Jon Rappoport
Unpredictable effects. Unknown outcomes. Potential health consequences. Uncertain gene technology.
These aren’t phrases biotech giants like to hear.
They prefer:
“One gene produces one protein.”
“Each gene has a specific function.”
This is the basis for the modern biotech industry, and it applies most definitely to GMO crops.
And it is false.
So for example, when Monsanto says the genes they insert in plants only serve to protect the plants from the herbicide Roundup and have no other function, they’re making it up.
For a brief summary of the situation, see Denise Caruso’s NY Times piece, “A Challenge to Gene Theory, a Tougher Look at Biotech,” July 1, 2007.
Caruso reports on the findings of an “exhaustive four-year effort…organized by the United States National Human Genome Research Institute and carried out by 35 groups from 80 organizations around the world.”
“…genes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other components in ways not yet fully understood.”
“Evidence of a networked [interacting] genome shatters the scientific basis for virtually every official risk [safety] assessment of today’s commercial biotech products, from genetically engineered crops to pharmaceuticals.”
In other words, each gene inserted in GMO food crops cannot be said to have only one function. There is reason to believe the inserted genes interact with genes already in the plants, and produce unknown effects.
Therefore, bland assurances of safety are smoke blowing in the wind.
“Jack Heinemann, a professor of molecular biology in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand and director of its Center for Integrated Research in Biosafety”: ‘The real worry for us has always been that the commercial agenda for biotech may be premature, based on what we have long known was an incomplete understanding of genetics…’
Heinemann: “Because gene patents and the genetic engineering process itself are both defined in terms of genes acting independently, [government] regulators may be unaware of the potential impacts arising from these network [interacting] effects.”
Biotech companies like Monsanto are, to be sure, aware of this gaping hole in their “science” of gene-function. In fact, according to Heinemann, “Many biotech companies already conduct detailed genetic studies of their products that profile the expression of proteins and other elements. But they are not required to report most of this data to regulators, so they do not. Thus vast stores of important research information sit idle.”
This means that Monsanto or Dow can conceal what they’ve discovered about GMO hazards. They can hide findings that show unpredicted effects, when inserted genes meet and network with natural genes in the food crops.
If we were merely talking about studies done in labs and abstract articles in journals, that would be one thing. But of course, we are talking about millions of acres planted with GMO crops—and vast populations eating GMO food.
It’s all based on a simplistic and false notion about how genes function.
The biotech giants know this, government regulators know this, and many scientists know this.
But they hide what they know.
And all this dangerous fakery doesn’t even touch on the highly toxic effects of Roundup and other herbicides necessary to manage GMO crops.
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
Serlini’s study was not debunked, on the contrary it was republished after it was determined Monsanto had influenced the first rejection.
Let us not forget an amazing important and undisputed fact.
“All GMO crops are based on a false pretense BEING a single strand of DNA produces a single protein”
This false pretense stems from a erroneous belief going back over 60 years.
This false belief went up in smoke in 2002 with the completion of the genome sequense.
Yet, all government approvals and pro GMO scientific assertions are still based on this false belief.
How many of you know Roundup began as a descaling agent for boilers in 1960?
Glysophate is a chelator of metals.
It is so good at what it was designed for it makes minerals in the food unavailable to humans.
What do you propose we do about that?
I don’t buy that. The extra leg would of been determined while the frog was still in the egg.
They say the same thing for the bees around here too. Couldn’t say when the last ime I’ve seen a frog. Years? A decade? More? Even toads come to think of it. I bet it’s been 40+ years since I’ve seen a salamander. I never see amphibians hunting soughs any more. They say amphibians are the barometer of a wetland. In my area it’s crashing. A couple blocks to my east is Laketown Township. Between that township and mine, there are 83 lakes. I have a 4K acre lake 2 blocks from me, plus several small ponds and a few mudholes that never dry out due to springs. 20 years ago you could hear frogs all night long in the summer. Now total silence.
I also heard yesterday from an expert, that GMO’s are responsible for CWD in the deer up here, and the disapearance of the moose in sugar beet country along the Red River.
Glyphosate not only effects the endocrine system, but the digestive, circulatory, nervous systems, amongst others. That doesn’t count the seeds. Wonder why athletic kids just keel over and die without being hit?
About when round-up came out, Monsanto had a dual action herbicide and pesticide called ethoxyquin. They started to put that in petfoods to fight rancidity of fats. In general a dogs life span went from 14 – 18 years to 8 – 12 years. It effected everything from the animals mouth to it’s butt hole and everything in between. The government allowed 300 ppm in the food. They also put 300 ppm in the meat scraps before it was shipped to the dog food factories.
I talked to a animal food salesman about why they didn’t have ethoxyquin in there cheap dog food. There bread and butter was the fur industry. It effected the quality of the pelt. The market speaks.
Interestingly enough, Science Diet had KD & LD (kidney & liver diet) prescription Diet. These foods were canned. The key word is canned, and very pricey. The vet would put the dog on the canned food and in 2 or 3 months everything cleared up. Then back to the dry and start the circle all over again. Sounds like a scam don’t it?
Our bulk feed & seed bins, the moths would tell me which had it and didn’t.
What happened to our pets then is exactly what is happening to us now, and anything else that eats GMO’s.
Studies offer new insights into causes of deformed frogs
http://www.minnpost.com/politi.....rmed-frogs
Extrapolations seen as unwise
Mike Lannoo, of the University of Indiana Terre Haute, is one of the country’s leading herpetologists and author of the book “Malformed Frogs,” a review of the deformed frog problem that concluded there are likely many causes of abnormal limbs in frogs. Lannoo laments media reports suggesting that parasites and predators are now the answer to all deformities. But he says he’s not sure whether to blame the scientists reporting their results or the media covering those findings.
“I’m comfortable with these results in the context in which the work was done,” says Lannoo. “I’m less comfortable extrapolating that to the level of global significance. Any global pronouncement requires a global data set.
Just because a missing leg can be caused by a predator doesn’t mean that every missing leg was caused by a predator.”
Proposing parasites and predators as a general explanation for frog deformities is a kind of “biology gone wild scenario” says Lannoo, one that masks other possible causes and potentially serious environmental degradation.
There are, Lannoo argues, thousands of frog species in the world, and broad conclusions based on what happens to one or two species in a handful of wetlands are “tenuous at best.”
Lannoo says it’s important to remember that a host of chemicals —pesticides, hormone mimics, metals, PCBs — are known to cause developmental abnormalities in frogs, and lab studies of chemical exposure have produced frogs with deformities comparable to those in nature.
Pieter Johnson says he wishes scientists working on frog deformities would learn to get along. “My feeling has always been that it should be possible to work together on these questions,” he says. “In a given situation it’s pretty easy to rule out parasites. And it’s pretty easy to rule out predators. Well, we’ve come across sites where neither is a factor. And those sites concern me.”
Abe, the final ruling on the frog issue was to do with a parasite in the water at a critical development stage. many scrutinized pesticides, but in the end pesticides were not part of the mutations.
Wildlife Tumors by Judy Hoy
http://www.slideshare.net/digi.....s-judy-hoy
About 15 years ago a school biology class went into the swamps around Henderson Minnesota. They found frogs with 3 or 5 legs, no eyes, and other defects. Henderson is located along the Minnesota River bottom. This is a huge valley, and drains a huge area from the top of this valley. In the days of the “Big Melt”, it (Henderson) would have been a couple hundred feet under what was called the River Warren. This huge river was made when Glacial Lake Agassiz melted. It’s a no-brainer that a huge amount of AG chemicals drain through here. I’ve gone hunting in SW Minnesota, and the small ponds have about 1/8 – 1/4 inch of some pinkish material covering the bottom.
Deformed Minnesota frogs still largely a mystery 17 years later
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2.....rmed-frogs