„Food killed 37 people… unexpectatly“ „whooops!“
Please take time an watch the documentary on Monsanto done by French/German Television Arte.
This affects everyone’s life.
Will GMO Food from MacDonnalds cause Zombies? would be a funny movie plot…
btw…… bacteria dns is inserted into corn…… snow drop genes inserted into potatoes…… fish-genes inserted into tomatoes……. with desirable but also unexpectat not so desirable results.
Text taken from
Possible risks of GMO-s
- Creating new, and more vigorous pests and pathogens
- Exacerbating the effects of existing pests through hybridisation with related transgenic organisms
- Harm to non-target species
- Disruption of biotic communities, including agro-ecosystems
- Irreparable loss or changes in species diversity or genetic diversity
Therefore some GMO-s require greater scrutiny than organisms produced by traditional techniques of breeding (ESA Report, Snow et al., 2005, Ecol. Appl., 15, 377-404.)
GMO-s posing some risks to the environment
- Little or no prior experience with the trait and host combination
- GMO-s may proliferate and persist without human intervention
- Genetic exchange possible between a transformed organism and non-domesticated organisms
- Trait confers an advantage to the GMO over native species in a given environment
Guidelines for GMO creation and release
- Early planning and design of GMO-s to reduce environmental risks (reduce risks of sterility, lower fitness,
- The promoter should be inducible rather than constitutive
- Selection markers should be removed before cultivation
- Prevent large-scale or commercial releases if scientific knowledge exist about possible risks
- Post-release monitoring to detect environmental risks
- Thorough risk-assesment, expertsts should have multidisciplinary training
(ESA Report, Snow et al., 2005, Ecol. Appl., 15, 377-404.)
- Create organisms with traits that cannot be obtained through normal sexual reproduction
- Novel, synthetic genes that have never existed in nature
- Minimally they are composed of a gene sequence flanked by a promoter and other elements that may come from different organisms
- Phenotypic characteristics, such as size, health, reproductive capacity are determined by complex interaction among its genes and its surroundings, and cannot be characterized in small-scale experiments
(ESA Report, Snow et al., 2005, Ecol. Appl., 15, 377-404.)
Herbicid-tolerant crops (ESA Report, Snow et al., 2005, Ecol. Appl., 15, 377-404.)
- Facilitate no-tillage/low-tillage weed management
- Conserves topsoil and soil moisture, reduce erosion
- Allows greater carbon sequestration in soil organic matter
- Glyphosate breaks down more quickly and is more „environmentally friendly” than many other herbicides
Bt-transgenic plants ESA Report, Snow et al., 2005, Ecol. Appl., 15, 377-404.)
- Can reduce the use of broad-spectrum insecticides
GM crop-plants with transgenic resistance to common diseases ESA Report, Snow et al., 2005, Ecol. Appl., 15, 377-404.)
- Could reduce the use of fungicides and insecticides that currently are used to kill disease-vectors, or disease-causing organisms
GM crop-plants with higher yields due to one or more transgenic traits ESA Report, Snow et al., 2005, Ecol. Appl., 15, 377-404.)
- Higher yield per acra could reduce pressure on natural areas because less area needs to be cultivated for a given amount of yield
Mediation of polluted soil using transgenic plants or bacteria ESA Report, Snow et al., 2005, Ecol. Appl., 15, 377-404.)
- More effective and less expensive clean-up of toxic vaste sites than with current methods
Decreased lignin production in transgenic, commertial tree plantations ESA Report, Snow et al., 2005, Ecol. Appl., 15, 377-404.)
- Leaner paper milling and less pollution of waterways
Transformation of plant cells
Using a disease causing pathogen, Agrobacterium tumefaciensis (for dicotyledonous plants)
- Particle bombardement ( mostly for monocots)
- Physical methods
- Chemical methods
- The transformation process is very inefficient (Birch, 1997)
- Transgene is linked to a selectable marker, encoding
- Random chromosomal locations, often at multiple sites
- DNA sequences may interrupt native genes, or promoter sequences that regulate them.
- Can bring about small-scale rearrangements of the transgene and native DNA sequences at the insertion site (Pawlowski and Somers, 1998, Svitasev et al, 2000, 2002, Windels et al, 2001)
- Interaction among the transgene and native genes (Hartman et al, 2001)
- Pleiotropic effects of transgenes – small, unintended effects may remain undecetcted, they may depend on
- cumulative action,
- environmental conditions
- Introgression into different genetic backgrounds
- Beachy et al. (1990) discovered the general principle, that the coat protein of a virus could provide resistance to the same virus
- Potential ecological risks of virus-resistant crops:
- Benefit of transgenic virus over wild type
- Recombination between viral transgenes and invading viruses (Power 2002, Tepfer 2002
- Interaction between an invading virus and the viral RNA encoded by transgenes (Miller et al, 1997, Aziz and Tepfer 2002, Power 2002, Hammond et al, 1999)
- Synergistic interaction between viruses in mixed infections (Miller et al, 1997)
- Hazards of virus – transgene recombination
- increased virulence
- alterations to host range
- change of transmission characteristics (Schoelz and Wintermantel 1993, Kiraly et al. 1998, Borja et al. 1999, de Zoeten, 1991, Miller et al 1997)
- Transcapsidation (encapsidation of viral RNA of one virus by the coat protein of another virus in mixed infections (Power 2002, Tepfer 2002), even if at low rates (Thomas et al, 1998, Fuchs et al, 1999)
- 1-20% of an organism derives from foreign DNA (Ochman et al, 2000, Koonin etal, 2001)
- Major source of microbial evolution
- Depends on population density
- Less frequent between distantly related taxa
- Most likely to occur, and had been detected in microbial communities (Gebhart and Smalla, 1998, Nielsen et al, 1998, Bertolla and Simonet 1999, Kay et al, 2002)
- Transgenes are inherited and have the potencial to disperse (Quist and Chapella, 2001, 2002, Beckie et al, 2003)
- Crop to crop
- Crop to wild (Ellstrand et al. 1999, 2003, and Messeguer, 2003)
- Fitness transgenes conferring resistance has an effect on plant population dynamics (Power, 2002, Mitchell and Power 2003, Callaway et al. 2004, Snow et al. 2003)
by Arpad Pusztai, Ph.D., FRSE
Aberdeen, Scotland UK
Powered by ScribeFire.
very good essay:
What does a tomato, soybean, and McDonald’s French fry have in common? They are all some of the most commonly genetically modified foods sold on the market today. By using the genetic information from one organism, and inserting or modifying it into another organism, scientists can make food crops stay fresher, grow bigger, and have the crops create their own pesticides. Nevertheless, the technology to modify genes has surpassed its practicality. Genetically modified foods need to be removed from everyday agriculture because of the threat they pose to human health, the environment, and the impact on global economy.
Genetically modified (GM) foods could produce new toxic substances, and/or allergens. A gene from the Brazil nut was inserted into the DNA of a soybean plant to increase the nutritional value of the soybean. However, this particular gene in the GM soybean also produced an allergen (a substance that causes allergic reactions in people). Fortunately, the plant was not put into production (McHughen 119). Another example is of a GM tomato called “FLAVR SAVR”. The tomato is larger, tastier, and stays fresher longer than commercial tomatoes on the market. Combining conventional tomato genes with the genes of an arctic trout produces the “FLAVR SAVR”. Nevertheless, questions such as “Will people with sea food allergies be able to consume the tomato?” and “Will the trout genes in the tomato enable new bacteria growth, and thereby make the tomato hazardous to eat?” have still not been answered. This causes the “FLAVR SAVR” to be a potential hazard to human health (McHughen 14, 112). Since technology is new with regards to genetics, there is no real way of knowing whether genetically modified foods would take a negative impact on the body. An incident that occurred in 1989 concerning the nutritional supplement L- Tryptophan is one way of testing the long-term effects of a GM food (Background on L-tryptophan and 5-hydroxy L-tryptophan and the eosinophilia myalgia syndrome, U.S. Food and Drug Administration). The manufacturer had apparently altered its manufacturing process to speed up production, and had not realized the toxic side effects. However, it caused a potentially fatal illness called Eosinophilia Myolgia Syndrome in which 37 people died and 1500 more were permanently disabled (Background on L-tryptophan and 5-hydroxy L-tryptophan and the eosinophilia myalgia syndrome, U.S. Food and Drug Administration). Therefore, it was taken off the market shortly after the reports of widespread illness among consumers of the supplement. Another two examples of diseases that have been created by GM crops are glufosinate (Hart 21), which causes birth defects in mammals, and glyphosate (Hart 88), which is now linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Therefore, it is evident that the general public is the guinea pig for GM food, and today’s drugs may not be able to combat the diseases that may arise from eating the food.
Superbugs are created when genes transfer from one species to another, and if an antibiotic-resistant or pesticide-resistant gene were to transfer from an organism into a disease creating bacteria, then an antibiotic-resistant or pesticide-resistant bug would be created (Miller 83). This applies to bacteria and viruses that are symbiotically related. Gene modification is indirectly making life resistant to diseases, and these bacteria and viruses will adapt to the new form of life and create new disorders. Furthermore, GM crops may make the “normal” biological pest spray obsolete. This is because pests will soon develop resistance to the spray because of the widespread planting of GM crops. Nevertheless, superbug pesticides have not yet been manufactured, nor have superbug antibiotics been created (Miller 92). Consequently, the health risks for humans through superbug infections or by eating GM food is very serious, and the consequences that may come about have the potential to be life threatening.
Genetic engineering of food crops has the potential to affect the biodiversity of a region in effectively two ways. First, wild populations of weed may be replaced by GM crop/weed, due to the GM crop spreading outside the crop field and interacting with natural weed and slowly becoming GM weed. Since GM crops are produced to be resistant to pesticides and herbicides, there is the possibility that they could invade wild grasslands and other places and prosper because of these special characteristics. If this happened, the native grasses would be unable to compete and biodiversity would be lost in these regions. Also, many genetically engineered crops contain anti-viral genes and there is the potential that these genes could combine to form new and dangerous strains of viruses, which could destroy specific crops. Although, to date, there is no direct evidence of these occurring naturally, the potential is clearly increasing (UK Agricultural Biodiversity Coalition. What is happening to Agricultural Biodiversity?). The second way in which the biodiversity of a region is potentially affected is by the decreasing crop varieties that are being planted. This is a problem already existing in agriculture today, and results in a loss of genetic variety within crop cultures. Farmers being forced to use only patented seeds are an example of a potential decrease in biodiversity. If traditional seed varieties are used, farmers will be at a financial disadvantage due to better tasting, better looking crops produced by farmers using GM seeds. In the U.S., and some other countries, laws have been passed and are currently in effect stating that the use of non-patented seeds is prohibited. This will restrict the crops to a few species, leaving them more at risk to new pests that may form (UK Agricultural Biodiversity Coalition. What are the underlying causes of the Losses of Agricultural Biodiversity?).
The European community is by far the most anti-GM, so to speak, when it comes to the retail of GM food in their supermarkets (Tackling Food Safety Concerns over GMO’s, Consumer attitudes and decision-making with regard to genetically modified food products). Regulations are being imposed on the European Parliament, individual European nations, and some stores themselves have all imposed restrictions on GM foods. Manufacturers must label all foods that might have genetically altered ingredients. This includes food with genetically manufactured organisms, food with an intentionally modified molecular structure, and food that has been isolated for microorganisms, fungi, and algae. Furthermore, the genetically altered food must not mislead the consumer, present any danger to the consumer, or differ from the food that it is intended to replace so that the altered food is a nutritional disadvantage to the consumer (Tackling Food Safety Concerns over GMO’s, Development of methods to identify foods produced by means of genetic engineering). This legislation has now created trade barriers for food coming into Europe – some imported food is genetically modified and creates a risk to the people’s health and safety. Nevertheless, because some supermarkets in Europe have decided to be non-GM only, this has created a competitive disadvantage for the “half”-GM supermarkets. This response to consumer pressure is also having an effect on some companies or countries that cannot meet the legislative needs, and are obliged to lose markets and/or market shares (Tackling Food Safety Concerns over GMO’s, European network safety assessment of genetically modified food crops). If the world finally agrees to the consumption of GM food, European countries will be the last to “give-in” to the more lenient regulations.
If one is to ask a North American if the product he or she is eating contains GM food, he or she will most likely show a blank stare. This is because regulation of GM food in North America is relatively relaxed when compared to Europe (Borger, second paragraph). Since the manufacturer is not required to label their products, the consumer is oblivious to buying GM food at the supermarket. Agriculture and technology are both being heavily invested in the United States. Profit is an important driving force for the developed world, and agricultural exports make up a large portion of exports from the United States (Borger, third paragraph). Since the demand for food is always increasing, the demand to produce more food at a faster rate requires the need for better biotechnology to be put into practice. And because of the lax laws in effect for the United States, and Canada, North Americans are “in the dark” with regards to what they are eating during their meals. North Americans are not educated about the risks of GM food, nor are they aware of where to find information regarding how much GM food is in their groceries (Borger, 12th paragraph). This poses a serious threat to the potential health of North Americans, as they are nothing but “lab rats” waiting for their first abnormal “twitch”.
Human health can be seen as the greatest factor when considering the manufacturing of GM food. This is because of the few diseases and viruses that have been discovered which formed through the use of GM food. Also, the potential for new diseases and/or viruses through the use of GM food is increasing, and people are not aware of the risks. Antibiotics or pesticides have not yet been created to combat the superbug, and this is a concern for humans, as it will infect people, and crops altogether. There is a potential for the biodiversity to decrease because of gene transfers from one species to another, creating more powerful crops, which may take over the natural populations of weeds and grasslands. An additional way for the biodiversity to decrease is by farmers planting only a single variety of crop, thus wiping out the varied species needed to keep the diversity within crop fields. Europeans are the most aware of GM food, and are taking the necessary precautions and legislative actions to protect themselves against the use of GM food. However, North Americans are the least aware of GM food, and their government has not yet educated their citizens on the risks of GM food. There are too many risks involved in the use of GM food, and its removal from the agricultural and biotechnological industries will benefit human health, the environment, and global economy.
another source seems to affirm what we think is the truth: GMOs are by far not as tested and save as we think….
why? because this would prolong costly engineering and testing time… posponing profits.
And to be honest……. isn’t making profits what life is ALL about? (this was irony!)
„Europe is moving backwards not forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy and even the [European] Commission… Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voice.“
Got that so far? His own words: „Retaliation“ as a way to „make [it] clear“ that resisting GMOs will have a price.
Stapleton goes on to say something rather incredible:
„Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory…“
As you read these words again, remember that these are the words of the U.S. ambassador to France who is suggesting the US „calibrate a target retaliation list“ in order to „cause some pain across the EU“ that must be „sustainable over the long term.“
The global GMO conspiracy is no longer a theory
Need we say anything more? This cable proves, once and for all, that there is a global GMO conspiracy where government operatives work in secret to push Monsanto’s GMO agenda while punishing opponents of GMOs and adding them to a „target retaliation list.“
This cable also proves that NaturalNews has been right all along about the GMO conspiracy, and that GMO opponents such as Jeffrey Smith are battling what can only be called an evil conspiracy to control the world’s food supply. It also proves that when Alex Jones talks about the global conspiracy to control the world food supply, he’s not just ranting. He’s warning about the reality of the world in which we now live.
As Jeffery Smith said today in a Democracy Now interview:
„We’ve been saying for years that the United States government is joined at the hip with Monsanto and pushing GMOs as part of Monsanto’s agenda on the rest of the world. This lays bare the mechanics of that effort. We have Craig Stapleton, the former ambassador to France, specifically asking the U.S. government to retaliate and cause some harm throughout the European Union.“ (http://www.democracynow.org/seo/201…)
Do you notice something about these words used by the US ambassador to France? „Calibrate a target retaliation list“ sounds eerily familiar, doesn’t it? It’s the kind of language you might find tossed around in a military bombing war exercise.
That’s no coincidence: These government operatives quite literally consider themselves to be at war with the world, and they intend to conquer the world with their genetically modified poisons. They will do anything, it seems, to force-feed their deadly crops to the public.
Eight important realizations from these leaks
This Wikileaks cable brings up all sorts of issues that each might deserve a separate article, but here are the highlights of what comes to my mind on this issue:
Realization #1) Wikileaks is valuable for exposing the government lies in our world. Without Wikileaks, we never would have known about these cables which prove the existence of this GMO conspiracy.
Realization #2) US government diplomatic officials are working for the corporations! It’s just as we’ve described here on NaturalNews numerous times — Big Government is really just an extension of the most evil and most powerful corporations that now dominate our planet: The drug companies, the weapons manufacturers, the agricultural giants and so on. Here’s what Jeffrey Smith had to say about governments conspiring with Monsanto:
„In 2009, we have a cable from the ambassador to Spain from the United States asking for intervention there, asking the government to help formulate a biotech strategy and support the government — members of the government in Spain that want to promote GMOs, as well. And here, they specifically indicate that they sat with the director of Monsanto for the region and got briefed by him about the politics of the region and created strategies with him to promote the GMO agenda.“
Realization #3) The US is willing to retaliate against European countries if they try to block GMOs. This brings up the question: Why is the US so desperate to push GMOs on Europe? Clearly there is another agenda behind all this (maybe we’ll learn more in future Wikileaks releases).
Realization #4) No wonder the US government has declared war on Wikileaks because these dark secrets and „conspiracy notes“ are never made public through any normal means. It takes a whistleblower to expose the true government corruption taking place in our world today.
Realization #5) The GMO conspiracy reaches to the highest levels of global control. This US ambassador Stapleton wasn’t just a nobody. He was, in fact, the co-owner of the Texas Rangers with former President George W. Bush! His wife, by the way, is George Bush’s cousin. This is a conspiracy involving the highest-ranking officials across multiple countries who are pushing a GMO agenda that’s poisoning people across the planet.
Realization #6) Governments are literally trying to kill their own people. It is widely known in the inner circles of power that GMOs are deadly, but governments keep pushing them anyway. As Jeffrey Smith explains in his interview with Democracy Now:
„…the person who was in charge of FDA policy in 1992, Monsanto’s former attorney, Michael Taylor, he allowed GMOs on the market without any safety studies and without labeling, and the policy claimed that the agency was not aware of any information showing that GMOs were significantly different. Seven years later, because of a lawsuit, 44,000 secret internal FDA memos revealed that that policy was a lie. Not only were the scientists at the FDA aware that GMOs were different, they had warned repeatedly that they might create allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. But they were ignored, and their warnings were even denied, and the policy went forth allowing the deployment GMOs into the food supply with virtually no safety studies.“
Realization #7) The GMO conspiracy is always reframed as „science“. At one point in the leaked cables, Stapleton warns that in opposing GMOs, France would „roll back established science-based decision making.“ The GMO conspiracy, you have to remember, is always hidden behind the term „science“ so that anyone who opposes GMOs can be characterized as being somehow against „scientific thinking.“
All this gives science a bad name, of course, but I suppose that since the history of science is filled with arrogant scientists poisoning people in the name of science (mercury, vaccines, radiation, plastics, medications, etc.), we shouldn’t be all that surprised to observe this.
Realization #8) Spain has been a key co-conspirator to push the U.S. GMO agenda. Much of the conspiring taking place in the EU has been spearheaded by Spain, whose officials met personally with the head of Monsanto to plot their push of GMOs into Europe.
All of a sudden the Blackwater story adds up
This all reminds me of a story published a few months back by The Nation in which Jeremy Scahill exposed a link between Monsanto and the military contractor known as Blackwater. His article claimed that Monsanto had hired Blackwater spies to „infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm.“ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/…)
Monsanto vehemently denied the allegation. I looked hard at covering that story at the time but could not substantiate the accusations to my satisfaction. However, given the new information gleaned from these leaked diplomatic cables — which blatantly state that the GMO conspirators plan to „calibrate a target retaliation list“ — all of a sudden the Blackwater story adds up.
This is the verbage of a military-style retaliation campaign, and that’s exactly the business of Blackwater. Remember how Stapleton said the US needed to „cause some pain?“ That’s Blackwater’s calling card!
Although these cables don’t prove any connection between Monsanto and Blackwater, they do lend credence to the idea that such a link is not only possibly, but perhaps even probable. It clearly deserves additional investigation.
Regardless of whether the Blackwater / Monsanto link is ever proven, what’s crystal clear from all this is that the global GMO conspiracy is very real and that GMO conspirators plot retaliatory actions against any nation that refuses to allow GMOs into their country.
The whole thing is then disguised as „science“ so that anyone who opposes it can be branded as „non-scientific.“ This is the same sick way in which vaccines are pushed, too: They’re called „scientific“ even when they’re based entirely on scientific fraud (as are GMOs).
How governments really operate
Above all, what these Wikileaks cables really reveal is that government conspiracies are, of course, not only real but that they are taking place right now. Diplomats and ambassadors are, in effect, government thugs who engage in the most unethical actions, full of threats and retaliation, in order to serve the financial interests of their corporate masters.
That’s how the world really works, despite the Disney-like image portrayed by the mainstream media. Behind the scenes, the U.S. government is literally plotting with Monsanto to take over the world’s food supply. That is not an exaggeration. It’s not conjecture. It is a statement of fact based on the words of the government’s own operatives (who obviously didn’t know their words would ever be made public).
Through Wikileaks, we have been given a glimpse into the truth behind the Great Wall of government lies. And that truth, it turns out, is a lot uglier than most people could have imagined. (It’s no surprise to me, because I’ve seen things that most regular people have never witnessed. But to a regular Joe Blow working his J.O.B. and watching the evening news, the hard-core truth about the world is a bit too much to handle…)
Personally, I can’t wait to see what other dark secrets are buried in these Wikileaks cables. And it all makes me wish we had a Wikileaks for the FDA, too. Can you imagine all the dirty secrets that would come out of the FDA’s offices if we could read their emails? We need an FDA leaker.
The other thought that comes to mind is how much I wouldn’t want to be Julian Assange right now. His head is now the world’s most powerful bullet magnet… especially when government rifles are anywhere nearby. If the U.S. government would conspire to create a „retaliation target list“ of nations that are merely resisting GMOs, can you imagine what they will do if they ever get their hands on Assange?
Read the leaked cables right here:
(Note: These links may not be active for very long because the governments of the world are obviously trying to shut down all the websites that post this information. The truth, it seems, is just too dangerous to allow it to be openly published.)
How to turn all this around
Don’t let all this get you down. You can take action to help turn this around!
Action Item #1) Don’t buy GMO foods! Look for the non-GMO „Project Verified“ label on foods.
Action Item #2) Urge lawmakers to oppose GMOs or require honest GMO labeling of foods.
Action Item #3) Help support the Institute for Responsible Technology and other non-profits working to oppose GMOs.
Action Item #4) Stay informed! Read NaturalNews and our Facebook GMO Dangers page (www.facebook.com/GMO.dangers) to stay up on this issue. The IRT (above) will keep you even more deeply informed on GMOs.
Action Item #5) Share what you know! Share videos, cartoons, articles and websites with your friends and family members who also care about protecting their health from GMOs.
Action Item #6) Don’t trust the government! They are pushing a GMO conspiracy. They don’t want you to have natural food, and the FDA is now being unleashed under the new food safety bill to destroy small farmers who tend to use non-GMO crops. Fight against government encroachment of our natural right to grow honest food. Support food freedom!
Learn more about GMOs
Join our anti-GMO page on Facebook: www.Facebook.com/GMO.dangers
Watch my Just Say No to GMO video! It’s now available in four languages:
Spread the word! Educate yourself and your friends about the dangers of GMOs.
Upload your own non-GMO videos (FREE) to our natural health video site: www.NaturalNews.TV
Just say NO to GMOs.