Follow by Email

Friday, December 13, 2013

GMOs cause horrible deformities, birth defects in piglets

December 11, 2013 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

When Danish pig farmer Ib Pedersen first noticed the sudden uptick in disease, deformities and death among his farrow, his immediate reaction was to investigate the diet of his pigs to look for possible causes. And what he found confirms what a growing body of evidence also suggests: that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in conventional animal feed are increasingly responsible for triggering birth defects, deformities, spontaneous abortions and other growth and development abnormalities in both pigs and cattle.

With 13,000 pigs on his farm, Pedersen knows the ins and outs of how to properly raise swine, as well as what is considered normal in terms of pig health. This is why he grew particularly alarmed when many more of them than usual began to come down with strange illnesses. Besides noticeably lower birthrates, Pedersen observed more of his pigs than normal being born with strange defects like spinal deformities and limb problems, and many more pigs than usual were dying.

"When using GM feed I saw symptoms of bloat, stomach ulcers, high rates of diarrhea, pigs born with deformities," explained Pedersen to The Ecologist's Andrew Wasley, who recently conducted an in-depth investigation into the link between GMOs and animal health problems. "But when I switched [to non-GM feed] these problems went away, some within a matter of days."

Switching to non-GM feed reduces costs, boosts profits

Pedersen's case is hardly an isolated one, as animal farmers all over the world are now reporting more illness and death associated with the use of GM animal feed, problems that typically go away when GM feed is replaced with non-GM feed. Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans are especially problematic, as they are doused with the toxic herbicide glyphosate, which numerous studies have linked to causing birth defects, endocrine disruption and other problems.

"Farmers who have worked to exclude GM ingredients from their feed report dramatic improvements in herd health," says Claire Robinson from the group GM Watch. "Farmers should be worried and should not settle for what some scientists are calling a 'new norm' of increased rates of malformations, deaths and digestive and reproductive problems, as GM feed becomes more common."

Those like Pedersen who have made the switch to non-GM feed say it has actually saved them money in the long run. Not only are there fewer animal health issues that require treatment when using non-GM feed, they say, but transgenic corn and soy also hampers productivity.

"In my experience, farmers have found increased production costs and escalating antibiotic use when feeding GM crops," says Howard Vlieger, an Iowa-based farmer who helped coordinate an independent study comparing the health of pigs fed GM feed to those fed non-GM feed. The findings of Vlieger's study corroborate what Pedersen observed on his farm.

Many farmers have no choice but to settle for disease-causing GM feed

Finding affordable, non-GM feed, however, is an entirely different story. The unfortunate reality is that even in places like Europe where GMOs are widely rejected by the public, and where GMO labeling is mandatory, non-GM animal feed is getting harder and harder to come by. And this, of course, is due to the fact that corporations like Monsanto dominate the seed stocks used by staple crop growers throughout North and South America.

"It's a nightmare trying to source non GM feed," stated one U.K.-based supermarket source to The Ecologist. "The reality is that trying to source it on the scale needed [by large retailers] is very difficult. The feed companies own the boats, the mills, they control the supply chain."

Be sure to check out the full report by The Ecologist:
http://www.theecologist.org.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.theecologist.org

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/043208_GMOs_farm_animals_birth_defects.html#ixzz2nOYPTZVm

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Are you unknowingly supporting companies that oppose GMO labeling?

November 01, 2013 by: Elisha McFarland


(NaturalNews) Many people are trying to do the right thing for their personal health and well being. They support local farms, sustainable agriculture, local CSAs and their favorite organic brands. Sadly, those of us who are buying organic foods may also be unknowingly supporting the opposition of GMO labeling.

If you want to support GMO labeling on your foods, you may consider dropping some of your favorite brands and looking for alternatives. That may be hard to hear, but did you know that Lara Bar, Cascadian Farm Organic, Food Should Taste Good and Muir Glen are owned by General Mills? Or that Burt's Bees is owned by Clorox? Or that Dagoba Organic Chocolate is owned by Hershey? You may also be surprised to learn that these companies have donated funds to oppose I-522, the Washington State GMO labeling initiative.

To see the chart of who is supporting and opposing GMO labeling for the Washington State labeling initiative click here:
http://www.myhealthmaven.com.

Your favorite organic companies are being bought out by big business. Phil Howard, Associate Professor of Michigan State University, has compiled a chart that shows the structure of the organic industry. The chart lists organic companies that have been bought out by big business. The chart also includes the year of the buyout. Needless to say, it's disheartening to see companies with high standards bought out by companies seeking the big dollar signs of the organic industry. It's even more disturbing to see that these same companies are funding opposition to GMO labeling. In reality, every time we buy the products listed on the chart, we are supporting opposition to GMO labeling.

To see the organic industry structure chart click here:
http://www.myhealthmaven.com.

What can you do?

Pass the word on; educate yourself and those you love about the hazards of GMOs. You can learn more about GMOs at the Institute for Responsible Technology's website: http://www.responsibletechnology.org.

Read the organic industry chart and see if your favorite products are listed. If they are, call or e-mail the company and tell them why you will no longer be buying their products.

It's a hard decision for many to boycott their favorite products; it's also one of best ways to be sure that your voice is heard.

About the author:
After sixteen years of struggling with MCS, Elisha has come out on the other side with a renewed zest for life and the desire to educate others about wholistic and healthy life choices. During that time she received the following degrees and designations, Doctor of Naturopathy, Master Herbalist, Diploma in Clinical Homeopathy, Bachelor of Science in Holistic Nutrition, Certified Wholistic Rejuvenist and EFT-ADV. You can visit her website at www.myhealthmaven.com.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042742_GMO_labeling_food_companies_informed_choice.html#ixzz2la6p5kVD

WORLD’S FIRST GENETICALLY MODIFIED BABIES BORN

Oct. 17, 2013

The world’s first genetically-modified humans have been created, it was revealed last night.

The disclosure that 30 healthy babies were born after a series of experiments in the United States provoked another furious debate about ethics.

So far, two of the babies have been tested and have been found to contain genes from three ‘parents’.

Fifteen of the children were born in the past three years as a result of one experimental program at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey.

The babies were born to women who had problems conceiving. Extra genes from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were fertilized in an attempt to enable them to conceive.

Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year- old children confirm that they have inherited DNA from three adults –two women and one man.

The fact that the children have inherited the extra genes and incorporated them into their ‘germline’ means that they will, in turn, be able to pass them on to their own offspring.

Altering the human germline – in effect tinkering with the very make-up of our species – is a technique shunned by the vast majority of the world’s scientists.

Geneticists fear that one day this method could be used to create new races of humans with extra, desired characteristics such as strength or high intelligence.

Writing in the journal Human Reproduction, the researchers, led by fertility pioneer Professor Jacques Cohen, say that this ‘is the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children’.

Some experts severely criticized the experiments. Lord Winston, of the Hammersmith Hospital in West London, told the BBC yesterday: ‘Regarding the treatment of the infertile, there is no evidence that this technique is worth doing . . . I am very surprised that it was even carried out at this stage. It would certainly not be allowed in Britain.’

John Smeaton, national director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said: ‘One has tremendous sympathy for couples who suffer infertility problems. But this seems to be a further illustration of the fact that the whole process of in vitro fertilisation as a means of conceiving babies leads to babies being regarded as objects on a production line.

‘It is a further and very worrying step down the wrong road for humanity.’ Professor Cohen and his colleagues diagnosed that the women were infertile because they had defects in tiny structures in their egg cells, called mitochondria.

They took eggs from donors and, using a fine needle, sucked some of the internal material – containing ‘healthy’ mitochondria – and injected it into eggs from the women wanting to conceive.

Because mitochondria contain genes, the babies resulting from the treatment have inherited DNA from both women. These genes can now be passed down the germline along the maternal line.

A spokesman for the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which regulates ‘assisted reproduction’ technology in Britain, said that it would not license the technique here because it involved altering the germline.

Jacques Cohen is regarded as a brilliant but controversial scientist who has pushed the boundaries of assisted reproduction technologies.

He developed a technique which allows infertile men to have their own children, by injecting sperm DNA straight into the egg in the lab.

Prior to this, only infertile women were able to conceive using IVF. Last year, Professor Cohen said that his expertise would allow him to clone children –a prospect treated with horror by the mainstream scientific community.

‘It would be an afternoon’s work for one of my students,’ he said, adding that he had been approached by ‘at least three’ individuals wishing to create a cloned child, but had turned down their requests.


World's First GMO Babies Born

Anti-GMO Campaigners Claim Victory as 'Monsanto Protection Act' Stripped From Senate Bill

Organizers cheer, saying the voices raised against genetically modified foods and giveaways to biotech giants were heard

- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer, Sep. 25, 2013

An amendment dubbed the "Monsanto Protection Act," which currently allows large agriculture and biotech corporations to ignore court orders involving the safety of genetically modified seeds, has been stripped from Senate's spending bill that could be voted on as early as Wednesday afternoon.

Following an organized campaign against the provision in recent months, its removal was being cheered by food safety and environmental activists as a victory.

“Millions of people around the world were outraged when the bill passed originally and removing the Monsanto Protection Act from the current bill is a sign that the food movement has arrived politically. The American people are tired of Monsanto’s lies and the manipulation of our political process and we’re not backing down.” - Dave Murphy, Food Democracy Now!







The Monsanto Protection Act, otherwise known as the Farmer Assurance Provision rider, was wedged into a stop-gap budget bill that passed earlier this year and signed into law by President Obama in March.

The rider was the source of outrage by many and quickly dubbed a form of "corporate welfare" that benefited large biotechnology corporations firms such as Monsanto and Syngenta as it barred US federal courts from being able to prevent the sale or planting of GMO crops even if they failed to meet federal safety standards or were discovered to be harmful to humans or the environment.

In opposition to the law's passage, several online campaigns as well as street protests followed.

The rider was set to expire this year, but an extension of the bill was included in the House's version of the budget bill passed last week.

However, according to a statements released by the offices of Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), the provision will not be extended and has now been removed from the Senate's version of the bill.

“We have all known this rider’s days were numbered,” Colin O’Neil, director of government affairs for the Center for Food Safety, told Politico. “But given the recent GMO contamination episodes of wheat and alfalfa in Oregon and Washington it is clear that our nation’s safeguards, in particular those of the federal courts, should not be under attack from policy riders like this.”

“This is a major victory for the food movement and all those who care about openness and transparency in their government,” said Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now! The decision to strip the provision, he said, "is a sign that our voices can make the difference when we are effectively organized.”

According to Murphy's group, its organizing has generated more than half a million signatures in a petition delivered to Congress and the White House demanding the removal of the rider. In addition, the law's opponents logged more than 40,000 phone calls to members of congress in the last two weeks alone.

“This is what happens when people become engaged in the democratic process,” Murphy said. “Millions of people around the world were outraged when the bill passed originally and removing the Monsanto Protection Act from the current bill is a sign that the food movement has arrived politically. The American people are tired of Monsanto’s lies and the manipulation of our political process and we’re not backing down.”

"Short-term appropriations bills are not an excuse for Congress to grandfather in bad policy,”stated O’Neil. “Chairwoman Mikulski’s proposal to halt the Monsanto Protection Act, backed by Majority Leader Reid, is a welcome sea change in a political climate that all too often allows corporate earmarks to slide through must-pass legislation.”


Food Activist Slams Obama for Failure in GMO Labeling Fight

Follows new statement by group of scientists denouncing false 'consensus' on GMO safety

- Lauren McCauley, staff writer, Oct. 22, 2013

Just two weeks out from a crucial Washington state vote over the labeling of genetically modified (GM) crops or products made with genetically modified organisms (GMO), a leading food sovereignty activist is slamming President Obama for his complacency in the labeling fight.

During a recent interview with The Hill, Dave Murphy, founder and head of Food Democracy Now, recalled how in his speech during the 2007 Iowa caucuses, Candidate Obama brought the GMO labeling initiative to the forefront. The Hill writes:

Murphy was working for the Iowa Farmers Union at the time, and he organized a summit to give the presidential candidates another chance to speak about agriculture.
Reading Obama’s prepared remarks the night before, Murphy saw the section in support of labeling genetically altered foods.

“I thought, ‘This is a big staffer error,’” he said. “I couldn’t believe they were going to allow a candidate, a senator from Illinois, to go on stage and say that.”

Murphy said that, although the speech "jump-started" the GMO labeling movement, the now-President exhibits an "incredibly heartbreaking failure" to lend any support to the national debate.

Politicians including Obama frequently rely on the false assumption—propagated by the GMO industry—that there is a "scientific consensus" on the safety of GMO crops, as a means for staying out of the debate.

This criticism of Obama follows a Monday statement by a group of international scientists refuting what they say is a "misleading" and "misrepresentative" claim of scientific consensus on GMO safety.

“The claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist,” they write. Moreover, they assert that claims made by the "GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators and journalists" encourage a "climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigor and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment."

This statement comes just two weeks ahead of a key vote in Washington state on legislation that requires the labeling of GMO food or products. Initiative 522 has become a national David versus Goliath battle between organic farmers, consumers and food sovereignty activists and the corporate food and biotech giants—such as Monsanto and Syngenta—who fund the opposition.

“We’re just asking for openness and transparency in the marketplace,” Murphy told The Hill.

“Prop. 37 woke people up," he said, referring to the 2012 California vote where big money defeated a labeling measure by a scant 350,000 votes. "People are waking up all over the country.”


US Farmers Continue David Vs. Goliath Battle Against Monsanto

A group is bring a challenge to patents on Monsanto's genetically engineered seed to Supreme Court.
A group of U.S. farmers is not giving up its fight against biotech giant Monsanto.

In the latest step of a two and a half year legal battle, plaintiffs in Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) et al v. Monsanto asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thrusday to hear their case challenging the patents on Monsanto’s genetically engineered seed.

The battle began in March 2011 when the farmers and seed companies brought a preemptive lawsuit against Monsanto to protect themselves from what they saw as unfair patent enforcement by Monsanto, whom they see as a “patent bully,” should the corporation’s genetically engineered seed contaminate the farmers’ crops. In other words, if these organic and conventional farmers are not using any Monsanto seed but their crops become contaminated (via wind, for example) with Monsanto seed, the farmers should not be slapped with a lawsuit by the corporation for patent infringement.  As we reported earlier:

Their case was dismissed in February 2012 by Federal Judge Naomi Buchwald, but attorney Dan Ravicher of the not-for-profit Public Patent Foundation [which is representing the plaintiffs] said, “The District Court erred when it denied the organic seed plaintiffs the right to seek protection from Monsanto’s patents.”

In July of 2012 the group filed an appeal to reverse the lower court’s decision…
In June of 2013, a three-judge panel at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dealt the farmers a blow in dismissing the case.

The June ruling stated:
Because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not ‘take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower’s land),’and appellants have not alleged any circumstances placing them beyond the scope of those assurances, we agree that there is no justiciable case or controversy,”

However, Reuters reported that “Monsanto has sued more than 100 farmers for patent infringement, winning judgments against farmers found to have made use of its seed without paying required royalties.”

“While the Court of Appeals correctly found that the farmers and seed sellers had standing to challenge Monsanto’s invalid patents, it incorrectly found that statements made by Monsanto’s lawyers during the lawsuit mooted the case,” Daniel Ravicher, Executive Director of the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) and lead counsel to the plaintiffs in OSGATA et al v. Monsanto, said in a statement on Thursday. “As a result, we have asked the Supreme Court to take the case and reinstate the right of the plaintiffs to seek full protection from Monsanto’s invalid transgenic seed patents.”

Jim Gerritsen, president of the lead plaintiff OSGATA and an organic seed farmer in Maine, has said, “We don’t want [Monsanto's] seed. We don’t want their gene-spliced technology. We don’t want to have to defend ourselves from aggressive assertions of patent infringement because Monsanto refuses to keep their pollution on their side of the fence.”

In a statement on Thursday, Gerritsen added, “We believe we have the right to farm and grow good food the way we choose.  We don’t think it’s fair that Monsanto can trespass onto our farm, contaminate and ruin our crops and then sue us for infringing on their patent rights.  We don’t want one penny from Monsanto. American farmers deserve their day in Court so we can prove to the world Monsanto’s genetically engineered patents are invalid and that farmers deserve protection from Monsanto’s abuse.”

This article originally was published at Common Dreams.

Share this article!



Wednesday, June 19, 2013

China Incinerates 3 US Shipments of Genetically Modified Corn








Anthony Gucciardi
Infowars.com
May 24, 2013

China has destroyed a total of at least three genetically modified corn shipments with origins from the United States in a move that echoes the way in which the nation of Hungary actually went and destroyed acres upon acres of Monsanto’s GMO corn fields. Interestingly enough, my article on that subject became one of the most widely shared articles in recent years across the web thanks to the rising number of individuals who are behind the elimination of GMOs across the globe.

And I suspect this move by China will be met with similar applause, as it represents a direct stand against Monsanto — the company that is literally being funded with your taxpayer dollarsand directly marketed by the US State Department. Even Reuters and others reported on the leaked information, and journalists were in complete shock when the news came out. The reality explains not only why the US government continues to approve and outwardly support Monsanto’s GMOs despite being linked to a number of serious health conditions, but also explains why the US threatened ‘military style trade wars‘ against those who oppose Monsanto.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that Monsanto’s major connections in government, like FDA head Michael Taylor, are lending aid to the GMO crusade in ways that even surprise me.

And perhaps what’s most interesting with this situation here is that China has essentially acted against the US by destroying these crops — crops that the US government pushes on nations, targeting those who defy Monsanto. It’s arguably more of an act against the US than sending a naval battleship closer to US soil! It shows the true priorities of many US government officials, who could care less about public health if it stands in the way of megalomania expansion.

Regardless of even why the Chinese are destroying these shipments, which is listed as a crackdown on GMO shipments that aren’t even following basic approval protocol, you can expect US officials (especially the State Department individuals) to be in uproar for Monsanto. As detailed from the GMWatch website and reported by Sayer Ji of GreenMedInfo:

The law says that the [Chinese] Ministry of Agriculture must require environmental and food safety tests to be carried out by Chinese institutions, in order to verify data provided by the seed developer. All these documents must be reviewed by the National Biosafety Committeebefore the MOA can issue a safety certificate. Yet these shipments of US corn did not have the relevant safety certificates and approval documents, according to the news reports below.

When even China has the will to destroy Monsanto’s GMOs, you know there’s something wrong with officials in the US who sit idly by as millions consume Monsanto’s Roundup-drenched GMO foods on a daily basis. Thankfully, action is being taken at warp speed. We have the March Against Monsanto taking place in just 2 days, and we have more support than ever for exposing the corrupt GMO giant and GMO infestation at large.

This post originally appeared at Natural Society


Friday, June 7, 2013

Sugar Beet Industry Converts to 100% GMO, Disallows Non-GMO Option

The US sugar beet industry coordinated an industry-wide conversion to genetically modified sugar beets, thus eliminating a non-GMO alternative for food manufacturers and consumers. Meanwhile, production of GM sugar beet seed is likely to contaminate organic and conventional vegetable seed production in Oregon’s Willamette Valley.

Frank Morton faces a major threat to his livelihood. Morton’s business, Wild Garden Seed, which sells organic vegetable and flower seed in Philomath, Oregon, is threatened by the incursion of genetically modified sugar beets in Oregon’s Willamette Valley.

The Willamette Valley is known as a center of seed production. The valley features fertile soil with ample water from irrigation. Winters are mild and wet and summers are dry, and not too hot. Seeds for specialty crops such as the Brassica family, which includes cabbages, broccoli, cauliflower, mustard seed, and canola are grown here, along with onions, spinach, beets, chicories, endives, chard, and many flowers. “It’s seed dreamland,” Morton says.

Unanimous decision to go GMO

The Willamette Valley is also home to all the sugar beet seed production in the United States.
Two large companies, Beta Seed and West Coast Beet Seed, supply seed to sugar beet farmers in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Minnesota, North Dakota, and other states where the beets are grown. Harvested beets are processed by seven processing companies, the biggest being American Crystal Sugar Company, based in Moorhead, Minnesota. These processors supply beet sugar, which accounts for one-half of the US sugar production, to food and candy manufacturers, such as Mars and Hershey’s.

Three years ago, these processors decided to convert the entire US sugar beet production to Roundup Ready genetically modified varieties, developed by Monsanto Company. The industry said farmers needed the GM beets for better weed control.

Unanimity was necessary, Morton says. “If any one of the beet processors or a major candy company had rejected the idea of GM beets, the introduction would not have gone ahead.”
Unlike corn and soybean production where non-GMO alternatives are available, the sugar beet processors did not want that option.

“This was a coordinated effort to genetically modify an entire sector of the processed food industry simultaneously and without holdouts that might otherwise have provided a source of conventional beet sugar to fulfill non-GMO consumer demand,” Morton says.

Stealth introduction in the Valley

Field trials of the GM beets began in the Willamette Valley in 2005—quietly, Morton says. “The initial stages of GM beet seed production were carried out in secrecy for at least two years without other sugar beet seed growers having any knowledge or notification that GMOs were in the air, literally,” he says.

The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) did not ask for public comments nor notify anyone about the trials. “A farming technology revolution went on silently for three years, and was definitely not televised, or bragged about,” Morton says.

Restricted GM canola

The Willamette Valley specialty seed industry has a tradition of ensuring seed purity. Seed producers adhere to requirements for isolation distances between crops to prevent cross pollination. Vegetable seed must be 100% pure.

“We take purity seriously,” Morton says.

When some farmers wanted to introduce GM canola for biofuel production in the valley, the Willamette Valley Specialty Seed Association (WVSSA) worked with the ODA to restrict plantings. The Rapeseed Control Areas rules aim to protect specialty vegetable seed production from cross pollination by GM canola.

At a hearing at the ODA, Morton pointed out a double standard with the restriction of GM canola and the allowance of GM sugar beets. “I remarked at the irony that one of our own (seed association) members had just converted 95% of its 2008 crop to Roundup Ready technology, but no one bothered to mention that as they bashed Roundup Ready contamination by biofuel canola,” he says.

“Contamination is inevitable”

Cross pollination between GM sugar beets and related plants, such as chard and table beets, is a major threat in the valley where sugar beets are the predominant crop. Morton says there are many areas where chard and sugar beet fields are “rubbing up against one another.” The two plants cross pollinate because they are the same species.

Sugar beet seed producers wanted to establish a six-mile isolation distance between GM sugar beets and non-GM crops in the valley, based on research showing such a distance was necessary to keep GMO contamination down to .01%. They wanted the distance to protect themselves from potential lawsuits in case of contamination problems.

Morton says such a distance would be impossible to achieve, given the size of the Willamette Valley. “They would overlap existing farms. If my closest sugar beet neighbor had six miles, it would take out all my fields,” he says.

The WVSSA refused to approve the six-mile isolation, and instead lowered it to three miles, and thus increased the risk of GMO contamination to conventional and organic seed.

Morton is angry. “GMO contamination is inevitable under the current situation.”

A sugar beet company representative even admitted this in a meeting Morton attended.
“Organic seed growers in the Willamette Valley must now test their chard and table beet seed for transgenic contamination, paying an expense on account of a technology that will destroy the value of our crop if we get positive results,” he says. “Nobody considered that Roundup Ready sugar beet in one generation might turn up as Roundup Ready salad greens in the next.”

“Last step”: Lawsuit

Seeing no other recourse, Morton joined a lawsuit organized by the Center for Food Safety to sue the US Department of Agriculture for failing to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS). “USDA didn’t consider the impact on all these farms and markets to where we sell seeds. My markets have zero tolerance to GMOs,” he says. “If there is any GMO contamination, my customers won’t buy the seed. Who is going to pay for that?”

Morton and the other plaintiffs hope that a judge’s ruling last year requiring USDA to conduct an EIS for Roundup Ready alfalfa will set a precedent for their case.

The suit was necessary to save precious seed resources. “This was a last step to protect an industry and our businesses from introgression of genetic pollution into the Willamette Valley,” Morton says.

© Copyright The Organic & Non-GMO Report June 2008.

Monday, May 27, 2013

MONSANTO is Now the Owner of BLACKWATER

A report by Jeremy Scahill in The Nation (Blackwater’s Black Ops, 9/15/2010) revealed that the largest mercenary army in the world, Blackwater (now called Xe Services) clandestine intelligence services was sold to the multinational Monsanto. Blackwater was renamed in 2009 after becoming famous in the world with numerous reports of abuses in Iraq, including massacres of civilians. It remains the largest private contractor of the U.S. Department of State “security services,” that practices state terrorism by giving the government the opportunity to deny it.
Many military and former CIA officers work for Blackwater or related companies created to divert attention from their bad reputation and make more profit selling their nefarious services-ranging from information and intelligence to infiltration, political lobbying and paramilitary training – for other governments, banks and multinational corporations. According to Scahill, business with multinationals, like Monsanto, Chevron, and financial giants such as Barclays and Deutsche Bank, are channeled through two companies owned by Erik Prince, owner of Blackwater: Total Intelligence Solutions and Terrorism Research Center. These officers and directors share Blackwater.
One of them, Cofer Black, known for his brutality as one of the directors of the CIA, was the one who made contact with Monsanto in 2008 as director of Total Intelligence, entering into the contract with the company to spy on and infiltrate organizations of animal rights activists, anti-GM and other dirty activities of the biotech giant.
Contacted by Scahill, the Monsanto executive Kevin Wilson declined to comment, but later confirmed to The Nation that they had hired Total Intelligence in 2008 and 2009, according to Monsanto only to keep track of “public disclosure” of its opponents. He also said that Total Intelligence was a “totally separate entity from Blackwater.”
However, Scahill has copies of emails from Cofer Black after the meeting with Wilson for Monsanto, where he explains to other former CIA agents, using their Blackwater e-mails, that the discussion with Wilson was that Total Intelligence had become “Monsanto’s intelligence arm,” spying on activists and other actions, including “our people to legally integrate these groups.” Total Intelligence Monsanto paid $ 127,000 in 2008 and $ 105,000 in 2009.
No wonder that a company engaged in the “science of death” as Monsanto, which has been dedicated from the outset to produce toxic poisons spilling from Agent Orange to PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), pesticides, hormones and genetically modified seeds, is associated with another company of thugs.

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

World’s First GM Babies Born


 – APRIL 21, 2013
POSTED IN: GMOSPOPULATION CONTROL

The world’s first genetically modified humans have been created, it was revealed last night.

The disclosure that 30 healthy babies were born after a series of experiments in the United Statesprovoked another furious debate about ethics.

So far, two of the babies have been tested and have been found to contain genes from three ‘parents’.

Fifteen of the children were born in the past three years as a result of one experimental programme at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey.

The babies were born to women who had problems conceiving. Extra genes from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were fertilised in an attempt to enable them to conceive.

Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year- old children confirm that they have inherited DNA from three adults –two women and one man.

The fact that the children have inherited the extra genes and incorporated them into their ‘germline’ means that they will, in turn, be able to pass them on to their own offspring.

Altering the human germline – in effect tinkering with the very make-up of our species – is a technique shunned by the vast majority of the world’s scientists.

Geneticists fear that one day this method could be used to create new races of humans with extra, desired characteristics such as strength or high intelligence.

Writing in the journal Human Reproduction, the researchers, led by fertility pioneer Professor Jacques Cohen, say that this ‘is the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children’.

Some experts severely criticised the experiments. Lord Winston, of the Hammersmith Hospital in West London, told the BBC yesterday: ‘Regarding the treat-ment of the infertile, there is no evidence that this technique is worth doing . . . I am very surprised that it was even carried out at this stage. It would certainly not be allowed in Britain.’

John Smeaton, national director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said: ‘One has tremendous sympathy for couples who suffer infertility problems. But this seems to be a further illustration of the fact that the whole process of in vitro fertilisation as a means of conceiving babies leads to babies being regarded as objects on a production line.

‘It is a further and very worrying step down the wrong road for humanity.’ Professor Cohen and his colleagues diagnosed that the women were infertile because they had defects in tiny structures in their egg cells, called mitochondria.

They took eggs from donors and, using a fine needle, sucked some of the internal material – containing ‘healthy’ mitochondria – and injected it into eggs from the women wanting to conceive.

Because mitochondria contain genes, the babies resulting from the treatment have inherited DNA from both women. These genes can now be passed down the germline along the maternal line.

A spokesman for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which regulates ‘assisted reproduction’ technology in Britain, said that it would not license the technique here because it involved altering the germline.

Jacques Cohen is regarded as a brilliant but controversial scientist who has pushed the boundaries of assisted reproduction technologies.

He developed a technique which allows infertile men to have their own children, by injecting sperm DNA straight into the egg in the lab.

Prior to this, only infertile women were able to conceive using IVF. Last year, Professor Cohen said that his expertise would allow him to clone children –a prospect treated with horror by the mainstream scientific community.

‘It would be an afternoon’s work for one of my students,’ he said, adding that he had been approached by ‘at least three’ individuals wishing to create a cloned child, but had turned down their requests.