Study revealed:
"Safe" levels of Monsanto's GM corn and the chemical herbicide Roundup (glyphosate)
are directly linked to causing cancerous tumors
October 2, 2012 - via Natural News
The recent release of the first ever study to independently and honestly evaluate the long-term effects of eating Monsanto's genetically-modified (GM) corn has sparked massive outcry around the world against the continued use of this genetic poison in the food supply. Authorities in France, Austria, Canada, New Zealand, and elsewhere are reconsidering not only their current policies regarding existing GMOs, but also the legitimacy of the criteria they have been using all along to approve GMOs.
In case you missed it, a recent peer-reviewed study on the effects of routine exposure to "safe" levels of Monsanto's GM corn and the chemical herbicide Roundup (glyphosate) have revealed that the two toxins are directly linked to causing cancerous tumors. The horrifying pictures now circulating the internet of rats with gigantic tumors all over their bodies unveil precisely what Monsanto's GM corn and Roundup are potentially doing to your own body and the bodies of millions of people all over the world.
The study, which was published in the highly-reputable journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, showed how rats fed a diet containing Monsanto's NK603 Roundup-resistant GM corn, which is widely cultivated in the U.S. today, died much earlier than GM-free control rats. Even rats fed just GM corn that had not been treated with Roundup ended up developing multiple ghastly tumors, indicating that some component of GM corn itself, apart from Roundup, is responsible for causing cancer.
The recent release of the first ever study to independently and honestly evaluate the long-term effects of eating Monsanto's genetically-modified (GM) corn has sparked massive outcry around the world against the continued use of this genetic poison in the food supply. Authorities in France, Austria, Canada, New Zealand, and elsewhere are reconsidering not only their current policies regarding existing GMOs, but also the legitimacy of the criteria they have been using all along to approve GMOs.
In case you missed it, a recent peer-reviewed study on the effects of routine exposure to "safe" levels of Monsanto's GM corn and the chemical herbicide Roundup (glyphosate) have revealed that the two toxins are directly linked to causing cancerous tumors. The horrifying pictures now circulating the internet of rats with gigantic tumors all over their bodies unveil precisely what Monsanto's GM corn and Roundup are potentially doing to your own body and the bodies of millions of people all over the world.
The study, which was published in the highly-reputable journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, showed how rats fed a diet containing Monsanto's NK603 Roundup-resistant GM corn, which is widely cultivated in the U.S. today, died much earlier than GM-free control rats. Even rats fed just GM corn that had not been treated with Roundup ended up developing multiple ghastly tumors, indicating that some component of GM corn itself, apart from Roundup, is responsible for causing cancer.
The study was also the first to actually test the effects of GMOs in mammals for a period longer than 90 days. Every single industry-backed study that has ever been conducted was designed to conclude after a period of no longer than three months, which is hardly enough time to assess the long-term health damage caused by GMOs.
The study was also the first to actually test the effects of GMOs in mammals for a period longer than 90 days. Every single industry-backed study that has ever been conducted was designed to conclude after a period of no longer than three months, which is hardly enough time to assess the long-term health damage caused by GMOs. In the new study, tumors did not begin showing up in the test mice until after 120 days of eating GM corn, with the majority of their tumors showing up after 18 months of GM corn consumption. This is more than six times the amount of time typically allotted for GMO safety studies, which proves that long-term safety assessments of GMOs have never truly been conducted. "Health Canada must re-evaluate the safety of all GM foods based on these results and halt new approvals until we have long-term testing and transparent regulation," said Lucy Sharratt from Health Canada about the new findings. "The federal government needs to redesign the entire system that approves GM foods because our regulations are not designed to look for the types of problems these scientists have found." Worldwide backlash against GMOs could put their cultivation to an end Similar sentiments have been expressed by authorities in many other countries as well, where GMO approvals have long been granted based on flawed studies that fail to verify the long-term effects of GMO consumption. In France, for instance, where GMOs are already illegal, officials are calling on European Union regulators to take unilateral action in banning GMOs across Europe. "Depending on ANSES' (National Agency for Healthy Safety) opinion, the government will urge the European authorities to take all necessary measures to protect human and animal health," said French officials. "(The measures) could go as far as invoking emergency suspension of imports of NK603 corn to Europe pending a re-examination of this product on the basis of enhanced assessment methods." To read the full report, visit: http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/#_evidence To help support GMO labeling efforts in California, which have the potential to end the GMO industry in America, visit: http://www.carighttoknow.org/ This article was originally published in Natural News |
Toxicity of GMO now scientifically established
CRIIGEN.org has issued a statement summarizing
its findings of the recent rat study
For the first time, the health impact of a GMO and a widely used pesticide have been comprehensively assessed * in a long term animal feeding trial of greater duration and with more detailed analyses than any previous studies, by environmental and food agencies, governments, industries or researchers institutes.
The two tested products are in very common use : (i) a transgenic maize made tolerant to Roundup, the characteristic shared by over 80% of food and animal feed GMOs, and (ii) Roundup itself, the most widely used herbicide on the planet. The regulatory approval process requires these products to be tested on rats as a surrogate for humans.
The new research took the form of a two year feeding trial on 200 rats, monitored for outcomes against more than 100 parameters. The doses were consistent with typical dietary/ environmental exposure (from 11% GMO in the diet, and 0.1 ppb in water).
The results, which are of serious concern, included increased and more rapid mortality, coupled with hormonal non linear and sex related effects. Females developed significant and numerous mammary tumours, pituitary and kidney problems. Males died mostly from severe hepatorenal chronic deficiencies. Professor Seralini's team in the University of Caen is publishing this detailed study in one of the leading scientific international peer-reviewed journals of food toxicology, on line on Sept. 19, 2012.
The implications are extremely serious. They demonstrate the toxicity, both of a GMO with the most widely spread transgenic character and of the most widely used herbicide, even when ingested at extremely low levels, (corresponding to those found in surface or tap water). In addition, these results call into question the adequacy of the current regulatory process, used throughout the world by agencies involved in the assessment of health, food and chemicals, and industries seeking commercialisation of products
In view of these findings, the researchers consider that market authorisations for these products should be immediately reviewed. The 90 day test duration should be extended to 2 years for agricultural GMOs. In addition, all pesticides should be tested in their formulations (not the active principle alone) for 2 years, including at very low levels. Furthermore, in future the regulatory testing process for biotech and pesticide products should be transparent, open to public scrutiny, subject to independent review and performed independently of their firms in the future.
In the meantime, labelling of all GMOs in the feed/food should be mandatory, including livestock products from animals that have been fed GMO's. Finally, the nature of all compounds present in pesticide formulations should be made public.
*"Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize". Food and Chemical Toxicology, Séralini G.E. et al. 2012.
The results of these experiments, the story and its implications have been explained in a book « Tous Cobayes ! » by Gilles-Eric Séralini, published on Sept. 26 by Flammarion. Simultaneously, a film adapted from this book "All guinea pigs ?" by Jean-Paul Jaud will be launched. A TV documentary "GMO, a World Alert ?" by François Le Bayon will be shown. The legal and social impact has been written « La vérité sur les OGM c'est notre affaire » by Corinne Lepage from the European Parliament, published by Charles Léopold Mayer.
For more details see www.criigen.org; contact [email protected], +33 (0)2 31 56 56 84
Contact Laurent Payet Press Agent, Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini
Phone: +33 6 89 95 48 87
Email: [email protected]
Source: CRIIGEN, Committee for Research & Independent Information on Genetic Engineering
The two tested products are in very common use : (i) a transgenic maize made tolerant to Roundup, the characteristic shared by over 80% of food and animal feed GMOs, and (ii) Roundup itself, the most widely used herbicide on the planet. The regulatory approval process requires these products to be tested on rats as a surrogate for humans.
The new research took the form of a two year feeding trial on 200 rats, monitored for outcomes against more than 100 parameters. The doses were consistent with typical dietary/ environmental exposure (from 11% GMO in the diet, and 0.1 ppb in water).
The results, which are of serious concern, included increased and more rapid mortality, coupled with hormonal non linear and sex related effects. Females developed significant and numerous mammary tumours, pituitary and kidney problems. Males died mostly from severe hepatorenal chronic deficiencies. Professor Seralini's team in the University of Caen is publishing this detailed study in one of the leading scientific international peer-reviewed journals of food toxicology, on line on Sept. 19, 2012.
The implications are extremely serious. They demonstrate the toxicity, both of a GMO with the most widely spread transgenic character and of the most widely used herbicide, even when ingested at extremely low levels, (corresponding to those found in surface or tap water). In addition, these results call into question the adequacy of the current regulatory process, used throughout the world by agencies involved in the assessment of health, food and chemicals, and industries seeking commercialisation of products
In view of these findings, the researchers consider that market authorisations for these products should be immediately reviewed. The 90 day test duration should be extended to 2 years for agricultural GMOs. In addition, all pesticides should be tested in their formulations (not the active principle alone) for 2 years, including at very low levels. Furthermore, in future the regulatory testing process for biotech and pesticide products should be transparent, open to public scrutiny, subject to independent review and performed independently of their firms in the future.
In the meantime, labelling of all GMOs in the feed/food should be mandatory, including livestock products from animals that have been fed GMO's. Finally, the nature of all compounds present in pesticide formulations should be made public.
*"Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize". Food and Chemical Toxicology, Séralini G.E. et al. 2012.
The results of these experiments, the story and its implications have been explained in a book « Tous Cobayes ! » by Gilles-Eric Séralini, published on Sept. 26 by Flammarion. Simultaneously, a film adapted from this book "All guinea pigs ?" by Jean-Paul Jaud will be launched. A TV documentary "GMO, a World Alert ?" by François Le Bayon will be shown. The legal and social impact has been written « La vérité sur les OGM c'est notre affaire » by Corinne Lepage from the European Parliament, published by Charles Léopold Mayer.
For more details see www.criigen.org; contact [email protected], +33 (0)2 31 56 56 84
Contact Laurent Payet Press Agent, Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini
Phone: +33 6 89 95 48 87
Email: [email protected]
Source: CRIIGEN, Committee for Research & Independent Information on Genetic Engineering
Female (9255) fed with the GMO alone (22%) and developing a mammary adenocarcinoma in a fibroadenoma (day 645).
Picture source: CRIIGEN.org
Picture source: CRIIGEN.org
Monsanto fails at attempt to explain away
tumors caused by GM corn
October 5, 2012 - via Natural News
Monsanto's efforts to dismiss new evidence linking its genetically modified (GM) corn to tumors has been thoroughly debunked in a public briefing by the food sustainability nonprofit Earth Open Source.
"NK603 must be immediately withdrawn from the market and all GMOs must be subjected to long-term testing," the briefing concludes.
In a two-year study, a team of French researchers led by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini found that rats fed Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" corn developed significantly more tumors than a control group not fed GM corn. The rats fed a GM diet also developed tumors that appeared earlier and behaved more aggressively, and died sooner than rats in the control group.
The study found similar effects in rats exposed to Roundup herbicide at levels currently considered safe by most regulators.
"Roundup Ready" crops have been engineered for resistance to Monsanto's top-selling herbicide glyphosate, marketed under the trade name Roundup. In the scientific literature, Roundup Ready corn is also known as NK603.
Monsanto's faulty defensesResponding to the study, Monsanto claimed that the findings were not significant because tumor rates in the rats fed GM corn were "within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats, which is known for a high incidence of tumors." In other words, the company has claimed that the rats developed tumors simply because of their genetics, and that the tumor rates seen in the rats fed GM corn were similar to tumor rates in rats not fed GM corn in other studies.
In response to Monsanto's "tumor prone rats" argument, the briefing notes that while tumors did in fact occur in both groups of rats, they were both more common and more aggressive in the experimental group - and it is the difference between the two groups that is relevant for scientific study.
"This is a basic principle of science and it is worrying that attempts are being made by pro-GM lobbyists to override it in the interests of keeping the products of powerful multinational biotechnology companies on the market," the briefing reads.
The briefing also debunks Monsanto's "historical data" argument. First of all, the historical tumor data cited by Monsanto actually comes from a completely different strain of rats (Charles River Labs SD rats) than those used in the study (Harlan SD rats). In fact, the researchers did compare their findings to historical tumor rates in Harlan SD rats, and found that all their results remained statistically significant. For example, the rate of tumors in rats fed GM corn was three times higher than the historical average tumor rates for the same strain of rats.
The briefing further notes that the very idea of using "historical data" to dismiss statistically significant findings is shoddy science, and the technique is rejected by serious scientists. Any legitimate scientific study includes a control group that is tested at the same time as the experimental group, because this is the best way to actually control as many variables as possible and make sure any differences observed are due to the variable being tested (in this case, consumption of GM corn). Rats in other studies may have been fed different diets, been at different phases of their life cycles, been exposed to other environmental pollutants, had a different genetic background, or been exposed to any number of other potentially relevant factors.
"The use of historical control data is an unscientific strategy used by industry and some regulators to dismiss statistically significant findings of toxicity in ... studies intended to evaluate safety of pesticides, chemicals, and GMOs," the briefing notes.
Source: Natural News
Monsanto's efforts to dismiss new evidence linking its genetically modified (GM) corn to tumors has been thoroughly debunked in a public briefing by the food sustainability nonprofit Earth Open Source.
"NK603 must be immediately withdrawn from the market and all GMOs must be subjected to long-term testing," the briefing concludes.
In a two-year study, a team of French researchers led by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini found that rats fed Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" corn developed significantly more tumors than a control group not fed GM corn. The rats fed a GM diet also developed tumors that appeared earlier and behaved more aggressively, and died sooner than rats in the control group.
The study found similar effects in rats exposed to Roundup herbicide at levels currently considered safe by most regulators.
"Roundup Ready" crops have been engineered for resistance to Monsanto's top-selling herbicide glyphosate, marketed under the trade name Roundup. In the scientific literature, Roundup Ready corn is also known as NK603.
Monsanto's faulty defensesResponding to the study, Monsanto claimed that the findings were not significant because tumor rates in the rats fed GM corn were "within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats, which is known for a high incidence of tumors." In other words, the company has claimed that the rats developed tumors simply because of their genetics, and that the tumor rates seen in the rats fed GM corn were similar to tumor rates in rats not fed GM corn in other studies.
In response to Monsanto's "tumor prone rats" argument, the briefing notes that while tumors did in fact occur in both groups of rats, they were both more common and more aggressive in the experimental group - and it is the difference between the two groups that is relevant for scientific study.
"This is a basic principle of science and it is worrying that attempts are being made by pro-GM lobbyists to override it in the interests of keeping the products of powerful multinational biotechnology companies on the market," the briefing reads.
The briefing also debunks Monsanto's "historical data" argument. First of all, the historical tumor data cited by Monsanto actually comes from a completely different strain of rats (Charles River Labs SD rats) than those used in the study (Harlan SD rats). In fact, the researchers did compare their findings to historical tumor rates in Harlan SD rats, and found that all their results remained statistically significant. For example, the rate of tumors in rats fed GM corn was three times higher than the historical average tumor rates for the same strain of rats.
The briefing further notes that the very idea of using "historical data" to dismiss statistically significant findings is shoddy science, and the technique is rejected by serious scientists. Any legitimate scientific study includes a control group that is tested at the same time as the experimental group, because this is the best way to actually control as many variables as possible and make sure any differences observed are due to the variable being tested (in this case, consumption of GM corn). Rats in other studies may have been fed different diets, been at different phases of their life cycles, been exposed to other environmental pollutants, had a different genetic background, or been exposed to any number of other potentially relevant factors.
"The use of historical control data is an unscientific strategy used by industry and some regulators to dismiss statistically significant findings of toxicity in ... studies intended to evaluate safety of pesticides, chemicals, and GMOs," the briefing notes.
Source: Natural News
EU-regulations on GM foods
The EU recognises the consumers' right to information and labelling as a tool for making an informed choice. Since 1997 Community legislation has made labelling of GM food mandatory for:
Latest regulation concerning GMO Labelling :
- products that consist of GMO or contain GMO;
- products derived from GMO but no longer containing GMO if there is still DNA or protein resulting from the genetic modification present;
Latest regulation concerning GMO Labelling :
- Regulation (EC) 1830/2003 (see next document) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC were published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Previously, the labelling of genetically modified foods was based on the provisions of article 8 of Regulation (EC) 258/97 on novel foods and novel foods ingredients;
The labelling of GM maize varieties and GM soy varieties which did not fall under Regulation 258/97 are covered by Regulation (EC) 1139/98 concerning the compulsory indication of the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms as amended by Regulation (EC) 49/2000.
In addition, all GM additives and GM flavourings have to be labelled according to Regulation (EC) 50/2000 on the labelling of foodstuffs and food ingredients containing additives and flavourings.
In accordance with the general labelling rules of Directive 90/220/EEC, the labelling of 4 out of the 8 authorised GMOs for use in feed is mandatory.
Genetically modified seed varieties must be labelled in accordance with Council Directive 98/95/EEC.
Source: European Commission
The labelling of GM maize varieties and GM soy varieties which did not fall under Regulation 258/97 are covered by Regulation (EC) 1139/98 concerning the compulsory indication of the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms as amended by Regulation (EC) 49/2000.
In addition, all GM additives and GM flavourings have to be labelled according to Regulation (EC) 50/2000 on the labelling of foodstuffs and food ingredients containing additives and flavourings.
In accordance with the general labelling rules of Directive 90/220/EEC, the labelling of 4 out of the 8 authorised GMOs for use in feed is mandatory.
Genetically modified seed varieties must be labelled in accordance with Council Directive 98/95/EEC.
Source: European Commission
Traceability and labelling of GMOs
The European Union guarantees the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and products produced from these organisms throughout the food chain. Traceability of GMOs allows the monitoring and checking of information given on labels, the monitoring of effects on the environment and the withdrawal of products from the market in cases where new scientific data demonstrate that the GMOs used in the product present an environmental or health risk.
ACT
Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC [See amending act(s)].
SUMMARY
The European Union sets out a framework for guaranteeing the traceability of GMOs throughout the food chain, including in processed foods in which the production methods have destroyed or altered the genetically modified DNA (e.g. in oils). These rules apply not only to GMOs to be used in food, but also those intended to be used in crops (e.g. seeds).
Objectives
The European Union has two main objectives:
- to inform consumers through the compulsory labelling, giving them the freedom to choose;
- to create a "safety net" based on the traceability of GMOs at all stages of production and placing on the market. This "safety net" will facilitate the monitoring of labelling, the surveillance of the potential effects on human health or the environment and the withdrawal of products in cases of risk to human health or the environment.
GMOS
This Regulation covers:
- all products which consist of GMOs or which contain them (this includes fields as diverse as the products, which are intended for entry into the human or animal food chain, products destined for industrial processing for uses other than consumption (e.g. in the production of biofuel) or even products destined to be used ornamentally (e.g. in the production of cut flowers));
- foodstuffs and animal feed products made from GMOs.
Labelling and traceability
All the products covered by this Regulation are subject to compulsory labelling, which shall enable consumers to be better informed and will offer them the freedom to choose to buy products consisting of, containing or made from GMOs.
The specific requirements of this Regulation related to labelling shall not apply in isolation as these rules are in addition to the following rules which also concern labelling:
- the general labelling rules applicable to foodstuffs generally intended for human consumption (Directive 2000/13/EC);
- the general labelling rules provided for the marketing of feed
- the specific labelling rules applicable to GMO food and feed (Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003).
Traceability enables GMOs and their products to be traced throughout the production chain. This system is based on the transmission and holding of information by each operator.
GMOs or products containing GMOS
Operators must transmit the following information in writing:
- an indication that the products consist of or contain GMOs;
- the unique identifiers assigned to the GMOs.
If the product is a mixture of GMOs, the industrial operator may submit a declaration of use of these products, together with a list of the unique identifiers assigned to all the GMOs used to constitute the mixture.
This information must also be held for five years.
The operators who place on the market a pre-packaged product consisting of or containing GMOsmust, at all stages of the production and distribution chain, ensure that the words "This product contains genetically modified organisms" or "Product produced from GM (name of organism)" appear on a label of the product. In the case of products, including in large quantities, which are not packaged and if the use of a label is impossible, the operator must ensure that this information is transmitted with the product. It may take the form of accompanying documents, for example.
Products produced from GMOs
When placing a product on the market, the operator must transmit the following information in writing to the operator receiving the product:
- an indication of each food ingredient produced from GMOs;
- an indication of each raw material or additive for feedingstuffs produced from GMOs;
- if there is no list of ingredients, the product must bear an indication that it is produced from GMOs.
This information must also be held for five years.
GMO adventitious presence threshold
All food or feed products, including those intended directly for processing are subject to the labelling obligation when they consist, contain or are made from GMOs. Only traces of GMOs may be exempt from this obligation if they do not exceed the threshold of 0.9 % and if their presence is adventitious and technically unavoidable.
The Member States carry out measures for the inspection and monitoring of products, including sampling and quantitative and qualitative analyses of food and feed. These measures entail the Member States being able to withdraw from the market a product that does not meet the conditions laid down in this Regulation.
Context
This Regulation harmonises the traceability measures laid down in the legislation, particularly Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of GMOs in the environment.
Source: European Union
Ban on GMOs cultivation
A number of Member States have invoked a so-called 'safeguard clause' (Art. 23 Dir. 2001/18/EC). According to this clause, Member States may provisionally restrict or prohibit the use and/or sale of the GM product on its territory. However, the Member State must have justifiable reasons to consider that the GMO in question poses a risk to human health or the environment.
Six Member States currently apply safeguard clauses on GMO events: Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, Germany and Luxembourg.
Source: European Commission
Six Member States currently apply safeguard clauses on GMO events: Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, Germany and Luxembourg.
Source: European Commission
The loophole
A vast loophole in EU law exempts animal products from labelling requirements: foods like cooking oil, ketchup and cake mix have to be labelled if the ingredients include 0.9% GMOs or more, and animal feed packets must be similarly labelled. But food products derived from animals fed with GMOs - meat, milk, eggs - do not need to be labelled at all.
In 2007, Greenpeace delivered to Markos Kyprianou, European Commissioner for Health at that time, a petition containing 1,000,000 citizens' signatures calling for the labelling of milk, meat, eggs and other animal products where the animals have been fed with genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Greenpeace collected the signatures in 21 EU member states between May 2005 and December 2006, with the help of consumer groups and other environmental organisations. From Ireland to Poland and Finland to Greece, ordinary people have demanded the right to know whether the food they buy is produced using GMOs.
The statement on the petition says: "We demand mandatory labeling of animal products based on GMOs because of citizens' right to information, a fundamental right in the European Union." According to a number of surveys, most consumers would choose not to eat GM-fed animal products.
"This petition is a call for the EU to stop letting GMOs in through the back door of Europe and onto our plates through a loophole in the law," said Marco Contiero of Greenpeace European Unit in 2007. "We will be asking Commissioner Kyprianou today, when we deliver the million signatures, to grant citizens the right to choose for themselves whether to eat food from animals fed with GMOs."
Over 90% of GM crops imported into the EU are soya and maize destined for animal feed. The diet of farm animals in Europe is typically composed of up to 30% GMOs. This amounts to 20 million tonnes of GMOs entering the EU food chain each year without consumers being told.
"Under the present law, consumers have no option but to eat food produced using GMOs," said Marco Contiero. "Taking GMOs out of the animal food chain in Europe will help protect the environment from the uncontrolled release of GM crops, which threaten health and biodiversity."
Source: Greenpeace
2010 - EU votes against compulsory GM food labelling
Campaigners angry at EU's decision to keep consumers 'in the dark' over food from animals given genetically modified (GM) feed, reported The Ecologist in July 2010
Consumers will continue to be none the wiser about whether they are eating food from animals raised on genetically-modified feed after MEPs voted against introducing a compulsory label rule.
There is currently no requirement on the food industry to label meat or dairy products produced using GM animal feed, usually made from GM soya or maize. However, campaigners have argued that consumers should be given a choice about whether or not to buy such produce.
A recent poll commissioned by Friends of the Earth found that less than 40 per cent of the public was aware that GM was creeping onto their plates via imported GM cereals and protein crops fed to livestock in the UK. Almost 90 per cent of those surveyed wanted these products to be clearly labelled.
Genewatch director Dr Helen Wallace said consumers should be 'given a choice' and blamed the vote against labelling on lobbying from the food industry.
'They want consumer decisions to focus on the end product you see on the shelf and not the wider issues,' she said.
Europe takes step towards ban on genetically modified crops
April 13, 2011 - via Greenpeace
What does an EU Commissioner do if he wants Europe to start growing GM crops, but governments aren’t cooperating? The answer – offer governments the right to ban GM crops in turn for a blessing on GM crops at the EU level. The trick though, is to make the right to ban crops weak enough to be overturned in court, and break a ten year hiatus in GM crop approvals. This is the kind of trickery that was behind a weak Commission draft law published last July.In the past, some European countries havebanned GM and the bans were challenged under EU law. So the idea of a more reliable right to ban appeared as a good deal to them. But things are not always as they appear.
The European Commission is willing to give countries the right to ban GM crops only if these bans are based on a specific number of reasons. This includes cultural and moral arguments, which EU lawyers say can be challenged by biotech companies in court.
This week, European Parliamentarians were given the chance to strengthen the draft GM ban law and took it. The leading environment committee added a number of important grounds to the law, most importantly the potential environmental impacts of GM crops, which are crucial if national bans are to be legally robust.
Parliamentarians also called for the EU to strengthen safety tests for new GM crops, something already called for by all 27 EU Environment ministers in 2008. This is very important, as national bans alone will never be enough to protect European consumers and the environment against the risks of GM crops.
Furthermore, MEPs(Member of the European Parliament) want to have all EU countries take measures to avoid contamination caused by GM crops. The committee also agreed that if these rules fail, governments should ensure that those responsible for the contamination pay damages. The “polluter pays” principle applied to agriculture. The committee also agreed that biotech companies should finally open up their products to independent research into the environmental and health risks of GM crops. In the past independent research was often hindered by biotech companies unwilling to grant access to the necessary seed material.
Today’s vote is a very important step on the way to protect EU consumers and farmers against GM contamination but we are not there yet. On 7 June, all 736 MEPs will vote on the draft law. It then has to be agreed on by all EU governments. While several countries are in favour of positive measures to control harmful GM crops, big countries like Germany and Spain opposed the law. There is still a lot of work to be done before Europe can ban GM crops.
Thank you! This work wouldn’t be possible without the million people that signed the petition calling for a moratorium on genetically modified (GM) crops. Read more about the delivery of the very first EU citizens initiative! (or see next video)
Poland beekeepers kick Monsanto out of the hive, successfully ban bee-killing GM corn
Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - via Natural News
A significant health freedom victory has taken place in the European nation of Poland, where all plantings of Monsanto's MON810, a genetically-modified (GM) variety of maize (corn) that produces its own built-in Bt insecticide in every kernel, have been officially banned.
The decision comes after thousands of protesters recently took to the streets in demonstration of the undeniable fact that both MON810 and the chemicals applied to it are at least partially responsible for causing Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), the worldwide phenomenon in which entire swarms of honey bees disappear or turn up dead.
"The decree is in the works. It introduces a complete ban on the MON810 strain of maize in Poland," said Polish Agriculture Minister Marek Sawicki, who also explained to the press that pollen from MON810 appears to be responsible for further devastating the already dwindling bee population throughout the country and elsewhere.
According to reports, Poland's decision to ban MON810 makes it the first nation to formally acknowledge that Monsanto's GM corn is definitively linked to CCD. It also affirms the findings of several earlier studies that have identified a link between Bt GM crops and bee deaths, including independent research conducted by Pennsylvania beekeeper John McDonald.
McDonald's research found that bees foraging near Bt crops did not gain the proper amount of weight, and failed to produce honey in their honey supers (honey storage bins) when they should have. Their non-Bt crop counterparts, on the other hand, produced more than double the amount of honey they needed to survive the winter (http://www.naturalnews.com/025287.html).
Back in early March, nine European countries -- Belgium, Great Britain, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland, and Slovakia -- successfully blocked an effort by the Danish EU presidency to allow expanded cultivation of GM crops in Europe. And around that same time, France imposed its own ban on MON810.
To read the entire article, please go to Natural News
A significant health freedom victory has taken place in the European nation of Poland, where all plantings of Monsanto's MON810, a genetically-modified (GM) variety of maize (corn) that produces its own built-in Bt insecticide in every kernel, have been officially banned.
The decision comes after thousands of protesters recently took to the streets in demonstration of the undeniable fact that both MON810 and the chemicals applied to it are at least partially responsible for causing Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), the worldwide phenomenon in which entire swarms of honey bees disappear or turn up dead.
"The decree is in the works. It introduces a complete ban on the MON810 strain of maize in Poland," said Polish Agriculture Minister Marek Sawicki, who also explained to the press that pollen from MON810 appears to be responsible for further devastating the already dwindling bee population throughout the country and elsewhere.
According to reports, Poland's decision to ban MON810 makes it the first nation to formally acknowledge that Monsanto's GM corn is definitively linked to CCD. It also affirms the findings of several earlier studies that have identified a link between Bt GM crops and bee deaths, including independent research conducted by Pennsylvania beekeeper John McDonald.
McDonald's research found that bees foraging near Bt crops did not gain the proper amount of weight, and failed to produce honey in their honey supers (honey storage bins) when they should have. Their non-Bt crop counterparts, on the other hand, produced more than double the amount of honey they needed to survive the winter (http://www.naturalnews.com/025287.html).
Back in early March, nine European countries -- Belgium, Great Britain, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland, and Slovakia -- successfully blocked an effort by the Danish EU presidency to allow expanded cultivation of GM crops in Europe. And around that same time, France imposed its own ban on MON810.
To read the entire article, please go to Natural News
Russia bans all GM corn imports
EU may also ban Monsanto GMO in wake of shocking cancer findings
Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - via Natural News
Russia has now officially banned all imports of genetically modified corn, citing concerns from a recent study by French researchers showing rats grew massive cancer tumors when fed a lifetime of Monsanto's genetically modified corn.
Russia's consumer protection group, Rospotrebnadzor, said it was halting all imports of GM corn while the country's Institute of Nutrition will be evaluating the results of the study.
The Russian ban is the latest blow to Monsanto, a company desperately clinging to the myth that its genetically modified crops are "no different" than traditional crops and therefore long-term safety testing is completely unnecessary. Monsanto has assaulted the French study, claiming it did not use enough rats and that the duration of the study was too short -- an absurd claim, given that Monsanto's own studies on animals are only 90 days in duration, while the French study looked at the effects of rats eating GM corn (and drinking trace levels of Roundup herbicide) for two years.
Notably, the large cancer tumors did not begin to appear until after the rats reached adulthood. Monsanto's GM corn has been in the U.S. food supply for more than a decade, and its corn is found in many popular breakfast cereals.
A European ban, too?In addition to the Russian ban, Monsanto may also soon be facing a European ban. France is reported asking for a European-wide ban on GM corn if its national health agency confirms the findings of French scientists.
On top of that, if Proposition 37 passes in California, food producers will be required to label GMO on foods sold in that state. This is widely expected to cause U.S. food producers to abandon to use of GMO in foods, since virtually all consumers who know anything about GMO would refuse to buy items labeled as containing genetically engineered ingredients.
Toxicity of GMO now scientifically established CRIIGEN.org has issued a statement (see above post) summarizing its findings of the recent rat study, saying:
The implications are extremely serious. They demonstrate the toxicity, both of a GMO with the most widely spread transgenic character and of the most widely used herbicide, even when ingested at extremely low levels, (corresponding to those found in surface or tap water). In addition, these results call into question the adequacy of the current regulatory process, used throughout the world by agencies involved in the assessment of health, food and chemicals, and industries seeking commercialization of products.
Government regulators have been infiltrated by Monsanto; scientists bought offIn truth, Monsanto has managed to influence food regulators all around the world. It has paid money to numerous scientists in the USA, and it has essentially "placed" GMO-pushing individuals such as Michael Taylor into influential positions in government.
The European Union's Food Safety Agency (FSA) is also staffed by decision makers with financial ties to genetic engineering seed companies.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich has called for a national GMO labeling law. He says: "The FDA has received over a million comments from citizens demanding labeling of GMOs. Ninety percent of Americans agree. So, why no labeling? I'll give you one reason: The influence and the corruption of the political process by Monsanto. Monsanto has been a prime mover in GMO technology, a multi-million dollar GMO lobby here and a major political contributor."
Russia has now officially banned all imports of genetically modified corn, citing concerns from a recent study by French researchers showing rats grew massive cancer tumors when fed a lifetime of Monsanto's genetically modified corn.
Russia's consumer protection group, Rospotrebnadzor, said it was halting all imports of GM corn while the country's Institute of Nutrition will be evaluating the results of the study.
The Russian ban is the latest blow to Monsanto, a company desperately clinging to the myth that its genetically modified crops are "no different" than traditional crops and therefore long-term safety testing is completely unnecessary. Monsanto has assaulted the French study, claiming it did not use enough rats and that the duration of the study was too short -- an absurd claim, given that Monsanto's own studies on animals are only 90 days in duration, while the French study looked at the effects of rats eating GM corn (and drinking trace levels of Roundup herbicide) for two years.
Notably, the large cancer tumors did not begin to appear until after the rats reached adulthood. Monsanto's GM corn has been in the U.S. food supply for more than a decade, and its corn is found in many popular breakfast cereals.
A European ban, too?In addition to the Russian ban, Monsanto may also soon be facing a European ban. France is reported asking for a European-wide ban on GM corn if its national health agency confirms the findings of French scientists.
On top of that, if Proposition 37 passes in California, food producers will be required to label GMO on foods sold in that state. This is widely expected to cause U.S. food producers to abandon to use of GMO in foods, since virtually all consumers who know anything about GMO would refuse to buy items labeled as containing genetically engineered ingredients.
Toxicity of GMO now scientifically established CRIIGEN.org has issued a statement (see above post) summarizing its findings of the recent rat study, saying:
The implications are extremely serious. They demonstrate the toxicity, both of a GMO with the most widely spread transgenic character and of the most widely used herbicide, even when ingested at extremely low levels, (corresponding to those found in surface or tap water). In addition, these results call into question the adequacy of the current regulatory process, used throughout the world by agencies involved in the assessment of health, food and chemicals, and industries seeking commercialization of products.
Government regulators have been infiltrated by Monsanto; scientists bought offIn truth, Monsanto has managed to influence food regulators all around the world. It has paid money to numerous scientists in the USA, and it has essentially "placed" GMO-pushing individuals such as Michael Taylor into influential positions in government.
The European Union's Food Safety Agency (FSA) is also staffed by decision makers with financial ties to genetic engineering seed companies.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich has called for a national GMO labeling law. He says: "The FDA has received over a million comments from citizens demanding labeling of GMOs. Ninety percent of Americans agree. So, why no labeling? I'll give you one reason: The influence and the corruption of the political process by Monsanto. Monsanto has been a prime mover in GMO technology, a multi-million dollar GMO lobby here and a major political contributor."
GMO - Ticking Time Bomb
October 05, 2012 - by Mike Adams, Editor of NaturalNews.com
(NaturalNews) There is a conspiracy of oppression taking place right now against free speech about GMOs. Just this week, YouTube censored a whistleblower video that exposed Whole Foods employees lying about the fact that Whole Foods sells masses of genetically modified foods and is therefore a significant financial supporter of Monsanto.
It is now perfectly clear that this video was censored because of its truthful message, not because it actually violated any real terms of service with YouTube.
That's the reality in which we now live: Telling the truth about GMOs is practically a crime. The mainstream media, meanwhile, refuses to cover the truth about GMO dangers. And the U.S. government itself is, of course, completely sold out to corporate interests and thus won't warn the American people about GMOs, either.
We quite literally live in an age so bizarre and irrational that the simple act of warning fellow citizens about poison in the food is now systematically suppressed. The status quo wants you to eat your poison, shut up, stop asking questions and check yourself in at the nearest for-profit cancer center once those tumors start to show up.
That's the new system of oppression and slavery in America: It's medical slavery, economic slavery and even thought slavery.
The new video by Gary NullFighting back against that system are the courageous individuals who dare to tell the truth. And one of those individuals is Dr. Gary Null, Ph.D.
Gary Null has just released a stunning new video called "GMO Ticking Time Bomb."
It's a teaser, actually, for a much longer documentary to be released in the near future. Watch "GMO Ticking Time Bomb" at:
Source: Natural News
(NaturalNews) There is a conspiracy of oppression taking place right now against free speech about GMOs. Just this week, YouTube censored a whistleblower video that exposed Whole Foods employees lying about the fact that Whole Foods sells masses of genetically modified foods and is therefore a significant financial supporter of Monsanto.
It is now perfectly clear that this video was censored because of its truthful message, not because it actually violated any real terms of service with YouTube.
That's the reality in which we now live: Telling the truth about GMOs is practically a crime. The mainstream media, meanwhile, refuses to cover the truth about GMO dangers. And the U.S. government itself is, of course, completely sold out to corporate interests and thus won't warn the American people about GMOs, either.
We quite literally live in an age so bizarre and irrational that the simple act of warning fellow citizens about poison in the food is now systematically suppressed. The status quo wants you to eat your poison, shut up, stop asking questions and check yourself in at the nearest for-profit cancer center once those tumors start to show up.
That's the new system of oppression and slavery in America: It's medical slavery, economic slavery and even thought slavery.
The new video by Gary NullFighting back against that system are the courageous individuals who dare to tell the truth. And one of those individuals is Dr. Gary Null, Ph.D.
Gary Null has just released a stunning new video called "GMO Ticking Time Bomb."
It's a teaser, actually, for a much longer documentary to be released in the near future. Watch "GMO Ticking Time Bomb" at:
Source: Natural News
The first in an upcoming series of mini-documentary videos about GMOs, this Gary Null production delves into the reality of GMO health risks. Gary Null calls it a "GMO ticking time bomb."
This video reveals some of the health problems caused by GMOs, including infertility, accelerated aging, organ damage, immune malfunction and more.
This video reveals some of the health problems caused by GMOs, including infertility, accelerated aging, organ damage, immune malfunction and more.
The above video is likely to be censored by YouTube. In case it disappears, please watch it on the "video safe haven" website TV.naturalnews.com.
Food companies Monsanto, Dupont, Pepsico and Nestle spend $45 million to defeat
California GM label bill Prop 37
By Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian - Monday, November 5, 2012
The contentious measure would require labels on GM food sold in supermarkets, but would not cover restaurants
Monsanto and other agribusiness and food companies have spent more than $45m (£28m) to defeat a California ballot measure that would require labelling of some GM foods.
The measure, proposition 37, is one of the most contentious initiatives on California’s election ballot on Tuesday.
If it passes, it would require labels on GM food sold in supermarkets, but would not cover restaurants. It also has a number of gaping loopholes. For example, the law would not require labels on meat from animals that were fed GM corn.
Even with those caveats, the agribusiness and food companies have outspent the yes side by about five to one trying to kill the bill. Monsanto alone has spent more than $8m.
“I think it’s a David and Goliath story with the companies that manufacture or benefit from genetically engineered food being the Goliath,” said David Newman, president of Maplight, which tracks the influence of money in politics.
“When you see this lopsided spending it indicates that the measure is popular with voters and opponents think they need to spend a lot to defeat it. There is a lot at stake here not just in California but how it will trend in the rest of the country.”
California’s ballot initiatives often take on huge importance. Often they are seen as laboratories for new ideas, that are adopted later in the rest of the country.
The bill is mainly supported by organic food companies, although the actor Gwyneth Paltrow also contributed $15,000, according to campaigners.
Supporters argue the consumers have a right to know if they are eating GM foods. Opponents – overwhelmingly corporations such as Monsanto, Dupont, Pepsico and Nestle – say the labels would be burdensome to retailers, and would force prices to rise.
Others support the idea of labels in general but argue that this particular initiative is poorly written.
A label requirement could have a sweeping effect on the American foods industry. About 90% of American-grown corn and soybean are GM. Other large crops, such as canola and sugar beet, also tend to be GM.
Source
The contentious measure would require labels on GM food sold in supermarkets, but would not cover restaurants
Monsanto and other agribusiness and food companies have spent more than $45m (£28m) to defeat a California ballot measure that would require labelling of some GM foods.
The measure, proposition 37, is one of the most contentious initiatives on California’s election ballot on Tuesday.
If it passes, it would require labels on GM food sold in supermarkets, but would not cover restaurants. It also has a number of gaping loopholes. For example, the law would not require labels on meat from animals that were fed GM corn.
Even with those caveats, the agribusiness and food companies have outspent the yes side by about five to one trying to kill the bill. Monsanto alone has spent more than $8m.
“I think it’s a David and Goliath story with the companies that manufacture or benefit from genetically engineered food being the Goliath,” said David Newman, president of Maplight, which tracks the influence of money in politics.
“When you see this lopsided spending it indicates that the measure is popular with voters and opponents think they need to spend a lot to defeat it. There is a lot at stake here not just in California but how it will trend in the rest of the country.”
California’s ballot initiatives often take on huge importance. Often they are seen as laboratories for new ideas, that are adopted later in the rest of the country.
The bill is mainly supported by organic food companies, although the actor Gwyneth Paltrow also contributed $15,000, according to campaigners.
Supporters argue the consumers have a right to know if they are eating GM foods. Opponents – overwhelmingly corporations such as Monsanto, Dupont, Pepsico and Nestle – say the labels would be burdensome to retailers, and would force prices to rise.
Others support the idea of labels in general but argue that this particular initiative is poorly written.
A label requirement could have a sweeping effect on the American foods industry. About 90% of American-grown corn and soybean are GM. Other large crops, such as canola and sugar beet, also tend to be GM.
Source