Survey Reveals Americans Don’t Trust Scientists on GMOs

GMO-apple-label-735-260
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Julie Fidler
December 8, 2016

A new survey from the Pew Research Center of 1,480 people shows that many Americans don’t trust GMOs, or scientists, for that matter. Well, people don’t really see the purported benefits of GMOs, at least. [1]

image-gmo-ps_2016-12-01_food-science_0-01

Generally speaking, Republicans and Democrats have some vastly different attitudes about climate change, but that’s not the case with genetically modified organisms. According to the poll, it didn’t seem to matter what political party respondents aligned themselves with, either. [2]

The authors of the report write:

“Roughly equal shares of Republicans (39%) and Democrats (40%) feel that genetically engineered foods are worse for people’s health. And, half of Republicans (50%) and 60% of Democrats have positive views about the health benefits of organic foods.”

When you write about stuff like GMOs for a living, you get to read all sorts of totally obnoxious sarcastic, snarky comments about how ignorant and uneducated you must be to be wary of GMOs – as if its wrong to be cautious. (Yes, nothing is more ridiculous than questioning food that is created in a lab.) Yet, Pew found that about 39% of respondents with postgraduate degrees felt that foods with GM ingredients are worse for health, while 32% of those with a high school diploma or less said the same.

Statistically significant? Nah. But it tickled me a little.

When asked to self-report their “scientific knowledge” as “high,” “medium,” or “low,” those in the “medium” category were the most likely to think GM crops are worse for health (47%), while those in the “high” category weren’t quite as worried about the potential health ramifications of GMOs (37%). Those with “low” scientific knowledge were the least concerned about the effects of GMOs (29%).

No, political lines didn’t seem to divide respondents’ opinions on GMOs, but interestingly enough, respondents were almost as likely to believe that a scientist’s own political leanings would influence his or her research as much as his or her concern for the public interest.

image-gmo-ps_2016-12-01_food-science_0-03

What’s more, a large percentage of respondents also believed that a scientist’s professional aspirations were equally likely to dictate research findings as actual evidence.

Pew says that, overall, Americans’ attitudes about food and health are not determined by politics or demographics. The researchers write:

“The divides over food do not fall along familiar political fault lines. Nor do they strongly tie to other common divisions such as education, income, geography, or having minor children. Rather, they tie to individual concerns and philosophies about the relationship between food and well-being.

One indicator of such philosophies is the degree of concern people have about the issue of GM foods. The minority of U.S. adults who care deeply about the issue of GM foods (16%) are much more likely than those with less concern about this issue to consider GM foods worse for health (75% vs. 17% of those with no or not too much concern about GM foods); they are also much more likely to consider organic produce healthier: 81% compared with 35% of those with no or not too much concern about GM foods.”

Here are a few more findings from the survey:

  • 48% said GM foods were no different from non-GMO foods.
  • 64% agreed that scientists understand the health effects of GM foods “fairly well” or “very well,” but 35% said scientists either don’t know much about the health effects or know nothing at all.
  • 16% of adults said they cared “a great deal” about GM foods, while 37% said they cared “some” about the issue. About 31% said they didn’t care too much and 15% didn’t care at all.
  • Younger adults were more likely to consider GM foods a health risk, with 48% of those 18 to 29 saying that GMOs are worse for health than non-GMOs compared with 29% of those 65 and older.

image-gmo-ps_2016-12-01_food-science_0-05

Don’t let anyone tell you you’re a dolt for being worried about genetically modified food!

Read More at: NaturalSociety.com

Sources:

[1] Vocativ

[2] Food Navigator

General Mills sued for false use of ‘natural’ claim on Nature Valley Granola Bars, found to contain glyphosate

Glyphosate
Source: NaturalNews.com
David Gutierrez
August 31, 2016

General Mills is being sued for misleading use of the term “natural” on packages of Nature Valley granola bars, which have been shown to contain residues of the toxic herbicide glyphosate (Roundup).

The lawsuit, filed by Moms Across America, Beyond Pesticides and the Organic Consumers Association, alleges that consumers expect products labeled “natural” to be free of synthetic toxins. Yet the granola bars in question bear a label that reads “Made with 100% NATURAL whole grain OATS.”

“As a mother, when I read “100% Natural” I would expect that to mean no synthetic or toxic chemicals at all,” said Zen Honeycutt, executive director of Moms Across America. “Glyphosate is a toxic chemical that the EPA recognizes as a ‘reproductive effector’ which ‘can cause liver and kidney damage’ and ‘digestive effects.’ It is unacceptable that Nature Valley granola bars contain any amount of this chemical.”

Glyphosate not ‘natural’

For years, consumer groups have criticized the FDA for failing to define a clear standard for what constitutes a “natural” food or ingredient. To date, the FDA has only stated that a “natural” claim must be “truthful and not misleading.” The only ingredients that the FDA has prohibited are artificial colors, artificial flavors and the vaguely defined catchall “synthetic substances” – a category that does not even include major industrially manufactured chemicals such as high fructose corn syrup!

The FDA also prohibits the use of the term on ingredients other than “natural flavors” (which are themselves isolated chemicals extracted in labs).

Yet, according to a 2015 survey by Consumer Reports, 66 percent of consumers seek out products labeled “natural” because they believe these foods to be produced without pesticides (including herbicides), hormones, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or artificial ingredients of any kind.

“Food grown with dangerous pesticides like glyphosate isn’t natural,” said Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association. “Consumers understand this. That’s why sales of natural products are booming. Unfortunately, companies’ misleading claims trick consumers into buying just what they’re trying to avoid. This has to be stopped.”

A number of recent lawsuits have caused food companies to move away from the “natural” label, replacing it with terms such as “honest” and simple.” For example, General Mills itself agreed in a 2014 lawsuit settlement to stop using the term “100 percent natural” for Nature Valley granola bars that contain any of several highly processed ingredients, including high fructose corn syrup or maltodextrin.

Yet now the company has found a way around that agreement, labeling the oats – rather than the bars – as “100 percent natural.”

Levels high enough to poison kidneys, liver

The lawsuit charges that the oats used in Nature Valley granola bars cannot be considered 100 percent natural, because tests have shown that they contain residues from a toxic synthetic chemical, glyphosate. It also accuses General Mills of misleading consumers about glyphosate’s harmful effects.

“Glyphosate cannot be considered ‘natural’ because it is a toxic, synthetic herbicide,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “Identified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a carcinogen, it should not be allowed for use in food production, and certainly not in food with a label that suggests to consumers that the major ingredient – oats – is 100% natural.”

Glyphosate is one of world’s top selling herbicides. Its use has ballooned due to the widespread adoption of glyphosate-resistant GMOs, but it is also used on non-GMO crops, such as oats. Other than buying organic produce, one of the only ways to avoid glyphosate is to grow your own food at home.

Although the glyphosate levels found in the granola bars are “only” 0.45 parts per billion (ppb), well below the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) safe exposure threshold, studies have found that concentrations as low as 0.1 ppb can cause damage to the liver and kidneys. Glyphosate has also been linked to chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease, and to a wide range of other problems, including birth defects.

In a recent letter to the EPA, a group of leading scientists warmed that glyphosate also contributes to antibiotic resistance and causes devastation to soil and wildlife health.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:

FoodNavigator-USA.com

SustainablePulse.com

OrganicConsumers.org

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Top 7 ways a hospital stay can go downhill

[Editor’s Note]

Given the fact that there is irrefutable verifiable evidence that shows that preventable medical mistakes kill 250,000 people like clockwork [conservative estimate] every year in and out is highly disturbing.  It lays a troubling foundation for the post that follows.  For more please read:

Preventable Medical Mistakes Are 3rd Leading Cause Of Death In The US

Superbugs
Source: NaturalNews.com
S.D. Wells
August 31, 2016

Even if you eat 99 percent organic food, take herbal supplements, exercise, consult a nutritionist and live responsibly, at some point you will wind up in a hospital for something – either a broken bone, severe laceration, emergency operation or maybe just to bring in a loved one for some other reason. Believe it or not, the scariest part of your visit to the hospital or emergency room goes beyond the pressing need you have for a doctor to cut you open, sew you up or reset that broken “wing.” Sure, you don’t want to bleed to death from your injury, and you’re probably just praying the pain will subside soon, but there are dangers lurking in that medical center; in fact, your “dire” situation could get far worse, and in a short period of time.

Welcome to America, where people think medical insurance is the best thing since sliced bread, but many find out the hard way that the slippery slope of medical care can rapidly decline, sending them tumbling down, down, down, into the abyss of the chronic sick-care nightmare that’s sadly become commonplace.

Here they come: The top 7 ways a hospital stay can go downhill – and fast!

1. Superbugs: Hospitals across America are well aware that the MRSA (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus) superbug bacterium causes potentially deadly staph infections and is completely immune to antibiotics. The biggest irony is that MRSA can be killed by natural medicines like colloidal silver, garlic and aloe vera, but hospitals refuse to use any natural medicines since doctors can’t prescribe them, and they can’t be patented by Big Pharma.

MRSA can enter the body through the skin, mouth or nasal passages, then travel to the bloodstream, urinary tract, lungs or other organs, leading to sepsis, severe inflammation, pneumonia and other potentially fatal complications. Watch out for electronic thermometers, the doctor and nurses’ laboratory coats, soiled gowns, endoscopes, food and flies!

Even scarier than MRSA are gram-negative superbugs (carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae – or CRE). Diagnosed mostly in hospital patients, CRE produce an enzyme that’s resistant to “last resort” antibiotics, and are fatal in up to 60 percent of cases. Gram-negative superbugs have been reported in 35 states, and have played a large part in the nearly 2 million hospital-associated infections to date, contributing to about 100,000 deaths every year. That means hospital-acquired infections are among the top ten leading causes of death in the U.S.

2. The pneumonia vaccine: The pneumococcal vaccine is brewed in growth mediums and manufactured with scary carcinogenic processing ingredients that you simply wouldn’t believe. The highly secretive vaccine industry uses genetically modified soy peptone broth, ammonium sulfate (which is 21 percent nitrogen and flame retardant) and polysorbate 80, which when injected into muscle tissue can cause anaphylactic shock. What was it you came into the hospital for again? Polysorbate 80 also suppresses your immune system while causing severe allergic reactions – a combination of events that can kill you. The pneumonia vaccine called Prevnar contains over 20 strains of pneumonia, diphtheria and streptococcus infectious bacteria – a completely unpredictable combination. Some surgeons actually recommend this toxic jab for seniors immediately after major operations, during recovery.

3. GMO food: So you arrive at the hospital injured, stressed, worried, sick and weak. Your body needs nutrients as it drains what it has to save you from this hopefully short-lived nightmare. But guess what? You’ve just entered the danger zone, where not a single morsel of food, beverage or “medicine” has one lick of nutrition, and even worse, most of it contains genetically modified, pesticide-laden and processed ingredients that destroy immunity and make you even weaker. Not one hospital in America serves organic food, and the “protein” drinks they offer are loaded with GM soy and canola oil that strip your body of nutrients and add to the health chaos, sending you straight downhill.

4. Antibiotics: Doctors in America just love slinging those prescriptions! They scribble some secret language on a little piece of paper and give you some warm, fuzzy advice to make you feel safe, all while crippling your immunity, ensuring your stay at the hospital travels in one direction: downhill.

5. Unnecessary surgery: You may not know that doctors have a financial incentive to perform surgery on dying seniors because Medicare is guaranteed to pay for it. Researchers from Harvard School of Public Health reported that over 34 percent of people over age 65 are operated on during their last year, 25 percent in their last month, and 10 percent in their last week of life. How do they die? The stress of surgery and poor conditions in hospitals leads to post surgery pneumonia, superbug infections and heart attacks.

6. The wrong diagnosis: American medical doctors and oncologists are trained to do surgery, read x-rays, run expensive tests and prescribe multiple chemical-based medications. That’s about it. They often make major mistakes that can cost you your life. They’ll tell you your sickness is inherited when it’s not. They’ll prescribe antibiotics for viral infections because the symptoms are similar. They’ll remove organs (ie: gall bladder removed for gall stones) for illnesses that can be healed by simply changing patient diet plans to a plant-based regimen.

7. Your chart gets misread or mixed up with that of someone else: Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for your left arm, knee or hip to get operated on when it’s really your right one that needed the work. Many hospitals today are so overcrowded that nurses and surgeons often mix up charts or files when more than one person has the same last name.

Bottom line: Eat organic food, research natural medicine and live carefully so you can stay healthy and avoid the hospital. Good luck!

Sources for this article include:

SafePatientProject.org

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Vaccines.ProCon.org

TruthWiki.org

NaturalNews.com

Herbs-Info.com

Study: Glyphosate damages reproductive development in rats, increasing risk for cancer and infertility

Glyphosate
Source: NaturalNews.com
David Gutierrez
August 29, 2016

Glyphosate — the active ingredient of Monsanto’s blockbuster herbicide Roundup — may disrupt development of the uterus, leading to fertility problems and cancer, according to a study conducted by researchers from Argentina and published in the journal Toxicology.

Roundup is one of the most widely used herbicides on the planet. Its popularity has been almost entirely driven by the adoption of Monsanto-engineered genetically modified (GM) crops that are resistant to the chemical.

Argentina is the world’s leading user of glyphosate, largely due to its heavy planting of GM soybeans. Yet doctors and scientists have pointed to an alarming trend of high miscarriage rates in soybean growing areas. Meanwhile, local farmers have blamed herbicides including glyphosate for alarmingly high rates of mutations in farm animals, which quadrupled following a recent surge in GM soy cultivation.

May cause uterine cancer

In the new study, researchers injected newborn female rats with glyphosate for seven days following birth, at doses of 2 mg/kg of body weight — the same dose that US regulators have ruled is safe to consume daily over the course of a lifetime.

The researchers observed abnormal cell proliferation and structural changes to the uteri of the rats, as well as disruptions to the expression of proteins that play a role in uterine development. These changes occurred even though there were no signs of toxicity (acute or chronic) in the rats, and no changes in their weight relative to untreated rats.

The findings suggest that glyphosate may harm female fertility and lead to uterine cancer, the researchers concluded.

Notably, among the effects observed were disruptions to hormonal activity (endocrine disruption), supporting growing concern that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor. Significantly, many endocrine disruptors are more potent at very small concentrations (on the orders of parts per billion) than at the higher one typically tested by regulatory agencies.

The researchers note that they deliberately chose to use injected rather than oral glyphosate, even though oral administration is favored for pesticide and herbicide safety studies. That’s because the rats being studied were so young that they were only consuming their mothers’ milk, and there was no other way to give them the relevant doses. This decision was supported by scientists interviewed by The Ecologist; unfortunately, chemical-friendly regulators may use it as an excuse to ignore the study’s findings.

Roundup worse than glyphosate alone

Yet the new study is only one of many recent trials implicating glyphosate and Roundup in reproductive harm. Earlier this year, in a study published in Environmental Health, researchers from Kings College London found that ultra-low dose exposure to glyphosate — like humans might get from drinking water or from residue on their food — caused large-scale changes to the genome of rats. Some of these changes appear to be epigenetic — changes in gene expression that can be passed on to future generations.

The same researchers also successfully reverse-engineered the proprietary “inactive ingredients” of Roundup, and demonstrated that some of these may also have toxic effects. This is a highly significant finding, as most regulatory agencies simply presume that inactive ingredients are chemically neutral and therefore harmless.

But when it comes to Roundup, that consensus is starting to crack. Last year, an Australian study found that at levels commonly found in US and Australian drinking water, both Roundup and glyphosate alone caused endocrine disrupting effects, in part by killing off cells that produce the female hormone progesterone. That study actually found that Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate alone.

Also last year, the European Union Food Safety Authority (EFSA), while attempting to claim that glyphosate does not cause cancer, admitted that studies performed on Roundup have indeed suggested that the herbicide causes genetic damage. Thus, the EFSA said, Roundup is likely to lead to cancer.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:
www.theecologist.org
www.naturalnews.com
www.naturalnews.com
www.naturalnews.com

New GMOs Genetically Engineering Our World

soup sandwich copy
Source: FarmWars.Info
Barbara H. Peterson
April 27, 2016

Designer Species – Recreating the world in our own image…

The game is rigged. The fix is in. Has been for a while, we’ve just been bandied about and hoodwinked into thinking that we can change the fact that corporations in league with the corporate government really do not care about our health or our very existence other than our worth as worker bees and “consumers” of whatever garbage they want to put on our plates.

The “label it” campaign was a farce, ripe for deception. It did, however, prolong our hopes until a more deceptive form of genetic engineering would take the stage and flood the kitchen with manufactured food-like organisms that have been designed to fly completely under the radar and any phony labeling laws. Eat up, America. Just don’t ask what it is you are putting in your mouths.

The ‘New And Improved’ Genetic Engineering

What we have seen thus far in the field of genetic engineering has been just the awkward beginnings of a plan to re-engineer the world and all of its various organisms into a ‘new and improved’ version (didn’t they say that about the last con they were selling?), created in a lab and designed to replace all that is natural.

According to proponents of this scheme, the world and its life forms as they exist are inconvenient, imperfect, not acceptable, and drastically need revision in order to be sustainable, green, healthy, and oh yes, let’s not forget, able to ‘end hunger’ and ‘feed the world.’ Lies. All lies.

There is an exciting new player in the ever-expanding field of genome editing. In a study reported in the January 2013 issue of Science, two groups—Cong et al.1 and Mali et al.2—explored the limits and adaptability of a prokaryotic RNA-based system for mammalian genome-wide editing. This new method of genome engineering is derived from an adaptive immune system known as CRISPR (Clustered Regulatory Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) that bacteria and archaea use as a means to protect themselves against foreign invasive elements. These two studies show that the CRISPR system is an efficient method to alter mammalian genomes. At present, four types of discrete systems have been shown to generate, to different degrees of specificity and efficiency, genome-wide editing: three distinct protein-based nuclease systems,3,4,5 a chemical-based nuclease system,6 an adeno-associated virus (AAV)–based system,7 and now a protein RNA–based system.1,2

http://www.nature.com/mt/journal/v21/n4/full/mt201346a.html

Resistance Is (Almost) Futile – Monsanto Is Upgrading The Borg

The first step in flooding the world with this new RNA technology lies in pesticide sprays.

It’s called the “BioDirect” initiative and it will eliminate costly resistance to glyphosate, eradicate vexingly resilient insects with “biopesticides” and even modify the genetic code of a plant by simply spritzing it with an RNA-infused surfactant spray. The technology is called “RNA interference” (RNAi) and it heralds a brave new world of profitability for agrochemical corporations. It also opens a Pandora’s box full of as-yet unanswered ethical questions about genetic drift, patenting plants on the fly and, most ominously, whether RNAi can, should or will be weaponized like another Monsanto product — Agent Orange.

RNAi technology hijacks DNA’s messenger system — the ribonucleic acid (RNA) that carries out DNA’s instructions. In effect, RNAi sends human-made messages that can, in turn, alter or kill its target by scrambling cellular functions, turning off organs, dropping resistance to a herbicide (glyphosate) or altering the DNA’s command system to produce an artificial gene expression.

The real issue is whether the next best move after drenching the planet in pesticides is to then start pumping out RNAi biopesticides.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35517-monsanto-s-willing-executioners

RNAi pesticides appear to be next in line behind Roundup, which is coming under increased scrutiny ever since its main ingredient, Glyphosate, was declared a possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization.

Now, instead of conceding and working with nature, they are counterattacking with RNAi technology. Why? Because sales are flagging. The market is literally oversaturated with glyphosate. And Monsanto wants to extend the life and profitability of Roundup by knocking out resistance at the cellular level.

As a result, we face the unknown consequences of introducing a tidal wave of RNA into ecosystems that are not adapted to a sudden influx of genetic messages. Just think about that for a minute. Antonio Regalado pointed out in MIT Technology Review, “RNA may be natural … but introducing large amounts of targeted RNA molecules into the environment is not.”

The USDA and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have already signed off on RNAi apples engineered by a Canadian company and although Monsanto is still awaiting approval, a 2014 statement by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicates that their RNAi may already be baked into your cake…

…With Monsanto’s scientists pushing favourable papers at the EPA and with farmers who are supportive of agrochemical options clamouring for new GMO herbicide technology, it sure seems like resistance to their solution to glyphosate resistance is futile.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987530/while_we_all_fixate_on_glyphosate_monsanto_prepares_its_next_gm_trick_rna_pesticides.html

And the goal for Monsanto regarding these new pesticides? Not to provide an end-fix to the problem it created, but to prolong the life of the pesticide for added company profit. The company knows the effectiveness of any new creation will not last forever.

Robb Fraley, Monsanto’s chief technology officer, explained that RNAi was highly specific to the targeted pest. That requires added work on the front end to identify the genes for “interference.” Being specific won’t eliminate concerns with resistance, but should prolong the life of these pest control tools.

http://farmindustrynews.com/crop-protection/new-approach-pest-control

Regulations? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Regulations!

And the master plan is as it has always been – get the technology out there and into the public arena before any pesky regulatory committee needs to get paid off to pass flimsy regulations in favor of corporate interests. After all, any time you can save a buck, do so.

Nina Holland, researcher for Corporate Europe Observatory, says: “The biotech industry has waged an under-the-radar campaign to get new GM products absolved from GM regulation. The TTIP negotiations are seen by industry across the board and the US government as the perfect opportunity to block EU processes that are supposed to protect public health and the environment. The regulation of new GM techniques is a case in point.”

http://corporateeurope.org/pressreleases/2016/04/commission-fails-regulate-new-gmos-after-intense-us-lobbying

CRISPR-Cas9  – On To Editing Living Organisms With RNA Technology

Sprayable pesticides are just the first step. After all, who wouldn’t want a new and improved pesticide that you can simply spray on a plant and only certain plant pests bite the dust? And people will buy it hook, line and sinker. Just like they did the Roundup lie.

After that, it’s a case of ‘anything goes.’ RNA technology will be accepted. At least that is what the biotech industry is counting on. So, it’s on to crops. Why not? After all, it’s benign. Or so we think. We really don’t know, but a mere technicality such as that shouldn’t stand in the way of progress.

How will we deal with prospects for editing the genes of organisms in living environments?

In the realm of agriculture, that’s no longer hypothetical.

Since its 2013 demonstration as a genome editing tool in Arabidopsis and tobacco — two widely used laboratory plants — CRISPR has been road-tested in crops, including wheat, rice, soybeans, potatoes, sorghum, oranges and tomatoes. By the end of 2014, a flood of research into agricultural uses for CRISPR included a spectrum of applications, from boosting crop resistance to pests to reducing the toll of livestock disease.

http://ensia.com/voices/crispr-is-coming-to-agriculture-with-big-implications-for-food-farmers-consumers-and-nature/

What’s In Your Body?

But wait! It appears that some gene edited crops are already here, and using a different technique than CRISPR, totally unregulated, and flying completely under the radar.

Meanwhile, the first commercially available gene edited crop — produced using not CRISPR but another form of gene editing known as RTDS — has already appeared: an oilseed rape created by Cibus, a San Diego–based company. The rape has been altered for herbicide resistance, enabling farmers to spray their crop with weed killer. According to Nature, Cibus is marketing the product as non–genetically modified, since only a few snippets of the plant’s existing genes have been changed and “no gene has been inserted from a different kind of organism, nor even from another plant.” Even though RTDS is a different system than CRISPR, the similarities are sufficient enough that identical policy and regulatory questions apply to both.

http://ensia.com/voices/crispr-is-coming-to-agriculture-with-big-implications-for-food-farmers-consumers-and-nature/

Labeling makes no difference at all if that label does not reflect that any genetic engineering has taken place when in reality, it has. Just another sleight of hand by our corporate manipulators. Oh, they will get around to making some sort of regulatory statement sooner or later, but rest assured, whatever they decide, it won’t be in our best interests, but in the interests of corporate profit. And only until after the damage is done and we are well on our way to being saturated in the stuff.

Pesticides, Crops, Then Critters, Oh My!

Reports suggest that an entire barnyard of edited animals destined for industrial agriculture is rapidly filling the R&D pipeline. Recombinetics, a start-up firm, made headlines with hornless dairy cattle carrying a smidgen of genes from naturally smooth-headed beef cows. The company is now working on Brazilian beef cattle with larger muscles (for more meat, which may be more tender), while other firms are developing chickens that only produce female offspring (for egg-laying) and beef cattle that only produce males (for more efficient feed-to-meat conversion).

With respect to gene drives, while agriculture remains at the periphery thus far, researchers at Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering have outlined heady prospects. Gene drives could “pave the way toward sustainable agriculture,” they suggest, by reversing pesticide resistance in insects and herbicide resistance in weeds. Drive systems could also destroy or modify pesky plant pests and squelch populations of invasive species, such as rats and kudzu.

A CRISPR-tweaked farm system could have a smaller environmental footprint and even humanitarian benefits, if it means farmers don’t have to dehorn cattle or cull their male bulls.

As mentioned above, among the agricultural applications of CRISPR in the research pipeline are those that would alter the biology of insects and weeds — in some cases, editing genes to overcome resistance to pesticides and herbicides. CRISPR-assisted gene drive technology could propel such mutations through populations in the wild, creating the potential to modify entire plant or animal communities over just a few years.

http://ensia.com/voices/crispr-is-coming-to-agriculture-with-big-implications-for-food-farmers-consumers-and-nature/

Pave the way towards sustainable agriculture? Humane? Just who are they trying to kid? If Monsanto had not dowsed the world in deadly poisons, agriculture would be sustainable. Now that the ground has been poisoned, people are dying from cancer and all sorts of pesticide-induced illnesses, Monsanto and the biotech industry have the cojones to tell us that they will solve the problem by using a new and unproven gene editing technique to fix the problem created by them? Seriously? And not to mention that cows grow horns just like we grow feet. And hands. And noses. Horns are simply inconvenient for us. What’s next, beakless chickens? People with six hands so they can do more work for their employers? Humans are not exempt from the genetic mayhem by any means.

Chimeras Are Gestating on U.S. Research Farms

A radical new approach to generating human organs is to grow them inside pigs or sheep.

The experiments rely on a cutting-edge fusion of technologies, including recent breakthroughs in stem-cell biology and gene-editing techniques. By modifying genes, scientists can now easily change the DNA in pig or sheep embryos so that they are genetically incapable of forming a specific tissue. Then, by adding stem cells from a person, they hope the human cells will take over the job of forming the missing organ, which could then be harvested from the animal for use in a transplant operation.

“We can make an animal without a heart. We have engineered pigs that lack skeletal muscles and blood vessels,” says Daniel Garry, a cardiologist who leads a chimera project at the University of Minnesota. While such pigs aren’t viable, they can develop properly if a few cells are added from a normal pig embryo. Garry says he’s already melded two pigs in this way and recently won a $1.4 million grant from the U.S. Army, which funds some biomedical research, to try to grow human hearts in swine.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/545106/human-animal-chimeras-are-gestating-on-us-research-farms/

Do you really think that this will stop at human organs grown in pigs? Why not just create a ‘sustainable’ human? Maybe we can create one that doesn’t need to eat real food. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Mary Shelly’s “Frankenstein” was prophetic. We are being engineered. This experiment is being conducted in plain sight with the approval of your friendly corporate government. The tools for its implementation are most likely already on your plate, in your field, in your water supply, and are flooding your body as I type.

One thing is certain – no one knows where this will lead. If anyone says they do know the long term implications of tweaking nature to suit some phony scientist’s vision of a perfect genetically engineered world, that person is a liar.

And this is just the beginning…

Read More At: FarmWars.info

©2016 Barbara H. Peterson

Book Review: Seeds Of Deception – Exposing Industry & Government Lies About The Safety Of The Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating by Jeffrey M. Smith

GENR.jpg
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
August 18, 2016

Seeds Of Deception – Exposing Industry & Government Lies About The Safety Of The Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating by Jeffrey M. Smith is a relentless foray into the veil of deception obfuscating genetically modified food that has been cast by Big Biotech companies like Monsanto & Co.

Seeds Of Deception is chock-full of hundreds of references that eviscerate the conventional narrative in very incisive ways.  These countless examples shown by the author poignantly point out many of the issues that genetic engineering of organisms is fraught with.

A snippet into some of the inherent issues that plague genetically engineered foods mentioned in the book involve code scramblers, messing up the host’s normal DNA, horizontal gene transfer and antibiotic resistance, gene silencing, environmental influences, turning on your genes, waking sleeping viruses, cancer and more safety issues that are highly unknown in society.

Regarding cancer, in fact, Smith elaborates:

“The CaMV light switch and other viral promoters used in GM crops can also activate other, non-viral genes in species where it “happens to be transferred,” says Ho and others.  “One consequence of such inappropriate over-expression of genes may be cancer.”  Stanely Ewen, one of Scotland’s leading experts in tissue diseases, agrees.  He says that CaMV promoter “could affect stomach and colonic lining by causing a growth factor effect with the unproven possibility of hastening cancer formation in those organs.”[1][Bold Emphasis Added]

Not only are the health issues involved with genetically modified organisms [GMOs] detailed at length, but the author goes beyond that to cover the downright corruption that is taking place between Big Biotech and government as best exemplified by the revolving door between Monsanto and the FDA.  Coupled with that is the fact that many of the scientists that are working behind the scenes are also board members of Big Biotech companies in a classic conflict of interest scenario.

In fact, FDA corruption was so bad that hundreds of scientists either quit or retired.

Detailed below:

“FDA veterinarian Richard Burroughs described the changes he saw.  “There seemed to be a trend in the place toward approval at any price  It went from a university-like setting where there was independent scientific review to an atmosphere of “approve, approve, approve.”  He said, “the thinking is, ‘How many things can we approve this year?’ Somewhere along the way they abdicated their responsibility to the public welfare.”[2][Bold Emphasis Added]

FDA corruption is actually trenchantly detailed throughout the length of the book.

Not only that, but as Smith soberingly mentions:

“Research in the Journal of American Medical Association revealed that study of cancer drugs funded by non-profit groups were eight times more likely to reach unfavorable conclusions as the studies funded by the pharmaceutical companies.  Or consider the case of the genetically modified sweetener aspartame: About 165 peer-reviewed studies were conducted on it by 1995.  They were divided almost evenly between those that found no problem and those that raised questions about the sweetener’s safety.  Of those studies that found no problem, 100% were paid for by the manufacturer of the sweetener.  All of the studies paid for by non-industry and non-government sources raised question.  The manufacturer of the sweetener, by the way, is GD Searly, which was a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto during that period.”[3][Emphasis Added]

Moving forward, a very much appreciated portion of the book comes at the end of it.  Smith makes it a point to outline many of the resources available to individuals in regards to this disturbing topic.  That just might be worth the price of the book alone given the many dangers inherent therein.

Regardless, even without that, the book showcases extensive evidence of GMO dangers that individuals should be cognizant of.  This book helps individuals view what the reality is regarding this propaganda-laden topic.  Not only that, but evidence continues being amassed that only buttresses Smith’s concerns.

The question is now, what will you as an individual do about it?

_____________________________________________________________________
Sources:

[1]Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds Of Deception, pg. 65.
[2]Ibid., pg. 142.
[3]Ibid., pg.  41-42.

___________________________________________________________________
If you want more information, please watch the documentaries:

Seeds Of Death – Unveiling The Lies Of GMOs
Genetic Roulette: The Gamble Of Our Lives

8 Lifestyle Practices That Can Help Prevent Cancer

Cancer prevention
Source: NaturalNews.com
S.D. Wells
August 7, 2016

The first question people ask themselves when they find out they have cancer is, “How did I get it?” Yet 99 percent of those people will never figure out the answer to that question. Why? Because cancer is caused mainly by the cumulative consumption of toxins over time. If you keep consuming toxins, your oncologist can’t save you.

No knife can cut out the toxins in your blood. No amount of chemotherapy or radiation can eradicate the carcinogens invading your blood supply. In fact, chemotherapy adds to it; however, the good news is that it’s never too late to cut off cancer’s fuel by ending your chemical intake – and that includes what you eat, drink, breathe in, inject, and put on your body. Medical doctors know NOTHING about this. They recommend the “best” surgeons, the most “technologically advanced” oncology institutions, and relentless testing, including CAT scans, MRIs, mammograms, biopsies, and so on, and so on.

Sure, it’s overwhelming. It should be. You should realize that all the testing and surgery in the world cannot get the poison out of the “pool” if you just go home and keep pouring it in after it’s “removed” or treated with more chemicals. Use common sense. There’s no one step cure. There’s no magic wand a surgeon can wave to fix cancer. No dermatologist in the world can just cut off a cancer spot and cure you for life. No organ can be removed that ends cancer if you eat, drink, breathe and inject toxins day after day after day. Cancer curing lives and breathes in cancer prevention. Don’t eat cancer and it won’t eat you. Apply broad sweeping strokes to paint your new healthy life picture. These are not one stop shopping cures – rather they are lifestyle changes that almost ensure you won’t get what every third American gets in their life – and that’s the dreaded “c” word.

The following 8 lifestyle practices are simple, practical, and can prevent cancer, so do them!

1. Try to always avoid eating GMOs and processed foods whenever possible. Most “American” conventional food contains artificial ingredients, pesticides, preservatives, additives, bleach, nitrates, toxic gluten, and hydrogenated oils that cause cancer.

2. Never put personal care products on your skin, hair, lips, or nails that contain chemicals. Look for organic products that tell you specifically, on the label, they DO NOT contain parabens, coal tar dyes, talc, PEGs (polyethylene glycols), petroleum-based chemicals, phthalates, or Triclosan.

3. Never burn or spray products in your home that contain chemicals, like cheap candles and most popular air fresheners. Buy organic candles and make your own air freshener with filtered water, rubbing alcohol (as carrier), and natural essential oils for wonderful fragrances. It’s an easy formula! Now go buy a spray bottle.

4. Avoid all vaccines and flu shots, as most contain mercury, aluminum, MSG, and formaldehyde. This is no joke. Just check the CDC website. It’s scary and getting worse. So many hoax diseases out there and you can build natural immunity by eating organic food and taking herbal tinctures. Check out turmeric, oil of oregano, and garlic!

5. Never drink water from the tap, as it usually contains sodium fluoride and other people’s medications. Chemicals like bleach cause bladder cancer and pancreatic cancer. Buy a good water filter and never look back!

6. Avoid almost all white foods because they are bleached: including white bread, white pasta, white flour, white sugar, white rice except basmati)

7. Avoid artificial sweeteners – mainly aspartame, sucralose (Splenda), and sorbitol. These are known to cause irritable bowels and migraines, which are just first signs your body is rejecting them. Later comes cancer. Quit them all NOW!

8. If possible, avoid prescription medications, as most are chemical based and turn the blood acidic, enabling cancer to develop and spread easily. Big surprise, huh? Nearly every medication out there simply relieves the symptoms of toxicity temporarily. Don’t fall for the tricks MDs shell out.

Sources for this article include:

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Collective-Evolution.com

NaturalNews.com

TruthWiki.org

TruthWiki.org

TruthWiki.org