 conclusions, stating: “The analyses conducted by these authors are not consistent with what has been traditionally accepted for use by regulatory toxicologists for analysis of rat toxicology data.”1

In an email to me, Séralini explained that their study goes beyond Monsanto’s analysis by exploring the sex-differentiated health effects on mammals, which Doull, et al. ignored:

“Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data.”

Other problems with Monsanto’s conclusions

When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.

Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests “lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases,” wrote Seralini et al. in their Doull rebuttal.2

Further, Monsanto’s analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, “In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic non-GM equivalent.”

The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.

They have called for “an immediate ban on the import and cultivation of these GMOs and strongly recommend additional long-term (up to two years) and multi-generational animal feeding studies on at least three species to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods.”

Human health, of course, is of primary import to us, but ecological effects are also in play. Ninety-nine percent of GMO crops either tolerate or produce insecticide. This may be the reason we see bee colony collapse disorder and massive butterfly deaths. If GMOs are wiping out Earth’s pollinators, they are far more disastrous than the threat they pose to humans and other mammals.

Further Reading

Health Risks of GM Foods, Jeffrey M. Smith
Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops, Union of Concerned Scientists
Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years, The Organic Center

1. Also see Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA, et al. “Report of an expert panel on the reanalysis by Séralini et al. (2007) of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863).” Food Chem Toxicol. 2007; 45:2073-2085. [↩]
2. See “How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals.” IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443. [↩]

Rady Ananda began blogging in 2004. Her work has appeared in several online and print publications, including three books on election fraud. Most of her career was spent working for lawyers in research, investigations and as a paralegal. She graduated from The Ohio State University’s School of Agriculture with a B.S. in Natural Resources. Read other articles by Rady.

Author(s): Charles Benbrook, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist
The Organic Center

Genetically-engineered corn, soybeans, and cotton now account for the majority of acres planted to these three crops. A model was developed that utilizes official, U.S. Department of Agriculture pesticide use data to estimate the differences in the average pounds of pesticides applied on GE crop acres, compared to acres planted to conventional, non-GE varieties.

The basic finding is that compared to pesticide use in the absence of GE crops, farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides over the last 13 years as a result of planting GE seeds. This difference represents an average increase of about 0.25 pound for each acre planted to a GE trait.

GE crops are pushing pesticide use upward at a rapidly accelerating pace. In 2008, GE crop acres required over 26% more pounds of pesticides per acre than acres planted to conventional varieties. The report projects that this trend will continue as a result of the rapid spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds.

The full report is 69 pages, and is at link [link to www.organic-center.org]

resources for consumers
[link to www.organic-center.org]

more on the toxic effects from GMO maize etc...
[link to dailycensored.com]

the stuff is poison-even many animals of higher order are refusing their food...as many that are human should maybe follow-if it is tainted...what good is it?

make wise choices

A new thread today declares the cornflakes of death


as I have said


and will continue to say



the stuff KILLS


monSATAN KILLS and they have bought up most seed companies and vigorously pursued organic farmers or any farmers who find monsanto seed in their crops


they even had seed police that will creep into a farmers field to try and prove it-I SUGGEST THAT THEY WOULD CREEP IN TO RELEASE IT AS WELL KNOWING HOW LUCRATIVE IT COULD BE TO STEAL FARMLAND BY THE 1000S OF ACREAGE...

Open air pollination is HOW seeds pollinate with the help of bats, birds, moths, butterflies, and the DISAPPEARING BEES-


but these monsters are going all out to patent pigs or farm animals and to CONTAMINATE THE WORLD WITH THEIR STERILE SEED

Terminator seeds-they claim are illegal but their seeds/STERILE are combining with FERTILE seed and leaving it STERILE

They have many of their plants have "round up ready"(HELLO!?!??!!!!!) in the DNA of the plant-so it naturally kills EVERYTHING but monSATANs crap

nutricide is what it is and add Codex Alimentarius which is already affecting the purchases you can make in this country


best stop playing ostriches


the egg nest is about crushed....

the date off the first post on my thread

ShadowDancer
User ID: 101
3/11/2005
101 now who knows how many numbers I have seen here....


so far few are alarmed almost 5 years later-



sooner or later you will all get it-and I am speaking the truth so protect your DNA and health from the chaos they are trying to INVOKE in everything-your body is not excluded-nor is the control that IS what they want


Currently if cauliflower is not organic....it is TRANSGENIC


maybe they are attempting to turn many into vegetable humans...for consumption-maybe just turn many into SUBHUMAN-like the days of atlantis enslaving those less than human...

DNA IS being affected by these things-even the "round up" is deadly...as is the fluoride/rat poison/prozac...

Petro chemical, big Pharm...are greedy$$$$$$$$$$ and strive to rid the world of many....MILLIONS if possible.



Last Edited by ShadowDancer on 01/13/2010 09:33 AM

As far as I can tell those three branches of government have outlived their usefulness and can now safely be abolished.

The nacho cheese, as good as you think it tastes is nothing but poison. not one singe food product in it and it is served as a food product. It is 100% chemical not safe to consume. and yet the FDA called it ok.

You are what you eat at a genetic level. When you eat food it immediately begins to work on your DNA, thus the term you are what you eat. And you're corn.

I rarely eat and try to restrict eating garbage-better to go without than to eat that which impairs you(even at the molecular level) or your health

Avoid GMOs/GE/Terminator seeds/Sterile seeds/ almost all corn products are contaminated or able to sterilize



thx for comment 483973

Plastic nacho cheese flavor would be more correct.

Info about franken"foods"


Scientists have been and are currently introducing genetic material into organisms to alter, create and affect changes in living plants and animals. These radical changes scientists are developing create specific, desirable traits that might never evolve naturally and in my opinion are extremely dangerous.

Collectively called recombinant DNA technology, this practice changes the core genetic make-up of organisms. This genetic manipulation gives scientists the ability to create any trait that they wish, or suppress natural traits they don't want. There are several reasons this unnatural genetic manipulation may affect you.

1. It's usually not clear which consumables have been genetically manipulated.
2. You don't know the long term health effects of these genetically modified foods. Initial research has shown that short-term reactions can be severe.
3. Agro-chemical companies and the government are planning to charge farmers fees to grow their GMO crops, thereby negatively affecting the economy and environment.

Cultivated Genetically Modified Foods - From bacteria (E. coli) and fungus, fruits and vegetables to animals, genetic manipulation is becoming more and more common in our society. In the US market now, 60 to 70% of the processed foods are genetically modified. In 2006, United States GMO crops reached just shy of 135 million acres, with the total global area exceeding 250 million acres!¹

This is a short list of the genetically modified food crops that are grown in the US today:

* Sugar cane
* Sweet peppers
* Tomatoes
* Bananas
* Strawberries
* Soy bean



* Corn
* Potatoes
* Pineapples
* Cocoa beans
* Yellow squash
* Zucchini

And each week more are being created at an alarming rate!
[link to www.globalhealingcenter.com]




[link to www.gmo-compass.org]

Looked at from outside of commercial interests, perils of genetically modified foods and organisms are multi-dimensional.


They include the creation of new "transgenic" life forms - organisms that cross unnatural gene lines (such as tomato seed genes crossed with fish genes) - and that have unpredictable behavior or replicate themselves out of control in the wild.


This can happen, without warning, inside of our bodies creating an unpredictable chain reaction. A four-year study at the University of Jena in Germany conducted by Hans-Hinrich Kaatz revealed that bees ingesting pollen from transgenic rapeseed had bacteria in their gut with modified genes.


This is called a "horizontal gene transfer." Commonly found bacteria and microorganisms in the human gut help maintain a healthy intestinal flora. These, however, can be mutated.

Mutations may also be able to travel internally to other cells, tissue systems and organs throughout the human body. Not to be underestimated, the potential domino effect of internal and external genetic pollution can make the substance of science-fiction horror movies become terrible realities in the future. The same is true for the bacteria that maintain the health of our soil - and are vitally necessary for all forms of farming - in fact for human sustenance and survival.




[link to www.raw-wisdom.com]

early am bump






[link to letters.mobile.salon.com]

pig patent trying to totally wipe our farming industry out
[link to www.monsanto.com]
Since a Greenpeace publicity announcement in 2005, rumors have continued to circulate among activists and on the internet that Monsanto is trying to patent pig genes. When Monsanto owned the business, the company performed research work for a patent application related to a specific gene marker for a pig trait, but not for the trait itself, and also a patent application for a unique set of breeding processes, including an artificial insemination method. Monsanto never filed a patent application for a pig gene.

There’s been some rather wild speculation that these patent applications would prohibit pig farmers from breeding lines of pigs to which they had always freely bred. This isn’t true. Any claims issued from these patent applications would apply to only animals and their offspring which had been bred using marker technology covered by patent claims.

In any case, the sale to Newsham Genetics included any and all swine-related patents, patent applications, and all other intellectual property. We’re out of the pig business.

WHEN they get the food, seeds, and water all tied up-think of how agreeable many will suddenly become


If they accomplish this-it is GAME OVER for humanity i,ho

[link to www.saynotogmos.org]
Bill Lashmett watched as two or three cows were let into a feeding area at a time. The first trough they came to contained fifty pounds of shelled Bt corn. The cows sniffed it, withdrew, and walked over to the next trough, which contained fifty pounds of natural shelled corn. The cows finished it off. When they were gone and released from the pen, the next group came in and did the same thing. Lashmett said the same experiment was conducted on about six or seven farms in Northwest Iowa, in 1998 and again in 1999. Identical trials with hogs yielded the same results, also for two years in a row.

same as my cat food before my cat died...liver and kidney failure is constant throughout the studies

Even the cows perceive the problem...COWS do but humans do not???

"The reason why Monsanto can claim scientific soundness is that they are only answering the technical question, 'Can I move this gene and this characteristic from A to B?' They are not asking the questions that the current understanding of cell biology demands.

You can ask the technical question and get the answer you are looking for. You can take a gene from A and put it into B. We know that. But that's the only question we can answer with certainty. We now realize that there are a whole host of other questions.

"Genes exist in networks, interactive networks which have a logic of their own. The technology point of view does not deal with these networks. It simply addresses genes in isolation.

But genes do not exist in isolation. And the fact that the industry folks don't deal with these networks is what makes their science incomplete and dangerous.

If you send these new genetic structures out into the world, into hundreds of thousands of acres, you're going into the world with a premature application of a scientific principle.

"We're in a crisis position where we know the weakness of the genetic concept, but we don't know how to incorporate it into a new, more complete understanding.
Monsanto knows this. DuPont knows this. Novartis knows this. They all know what I know.

But they don't want to look at it because it's too complicated and it's going to cost too much to figure out. The number of questions, the number of possibilities for what happens to a cell, to the whole organism when you insert a foreign gene, are almost incalculable.

And the time it would take to assess the infinite possibilities that arise is beyond the capabilities of computers. But that's what you get when you're dealing with living systems."

[link to www.mindfully.org]

4. In 1989, I anticipated that there could be serious health risks to the British cattle and human populations from the practice of feeding cattle rendered meat from sheep and other animals. I published my warnings in Food Microbiology, 1990. In this article, I explained the nature of the malady that could result.

This was the first prediction of what eventually became the "mad cow" epidemic in the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, the govern

Had they properly assessed and acted upon the information I presented, much hardship would have been avoided, and the citizens would not have been subjected to as high a degree of risk.


(Because of the long latency period between exposure to the infectious agent and development of symptoms, there is a potential for widespread incidence of infection within the British public over the next forty years.)

5. It is my considered judgment that employing the process of recombinant DNA technology (genetic engineering) in producing new plant varieties entails a set of risks to the health of the consumer that are not ordinarily presented by traditional breeding techniques.

It is also my considered judgment that food products derived from such genetically engineered organisms are not generally recognized as safe on the basis of scientific procedures within the community of experts qualified to assess their safety. Paragraphs 6 through 10 explain why these new foods entail higher risks, and paragraphs 12 through 15 explain why none of them is generally recognized as safe.

6. Recombinant DNA technology is an inherently risky method for producing new foods. Its risks are in large part due to the complexity and interdependency of the parts of a living system, including its DNA.

Wedging foreign genetic material in an essentially random manner into an organism's genome necessarily causes some degree of disruption, and the disruption could be multi-faceted.

Further, whether singular or multi-faceted, the disruptive influence could well result in the presence of unexpected toxins or allergens or in the degradation of nutritional value.

Further, because of the complexity and interactivity of living systems -- and because of the extent to which our understanding of them is still quite deficient -- it is impossible to predict what specific problems could result in the case of any particular genetically engineered organism.

Prediction is even more difficult because even when dealing with one variety of a food-producing organism and one particular set of foreign genetic material, each insertion event is unique and can yield deeply different results.

7. The mechanics and risks of recombinant DNA technology are substantially different from those of natural methods of breeding. The latter are typically based on sexual reproduction between organisms of the same or closely related species.

Normally, entire sets of genes are paired in an orderly manner that maintains a fixed sequence of genetic information.

Every gene remains under the control of the organism's intricately balanced regulatory system.

The substances produced by the genes are those that have been within the species for a long stretch of biological time.

(In cases where mating is between closely related species, there is generally close correspondence between the substances produced by each.)

In contrast, biotechnicians take cells that are the result of normal reproduction and randomly splice a chunk of foreign genetic material into their genome.

This always disturbs the function of the region of native DNA into which the material wedges. Further, the foreign genes will usually not express within their new environment without a big artificial boost, which is supplied by fusing them to promoters from viruses or pathogenic bacteria.

As a result, these genes operate essentially as independent agents outside the host organism's regulatory system, which can lead to many deleterious imbalances.

Moreover, this unregulated activity produces substances that have never been in the host species before and are usually very different from any that have -- which could lead to problems even if production were at a low rather than a high level.

There are several other major differences between genetic engineering and traditional breeding, all of which could, as can the above-mentioned ones, induce the presence of unpredicted toxins or allergens or the degradation of nutritional value.
more at this link [link to www.saynotogmos.org]

Genetic engineering superviruses

The top news in the Jan. 13 issue of the New Scientist [3] was on a deadly virus created accidentally by researchers in Canberra Australia, who were trying to genetic engineer a contraceptive vaccine for mice [4]. They spliced a gene for the protein interleukin-4 (IL-4) into a relatively harmless mousepox virus in the hope that IL-4 would boost the immune system. When they injected the recombinant virus into mice belonging to a strain genetically resistant to mouse-pox virus, all the mice died. IL-4 suppressed both natural killer cells and cytotoxic lymphocytes responses to viral infection. The recombinant virus also killed 50% of the genetically resistant mice that were immunized against mouse-pox virus.

That is not all. The IL-4 gene, spliced into the vaccinia virus, was found to delay clearance of the virus from experimental animals, and to undermine the animals' anti-viral defence [5,6]. Vaccinia and mouse-pox both belong to the family that contains the human smallpox virus, raising the spectre of biological warfare. But the far greater danger lies in the unintentional creation of deadly pathogens in the course of apparently innocent genetic engineering experiments. Some scientists are already creating viruses deliberately in their laboratories, just to show it could be done, or in the course of cloning existing viruses [7]. And dangerous recombinant viruses and bacteria may also be inadvertently created in making vaccines against AIDS, as Yugoslav virologist Veljkovic has been warning since 1990 [8].

The New Scientist editorial [9] accompanying the report remarked that five years ago, when biomedical researchers were asked if genetic engineering could create "a virus or bacteria more virulent than nature's worst", they replied it would be "difficult if not impossible".

Some of us have been warning of 'accidents' such as this for at least the past six years. The basic tools of genetic engineering are bacteria, viruses and other genetic parasites that cause diseases and spread drug and antibiotic resistance. All that fall into the hands of genetic engineers are exploited. Genes from dangerous agents, including antibiotic resistance genes, are profusely mixed and matched, or recombined. As every geneticist should know, recombination of genetic material is one of the main routes to creating new strains of bacteria and viruses, some of which may be pathogens. (The other route is mutation.) Moreover, the predominant orientation of genetic engineering in the past two decades has been to design artificial GM constructs and vectors that cross species barriers and invade genomes, both of which will enhance horizontal gene transfer and further increase the chance for recombination.

We published a detailed review on the possible links between genetic engineering and the recent resurgence of drug and antibiotic resistant infectious diseases in 1998 [10].

We were by no means the first. Those who pioneered genetic engineering declared a moratorium in Asilomar in the mid- 1970s precisely because they were concerned about this dire possibility.

Unfortunately, overwhelming pressures for commercial exploitation cut the moratorium short. The scientists set up guidelines, based largely on assumptions that have all fallen by the wayside as the result of new scientific findings.

The two most important findings are the persistence of nucleic acids in all environments including the gut of animals, and the ease with which nucleic acids can get into all cells, especially those of human beings, as shown in so-called gene therapy research [11].

Instead of tightening the guidelines, our regulators have relaxed them. Transgenic wastes are being recycled as food, feed, fertilizer and landfills under the current EC Directive on Contained Use [12], and I would not be surprised if this applies also in the US.

There is a lesson to be learned from the 650 or more adverse reactions associated with gene therapy trials, including several deaths.

The same kinds of constructs are made, whether it is to genetic engineer human beings or plants and animals, and the same crude first generation technology is used.

Terminator crops at large

Last December, I was asked to act as expert witness in defence of citizens who have taken civil action against GM crops which they strongly believe to be a threat to health and biodiversity. Among the crops were GM oilseed rape varieties used to produce F1 hybrids belonging to AgrEvo UK (now Aventis).

At the time, I was also preparing a joint submission, with two other scientists, to the consultation document, "Guidance on Best Practice in the Design of GM Crops" put out by the UK Government's Advisory Committee for Release to the Environment (ACRE).

One of the main enabling technologies' for 'best practice' suggested in the document is precisely Agrevo's seed/pollen sterility system, for it prevents GM gene flow.

It soon dawned on us that the GM oilseed rape lines undergoing field trials in the UK are engineered with 'terminator technology' - so named by critics because it renders harvested seeds sterile - for no other reason than to enforce corporate patents on GM seeds.

Not only that, according to AgrEvo's application, similar crops produced by the company Plant Genetic Systems (PGS), a subsidiary of AgrEvo, have been undergoing field-trials in Europe since the beginning of 1990.

In the US, similar male sterile lines engineered with the 'terminator-gene', barnase have been tested at least as early as 1992.

There have been 115 field trials, the vast majority done without risk assessment, as the first environmental assessment came up with 'FONSI' - Finding of No Significant Impact. Crops modified for male sterility include rapeseed, corn, tobacco, cotton. Brassica oleracea, potato, poplar, chicory, petunia and lettuce.

The USDA commercial release data include 4 crops with barnase: a corn and a canola by AgrEvo, a chicory by Bejo, and another corn by Plant Genetic Systems.

Separately, the other genetic component in terminator crops, site-specific recombinase, has also been engineered into corn and papaya, and there have been 14 field trials between 1994 and 1998, with no environmental impact assessment at all.

There are more than 150 US patents listing barnase or site-specific recombination or both, the oldest, on site-specific recombinase, going back to 1987.

The first terminator patents that came to public attention were those jointly owned by US Department of Agriculture and Delta and Pine Land Company, which Monsanto had intended to acquire.

The novelty in those patents is the proposal to combine the terminator-gene system with the site-specific recombinase system, giving the company complete control over the hybrids as well as proprietary chemicals that control gene expression.

As a result of universal condemnation and rejection, Monsanto had announced it will not commercialise terminator crops, to everyone's relief. Research and development, however, have continued unabated. Everyone has assumed such crops only exist in theory, when they have been out there for more than 10 years.

It is no coincidence that simultaneous consultation went on in the United States on the USDA-Delta and Pine terminator patents.

The USDA has since committed itself to commercial development of the technology, and, like the UK ACRE, also argued in its favour because it could prevent GM gene flow.

But it cannot [24], because male sterile lines will be pollinated by non GM crops, and there is no way to prevent horizontal gene transfer.


On the contrary, the increased complication of the constructs may enhance horizontal gene transfer and recombination.

The genes and gene products themselves are also known to be harmful. The terminator-gene barnase kills cells by breaking down RNA, an intermediate in the expression of all genes.

The recombinase, in theory, breaks and rejoins DNA at specific sites, but is far from accurate and can scramble genomes.

A male transgenic mouse engineered with only one copy of Cre recombinase was 100% sterile, because the recombinase enzyme managed to scramble the genomes of both daughter spermatids when they are still connected by a cytoplasmic bridge [25].

The mouse genome does not even have the lox sites recognized by the Cre recombinase.

Terminator insects give wings to genome invaders

The US Department of Agriculture has approved field release of GM pink bollworms this summer, made with a mobile genetic element, piggyBac, already known to jump many species.

The element was first discovered in cell cultures of the cabbage looper, where it caused high mutations of the baculovirus infecting the cells, by jumping into the viral genome.

In experiments in silkworms, researchers already found evidence that the inserts were unstable, and had a tendency to move again from one generation to the next [26].

"These artificial transposons are already aggressive genome invaders, and putting them into insects is to give them wings, as well as sharp mouthparts for efficient delivery to all plants and animals...

The predictable result is rampant horizontal gene transfer and recombination across species barriers. The unpredictable unknown is what kinds of new deadly viruses might be generated, and how many new cases of insertion mutagenesis and carcinogenesis they may bring." [27].


[link to www.i-sis.org.uk]




Monsanto has surreptitiously withdrawn its high lysine GM maize LY038 for safety reasons under a shroud of secrecy. There are serious health hazards inherent to the technology, which apply to every GMO. In addition each GMO carries unique hazards.

None of these has been addressed adequately so far, and there is now a stack of evidence indicating that GM food and feed are unsafe.

GM crops have had adverse impacts on farmers especially those in developing countries. The high costs of GM seeds and poor harvests led to spiralling debts and deaths. Between 1997 and 2007, the Indian government recorded nearly 200 000 farmer suicides, more than half due to Bt cotton introduced since 2002.

GMOs are bad for health and the environment; they will severely compromise global food security and exacerbate global warming. Those foisting GM crops on farmers in developing countries are committing a crime against humanity.

Genetic engineering is the epitome of mechanistic biology, part and parcel of the dominant model of the world as machine that was becoming obsolete since the turn of the last century when the new science of the organism emerged with quantum theory.

The dominant neo-liberal economy of infinite unsustainable growth has brought the earth to the brink of irreversible climate catastrophe. It is driven by competition, profligate dissipation and waste.

In contrast, nature’s circular economy (thermodynamics) of balanced sustainable growth is based on reciprocity and cooperation, which enables energy and material resources to be recycles while minimizing waste and dissipation.

Nature’s economy applies most clearly to the highly productive agro-ecology systems innovated by farmers, or perfected over millennia.

We have all the appropriate science and technologies, abundant human creativity, and local initiatives that will enable us to exit the multiple crises of food, fuel and finance. The major stumbling block is our political leaders’ overwhelming adherence to the obsolete mechanistic model.

The complete text of this lecture with references and richly illustrated power point presentation are available for download. at link
[link to www.i-sis.org.uk]

Third, the introduction of genes for a new enzymatic pathway into plants could lead to the synthesis of totally novel or unexpected products via the interaction with endogenous pathways. Some of the products could be toxic. For example, retinoic acid (vitamin A) and derivatives of retinoic acid are used in many signaling events that control mammalian development. Since these compounds are soluble and work at ultralow concentrations, a GM plant making vitamin A may also produce retinoic acid derivatives which act as agonists or antagonists in these pathways, resulting in abnormal embryonic development.

Given the fact that genetically modified plants are going to make proteins in different amounts and perhaps totally new proteins than their parental species, what are the potential outcomes? A worst case scenario could be that an introduced bacterial toxin is modified to make it toxic to humans. Direct toxicity may be rapidly detected once the product enters the marketplace, but carcinogenic activity or toxicity caused by interaction with other foods would take decades to detect, if ever. The same outcomes would be predicted for the production of toxins or carcinogens via indirect changes in gene expression.

Finally, if the above problems are real, what can be done to address these concerns? The issue of secondary modification could be addressed by continual monitoring of the introduced gene product by mass spectroscopy. The problem is that some secondary modifications, like phosphorylation or sulfation can be lost during purification. However, the best, and to me the only reasonable solution, is to require all genetically engineered plant products for human consumption be tested for toxicity and carcinogenicity before they are marketed. These safety criteria are required for many chemicals and all drugs, and the magnitude of harm caused by a widely consumed toxic food would be much greater than that of any single drug.

Professor David Schubert
Cellular Neurobiology Lab
The Salk Institute for Biological Studies
P.O. Box 85800
San Diego, CA 92186-5800
USA
Phone: (001) (858) 453-4100

anyone up to call and confirm the info??? I doubt it as those ones know they are wrong and the info is correct...

No one up to debate the Neurobiologist??? No takers, no one to call him paranoid???


Maybe not but for those on board with more organic foods:
[link to www.organicvalley.coop]


pigweed problems for cotton farmers


time to go natural-BACK TO HEMP and tell them to stuff their "round up ready" scam plan to steal the worlds food and leave us all sterilized, sick or dying

[link to southeastfarmpress.com]


serves monSATAN their just desserts
About 94 percent of Georgia's 1.21 million acres of cotton this year is Roundup Ready. “Roundup has been our most effective tool to manage this weed in Roundup Ready crops,” he says. “Most alternative control options are much less effective than Roundup in controlling a normal population of Palmer amaranth.”

Each year, some Georgia farmers have to deal with some Palmer amaranth plants that continue to grow after a spray with Roundup. This usually happens due to weather conditions or improper spraying.

Specialists with the UGA College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences last fall suspected some Palmer amaranth weeds in central Georgia had resistance to Roundup. Many field and greenhouse trials and heritability studies now show that the Palmer amaranth population in central Georgia has true resistance, he says.

Scientists with Monsanto, registrant of Roundup Ready, are providing technical expertise and other help to address the problem, Culpepper says.

Farmers need to watch their fields carefully this year and remove any Palmer amaranth not hurt after a spray with Roundup, he says. This could help keep resistant plants from spreading. or NOT

Last Edited by ShadowDancer on 01/14/2010 03:43 AM

[link to solari.com]

greedy monSATAN will PAY dearly for these abominable sterile seeds-their greed has outrun their reason


Just as the doctors used their shotun approach for antibiotics succumbing to the insurance ogres refusing to do cultures-they created super bugs...Likewise, monSATAN has created super weed-like a kudzu-playing russian roulette with our food supplies and ability to sustain it-with their grandiose promises they have been PROVEN TO BE LYING

several worthy sources:
1. Union of Concerned Scientists, "Foods on the Market: Genetically engineered crops allowed in the US food supply," revised June 2001, at www.ucsusa.org


2. For a critical analysis of biopolymer production from an industry insider, see T. U. Gerngross, "Can biotechnology move us toward a sustainable society?" Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 17, June 1999, pp. 541-3.


3. For a critical analysis of biopolymer production from an industry insider, see T. U. Gerngross, "Can biotechnology move us toward a sustainable society?" Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 17, June 1999, pp. 541-3.


4. "Biopharma technologies converge downstream," Chemical and Engineering News, July 31, 2000, p. 18; also "Genetic engineering is producing designer eggs that can fit into new niche markets and bring in bigger profit margins," Feedstuffs Vol. 71, No. 3, January 18, 1999, p. 18.


5. P. M. Doran, "Foreign protein production in plant tissue cultures," Current Opinion in Biotechnology, Vol. 11, 2000, pp. 199-204.


6. W. Harr, "Transgenic tobacco: Producing human protein from tobacco could open new markets for growers," Farm Progress, November 1998, available at www.croptech.com/transgenic%20tobacco%20FP%2011%2098.htm


7. J. K-C. Ma, "Genes, greens and vaccines," Nature Biotechnology, November 2000, p. 1142


8. For a comprehensive review of these effects and their scientific documentation, see Ricarda Steinbrecher, "Ecological Consequences of Genetic Engineering," in Brian Tokar, ed., Redesigning Life? The Worldwide Challenge to Genetic Engineering, London: Zed Books, 2001, pp. 75-102.


9. G. Giddings, et al., 2000, op. cit.


10. S. Vacek, "Hybrids of Ag Companies Create New Grain Paradigm," at
www.sarahvacek.com/media/Amvalue-added.htm


11. D. Saxena, et al., "Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt corn," Nature, Vol. 402, 1999, p. 480.


12. E. E. Hood and J. M. Jilka, "Plant-based production of xenogenic proteins," ProdiGene, Inc., 1999, at www.prodigene.com/publications/99-10-01_plant_based_2.html


13. "Alternative Agriculture: Molecular Approaches to Produce Recombinant Proteins and to Isolate Novel Compounds," June 8, 1999.


14. W. Harr, 1998, op. cit.


15. P. M. Doran, 2000, op. cit.


16. J.K-C. Ma, 2000, op. cit.; H. S. Mason and C. J. Arntzen, "Transgenic plants as vaccine production systems," CropTech 2000; also Joe Cummins, "Edible Vaccines," Third World Resurgence, No. 127/128, March/April 2001, pp. 36-37.


17. J. K-C. Ma, ibid.


18. Utah State University Biotechnology Center, "Biotechnology in the News: Plants as Factories," March 3, 1999, at www.usu.edu/~biotech/extnews/extnew25.html


19. StaufferSeeds Product Descriptions, at www.staufferseeds.com/0404prod.htm


20. "Sigma Chemical Co. and ProdiGene Inc. Launch First Protein Products from Transgenic Plants," ProdiGene, Inc. press release, June 10, 1997, at www.prodigene.com/news_releases/97-06-10_Sigma.html; J. Olson, "Rural Pharmaceutical Grower Inc.," Farm Industry News, Mid-March 2000, at www.staufferseeds.com/0702rural.htm; see also E. E. Hood, et al., "Molecular farming of industrial proteins from transgenic maize," in F. Shahidi, et al., eds., Chemicals via Higher Plant Bioengineering, New York: Plenum Publishers, 1999, pp. 127-147.


21. L. McGraw, "Avidin: An Egg-Citing Insecticidal Protein in Corn," Agricultural Research, August 2000, at www.ars.usda.gov/


22. "Avidin: Chicken Egg White," in Calzyme Laboratories catalog, at
www.calzyme.com/catalog/avidin.html; "Avidin," in Worthington Biochemicals catalog, at www.worthington-biochem.com/manual/A/AV.html


23. "Glucuronidase, Beta," in Worthington Biochemicals catalog, at
www.worthington-biochem.com/priceList/G/GlucuronidaseB.html; Norbert Hoffmann, "The Ubiquitous Co-Enzyme UDPGlucuronic Acid," at www.kombu.de/glucuron.htm


24. "Glucuronidase, Beta," in Worthington Biochemicals catalog, at
www.worthington-biochem.com/priceList/G/GlucuronidaseB.html; Norbert Hoffmann, "The Ubiquitous Co-Enzyme UDPGlucuronic Acid," at www.kombu.de/glucuron.htm


25. C. Cramer, "Plant Biotechnology and Molecular 'Pharming'," Virginia Technical University, 1998, at www.biotech.vt.edu/outreach/biotech-times/5_98/pharming.html
​


26. C. Potera, "Harvesting Secretory Monoclonal Antibodies from Plants," American Society for Microbiology, 1999.


27. "A New Crop of Transgenic Plant Technologies: Agbiotech Firms Adopt Collaborative Strategies for Success," Genetic Engineering News, Vol. 20, No. 4, February 15, 2000.


28. Utah State University Biotechnology Center, 1999, op. cit.


29. J. Olson, "Seed companies improve the nutritional value of feed corn," Farm Industry News, April 1999, at www.staufferseeds.com/0704feed.htm


30. op. cit. 24.


31. "Planet Biotechnology Begins U.S. Clinical Trial for Treatment Against Cause of Tooth Decay," PR Newswire, November 3, 1998


32. "Planet Biotechnology Inc., "Published Study Shows Positive Results for Vaccine Against Cause of Tooth Decay," Press release, April 28, 1998, at www8.techmall.com/techdocs/TS980428-8.html


SOME not all.

Last Edited by ShadowDancer on 01/14/2010 03:55 AM

Now everyone can be sterile easily with the new GM corn...no need for expensive condoms and BC pills with side effects

GMO/GE corn will fix you for life...

GM Corn Set To Stop Man Spreading His Seed

Robin McKie, science editor
The Observer
September 9, 2001

Scientists have created the ultimate GM crop: contraceptive corn. Waiving fields of maize may one day save the world from overpopulation. The pregnancy prevention plants are the handiwork of the San Diego biotechnology company Epicyte, where researchers have discovered a rare class of human antibodies that attack sperm.

By isolating the genes that regulate the manufacture of these antibodies, and by putting them in corn plants, the company has created tiny horticultural factories that make contraceptives.

'We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies,' said Epicyte president Mitch Hein.

'We have also created corn plants that make antibodies against the herpes virus, so we should be able to make a plant-based jelly that not only prevents pregnancy but also blocks the spread of sexual disease.'

Contraceptive corn is based on research on the rare condition, immune infertility, in which a woman makes antibodies that attack sperm.

'Essentially, the antibodies are attracted to surface receptors on the sperm,' said Hein. 'They latch on and make each sperm so heavy it cannot move forward. It just shakes about as if it was doing the lambada.'

Normally, biologists use bacteria to grow human proteins. However, Epicyte decided to use corn because plants have cellular structures that are much more like those of humans, making them easier to manipulate.

The company, which says it will not grow the maize near other crops, says it plans to launch clinical trials of the corn in a few months.

( Note from Joe Cummins on this article: Starlink like spread of such genes would probably go beyond saving the world from over population to saving the world from human population. Such researchers are toying with folly and being blindly supported by incompetent regulators.

In Ontario in my county plants were grown in the field containing human interleukine genes. Such genes recombine to create super viruses with astonishing virulence. The local field tests ignored spread of the product and genes in surface and groundwater by wounded and decaying plant material. The antibody killing sperm above is bound to pollute surface and groundwater and the groundwater pollutant is safe from microbial destruction and ready for the farm well.)

Proving what I have been saying and many trying to deny or IGNORE to their own demise or peril


This is not a joke but very serious


when cauliflower and your DNA are exchanging codons with each other it does not bode well to stay HUman.











more proof will accumulate and more will under go genetic changes and coupled with tech like the mm or RF or Terahertz scanners-staying HUman will become much more difficult-


It is not an enhancement but de-evolution

and I do not believe in Darwin and his caveman theories-not at all-but genetics are what they are and can be directed-

Scary!

Can I ask when the implementation of Codex Alimentarius will be reality? Is it on hold for now?

I read before that it was supposed to go into effect at New Years but that never happened? What was the reason?

Hello? Can i get a reply? Anyone know?