Top cosmetic companies give in to greed and resume cruel animal testing, blame China

After 20 years of being cruelty-free, companies like Mary Kay, Avon and Estee Lauder are once again testing on animals. Their excuse is that the Chinese government requires animal testing on products sold in China. Doubtful that is comforting to the animals who are tortured…

U.S. meat supply widely contaminated with mad cow disease prions

Mad cow disease is a progressive brain-wasting disease. It is caused by a type of defective protein known as a prion and cannot be cured. The factory farming practices of feeding animals the nervous tissue of other animals first caused the ballooning spread of mad cow…

Consumers Care Where Their Meat Comes From, and Suppliers Are Taking Their Research Seriously

Some butchers, market owners and meat-buying collectives are increasingly serious about knowing where the meat they sell comes from and how the animals were raised.

McDonald’s dumps McMuffin egg supplier after investigation reveals ‘significant’ and ‘serious’ health violations

(NaturalNews) Fast-food giant McDonald’s is once again in the media limelight after it was recently revealed that its West Coast egg supplier has been engaged in “significant and serious violations,” according to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). McDonald’s officially ended its relationship with Minnesota-based Sparboe Farms after an undercover investigation exposed severe animal abuse and filthy conditions at the company’s Vincent, Iowa, facility. For years, Sparboe Farms, the fifth-largest factory egg producer in the US, had been the sole supplier of eggs for all McDonald’s restaurants west of the Mississippi River. But after undercover video captured by Mercy for Animals, a Chicago-based animal rights group, went viral, the fast-food chain officially dumped Sparboe as its supplier and issued a public statement about its decision that questioned “the management of Sparboe facilities.” Captured video footage shows factory workers aggressively grabbing chickens by their necks and slamming them in and out of cages, for instance, which is a serious abuse violation. It also shows seemingly endless rows of chicken “battery cages,” where chickens are packed densely in stacked rows of inhumane cages. Chickens that live in such conditions often wallow in their own feces, and some get caught in cage wiring which results in their death. You can watch some of this disturbing footage at the following link: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mcdonalds-dumps-mcmuffin-egg-factory-health-concerns/story?id=14976054 The FDA reportedly issued a company-wide warning letter to Sparboe Farms, which operates a number of other factory hen houses in the Midwest, decrying these and other violations. The agency also cited the company for at least 13 violations of its new federal egg rule, which was enacted following the massive egg recall saga from last year (http://www.naturalnews.com/029539_salmonella_eggs.html). Corporate retailer Target, which had also sold Sparboe Farms eggs at its Super Target stores, recently pulled all the company’s eggs from store shelves following the release of the damaging footage. Like McDonald’s, Target expressed surprise at the findings, and took the position that it was unaware of the “unacceptable conditions in the company’s egg laying facilities.” Neither McDonald’s nor Target has indicated who they will choose as their new egg suppliers. But because of the nature of their business models, both companies will likely just choose other factory egg suppliers that utilize many of the same inhumane and filthy chicken raising methods — in other words, consumers can expect more of the same. Sources for this article include: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mcdonalds-dumps-mcmuffin-egg-factory-health-concerns/story?id=14976054

Enjoy the health benefits of raw cheese (Opinion)

(NaturalNews) Cheese is one of America’s favorite foods. The saturated fats involved in cheese give it a rich flavor and a comfortable feel. This popular food can be extraordinarily good; however, it is often highly processed and made out of an inferior dairy supply. Choose raw cheese from grass-fed cows for the incredibly good taste and the powerhouse of nutrients. Cows naturally eat grass; however, 90% of dairy cows are raised in a tight, confined stall and fed a diet of genetically modified corn and soy. This grain diet is not genetically congruent for the cow’s internal ecosystem and the cows build sickness and disease. They become very acidic, which creates an ideal breeding ground for infectious bacteria such as E Coli. In the mainstream dairy feedlots, illness and infection are very common. Powerful antibiotics are used to keep infectious bacteria down, but these also damage the natural micro flora the animals need to maintain good health. This creates an even lower natural immunity and contaminates the dairy with antibiotic substances and other dangerous chemicals. The majority of industrial farms utilize Bovine hormone injections to increase size and weight. Increasing hormone levels boosts milk production. This also increases levels of utter infection, pus formation, antibiotic residue and a cancer accelerating hormone called IGF01. Grain-Fed Dairy Products are Inflammatory Grain-fed cows produce dairy and cheese that is very high in omega 6 fatty acids. The average ratio for a cow on a grain-fed diet is roughly 25:1 (omega 6:3). This is genetically incongruent for all mammal species. Humans should naturally have an omega 6:3 ratio around 4:1 or 2:1. When these ratios become skewed, they trigger cellular inflammation and accelerated cellular degeneration. This environment causes an individual to become highly inflamed and to build degenerative disease. When the cows have this acidic, inflammatory environment, they become very thirsty. They drink significantly more water than grass-fed cows (as there is natural hydration in the grass). This water helps to increase dairy production, but the milk is thinner and less tasty. Years ago, a well-treated cow may have lived close to 20 years. Consider that the typical cow begins lactating around age 2; that is 18 years of dairy production. In 1950, typical cows lived around 10-15 years. Today, the average dairy cow in an industrial farm lives 5 years (3 years of lactation). During these 5 years, the cows are massively fed and stressed to produce the absolute maximal amount of dairy. Natural grass-fed cows produce between 3-5,000 gallons of milk a year while grain-fed, hormone injected cows can easily produce over 20,000 gallons a year. This is a huge advantage for dairy production because they can feed the cows on government subsidized grains while massively producing dairy. Grass-fed Dairy is Anti-Inflammatory: Cheese from 100% grass-fed cows has a perfect omega 6:3 ratio of 2:1. It also contains 5x the amount of Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA), which is an extraordinarily powerful cancer fighting nutrient. CLA is known to boost metabolism and fat burning while enhancing natural immunity. This form of cheese is also a great source of highly bioavailable calcium and magnesium, amino acids and vitamin A, D3, and K2. Raw cheese is naturally processed through old world traditions. This means that the cheese process begins minutes after the morning milking. Because the milk is so fresh, it isn’t necessary to pasteurize it. The natural heat (around 101.5 degrees F) involved in the cheese-making process preserves the naturally beneficial enzymes in the milk which aid in the digestion of lactose and in the absorption of protein, calcium and other critical nutrients. Raw cheese also has a richer and deeper flavor than pasteurized dairy. Sources for this Article Include: http://www.ejnet.org/bgh/nogood.html http://www.kennyscountrycheese.com/ Mendelson A. “The Astonishing Story of Real Milk,” Mother Earth News, October/November 2011. Pg 34-39. http://products.mercola.com/produce/cheese/

Biotech’s dirty tricks exposed in new documentary: ‘Scientists Under Attack’

(NaturalNews) “One question means one career.” This was the harsh warning of UC Berkeley Professor Ignacio Chapela for those daring to conduct independent research on genetically engineered foods and crops. “You ask one question, you get the answer and you might or might not be able to publish it; but that is the end of your career.” Both he and biologist Arpad Pusztai dared to asked questions and do the research. And then all hell broke lose. Using stunning visuals filmed on three continents, veteran German filmmaker Bertram Verhaag tracks the fate of these two scientists at the hands of a multi-billion dollar industry that is desperate to hide the dangers of their genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Watch the trailer at: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/scientists-under-attack BR Online says of the film, “Belief in noble and incorrupt research and science is reduced to absurdity.” Arthouse says the “movie shows how purchased truth becomes the currency in the perfidious business between science and multinationals.” And GMWatch writes, “Original research showing problems with GM crops is buried under a deluge of smears and follow up studies are not done.” The insect-killing, career-ending potato “As a scientist looking at it and actively working on the field, I find that it’s very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs.” — Arpad Pusztai, UK’s World in Action TV show When Dr. Pusztai voiced his concerns about the health risks of genetically modified (GM) foods during a nationally televised interview in August 1998, his was not simply just another voice in a contentious debate. Pusztai was the world leader in his field, and he had received major government funding to come up with the official method for testing the safety of GM foods. His protocols were supposed to become the required tests before any new GMO entered the European market. Pusztai was an insider, and an advocate of GM foods — that is until he actually ran those tests on supposedly harmless GM potatoes. The high-tech spuds were engineered to produce their own pesticide. “The point of the whole genetic modification experiment was to protect the potato against aphids, which are one of the major pests in Scotland,” he said. His team inserted a gene from the snowdrop plant into the potatoes, which did in fact protect the GM crop from the insects. As part of his safety studies, he fed that insecticide producing GM potato to rats, along with a complete and balanced diet. Another group of rats ate natural potatoes. A third was fed not only the natural potatoes, but they also received a dose of the same insecticide that the GM potato produced. This way, if the insecticide was harmful, he would see the same health problems in both the group that ate the GM potatoes, and those that ate the diet spiked with the insecticide. To his surprise, only those that ate the GM potato had severe problems — in every organ and every system he looked at. Massive health problems linked to GMOs “After the animals were killed and dissected,” Pusztai recalled, “we found out that in comparison with the non-genetically modified potatoes, their internal organs developed differently.” The intestines and stomach lining, for example, increased in size, the liver and kidneys were smaller, and the overall rate of growth was retarded. And the immune system suffered. Pusztai emphasized, “They found in those data 36 , 36! very highly significant differences between the GM-fed animals and the non-GM fed animals.” Since the rats that ate the natural potatoes plus the insecticide did not have these issues, there was one obvious conclusion — the process of genetically engineering the potatoes caused unpredicted side effects, turning a harmless food into a dangerous one. When Pusztai saw the extensive damage that his potatoes caused in the lab animals, he also realized that if biotech companies had done the safety studies, the dangerous potatoes would have easily made it to market. He knew this because a few months earlier, he had reviewed the confidential submissions from the biotech companies which allowed their GM soy and corn onto the market. “They were flimsy,” he said. “They were not scientifically well founded.” They would never detect the changes in GMO-fed animals. Reading the industry studies was a turning point in Pusztai’s life. He realized what he was doing and what the industry scientists were doing was diametrically opposed. He was doing safety studies. Companies like Monsanto, on the other hand, were doing as little as possible to get their foods on the market as quickly as possible. Pusztai also realized that the GM soy and corn already on the market had been produced using the same process that had created his dangerous potato. Thus, the GM crops being consumed in the UK and the US might lead to similar damage in the gut, brain and organs of the entire population. Thus, during his TV interview, Pusztai flatly stated: “If I had the choice, I would certainly not eat [GM foods] until I see at least comparable experimental evidence which we are producing for genetically modified potatoes.” Ambushed After the TV show aired, Pusztai was a hero at his prestigious Rowett Institute, where the director praised his work to the press, calling it world-class research. After two days of high-profile media coverage throughout Europe, however, the director received two phone calls from the UK Prime Minister’s Office. “It’s only when we think there was political pressure coming from the top that the situation changed,” said Pusztai. “And then the director, to save his own skin, decided that the best way to deal with the situation [was] A) to destroy me, B) to make me shut up.” Pusztai was told the next morning that his contract would not be renewed, he was silenced with threats of a lawsuit, his team was disbanded, and the protocols were not to be implemented in GMO safety assessments. And then came the attacks. Coordinated between the Institute, biotech academics, and even the pro-GMO UK government, a campaign to destroy Pusztai’s reputation was launched. They were determined to counter the negative media coverage and protect the reputation of GMOs — even if it meant promoting blatant lies and sacrificing a top scientist’s career. Because Pusztai was gagged, he said, “whatever they did say on TV, radio and wrote in the newspapers, I could not deny it, I could not correct it, I could not say what was the real situation.” “The most hurtful thing of all,” remembers Pusztai’s wife Susan, “was that he wasn’t allowed to talk to his colleagues and his colleagues were not allowed to talk to him. So whenever he entered a room, they went silent within seconds.” After seven excruciating months, a committee at the UK Parliament invited Pusztai to speak. This lifted the gag order, which allowed Pusztai to ultimately publish his research, and be interviewed for this film. Oops — GMOs weren’t supposed to be there Ignacio Chapela, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, had “a long-term relationship with a group of indigenous communities” in Mexico. Although GM corn was not yet legally grown in the country, Chapela decided to equip the Mexicans with a laboratory that could test for its presence, in case GMOs were eventually introduced. To help with the training, his colleague David Quist brought GM corn from the US. For the non-GM control corn, Chapela said, “we thought we should just use the local corn, which, of course, is going to be clean and wonderful. And the surprise came when the negative control started coming out positive. That means we started finding transgenic materials where they were not supposed to be.” Chapela says, “The reason why our findings were so astounding was because it was thought that there was no transgenic corn being planted in Mexico at all. And people wanted it that way. . . . Why? Because Mexico is the center of origin of corn. The Mexican government was worried about maintaining the integrity of the land races.” Apparently GM corn imported as food was unknowingly being grown, and had already started contaminating the source of corn’s biodiversity. According to Chapela the industry “had been telling the world that they really had control over these crops, that if they planted . . . transgenic corn in one field, that transgenic corn would not go anywhere else. So our discovery that we were finding transgenic corn maybe a thousand miles from the nearest legal transgenic corn field was a huge problem for them because it really showed very simply, and with real evidence, that they really did not have control.” Chapela and Quist wrote up the finding, which was accepted for publication by the prominent journal Nature . This made “many people within the industry very nervous and very unhappy,” says Chapella. They “started a discreditation campaign for the paper. They did not want the paper to be published.” Unable to stop Nature , however, a Monsanto PR company — the Bivings Group — deployed plan B. “They created two fictitious characters, two doctors,” recounts Chapela. “And these two doctors went on the internet and started spreading rumors that what we had said was false and that the paper was flawed.” The disinformation campaign went viral. It put huge pressure on Nature , spread the false notion that contamination had not taken place, and resulted in a campaign against Chapela by biotech advocates in his University. “In my case,” says Chapela, “I was pushed out of the university at least three times. Every time I fought back and we managed to keep my job. But it’s been very difficult.” Trashing scientists worldwide The treatment of Pusztai and Chapela illustrates what happens around the world to scientists who discover harm from GM crops. The work of Russian scientist Irina Ermakova, for example, was viciously attacked, and there were repeated attempts to intimidate her: papers were burnt on her desk and samples were stolen from her lab. Peeking through these stories of personal attacks are the very real dangers of GMOs, which compel the audience to question the use of GMOs in their own diets. Consider the impact of Ermakova’s research on young women planning to raise a family. After she fed genetically engineered soy flour to female rats, more than half of their offspring died within three weeks. The film also unravels the claims of biotech benefits on the farm level. A visit to Brazil introduces herbicide-tolerant Roundup Ready soybeans, engineered to make weeding a field easier. Farmers can spray Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide right on the field, and the GMOs survive. But this has led to massive overuse of Roundup, which in turn has led to the emergence of herbicide-tolerant superweeds — no longer controllable with Roundup. A natural reaction to these stories might be to ask why isn’t the government telling us the truth and protecting us. Unfortunately, they are part of the problem. FDA cover-up The FDA scientists who reviewed GMOs in the early 1990s were uniformly concerned about their health impacts, according to attorney Andrew Kimbrell, who runs the D.C.-based Center for Food Safety. He was on the team that sued the FDA in 1998, forcing them to turn over nearly 60,000 pages of secret internal memos. Kimbrell extracts key memos from massive filing cabinets in his office, reading the scientists’ warnings: toxins, nutritional problems, loss of biodiversity, change in water use, etc. “So the scientists asked for these studies,” says Kimbrell. “But the politicians at the FDA and in the administration at that time said no. They suppressed the science. And these questions, these studies, have never been done.” Instead, the US government maintains the illusion that nothing is wrong, and that this science works just as the biotech companies are telling us. This is beautifully illustrated with excerpts of biotech apologist Nina Fedoroff, the former science advisor to the Secretary of State. Her bland assurances about the safety of GMOs crumble with each new revelation in the film. Unprecedented risks; no benefits “No one gets up in the morning saying I want to go buy a genetically engineered food,” says Kimbrell. “They offer no benefits, no more nutrition, no more flavor, no nothing. They only offer risks.” He says the average rational person would ask, “Why would I buy a food that offers me no new benefits but only risks?” Kimbrell, who wrote the book Your Right to Know , says it was “critical for the industry to get these foods out without anyone knowing, because if they knew, they would obviously choose not to buy them.” But as Chapela’s discovery of self-propagating GMO contamination illustrates, the risk of GMOs extends well beyond individual considerations. He warns, “We are manipulating life in a way that we really do not understand, we cannot control, and then we’re letting it go into the environment. So it’s a change that is radical, that is unprecedented, that is beyond anything we can understand, and it is irretrievable. We cannot get it back. That’s my concern!” Scientists Under Attack is recommended for all those who love nature, and for everyone who eats. To view the trailer, click the following link: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/scientists-under-attack Bonus film The Scientists Under Attack DVD includes a 30 minute bonus film Monster Salmon , also by Bertram Verhaag. It describes the efforts by the US firm AquaBounty to bring fast-growing genetically engineered salmon to market in the US. Given the FDA’s recent attempts to fast-track this controversial fish, this additional documentary is important and timely. Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception (http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Home/index.cfm), the world’s bestselling book on GMOs. He is also the author of Genetic Roulette (http://www.geneticroulette.com), and the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology (http://www.responsibletechnology.org). The Institute’s Non-GMO Shopping Guide website (http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com), iPhone app ShopNoGMO, and pocket guide, help people navigate to healthier non-GMO foods. Join the Institute’s Non-GMO Tipping Point Network (http://action.responsibletechnology.org/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=2925) to connect with others in your area, to bring the truth about GMOs to your friends and community.

Scientific studies conclude GMO feed causes organ disruption in animals

(NaturalNews) A new paper reviewing data from 19 animal studies shows that consuming genetically modified (GM) corn or soybeans leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice, particularly in livers and kidneys (http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10). “Other organs may be affected too, such as the heart and spleen, or blood cells,” stated the paper. In fact some of the animals fed genetically modified organisms had altered body weights, which is “a very good predictor of side effects in various organs.” The GM soybean and corn varieties used in the feeding trials “constitute 83% of the commercialized GMOs” that are currently consumed by billions of people. While the findings may have serious ramifications for the human population, the authors demonstrate how a multitude of GMO-related health problems could easily pass undetected through the superficial and largely incompetent safety assessments that are used around the world. The researchers, lead by French Professor Gilles-Eric Sralini, found that nearly 1 out of every 10 measured parameters in the studies, including blood and urine biochemistry, organ weights, and microscopic analyses, were significantly disrupted in the animals fed GMOs. The kidneys of males fared the worst, with 43.5% of all the changes. The liver of females followed, with 30.8%. The report, published in Environmental Sciences Europe on March 1, 2011, confirms that “several convergent data appear to indicate liver and kidney problems as end points of GMO diet effects.” The authors point out that livers and kidneys “are the major reactive organs” in cases of chronic food toxicity. Feed’em longer! One of the most glaring faults in the current regulatory regime is the short duration of animals feeding studies. The industry limits trials to 90 days at most, with some less than a month. Only two studies reviewed in this new publication were over 90 days — both were non-industry research. Short studies could easily miss many serious effects of GMOs. It is well established that some pesticides and drugs, for example, can create effects that are passed on through generations, only showing up decades later. IN the case of the drug DES (diethylstilbestrol), “induced female genital cancers among other problems in the second generation.” The authors urge regulators to require long-term multi-generational studies, to “provide evidence of carcinogenic, developmental, hormonal, neural, and reproductive potential dysfunctions, as it does for pesticides or drugs.” Pesticide Plants Nearly all GM crops are described as “pesticide plants.” They either tolerate doses of weed killer, such as Roundup, or produce an insecticide called Bt-toxin. In both cases, the added toxin — weedkiller or bug killer — is found inside the corn or soybeans we consume. When regulators evaluate the toxic effects of pesticides, they typically require studies using three types of animals, with at least one feeding trial lasting 2 years or more. One third or more of the side effects produced by these toxins will show up only in the longer study — not the shorter ones. But for no good reason, regulators ignore the lessons learned from pesticides and waive the GM crops-containing-pesticides onto the market with a single species tested for just 90 days. The authors affirm that “it is impossible, within only 13 weeks, to conclude about the kind of pathology that could be induced by pesticide GMOs and whether it is a major pathology or a minor one. It is therefore necessary to prolong the tests.” GMO approvals also ignore the new understanding that toxins don’t always follow a linear dose-response. Sometimes a smaller amount of toxins have greater impact than larger doses. Approvals also overlook the fact that mixtures can be far more dangerous than single chemicals acting alone. Roundup residues, for example, have been “shown to be toxic for human placental, embryonic, and umbilical cord cells,” whereas Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate does not on its own provoke the same degree of damage. One reason for this is that the chemicals in Roundup “stabilize glyphosate and allow its penetration into cells.” Furthermore, toxins may generate new substances (metabolites) “either in the GM plant or in the animals fed with it.” Current assessments completely ignore the potential danger from these new components in our diets, such as the “new metabolites” in GMOs engineered to withstand Roundup. The authors warn, “We consider this as a major oversight in the present regulations.” “It’s not the same stuff that farmers spray” Regulators claim that the Bt-toxin produced inside GM corn is safe. They say that the Bt gene comes from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which has been safely applied as a spray-on insecticide by farmers in the past. But the authors insist that “the argument about ‘safe use history’ of the wild Bt protein . . . cannot, on a sound scientific basis, be used for direct authorizations of . . . GM corns,” without conducting proper long-term animal feeding studies. In order to justify their claim that the wild Bt-toxin is safe, the authors state that it must first be separately tested on animals and humans and then authorized individually for food or feed, which it has not. And even if the wild variety had been confirmed as safe, the GM versions are so different, they must require their own independent studies. The paper states: “The Bt toxins in GMOs are new and modified, truncated, or chimerical in order to change their activities/solubility in comparison to wild Bt. For instance, there is at least a 40% difference between the toxin in Bt176 [corn] and its wild counterpart.” Even though the isolated Bt-toxin from GM corn has not been tested on animals, rodent studies on corn containing the toxin do show problems. Male rats fed Monsanto’s MON863 corn, for example, had smaller kidneys with more focal inflammation and other “disrupted biochemical markers typical of kidney filtration or function problems.” Stop with the dumb excuses If statistically significant problems show up in their studies, biotech company researchers often attempt to explain away the adverse findings. But the authors of this review paper describe their excuses as unscientific, obsolete, or unjustified. When male and female animals have different results, for example, biotech advocates claim that this couldn’t possibly be related to the feed. Since both genders eat the same amount, they argue, both would have to show the same reaction in all of their organs, etc. And if the group of animals fed with less of the GMO feed exhibit more severe reactions than the group fed the larger amount, advocates claim that this discrepancy also means that the GMOs could not be the cause, since there must always be a linear dose relationship. The authors of this paper, however, point out that effects found in a GMO animal feeding study “cannot be disregarded on the rationale that it is not linear to the dose (or dose-related) or not comparable in genders. This would not be scientifically acceptable.” In fact, most “pathological and endocrine effects in environmental health are not directly proportional to the dose, and they have a differential threshold of sensitivity in both sexes. This is, for instance, the case with carcinogenesis and endocrine disruption.” What’s the culprit, pesticide or plant? The shortcomings of the feeding studies make it impossible to determine whether a particular problem is due to the added pesticide, such as Roundup residues or Bt-toxin, or due to the genetic changes in the modified plants’ DNA. Mice fed Roundup Ready soybeans, for example, showed numerous changes indicating increased metabolic rates in the liver (i.e. irregular hepatocyte nuclei, more nuclear pores, numerous small fibrillar centers, and abundant dense fibrillar components). Since studies on Roundup herbicide also show changes in the liver cells of mice and humans, the Roundup residues within the soybeans may be a significant contributing factor to the metabolic changes. Similarly, rats fed Roundup Ready corn showed indications that their kidneys leaked . Such an effect “is well correlated with the effects of glyphosate-based herbicides (like Roundup) observed on embryonic kidney cells.” Thus, the rats’ kidney problems may also be caused by the Roundup that is accumulated within Roundup Ready corn kernels. In addition to the herbicide, the Bt-toxin insecticide produced inside GM corn might also cause disorders. The authors state, “The insecticide produced by MON810 [corn] could also induce liver reactions, like many other pesticides.” Studies do confirm significant liver changes in rats fed Bt corn. On the other hand, “unintended effects of the genetic modification itself cannot be excluded” as the possible cause of these very same health problems. The process of gene insertion followed by cloning plant cells (tissue culture) can cause massive collateral damage in the plant’s DNA with potentially harmful side-effects. In MON810 corn, for example, the insertion “caused a complex recombination event, leading to the synthesis of new RNA products encoding unknown proteins.” The authors warn that “genetic modifications can induce global changes” in the DNA, RNA, proteins, and the numerous natural products (metabolites), but the faulty safety assessments are not designed to adequately identify these changes or their health impacts. Population at risk In addition to the shortcomings mentioned above, the paper shows how GMO feeding trials are “based on ancient paradigms” with “serious conceptual and methodological flaws,” employ statistical methods that obscure the findings, add irrelevant control groups that confuse and confound the analysis, and rely on numerous assumptions that either remain untested or have already proved false. Unlike drug approvals, biotech companies do not conduct human studies. They would therefore fail to identify both general human health reactions, and the potentially more serious ones endured by sub-populations. “If some consumers suffer from stomach problems or ulcers,” for example, the paper states, “the new toxins will possibly act differently; the digestion in children could be affected too.” The paper recommends the implementation of post market monitoring, which, among other things, “should be linked with the possibility of detecting allergenicity reactions to GMOs in routine medicine.” But even if authorities wanted to conduct epidemiological studies on GMOs, the authors acknowledge that they “are not feasible in America, since there is no organized traceability of GMOs anywhere on the continent.” Not only is labeling of GMOs urgently needed to allow such studies to proceed, the study says: “The traceability of products from animals fed on GMOs is also crucial. The reason for this is because they can develop chronic diseases which are not utterly known today…. Labeling animals fed on GMOs is therefore necessary because some pesticide residues linked to GMOs could pass into the food chain.” They also point out that “even if pesticides residues or DNA fragments are not toxic nor transmitted by themselves” nevertheless, “nobody would want to eat disabled or physiologically modified animals after long-term GMOs ingestion.” “New experiments,” they concluded, “should be systematically performed to protect the health of billions of people that could consume directly or indirectly these transformed products.” In the meantime, for those not willing to wait for the new studies, we recommend consulting the Non-GMO Shopping Guide at www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception (http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Home/index.cfm), the world’s bestselling book on GMOs. He is also the author of Genetic Roulette (http://www.geneticroulette.com), and the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology (http://www.responsibletechnology.org). The Institute’s Non-GMO Shopping Guide website (http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com), iPhone app ShopNoGMO, and pocket guide, help people navigate to healthier non-GMO foods. Join the Institute’s Non-GMO Tipping Point Network (http://action.responsibletechnology.org/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=2925) to connect with others in your area, to bring the truth about GMOs to your friends and community.

Jeffrey Smith says we can win the fight against GMOs, but grassroots support is needed to achieve victory

(NaturalNews) In a recorded interview now posted on NaturalNews.com, Institute for Responsible Technology director Jeffrey Smith updates listeners with the latest developments on the GMO front. He also says significant victories against GMOs are within our reach, but powerful grassroots support is needed to defeat the biotech industry once and for all. Download the interview (MP3) directly from NaturalNews at: http://www.naturalnews.com/files/GMO-update-Jeffrey-Smith.mp3 Or listen to it on SoundCloud at: http://snd.sc/rtWAh2 You can also click the PLAY button on the object below: GMO update and interview with Jeffrey Smith by NaturalNews Highlights from the interview with Jeffrey Smith • We have created a huge buzz about GMOs that is unprecedented. • There are many early signs of victories that we’re winning the war against GMOs: Supermarket News says that consumer awareness about GMOs is surging and could equal the level of awareness about trans fats. • GMOs will soon become a “marketing liability” in the USA, causing companies to announce they are dropping GMOs. • Education and awareness about GMOs is exploding across North America. Parents, company CEOs, farmers, health food store employees and others are becoming well informed about the dangers of GMOs. • Public awareness of the dangers of GMOs is skyrocketing, and an increasing number of consumers are actively taking steps to avoid GMOs. • GMOs were the No. 1 issue talked about at the recent Expo East (Natural Products Expo). It was “over the top,” says Jeffrey, meaning that all the natural food companies are talking about this issue. • 5,500 products have now been enrolled in the Non-GMO Project! (www.NonGMOproject.org) • Natural health retailers are starting a revolution against GMOs. • “Non-GMO” is the fastest-growing label claim in the natural products industry. • Grocery retailers also realize that a non-GMO revolution is fast accelerating in America. • Why the biotech industry attempts to destroy the credibility of anti-GMO activists by spreading disinformation across the internet. • The IRT has taught 700 people how to speak on GMOs through full-day seminars and webinars. Knowledge is spreading! • Why the myth that “GMOs are necessary to feed the world” is complete scientific quackery. Jeffrey Smith reveals the real truth of the situation: GMOs actually reduce crop yields! • Why GMOs are an environmental issue — gene pool contamination among food crops. • How genetically engineered crops are resulting in the formation of mutant superweeds which need even more chemicals to eradicate than regular weeds. • People who are exposed to Roundup have higher rates of birth defects, and Roundup persists in the environment for far longer than previously thought. • Why GMOs and the use of Roundup herbicides may even be linked to flooding by killing off soil microorganisms and resulting in compacted soils that fail to absorb rainwater like healthy soils do. • 93% of pregnant women tested had BT insecticide circulating in their own blood . • Animals that have grazed on BT cotton plants have died in huge numbers. NaturalNews pledges $15,000 in matching funds to the IRT In support of the effort to end the devastation and destruction of GMOs, NaturalNews is pledging $15,000 in matching funds for donations made to the IRT during the month of October, 2011. Help support the fight to end GMOs in America! Make a donation to the IRT at: www.ResponsibleTechnology.org/friends And remember, NaturalNews will match every dollar of your donation, dollar for dollar, up to $15,000 total. Watch for more news this week about this fundraising effort for the IRT, and please help support their fight to further increase public awareness about GMOs and ultimately end this assault on the genetic integrity of U.S. agriculture. Listen to the full interview with Jeffrey Smith at: http://www.naturalnews.com/files/GMO-update-Jeffrey-Smith.mp3

Breaking news: Multi-agency armed raid hits Rawesome Foods, Healthy Family Farms for selling raw milk and cheese

(NaturalNews) This is a NaturalNews exclusive breaking new report. Please credit NaturalNews.com. A multi-agency SWAT-style armed raid was conducted this morning by helmet-wearing, gun-carrying enforcement agents from the LA County Sheriff’s Office, the FDA, the Dept. of Agriculture and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control). Rawesome Foods, a private buying club offering wholesome, natural raw milk and raw cheese products (among other wholesome foods) is founded by James Stewart, a pioneer in bringing wholesome raw foods directly to consumers through a buying club. James was followed from his private residence by law enforcement, and when he entered his store, the raid was launched. Law enforcement demanded that all customers (members) of the store vacate the premises, then they demanded to know how much cash James had at the store. When James explained the amount of cash he had at the store — which is used to purchase product for selling there — agents demanded to know why he had such an amount of cash and where it came from. James was handcuffed, was NEVER read his rights and was stuffed into an UNMARKED car. While agents said they would leave behind a warrant, no one has yet had any opportunity to even see if such a warrant exists or if it is a complete warrant. Note to NaturalNews readers: This was an ILLEGAL raid being conducted mob-style by government thugs who respect no law and no rights. This is an all-out war by the government against people who try to promote healthy raw and living foods. James is now being held at the Pacific division police department at Centinela and Culver in Los Angeles. He is being held at $123,000 bail with no possibility of using bail bonds. Law enforcement has demanded that if he comes up with the money to cover bail, he must disclose to them all the sources of that money. (This is an illegal demand!) Law enforcement is now destroying all the Rawesome Foods inventory by pouring the raw milk down the drain and collecting the raw cheese for destruction. Massive public protests are needed to teach these criminal law enforcement agencies that they cannot illegally arrest and persecute individuals merely for buying and selling raw milk and cheese. We are organizing a public protest day in cooperation with James. Please watch NaturalNews for an announcement of that. Story is developing… Right now, James needs help raising money with his legal defense needs . Our non-profit Consumer Wellness Center is currently serving as the collection point for donations. You may donate right now at www.ConsumerWellness.org (100% of the donations go directly to James’ legal defense needs, the Consumer Wellness Center keeps nothing). See this video of James Stewart talking about his farm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foKg-oShJP0 Here’s background on Healthy Family Farms which was also targeted in the raid: Healthy Family Farms in Santa Paula, California: “Healthy Family Farms is a sustainable, pasture-based farming operation. We raise all our livestock on pasture. We raise all of our animals from birth. We do not feed any of our animals soy, choosing instead to feed animals as they are designed to be fed. This results in healthy, sturdy animals needing no hormones, antibiotics, or other artificial “enhancements.” We harvest our animals humanely by hand before they are delivered to the farmers markets. We never freeze our products. In addition to farmer’s markets sales, we have an active CSA, which offers discounts to our valued members.” Watch NaturalNews.com for more breaking news on this story . We are fed up with these illegal mob-style raids against the raw foods community! It is time to protest and fight back against tyranny!

Medical atrocities routinely committed against chimpanzees in the name of science

(NaturalNews) The question of whether chimpanzees and other primates should be used for biomedical research is an issue that has recently been reinvigorated thanks to 186 chimps at the Alamogordo Primate Facility in New Mexico who are waiting for their verdict of either life in a grassy sanctuary or a life of torture in the name of medical research. For years, these chimps were used for biomedical research, primarily for hepatitis and HIV. Lennie, once a space chimp, has been documented as suffering atrocities, including being infected with HIV and hepatitis as well as enduring four spinal taps, a bone-marrow biopsy and repeated blood draws, to name a few. All of these very stressful experiments, no doubt, contributed to his death, apparently from heart disease, in 2002. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a U.S. government entity, is interested in relocating these chimps from their “sanctuary” on an Air Force base in New Mexico, where they’ve been on a 10-year hiatus from invasive experimentation, to the Texas Biomedical Research Institute in San Antonio, where they’ll be put back into invasive research. Due to public outcry spearheaded by animal rights activists, such as the Humane Society, Animal Protection of New Mexico and In Defense of Animals, the NIH has commissioned a panel to determine the fate of chimpanzees in experimentation. An analysis – to be completed in seven months – is being conducted by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the medical branch of the independent National Academy of Sciences, “to reassess the scientific need for the continued use of chimpanzees to accelerate biomedical discoveries.” According to Eric Kleiman, the Research Director for In Defense of Animals, the IOM process is illegitimate and the outcome a foregone conclusion because of the pro-experimentation make-up of the panel and the fact that the NIH deliberately omitted the topic of ethics from the panel’s charge. For Kleiman, who’s been fighting against chimpanzee experimentation for seventeen years now, it’s a frustrating scenario. He points to what he calls a “remarkable” editorial in Nature , one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. In its June 16 issue, the journal wrote that “[The NIH] may wish to divorce the science from the ethics, but society at large will not accept such a distinction. Nor is it intellectually defensible….” Consequently, Kleiman believes that the IOM report will not be definitive. The same Nature editorial wrote that the panel’s report will provide a “valuable starting point” for the much broader discussion of the use of chimpanzees in experimentation. In fact, many researchers now believe that animal testing isn’t necessary anymore. A Petri dish can hold just as much knowledge as a live animal. For the recently-published McClatchy Newspapers Special Report “Chimps: Life in the Lab,” Arthur Caplan, a University of Pennsylvania ethicist who chaired a government panel in the 1980′s that set guidelines for animal research stated that, “the burden of justifying the research is on the researcher, and it’s very high. For primate research, you had better be able to show me that you’ve got something that’s pretty promising: an HIV vaccine, a cancer drug.” “Chimpanzees have not been a universally satisfactory model for human diseases,” concluded the National Research Council (affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences) in a 1997 report; while Science Director, Jarrod Bailey, of the anti-animal testing New England Anti-Vivisection Society is quoted as saying, “100 vaccines had been tested in nonhuman primates, including chimpanzees, and success in animals didn’t translate to success in humans.” Of course, groups like the NIH stand by their beliefs that these animals are important to their research, however there are myriad factors to consider. So where do we draw the line? “When it comes to animal experiments, in general, we’re one of the most regressive countries in the world,” laments Kleiman as he explains that, “NIH is the largest funder of animal experiments.” America is the only country, besides Gabon, that allows for invasive experiments to be conducted on chimpanzees. As a country that should be leading the way, we are falling radically behind in the arena of ethics and animal rights. Still, America isn’t entirely at fault. Although it is true that most countries have outlawed such experimentation, their companies are still free to travel overseas to utilize American facilities. Such allowances are simply loopholes and should not absolve these countries of their culpability in the perpetuation of this heinous activity. After an hour-long conversation with Kleiman, it was clear that there was a whole lot more to the story than most people are aware of, quite literally enough to write a book about. The labyrinthine issue is a mine-filled mess of fabrications and deceptions. “They’ve [the NIH] violated the law, they’ve lied to Congress,” says Kleiman. “What they’re legally doing to these chimpanzees is appalling. The NIH shouldn’t be allowed within a thousand miles of them.” When asked what he expects to see change over the next ten years, Kleiman does not seem optimistic, even though he believes the NIH’s lack of use of these chimpanzees at the APF over the past ten years is a clear indication the agency’s claims that these chimps are vital for experimentation is false. The reality is “the research goes where the money goes,” and “the NIH still has an ‘animal-model’ mindset.” He explains that much of the research conducted on animals is for useless experiments that aren’t cited by anyone but the researchers themselves. “It’s a fundamentally broken system,” says Kleiman. At some point, when playing God with the creatures we cohabitate with on planet earth, we have to ask ourselves what our obligation is as caretakers, and how long can we keep declaring that the ends justifies the means. The Dalai Lama has said that, “Today more than ever before, life must be characterized by a sense of universal responsibility, not only nation to nation and human to human, but also human to other forms of life.” Even Einstein said, “Our task must be to free ourselves — by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty.” From spirituality to science, the answer seems crystal clear. Let’s hope the panel sees it that way too. When asked what the general public can do to support this cause and the freedom of the Alamogordo chimpanzees, Kleiman suggests going to this link (which provides information on contacting your representatives/senators): http://ida.convio.net/site/MessageViewer/&printer_friendly=1?em_id=18201.0&dlv_id=20641. For More Information on this Issue: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110615/full/474268a.html http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/24/v-print/112433/as-science-turns-from-chimp-research.html http://idausa.org/endchimpresearch http://idausa.org/rr http://nihchimpcruelty.com To Contact the NIH: http://www.nih.gov/about/contact.htm Texas Biomedical Research Institute – Chimpanzee Program Info: http://txbiomed.org/SNPRC/primates_chimpanzees.aspx Watch Papa Gorilla play with Baby Gorilla: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKq-Tmxyly4 A Documentary Film (coming soon) on a Chimpanzee Raised by a Human Family: http://www.project-nim.com/

Next Page »