Steven Gaal Posted July 16, 2012 Author Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) http://www.gmwatch.org/ THIS BEST ONE STOP SITE ON GM ISSUE ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Crazy conspiratorial site = Scientific American ((Gaal)) http://www.gmwatch.o...-on-gm-research Scientific American condemns restrictions on GM research Tuesday, 21 July 2009 15:48 EXTRACT: Although we appreciate the need to protect the intellectual property rights that have spurred the investments into research and development that have led to agritech's successes, we also believe food safety and environmental protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny. Agricultural technology companies should therefore immediately remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements. Going forward, the EPA should also require, as a condition of approving the sale of new seeds, that independent researchers have unfettered access to all products currently on the market. --- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://www.responsib...od-January-2006 ServicesUn-Spinning the Spin Masters on Genetically Engineered Food ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Jeffrey M. Smith Jeffrey Smith Responds to a Biotech Proponent's Accusations and Spin Note from Jeffrey Smith: In September, 2005, the respected South African investigative magazine, Noseweek, ran a five-page interview with me that was described by a GMO campaigner as "the hardest knock" that the country's biotech industry had ever taken from the media. To read the interview, go to the September 2005 issue of Spilling the Beans, at http://www.responsib...-September-2005. Hans Lombard, a public relations consultant for the biotech industry, wrote a rebuttal to Noseweek that was pure industry spin. Fortunately, I was given the opportunity to respond. Both his letter and a condensed version of mine were published side by side in their January issue. The magazine put my full response on its website. The following is the text of Lombard's letter, broken up so that I can respond to each accusation. The shortened version that was published is available with graphics and photos at http://www.responsib...rg/docs/100.pdf Noseweek has given permission for either the long or short versions to be reprinted in whole or in part. PART 1 Lombard: Gmo food safer than conventional Allegations by Jeffrey Smith of "dangers and health risks" to humans and animals posed by GMO food in the article: "Rammed down our throats," Noseweek, September 2005 are blatant lies. Shocking, misleading information with no substantiated scientific evidence. What he failed to tell us is that his so-called "best seller" book condemning GMO crops which he hawked around South Africahas not received the backing of any academy of science or medicine, any faculty of agriculture/science, or any agricultural research institute anywhere in the world. Smith: Hans Lombard, a public relations man paid to "hawk" GM foods around South Africa, provides a superb example of industry spin. He attacks so-called "lies" and "misleading information" using nonexistent safety tests that passed with flying colors, false attributions to national academies and unsupported safety claims. It is a pleasure to respond to these accusations. "So-called" best seller without "backing"… Seeds of Deception is the world's bestselling book on GM foods and rated number one on the subject by the Ecologist. It documents attempted bribes, fired and threatened scientists, hijacked regulatory agencies, cover-ups, rigged research, and the ways in which industry manipulation and political collusion got genetically modified (GM) foods approved. It also explains why the foods threaten our health. The revelations have had an impact. A master's thesis, for example, concluded that the book had a major influence on the passage of the first state regulation on GMOs in Vermont. A state representative said, "It certainly colored every conversation in the Statehouse about GMOs. It was the subtext for everything after that, once it arrived." In the US, academic institutions don't "back" books. The faculty use what they want. Even though Seeds of Deception is not an academic text book, it is assigned in several university classes, including Yale, where I spoke last year. Substantiated scientific evidence… I asked a prominent German biologist, Christine von Weizsaecker, to write the foreword to my German edition. She explained that she couldn't put her name on anything in which the science isn't absolutely correct. She therefore analyzed the book in great detail, and then had another top biologist trace every quote to its original source, to make sure it wasn't used out of context. It passed inspection and she wrote the foreword. Hawking my book… My visit to Southern Africa was to speak at conferences and to share information about GM foods with the public and political leaders. It was not about promoting my book, which wasn't even available in SA bookstores at the time. This sentence, however, is about hawking my book, which is now available through New Horizon distributors. Lombard: In response to only a few of his wild fear mongering and scientifically unproven allegations, here are the facts: *GM crops are not adequately tested for safety Quite the contrary. In fact no agricultural crop in history has been subjected to such stringent scientific and medical tests. GMO crops have passed these tests with flying colours. The European Commission conducted 81 scientific research tests over a period of 15 years and costing R640 million. It concluded: "GM food is both safe for humans and the environment. Biotech crops may even be safer than conventional food." After in-depth research by a panel of leading scientists, the Royal Scientific Society of London stated: "There is no serious threat or even existence of any potential environmental harm or human health hazards in GM food. " Eight academies of science—Brazil, China, India, Mexico, the Third World Academy, National Academy of Science US, Germany, France and the Royal Canadian Society—concurred. The British Medical Association says there is very little potential for GM foods to cause harmful effects. Smith: Stringent tests, 81 studies… The European Commission had funded 81 projects on GMOs, not conducted. As of 2001, when this count was made, most were in progress but not yet published. An analysis of all peer-reviewed animal feeding safety tests on GM foods, published in Nutrition and Health in 2003, found only 10.[1] Another comprehensive analysis published in October, 2005, raises that number to 19.[2] Most of these are industry-sponsored and are criticized as superficial and poorly designed. According to GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks, "relatively short-term animal feeding/production experiments, particularly as they are presently carried out, do not contribute much to GM safety."[3] Another peer-reviewed article in Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews exposed numerous health risks of GM foods that are not being tested for, and cited "serious deficiencies in both regulatory oversight and corporate testing procedures."[4]Geneticist David Suzuki said it a little clearer: "Any politician or scientist who tells you these products are safe is either very stupid or lying. The experiments have simply not been done."[5] Academies… To claim that there are no potential health hazards from GM is absurd. To claim this as the position of eight national academies is outrageous. I called Lombard's bluff, and read his quote to Fran Sharples, the Director of the Board on Life Sciences at the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). She said, "The academies have issued numerous reports on assessing the risks of transgenic plants. If the academy believed there were no such potential risks, why would we have delved into these matters in these reports?"[6] One of those NAS reports even acknowledged that the current system of regulating GMOs might not detect "unintended changes in the composition of the food."[7] The Royal Society of Canada stated that it is "scientifically unjustifiable" to presume that GM foods are safe, and that the "default presumption" is that unintended, potentially hazardous side effects are present. A WHO spokesperson said that current regulations are not adequate to determine the health effects,[8] the Indian Council of Medical Research called for a complete overhaul of existing regulations,[9] and the British Medical Association had called for a moratorium of GM foods altogether. Why then do we read reports from some scientific bodies that claim GM foods are totally safe? It turns out that there is a fairly small group of biotech scientists with strong support by industry who have managed to author all sorts of "official" or official-sounding reports. The usual suspects are concentrated in the UK, and their Odes-to-Biotech are found in reports for the UK's Royal Society and others. GMWatch.org has done a brilliant job exposing the group's conflicts of interest, biased science, and even their repeated use of threats to other scientists who wish to publish adverse findings or opinions. How did Lombard come up with his eight academies? I guess he's referring to a report called Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture (2000), which lists seven of the eight as contributors. But the report hardly supports Lombard's claim of no potential risks. On the contrary, it enumerates "the potential for allergic reactions" and "toxic compounds as a result of the GM technology." Moreover, "Public health regulatory systems need to be put in place in every country to identify and monitor any potential adverse human health effects of transgenic plants." Unfortunately, this recommendation has not been instituted anywhere in the world, so we don't know if GM foods are already causing widespread health problems. PART 2 Lombard: *After GM soyas were introduced in the UK, allergies skyrocketed. The Royal Society of London denies this and says. There is no evidence that GM foods cause allergic reactions. Allergic risks posed by GM plants are no greater than those posed by conventional crops. Long before the advent of GM crops, medical scientists determined that allergies were caused by milk, egg whites, peanuts and soya beans and will continue to do so, GM or non-GM. If the allegations regarding allergies were true, why does the EU continue to import annually on average 17 million tons of soya from the USA and Argentine, 90% GM? Smith: Allergies… An allergy specialist from Ohio told me recently, "I used to test for soy allergy. Since they have genetically altered it, I tell people just don't eat it unless it says organic. These things are so potentially dangerous."[10] The British Medical Association had warned that GM foods may lead to the emergence of new allergies. A finding in March 1999 is telling. Researchers at the UK's York Laboratory tested 4,500 people for allergic reactions and sensitivities to a wide range of foods. Soy had previously affected 10% of consumers. In 1999, however, that jumped to 15%. Soy entered the top ten list of allergens for the first time in the seventeen years of testing. Reactions included irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, skin complaints, chronic fatigue, headaches and lethargy. Blood tests confirmed an antibody reaction to soy. GM soy had recently entered the UK and the soy used in the study was largely GM. John Graham, spokesman for the York laboratory, said, "We believe this raises serious new questions about the safety of GM foods."[11] The joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of GM foods said, "A clear need exists to pay particular attention to allergenicity when assessing the safety of foods produced through genetic modification."[12] But GM foods have genes from bacteria, viruses and other organisms. The proteins they create were never part of the human food supply; no one knows if they're allergenic. According to the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) 1992 policy, "At this time, FDA is unaware of any practical method to predict or assess the potential for new proteins in food to induce allergenicity and requests comments on this issue."[13] A Washington Post article—written seven years later—said there is still "no widely accepted way to predict a new food's potential to cause an allergy. The FDA is now five years behind in its promise to develop guidelines for doing so. With no formal guidelines in place, it's largely up to the industry to decide whether and how to test for the allergy potential of new food."[14] But this is problematic, according to the FDA's own scientist, who had written years earlier, "Are we asking the crop developer to prove that food from his crop is non-allergenic? This seems like an impossible task."[15] According to the US EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, "Only surveillance and clinical assessment of exposed individuals will confirm the allergenicity."[16] Unfortunately, no such surveillance exists. The FAO/WHO does suggest criteria that minimize the likelihood that allergenic GM crops would get approved. The GM soy already on the market, however, fails those criteria—sections of its GM protein are identical to known allergens. The same is true for the GM white corn used in the South African staple, millimeal. It is engineered to create a Bt toxin to kill insects. Farm workers and others exposed to Bt spray have exhibited allergic symptoms including allergic rhinitis, angioedema, dermatitis, pruritus, swelling, erythema with conjunctival injection, exacerbations of asthma, angioedema and rashes.[17] A November 2005 study [18] found that a GM pea under development caused severe immune responses in mice, and the plans to commercialize the crop were scrapped. The tests used, however, were those typically used for medical testing, not for GM food. If those same peas were subjected to normal GM food safety assessments, they could have sailed through the approval process. More importantly, since none of the GM crops on the market have ever been tested in this same rigorous way, they too may be harmful. EU imports… The EU imports GM soy for use as animal feed. Fortunately, European food manufacturers such as Carrefour, Tesco, Asda and Marks and Spencer, are committed to switch to non-GM sources. Lombard: *GM cotton produced in Andra Pradesh, India, reduced yields by 18% and was subsequently banned. Again, the Indian authorities in Andra Pradesh reject this allegation as an outright lie. Chengal Reddy, chairman of the Federation of Farmers' Associations in Andra Pradesh, denies that there has been a Bt cotton failure. According to him, Bt cotton plantings in 2002/03 was a roaring success. Mangala Rai, director-general of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, says cotton farmers in Andra Pradesh increased their Bt cotton yields by 30% and reduced pesticide sprayings by 65%. So much so, that the Indian Government approved the planting of an additional 40 000 ha of Bt cotton in Andra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtraand Gujarat. Furthermore, the Indian Government has approved three new Bt cotton varieties. Andra Pradash now has the choice of six Bt cotton hybrids. If Smith's allegation is true, why is it that India increased the area under approved biotech cotton from 100,000 ha two years ago to 500,000 in 2004, involving more than 300,000 small-scale farmers? Smith: According to the April 13, 2005 Deccan Herald, "A study that tracked genetically modified Bt cotton crop for three years in Andhra Pradesh has proved conclusively that it has failed on all fronts including yield, cost of cultivation, returns to farmers and resistance to pests. On the other hand, the non-Bt cotton performed better on all counts."[19] This was the only independent study "on Bt cotton done on [a] season-long basis continuously for three years in 87 villages." Conducted by Dr Abdul Qayoom, former Joint Director of Agriculture in Andhra Pradesh, and Mr Sakkari Kiran of the Permaculture Institute of India, the study showed that growing Bt cotton cost 12% more, yielded 8.3% less, and the returns over three years were 60% less.[20] Problems with the GM variety included failure to germinate, drought damage, root-rot, leaf curl virus, brittle stems, increased pests, smaller bolls, increased labor requirements per acre and a shorter harvest season. According to three year study, some farmers complained "that they were not able to grow other crops after Bt because it had infected their soil very badly."[21] Years earlier, approvals of Bt cotton had been secured by an "expert team" that visited a few farmers growing it for the first time. The team issued a glowing report, claiming higher yields, less pesticides, and greater profits. When a film crew interviewed those same farmers, they discovered that just the opposite was true. They also described problems with the cotton's quality: GM cotton was more light weight, weaker, less bright, had shorter staple length and sold for less. One farmer said, "We have to beg the traders to sell the cotton to them." When government officials saw the video, they investigated and confirmed that the expert team's report contradicted the facts. Another report identified a yield loss in the Warangal district of 30-60%. The official report, however, was tampered with. The local Deputy Director of Agriculture confirmed on Feb 1, 2005 that the yield figures had been secretly increased to 2.7 times higher than what farms reported. Once the state of Andhra Pradesh tallied all the actual yields, they demanded approximately $10 million USD from Monsanto to compensate farmers for losses. When the company refused, on June 3 the government banned Monsanto from the state. According to state agricultural commissioner Poonam Malakondiah, the state will not even allow Monsanto to carry out trials.[22] The Bt varieties that Lombard says are now sold in Andhra Pradesh are other companies' products. But a November 8, 2005report by the Monitoring & Evaluation Committee shows stunted growth and massive pest damage to these varieties as well.[23] Lombard can easily obtain contradictory statistics. Ask Monsanto. They commissioned studies to be done by market research agencies, not scientists. One, for example, claimed four times the actual reduction in pesticide use, twelve times the actual yield, and 100 times the actual profit.[24] Lombard quotes Chengal Reddy. Of course Reddy will use Monsanto's statistics, as "he has worked closely with the company since the mid-1990s,"[25] and even proposed to that his group "be the operational arm"[26] of the biotech organization in the state. GMwatch.org exposes more on this "non-farmer" and his "federation" that appears to be "significantly different from that which it claims."[27] In spite of Monsanto's ban in Andhra Pradesh, their faulty cotton was allowed in Madhya Pradesh. According to a November 14, 2005 article in NewKerala.com, it has been a disaster there too. Rampant wilting in 200,000 acres caused an estimated $87.5 million USD in damages. The article also described a health report that showed "Bt cotton was causing severe to moderate allergy to people coming in contact with it."[28] On November 10, 2005, The Hindu reported that "Up to 75 per cent of the Bt cotton seeds" planted in parts of Tamil Nadu "failed to germinate this season,"[29] and on November 27 they said that India's central government "conceded the failure of Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan."[30] Why are farmers still buying Bt cotton. I'm not sure. But the following accounts may help explain it. Monsanto ran a poster series called True Stories Of Farmers Who Have Sown Bt Cotton. One featured a farmer who claimed great benefits. When investigators tracked him down, he turned out to be a cigarette salesman, not a farmer. Another poster gave the yield figures of the featured farmer—which was four times what he actually achieved. One photo of a farmer standing next to a tractor was used to suggest that sales of Bt cotton allowed him to buy it. But the farmer was never told what the photo was to be used for, and said that with the yields from Bt, "I would not be able to buy even two tractor tires." In addition to posters, the cotton marketers used dancing girls, famous Bollywood actors, even religious leaders to pitch their products. Some newspaper ads looked like a news stories and featured relatives of seed salesmen claiming to be happy with Bt. Sometimes free pesticides were given away with the seeds, and some farmers who helped with publicity got free seeds. As for Lombard's increased acreage statistics, according to the Executive Director of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, (the organization that helped investigate these marketing deceptions) "The assertion by Monsanto that the increase in acreage of Bt Cotton is an indication of the success of Bt Cotton is as questionable as their false advertising."[31] In Andhra Pradesh, 71% of farmers who used Bt cotton ended up with financial losses. When they realized that they were deceived, farmers attacked the seed dealer's office and even "tied up Mahyco Monsanto representatives in their villages," until the police rescued them.[32] Tragically, other farmers committed suicide. In Vidarbha, Maharashtra alone, between July 2 and November 17, 2005, an estimated 114 impoverished cotton farmers have taken their own lives.[33] PART 3 Lombard: *Rats fed on GM Potatoes developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth—Pusztai. Rats fed on GM tomatoes—seven of 40 died within two weeks. These tests were never peer-proven. No scientific peer-proven data in support of these tests exists. They were dispelled as flawed by scientists worldwide. A report in the influential Lancet magazine claimed that scientists who reviewed Pusztai's experiments came to the conclusion that: •The study was flawed, since it had been poorly conducted and did not meet acceptable scientific standards. •The UK Advisory Committee on Novel Food Programmes (ACNFP) concluded that "no meaningful conclusions could be drawn from Pusztai's study". •The Royal Society of London stated: "We found no convincing evidence of adverse effects from GM potatoes. The effects were uninterpretable because of technical limitations of the experiments and the incorrect use of statistical tests." Pusztai was subsequently fired from the institution where he worked. On the tomato issue Pusztai, who had nothing to do with the experiments, said the rats died with unstated reasons. The GM tomatoes were on the market for three years and consumed by thousands of people, without any ill-effects reported by any medical or health institutions. They were withdrawn when the company that launched the project ran into technical and financial problems. Smith: Potatoes… I describe Dr. Pusztai's story in great detail in the first chapter of my book. I interviewed him over several months, and pored over leaked documents, scientific reports and testimonies. Here's a synopsis. Dr. Pusztai was awarded a grant by the UK government to develop a safety testing protocol, which would eventually be required for all GM foods. Pusztai's 20-member research team created a GM potato, engineered to produce its own insecticide, and tested it on rats. The design for the animal feeding study had already been used by Pusztai in about 60 out of the more than 300 peer-reviewed studies he had published, and it was also approved in advance by the UK government. The results of the potato study were shocking. Nearly every system in the rats' bodies was adversely affected by the GM potatoes. Another group was fed natural potatoes that were spiked with the insecticide that the GM variety produced. Those rats did fine. Thus, the insecticide didn't cause the damaged organs and immune system or the prolific cell growth. Rather, it was probably changes in the potato resulting from the process of genetic engineering that was the culprit. (During the GM process, for example, natural genes can be turned off, permanently turned on, deleted, reversed, scrambled, moved or fragmented, all with potential side effects.) When Dr. Pusztai publicly expressed his concerns about GMOs, he was a hero at his institute. But this quickly became a serious problem for the biotech industry and the pro-GM Blair government. Dr. Pusztai was the world leader in his field; he worked at the country's most prestigious nutritional institute; using cutting edge research funded by the government, he found problems; and now he claims that GM technology may be inherently unsafe. The press was ravenous. For two days, the institute's director led the publicity efforts, describing Pusztai's research as a huge advance in science. Then two phone calls were allegedly placed from the UK prime minister's office, forwarded through the receptionist, to the director. The next morning, Dr. Pusztai was released from the institute after 35 years and silenced with threats of a lawsuit. His research team was disbanded and the government never implemented any long-term testing protocol. Disinformation was widely circulated. The institute and the biotech gang at the Royal Society staged so-called peer-reviews, but didn't use all the test data, had no nutritionists doing the critique of a nutritional study, and made sweeping claims that contradicted the research. According to a leaked document obtained by the Independent on Sunday, even three government ministers prepared "an astonishingly detailed strategy for spinning, and mobilizing support for" GM foods, including rubbishing Pusztai's research.[34] When Pusztai's gag order was eventually lifted and he gained access to his data, 23 top scientists from around the world reviewed the research and came to his defense. The study was peer-reviewed and published in the prestigious Lancet (in spite of threats made to its editor by a Royal Society official). Nonetheless, as you can see in Lombard's reply, the disinformation campaign continues.[For the record, Lombard's attribution to the Lancet is misleading. A letter from the editor included a quote from the Royal Society's review, which said the study was "flawed." But the editor was actually chastising the Society for "criticizing reports of research…before those data were reviewed and published in the proper way."[35] Pusztai's study, including the statistics, did pass the Lancet review.] Tomatoes… Lombard is right that the tomato study was not peer reviewed. It was submitted by Calgene (now a subsidiary of Monsanto) to the FDA for their FlavrSavr tomato review. Industry submissions are almost never peer-reviewed and are usually so poorly designed or reported, they are actually unworthy of publication. In fact, when I asked Dr. Pusztai what his greatest shock was, it turned out to be when he read the confidential studies submitted to the UK government to get GM products approved. This was months before his controversial sacking, while he was still an ardent GM advocate. He described the industry's studies as so superficial and so poorly done, it was clear that they were doing as little as possible to get their products on the market as quickly as possible. They were not doing real safety assessments. In the case of the tomato, FDA documents made public from a lawsuit reveal that GM-fed rats developed stomach lesions. In spite of Calgene's attempts to explain it away, agency scientists maintained that the findings did not meet their standard of a "demonstration of reasonable certainty of no harm."[36] The political appointees, however, ignored their scientists and approved the tomato. When the same lawsuit made Calgene's rat study available, Dr. Pusztai reviewed it for the attorneys. With respect to the rats' bleeding stomachs, he pointed out that if similar reactions were to occur in humans, "they could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who use aspirin to prevent thrombosis."[37] Pusztai also discovered a paragraph in the appendix which said 7 out of 40 GM-fed rats died within two weeks and were replaced. The cause of death was obliquely described as "husbandry error." Pusztai was astounded. It is entirely unacceptable for such a study to leave out the data from rat autopsies and substitute only meaningless, unsupported opinions. Likewise, replacing dead animals in the middle of a feeding study is not scientifically justified. One of the scientists who developed the tomato for Calgene told me that her team had been asked to evaluate the results of the rat experiment. She admitted that as plant molecular biologists, the study was totally out of their field, and they could easily have overlooked the appendix and its implications. Consumed by thousands without any ill-effects… Since no one monitors the health impacts of GM foods, to make the claim that there are no ill-effects demonstrates a profound ignorance of the issues. Lombard: *Philippines living next to a Bt maize field developed respiratory and skin reactions. The person who published this information was Norwegian scientist Prof Terje Traavik, an ardent anti-GMO activist. His studies were, however, never peer-proven. When he was challenged to provide scientific data by Dr Nina Gloriani Barzaga from the University of the Philippines-Manila College of Public Health, he said his studies were "only preliminary and not complete." He was also challenged by Prof Rick Roush, director, Statewide IPM Program, University of California, USA, who comments as follows: "Traavik never allowed any of his work to be peer-reviewed. He never offered any details of his research to any of the rest of us scientists. His work remains nothing more than a wild and implausible allegation." The area was visited by the Philippines Department of Agriculture, a team of medical doctors, and representatives from the College of Chest Physicians and the Manila College of Health. They came to the conclusion that the villagers showed no allergic symptoms or signs of viral respiratory infection. More than 20 000 ha of GM maize has been grown in the Philippines during the past three years by more than 5000 farmers. Nobody has complained of an allergy. Smith: Nobody has complained of an allergy… According to the Philippine publication Mindanews, "On August 8, 2003, about 100 residents from Sitio Kalyong were documented to have been suffering from headache, dizziness, extreme stomach pain, vomiting and allergies."[38] The Filipinos lived adjacent to a GM cornfield and developed symptoms only while the corn pollen was airborne. According to the article, similar symptoms appeared in different locations during the following two years, also corresponding with the time of pollination. Dr. Traavik, a prominent EU virologist and director of the Norwegian Institute for Gene Ecology, tested the blood of 39 of the villagers during the first year. The blood developed an antibody response to the Bt-toxin—the pesticide that the corn was engineered to produce. Dr. Traavik presented preliminary findings in February 2004, at a Malaysian conference on GM food safety. Dr. Traavik explained to the audience, which was mostly delegates to the UN Biosafety Conference that started the next day, that the blood response increased the probability that the symptoms came from the corn. But it wasn't proof. I attended Dr. Traavik's talk, in which he also presented preliminary results of four other studies. Two included results that challenged the safety claims of GM vaccines. Two studied promoters—the viral sequences that turn on the foreign genes that are inserted into GM crops. One study showed that the promoter was active in human cells, and the other showed that the promoter survived digestion in rats and ended up in their organs three days later. Since I was giving a presentation on the health risks of GM foods at the UN conference, I spent two days interviewing Dr. Traavik and other senior scientists from his Institute about the research. When I gave my talk, I explained, as Dr. Traavik had, that his research was not yet finished, peer-reviewed or published. My job was to explain the preliminary findings in the wider context of known GM health hazards. On the Philippine study, for example, I described how the potential dangers of breathing GM pollen had been identified years earlier by the UK Joint Food Safety and Standards Group. They had even postulated that inhaled genes might transfer into human DNA, and wrote to the US FDA, warning them about these risks of GM crops. Thus, the link between GM corn and the reactions in the Philippines is far from "wild and implausible," as Lombard claims. In accordance with normal scientific protocol, Dr. Traavik said he would not circulate his data or methodology until the papers were published. He is still working on the Philippine study. Three of the five presented in Malaysia have already been published, including the study confirming that GM promoters function in human cells.[39] This means that if promoters were to transfer out of GM food (which they do) and integrate into human DNA (which needs to be studied), they might permanently switch on random genes inside of us, overproducing a toxin, allergen, carcinogen, etc. In fact, if the promoters were to be inhaled in GM pollen and then transfer to human DNA… But wait, that's probably "wild and implausible." 19.3 million ha… JS: GM crops are planted to 1.6% of all arable land, 98% of which is found in only 5 countries, 99.9% of which comprise only 4 crops: soy, corn, cotton and canola. No reports of adverse effects… This is one of the most unscientific—and dangerous—statements made by Lombard. Thousands of people had died before AIDS was discovered. Millions suffered from cigarettes before the health effects were known. Food-related illness in the US doubled between 1994 and 2001, during the time GM foods were introduced. But I can't say that the disease rates were GM-related, and Lombard can't say they're not. Since no one is monitoring the population for health effects of GM foods, it could take decades to identify even serious problems. Lombard's statement is also an insult to the 5,000-10,000 people who fell sick due to a genetically engineered brand of the food supplement called L-tryptophan, which was sold in the US in the 1980s. More than 100 people died and many are permanently disabled. There is a new report on L-tryptophan, by a journalist who spent nearly a decade investigating this deadly epidemic. He reveals how evidence was suppressed or not followed-up, and how the FDA withheld information from the public and Congress in an apparent attempt to protect the biotech industry. Comments… Monsanto is a chief contributor to Lombard's Public Relations services. That is the same company that was fined for bribing 140 Indonesian officials, that sues farmers for patent infringement when the company's GM seeds blow onto their land, that assured us Agent Orange was safe, and whose executives' described the ideal future as a world in which 100% of all commercial seeds were genetically engineered and patented. On February 22, 2002, Monsanto was found guilty for poisoning a town next to their factory and covering it up for decades. They were convicted of negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass, and outrage. According to Alabama law, to be guilty of outrage typically requires conduct "so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society."[40] This same company is responsible for conducting the safety studies on its own GM foods. And in South Africa, the only country that allows the genetic modification of a food staple, the government has entrusted Monsanto with the health of its people. from January 2006 Spilling the Beans newsletter © Copyright Jeffrey M. Smith 2006 Permission is granted to publishers and webmasters to reproduce this article. Please contact info@responsibletechnology.org to let us know who you are and what your circulation is, so we can keep track. References [1] Ian F. Pryme and Rolf Lembcke, "In Vivo Studies on Possible Health Consequences of genetically modified food and Feed—with Particular Regard to Ingredients Consisting of Genetically Modified Plant Materials," Nutrition and Health, vol. 17, 2003 [2] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz: GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks. In "Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals", R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.), 2OO5. Elsevier Limited, pp. 513-540 [3] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz: GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks. In "Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals", R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.), 2OO5. Elsevier Limited, pp. 513-540 [4] William Freese and David Schubert, Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods, Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews—Vol. 21, November 2004 [5] Andrea Baillie, "Suzuki Warns of Frankenstein Foods," CP Wire, October 18, 1999 [6] Personal communication with Fran Sharples, November 14, 2005 [7] SAFETY OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS: APPROACHES TO ASSESSING UNINTENDED HEALTH EFFECTS, Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health, Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS , Washington, D.C., 2004 [8] World Health Organization questions safety assessment of Genetically Engineered foods, Press Advisory, Californians for GE-Free Agriculture, October 14, 2004 [9] Ashok B. Sharma, "ICMR Wants Overhaul Of GM Foods Regulation," Financial Express, New Delhi, India July 25, 2004 [10] Personal communication with John Boyles, MD [11] Mark Townsend, "Why soya is a hidden destroyer," Daily Express, March 12, 1999 [12] Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods, Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology 22—25 January 2001 [13] "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties," Food and Drug Administration Docket No. 92N-0139 [14] Rick Weiss, "Biotech Food Raises a Crop of Questions," Washington Post, August 15, 1999, p. A1 [15] Carl B. Johnson, Memo on the "draft statement of policy 12/12/91," January8, 1992 [16] EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, "Bt Plant-Pesticides Risk and Benefits Assessments," March 12, 2001, p. 76. Available at: www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2000/october/octoberfinal.pdf [17] Bernstein, et al., (1999). Immune responses in farm workers after exposure to Bacillus thuringiensis pesticides. Environmental Health Perspectives 107(7), 575-582 [18] V. E. Prescott, et al, Transgenic Expression of Bean r-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity, J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53 [19] Genetically-modified Bt cotton a cropper: Study, Deccan Herald april 13,2005,From R Akhileshwari DH News Service Hyderabad [20] Abdul Qayum & Kiran Sakkhari. Did Bt Cotton Save Farmers in Warangal? A season long impact study of Bt Cotton—Kharif 2002 in Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh . AP Coalition in Defence of Diversity & Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, 2003. [21] Abdul Qayum & Kiran Sakkhari. Did Bt Cotton Save Farmers in Warangal? A season long impact study of Bt Cotton—Kharif 2002 in Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh . AP Coalition in Defence of Diversity & Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, 2003. [22] Angry Andhra uproots Monsanto, Financial Express, June 04, 2005 http://www.financial...ontent_id=92868 [23] New report on Bt cotton problems in India (8/11/2005), http://www.gmwatch.o...n-india-8112005 [24] Abdul Qayum & Kiran Sakkhari. Did Bt Cotton Save Farmers in Warangal? A season long impact study of Bt Cotton—Kharif 2002 in Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh . AP Coalition in Defence of Diversity & Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, 2003. [25] http://www.powerbase...p/Chengal_Reddy [26] Crop protection association seeks sweeping review of Insect, Financial Express, August 26, 2000, http://www.financial...6/fco26064.html [27] http://www.powerbase...ciation_(India) [28] Wilting of Bt cotton in MP [Madhya Pradesh], farmers demand ban on companies, NewKerala.com, 14 Nov 2005 http://www.newkerala...llnews&id=52326 [29] Gargi Parsai, Bt cotton seeds fail to germinate, The Hindu, 10 Nov 2005 http://www.hindu.com...11007110500.htm [30] Gargi Parsai, Centre admits failure of Bt cotton in 2 States, The Hindu, Nov 27 2005, http://www.hindu.com...12716091200.htm [31] Marketing of Bt Cotton in India—Aggressive, Unscrupulous and False…, http://www.grain.org...ng_in_India.pdf [32] Abdul Qayum & Kiran Sakkhari. Did Bt Cotton Save Farmers in Warangal? A season long impact study of Bt Cotton—Kharif 2002 in Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh . AP Coalition in Defence of Diversity & Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, 2003. [33] Press Notice, Debt Burden Cotton Growers Suicides in West Vidarbha (Maharashtra-India) Has Crossed 114 Mark Today in Last 150 Days, November 17, 2005 [34] Editorial, "Less Spin, More Science," Sunday Independent (London), May 23, 1999 [35] Richard Horton,Genetically modified foods: "absurd" concern or welcome dialogue? The Lancet 1999; 354:1314-1315 [36] See www.biointegrity.org for FDA memos [37] Arpad Pusztai, "Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?" June 2001 [38] Allen V. Estabillo, Farmer's group urges ban on planting Bt corn; says it could be cause of illnesses, Mindanews,19 October 2004 [39] Myhre, et. al., European Food Research and Technology (2005) DOI 10.1007 [40] Michael Grunwald, "Monsanto Held Liable for PCB Dumping," Washington Post, February 23, 2002 #################################################### ITS THE GMO MAKERS WHOSE STUDY'S ARE SUSPECT ((Gaal)) http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/14058-bt-toxicity-confirmed-flawed-studies-exposed ##################################################### (GM crops not even best idea (without consideration to safety)((Gaal))) Are GM crops a dangerous diversion? Sunday, 04 September 2011 17:02 1.Will Genetic Engineering Divert Us from Essential Food Production Science? 2.Engineered Pest Problems NOTE: The Union of Concerned Scientists has started a new blog covering all of the issues they work on. Several scientists and analysts that work on food and agriculture issues are part of this effort. The blog is located at: http://blog.ucsusa.org Below are two blog posts by UCS's Doug Gurian-Sherman, responding to Nina Fedoroff's recent op-ed in the New York Times extolling genetically engineered crops, and on the recent discovery of corn rootworms resistant to Bt corn. Dr Gurian-Sherman is a widely-cited expert on biotech and sustainable agriculture. He holds a Ph.D. in plant pathology. He also has an intimate knowledge of the US regulatory system on GM crops, having been a biotech specialist at the EPA and an advisor to the FDA. His original blog posts contain a number of embedded links that are not reproduced here. --- --- 1.Will Genetic Engineering Divert Us from Essential Food Production Science? Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist, Food and Environment The Equation, August 29 2011 A blog on independent science + practical solutions http://blog.ucsusa.o...duction-science Climate change, increasing population, greater demand for animal products, and the un-sustainability of current food production: All will challenge our ability to produce enough food in coming decades. Already there is evidence that climate change has reduced crop yields. But the good news is that we already have many of the tools that we need to respond. Tom Philpott at Mother Jones highlights a peer-reviewed article showing that small Mexican maize farmers have an important piece of the answer to these challenges. The article suggests that there is a lot of genetic diversity in corn grown on traditional small Mexican farms that will allow food production there to adapt to climate change. Genetic diversity provides the building blocks of crop adaptability-the inherited differences between plants that is evolution’s way of allowing survival in changing environments. The value of crop genetic diversity goes way beyond Mexican maize fields. Other scientists have documented large amounts of untapped genetic diversity in the world’s major crops wherever they have looked, such as in wheat and cassava. Breeders can use this, along with diversity found in wild species related to crops, to adapt our crops to climate change and to increase productivity. When coupled with ecological farming principles that increase resilience in the face of drought, flood and rising temperatures, breeding can go a long way toward providing enough food sustainably by mid-century. For example, organic and similar practices build soil organic matter–this allows soil to hold more water which can help during drought. And breeding is already having success in developing drought tolerant rice, corn, and other crops, flood tolerant rice, many types of pest resistance, improved nutrient content, and much more. Engineered Omissions Given all the evidence, it is perplexing that some scientists still want to put too many of our eggs in the genetic engineering (GE) basket. Currently, that basket looks pretty empty, with only a few crops resistant to herbicides and a few types of pests. For example, Nina Fedoroff seems unaware of the potential of breeding, and the advances already being achieved through these scientifically sophisticated methods. In an op-ed in the New York Times, “Engineering Food for All” the former Bush-appointed Science Adviser to the Secretary of State lauds the wonders of crop genetic engineering, while tagging breeding as an “older” method that is “less capable”. In a more blunt assessment during a public forum that I participated in at Dartmouth College several months ago, Fedoroff declared that crop breeding had run its course, and implied that GE was now our last best hope. She could not have been more wrong. The only way one can come to such conclusions is by omitting or overlooking loads of important science. Most of the benefits from GE extolled in the op-ed are modest at best. They only seem impressive if you don’t compare them to the successes and potential of agroecology, agronomy, or breeding-which continue to achieve far more than GE. When looked at side-by-side, GE often pales by comparison to breeding. Take drought tolerance for example. While a number of drought tolerant crops have been developed in recent years through breeding–with more to come–the first modest GE version is at least a year or two away. In the U.S., where GE crops have to compete with advanced agricultural methods, the yield increases from engineered genes have been much less than from breeding and improved crop management. If not for the latter methods, and had we relied only on GE instead, overall corn yields in the U.S., the biggest global exporter, would probably be about 25 percent less than they are. Yield of soy, our second biggest crop, would be about 16 percent less. And for poor farmers in developing countries, methods based on sophisticated ecological principles can far outpace the gains from GE, as pointed out by author Anna Lappé at Civil Eats in her response to the op-ed. ((Brazilian farmers please take note GAAL)) Even where a particular advantage is claimed for GE, the op-ed is often misinformed. Engineered insect-resistance reduces harmful mycotoxins that occur in some corn kernels-an unanticipated bonus. But here too, breeding is showing up its engineered counterparts. Federoff claims that insect-resistant corn prevents fungi, and hence mycotoxins, from contaminating corn. She is only half right. It reduces only one type of mycotoxin, called fumonisin. That’s a good thing. But GE insect-resistant corn does nothing to prevent an even more serious cancer-causing mycotoxin called aflatoxin, caused by other types of fungi. By contrast, conventional breeding, in the hands of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has recently produced corn that so far shows resistance to both fumonisin and aflatoxin. The attractiveness and need for GE depends in part on how it stacks up against other agricultural methods and technologies. So far, and for the foreseeable future, breeding and ecologically-based farming will be considerably more effective and cost less. Genetic engineering can have a role if properly regulated, but focusing on it myopically threatens to distract us from supporting better technologies. [Fedoroff’s assessment of the risks and regulation of GE is also off base-I'll address that in my next post.] --- --- 2.Engineered Pest Problems Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist, Food and Environment The Equation, August 30 2011 A blog on independent science + practical solutions http://blog.ucsusa.o...d-pest-problems Genetically engineered crops contain combinations of two widely successful types of genes-glyphosate herbicide resistance that allows spraying the weed killer onto crops without harming them, and toxins, collectively called Bt, that kill some insect pests. Both are now facing problems that are threatening their usefulness. Weeds that have developed resistance to glyphosate are no longer controlled by the herbicide, and now infest millions of acres of cotton and soybeans in the U.S, causing substantial practical, economic, and environmental problems. The GE industry's solution is to engineer new types of herbicide-resistant crops. But because there are no widely-effective new herbicides, these new crops will be resistant to older, riskier herbicides like 2, 4-D and dicamba, that were some of the first commercial pesticides. This does not strike me as a new and innovative approach to agriculture for the 21st century. Now we have the first report of lost effectiveness of one of the two major types of Bt used in corn. This type of Bt, technically called Cry3Bb1, usually kills corn rootworm. Corn rootworm is one of the most destructive insect pests of corn, and more insecticide was used to control it than for any other corn insect pest in the U.S. The rootworm report follows recent reports of other insects developing resistance to other Bts in cotton in India and corn in South Africa. So far the resistant rootworms have been found at only a small number of sites in Iowa and Illinois. But unless strong measures are taken to reverse the practices that have led to it, these incidents will be only the beginning. A recent article by Scott Kilman in the Wall Street Journal covers this issue well, but leaves out some important points. One is that biotechnology does nothing to encourage ecologically sound agriculture that would address these problems in the innovative and effective ways that are needed. Instead, the industry and many of its supporters have been advocating actions-such as weakening an already limited regulatory system for GE-that could exacerbate these problems. Regulatory Discretion-or Capitulation? Not mentioned in Kilman’s article was that EPA invited a group of scientists to provide recommendations about how to prevent rootworm resistance to Bt corn. Instead of following the majority opinion to require strong measures to prevent resistance, EPA instead listened to the minority of less-cautious scientists and the interests of the biotech industry, and went with a weaker approach. We may be seeing the results of this shortsighted action in the new resistant rootworms. There are two other types of Bt that still control the new Cry3Bb1-resistant rootworm. But they all share a property that generally makes them vulnerable to resistance: none are effective enough to kill almost all rootworms. The surviving rootworms increase the chance that rare Bt resistance genes will be able to spread. So greater use of the other main Bt, called Cry34/35Ab1, to replace Cry3Bb1 will increase the chance of causing its own resistance crisis before too long. Cry34/35Ab1 was approved several years after Cry3Bb1, so it may take a little time to catch up! And if entomologists think that farmers, en masse (which is what it takes) will give up products that work well in order to prevent resistance, they should look closely at what has happened with glyphosate resistant weeds. The kinds of practices that could have forestalled resistance have long been known, but instead of using them, we now have millions of infested acres. If EPA does not use its regulatory authority to do what is needed, history tells us the resistance problem is likely to get much worse. Kilman mentions a new type of GE called RNA interference (or RNAi for short) for killing pest insects, that may come to the rescue. RNAi shows some promise, but there are lots of hurdles for a new technology like this before it can be successful commercially. It will be years, at least, before it is available to farmers. And there is no reason to believe that RNAi would not also face resistance problems. Kilman is apparently not aware of several promising non-GE rootworm-resistant varieties of corn recently developed through conventional breeding by USDA and universities. Funny that we don’t hear about them–they are likely farther along than RNAi. If they are successful, they will be yet another example of conventional breeding matching or exceeding GE. The issues surrounding pest resistance reveal an agriculture sector with serious problems, despite its high productivity, that need serious solutions. A Fundamentally Different Agriculture is Needed Relying on genetic approaches alone to control pests-even conventional breeding-leaves crops vulnerable to numerous problems. We also need to use ecologically sound farming practices that complement genetics. Briefly mentioned in the WSJ article is the fact that rootworm is not much of a problem if sensible crop rotations are used. Crop rotation is the alternating of the types crops that are planted from year to year, and is a fundamental part of organic farming. Instead most farmers in the Midwest grow nothing but corn or soybeans year after year. Put another way, rootworm probably would not even be an important pest if it were not for our unnecessary over-dependence on corn. And long crop rotations reduce more than rootworm damage. They greatly reduce most pests, including other insects, diseases, and weeds, thereby greatly reducing pesticide use as well. Long crop rotations also improve soil fertility, and reduce fertilizer use, cost and pollution. And they can be just as productive as our current corn obsession. So why aren’t we using them? Part of the reason is that current policies such as ethanol supports and other subsidies favor corn and a few other crops, and exclude others that could be grown in rotation. And without better government policies-like shifting incentives to support good farming practices-farmers will usually go for the easiest and cheapest ways to grow their crops. Who can blame them? But isn’t this what we used to call shortsighted? Edited July 16, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 As I said in my previous post (emphasis added) So what's the theory now Gaal? That GM foods are part of the vast global conspiracy to wipe out undesirable populations? I have some reservations about frankenfood as well but see if you can post links to peer-reviewed papers from respected journals backing the claims made above. One of the chief proponent of the claims from your posts is "Dr." Mercola who neither an MD nor a PhD but rather an osteopath who makes his living peddling alternative health products on the same site where he push his alternative theories. He backs many ideas that ring of crackpottery such as the notion that HIV does NOT cause AIDS and other theories rejected by virtually every scientist who has studied them http://en.wikipedia..../Joseph_Mercola Com'on Steve, no peer reviewed papers you can point to? I mean a person can say anything they want on a blog and perhaps even point anecdotal or flawed statistical studies. AFAIK only a few studies have shown health risks associated with GM but they all claim severe problems and are disputed. The topic of this thread is "DEPOPULATION", you claim GMFs can lead to sterility so I'm not interested in other health problems associated with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted July 17, 2012 Author Share Posted July 17, 2012 9 seconds of work GOOGLE since 2011 articles peer reviewed studies gmo PLUS 3,759 more PDF] Dangerous Toxins From Genetically Modified Plants Found in Women and Fetuses[PDF] from healthymoneyvine.comJM Smith, B Monsanto - Allergy, 2011 - healthymoneyvine.com ... 4 When the results of the study emerged, the funding from the pro-GMO UK government mysteriously ... of a test that can confirm that this is happening, but the Canada study may be ... But here too they ignore peer-reviewed published evidence showing that Bt- toxin does bind with ... Related articles - View as HTML - All 2 versions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted July 17, 2012 Author Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) 9 more seconds work GOOGLE WEB infertility peer review GMO New Study Links Genetically Engineered Corn to Infertility http://www.organicco...ticle_15588.cfm Edited July 17, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) I'm traveling so I'll be brief. None of the cited studies supposedly showing a link to sterility seem to have been peer reviewed rather they papers presented at seminars or congresses, such works are not normally reviewed before presentation. The only actually peer reviewed study I could find in Steve's links showing GM foods might be dangerous show rather that a traces of a pesticide in one variety of GM soy (or was it corn?) showed up in the organisms of people who consumed it. What the articles don't make clear is if the pathogen was detected in levels that were dangerous for humans. Many totally natural foods we eat contain toxins, carcinogens etc*. but in very low levels. Another interesting about this paper is that it was published in a journal published by Steve's favorite uga-buga boogieman Reed Elservier. * http://www.fortfreedom.org/s15.htm Edited July 21, 2012 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted July 21, 2012 Author Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) http://digitaljourna.../article/327974 or http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680125/genetic-engineers-explain-why-genetically-modified-food-is-dangerous 'GMO Myths and Truths' — Report released by genetic engineers By Anne Sewell Jul 5, 2012 in Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/327974#ixzz21FQXjewb In a groundbreaking report, two genetic engineers explain in detail why GMOs are not good for human health or the environment. The new report has been released today, July 5, and is titled “GMO Myths and Truths”. The report presents a large body of peer-reviewed scientific and other authoritative evidence of the hazards to health and the environment posed by genetically engineered crops and organisms (GMOs). While there are many campaigners against GMOs in general, the initiative for this report came not from campaigners, but from two genetic engineers, who believe there are good scientific reasons to be wary of GM crops and food. One of the genetic engineers involved in the report is Dr Michael Antoniou of King’s College London School of Medicine in the U.K., which uses genetic engineering for medical applications but warns against its use in developing crops for human food and animal feed. Dr Antoniou said: “GM crops are promoted on the basis of ambitious claims – that they are safe to eat, environmentally beneficial, increase yields, reduce reliance on pesticides, and can help solve world hunger." “I felt what was needed was a collation of the evidence that addresses the technology from a scientific point of view." “Research studies show that genetically modified crops have harmful effects on laboratory animals in feeding trials and on the environment during cultivation. They have increased the use of pesticides and have failed to increase yields. Our report concludes that there are safer and more effective alternatives to meeting the world’s food needs.” The second author of the report is Dr John Fagan, a former genetic engineer, who in 1994 returned $614,000 in grant money to the National Institutes of Health, due to concerns about the safety and ethics of the technology. Dr Fagan then founded a GMO testing company. He says, “Crop genetic engineering as practiced today is a crude, imprecise, and outmoded technology. It can create unexpected toxins or allergens in foods and affect their nutritional value. Recent advances point to better ways of using our knowledge of genomics to improve food crops, that do not involve GM." “Over 75% of all GM crops are engineered to tolerate being sprayed with herbicide. This has led to the spread of herbicide-resistant superweeds and has resulted in massively increased exposure of farmers and communities to these toxic chemicals. Epidemiological studies suggest a link between herbicide use and birth defects and cancer." “These findings fundamentally challenge the utility and safety of GM crops, but the biotech industry uses its influence to block research by independent scientists and uses its powerful PR machine to discredit independent scientists whose findings challenge this approach.” The third author of the report is Claire Robinson, who is research director of Earth Open Source. Robinson said, “The GM industry is trying to change our food supply in far-reaching and potentially dangerous ways. We all need to inform ourselves about what is going on and ensure that we – not biotechnology companies – keep control of our food system and crop seeds. “We hope our report will contribute to a broader understanding of GM crops and the sustainable alternatives that are already working successfully for farmers and communities." An extract from the report reads: Genetically modified (GM) crops are promoted on the basis of a range of far-reaching claims from the GM crop industry and its supporters. They say that GM crops: - Are an extension of natural breeding and do not pose different risks from naturally bred crops - Are safe to eat and can be more nutritious than naturally bred crops - Are strictly regulated for safety - Increase crop yields - Reduce pesticide use - Benefit farmers and make their lives easier - Bring economic benefits - Benefit the environment - Can help solve problems caused by climate change - Reduce energy use - Will help feed the world. However, a large and growing body of scientific and other authoritative evidence shows that these claims are not true. On the contrary, evidence presented in this report indicates that GM crops: - Are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from non-GM crops - Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts - Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety - Do not increase yield potential - Do not reduce pesticide use but increase it - Create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant “superweeds”, compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops - Have mixed economic effects - Harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity - Do not offer effective solutions to climate change - Are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops - Cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes – poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on. Based on the evidence presented in this report, there is no need to take risks with GM crops when effective, readily available, and sustainable solutions to the problems that GM technology is claimed to address already exist. Conventional plant breeding, in some cases helped by safe modern technologies like gene mapping and marker assisted selection, continues to outperform GM in producing high-yield, drought-tolerant, and pest- and disease-resistant crops that can meet our present and future food needs. The full report can be read here. Read more: http://digitaljourna...4#ixzz21FQI9vP7 ################################ Edited July 21, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted July 28, 2012 Author Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) UPDATE DARPA's Blue Angel - Pentagon prepares millions of vaccines against future global flu July 28, 2012 by legitgov http://rt.com/usa/ne...a-research-255/ DARPA's Blue Angel - Pentagon prepares millions of vaccines against future global flu 28 Jul 2012 The Pentagon's DARPA lab has announced a milestone, but it doesn't involve drones or death missiles. Scientists at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency say they've produced 10 million doses of an influenza vaccine in only one month's time. In a press release issued by the agency's office this week, scientists with DARPA say they've reach an important step in being able to combat spread a flu pandemic that might someday decimate the Earth's population. By working with the Medicago Inc. vaccine company, the Pentagon's cutting edge research lab says that they've used a massive harvest of tobacco plants to help produce a plethora of flu-fighting vaccines. [Am I the *only one* wondering: WHY is the *Pentagon* manufacturing vaccines? You would have to be *out of your mind* to allow an injection of *anything* concocted by the Pentagon!] Edited July 28, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 AFAICT none of the peer reviewed papers say GM foods cause sterility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted August 1, 2012 Author Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) One long-standing project of the US Government has been to perfect a genetically-modified variety of corn, the diet staple in Mexico and many other Latin American countries. The corn has been field tested in tests financed by the US Department of Agriculture along with a small California bio-tech company named Epicyte. Announcing his success at a 2001 press conference, the president of Epicyte, Mitch Hein, pointing to his GMO corn plants, announced, “We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies.”14 Hein explained that they had taken antibodies from women with a rare condition known as immune infertility, isolated the genes that regulated the manufacture of those infertility antibodies, and, using genetic engineering techniques, had inserted the genes into ordinary corn seeds used to produce corn plants. In this manner, in reality they produced a concealed contraceptive embedded in corn meant for human consumption. “Essentially, the antibodies are attracted to surface receptors on the sperm,” said Hein. “They latch on and make each sperm so heavy it cannot move forward. It just shakes about as if it was doing the lambada.”15 Hein claimed it was a possible solution to world “over-population.” The moral and ethical issues of feeding it to humans in Third World poor countries without their knowing it countries he left out of his remarks. Spermicides hidden in GMO corn provided to starving Third World populations through the generosity of the Gates’ foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and Kofi Annan’s AGRA or vaccines that contain undisclosed sterilization agents are just two documented cases of using vaccines or GMO seeds to “reduce population.” ------------------------------ 14 Robin McKie, GMO Corn Set to Stop Man Spreading His Seed, London, The Observer, 9 September 2001. 15 Ibid. McKie writes, “The pregnancy prevention plants are the handiwork of the San Diego biotechnology company Epicyte, where researchers have discovered a rare class of human antibodies that attack sperm…the company has created tiny horticultural factories that make contraceptives…Essentially, the antibodies are attracted to surface receptors on the sperm,” said Hein. “They latch on and make each sperm so heavy it cannot move forward. It just shakes about as if it was doing the lambada.” //############################o0o#########################// Bill Gates talks about ‘vaccines to reduce population’ By F. William Engdahl, 4 March 2010 Microsoft founder and one of the world’s wealthiest men, Bill Gates, projects an image of a benign philanthropist using his billions via his (tax exempt) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to tackle diseases, solve food shortages in Africa and alleviate poverty. In a recent conference in California, Gates reveals a less public agenda of his philanthropy―population reduction, otherwise known as eugenics. Gates made his remarks to the invitation-only Long Beach, California TED2010 Conference, in a speech titled, “Innovating to Zero!.” Along with the scientifically absurd proposition of reducing manmade CO2 emissions worldwide to zero by 2050, approximately four and a half minutes into the talk, Gates declares, "First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."1 (author’s emphasis). In plain English, one of the most powerful men in the world states clearly that he expects vaccines to be used to reduce population growth. When Bill Gates speaks about vaccines, he speaks with authority. In January 2010 at the elite Davos World Economic Forum, Gates announced his foundation would give $10 billion (circa €7.5 billion) over the next decade to develop and deliver new vaccines to children in the developing world. The primary focus of his multi-billion dollar Gates Foundation is vaccinations, especially in Africa and other underdeveloped countries. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a founding member of the GAVI Alliance (Global Alliance for Vaccinations and Immunization) in partnership with the World Bank, WHO and the vaccine industry. The goal of GAVI is to vaccinate every newborn child in the developing world.2 Now that sounds like noble philanthropic work. The problem is that the vaccine industry has been repeatedly caught dumping dangerous―meaning unsafe because untested or proven harmful―vaccines onto unwitting Third World populations when they cannot get rid of the vaccines in the West.3 Some organizations have suggested that the true aim of the vaccinations is to make people sicker and even more susceptible to disease and premature death.4 Dumping toxins on the Third World In the aftermath of the most recent unnecessary Pandemic declaration of a global H1N1 swine flu emergency, industrial countries were left sitting on hundreds of millions of doses of untested vaccines. They decided to get rid of the embarrassing leftover drugs by handing them over to the WHO which in turn plans to dump them for free on select poor countries. France has given 91 million of the 94 million doses the Sarkozy government bought from the pharma giants; Britain gave 55 million of its 60 million doses. The story for Germany and Norway is similar.5 As Dr. Thomas Jefferson, an epidemiologist with the Cochrane Research Center in Rome noted, “Why do they give the vaccines to the developing countries at all? The pandemic has been called off in most parts of the world. The greatest threat in poor countries right now is heart and circulatory diseases while the virus figures at the bottom of the list. What is the medical reason for donating 180 million doses?”6 As well, flu is a minor problem in countries with abundant sunshine, and it turned out that the feared H1N1 Pandemic “new great plague” was the mildest flu on record. The pharmaceutical vaccine makers do not speak about the enormous health damage from infant vaccination including autism and numerous neuro-muscular deformities that have been traced back to the toxic adjuvants and preservatives used in most vaccines. Many vaccines, especially multi-dose vaccines that are made more cheaply for sale to the Third World, contain something called Thimerosal (Thiomersol in the EU), a compound (sodium ethylmercurithiosalicylate), containing some 50% mercury, used as a preservative. In July 1999 the US’ National Vaccine Information Center declared in a press release that, "The cumulative effects of ingesting mercury can cause brain damage." The same month, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) alerted the public about the possible health effects associated with thimerosal-containing vaccines. They strongly recommended that thimerosal be removed from vaccines as soon as possible. Under the directive of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, the Food and Drug Administration also determined that infants who received several thimerosal-containing vaccines may be receiving mercury exposure over and above the recommended federal guidelines.7 A new form of eugenics? Gates’ interest in inducing population reduction among black and other minority populations is not new unfortunately. As I document in my book, Seeds of Destruction8, since the 1920’s the Rockefeller Foundation had funded the eugenics research in Germany through the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institutes in Berlin and Munich, including well into the Third Reich. They praised the forced sterilization of people by Hirtler Germany, and the Nazi ideas on race “purity.” It was John D. Rockefeller III, a life-long advocate of eugenics, who used his “tax free” foundation money to initiate the population reduction neo-Malthusian movement through his private Population Council in New York beginning in the 1950’s. The idea of using vaccines to covertly reduce births in the Third World is also not new. Bill Gates’ good friend, David Rockefeller and his Rockefeller Foundation were involved as early as 1972 in a major project together with WHO and others to perfect another “new vaccine.” The results of the WHO-Rockefeller project were put into mass application on human guinea pigs in the early 1990's. The WHO oversaw massive vaccination campaigns against tetanus in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines. Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization, became suspicious of the motives behind the WHO program and decided to test numerous vials of the vaccine and found them to contain human Chorionic Gonadotrophin, or hCG. That was a curious component for a vaccine designed to protect people against lock-jaw arising from infection with rusty nail wounds or other contact with certain bacteria found in soil. The tetanus disease was indeed, also rather rare. It was also curious because hCG was a natural hormone needed to maintain a pregnancy. However, when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier, it stimulated formation of antibodies against hCG, rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy, a form of concealed abortion. Similar reports of vaccines laced with hCG hormones came from the Philippines and Nicaragua.9 Gates’ ‘Gene Revolution in Africa’ The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, along with David Rockefeller’s Rockefeller Foundation, the creators of the GMO biotechnology, are also financing a project called The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) headed by former UN chief, Kofi Annan. Accepting the role as AGRA head in June 2007 Annan expressed his “gratitude to the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and all others who support our African campaign.” The AGRA board is dominated by people from both the Gates’ and Rockefeller foundations.10 Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, Syngenta and other major GMO agribusiness giants are reported at the heart of AGRA, using it as a back-door to spread their patented GMO seeds across Africa under the deceptive label, ‘bio-technology,’ a euphemism for genetically engineered patented seeds. The person from the Gates Foundation responsible for its work with AGRA is Dr. Robert Horsch, a 25-year Monsanto GMO veteran who was on the team that developed Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready GMO technologies. His job is reportedly to use Gates’ money to introduce GMO into Africa.11 To date South Africa is the only African country permitting legal planting of GMO crops. In 2003 Burkina Faso authorized GMO trials. In 2005 Kofi Annan’s Ghana drafted bio-safety legislation and key officials expressed their intentions to pursue research into GMO crops. AGRA is being used to create networks of “agro-dealers” across Africa, at first with no mention of GMO seeds or herbicides, in order to have the infrastructure in place to massively introduce GMO.12 GMO, glyphosate and population reduction GMO crops have never been proven safe for human or animal consumption. Moreover, they are inherently genetically ‘unstable’ as they are an unnatural product of introducing a foreign bacteria such as Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) or other material into the DNA of a given seed to change its traits. Perhaps equally dangerous are the ‘paired’ chemical herbicides sold as a mandatory part of a GMO contract, such as Monsanto’s Roundup, the most widely used such herbicide in the world. It contains highly toxic glyphosate compounds that have been independently tested and proven to exist in toxic concentrations in GMO applications far above that safe for humans or animals. Tests show that tiny amounts of glyphosate compounds would do damage to a human umbilical, embryonic and placental cells in a pregnant woman drinking the ground water near a GMO field.13 One long-standing project of the US Government has been to perfect a genetically-modified variety of corn, the diet staple in Mexico and many other Latin American countries. The corn has been field tested in tests financed by the US Department of Agriculture along with a small California bio-tech company named Epicyte. Announcing his success at a 2001 press conference, the president of Epicyte, Mitch Hein, pointing to his GMO corn plants, announced, “We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies.”14 Hein explained that they had taken antibodies from women with a rare condition known as immune infertility, isolated the genes that regulated the manufacture of those infertility antibodies, and, using genetic engineering techniques, had inserted the genes into ordinary corn seeds used to produce corn plants. In this manner, in reality they produced a concealed contraceptive embedded in corn meant for human consumption. “Essentially, the antibodies are attracted to surface receptors on the sperm,” said Hein. “They latch on and make each sperm so heavy it cannot move forward. It just shakes about as if it was doing the lambada.”15 Hein claimed it was a possible solution to world “over-population.” The moral and ethical issues of feeding it to humans in Third World poor countries without their knowing it countries he left out of his remarks. Spermicides hidden in GMO corn provided to starving Third World populations through the generosity of the Gates’ foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and Kofi Annan’s AGRA or vaccines that contain undisclosed sterilization agents are just two documented cases of using vaccines or GMO seeds to “reduce population.” And the ‘Good Club’ Gates’ TED2010 speech on zero emissions and population reduction is consistent with a report that appeared in New York City’s ethnic media, Irish.Central.com in May 2009. According to the report, a secret meeting took place on May 5, 2009 at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, President of Rockefeller University, among some of the wealthiest people in America. Investment guru Warren Buffett who in 2006 decided to pool his $30 billion Buffett Foundation into the Gates foundation to create the world’s largest private foundation with some $60 billions of tax-free dollars was present. Banker David Rockefeller was the host. The exclusive letter of invitation was signed by Gates, Rockefeller and Buffett. They decided to call themselves the “Good Club.” Also present was media czar Ted Turner, billionaire founder of CNN who stated in a 1996 interview for the Audubon nature magazine, where he said that a 95% reduction of world population to between 225-300 million would be “ideal.” In a 2008 interview at Philadelphia’s Temple University, Turner fine-tuned the number to 2 billion, a cut of more than 70% from today’s population. Even less elegantly than Gates, Turner stated, “we have too many people. That’s why we have global warming. We need less people using less stuff (sic).”16 Others attending this first meeting of the Good Club reportedly were: Eli Broad real estate billionaire, New York’s billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Wall Street billionaire and Council on Foreign Relations former head, Peter G. Peterson. In addition, Julian H. Robertson, Jr., hedge-fund billionaire who worked with Soros attacking the currencies of Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea and the Asian Tigen economies, precipitating the 1997-98 Asia Crisis. Also present at the first session of the Good Club was Patty Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Gates foundation, and John Morgridge of Cisco Systems. The group represented a combined fortune of more than $125 billion.17 According to reports apparently leaked by one of the attendees, the meeting was held in response to the global economic downturn and the numerous health and environmental crises that are plaguing the globe. But the central theme and purpose of the secret Good Club meeting of the plutocrats was the priority concern posed by Bill Gates, namely, how to advance more effectively their agenda of birth control and global population reduction. In the talks a consensus reportedly emerged that they would “back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.”18 Global Eugenics agenda Gates and Buffett are major funders of global population reduction programs, as is Turner, whose UN Foundation was created to funnel $1 billion of his tax-free stock option earnings in AOL-Time-Warner into various birth reduction programs in the developing world.19 The programs in Africa and elsewhere are masked as philanthropy and providing health services for poor Africans. In reality they involve involuntary population sterilization via vaccination and other medicines that make women of child-bearing age infertile. The Gates Foundation, where Buffett deposited the bulk of his wealth two years ago, is also backing introduction of GMO seeds into Africa under the cloak of the Kofi Annan-led ‘Second Green Revolution’ in Africa. The introduction of GMO patented seeds in Africa to date has met with enormous indigenous resistance. Health experts point out that were the intent of Gates really to improve the health and well-being of black Africans, the same hundreds of millions of dollars the Gates Foundation has invested in untested and unsafe vaccines could be used in providing minimal sanitary water and sewage systems. Vaccinating a child who then goes to drink feces-polluted river water is hardly healthy in any respect. But of course cleaning up the water and sewage systems of Africa would revolutionize the health conditions of the Continent. Gates’ TED2010 comments about having new vaccines to reduce global population were obviously no off-the-cuff remark. For those who doubt, the presentation Gates made at the TED2009 annual gathering said almost exactly the same thing about reducing population to cut global warming. For the mighty and powerful of the Good Club, human beings seem to be a form of pollution equal to CO2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Bill Gates, “Innovating to Zero!, speech to the TED2010 annual conference, Long Beach, California, February 18, 2010, accessed here 2 Telegraph.co.uk, Bill Gates makes $10 billion vaccine pledge, London Telegraph, January 29, 2010, accessed here 3 Louise Voller, Kristian Villesen, WHO Donates Millions of Doses of Surplus Medical Supplies to Developing countries, Danish Information, 22 December 2009, accessed here 4 One is the Population Research Institute in Washington 5 Louise Voller et al, op. cit. 6 Ibid. 7 Noted in Vaccinations and Autism, accessed here 8 F. William Engdahl, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, Global Research, Montreal, 2007, pp. 79-84. 9 James A. Miller, Are New Vaccines Laced With Birth-Control Drugs?, HLI Reports, Human Life International, Gaithersburg, Maryland; June-July 1995. 10 Cited in F. William Engdahl, "Doomsday Seed Vault" in the Arctic: Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO giants know something we don’t, Global Research, December 4, 2007, accessed here 11 Mariam Mayet, Africa’s Green Revolution rolls out the Gene Revolution, African Centre for Biosafety, ACB Briefing Paper No. 6/2009, Melville, South Africa, April 2009. 12 Ibid. 13 Nora Benachour and Gilles-Eric Seralini, Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical Embryonic, and Placental Cells, Chemical Research in Toxicology Journal, American Chemical Society, , (1), pp 97–105. 14 Robin McKie, GMO Corn Set to Stop Man Spreading His Seed, London, The Observer, 9 September 2001. 15 Ibid. McKie writes, “The pregnancy prevention plants are the handiwork of the San Diego biotechnology company Epicyte, where researchers have discovered a rare class of human antibodies that attack sperm…the company has created tiny horticultural factories that make contraceptives…Essentially, the antibodies are attracted to surface receptors on the sperm,” said Hein. “They latch on and make each sperm so heavy it cannot move forward. It just shakes about as if it was doing the lambada.” 16 Ted Turner, cited along with youTube video of Turner in Aaron Dykes, Ted Turner: World Needs a 'Voluntary' One-Child Policy for the Next Hundred Years, Jones Report.com, April 29, 2008. Accessed here 17 John Harlow, Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation, London, The Sunday Times May 24, 2009. Accessed here 18 Ibid. 19 United Nations Foundation, Women and Population Program, accessed here ------------o-------------- ------------o-------------- for links click below http://www.engdahl.o...s_vaccines.html Edited August 1, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Unlike you I don't have unlimited time. If you had bothered to read the primary sources you would have discovered that the corn crop in question was not grown to be eaten rather it was to used as the raw material in birth control medication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted September 22, 2012 Author Share Posted September 22, 2012 Wrong on science = Colby Genocidal Cereal Killer Released http://www.exohuman....iller-released/ “If the men eat the epicyte gene they produce antibodies to their own sperm, rendering them irreversibly sterile.” ####################### It was also curious because hCG was a natural hormone needed to maintain a pregnancy. However, when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier, it stimulated formation of antibodies against hCG, rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy, a form of concealed abortion. Similar reports of vaccines laced with hCG hormones came from the Philippines and Nicaragua.9 ----------- Golly no response from Colby on this = the COLBY DODGE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Wrong on science = Colby Genocidal Cereal Killer Released http://www.exohuman....iller-released/ “If the men eat the epicyte gene they produce antibodies to their own sperm, rendering them irreversibly sterile.” This is the same corn grown for a use as a raw material for birth control medication, no evidence was provided it was meant to be or ever used as food. #######################It was also curious because hCG was a natural hormone needed to maintain a pregnancy. However, when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier, it stimulated formation of antibodies against hCG, rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy, a form of concealed abortion. Similar reports of vaccines laced with hCG hormones came from the Philippines and Nicaragua.9 ----------- Golly no response from Colby on this = the COLBY DODGE The source is an obscure writer for an obscure right to life group himself citing another of the groups publications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted September 24, 2012 Author Share Posted September 24, 2012 Growth of the gene-based pharmaceutical market, assessed at US$2.2 billion in 1999, for treatment of diseases not possible in the past, is now projected at $8.2 billion in 2004. Edible vaccines administered through GM-foods, and possibly in the future through breakfast cereals, will conserve more human resources at a fraction of current costs. Simply eating a banana or a potato chip with tomato paste could result in a patient receiving a hepatitis B needle-free vaccine for two cents instead of the usual US$15 for an injectable dose. In fact, GMO technology has spurred economic progress in the technically-advance societies. http://bagmo.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/biotechnology-issues-for-developing-countries/ A plant-derived edible vaccine against hepatitis B virus J Kapusta, A Modelska, M Figlerowicz, T Pniewski… - The FASEB journal, 1999 - FASEB Abstract The infectious hepatitis B virus represents 42 nm spherical double-shelled particles. However, analysis of blood from hepatitis B virus carriers revealed the presence of smaller 22 nm particles consisting of a viral envelope surface protein. These particles are highly ... Cited by 337 Related articles BL Direct All 6 versions [html] Evaluating zona pellucida antigens and delivery systems for possum fertility control in New Zealand: progress and future directions[/sup][/size][/b][/color][size=6][sup]J Duckworth, K Mate, S Scobie, D Jones… - … of Possums. National …, 2001 - maxa.maf.govt.nz... Assessment of daily urine samples for cell changes and presence of sperm (Duckworth et al. ... andthe Marsupial CRC are collaborating with the Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, USA,to develop effective and cost-efficient edible plant vaccines to deliver fertility ...Cited by 6 Related articles Cached[/sup][/size][size=6][sup][b][color=#ff0000]Current advances in antifertility vaccines for fertility control and noncontraceptive applicationsVA Ferro - Expert review of vaccines, 2002 - expert-reviews.com[/color][/b]... 69]. This has led to creative solutions, including oral delivery using [color=#ff0000][b]edible plants[/b][/color]containing genes encoding immunogens [70]. ... acceptability Box 5. Considerations fordesigning human noncontraceptive therapeutic vaccines. • Economic ...Cited by 25 Related articles All 4 versions[/sup][/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Growth of the gene-based pharmaceutical market, assessed at US$2.2 billion in 1999, for treatment of diseases not possible in the past, is now projected at $8.2 billion in 2004. Edible vaccines administered through GM-foods, and possibly in the future through breakfast cereals, will conserve more human resources at a fraction of current costs. Simply eating a banana or a potato chip with tomato paste could result in a patient receiving a hepatitis B needle-free vaccine for two cents instead of the usual US$15 for an injectable dose. In fact, GMO technology has spurred economic progress in the technically-advance societies. http://bagmo.wordpre...ping-countries/ Nothing about birth control, nothing about vaccines being given surreptitiously. A plant-derived edible vaccine against hepatitis B virus J Kapusta, A Modelska, M Figlerowicz, T Pniewski… - The FASEB journal, 1999 - FASEB Abstract The infectious hepatitis B virus represents 42 nm spherical double-shelled particles. However, analysis of blood from hepatitis B virus carriers revealed the presence of smaller 22 nm particles consisting of a viral envelope surface protein. These particles are highly ... Cited by 337 Related articles BL Direct All 6 versions Nothing about birth control, nothing about vaccines being given surreptitiously. [html] Evaluating zona pellucida antigens and delivery systems for possum fertility control in New Zealand: progress and future directions[/size][/size][/font][/color][/b][font=Andalus, serif][size=4][size=4]J Duckworth, K Mate, S Scobie, D Jones… - … of Possums. National …, 2001 - maxa.maf.govt.nz... Assessment of daily urine samples for cell changes and presence of sperm (Duckworth et al. ... and the Marsupial CRC are collaborating with the Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, USA, to develop effective and cost-efficient edible plant vaccines to deliver fertility ...Cited by 6 Related articles Cached[/size][/size][/font][font=Andalus, serif][size=4][size=4]LOL, obviously you didn't even bother to look at this, the 1st '2' sentences, "[/size][/size][/font][color=#000000][font=Andalus, serif][size=4][size=4]Fertility control offers a humane and ethical method for the management of brushtail possums in New Zealand.[/size][/size][/font][/color][font=Andalus, serif][size=4][size=4] [/size][/size][/font][color=#000000][font=Andalus, serif][size=4][size=4] [/size][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Andalus, serif][size=4][size=4]When combined with conventional control, such techniques may provide a long-term and cost-effective solution to the possum problem (Bayliss & Choquenot 1999; Ramsey et al. 2001)." ROTFLMAO Didn't you [/size][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Andalus, serif][size=5]even [/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Andalus, serif][size=4]notice the words '[/size][/font][/color][font=Andalus, serif][size=5]Possums' and '[/size][/font][font=Andalus, serif][size=5]Marsupial' in your excerpt including the TITLE[color=#000000]?[/color][/size][/font] [b][color=#ff0000][font=Andalus, serif][size=4][size=4]Current advances in antifertility vaccines for fertility control and noncontraceptive applications VA Ferro - Expert review of vaccines, 2002 - expert-reviews.com[/size][/size][/font][/color][/b] [font=Andalus, serif][size=4][size=4]... 69]. This has led to creative solutions, including oral delivery using [/size][/size][/font][b][color=#ff0000][font=Andalus, serif][size=4][size=4]edible plants [/size][/size][/font][/color][/b][font=Andalus, serif][size=4][size=4]containing genes encoding immunogens [70]. ... acceptability Box 5. Considerations for designing human noncontraceptive therapeutic vaccines. • Economic ... Cited by 25 Related articles All 4 versions[/size][/size][/font] [font=Andalus, serif][size=4][size=4]LOL a more complete version of the money quote, "[b]This has led to creative solutions, including oral delivery using edible plants containing genes encoding immunogens [70]. This provides an economical method of production and may allow a means of specific SPECIES targeting. This makes sense in context of the abstract:[/b][/size][/size][/font][font=Andalus, serif][size=4][size=4][color=#000000]The search for effective antifertility vaccines has been actively pursued for decades in clinical applications as contraceptives or in the treatment of hormone-dependent conditions. More recently, innovations have seen immunocontraception being employed successfully IN VETERINARY AND FARMING APPLICATIONS, AS WELL AS IN POPULATION CONTROL OF A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WILDLIFE SPECIES. Although the basic principle behind these vaccines is the same, design considerations and criteria for commercialization are very different. This review will examine current advances in this field and evaluate the future scope of antifertility vaccines.[/color][/size][/size][/font][font=Andalus, serif][size=4][size=4][b]Most of the articles and papers that cited this one were about vacinating animals rather than people.[/b][/size][/size][/font][font=Andalus, serif][size=4][size=4][b]http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22delivery+using+edible+plants%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= [/b][/size][/size][/font][font=Andalus, serif][size=4][size=4][b]http://www.expert-reviews.com/doi/abs/10.1586/14760584.1.4.443?journalCode=erv[/b][/size][/size][/font] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted September 25, 2012 Author Share Posted September 25, 2012 (edited) HATE to play Possum with little Colby,but Animal; testing done first before human use. Golly depopulation is a secret progam,we do have hints at which are shown in a number of above posts. Depopulation is the dream of many. ######################################### A plant-derived edible vaccine against hepatitis B virus J Kapusta, A Modelska, M Figlerowicz, T Pniewski… - The FASEB journal, 1999 - FASEB Abstract The infectious hepatitis B virus represents 42 nm spherical double-shelled particles. However, analysis of blood from hepatitis B virus carriers revealed the presence of smaller 22 nm particles consisting of a viral envelope surface protein. These particles are highly ... Cited by 337 Related articles BL Direct All 6 versions ==================== Edible vaccines expressed in soybeans KJ Piller, KL Bost - US Patent 7,723,570, 2010 - Google Patents ... CLL Response and Increased Viral Bur- den in Substance P Receptor-Deficient Mice ... Bovine Zona pellucida Glycoproteins ZPA and ZPB and Analysis for Sperm-Binding Com ... Mason et al., "Edible plant vaccines: applications for prophylactic and therapeutic molecular medicine ... Related articles All 4 versions ======================= Production of Vaccines and Therapeutics in Plants for Oral Delivery LM Welter - ACS Symposium Series, 2002 - ACS Publications ... the recognition of degraded foreign antigen in association with major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I or class II molecules by T-cell receptors (TCRs) (3 ... Edible vaccines are extremely attractive for their ease of administration, storage, safety, and economical production. ... Related articles BL Direct =============================== Yes I read Porcine. Expression of a Cholera Toxin B Subunit-Neutralizing Epitope of the Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus Fusion Gene in Transgenic Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) Nguyen-Xuan Huy, Moon-Sik Yang and Tae-Geum Kim Molecular Biotechnology, 2011, Volume 48, Number 3, Pages 201-209 Expression of a Cholera Toxin B Subunit-Neutralizing Epitope of the Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus Fusion Gene in Transgenic Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.)Nguyen-Xuan Huy Scroll upScroll downReferences (56)Cited By (8)Export CitationAboutAbstract The synthetic cholera toxin B subunit (CTB) gene, modified according to the optimized codon usage of plant genes, was introduced into a plant expression vector and expressed under the control of the Bx17 HMW (high molecular weight) wheat endosperm-specific promoter containing an intron of the rice act1. The recombinant vector was transformed into rice plants using a biolistic-mediated transformation method. Stable integration of the synthetic CTB gene into the chromosomal DNA was confirmed by PCR amplification analysis. A high level of CTB (2.1% of total soluble protein) was expressed in the endosperm tissue of the transgenic rice plants. The synthetic CTB produced only in the rice endosperm demonstrated strong affinity for GM1-ganglioside, thereby suggesting that the CTB subunits formed an active pentamer. The successful expression of CTB genes in transgenic plants makes it a powerful tool for the development of a plant-derived edible vaccine. ============================= Contraceptive methods and compositions related to proteasomal interference P Sutovsky, BN Day, TC Mccauley… - EP Patent …, 2010 - freepatentsonline.com ... or wherein the antigenic peptide is comprised in a vaccine. 12. ... The ability of the mammalian spermatozoa to bind to and pass through the zona pellucida ("zona" or ZP) has been ascribed to a set of sperm surface receptors and proteolytic trypsin-like enzymes (reviewed ... Related articles Cached ================================= Indian J Med Microbiol. 2007 Apr;25(2):93-102. Edible vaccines: current status and future. Lal P, Ramachandran VG, Goyal R, Sharma R. SourceDepartment of Microbiology, University College of Medical Sciences, Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, New Delhi - 110 095, India. Abstract Edible vaccines hold great promise as a cost-effective, easy-to-administer, easy-to-store, fail-safe and socioculturally readily acceptable vaccine delivery system, especially for the poor developing countries. It involves introduction of selected desired genes into plants and then inducing these altered plants to manufacture the encoded proteins. Introduced as a concept about a decade ago, it has become a reality today. A variety of delivery systems have been developed. Initially thought to be useful only for preventing infectious diseases, it has also found application in prevention of autoimmune diseases, birth control, cancer therapy, etc. Edible vaccines are currently being developed for a number of human and animal diseases. There is growing acceptance of transgenic crops in both industrial and developing countries. Resistance to genetically modified foods may affect the future of edible vaccines. They have passed the major hurdles in the path of an emerging vaccine technology. Various technical obstacles, regulatory and non-scientific challenges, though all seem surmountable, need to be overcome. This review attempts to discuss the current status and future of this new preventive modality. PMID: 17582177 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free full text Edited September 25, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts