Genetically Modified

Coming in 2012: Genetically modified front lawns and the mass spraying of neighborhoods and playgrounds with RoundUp

2011-07-18T03:55:00.000-07:00

Sunday, July 17, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033022_Scotts_Miracle-Gro_GMO_seeds.html#ixzz1SSA8JmmO

(NaturalNews) Thanks to a recent admission by the USDA that it does not have the regulatory framework to even regulate GMOs, the world of biotech is set to unleash a tidal wave of genetically modified seeds upon the United States. This is the upshot of Scotts Miracle-Gro challenging the USDA over its GMO grass seeds, to which the USDA threw in the towel and essentially announced it can't technically regulate many GMOs at all.

Welcome to the new world order of GMO self regulation, where the companies that produce the GMO seeds now get to regulate their own behavior! (http://motherjones.com/tom-philpott...)

Scotts Miracle-Gro is now moving full speed ahead on its GMO yard grass product, which could theoretically be introduced into the marketplace as early as 2012. This is a home consumer yard grass seed which, of course, resists glyphosate (RoundUp), and its introduction into the marketplace would almost certainly result in millions of homeowners across America planting these seeds in their yard and then spraying RoundUp across their entire lawn as a "treatment" for eliminating weeds.

RoundUp, in other words, may be coming soon to a neighborhood near you. And it's not just the lawns, either: This combination of Scotts GMO grass and RoundUp chemicals could be used on playgrounds, schoolyards, community centers and parks. Once this goes into production, there will be virtually no place your family can go in America that isn't contaminated with genetically modified grass seeds and toxic glyphosate chemicals.

A whole new wave of superweeds

The upshot of all this is not merely the astonishing lack of regulation now being admitted by the USDA (which always sided with the biotech industry anyway, so what's new?), but the cause-and-effect results we may soon see. We could be looking at a wave of superweeds spreading across America.

These superweeds will be the baddest, toughest and most chemically-resistant weeds our world has ever seen. They develop as mutant derivatives of the mass spraying of RoundUp chemicals across lawns. In much the same way that superbugs develop in the presence of widespread antibiotics abuse, superweeds, develop in the presence of widespread glyphosate abuse (http://www.businessinsider.com/gene...).

And of course once these superweeds take over America's sidewalks, driveways and lawns, there will be cries for newer, stronger chemical products to kill those superweeds, too. And who will come to the rescue? Monsanto, of course... the very same company that produces RoundUp and thereby contributed to the problem in the first place.

Let the boycott of Scott's Miracle Grow begin!

Join NaturalNews in boycotting Scotts products beginning today. We will maintain this boycott until Scotts announces it will no longer pursue GMO seeds. Remember: GMO Kentucky bluegrass will cross-pollinate with other grasses in the wild, leading to widespread GMO contamination of lawns across our nation!

Join us in sending complaints to Scotts about their pursuit of GMOs. Click here to send Scotts an email.

Then call them by phone at 888-270-3714 (during normal business hours). When you call, let them know you are strongly opposed to their pursuit of GMO Kentucky bluegrass and that you will stop buying all Scotts / Miracle-Gro products from here forward unless Scotts announces it will back away from GMOs.

You may also mail them a letter by sending it to:
Scotts Help Center
14111 Scottslawn Rd.
Marysville, OH 43041

Why this matters

Please join us in this protest against Scotts Miracle-Gro. And to once again summarize why this action is important, remember these simple truths:

• Unleashing genetically modified Kentucky bluegrass in America, to be used across neighborhood lawns and playgrounds, will result in the mass genetic contamination of other types of grasses.

• There is absolutely no scientific evidence showing GMO Kentucky bluegrass to be safe for neighborhoods or the environment. The USDA simply refuses to regulate it.

• Scotts Miracle-Gro is extremely irresponsible in pursuing such a product, and the company could be guilty of crimes against nature if it unleashes these products into the wild.

• If this GMO grass is planted on lawns across America, it will spur the widespread use of Roundup herbicide (made by Monsanto), which will devastate the soils and contaminate the streams and rivers downstream. We are talking about potentially dumping tens of millions of gallons of RoundUp into the environment while boosting the profits of Monsanto!

• If Scotts Miracle-Gro pursues this genetically modified lawn seed, it will instantly place itself on the list of the top 10 most evil companies in North America, earning it widespread criticism, condemnation and boycotts from consumers (who, for the most part, have a positive image of Scott's right now). Many gardeners who currently use Scotts Miracle-Gro products will boycott them instead. Gardeners love the natural world, remember. And they do not like to see companies unleashing GMOs across that natural world.

• NaturalNews will continue to track and publicize Scotts' actions regarding GMO grass seed, and if the company insists in introducing this product, we will work with people like Jeffrey Smith (www.ResponsibleTechnology.org) to organize massive protests against such irresponsible business practices.

Spread the word. Boycott Scotts Miracle-Gro. This company is on the verge of releasing GMO seeds across out front lawns and neighborhoods -- a move that would soon be followed by the mass-spraying of RoundUp pesticides by all your ignorant neighbors who know nothing of the dangers of GMOs and glyphosate.

Please share this story and help get the word out. Scotts Miracle-Gro must go. Just Say No to GMOs

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033022_Scotts_Miracle-Gro_GMO_seeds.html#ixzz1SSAHebrR

Wait, Did the USDA Just Deregulate All New Genetically Modified Crops?

2011-07-12T15:49:00.000-07:00

By Tom Philpott
Mother Jones, July 8, 2011
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_23586.cfm

It's a hoary bureaucratic trick, making a controversial announcement on the Friday afternoon before a long weekend, when most people are daydreaming about what beer to buy on the way home from work, or are checking movie times online. But that's precisely what the US Department of Agriculture pulled last Friday.

In an innocuous-sounding press release titled "USDA Responds to Regulation Requests Regarding Kentucky Bluegrass," agency officials announced their decision not to regulate a "Roundup Ready" strain of Kentucky bluegrass-that is, a strain genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate, Monsanto's widely used herbicide, which we know as Roundup. The maker of the novel grass seed, Scotts Miracle Gro, is now free to sell it far and wide. So you'll no doubt be seeing Roundup Ready bluegrass blanketing lawns and golf courses near you-and watching anal neighbors and groundskeepers literally dousing the grass in weed killer without fear of harming a single precious blade.

Which is worrisome enough. But even more worrisome is the way this particular product was approved. According to Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Food and Environment Program, the documents released by the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) along with the announcement portend a major change in how the feds will deal with genetically modified crops.

Notably, given the already-lax regulatory regime governing GMOs (genetically modified organisms, click here for a primer), APHIS seems to be ramping down oversight to the point where it is essentially meaningless. The new regime corresponding with the bluegrass announcement would "drastically weaken USDA's regulation," Gurian-Sherman told me. "This is perhaps the most serious change in US regs for [genetically modified] crops for many years."

>>> Read the Full Article
http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/07/usda-deregulate-roundup-gmo-tom-philpott?page=1

British government squanders millions conducting secret GM potato trials while non-GM variety already performs spectacularly

2011-07-08T07:36:00.000-07:00

Friday, July 08, 2011 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032933_GM_potatoes_crop_yields.html#ixzz1RWZz0e8f

(NaturalNews) For the past ten years, the British government has been quietly subsidizing research aimed at developing a genetically-modified (GM) potato resistant to blight, the fungal disease responsible for causing the infamous Irish potato famine.

According to Indymedia UK, Sainsbury Laboratory, the group tasked with development, has already spent roughly 1.7 million pounds ($2.7 million) worth of public funds to develop the GM potato, despite the fact that a natural blight-resistant variety has already been successfully bred and in use for the past three years.

Unlike in the US where GM crops are widely cultivated, GM crops have never been commercially grown in the UK. Widespread public opposition to their introduction back in 1997, as well as continued opposition, has kept them largely out of food and off the land. And yet reports explains that the GM potato research being conducted by Sainsbury -- with public funding -- is so secretive that nobody knows for sure whether or not any open-air trials of test GM potatoes have taken place.

Meanwhile, a small Welsh research group three years ago successful bred a natural, non-GM potato variety with natural resistance to blight -- and that potato variety has been in cultivation ever since that time. As opposed to GM crops, this blight-resistant potato -- which is now available in more than six different varieties -- is safe for the environment, safe for human consumption, and it does not require the yearly repurchasing of terminator seeds and expensive chemical pesticides in order to grow.

But the British government continues to pour money into useless endeavors to develop a GM variety, which has prompted Stop GM, a UK group devoted to ending the spread of GMOs, to take action. The group is holding an event on July 23 to speak out against the abuse of public funds by the UK government, and it needs your help to make it a success. Part of this event will include the dropping off of a trailer full of safe, non-GM, blight-resistant potatoes at the Sainsbury research center where the GM potato trials are taking place.

To learn more about how you can help fight GMOs in the UK, visit:
http://www.stopgm.org.uk/take-action.html

Sources for this story include:
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/06/480991.html

The 10 Freakiest Things About Frankenfish

2011-06-14T11:44:00.000-07:00

http://www.organicconsumers.org/gelink.cfm

Alert

Stop Frankenfish!

#10 - According to the FDA, Frankenfish Aren't Animals, They're "Animal Drugs"
#9 - The GMO Part of the GMO Salmon Isn't Being Safety Tested
#8 - Frankenfish DNA Could Change the Bacteria of Your Gut
#7 - If It Swims Like Salmon, FDA Says Frankenfish Is Safe to Eat
#6 - The Frankenfish Company Tests Its Own Product's Safety
#5 - Frankenfish Is More Carcinogenic
#4 - Frankenfish Is Less Nutritious
#3 - Frankenfish Is More Allergenic
#2 - GMOs Can Mess a Fish Up!
And, the freakiest thing about all of this is ...
#1 - The Government Wants More Transgenic Fish and Less Wild Fish

Peru Approves 10 Year Ban on GM Crops

2011-06-14T11:36:00.000-07:00

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_23420.cfm
By Thomas Wittman
Eco Farm, June 7, 2011
PLENARY SESSION OF THE CONGRESS APPROVED MORATORIUM OF TEN YEARS FOR THE
ENTRANCE OF TRANSGENIC
via GENET-news

SOURCE: Andian, Peru

AUTHOR: Machine translation of the Spanish text

URL: http://www.andina.com.pe/Espanol/Noticia.aspx?id=RT87MrHPjyo=

DATE: 07.06.2011

SUMMARY: "The Plenary Session of the Congress, approved the opinion of the law
project that declares a moratorium of ten years that prevents the import of
Genetically Modified Organisms on the national territory for cultivation,
breeding or of any transgenic production."

Lima, jun. 07 (ANDINA). The Plenary Session of the Congress, approved the
opinion of the law project that declares a moratorium of ten years that prevents
the import of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) on the national territory for
cultivation, breeding or of any transgenic production. It was sustained by the
president of the Agrarian Commission, Aníbal Huerta (PAP), who declared that in
the face of the danger that can arise from the use of the biotechnology a
moratorium must be approved to take care of our biodiversity. It received the
endorsement of congressmen Elizabeth Leon (BPCD), Franklin Sanchez (PAP),
Mauritius Mulder (PAP), Oswaldo Luizar (BPCD), Jorge of Castillo (PAP), Oswaldo
de la Cruz (GPF), Luis Wilson (PAP), Yonhy Lescano (AP), Aldo Estrada (UPP),
Hilda Guevara (PAP), Gloria Branches (BPDC) and Maria Sumire (GPN). From
different viewpoints, they agreed in the defense of the national biodiversity
due to our greater climatic diversity, but they differed with regard
to the moratorium. Congressman Alejandro Rebaza (PAP), made some precisions to
the opinion and, like the colleagues Sanchez and Estrada, proposed a technical
commission of prevention and investigation that issues a report in two years.
The legislators Raul Castro (UN) and Juan Carlos Eguren (UN) expressed
themselves against the moratorium, because they considered that already we
consumed transgenic products and that the doors to biotechnology could not be
closed because the transgenic production, that is necessary for covering the
food needs, has 70% more sale than the organic production. The parliamentarian
José Saldaña (AN) remembered that the biologists have asked to file the project
in debate because already exists a law on the matter, whereas legislator Yaneth
Cajahuanca (GPN) suggested to leave the project for the next session. On the
other hand, congressmen Luis Giampietri (PAP) and Édgard Núñez (PAP) said that
it is not possible to close the doors to science and that it
is possible to decided on a prudential moratorium of five years. Finally, the
president of the Commission of Andean Towns, Washington Zeballos (BPCD),
informed on the modifications to the opinion and that the term of the moratorium
would have to be of ten years. The proposal was approved by 56 votes to favor,
zero against and two abstentions and exonerated from second voting by 50 votes
to favor, four against and three abstentions. The approved norm establishes a
moratorium of ten years, determines as competent authority of the subject to the
Ministry of the Environemnt and creates a Technical Commission of Evaluation and
Prevention of Risks of Use of GMOs, that in two years will have to issue a
report on the subject.

The Genetic Engineering Blog is produced by Thomas Wittman and EcoFarm, and supported by a generous donation from the Newman's Own Foundation.

Study Found Toxin from GM Crops is Showing up in Human Blood

2011-06-14T09:05:00.000-07:00

http://transitionnow.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/study-found-toxin-from-gm-crops-is-showing-up-in-human-blood/

Environment Care, Nutrition and Prevention

Study Found Toxin from GM Crops is Showing up in Human Blood

Posted by Transition Now ⋅ June 5, 2011 ⋅ Leave a Comment

Posted By Dr. Mercola | May 31 2011 |

Read the original article here

A new study is causing fresh doubts about the safety of genetically modified crops. The research found Bt toxin, which is present in many GM crops, in human blood.
Bt toxin makes crops toxic to pests, but it has been claimed that the toxin poses no danger to the environment and human health; the argument was that the protein breaks down in the human gut. But the presence of the toxin in human blood shows that this does not happen.
India Today reports:
“Scientists … have detected the insecticidal protein … circulating in the blood of pregnant as well as non-pregnant women. They have also detected the toxin in fetal blood, implying it could pass on to the next generation.”

Cry1Ab, a specific type of Bt toxin from genetically modified (GM) crops, has for the first time been detected in human and fetal blood samples. It appears the toxin is quite prevalent, as upon testing 69 pregnant and non-pregnant women who were eating a typical Canadian diet (which included foods such as GM soy, corn and potatoes), researchers found Bt toxin in:

93 percent of maternal blood samples
80 percent of fetal blood samples
69 percent of non-pregnant women blood samples

Writing in the journal Reproductive Toxicology, the researchers noted:
“This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating PAGMF [pesticides associated with genetically modified foods] in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities.”
This GM insecticide toxin is already showing up in fetal blood, which means it could have an untold impact on future generations.

Bt Toxin is a Built-In Pesticide

Upwards of 85 percent of U.S. corn crops contain a special gene added that allows them to produce an insecticide. This way, when bugs attempt to eat the corn they’re killed right away (specifically their stomach is split open) because the plant contains an invisible, built-in pesticide shield.
The particular gene added to most corn crops is a type of Bt-toxin — produced from Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria. Genetic engineers remove the gene that produces the Bt in bacteria and insert it into the DNA of corn (and cotton) plants.
They claim that Bt-toxin is quickly destroyed in human stomachs — and even if it survived, it won’t cause reactions in humans or mammals …
But studies are now showing that this is not the case, as Bt toxin is readily passing into the human bloodstream and animal studies have already shown that Bt-toxin does cause health effects in animals, including potentially humans. As Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, wrote:
“Mice fed natural Bt-toxin showed significant immune responses and caused them to become sensitive to other formerly harmless compounds. This suggests that Bt-toxin might make a person allergic to a wide range of substances.
Farm workers and others have also had reactions to natural Bt-toxin, and authorities acknowledge that “People with compromised immune systems or preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt.”
In fact, when natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions—mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms. Six people had to go to the emergency room.
… The Bt-toxin produced in the GM plants is probably more dangerous than in its natural spray form. In the plants, the toxin is about 3,000-5,000 times more concentrated than the spray, it doesn’t wash off the plants like the spray does, nd it is designed to be more toxic than the natural version.
In fact, the GM toxin has properties of known allergens and fails all three GM allergy tests recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others.”

GM Insecticide Poisons Also Showing Up in Waterways

Given that Bt toxin has now been confirmed in the human bloodstream, it should come as no surprise that it has also infiltrated the environment. According to one study, 50 of the 217 streams, ditches and drains near cornfields that researchers tested were found to contain Cry1Ab above six nanograms per liter.
The protein is getting into the waterways via corn stalks, leaves, husks and cobs that blow into the water — a phenomenon that’s incredibly common since farmers often leave such material in fields to help minimize soil erosion.
Eighty-six percent of the streams tested contained various corn material with the potential to transmit Bt-toxin into the water. Further, because the study was conducted six months after crops were harvested, it indicates that the GM protein lingers in the environment. Now that this GM toxin is showing up in waterways, it has the potential to devastate aquatic life and continue to spread, uncontrolled and unrestricted, across the entire United States and world.

GM Foods May be Leaving GM Proteins in Your Body

In case it’s not clear, I want to reiterate that this new study in Reproductive Technology has confirmed that if you eat GM foods that contain the insecticidal Bt toxin, it appears likely that it will be transferred to your bloodstream.
As I mentioned earlier, as of right now about 85 percent of the corn grown in the United States is genetically engineered to either produce an insecticide, or to survive the application of herbicide. And about 91-93 percent of all soybeans are genetically engineered to survive massive doses of Roundup herbicide.
What this means is that nearly ALL foods you buy that contain either corn or soy, in any form, will contain GM components unless it’s certified organic by the USDA.
There’s very convincing evidence that eating these genetically modified foods spells nothing but trouble for your health. As Smith discusses in this interview, scientists have discovered a number of health problems related to genetically modified foods in general, however these studies have been repeatedly ignored by both the European Food Safety Authority and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
In the only human feeding study ever published on genetically modified foods, seven volunteers ate Roundup-ready soybeans. These are soybeans that have herbicide-resistant genes inserted into them in order to survive being sprayed with otherwise deadly doses of Roundup herbicide.
In three of the seven volunteers, the gene inserted into the soy transferred into the DNA of their intestinal bacteria, and continued to function long after they stopped eating the GM soy.
However, the GM-friendly UK government, who funded the study, chose not to fund any follow up research to see if GM corn — which contains the BT toxin — might also transfer and continue to create insecticide inside your intestines. Now the evidence has come through nonetheless, as the study in Reproductive Technology shows that it does transfer, at least to your bloodstream (and the bloodstream of your baby if you’re pregnant).
This is extremely concerning, as in this interview Smith also mentions an Italian study where they fed BT corn to mice. As a result, the mice expressed a wide variety of immune responses commonly associated with diseases such as:

Rheumatoid arthritis	Inflammatory bowel disease	Osteoporosis
Atherosclerosis	Various types of cancer	Allergies
Lou Gehrig’s disease

I’ve gone on record saying that due to the amount of GM crops now grown in the United States, EVERY processed food you encounter at your local supermarket that does not bear the “USDA Organic” label is filled with GM components. So you’re eating GM foods, and you have been for the last decade, whether you knew it or not. You can thank Congress for this, and the USDA and Monsanto. What ultimate impact these GM foods will have on your health is still unknown, but increased disease, infertility and birth defects appear to be on the top of the list of most likely side effects.

How to Say “No” to GMOs

If you don’t already have a copy of the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, please print one out and refer to it often. It can help you identify and avoid foods with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Also remember to look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content.
You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
If you’re feeling more ambitious, you can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure from the Institute of Responsible Technology in bulk and give it to your family and friends. When possible, buy your fresh produce and meat from local farmers who have committed to using non-GM seeds and avoid non-organic processed foods as much as possible, as again these are virtually 100-percent guaranteed to contain GM ingredients.

Australia shuns GM canola

2011-06-01T17:27:00.000-07:00

Australia shuns GM canola in response to consumer demand for non-GMO products

Wednesday, June 01, 2011 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032575_GM_canola_Australia.html#ixzz1O4dc0qU0

(NaturalNews) The biotechnology industry and its lackeys in the US government may be getting away with pulling a fast one on the American people, but citizens across Europe and in Australia continue to resist the onslaught of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in their food supply. A recent report from Gene Ethics Media (GEM) explains that two of Australia's largest grain traders are refusing to deal with any GM canola this year, citing intense and increasing consumer opposition to GM grains.

Europeans import much of their canola from Australia, a country that for years had unilaterally held a non-GMO policy for canola. After all, virtually nobody from the countries to whom Australia exports its grains wants GM canola, and this has naturally created market conditions in which canola growers have voluntarily chosen to stick with non-GM and organic varieties.

"This market is a bonanza for the majority of Australian grain growers who wisely stayed with non-GM canola varieties," said Bob Phelps, Director of GEM. "Ninety-five percent of Western Australia's canola sold to Europe last year and strong demand is expected to continue, but only for non-GM. European shoppers have zero tolerance for GM canola."

Most Australian states currently have a ban on GM canola, with the major exception of Western Australia (WA). Terry Redman, Agriculture Minister of WA, recently lifted the ban on GM canola, despite the fact that nearly all farmers and shoppers oppose the crop. Redman, of course, also tried to dilute organic standards in Australia after it was found out that a GM canola crop field had contaminated an organic crop field, which caused the organic farmer to lose his organic certification status (http://www.naturalnews.com/030851_M...).

Phelps is urging all Australian states to maintain or retain their non-GMO statuses because there is no effective way to prevent non-GMO and organic crops from being contaminated by GMOs -- they simply cannot coexist together. But states like WA will have to make that decision now, and completely block all future GM plantings.

"GM canola segregation has failed everywhere it has been tried. After only one year of commercial GM canola in WA there is still time to become GM-free again," said Phelps. "South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT and Northern Territory have retained their GM-free policies and other states should again ban polluting GM canola, for marketing reasons. It's insane to grow a GM crop that no one in their right mind wants to eat."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032575_GM_canola_Australia.html#ixzz1O4dsMW28

STOP ‘MONSANTOSIZING’ FOOD, SEEDS AND ANIMALS!

2011-05-31T09:54:00.000-07:00

http://www.alt.no-patents-on-seeds.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=93&Itemid=56&lang=en

The following examples show some patent applications carried to extremes1. Many of the claims presented in these applications can only be described as ludicrous. These patents demonstrate how far we have got with existing patent regulations, which are completely deficient. In only four years, between 2005 and 2009, Monsanto filed nearly 150 patent applications on plant breeding at the WIPO. These applications show a growing tendency to claim exclusive property rights not only on genetically modified plants and animals, but also on existing biodiversity and traditional breeding. While in the years before 2005 only very few such patents were filed, more than 30% of Monsanto’s patent applications between 2005 and 2009 include conventional plant breeding. This trend can also be observed with other big seed corporations. In the same period Dupont filed about 170 patent applications in plant breeding, 25% involving conventional plant breeding. Syngenta filed about 60 applications, with 50% targeting traditional breeding. Amongst the big seed companies, Monsanto is the only one filing patent applications on farm animals too. Since 2005 about 20 patents on animal breeding have been filed by the US company.

Examples:

In Monsanto’s patent application WO2008021413, ‘the patent of monsantosizing maize and soy’, methods are claimed that are widely used in conventional breeding. On more than 1000 pages and in 175 claims Monsanto claims various gene sequences and genetic variations, especially in soy and maize. Monsanto even goes as far as explicitly claiming all relevant maize and soy plants, inheriting those genetic elements. Furthermore, all uses in food, feed and biomass are listed. By filing specific regional applications Monsanto shows especial interest in applying for this patent in Europe, Argentina and Canada.

In Patent application WO 2009011847, ‘the patent of monsantosizing meat and milk’, Monsanto broadly claims methods for cattle breeding, the animals, as well as “milk, cheese, butter and meat.”

Other companies are also aggressively filing patents on genetic resources needed for feed and food production. An example is patent application WO2008087208, ‘Syngenta’s patent on maize yield', which is targeting genetic conditions in maize for grain yield. Syngenta claims the plants and even their harvest.

Several similar patents are already granted, such as a patent on breeding in soy beans like WO 98/45448, ‘Dupont’s patent on tofu’, granted in Australia, Europe and USA, which covers soy sauce, tofu, soy milk and infant formula made from these soybeans. This patent (or patents of the same family) have also been filed for Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, Norway and New Zealand.

Melons now a Monsanto “invention”

2011-05-31T09:50:00.001-07:00

http://no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/information/news/melons-now-monsanto-invention

US corporation awarded a European patent on conventionally bred melons.

Munich, 17.5.2011

Recent research conducted by the coalition No Patents on Seeds! shows that in May 2011, the US corporation Monsanto was awarded a European patent on conventionally bred melons (EP 1 962 578). Melons have a natural resistance to certain plant viruses. It is especially evident in melons grown in India. Using conventional breeding methods, this type of resistance was introduced to other melons and has now been patented as a Monsanto “invention”.

“This patent is an abuse of patent law because it is not a real invention. It contravenes European law excluding patents on conventional breeding. Further, it is a case of bio-piracy, since the original and most relevant plants come from India,” says Christoph Then, a spokesperson for No Patents on Seeds!. “Patents like this are blocking access to the genetic resources necessary for further breeding, and basic resources needed for daily life are subordinated to monopolisation and financial speculation.”

In a precedent decision, the European Patent Office (EPO) decided in December 2010, that conventional breeding could not be patented (G2/07 and G1/08). However, in the Monsanto patent case, the EPO just excluded the process for melon breeding. The plants and all parts of the plant, such as the seeds and the melon fruit, have been patented as an invention. Therefore, the patent was only changed cosmetically but not in substance.

The actual plant disease, Cucurbit yellow stunting disorder virus (CYSDV), has been spreading through North America, Europe and North Africa for several years. Monsanto can now block access to breeding material inheriting genetic conditions that confer resistance. DeRuiter, a well known seed company in the Netherlands, originally developed the melons. DeRuiter used plants designated PI 313970 - a non-sweet melon from India. Monsanto acquired the seed company in 2008, and now also owns the patent.

The coalition No Patents on Seeds! are calling for a revision of European Patent Law to exclude breeding material, plants and animals and food derived thereof from patentability. More than 160 organisations and about 15.000 individuals have already signed up to this call that was started in March 2011.

The patent
The call

For further information, please contact:
Christoph Then, +49 151 54638040, info@no-patents-on-seeds.org

Important legal disputes at the European Patent Office

2011-05-31T09:49:00.000-07:00

EPO PATENT CASES http://www.alt.no-patents-on-seeds.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=2&id=13&Itemid=20&lang=en

THE BROCCOLI CASE (Bioscience) - EP 1069819 B1 - The Test Case: Conventional breeding and plants
TEST CASE 2: WRINKELED TOMATOE (Israel) - EP 1211926 B1
PATENTS ON HUNGER: A report
THE PATENT ON POLITICIANS (Greenpeace) - EP 07006352
PATENTS ON BREEDING OF ANIMALS - EP 1141418 and EP 1506316
PATENTS GRANTED ON NORMAL PLANTS
THE NOVARTIS CASE - EP 0448511 B1 - T1054/96 - G1/98 - The case which allowed patents on ge-plants
THE ROUNDUP-READY CASE (Monsanto) - EP 546090 B2 - Roundup-Ready resistant plants
THE SUNFLOWER CASE 1 (CSIC) - EP 1185161 B1 - Oil from sunflower seeds
THE SUNFLOWER CASE 2 (Pioneer) - EP 1465475 B1 - Orobranche resistance
THE GENE-GUN CASE (Agracetus/Monsanto) - EP 301749 B1 - One of the of the first "ge" patents
THE LETTUCE CASE 1 (Rijk Zwaan) - EP 921720 B2 - Louse resistant salad
THE LETTUCE CASE 2 (EZB) - EP 1179089 B1 - Pathogen resistant salad
THE RICE MONOPOLY CASE (Syngenta) - Several patents covering the rice genome
THE SOY-OIL CASE (Monsanto) - EP 1538896 A0 - High yielding soy and oil
THE CORN CASE (DuPont) - EP 744888 B1 - Corn, oil and the use of the oil
THE WHEAT CASE (Monsanto) - EP 445929 B2 - Soft milling wheat and biscuits
THE PIG MONOPOLY CASE (Monsanto) - Patent aplications on pigs and herds of pigs
PATENTS ON FARM ANIMALS - An overview
THE SUPER-SALMON CASE - EP 578653 B1 - Gene construct for transgenic fish

Discovery of Bt insecticide in human blood proves GMO toxin a threat to human health, study finds

2011-05-16T11:43:00.000-07:00

Discovery of Bt insecticide in human blood proves GMO toxin a threat to human health, study finds

Ireland Says Not In This Country: Bans Genetically Modified Crops

2011-04-19T15:46:00.000-07:00

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/ireland-says-not-in-this-country-bans-gm-crops.php

Prince Charles has called it the "biggest environmental disaster of all time," while Monsanto and others maintain it's safe for humans and the environment. Genetically modified foods are a contentious issue, but Ireland is erring on the side of caution, placing a ban on growing any genetically modified crops.

Ireland will ban growing of GM crops, and a voluntary GM-free label can be placed on all animal products--such as meat, poultry, eggs, fish, crustaceans, and dairy--that are raised with GM-free feed, according to a GM-Free Ireland press release. Ireland joins Japan and Egypt as one of the few but growing number of countries that have banned the cultivation of GM crops.

Smart Move for Irish Farmers
The agreement, signed by the government's two coalition partners, declares Ireland a "GM-free Zone."

The move will help Irish farmers who can't compete with subsidized agriculture powerhouses, says GM-Free Ireland Co-ordinator, Michael O'Callaghan:

The WTO's economic globalization agenda has forced most Irish farmers to enter an unwinnable race to the bottom for low quality GM-fed meat and dairy produce, in competition with countries like the USA, Argentina and Brazil which can easily out-compete us with their highly subsidized GM crop monocultures, cheap fossil fuel, extensive use of toxic agrochemicals that are not up to EU standards, and underpaid migrant farm labor.

But the move is smart not just for the benefit of Irish farmers and consumers; it will make Ireland's agriculture even more green, raising the country's environmental status on the world stage, says O'Callaghan:

The Irish Government plan to ban GM crops and to provide a voluntary GM-free label for qualifying animal produce makes obvious business sense for our agri-food and eco-tourism sectors. Everyone knows that US and EU consumers, food brands and retailers want safe GM-free food, and Ireland is ideally positioned to deliver the safest, most credible GM-free food brand in Europe, if not the world.

GM-Free Ireland Means More GM-Free in the U.S.
The U.S. imports large amounts of Irish diary products, including casein for cheese production, so the move will mean more Americans are getting GM-free foods.

Ireland's move will also provide a significant source of GM-free agricultural products for North American food product manufacturers, says Megan Thompson, executive director of the Non-GMO Project, a non-profit group that works to ensure GM-free foods are available to consumers who want them.

Ireland has taken a truly inspiring step to ensuring consumers' right to choose non-GMO products... As more and more companies in the USA and Canada are looking for non-GMO ingredients, this is a very timely move and we look forward to developing sourcing opportunities with GM-free producers in Ireland.

Bleak News for Monsanto
So far, Monsanto has been mum on Ireland's move, but odds are they're going to have a corporate version of a hissy fit--they'll sue.

It wouldn't be the first time Monsanto took on a nation. In April the agro-engineering giant filed suit against Germany for the country's ban on GM corn, but the courts sided with Germany, upholding the ban.

But with a country placing a sweeping ban, Ireland might be in for a bigger fight. It does, after all, set a precedent in Europe.

Genitically Modified Cows Produce 'Human' Milk

2011-04-05T11:40:00.000-07:00

by Jason Best, Posted Apr 4th 2011 @ 2:00PM

The U.S. has outsourced a lot in the past couple decades, but could breast milk one day carry a "Made in China" label?

This news comes not from the pages of the supermarket tabloids but from the online academic journal Public Library of Science ONE, where Chinese researchers have reported that they've produced human-like milk from genetically modified dairy cows.

"Our study describes transgenic cattle whose milk offers similar nutritional benefits as human milk," lead researcher Ning Li told the London Daily Telegraph. "The modified bovine milk is a possible substitute for human milk."

He describes the modified cow juice as tasting "stronger" than regular milk (ok, gross) and says that some aspects of his team's research could go commercial in as little as three years. However, Li projects that it will take a decade or more before mothers start pouring his mutant concoction into their babies' bottles.

Human breast milk is chockfull of vital nutrients for infants, and so far Li's team has managed to create cows that produce both lysozyme (a protein that protects against bacterial infections) and lactoferrin (which increases the number of immune cells in babies).

Setting aside the "yuck factor," engineered breast milk could be a boon for mothers who have trouble breastfeeding. Despite widespread public squeamishness about so-called "Frankenfoods," scientists routinely portray such concern as misguided and misinformed.

"Genetically modified animals and plants are not going to be harmful unless you deliberately put in a gene that is going to be poisonous. Why would anyone do that in a food?" one British biologist told the Daily Telegraph. "Genetically modified food, if done correctly, can provide benefit for consumers in terms of producing better products."

But what's in it for the cows?

As animal welfare advocates point out, genetically modified animals often suffer from a host of health problems. Indeed, in two of Li's experiments, ten out of 42 cows died shortly after birth while six more died within the next six months.

Read more: http://slashfood.com/2011/04/04/genitically-modified-cows-produce-human-milk/#ixzz1IfwO36E9

GM chicken - Scientists create flu-resistant chickens that may end up on your dinner table

2011-04-02T22:13:00.000-07:00

GM chicken - Scientists create flu-resistant chickens that may end up on your dinner table

Rally for the right to know: Educating the masses about GMOs

2011-03-27T08:25:00.000-07:00

Rally for the right to know: Educating the masses about GMOs

Organic giants Whole Foods, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield accused of compromising on GMOs

2011-03-02T18:07:00.000-08:00

http://www.naturalnews.com/031296_GMOs_Whole_Foods.html
Friday, February 11, 2011 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031296_GMOs_Whole_Foods.html#ixzz1FUx8vs1A

(NaturalNews) Some of the nation's largest and most widely known producers and retailers of natural and organic products have decided to push for a compromise with the Monsanto-influenced U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the issue of genetically-modified organisms (GMO). In the wake of the recent decision by the Obama administration to carelessly deregulate genetically-modified (GM) alfalfa, Whole Foods Market and several other companies, including Organic Valley and Stonyfield, have expressed support for what they call "coexistence" between organics and GMOs.

On January 20, 2011, Whole Foods issued a public letter on its blog expressing opposition to the deregulation of GM alfalfa over contamination and safety issued that remain unaddressed. But because the USDA refused to properly evaluate the evidence against GM alfalfa and rightfully ban the crop, Whole Foods took what it saw as the next best option and came out in support of a "coexistence" plan involving partial deregulation. The company argues that partial deregulation will at least place some restrictions on the cultivation and use of GM alfalfa. But will coexistence offer a viable option for preserving the integrity of organic and conventional non-GMO crops and livestock? All available evidence points to a solid NO.

Alfalfa, which is a primary food source for dairy cows and beef cattle, is a highly-volatile perennial plant. Unlike other GM crops currently being cultivated, alfalfa is an open-pollinated crop, which means birds, bees, and other insects freely pollinate it in an uncontrolled way. Its seeds and pollen can be spread far and wide all year long, which cause every future generation of alfalfa to have differing genetic traits. So once an alfalfa plant is cultivated, whether natural or GM, there really is no stopping either its proliferation or its mutating effect on both nearby plants and future plantings of new alfalfa.

The long-term result of GM alfalfa cultivation is eventually the contamination of all non-GM and organic varieties of practically any and all crop varieties with which it comes into contact. And as these other crops become contaminated, the entire human and animal food supply will eventually become tainted with GM materials, including organic and non-GM crops and animals. In other words, there is no such thing as a coexistence plan because everything will eventually end up becoming contaminated with GM traits.

GM alfalfa is useless and will only cause more problems for agriculture

As mentioned in a previous NaturalNews article on the issue, GM alfalfa is completely unnecessary in the first place. More than 90 percent of the conventional varieties currently grown in the U.S. require absolutely no pesticides or herbicides, according to . They thrive just fine without any chemical or genetic interventions (http://www.naturalnews.com/031196_G...). But in the interests of expanding its control over the food supply as well as its profit margins, Monsanto has pushed, and now succeeded, in getting GM alfalfa approved. And it seems to have hoodwinked a few large organic giants to play the negotiation game rather than pursue legal action against the approval.

Whole Foods has repeatedly stated that it continues to support truth-in-labeling efforts that encourage transparency with GMOs, and it has also routinely taken a stance against GMOs in general. And these efforts are commendable. But the retailer still continues to sell many "natural" product brands that contain GMO ingredients. And while its store-brand line of "365 Everyday Value Products" is part of the Non-GMO Project, a noteworthy effort at sourcing clean, GMO-free food, the retailer does not require other products in its stores that contain GMO ingredients to be labeled.

Whole Foods is now urging its patrons to call Congress, the USDA, and the White House, to demand support for a coexistence plan. Though better than nothing, this plan of action, as previously mentioned, will do nothing to prevent the widespread contamination of non-GM and organic crops. If GM alfalfa is allowed to "coexist" with other crops, there will eventually be no distinction between organic, non-GM, and GM crops, because every crop will become contaminated with GMOs. This is why citizens must continue to fight GM alfalfa period.

The Organic Consumer Association (OCA) is calling on the public to pressure not only Whole Foods, but also other retailers like Trader Joe's, and even conventional grocers like Wal-Mart and Safeway, to implement voluntary "truth-in-labeling" practices that require any products sold in their stores that contain GMOs to be labeled. If Whole Foods really wants to show its opposition to GMOs, it will either require GMO labeling, or it will outlaw every products from its store that contains them.

The public can also continue to put pressure on Congress, the USDA, and the White House, to reverse its decision and outlaw GM alfalfa.

To contact Congress, visit:
http://www.house.gov/zip/ZIP2Rep.html
http://www.senate.gov/general/conta...

To contact the USDA, email:
biotechquery@aphis.usda.gov

To contact the White House, call:
(202) 456-1111

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031296_GMOs_Whole_Foods.html#ixzz1FUxJPEOy

Europe, Japan to cancel grain contracts with Australia due to GMO contamination

2011-01-06T01:30:00.000-08:00

Monday, January 03, 2011 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Australia is playing with fire by relaxing its standards on genetically-modified organisms (GMO). According to a recent report in The Australian, both Europe and Japan may cancel their non-GMO grain contracts with Australian growers because of GM contamination, including the recent case of Steve Marsh who lost his organic certification due to GM canola invading his fields..

GMOs are not very prevalent in Australia, and in some Australian states they are still outlawed. But in other regions, political pressure has given way to increased GMO plantings, which threatens Australia's unique position as an exporter of non-GMOs, particularly canola. And if things keep going in the current direction, Australia could lose its position in the non-GM trade market.

The cease trade warnings from at least four European importers and two Japanese importers were prompted after it was determined that a GM canola field in Western Australia (WA) had contaminated more than 540 acres of a nearby organic wheat farm (http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/co...). And current West Australia Minister for Agriculture and Food, Terry Redman, is allegedly pushing to lower Australian organic standards in response, which only adds fuel to the fire.

"European consumers remain resolutely opposed to genetically modified crops, and as European importers we must remain responsive to the needs of our customers," explained a letter from the European importers obtained by The Australian. In other words, if Australian leaders fail to crack down on the GMO takeover, the integrity of the entire non-GM industry is at stake.

However, non-GM and organic growers like Marsh are beginning to take control and fight back against the agri-giants that are destroying their livelihood. Several groups, including the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture and the Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF), have indicated that if non-GM growers successfully win legal cases against the likes of Monsanto, a whole new precedent will be set.

"The GM farmer should be worried because they are ultimately liable and this is an avenue where the non-GM farmer can say right we'll follow this example and we'll do the same and it could be a class action if you're not sure who causes it," explained Julie Newman from NCF to Australian reporters, in reference to contamination lawsuits against GM growers.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030902_GMOs_Australia.html#ixzz1AFIpSRor

Hershey's brings non-GMO confections to Europe, but not to US

2010-12-30T16:17:00.000-08:00

Friday, December 24, 2010 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The Hershey Company is expanding its confectionery market to Europe. And the company plans to reformulate its Europe-destined products to be free of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in order to meet demand and to comply with the non-GMO requirements of Asda, the U.K. subsidiary of Wal-Mart that will be Hershey's exclusive retailer in the U.K. However, Hershey's has no intentions of changing any of its U.S. formulas, all of which are tainted with GM ingredients, say reports.

According to an email obtained by GMWatch, an independent watchdog group fighting pro-GMO propaganda, Hershey's agreed to reformulate 21 varieties of its chocolate products, including Reese's brand chocolates, to meet Asda's requirements. And a report in Confectionery News confirms this as well, noting that the reformulations are strictly for the European market and not for the U.S. market.

"The key ingredients which have been re-formulated from non-GM sources include changing the sugar source from beet to cane sugar and using IP (Identity Preservation) soy lecithin," explained Julian Walker-Palin, Head of Corporate Sustainability at Asda, in an email to Peter Melchett, head of the U.K. Soil Association. "In addition to this the transportation and storage have been confirmed also as GM-free or cleaned before use with these products."

According to reports, Asda does not carry any products that contain GM ingredients, so Hershey's had to agree to work with the company to create appropriate new formulas.

In the past, many large U.S. food producers have argued that reformulating their products to exclude GMOs is not cost effective. But why it was worthwhile for Hershey's to change its product formulas for the European market, but not for the U.S. market, so far remains a question without an answer.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030826_Hersheys_GMOs.html#ixzz19dysGqQI

General Mills cuts sugar content in children's cereals but still uses GMOs

2010-12-30T13:12:00.000-08:00

Monday, December 13, 2010 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Breakfast cereal giant General Mills recently announced plans to slightly cut the sugar content in its children's cereals in accordance with overall pressures on major food producers to fight childhood obesity and its related diseases by making healthier products. However the company continues to use genetically-modified (GM) ingredients in its cereal products, as well as corn syrup, artificial flavors, and artificial colorings -- all of which wreak havoc on health.

Jeff Harmening, president of General Mills' Big G cereal division, told Reuters Health in an interview that as of December 31, 2010, all General Mills cereals marketed to children under 12 will contain ten grams of sugar or less per serving, a one-gram drop from the 11 grams per serving they currently contain. And although the company hopes to keep lowering the overall sugar content over time, it says the reductions must take place incrementally in order to keep customers from noticing the changes and switching to other brands.

Now, this may sound like a worthy effort on behalf of General Mills, but upon closer look, it becomes obvious that the company's cereals are still loaded with so much other garbage that buying even the reduced-sugar varieties will still threaten your health and the health of your children.

General Mills uses highly-refined sugars and GMOs

The types of sugars used in General Mills cereals are highly processed and represent a significant health threat, even at reduced levels. These sugars include refined white sugar, corn syrup, dextrose, and maltodextrin, all of which likely come from GM sources. Most refined white sugar now used in U.S. food products comes from sugar beets, 95 percent of which are now GM. And corn syrup, dextrose, and maltodextrin, all come from corn, for which the vast majority is also GM.

Does General Mills have any plans to remove these GMOs from its food products? Hardly. Back in 2000, General Mills shareholders nearly unanimously rejected a proposal petitioning the company to avoid using GMOs in its products until they were proven safe. Not only did the company reject the proposal and decide to use GMOs anyway, but it even rejected GMO labeling proposals that would have given consumers the information they need to make informed food-buying decisions for their children (http://www.foodnavigator.com/Financ...).

Research into the effects of GMOs has linked their consumption to sterility, organ damage, birth defects, disruption of healthy intestinal flora, allergies, cancer, and even genetic changes in human DNA (http://www.naturalnews.com/GMO.html). And these are just the tip of the iceberg, as nobody truly knows the long-term consequences of consuming these "Frankenfoods".

General Mills uses artificial food colorings and additives linked to neurological disorders, ADHD, and cancer

Many General Mills cereals are loaded with artificial colors like yellow #5, red #40, and blue #1. These petroleum-based coloring chemicals have been linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), nervous system disorders, and even cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/022870_a...).

The cereals also contain various artificial flavors and food preservatives like butylhydroxytoluene (BHT), a synthetic chemical preservative linked to allergies, developmental and reproductive toxicity, and cancer (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/in...).

General Mills cereals generally contain very little nutritional value

To be fair, General Mills was one of the first companies to adopt whole grains, switching its entire cereal line to whole grain ingredients back in 2005 (http://www.naturalnews.com/007572_w...). But other than that, practically every other ingredient is some sort of processed or GMO additive that does nothing to provide the body with the nutrients it needs to maintain strength and health. Even the added vitamins and minerals are largely synthetic, so the body gets very little benefit from them.

This is not to say that the other mainstream cereal brands are any better. Most of them use the same ingredients. But the point is, most mainstream breakfast cereals -- especially those marketed to children -- contain very unhealthy ingredients, are very highly processed, and provide very little nutritional benefits. In conclusion, General Mills' efforts to make small changes in sugar content are really more of a marketing ploy than an actual concern over improving the nutritional value of its cereals.

If General Mills was really concerned about curbing obesity and improving childhood nutrition, it would immediately remove all GMO ingredients from its cereals. It would also cut out the artificial colors, flavors, additives, and preservatives. It would replace the refined sugar with unprocessed sugar from organic sources, and in significantly lower amounts than those currently used. And it might even integrate some truly healthful superfood ingredients as well.

So before you run out and buy some General Mills cereal for its reduced sugar content thinking that it will be healthier for your children, you might want to think twice about the myriad of other poisons lurking in every box.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030714_General_Mills_sugar_cereals.html#ixzz19dEVQxjY

Artificial 'nano-food' could soon show up at a store near you

2010-12-30T11:28:00.000-08:00

Monday, December 06, 2010 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The scientific community has once again caught food-tampering fever. Recent reports indicate that food scientists are busy developing nanoparticle-modified (NM) food that could one day end up on your dinner plate -- and you may never even know about it. By shifting around nanoparticles, food scientists say that fat-free foods can taste like full-fat foods, and they can be programmed to digest more slowly--two changes that some say may help reverse the obesity epidemic.

But most of this research is going on in secret because of fears over how the public will respond. Like genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), nano-modifying food involves literally changing its molecular properties, which has never been proven safe. So naturally, consumers are likely to reject NM food if given the choice.

"These particles could be hazardous and we need to know more about their effects both in the body and in the environment," said Frans Kampers, coordinator of research on food nanotechnology at Wageningen and Research Center in the Netherlands. "Since these particles are very small, they can…enter cells or even the nucleus of a cell if they have the right characteristics."

The stated goal of nanotechnology research in food is to create foods that behave differently than real ones in terms of digestion, assimilation, taste and nutritional value. By altering the "nano-structure" of food, so to speak, NM food can be programmed to make people feel fuller faster, for instance. And nutrients in food can also be nano-encapsulated to release at timed intervals to specific parts of the body.

Even though NM food has yet to see the light day, the European Union (EU) is already taking proactive steps to make sure that, if it does make it to consumers, NM food will at least be regulated and labeled. Thus, the EU has developed a research project called NanoLyse to address the "very limited knowledge [that is] available on the potential impact of engineered nanoparticles on consumers' health."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030633_artificial_food_nanotechnology.html#ixzz19coEGYNp

Dine Out Non-GMO

2010-12-05T18:59:00.000-08:00

If you have a favorite restaurant, and you eat there often, you should only need to ask these questions once. It's helpful to have a knowledgeable server or chef guide you through the menu to help you avoid GM foods. It's not too hard to identify the non-GMO options.

A good first question is, "What oil do you cook with?" If they use soy, cottonseed, canola, or corn oils they are likely GM if they are not organic. If so, ask if they have anything that is cooked without oil, or if olive oil or some other oil can be used. If they say they cook in "vegetable oil" or margarine, it will almost always be soy, cottonseed, canola, or corn oils. If they have olive oil, be sure it's not a blend. Many restaurants blend canola and olive.
Since most processed foods contain GM derivatives (corn and soy, for example), ask what foods the chef prepares fresh, and choose those items. But check if packaged sauces are used.
Try to avoid processed foods with the oils mentioned above, or with soy and corn derivatives, including: soy flour, soy protein, soy lecithin, textured vegetable protein, corn meal, corn syrup, dextrose, maltodextrin, fructose, citric acid, and lactic acid.
Other potential sources of GM foods at restaurants include salad dressings, bread, and mayonnaise, and sugar from GM sugar beets.
To avoid dairy products from cows treated with genetically modified rbGH, in U.S. restaurants you will likely have to avoid menu items with dairy, unless the restaurant uses organic products or buys from a dairy that is on our list of those that avoid rbGH. Industrialized nations outside the U.S. have not approved rbGH.
Avoid the tabletop sweetener aspartame (NutraSweet® or Equal® which is now being rebranded as AminoSweet®), which is genetically modified.

Other Sources of GMOs

Most Hawaiian papayas are GM, as are small amount of zucchini and yellow squash. Ordering these products are a gamble. Food additives, enzymes, flavorings, and processing agents, including rennet used to make hard cheeses, can be GM, are harder to avoid. It is also difficult to avoid meat, eggs, and dairy products from animals that have eaten GM feed, unless the restaurant uses organic, 100% grass-fed, or wild caught. Honey and bee pollen may have GM sources of pollen.
Some of the Foods That May Contain GM Ingredients:
Infant formula, salad dressing, bread, cereal, hamburgers and hotdogs, margarine, mayonnaise, cereals, crackers, cookies, chocolate, candy, fried food, chips, veggie burgers, meat substitutes, ice cream, frozen yogurt, tofu, tamari, soy sauce, soy cheese, tomato sauce, protein powder, baking powder, alcohol, vanilla, powdered sugar, peanut butter, enriched flour and pasta.
If you plan ahead, you can call or email the restaurant you plan to visit and ask for a list that let’s you know.
Going through this process will not only give you a superb list of healthy eating options, but informs the restaurant that you prefer healthier non-GMO options when you dine out - a win-win situation for everyone.
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/buy-non-gmo/dine-out-non-gmo

The GE Process

2010-12-05T18:24:00.000-08:00

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-basics/the-ge-process

What is a GMO?
A GMO (genetically modified organism) is the result of a laboratory process where genes from the DNA of one species are extracted and artificially forced into the genes of an unrelated plant or animal. The foreign genes may come from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans. Because this involves the transfer of genes, GMOs are also known as “transgenic” organisms.
This process may be called either Genetic Engineering (GE) or Genetic Modification (GM); they are one and the same.
What is a gene?
Every plant and animal is made of cells, each of which has a center called a nucleus. Inside every nucleus there are strings of DNA, half of which is normally inherited from the mother and half from the father. Short sequences of DNA are called genes. These genes operate in complex networks that are finely regulated to enable the processes of living organisms to happen in the right place and at the right time.
How is genetic engineering done?
Because living organisms have natural barriers to protect themselves against the introduction of DNA from a different species, genetic engineers must force the DNA from one organism into another. Their methods include:

Using viruses or bacteria to "infect" animal or plant cells with the new DNA.
Coating DNA onto tiny metal pellets, and firing it with a special gun into the cells.
Injecting the new DNA into fertilized eggs with a very fine needle.
Using electric shocks to create holes in the membrane covering sperm, and then forcing the new DNA into the sperm through these holes.

Is genetic engineering precise?
The technology of genetic engineering is currently very crude. It is not possible to insert a new gene with any accuracy, and the transfer of new genes can disrupt the finely controlled network of DNA in an organism.
Current understanding of the way in which DNA works is extremely limited, and any change to the DNA of an organism at any point can have side effects that are impossible to predict or control. The new gene could, for example, alter chemical reactions within the cell or disturb cell functions. This could lead to instability, the creation of new toxins or allergens, and changes in nutritional value.
But haven't growers been grafting trees, breeding animals, and hybridizing seeds for years?
Genetic engineering is completely different from traditional breeding and carries unique risks.
In traditional breeding it is possible to mate a pig with another pig to get a new variety, but is not possible to mate a pig with a potato or a mouse. Even when species that may seem to be closely related do succeed in breeding, the offspring are usually infertile—a horse, for example, can mate with a donkey, but the offspring (a mule) is sterile.
With genetic engineering, scientists can breach species barriers set up by nature. For example, they have spliced fish genes into tomatoes. The results are plants (or animals) with traits that would be virtually impossible to obtain with natural processes, such as crossbreeding or grafting.
What combinations have been tried?
It is now possible for plants to be engineered with genes taken from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans. Scientists have worked on some interesting combinations:

Spider genes were inserted into goat DNA, in hopes that the goat milk would contain spider web protein for use in bulletproof vests.
Cow genes turned pigskins into cowhides.
Jellyfish genes lit up pigs' noses in the dark.
Artic fish genes gave tomatoes and strawberries tolerance to frost.

Field trials have included:

Corn engineered with human genes (Dow)
Sugarcane engineered with human genes (Hawaii Agriculture Research Center)
Corn engineered with jellyfish genes (Stanford University)
Tobacco engineered with lettuce genes (University of Hawaii)
Rice engineered with human genes (Applied Phytologics)
Corn engineered with hepatitis virus genes (Prodigene)
Potatoes that glowed in the dark when they needed watering.
Human genes were inserted into corn to produce spermicide.

Does the biotech industry hold any promise?
Genetic modification of plants is not the only biotechnology. The study of DNA does hold promise for many potential applications, including medicine. However, the current technology of GM foods is based on obsolete information and theory, and is prone to dangerous side effects. Economic interests have pushed it onto the market too soon.
Moreover, molecular marker technologies - so called Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) used with conventional breeding - show much promise for developing improved crop varieties, without the potentially dangerous side effects of direct genetic modification.

Where are they? In your food! First introduced into the food supply in the mid-1990s, GMOs are now present in the vast majority of processed foods in the US. While they are banned as food ingredients in Europe and elsewhere, the FDA does not even require the labeling of GMOs in food ingredient lists.
Although there have been attempts to increase nutritional benefits or productivity, the two main traits that have been added to date are herbicide tolerance and the ability of the plant to produce its own pesticide. These results have no health benefit, only economic benefit.

GMOs are not “Natural”

2010-12-05T17:14:00.001-08:00

Genetic engineering doesn’t happen in nature. Scientists force genes from bacteria and viruses into plant DNA, which result in dangerous side effects. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine urges all doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets to everyone.

GMOs are not “Green.” GMOs use far more herbicides, damage soil and marine ecology, harm beneficial insects, and cross pollinate. Their self-propagating genetic pollution will outlast the effects of climate change and nuclear waste!

Tell Quaker, Kellogg’s and others: “Stop misleading us”

Quaker’s “Natural” Granola contains corn flakes and soy lecithin. Kellogg’s Kashi brand “All Natural” Frozen Chicken Florentine uses soy flour and canola oil. Surprise! These are derived from GM plants. The FTC should insist that these and other companies either remove their “Natural” claim, or better yet remove their GMOs altogether. Furthermore, no company should proclaim GMOs as “Green.”
http://action.responsibletechnology.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4874

Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No 1/2

2010-11-27T22:09:00.000-08:00

Bad Seed - The Dangerous Truth About Our Food

2010-11-27T22:01:00.000-08:00

Can this Information make a difference & help stop GMO’s?

2010-11-27T21:53:00.000-08:00

I HATE GMO's! I want them to disappear or AT LEAST BE LABELED! I want people to know that GMO's have only been here in the United States since late 1990's. I want people to know that many of the problems that face our nation's health could be related to our food. GMO food is changing farmer's lives & the world's food supply as well.

So, I was reading an article on NaturalNews.com & wondering if people are changing their eating habits? Are people more concerned about GMO's? Is this info. making a difference? Actually, could my blog make a bigger difference in the community?

That last question is what I thought of as I was reading, an article called

"You too can take a big stand against GMOs"

The article said "Pick five or ten restaurants or delis in your area and go in and ask to speak to the manager. If there's a corporate office, make sure you get the number and the right person to speak to. Then, when you have the right person in front of you or on the phone, ask if the corn, canola oil, soybean oil, miso, corn chips and other common GMO items they use are organic or GMO. More often than not, they'll be conventionally grown, which means they are more than likely genetically modified."
"A key point is that it's been proven that some genetically modified genes can and do transfer into our healthy bacteria - and some common GM genes are designed to end reproductive ability and produce pesticides continuously. Then, nicely ask them how they would feel about being part of a largely untested experiment that likely transfers scientifically derived genes - including genes that continually produce pesticides and end reproductive ability - into their community? Let them know that, unfortunately, that's what they're doing by using GMO foods in their establishment.

Be sure they understand that all of the foods they use don't need to be organic (although that would be nice), but avoiding the main GMO foods are essential. The main GMO foods are soy, corn, canola, cotton (cottonseed oil), sugar beets (which are made into sugar), Hawaiian papaya and all products derived from them, like soy sauce, tofu, and canola oil. Other GMO crops are zucchini, yellow squash, and soon likely salmon and rice from China.

When they switch these common GMO ingredients over to organic, encourage them to state on their menu or ingredient lists that these foods are organic and non-GMO; this way a growing number of people who consciously avoid GMOs won't continue to avoid their establishments.

If you have like-minded friends, ask them to take part too. And if you're not getting the response you want from key establishments, have your friends contact them a week or two later as well. Sometimes hearing about these things from a few customers can be far more effective than hearing about it from just one. If you're on a roll, you can obviously do more than five or ten restaurants or delis. Imagine the satisfaction you'll feel from protecting your community and taking a big stand to get GMOs out of the food supply."

"If you need some materials and talking points to study or take with you, see the resources below...

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-basics
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/health-risks
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/monsanto-the-worlds-poste_b_436347.html
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/buy-non-gmo/dine-out-non-gmo
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-basics/gmos-in-food
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/GeneticRoulette/HealthRisksofGMFoodsSummaryDebate/index.cfm "
Above excerpts from:http://www.naturalnews.com/030202_GMO_foods.html

I think the NaturalNews article has a great idea. Will anyone listen? Will anyone start asking in their neighborhood about the food they are eating? I am hoping that people who read my blog will. I'd love to hear about some of those experiences.

GMOs in your food

2010-11-27T21:44:00.000-08:00

The Health Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods

2010-11-27T21:27:00.000-08:00

Genetically engineered crops allowed in the US food supply

2010-11-27T21:25:00.000-08:00

http://www.saynotogmos.org/avoiding_gmos.htm

Canola: Aventis; Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds; Bacteria, virus; Name unknown; 2000

Canola: Monsanto; Resist glyphosate herbicide to control weeds; Arabidopsis, bacteria, virus; Roundup Ready; 1999

Canola: Monsanto; Altered oil (high lauric acid) for soap and food products; Calif bay, turnip rape, bacteria, virus; Laurical; 1995

Chicory (radicchio): Bejo Zaden; Male sterile to facilitate hybridization; Bacteria; SeedLink; 1997

Corn: Aventis; Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds/male sterile to facilitate hybridization; Bacteria, virus; SeedLink; Date unknown

Corn: Aventis; Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds; Bacteria, virus; LibertyLink; Date unknown

Corn: Aventis; Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds/Bt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer); Bacteria, virus; StarLink; 1998

Corn: Dow/Mycogen Bt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer); Corn, bacteria, virus; NatureGard; 1995

Corn: Dow/Mycogen/DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred; Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds/Bt toxin to control insect pests (Lepidopteran); Corn, bacteria, virus; Herculex I; 2001

Corn: DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred; Male sterile to facilitate hybridization; Potato, corn, bacteria, virus; Name unknown

Corn: Monsanto/DeKalb; Bt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer); Bacteria Bt-Xtra; 1997

Corn: Monsanto/DeKalb; Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds; Bacteria, virus; Name, date unknown

Corn: Monsanto; Bt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer); Bacteria; YieldGard; 1996

Corn: Monsanto; Resist glyphosate herbicide to control weeds/Bt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer); Arabidopsis, bacteria, virus; Name unknown; 1998

Corn: Monsanto; Resist glyphosate herbicide to control weeds; Arabidopsis, bacteria, virus Roundup Ready; 1998

Corn: Syngenta; Bt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer); Bacteria Bt11; 1996

Corn: Syngenta; Bt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer); Corn, bacteria, virus; Knock Out; 1995

Corn (pop): Syngenta; Bt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer); Corn, bacteria, virus; Knock Out; 1998

Corn (sweet): Syngenta; Bt toxin to control insect pests (European corn borer); Bacteria Bt11; 1998

Cotton: Monsanto/Aventis; Resist bromoxynil herbicide to control weeds/Bt toxin to control insect pests (cotton bollworms and tobacco budworm); Bacteria; Name unknown; 1998

Cotton: Monsanto/Aventis; Resist bromoxynil herbicide to control weeds; Bacteria, virus BXN Cotton; 1995

Cotton: Monsanto Bt toxin to control insect pests (cotton bollworms and tobacco budworm); Bacteria; Bollgard; 1995

Cotton: Monsanto; Resist glyphosate herbicide to control weeds; Arabidopsis, bacteria, virus; Roundup Ready; 1996

Flax: University of Saskatchewan; Resist sulfonylurea herbicide to grow in soils with herbicide residues; Arabidopsis, bacteria CDC; Triffid; 1999

Papaya: Cornell University/University of Hawaii; Resist papaya ringspot virus; Bacteria, virus Sunup, Rainbow; 1997

Potato: Monsanto; Bt toxin to control insect pests (Colorado potato beetle); Bacteria; NewLeaf; 1995

Potato: Monsanto; Bt toxin to control insect pests (Colorado potato beetle)/resist potato virus Y Bacteria, virus; NewLeaf Y; 1999

Potato: Monsanto; Bt toxin to control insect pests (Colorado potato beetle)/resist potato; leafroll virus Bacteria, virus; NewLeaf Plus; 1998

Soybean: Aventis; Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds; Bacteria, virus; Name unknown; 1998

Soybean: DuPont; Altered oil (high oleic acid) to increase stability, reduce polyunsaturated fatty acids; Soybean, bean, bacteria, virus; Name unknown; 1997

Soybean: Monsanto; Resist glyphosate herbicide to control weeds; Petunia, soybean, bacteria, virus; Roundup Ready; 1995

Squash: Seminis Vegetable Seed; Resist watermelon mosaic 2 and zucchini yellow mosaic viruses; Bacteria, virus; Freedom II; 1995

Squash: Seminis Vegetable Seed; Resist watermelon mosaic 2, zucchini yellow mosaic, cucumber mosaic viruses Bacteria, virus; Name unknown; 1997

Sugarbeet: Aventis; Resist glufosinate herbicide to control weeds; Bacteria, virus; Name unknown; 2000

Sugarbeet: Monsanto/Syngenta; Resist glyphosate herbicide to control weeds; Bacteria, virus; Name unknown; 1999

Tomato (cherry): Agritope; Altered ripening to enhance fresh market value; Bacteria; Name unknown; 1996

Tomato: DNA Plant Technology; Altered ripening to enhance fresh market value; Tomato, bacteria, virus; Endless Summer; 1995

Tomato: Monsanto/Calgene; Altered ripening to enhance fresh market value; Tomato, bacteria, virus FlavrSavr; 1994

Tomato: Monsanto; Altered ripening to enhance fresh market value; Bacteria; Name unknown; 1995

Tomato

Zeneca/PetoSeed

Thicker skin and altered pectin to enhance processing value

Tomato, bacteria, virus

Name unknown

1995 http://nongmoshoppingguide.com/brands/invisible-gm-ingredients.htmlINVISIBLE GM INGREDIENTS

Processed foods often have hidden GM sources (unless they are organic or declared non-GMO). The following are ingredients that may be made from GMOs.

Aspartame (also called AminoSweet®, NutraSweet®, Equal Spoonful®, Canderel®, BeneVia®, E951)
baking powder
canola oil (rapeseed oil)
caramel color
cellulose
citric acid
cobalamin (Vitamin B12)
colorose
condensed milk
confectioners sugar
corn flour
corn gluten
corn masa
corn meal
corn oil
corn sugar
corn syrup
cornstarch
cottonseed oil
cyclodextrin
cystein
dextrin
dextrose
diacetyl
diglyceride
erythritol
Equal
food starch
fructose (any form)
glucose
glutamate
glutamic acid
gluten
glycerides
glycerin
glycerol
glycerol monooleate
glycine
hemicellulose
high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)
hydrogenated starch
hydrolyzed vegetable protein
inositol
inverse syrup
inversol
invert sugar
isoflavones
lactic acid
lecithin
leucine

lysine
malitol
malt
malt syrup
malt extract
maltodextrin
maltose
mannitol
methylcellulose
milk powder
milo starch
modified food starch
modified starch
mono and diglycerides
monosodium glutamate (MSG)
Nutrasweet
oleic acid
Phenylalanine
phytic acid
protein isolate
shoyu
sorbitol
soy flour
soy isolates
soy lecithin
soy milk
soy oil
soy protein
soy protein isolate
soy sauce
starch
stearic acid
sugar (unless specified as cane sugar)
tamari
tempeh
teriyaki marinades
textured vegetable protein
threonine
tocopherols (vitamin E)
tofu
trehalose
triglyceride
vegetable fat
vegetable oil
vitamin B12
vitamin E
whey
whey powder
xanthan gum

Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) although usually derived from corn, is probably not GM because it is not likely made in North America.