Archive for the ‘GMOs’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

GM Files: New Zealand Scientists Urge Prime Minister to Show Sanity in GM Policy

Tuesday, January 15th, 2008

In a remarkable letter written on April 6, 2006 to the Helen Clark, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Scientists of the Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics [PSRG] took the bold step of warning the PM and every member of the New Zealand Parliament about the known and unknown dangers of biotech foods. They urged the PM and Parliament to move very cautiously on the approval of any genetically modified foods and cited a wealth or reasons why that caution was necessary.

They also urged that they not rely on US decision making since the US FDA and USDA cannot be relied upon to act responsibly in this issue and detail some of the reasons for that lack of trust questioning, among other things, the competency and accuracy of the US agencies involved with approval of GM foods. They charge, and document both FDA and USDA with very specific deficiencies, including the fact that they ignore their own scientists and approve GM foods as safe when there is no evidence that they are, in fact, safe. US approval, however, is generally taken around the world as strong and often compelling evidence of a food’s safety by the countries around the world which still chose to believe the deadly fiction that the US has the world’s best food supply, safety and security. The EU Food Safety organization takes some heavy hits, too, as it is quoted as saying that it has no idea how to analyze and, whether GM or not.

The report is rather technical in spots so, although it is presented without editing, I have taken the liberty of emphasizing parts of it which I find particularly interesting and relevant. In other words, I have placed all bold face text in that format since it does not appear in bold in the original letter.

Please share this information widely since it directly and compellingly offers information that consumers need to know as they choose their diets for themselves and their families. Please remember that the US FDA prohibits the accurate labeling of genetically modified foods so that consumers will not make the “mistake” of rejecting GM food in the US. It strongly urges the rest of the world to adopt the same potentially deadly standard through Codex and, in fact, the Working Group on Biotech (GM) Foods (Accra, Ghana, January 28-30, 2007) will consider this proposition again (as the same group did in Norway last year). The Natural Solutions Foundation will be there reporting on every development for you.

Support our kind of on-going information for yourself and your circle of influence. Join the Natural Solutions Foundation’s Health Freedom e-Alerts (https://www.staging.healthfreedomusa.com/index.php?page_id=187). Your information is secure with us. I promise.

Oh, yes, there is something else you can do in this critically important process of reclaiming our food: disseminate widely (with proper attribution so people can find the Natural Solutions Foundation when they go looking for more information) and donate. Your tax exempt donations are the life blood of the Natural Solutions Foundation. Help us keep on helping you to maintain your health freedom!

And eat organic. You will note in the MP’s letter that the changes induced by the GM crops could be reversed over time even in adults. That should give you pause and hope. Organic, real organic, not phony Codex-standard organic, is the answer there.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

Letter to PM on genetically engineered organisms
Thursday, 6 April 2006, 2:56 pm
Press Release: Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0604/S00056.htm

The Right Hon. Helen Clark
Cc to all MPs
Prime Minister
ERMA
Parliament Buildings
FSANZ
WELLINGTON
Media

A letter addressed to Prime Minister Helen Clark

Dear Helen Clark

PSRG calls your attention to 8 April 2006, designated the day to inform people and to demonstrate public concern about genetically engineered organisms (GEOs).

Of particular concern to us are decisions of FSANZ and other regulatory bodies; the decision not to adopt country of origin labeling; the inadequacy of current GEO label ling requirements; the use of genetic engineering technology to produce pharmaceutical and industrial materials; and potential applications to release GEOs into the New Zealand environment.

(For the purposes of this letter, genetic engineering and genetic modification are synonymous.)

1. The effects on human consumers ingesting genetically engineered organisms

We advise you of the following research that raises serious concerns about the risks of consuming GEOs.

1.1. Eating genetically engineered soybeans affected the liver and pancreas of study mice.

In 2005, Italian researchers1 found that genetically engineered (GE) soybeans affected the liver and pancreas in mice. Previously, the researchers had shown that absorption of GE soy by mice induced modifications in the nuclei of their liver cells. It was later shown that reverting the diet of the mice to conventional food caused the observed differences to disappear. It was also found that several of these changes could be “induced in adult organisms in a very short time.”

1.2. Genetically engineered pea research abandoned because of adverse results

Also in 2005, CSIRO2 scientists abandoned a research project after ten years. They found that the genetically engineered peas they had developed caused lung damage in mice.

1.3. The cauliflower mosaic virus acting as a catalyst to provoke gene expression (2006)

ADVERTISEMENT

Dr Terje Traavik, scientific director of the University of Tromso’s Institute of Genetic Ecology in Norway, has demonstrated 3 that an element of the genetic structures used to engineer a plant – the cauliflower mosaic virus (35S CaMV) promoter – can provoke gene expression in cultured human cells. [In other words, this genetic element could promote cancer] Developers of genetically engineered plants have previously claimed that the promoter normally only performs that way with plants.

1.4. Monsanto’s MON 863 genetically engineered corn

In April 2004, a toxicological study released to Le Monde4 reportedly showed that rats fed with MON 863 presented anomalies, including an increase in the white blood cell count, changes in blood sugar, and a reduction in the red blood cell count. The paper claimed that in considering a decision on its release, despite re-examining the file, regulators did not reportedly take another look at Monsanto’s statistical analysis.

An independent study was commissioned from Gilles-Eric Seralini, of the University of Caen, and Dominique Cellier, of the University of Rouen. Dominique Cellier, a biocomputer specialist, is reported to have said that: “Monsanto’s statistical analysis of the differences observed in the rats was very superficial. They isolate the variables instead of using so-called multi-variable analysis methods, which consist of looking at the observed anomalies in a coherent way. If one uses those methods, one observes coherence between the weight, urinary tract, and haematological anomalies in the animals fed GMOs.”

Commenting on evaluating procedures for GEOs, Jean-Michel Wal of the GEO group of the European Authority on Food Security, is cited as saying: “We don’t know how to study a food overall, whether it’s a GMO or not; there’s no norm.”

2. Regulation and safety testing of GEOs

We wish to raise serious concerns about New Zealand’s reliance on the approval process of US government agencies. The companies that develop and promote genetically engineered food crops generally carry out toxicological studies on the effects of consuming them. These studies are meant to then be double checked by food safety authorities, but the criticism is that the experiments are simply not reproduced [by the FDA], even though industry studies often show adverse biological impacts.

2.1. Inadequate and unsatisfactory regulation

The FDA declared genetically engineered foods are substantially equivalent to conventional foods. It ignored the warnings of its own scientists and put in place food rules that assume no unforeseen effects will occur and, therefore, no safety testing is required, for genetically engineered foods. This premise has been well proven to be wrong.

2.1.a. Early in 2000, German scientists discovered that antibiotic resistant marker (ARM) genes from engineered canola were transferring their resistance to the bacteria found in the guts of bees that had consumed pollen from the plants.

2.1.b. Earlier European Union studies had revealed that ARM genes found in genetically engineered foods could transfer into bacteria in the human gut as well as soil bacteria (http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/genemarker.cfm ).

2.2. British Medial Association

Concerns were raised as long ago as 1999 when the British Medical Association called for a global moratorium on genetically engineered crops. The BMA were concerned that ARM genes would cause antibiotic resistance to develop in bacteria by horizontal gene transfer. Such resistance would serve to erode the effectiveness of antibiotics for humankind. Crops are still produced using ARM genes.

2.3. Recommended new safety test method

In 2006, agricultural economist, Dr Charles Benbrook – a former adviser to the Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations – warned of serious concerns over safety in respect of generically engineered foods.5 He claims that these food crops should be re-tested using Australian food safety technology developed by the Australian National University. The failed pea trials were tested using it.

2.4. Instigating safety assessments

As a direct result of the failed pea trails (1.2), Western Australia has instigated an independent, long-term animal feeding trial to collect and assess data on the safety of GE food crops. New Zealand should also take the initiative.

3. Current applications for genetically engineered crops

Recent applications to Food Safety ANZ for the approval of foods derived from genetically engineered alfalfa and corn raise concerns.

a.. Food derived from glyphosate-tolerant Lucerne (Application A575) J101 and J163 for human consumption.

b.. Food derived from Monsanto’s high-lysine corn LY038 (Application A549) genetically engineered to have higher than usual levels of the amino acid, lysine, intended for animal feed.

It is stated that these will be used for animal feed, although some may find its way into human food products. PSRG maintains that the risks that it is intrinsically unwise to allow GE animal feed into the human food chain.

3.1. Transgenes in cows’ milk

In June 2004, a study was released by the Research Centre for Milk and Foodstuffs in Weihenstephan, Bavaria that showed that parts of the gene construct from RoundupReady soybean and from Bt176 maize was found in milk from cows fed these genetically engineered plants. The report says the gene segments may have got into the milk via feed or dust from the feed in the air. No further studies have been made to clarify the exact means by which the DNA fragments got into the milk. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/.)

3.2. Transgenes in the gut bacteria of human volunteers

A study commissioned by the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) and carried out at the University of Newcastle, demonstrated that DNA from a genetically engineered food – in this case soybean in the form of a burger and a milkshake – found its way into the gut bacteria of human volunteers. (See the FSA Report on http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/.)

3.3. The long-term effects of ingesting material from transgenic sources on a daily basis have not been assessed.

4. Adverse effects of genetically engineered crops – MON 8106, 7, 8 Monsanto’s MON 810 corn produces an artificial, truncated version of a Cry toxin derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. This family of toxins has a pathogenic effect on Lepidopteron insects.

4.1. Genetically engineered plants are not equivalent to bio pesticides

A study spanning several years has monitored the quantity of Cry1Ab toxins in DK-440 BTY (MON 810) corn. Cry toxins are compounds that have gained acceptance in pest control (i.e., in bio pesticides such as DIPEL). However, genetically engineered plants are not equivalent to these bio-pesticides from the aspect of environmental analysis and ecotoxicology.

The principal difference with regard to toxin release is related to the extent and duration of exposure: while bio-pesticide applications release a small quantity of the toxin on a single or several occasions, the GE plant produces the toxin protein on a continuous basis, unnecessarily, during its entire vegetation cycle, as long as the gene section(s) added artificially to the plant and responsible for encoding the protein are active.6

4.2. Cry toxin produced in the entire plant during the whole growth period Székács et al6 have confirmed that the Cry toxin is produced in the plant during the whole period of growth. That is, in a dry plant, under moderate temperature, the toxin remains biologically active for several years. Post-harvest the maize stubble contains a significant quantity of Cry toxin. Cry toxin, over-wintering in the stubble, can be detected in plant residues after a period of one year.

4.3. Comparisons between bio pesticides and Bt plants

Székács et al compared the quantity of Cry-toxin proteins produced by the Bt-plant with the doses registered and permitted for their use in bio pesticides, and determined the toxin quantity in DIPEL. They found that MON 810 Bt-corn produces 1500-3000 times more Cry1Ab toxin than the Cry1Ab toxin dose corresponding to a single treatment with DIPEL.

They also found that only part of the toxin from the Bt-plant is decomposed during the growth period. Further, a significant part of the remaining quantity in the stubble enters the soil, where it may affect soil life (animals and micro-organisms).

4.4. Cry pollen and contamination

A study (Marva’s et al)7 carried out over several years looked at the possible effects of the pollen of DK-440 BTY corn grown in Nagykovácsi, Júlia-major, a valley where no maize was grown during the years concerned.

The distance of the intra-specific hybrid formation was examined on white, tassel-free maize and the results showed that pollen transfer could occur at 800 metres.

This poses risks for organically grown maize where zero tolerance is accepted for GE [Genetically Engineered – editor] -hybrids. Seeds developing from a traditional female blossom pollinated with cry gene- containing pollen (i.e., from MON 810), have a high probability (1/3) of acquiring the capability of producing the Cry1Ab toxin.

4.5. The effects on essential insect species

Around fields planted with Bt-corn hybrids, the Bt-pollen settled on weeds, presenting a danger to the hatching caterpillars of protected varieties of butterflies. This means that in the case of extensive Bt-corn cultivation, butterfly species could recede [that is, be damaged or extermated – editor].

A study by Béla Darvas and Éva Lauber8 found that insects developed resistance to the toxin content in Bt-corn leaves. The conclusion is that this will generate a growth in the number of insect populations on which Bacillus thuringiensis products – used almost exclusively in organic farming – will no longer have a suitable effect.

5. Food crops engineered to produce non-food [chemicals and pharmaceuticals -editor] products – the potential contamination of other engineered, conventional and organically grown crops.

In 2004, the US Department of Agriculture oversaw 67,000 acres of biotech field trials, some of which involved producing non-food products in a food crop. Corn is the most utilized food crop for engineered traits because it is easy to work with and produces a lot of grain. The concern is that food plants genetically engineered for non-food products could contaminate plants engineered as food crops and/or conventional crops, and enter the food supply as did StarLink’s Cry9C protein in 2000.

5.1. Report on the US Department of Agriculture as a regulator9

A recent report found that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has failed to properly oversee field trials of genetically engineered crops, including plants engineered to produce chemicals for medical and industrial uses. The report says that the USDA “lacks basic information” on field trial locations and what happens to the crops after harvest. For example, auditors located two harvested pharmaceutical crops in storage, about which the USDA knew nothing nor had it approved.

The two-year safety audit by the United States Office of Inspector General also found that: “Current (USDA) regulations, policies and procedures do not go far enough to ensure the safe introduction of agricultural biotechnology.”

6. Pharmaceutical drugs produced using genetic engineering technology

Some people react differently to proteins that are genetically engineered as against equivalent proteins that are produced naturally. Genetic engineering technology is not as precise or as predictable as chemical drugs because it relies on the intricate workings of complex living cells in the process of manufacture, and even the subtlest of changes in the process can have unpredictable results. Some drugs – e.g. human insulin – are created by engineering the required human gene into bacterial or animal cells.

PSRG [Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics – REL] urges you, Prime Minister, to put safety before industry profit and instigate changes to the NZ system of regulation that will protect New Zealanders.

Signed by the Trustees of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics

Paul G Butler, BSc, MB, ChB, Dip. Obst. (Auckland), FRNZCGP General Practitioner, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND

John R Clearwater, BSc, MSc, PhD

Principal Scientist, Clearwater Research and Consulting, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND

Bernard J Conlon, MB, BCh, BAO, DCH, DRCOG, DGM, MRCGP (UK), FRNZCGP General Practitioner, Trustee PSRG, MURUPARA

Elvira Dommisse, BSc(Hons), PhD

Former Research Scientist, Trustee PSRG, CHRISTCHURCH

Michael E Godfrey, MBBS, FACAM, FACNEM

Director, Bay of Plenty Environmental Health Clinic, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA

Neil Macgregor, BSc, MSc, PhD

Soil Microbiologist, Institute of Natural Resources, Massey University, Trustee PSRG, PALMERSTON NORTH
Peter R Wills, BSc, PhD
Associate Professor, University of Auckland, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND
Robert G Anderson, BSc, PhD
Lecturer retired, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA
Jean Anderson
Businesswoman retired, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA.
Signed on behalf of PSRG
Jean Anderson
Secretary
www.psrg.org.nz.
for the Trustees of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics

Posted in Activism, CODEX Consequences, GMOs, Hall of Shame | No Comments »

GM Files: Dolly on Your Dinner Table in Paris, London and Rome

Sunday, January 13th, 2008

You know we have to travel a lot to represent your interests at international meetings, such a Codex Alimenatrius. When I go to Europe I eat with a feeling of moderate confidence that my food, unless imported from the US, will be free of Genetically Modified (GM) ingredients. Moderate confidence, I say, because, as a meat eater I know that although food intended directly for people is, for the most part GM free, animals raised in the EU for human consumption can be fed GM feeds. The foreign DNA, and the artificially introduced antibiotic resistance which is used as a marker for GM techniques in the laboratory, are transmitted to the animal and then to you, the eater.

Vegetarians what are ready to take smug satisfaction from that fact, however, should consider that the EU authorities are adding new species of approved GM crops on a nearly daily basis. That means that the confidence with which you eat food in Europe should decline almost on a daily basis.

Now there is another kick to the consumer’s safety and confidence in Europe. “Probably safe” apparently is safe enough, at least for the EU regulators. Cloned food, now judged to be “probably safe”, is being approved in the US along with cloned meat. It is true, of course, that Dolly the cloned sheep died young and the health of other cloned animals is questionable over time. Dolly not only contracted a “common livestock disease” (What? Her immune system was not strong and effective in protecting her from it even with the superb care she must surely have been receiving?) and her cells showed signs of premature aging! What about your cells when you invite Dolly to dinner – and eat her? The cloned DNA was not actually identical in terms of keeping the animals alive and well over time. Well, to my mind, just as the foreign and unstable DNA in GM foods gets woven into your DNA and may provide one of the worst health disasters in human history, so cloned DNA may add to the debacle. Of course, according to the AP, the EU’s 47 page report, released this week, stated that “there was “only limited data available” on animal cloning” and it did urge consultation with scientists and consumer groups which have in the past objected to allowing such products onto the market.”

In the US, however, where there is just as little data available, the FDA has exercised no such caution. In fact, it has rushed headlong into the approval process for milk and meat and stipulates that because IT, the FDA, says that there is no danger (or at least no danger KNOWN – yet) both meat and milk will be permitted in our markets and our mouths. And when we find that cloned meat and milk are dangerous? Well, think Vioxx.

The headlong rush to make the Biotech industry happy [remember, a Monsanto employee was seated as a member of the US Delegation at last year’s Codex Working Group on Labeling Foods Derived from BioTechnology (that’s GM foods when you take away the fancy language) in Oslo] is a perfect example of why the FDA, controlled solely and totally, as far as anyone observing it can see, by the industries it supposedly regulated, MUST be divested of its food regulatory authority. Not only is the FDA clearly incapable of resisting the pressures – and payments – of Big Pharma, Big Biotech, Big Agribiz and all the other Bigs, it receives a significant portion of its operating budget from drug company “User Fees” and now wants to receive similar “User Fees” from the Food, Chemical and Biotech industries! This is a killer system. The consumer is the victim. As a consumer, an eater (and not a useless one, I would assert!), I find this industry-centric, consumer-contemptuous approach appalling.

Join the Natural Solutions Foundation, www.HealthFreedomUSA.org, www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org, in supporting protective standards for consumers, not the multinational corporations! Sign up today for our Health Freedom eAlerts and become part of the global community speaking for health freedom! Your data is safe with us. You have my promise.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

EU Report Says Cloned Food Probably Safe
There were no consumer advocates or independent scientists on that delegation, of course. IN a few weeks General Stubblebine and I will be attending this year’s iteration of that meeting in Ghana. It will be interesting to see who is sitting on the US Delegation this time!
Published: 1/11/08, 6:46 PM EDT

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) – Meat and milk from cloned animals is probably safe for humans, the European Union’s food safety agency said in a preliminary report released Friday. The report, by the European Food Safety Authority, seems likely to fuel new debate over whether the EU should allow cloned animals to enter the food chain.

The 47-page draft cautioned, however, that there was “only limited data available” on animal cloning. It urged consultation with scientists and consumer groups, which have in the past objected to allowing such products onto the market.

The EU’s Food Safety Authority, which is based in Italy, was directed by the EU’s executive office in Brussels last year to investigate what risks were involved in making projects for human consumption from cloned animals.

The 27-nation union currently has no laws regulating animal cloning and food. The European Commission is trying to decide whether legislation is needed, said Nina Papadoulaki, spokeswoman for EU Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou.

“Based on current knowledge, there is no expectation that clones or their progeny would introduce any new food safety risks compared with conventionally bred animals,” the preliminary report said.

Papadoulaki said the commission hoped the report would help EU officials determine whether there is public support for allowing cloned food onto supermarket shelves.

She said the commission would seek further advice from an ethics group specializing in science and new technologies, which includes 15 scientists, philosophers, theologians and lawyers.

That group is scheduled to issue its own report on the “ethical aspects of animal cloning for food supply” on Jan. 16.

Some countries outside the EU are moving to permit cloned animals to enter the food chain.

The United States is expected to allow food from cloned animals onto the market sometime this year. A poll conducted in 2006 found, however, that 64 percent of Americans were uncomfortable with animal cloning.

The issue is also under review in Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Canada.

Scientists across Europe have for years investigated different animal cloning techniques. The most famous example was the cloning of Dolly the sheep in Britain. Dolly was euthanized in 2003 after she contracted a common livestock disease and her cells showed signs of premature aging.

Italian scientists cloned a racehorse in 2005, hoping to pass on genetic lines of champion thoroughbreds.

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

Posted in Activism, GMOs, International Cooperation, Medical Hazards, Miscellaneous | No Comments »

GM Files: Corrupt Science Corrupts Food – GM Dangers Know, Ignored

Saturday, November 3rd, 2007

Are Science and the Biotech Industry Sleeping in the Same Bed?

By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception

One day in April 1998, Professor Phillip James walked into the office of Arpad
Pusztai and placed a large stack of documents on his desk . The documents were
submissions from biotech companies seeking approval of their GM soy, corn, and
tomatoes. He called in Arpad’s wife Susan from the adjoining office. James was
the director of the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, Europe’s leading
nutritional research facility.

He told the Pusztais, both senior scientists there, that the British
agriculture minister was meeting with European ministers in Brussels to vote
on genetically modified (GM) foods, and he wanted a scientific opinion on
them.

Arpad Pusztai looked at the stack-nearly 700 pages-then back at James. He was
confident that his director and the other eleven scientists on the committee
that approves GM foods for the UK were far too busy to actually read these
studies.

The Pusztais, however, had worked for more than two years on a UK government
grant, leading a 20-member research team to design the ideal testing protocol
for evaluating GM foods. They also conducted safety tests on a new variety of
GM potatoes intended for commercialization.

The Pusztais were therefore among the most qualified scientists in the world
to evaluate the papers James had just given them. Arpad asked how much time
they had. “Two and a half hours,” said James. They quickly got to work,
focusing on the design and the data.

Arpad was shocked at what he discovered. The research was incredibly poor. He
described it as superficial, flimsy, and just plain bad science. Reading those
studies was a turning point in the life of this very pro-biotech scientist.

Arpad was the leading researcher in his field, with more than 300 articles and
12 books to his credit. Based on his reputation and experience, the government
had awarded him the GM research grant over 27 competing applicants.

As a man of integrity, accustomed to thorough and rigorous science, Arpad
expected the same from others. But he realized that the approach taken by
biotech industry scientists was diametrically opposed to his own. “I was doing
safety studies,” he said. “They were doing as little as possible to get their
products to market as quickly as possible.”

Abominable Scientific Methods Ignored

Pusztai called the minister and told him that although he wasn’t expecting to
have such a strong opinion after only two and a half hours, there was
definitely not enough information to declare the foods safe for humans.

But the minister responded, “I don’t know why you are telling me this,
Professor James has already accepted it.” It had already been on the market
for two years.

Months later, Arpad had another shock. Young rats fed a genetically engineered
potato developed extensive health problems. Some had smaller, less developed
brains, livers, and testicles, and also partial atrophy of the liver. Some
suffered damaged immune systems and organ damage. And there was excessive cell
growth in the stomach and intestines.

The potato was engineered to produce its own insecticide, but the insecticide
itself was not the cause of these problems. In fact, other rats that had eaten
natural potatoes that were spiked with the insecticide fared much better.

Thus, since the insecticide was not the cause of the poor health of the GM-fed
rats, it was almost certainly the process of genetically modifying the
potatoes that was the culprit.

Arpad realized that if his potatoes had been subjected to the same superficial
industry studies he had reviewed, the potatoes would have been approved. The
organ damage, cell growth, immune functions, and so on, would be undetected.

More worrisome was the fact that the soy, corn, and tomatoes that were
approved were not tested for these potential problems. And they were created
with the same process that Arpad used to engineer his potatoes.

The Cost of Speaking Out

With permission from his director, Arpad accepted an invitation to be
interviewed on television and express his concerns about GM food. For two days
he was a hero at his institute.

Then, on a Tuesday afternoon, two phone calls from the prime minister’s office
were allegedly forwarded through the institute’s receptionist to the director.
On Wednesday morning, Phillip James fired Arpad after 35 years and silenced
him with threats of a lawsuit. His 20-member research team was dismantled and
the UK government abandoned its plans for long-term safety study requirements
for GM foods. The Rowett Institute then issued several statements trashing
Arpad and his research in an apparent attempt to protect the biotech
industry.

Eventually Arpad was invited to speak before Parliament, his gag order lifted,
and his research published in the prestigious Lancet.

Despite his work being cut off in the middle, his rat study remains the most
in-depth animal feeding safety study ever published on GM foods. Tragically,
no similar studies have yet been applied to the GM foods on the market. No one
is monitoring to see if the organs, immune system, and cells of humans eating
GM foods are being similarly influenced.

Arpad has since been commissioned to review all published animal feeding
studies on GM foods. There are only about a dozen. In his paper, published as
a chapter in the book Food Safety, he reported consistent shortcomings in
industry-sponsored research. Their poor designs allow significant problems to
go unnoticed. When problems were identified, they were not followed up.

Arpad and his wife have made presentations on GM foods around the world. In
2001, they appeared before New Zealand’s Royal Commission of Inquiry on
Genetic Modification, where the sentiments and experience of several other
presenters echoed their own.

Are Science and Commerce ‘Sleeping in the Same Bed’?

Parliament member Sue Kedgley testified: “Personally I have been contacted by
telephone and e-mail by a number of scientists who have serious concerns about
aspects of the research that is taking place… and the increasingly close
ties that are developing between science and commerce, but who are convinced
that if they express these fears publicly, even at such a Commission… or
even if they asked the awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out
of their institution.”

Mae-Wan Ho, a biophysicist and geneticist, told the Commission that the
scientific evidence on GM foods “simply did not support the claims… that the
technology is precise and safe.” Ho has endured numerous attacks for her
opinions, including being hounded out of her position at the UK’s Open
University.

Epidemiologist Judy Carman testified that the few animal feeding studies on GM
foods are too short to adequately test for cancer or for problems in
offspring. Further, they are not evaluating “biochemistry, immunology, tissue
pathology, gut function, liver function, and kidney function.” Carman, who has
investigated outbreaks of disease, said that health problems associated with
GM foods might be impossible to track in the human population, or take decades
to discover.

Carman is repeatedly attacked for her critical stance. One pro-GM scientist
threatened disciplinary action through her Vice-Chancellor. Another circulated
a defamatory letter to government and university officials in October 2004,
alleging that Carman was unethical and that her work was similar to
“inaccurate
anti-vaccine scaremongering [that] kills people.”

Geneticist Michael Antoniou, who works on human gene therapy, told the New
Zealand Commission, “genetic engineering technology, as it’s being applied in
agriculture now, [is] based on the understanding of genetics we had 15 years
ago, about genes being isolated little units that work independently of each
other.” He explained that genes actually “work as an integrated whole of
families.”

Falling on (More) Deaf Ears in the UK and Around the World

In 2003, Antoniou represented non-governmental organizations on the UK’s
supposedly balanced GM Science Review Panel that was part of the nationwide
“GM Nation?” public debate. He was shocked to find scientists there still
supporting obsolete theories of gene independence. Some even claimed that the
order of genes in the DNA was entirely irrelevant. Antoniou was outnumbered by
eleven scientists representing either the biotech industry or appointed by the
pro-biotech UK government. His well-supported arguments fell on deaf ears.
Since the debate, new studies have further verified Antoniou’s position by
showing that genes are not randomly located along the DNA, but clustered into
groups with related functions.

Virologist Terje Traavik testified that GM crops “might be the basis for real
ecological and health catastrophes.” Three years later, in a February 2004
meeting with delegates to the UN biosafety protocol conference, Traavik
presented preliminary evidence from three studies which might fulfill his
earlier prediction.

a.. Philippinos living next to a GM cornfield developed serious symptoms
while the corn was pollinating.

b.. Promoters-genetic material routinely inserted into GM crops-were found
to transfer to rat organs after a single transgenic meal. Key safety
assumptions about genetically engineered viruses were overturned, calling into
question the safety of using these viruses as vaccines.

Traavik, naturally, was attacked.

Biologist Phil Regal told the Commission, “I think the people who boost
genetic engineering are going to have to do a mea culpa and ask for
forgiveness, like the Pope did on the inquisition; you know, ‘we made a
mistake, let’s start over.'”

Sue Kedgley had another idea. She said, “I would recommend that perhaps we
could set up human clinical trials using volunteers of genetically engineered
scientists and their families, because. they are so convinced of the safety of
the products that they are creating. they would very readily volunteer to
become part of a human clinical trial.”

(C) Jeffrey Smith, 2004

Not eager to eat GM foods? At least 70% of all prepared foods in the US have GM components. Organic foods, on the other hand, do not. Eat organic. It’s cheap compared to disease.

Posted in Buy-Cott, CODEX Consequences, GMOs, Hall of Shame, Medical Hazards | No Comments »

Organic Food Labeling Standards Comments Submitted by Natural Solutions Foundation

Sunday, April 29th, 2007

The Natural Solutions Foundation submitted comments to the United States Codex Office and the the FDA prior to the April 10, 2007 public meeting on US policy pertaining to the 2007 Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL). One of the important items on the CCFL agenda is the Draft revised Guideline for organic food standards.

These same comments have been presented to health friendly (and potentially health friendly) nations attending Codex as well as to the US. Documents like these do double duty: we have been told that they have been influential in shaping national positions both inside Codex and at home. The Natural Solutions Foundation comment document on Fluoride, for example, was not only very helpful to a number of countries in allowing them to take a stand directly opposite to that of the US during the 2006 Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) and bring about a ban on its use in formula for normal babies, but the information in that document was strong enough to spark national debate on a ban on fluoride in a number of countries following the meeting in Chiang Mai (Thailand).

During the first day of the CCFL Working Group meetings (April 28, 2007) prior to the meeting itself (April 30-May4, 2007) here in Ottawa several countries thanked us for our comments and stated that they were helpful to them in focusing their policy. This included some small countries new to the Codex process. The Working Group will meet today on this topic and its recommendations will be presented to the full CCFL during that committee’s meeting. Stay tuned to this blog for up to the minute information on Codex from inside one of its key meetings.

Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
NATURAL SOLUTIONS FOUNDATION

Major General Albert N. Stubblebine III, President
Rima E. Laibow, MD, Medical Director

April 8, 2007

Comments by the Natural Solutions Foundation on Codex Committee on Food Labeling Agenda Item 4(A) CX/FL 07/35/5, Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labeling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods DRAFT REVISED ANNEX 2: TABLE 3 (PART 1 & 2)
(CL 2006/49-FL & CL 2006/12-FL, ALINORM 06/29/22 – APPENDIX III) and all subsequent Agenda sub items referring to Labeling of organically produced foods

The Natural Solutions Foundation strongly opposes the addition of sodium or potassium nitrates or nitrites in any food produce by organic means and labeled as “organic food” or “organically produced food” and urges the United States to oppose its use domestically and internationally. Permitting nitrates and nitrites, well-known and universally recognized carcinogens and co-carcinogens, to be added to organic food destroys any meaning the phrase might have and betrays consumers who trust the concept conveyed by certification of foods as organic. Allowing the addition of universally acknowledged toxins to organic foods betrays the consumer and constitutes false and misleading information which the FDA is tasked with eliminating in the food supply, not fostering.

Furthermore, the human and economic costs of preventable cancers induced by the introduction of unnecessary toxins into food which consumers pay a high premium for because they believe that such food is free from precisely those types of toxins is unacceptable.

Nitrates and nitrites are synthetic compounds added to meats, especially processed meats like bacon and sausages, for two purposes. These compounds aid in the maintenance of an attractive red color in processed meats like bacon, ham, sausage and similar products. This attractive color is associated by consumers with freshness and wholesomeness so this additive prolongs effective shelf life. In the absence of this additive, processed meat turns grey long before it decomposes or spoils. Since consumers are more willing to buy red meat than meat which has turned gray, the additives are extremely popular with producers.

The second purpose for which they are used is to retard the germination of botulinum spores to prevent the occurrence of botulism. However botulinum spores germinate very slowly. Refrigeration, proper hygiene and, if desired, the use of salt in the curing process, retard the growth of botulinum spores much more successfully than nitrates/nitrites and do so without their significant health hazards. Foods prepared in this way could fairly be labeled as organic (provided they met the other requirements of such labeling) while foods with nitrates and nitrates in no way meets any meaningful definition of that term.

Canada and the US regulatory agencies have both demonstrated their awareness of the dangers presented by nitrates/nitrites: both have lowered permissible levels for use in foods. However, since even miniscule doses of nitrites can form potent carcinogenic nitrosamines, lowering permissible levels is not an effective health measure. This problem poses a severe health hazard because nitrosamines are so powerfully carcinogenic at tiny doses.

Organic foods are, by their nature, free of synthetic and chemical additives. Consumers expect that organic foods have no non-food, chemical preservative, artificial coloring agents or similar additives which are not produced spontaneously through the natural process of preparation. When consumers spend premium prices because they want to consume foods which have not been altered or adulterated by industrial food sourcing or processing techniques, they believe that they can eat organic food without the impact of additives, synthetic colors, preservatives, hormones or other non-food components. Nitrates and nitrites are well known to consumers as chemicals which carry significant risks when consumed either before additional cooking or after it.

Consumers are well aware that baby food manufacturers have voluntarily withdrawn nitrates/nitrites in baby food following the 1995 statement at the 44th meeting of FAO/WHO that “nitrite should not be used… in foods for infants below the age of three months.” According to FAO/WHO, babies are especially venerable to methemoglobin. In addition, fetal hemoglobin is more easily changed to methemoglobin so consumption of nitrite by pregnant women can reasonably be expected to pose a danger to the fetus. Nitrates impair the oxygen carrying capacity of hemoglobin, turning it into methemoglobin which cannot carry oxygen. Nitrite in large doses has been fatal for adults. Consumers who are particularly sensitive to this transition, who have profound anemia or suffer from other conditions which impair oxygen transport and seek to avoid nitrites expect that they are doing just that by purchasing organic sausages and preserved meats.

Several other serious and potentially lethal problems attend the use of nitrates/nitrites. Nitrates are associated with increased miscarriages, fetal deaths and birth defects in laboratory animals. Consumers are looking for food without added hazards when they purchase organic food and have the right to expect it.

Parents may spend the extra money for “safe” bacon and sausage for their children since babies and children are especially vulnerable because of their lower blood volume and greater susceptibility to the conversion of hemoglobin to methemoglobin.

Consumers sensitive to, or aware of the dangers of, nitrites may make significant efforts to avoid it only to find their efforts thwarted by a counterintuitive inclusion of dangerous synthetic additives in supposedly organic foods.

Numerous studies show that nitrite alone can cause cancer. However, an even more serious cause for concern is the well documented potential for nitrates/nitrites to cause cancer through the formation of nitrosamines, especially quaternary nitrosamines, formed when nitrites react with secondary amines. These secondary amines occur naturally in protein-containing foods such as the meat of the sausage or bacon to which they have been added.
Nitrosamines are among the most powerful carcinogens known. Numerous studies confirm the strong relationship between nitrate and nitrite intake and cancer including colorectal adeno carcinoma, prostate and breast, stomach cancers in humans. Animal studies make it clear that even minute amounts of certain nitrosamines can produce cancers.
Studies have found a correlation between nitrosamine-contaminated foods and childrens’ leukemia and brain cancer According to Dr. William Lijinsky, former director of the Chemical Carcinogenesis Program at the Frederik Carcinogenesis Center (Maryland) said in his US Senate testimony, “There is evidence to show that nitrites in meat are the most dangerous food additives today and that they are major contributors to cancer… producing cancer in 24 species of animals tested at the Frederick Cancer Research Centre.” Dr. Lijinsky, an internationally recognized expert in the biological impact of nitrates and nitrites, went on to state, “Most of the deaths [from cancer] are due to the foods people ate thirty to forty years ago.”
Adding known carcinogens to organics food is deceptive and misleading and must be avoided by the US and by all members of Codex both on principle and for health reasons.

Consumers and their government representative in many countries recognize that nitrates and nitrites have no place in organic foods. For example, Costa Rica says (CL 2006/49-FL) in its written comments on this issue,

“We must take into consideration that, in addition to accepting the additive [nitrate/nitrite], its use must comply with the organic production guidelines criteria, meaning they must not violate the principles established in those Guidelines. Therefore, … In the case of additives for use in animal origin foods, and particularly in the case of Sodium Nitrite (INS Nº 250) and Potassium Nitrate (INS Nº 252), it is important to note that these substances are known to present a risk for human health as they generate nitrous N compound that have been shown to be carcinogenic in experimental animals, some of them being mutagenic and others teratogenic, as well as having high levels of their salts associated with a higher incidence of stomach and esophagus cancers. Due to the aforesaid, our position is that the use of these substances in organic foods of animal origin violates the principles of organic production and, therefore, our country does not accept their inclusion in this list.”

Norway bans all nitrates and nitrites in all foods, organic or not, noting that proper hygiene and handling eliminate the need for the substances in food altogether noting,

“[250] [Sodium nitrite] For food of animal origin: Not accepted especially for prod. Group 8.2.2. Heattreated [sic], 8.2.3, 8.3. and 9.2.4.1 Should not at all be used for colour [sic] retention. Could doubtfully be used as a preservative. It is possible to produce products without these additives. This requires good hygiene, and HACCP should be in place. There are health concerns about using this additive. The Norwegian consumers do not expect to find this additive in organic products.” [Emphasis added]

252 Potassium nitrate The above mentioned categories are not included for 252. See 250

301 Sodium ascorbate See comments to 250 and 252 The use of this additive is linked to the use of nitrate/nitrite and should therefore not be used.”

Similarly, Thailand states in its written comments, “It is acceptable for us to exclude the use of any kind of nitrate/nitrite from the organically produced food, especially food of animal origin such as sausages.”

Likewise, Germany has banned both substances in the foods.

The Natural Solutions Foundation believes that nitrates/nitrites have no appropriate place in the human food supply and that permitting their use in foods which are labeled “Organic” is totally unjustified and represents a profound betray of the trust placed in regulatory agencies by consumers. Hence, the Natural Solutions Foundation strongly urges the United States to instruct its Delegate to the Codex Committee on Food Labeling and all other Codex meetings and committees to vigorously oppose the use of nitrates and nitrites in human food under any circumstances and most especially, to preserve the meaning of organic food by using all means at its disposal to make sure these dangerous compounds are not permitted in organic foods.

Dated: April 8, 2007
Respectfully submitted,

Major General Albert N. Stubblebine III (US Army, Ret.)
Rima Laibow MD

For: Natural Solutions Foundation
www.healthfreedomusa.org

Posted in CODEX Consequences, CODEX Industries, GMOs | No Comments »

Fructose Follies, Baby Version

Sunday, November 20th, 2005

On Saturday, November 19, 2005 I attended the Codex Working Group on Infant Formulas which operates as part of the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Food for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU).

It was a fascinating day (if you like watching decision made which will potentially impact negatively on every single child on the planet who is not breast fed. This working group is setting standards which all manufacturers who ship formula internationally must follow AND which those countries unwise enough to pass these regulations as their own domestic laws on infant formula must follow, too.

Here is the highlight of the day:
Dr. Barbara Schneeman, Director of the Dietary Supplements Department of the FDA urged the Working Group to allow fructose in baby formula. Now that is quite fascinating, really, because our own FDA prohibited the use of fructose in the beverage supply of the US because it was high in empty calories, and likely to bring about preventable diabetes, obesity (and with it cancer and cardiovascular disease) and a host of other ill health effects, especially in children and adolescents. Manufacturers, whose bottom line is the bottom line, protested and forced the FDA to abandon its health-protective stance by allowing fructose (also known by names such as “high fructose corn syrup”) into the food supply BECAUSE CODEX ALLOWS FRUCTOSE.

So the FDA knows full well that fructose is associated with a decline in health associated with an increase in obesity and diabetes. Remember, the US is battling an epidemic of juvenile and adult obesity and another [related] one of juvenile and adult diabetes, both preventable disorders.

So why would Dr. Schneeman argue for the inclusion of this health-degrading substance in baby formula? Babies need about 670 calories per 100 grams of formula, according to the working group (older and younger babies do not seem to get special nutritional recognition: perhaps they figure that older babies will just tank up on more fluid in order to get more of what they need). How many of those calories should be from empty, dangerous, insulin-spiking sweeteners for which there is no nutritional requirement whatsoever?

And how many of those calories should be for something that teaches babies to demand sweet foods despite the fact that the perfect baby food, breast milk, does not have fructose in it?

Oh, yes, the fructose generally comes from corn. And, oh, yes, the corn is generally genetically modified (GM). And, oh, yes, the genetically modified corn and anything made from it does not have to be tested for safety before it is released into the food supply. Of course, the Working Group on Infant Formula has already approved GM soy for use in infant formula. The recent study Russian study showing that over 55% of rat pups whose mothers were fed GM soy died after failing to gain weight properly should suggest some caution to a truly “science based” process such as Codex claims to be.

Tragically, it would appear that the only science upon which Codex is based in the science of International Banking.

What can you do about it? Several things. Go to www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and take the following steps:
• Join the Citizen Petition (a legal challenge to the US government policy on Codex. (Do not be misled by those who mistakenly believe its purpose is to “persuade” government bureaucrats since whether they are persuaded or not is irrelevant to the legal process set in motion by the Citizen Petition. The more people who do so, the stronger our case before Congress.
• Tell Congress that you want a Congressional Briefing on Codex and tell them that you want Dr. Rima E. Laibow, MD, Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation, to help them organize the briefing.
• Write to Congress to support and oppose the bills that will determine your health freedom by using our email engine. Let Congress know that your health and health freedom is important to you!
• Use any (or all) of several methods to support the critical work of the Natural Solutions Foundation
o Do your personal and holiday shopping at www.EatSafeEatSmart.com, your source for GM-free, organic personal products, snacks, foods and products. Every purchase helps to support the Natural Solutions Foundation
o Send your unwanted treasures and collectables (each worth at least $30) to us at the Dump Fund: take the item(s) to any common carrier (Federal Express, UPS, DHL, etc.), (you can have them pack it or do it yourself) and ship it to the D.U.M.P. Fund, at: NSF, 297 Passaic Avenue, Fairfield, NJ 07004. Questions? Email us at infor@dumpfund.org. You will get a letter for the sale price of your tax deductible donation for your records.
o Make a donation to us by visiting www.HealthFreedomUSA.org/donate.shtml/.

You can be sure we will keep you posted during the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Food for Special Dietary Uses this next week. We’ll keep you posted on everything Dr. Grossklaus, the “Dr. Strangelove of Nutrition” does and says.

Yours in health and freedom,

Rima E. Laibow, MD

Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation

Posted in Buy-Cott, Citizen's Petition, CODEX Consequences, GMOs, Hall of Shame, Medical Hazards | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »