By Ari Berman
They carried signs that demanded "Voting Rights," "Jobs for All" and "Decent Housing." They protested the vigilante killing of an unarmed black teenager in the South and his killer's acquittal. They denounced racial profiling in the country's largest city.
This isn't 1963 but 2013, when so many of the issues that gave rise to the March on Washington fifty years ago remain unfulfilled or under siege today. That's why, on August 24, a broad coalition of civil rights organizations, unions, progressive groups and Democratic Party leaders will rally at the Lincoln Memorial and proceed to the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial to honor the fiftieth anniversary of the march and dramatize the contemporary fight. (President Obama will participate in a separate event commemorating the official anniversary on August 28.) The Supreme Court's decision gutting the Voting Rights Act in late June and the acquittal of George Zimmerman less than three weeks later make this year's march "exponentially more urgent" with respect to pressuring Congress and arousing the conscience of the nation, says Ben Jealous, president of the NAACP, a co-sponsor of the march.
"The main themes will be voting rights, state laws like 'stand your ground' or local laws like stop-and-frisk, and the whole question of jobs and union-busting," says the Rev. Al Sharpton of the National Action Network, who convened the march along with Martin Luther King III. "Fifty years after the original march for jobs and justice, we have a new version of the same issue."
In 1963, current Congressman John Lewis-who nearly died marching for voting rights in Selma, Alabama-was the youngest and most radical speaker at the March on Washington. When Lewis returns to the Lincoln Memorial to address the rally on August 24, he will be the only surviving speaker from that historic afternoon. "We have come a great distance since that day," he said recently, "but many of the issues that gave rise to that march are still pressing needs in our society-violence, poverty, hunger, long-term unemployment, homelessness, voting rights and the need to protect human dignity."
When it comes to voting rights, seven Southern states have passed or implemented new restrictions that disproportionately target people of color since the Court's Voting Rights Act ruling. This follows a presidential election in which voter-suppression efforts took center stage and blacks waited twice as long as whites to vote, on average. On a more structural level, one out of thirteen African-Americans (2.2 million people) cannot vote because of felon disenfranchisement laws-four times higher than the rest of the population.
Saturday, 31 August 2013
The Threat from Rampant Antibiotic Use on the Farm
By Donald Kennedy
When I was commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency's national advisory committee recommended in 1977 that we eliminate an agricultural practice that threatened human health. Routinely feeding low doses of antibiotics to healthy livestock, our scientific advisory committee warned, was breeding drug-resistant bacteria that could infect people. We scheduled hearings to begin the process of curtailing the use of penicillin and other antibiotics for this purpose, but Congress halted the effort before it started.
Today, the science is even clearer that antibiotic overuse in agriculture is dangerous - yet the same risks persist. Fortunately, the FDA appears poised to act by instituting a measure known as Guidance 213. This voluntary policy instructs pharmaceutical companies to stop marketing certain antibiotics for animal production purposes. Some public health advocates want the agency to make the restrictions mandatory, but voluntary guidance can work - if it is finalized. The agency issued a draft version of its policy in April 2012 and received public comments, as required, but the comment period closed about a year ago. Drugmakers have been left awaiting further instruction.
The new guidelines cannot come soon enough. More antibiotics were sold for use in food animal production in 2011, the last year for which complete data are available, than in any prior year. The FDA annually examines bacteria on retail meat and poultry, and each year the bugs show more resistance to antibiotics. Moreover, several new studies using genetic analysis demonstrate with great precision the evolution and transmission of resistant pathogens not traditionally linked to food. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus is a troublesome new source of livestock-associated infections, and the E. coli that cause drug-resistant urinary tract infections can also be transmitted to people via food.
When I was commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency's national advisory committee recommended in 1977 that we eliminate an agricultural practice that threatened human health. Routinely feeding low doses of antibiotics to healthy livestock, our scientific advisory committee warned, was breeding drug-resistant bacteria that could infect people. We scheduled hearings to begin the process of curtailing the use of penicillin and other antibiotics for this purpose, but Congress halted the effort before it started.
Today, the science is even clearer that antibiotic overuse in agriculture is dangerous - yet the same risks persist. Fortunately, the FDA appears poised to act by instituting a measure known as Guidance 213. This voluntary policy instructs pharmaceutical companies to stop marketing certain antibiotics for animal production purposes. Some public health advocates want the agency to make the restrictions mandatory, but voluntary guidance can work - if it is finalized. The agency issued a draft version of its policy in April 2012 and received public comments, as required, but the comment period closed about a year ago. Drugmakers have been left awaiting further instruction.
The new guidelines cannot come soon enough. More antibiotics were sold for use in food animal production in 2011, the last year for which complete data are available, than in any prior year. The FDA annually examines bacteria on retail meat and poultry, and each year the bugs show more resistance to antibiotics. Moreover, several new studies using genetic analysis demonstrate with great precision the evolution and transmission of resistant pathogens not traditionally linked to food. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus is a troublesome new source of livestock-associated infections, and the E. coli that cause drug-resistant urinary tract infections can also be transmitted to people via food.
Friday, 30 August 2013
Companies That Profit from Unhealthy Food Say Keep Eating Junk, Just Exercise More
By Jill Richardson
New rule (as Bill Maher would say): If you make billions of dollars a year selling unhealthy food, you don't get to tell us to work out.
It was one thing when Cookie Monster began telling kids to eat vegetables. Cookie Monster doesn't earn a living by selling cookies, and vegetables are a fantastic alternative to cookies.
But it was a totally different story when Ronald McDonald went all Richard Simmons on us, visiting schools to tell kids to work out.
Exercise is a great idea, but it's not diet advice. Yet this is a frequent tactic of many of the corporations that rake in profits by selling us junk.
Take Coca-Cola's shameless new fitness campaign. "Are you sitting on a solution?" asks a photo on the company's website, depicting two people cuddled up, sitting on a beach. The thing is, they're drinking the problem: Coca-Cola.
Let me translate Coke's new campaign into plain English: "Don't blame us for America's public health crisis." The company is also asking you to not notice that while the American Heart Association recommends no more than six teaspoons of sugar per day for women (nine for men), a single can of Coca-Cola has nearly 10 teaspoons of the sweet stuff.
Or maybe this is what the ad campaign is really saying: "Please ignore the fact that, over the years, we've sold our flagship product in larger and larger containers. Just exercise a bit more - here, we'll even help with some tips - and then you won't notice that our product is terrible for you. Keep drinking Coke, and don't regulate us."
New rule (as Bill Maher would say): If you make billions of dollars a year selling unhealthy food, you don't get to tell us to work out.
It was one thing when Cookie Monster began telling kids to eat vegetables. Cookie Monster doesn't earn a living by selling cookies, and vegetables are a fantastic alternative to cookies.
But it was a totally different story when Ronald McDonald went all Richard Simmons on us, visiting schools to tell kids to work out.
Exercise is a great idea, but it's not diet advice. Yet this is a frequent tactic of many of the corporations that rake in profits by selling us junk.
Take Coca-Cola's shameless new fitness campaign. "Are you sitting on a solution?" asks a photo on the company's website, depicting two people cuddled up, sitting on a beach. The thing is, they're drinking the problem: Coca-Cola.
Let me translate Coke's new campaign into plain English: "Don't blame us for America's public health crisis." The company is also asking you to not notice that while the American Heart Association recommends no more than six teaspoons of sugar per day for women (nine for men), a single can of Coca-Cola has nearly 10 teaspoons of the sweet stuff.
Or maybe this is what the ad campaign is really saying: "Please ignore the fact that, over the years, we've sold our flagship product in larger and larger containers. Just exercise a bit more - here, we'll even help with some tips - and then you won't notice that our product is terrible for you. Keep drinking Coke, and don't regulate us."
All Hail Hungary: Country Bravely Destroys All Monsanto GMO Corn - AGAIN
By Christina Sarich
More than 1000 acres found to have been planted with genetically altered maize crops have been destroyed in Hungary. Standing up to the biotech giants of Monsanto, Dow, and BASF, the country has boldly banned GMO seed. Peru has passed a ban for at least ten years on GM foods, along with Italy, Portugal, Greece, Spain and Austria with their own bans, as well as many other countries. We can only hope more will follow soon.
Hungary's Deputy State Secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development, Lajos Bognar, has made sure that the genetically modified crops don't spread - he says that 'the crops have been ploughed under but pollen has not spread form the maize.'
When checking the fields for GM crops, Hungary found Pioneer Monsanto seed among crops. Many farmers did not even know they were using GMO seed, so the search and destroy will likely continue. It is not surprising that so much seed is being planted without farmer awareness since Monsanto's acquisition of Seminis way back in 2005 allowed them to corner more than 40% of the seed market. They now own many seeds and seed varieties.
In late May of this year another 500 hectares (more than 1200 acres) of GM crops were burned after their discovery in Hungary. The aggressive manner in which this country is trying to derail Monsanto's plans to overtake even organic crops with hybridization due to pollen spread by wind and pollinators including bees and butterflies is not only necessary but valiant. This isn't the first few times that GMO crops have been destroyed. They have also been burned in previous years when found out.
More than 1000 acres found to have been planted with genetically altered maize crops have been destroyed in Hungary. Standing up to the biotech giants of Monsanto, Dow, and BASF, the country has boldly banned GMO seed. Peru has passed a ban for at least ten years on GM foods, along with Italy, Portugal, Greece, Spain and Austria with their own bans, as well as many other countries. We can only hope more will follow soon.
Hungary's Deputy State Secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development, Lajos Bognar, has made sure that the genetically modified crops don't spread - he says that 'the crops have been ploughed under but pollen has not spread form the maize.'
When checking the fields for GM crops, Hungary found Pioneer Monsanto seed among crops. Many farmers did not even know they were using GMO seed, so the search and destroy will likely continue. It is not surprising that so much seed is being planted without farmer awareness since Monsanto's acquisition of Seminis way back in 2005 allowed them to corner more than 40% of the seed market. They now own many seeds and seed varieties.
In late May of this year another 500 hectares (more than 1200 acres) of GM crops were burned after their discovery in Hungary. The aggressive manner in which this country is trying to derail Monsanto's plans to overtake even organic crops with hybridization due to pollen spread by wind and pollinators including bees and butterflies is not only necessary but valiant. This isn't the first few times that GMO crops have been destroyed. They have also been burned in previous years when found out.
Thursday, 29 August 2013
Walmart's Latest Scheme to Replace the Middle Class with an Underclass Forced to Buy Its Shoddy Goods
By Stacy Mitchell
Almost 30 years ago, as the U.S. was bleeding jobs, Walmart launched a "Buy America" program and started hanging "Made in America" signs in its 750 stores. It was a marketing success, cementing the retailer's popularity in the country's struggling, blue-collar heartland. A few years later, NBC's Dateline revealed the program to be a sham. Sure, Walmart was willing to buy U.S.-made goods - so long as they were as cheap as imports, which, of course, they weren't. Dateline found that Walmart's sourcing was in fact rapidly shifting to Asia.
This year, Walmart is back with a new "Buy America" program. In January, the company announced that it would purchase an additional $50 billion worth of domestic goods over the next decade. This week, Walmart is convening several hundred suppliers, along with a handful of governors, for a summit on U.S. manufacturing.
This sounds pretty substantial, but in fact it's just a more sophisticated and media savvy version of Walmart's hollow 1980s Buy America campaign. For starters, $50 billion over a decade may sound huge at first, but measured against Walmart's galactic size, it's not. An additional $5 billion a year amounts to only 1.5 percent of what Walmart currently spends on inventory.
Worse, very little of this small increase in spending on American-made goods will actually result in new U.S. production and jobs. Most of the projected increase will simply be a byproduct of Walmart's continued takeover of the grocery industry. Most grocery products sold in the U.S. are produced here. As Walmart expands its share of U.S. grocery sales - it now captures 25 percent, up from 6 percent in 1998 - it will buy more U.S. foods. But this doesn't mean new jobs, because other grocers are losing market share and buying less. What it does mean is lower wages. As I reported earlier this year, Walmart's growing control of the grocery sector is pushing down wages throughout food production.
Almost 30 years ago, as the U.S. was bleeding jobs, Walmart launched a "Buy America" program and started hanging "Made in America" signs in its 750 stores. It was a marketing success, cementing the retailer's popularity in the country's struggling, blue-collar heartland. A few years later, NBC's Dateline revealed the program to be a sham. Sure, Walmart was willing to buy U.S.-made goods - so long as they were as cheap as imports, which, of course, they weren't. Dateline found that Walmart's sourcing was in fact rapidly shifting to Asia.
This year, Walmart is back with a new "Buy America" program. In January, the company announced that it would purchase an additional $50 billion worth of domestic goods over the next decade. This week, Walmart is convening several hundred suppliers, along with a handful of governors, for a summit on U.S. manufacturing.
This sounds pretty substantial, but in fact it's just a more sophisticated and media savvy version of Walmart's hollow 1980s Buy America campaign. For starters, $50 billion over a decade may sound huge at first, but measured against Walmart's galactic size, it's not. An additional $5 billion a year amounts to only 1.5 percent of what Walmart currently spends on inventory.
Worse, very little of this small increase in spending on American-made goods will actually result in new U.S. production and jobs. Most of the projected increase will simply be a byproduct of Walmart's continued takeover of the grocery industry. Most grocery products sold in the U.S. are produced here. As Walmart expands its share of U.S. grocery sales - it now captures 25 percent, up from 6 percent in 1998 - it will buy more U.S. foods. But this doesn't mean new jobs, because other grocers are losing market share and buying less. What it does mean is lower wages. As I reported earlier this year, Walmart's growing control of the grocery sector is pushing down wages throughout food production.
Hedge Funds, Insider Traders Begin Dumping Monsanto Stock As Reality of GMOs Sinks in Across Wall Street
By Mike Adams
Monsanto executives and insiders are dumping Monsanto stock in record volumes, sending the stock price spiraling downward. CEO Hugh Grant just sold off 40,000 shares at $97.74, and both Janet Holloway and Gerald Steiner -- both high-level Monsanto executives -- recently ditched more than 10,000 shares each. Tom Hartley also bailed on another 6,000 shares at $100.15. (See sources below.)
Hedge funds, meanwhile, are also dumping Monsanto stock, most likely due to sharply increased "negative sentiment." This means people increasingly don't like Monsanto, and that's a direct result of all the growing realizations about the dangers of GMOs, Monsanto's predatory business practices, the company's dangerous experiments that have already unleashed genetic pollution, and the fact that GM corn has been experimentally found to cause widespread cancer tumors in rat studies.
Just the fact that Monsanto's GE wheat trials got out of control and contaminated a wheat field in Oregon -- causing Japan and South Korea to ban U.S. wheat imports -- has resulted in 150 groups now demanding the USDA keep a tighter lid on Monsanto's GMO experiments. These groups are fed up with seeing the market value of their crops destroyed by sloppy "open field" experiments being conducted by Monsanto that spread genetic pollution across the country and contaminate non-GMO crops. (Monsanto goes even further and actually sues the farmers whose fields they contaminated!)
Hedge funds dumping Monsanto
As InsiderMonkey.com reports, Monsanto "has experienced declining interest from the entirety of the hedge funds we track."
Monsanto executives and insiders are dumping Monsanto stock in record volumes, sending the stock price spiraling downward. CEO Hugh Grant just sold off 40,000 shares at $97.74, and both Janet Holloway and Gerald Steiner -- both high-level Monsanto executives -- recently ditched more than 10,000 shares each. Tom Hartley also bailed on another 6,000 shares at $100.15. (See sources below.)
Hedge funds, meanwhile, are also dumping Monsanto stock, most likely due to sharply increased "negative sentiment." This means people increasingly don't like Monsanto, and that's a direct result of all the growing realizations about the dangers of GMOs, Monsanto's predatory business practices, the company's dangerous experiments that have already unleashed genetic pollution, and the fact that GM corn has been experimentally found to cause widespread cancer tumors in rat studies.
Just the fact that Monsanto's GE wheat trials got out of control and contaminated a wheat field in Oregon -- causing Japan and South Korea to ban U.S. wheat imports -- has resulted in 150 groups now demanding the USDA keep a tighter lid on Monsanto's GMO experiments. These groups are fed up with seeing the market value of their crops destroyed by sloppy "open field" experiments being conducted by Monsanto that spread genetic pollution across the country and contaminate non-GMO crops. (Monsanto goes even further and actually sues the farmers whose fields they contaminated!)
Hedge funds dumping Monsanto
As InsiderMonkey.com reports, Monsanto "has experienced declining interest from the entirety of the hedge funds we track."
Wednesday, 28 August 2013
New Study Suggests "universal Fetal Exposure" to BPA
By Gerona, RR, TJ Woodruff, CA Dickenson, J Pan, JM Schwartz, S Sen, M Friesen, VY Fujimoto and PA Hunt
All samples of umbilical cord blood obtained from pregnant women in California had detectable levels of bisphenol A, suggesting "universal fetal exposure," according to newly published research.
The study is the first to show that second-trimester fetuses are widely exposed to relatively high levels of BPA, an estrogen-like substance found in polycarbonate plastic, food can liners and other commonplace consumer products.
The scientists sampled cord blood from the fetuses of 85 women who had undergone elective abortions at a San Francisco clinic that serves Northern and Central California.
Three of the samples had BPA levels higher than ever reported in other umbilical cord blood, which had been collected from full-term fetuses. Thirty-six percent had levels comparable to or higher than those associated with developmental effects in animal tests.
"Our findings suggest universal fetal exposure to BPA in our study population, with some at relatively high levels, and we provide the first evidence of detectable BPA sulfate in mid-gestation fetuses," the scientists from University of California, San Francisco and Washington State University wrote in the study, which was published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology last week.
BPA at low doses has been linked to an array of developmental effects in animals, particularly neurological and behavioral changes, according to published studies. Whether there are effects on the human fetus is unknown, however. The National Toxicology Program, based on the animal experiments, concluded that there is "some concern" for brain, behavior and prostate effects in infants and children.
Some scientists have said that there should be no detectable levels of the active form of BPA in human blood. They say that the BPA found in people must be caused by laboratory error because nearly all active BPA should be metabolized when it passes through the liver. But in this study, the scientists reported that they tested all the materials used in sample collection and storage to make sure they were BPA-free.
Laura Vandenberg, a scientist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who studies BPA but was not part of this study, said "these results should go a long way toward dispelling the myth that all BPA in human blood is the result of accidental contamination during sampling."
For this study, the scientists developed a new technology for testing BPA in cord blood, allowing them to measure three types of BPA, including the first discovery of BPA sulfate in cord blood. BPA sulfate is a form that is created when BPA passes through the liver.
Previous studies have tested pregnant women's blood, amniotic fluid, placenta and cord blood, but none had examined mid-gestation samples.
All samples of umbilical cord blood obtained from pregnant women in California had detectable levels of bisphenol A, suggesting "universal fetal exposure," according to newly published research.
The study is the first to show that second-trimester fetuses are widely exposed to relatively high levels of BPA, an estrogen-like substance found in polycarbonate plastic, food can liners and other commonplace consumer products.
The scientists sampled cord blood from the fetuses of 85 women who had undergone elective abortions at a San Francisco clinic that serves Northern and Central California.
Three of the samples had BPA levels higher than ever reported in other umbilical cord blood, which had been collected from full-term fetuses. Thirty-six percent had levels comparable to or higher than those associated with developmental effects in animal tests.
"Our findings suggest universal fetal exposure to BPA in our study population, with some at relatively high levels, and we provide the first evidence of detectable BPA sulfate in mid-gestation fetuses," the scientists from University of California, San Francisco and Washington State University wrote in the study, which was published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology last week.
BPA at low doses has been linked to an array of developmental effects in animals, particularly neurological and behavioral changes, according to published studies. Whether there are effects on the human fetus is unknown, however. The National Toxicology Program, based on the animal experiments, concluded that there is "some concern" for brain, behavior and prostate effects in infants and children.
Some scientists have said that there should be no detectable levels of the active form of BPA in human blood. They say that the BPA found in people must be caused by laboratory error because nearly all active BPA should be metabolized when it passes through the liver. But in this study, the scientists reported that they tested all the materials used in sample collection and storage to make sure they were BPA-free.
Laura Vandenberg, a scientist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who studies BPA but was not part of this study, said "these results should go a long way toward dispelling the myth that all BPA in human blood is the result of accidental contamination during sampling."
For this study, the scientists developed a new technology for testing BPA in cord blood, allowing them to measure three types of BPA, including the first discovery of BPA sulfate in cord blood. BPA sulfate is a form that is created when BPA passes through the liver.
Previous studies have tested pregnant women's blood, amniotic fluid, placenta and cord blood, but none had examined mid-gestation samples.
Battling India's Monsanto Protection Act, Farmers Demand End to GMO
By Paromita Pain
On August 8, thousands of farmers and activists from across 20 Indian states demonstrated in New Delhi against the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, and demanded an end to GMOs in India. 53-year-old farmer Jaswant Sainhara, standing with his son, proudly held up a placard that read, "Monsanto, Quit India."
August in Delhi is among the hottest months of the year, with temperatures ranging from 40 to 45 degrees Celsius (104 to 113 Fahrenheit). Yet under the sweltering summer sky, the people whose voices rose together that day knew they were not fighting for their justice alone, but were fighting for the basic human right to safe food.
India seems to have awoken to the dangers of GM crops. In a recent move, the courts here rejected two patent appeals by biotech giant Monsanto, dealing a sizable blow to a company that recoups its research investments in large part via patents.
Monsanto wanted to patent its "Methods of Enhancing Stress Tolerance in plants and methods thereof," and "A method of producing a transgenic plant, with increasing heat tolerance, salt tolerance or drought tolerance." But both the Patent Appeals Court and the Intellectual Property Appellate Board rejected the company's claims, saying they involved no "inventive steps" as required in the Patents Act of 1970, and that they offered a "mere application" of already known science.
For the many farmers protesting the GM poisoning of their fields, crops and their very livelihoods, the courts' decision was a significant victory and validation for India's food growers. Sainhara, for example, said he didn't really understand what GM crops were all about until his son - who had been educated through a local NGO - explained to him how GM food and seeds worked.
On August 8, thousands of farmers and activists from across 20 Indian states demonstrated in New Delhi against the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, and demanded an end to GMOs in India. 53-year-old farmer Jaswant Sainhara, standing with his son, proudly held up a placard that read, "Monsanto, Quit India."
August in Delhi is among the hottest months of the year, with temperatures ranging from 40 to 45 degrees Celsius (104 to 113 Fahrenheit). Yet under the sweltering summer sky, the people whose voices rose together that day knew they were not fighting for their justice alone, but were fighting for the basic human right to safe food.
India seems to have awoken to the dangers of GM crops. In a recent move, the courts here rejected two patent appeals by biotech giant Monsanto, dealing a sizable blow to a company that recoups its research investments in large part via patents.
Monsanto wanted to patent its "Methods of Enhancing Stress Tolerance in plants and methods thereof," and "A method of producing a transgenic plant, with increasing heat tolerance, salt tolerance or drought tolerance." But both the Patent Appeals Court and the Intellectual Property Appellate Board rejected the company's claims, saying they involved no "inventive steps" as required in the Patents Act of 1970, and that they offered a "mere application" of already known science.
For the many farmers protesting the GM poisoning of their fields, crops and their very livelihoods, the courts' decision was a significant victory and validation for India's food growers. Sainhara, for example, said he didn't really understand what GM crops were all about until his son - who had been educated through a local NGO - explained to him how GM food and seeds worked.
Tuesday, 27 August 2013
Government-Funded Institutions Have Been Hiding GMO Facts for Years, but Who Is Lying to Who?
By Christina Sarich
While Monsanto and other Big Ag and Big Pharma giants have been telling us GMO food is safe, quoting countless industry-backed studies on the efficacy of their food production via biotech science model, the lies they have been telling us are reaching epic proportions. In the meantime, they continue to accuse anti-GM activists of doing the same.
Take for example, the allegations of Piero Morandini of the University of Milan, who, way back in 2005, found that GM maize contained 100 times less fumonisin per kilogram than in conventional crops, supposedly far less than its makers were telling government agencies. In his findings, GM maize contained less of this fungal toxin notorious for causing Spina Bifida. These field trials would have been a favorable review of GM crops. Were they suppressed?
Fumonisins (FB) are mycotxoins which already infect corn and other grains in the world, but which are used by biotech companies to try to make crops impervious to pests. The food and agricultural industries already lose millions due to mycotoxins annually, but they have now been bred into our food supply with Bt crops - and Round Up Ready Chemicals.
"Because FB may have acute and chronic effects, we hypothesize that even in the absence of debilitating acutely toxic amounts of FB in the swine diet, sustained exposure to small concentrations may negatively affect herd health and production efficiency." (JournalofAnimalScience.org)
The institute which was supposed to conduct unbiased studies on the GM maize crop was none other than the government-funded National Institute for Research on Food, a part of the National Agriculture and Food Research Organization. This same organization is responsible for an anti-GMO report published at EarthOpenSource.org that very clearly explains numerous problems with GM food.
While Monsanto and other Big Ag and Big Pharma giants have been telling us GMO food is safe, quoting countless industry-backed studies on the efficacy of their food production via biotech science model, the lies they have been telling us are reaching epic proportions. In the meantime, they continue to accuse anti-GM activists of doing the same.
Take for example, the allegations of Piero Morandini of the University of Milan, who, way back in 2005, found that GM maize contained 100 times less fumonisin per kilogram than in conventional crops, supposedly far less than its makers were telling government agencies. In his findings, GM maize contained less of this fungal toxin notorious for causing Spina Bifida. These field trials would have been a favorable review of GM crops. Were they suppressed?
Fumonisins (FB) are mycotxoins which already infect corn and other grains in the world, but which are used by biotech companies to try to make crops impervious to pests. The food and agricultural industries already lose millions due to mycotoxins annually, but they have now been bred into our food supply with Bt crops - and Round Up Ready Chemicals.
"Because FB may have acute and chronic effects, we hypothesize that even in the absence of debilitating acutely toxic amounts of FB in the swine diet, sustained exposure to small concentrations may negatively affect herd health and production efficiency." (JournalofAnimalScience.org)
The institute which was supposed to conduct unbiased studies on the GM maize crop was none other than the government-funded National Institute for Research on Food, a part of the National Agriculture and Food Research Organization. This same organization is responsible for an anti-GMO report published at EarthOpenSource.org that very clearly explains numerous problems with GM food.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
