Biotech farm to milk mutant transgendered offspring of GM goats

(NaturalNews) The insatiable lust among genetic engineers to tamper with the natural order has reached new freak-show proportions. Genetic butchers from AgResearch, which NaturalNews recently reported had reluctantly abandoned a 13-year animal cloning operation due to an overwhelming number of animal deformities and deaths (http://www.naturalnews.com/031573_cloning_animals.html), are once again in the news, this time for their plans to milk the transgendered offspring of genetically-engineered (GE) goats. In a truly disgusting display of “science” gone wild, AgResearch scientists have been intentionally breeding GE goats, most of which are now producing transgendered babies that are essentially females in sterile male bodies. And just like the animals in the company’s previous cloning project, the GE goats’ offspring are deformed and riddled with diseases like arthritis, respiratory illness, and ruptured ovaries. According to Steffan Browning, spokesman from Soil and Health Organic New Zealand, AgResearch hopes to milk these transgendered “goys,” as they have dubbed them, to see whether or not the corrupted genes will be “expressed in the milk.” The corrupted genes in question were reportedly derived from human sources and spliced into the animals’ genes. The GE animals, which currently live on AgResearch’s Ruakura GE animal facility, are obviously not living normal, healthy, and humane lives. AgResearch’s exotic experimentation is not only a clear demonstration of animal cruelty, but it is also a blight to New Zealand’s agriculture reputation, as it represents the only GE field trial currently operating within the country. “Considering that a recent report showed AgResearch scientists intentionally corrupting monitoring research of risky microbial horizontal gene transfer (HGT), these unnatural reproductive outcomes and continued animal welfare issues, should spell the end of the Ruakura GE experiments,” wrote Browning in a report. “Good animal welfare records and a GE free reputation are very important for New Zealand’s trading image and increasingly demanded by consumers,” added Browning. “Cruel experiments for a GE farming future are not what either New Zealanders or valuable overseas consumers want.” Sources for this story include: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1106/S00039/agresearch-transgender-goats-to-be-milked.htm

Preventive use of one form of natural vitamin E may reduce stroke damage

Ten weeks of preventive supplementation with a natural form of vitamin E called tocotrienol in dogs that later had strokes reduced overall brain tissue damage, prevented loss of neural connections and helped sustain blood flow in the animals’ brains, a new study shows.

BPA plastics chemical found to feminize males

(NaturalNews) Don’t worry, be happy. Just ignore the fact that countless researchers have warned time and time again that the chemical bisphenol A (BPA for short) is a major hormone disruptor and is a huge threat to human health. After all, we must all be safe because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would have banned the stuff long before now if there was really any problem, right? If you agree with the above, you might also think the deadly radiation still spewing from nuclear reactor meltdowns in Japan is nothing to worry about, either. But the truth is always better than sticking your head in the sand, and this is exactly what the FDA seems to be doing when it comes to BPA. Here’s the latest breaking news on what has become an environmental nightmare for both humans and possibly wildlife while the FDA does nothing but express “some concern” that BPA might not be perfectly safe. University of Missouri researchers have evidence that BPA causes male deer mice to lose their masculinity and behave more like females. In fact, female mice sense something isn’t quite “right” about BPA exposed males and don’t want to mate with them. The scientists conclude that exposure to BPA during human development could also be wreaking havoc on hormones and distorting and disrupting behavioral and cognitive traits that are unique to each sex and important in reproduction. “The BPA-exposed deer mice in our study look normal; there is nothing obviously wrong with them. Yet, they are clearly different,” said Cheryl Rosenfeld, associate professor in biomedical sciences in the College of Veterinary Medicine and investigator in the Bond Life Sciences Center, in a statement to the media. “Females do not want to mate with BPA-exposed male deer mice, and BPA-exposed males perform worse on spatial navigation tasks that assess their ability to find female partners in the wild.” “This study sets the stage for BPA researchers to examine how BPA might differentially impact the behavioral and cognitive patterns of boys versus girls,” Rosenfeld added. “Investigators looking for obvious BPA-induced differences, such as chromosome deletions or DNA mutations, could be missing subtle behavioral differences that eventually lead to long-term adverse outcomes, including demasculinization of male behaviors with a decreased reproductive fitness.” For the new study, the researchers fed female deer mice a BPA-supplemented diet for two weeks prior to breeding and throughout lactation. The mothers were given a dosage equivalent to what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration considers a non-toxic dose for pregnant women to ingest. When the deer mice offspring were weaned at 25 days of age, they were fed on a non-supplemented BPA diet. Then, after the rodents matured into adults, their behavior was tested to study each mouse’s ability to navigate a maze to safety. Male deer mice normally have an enhanced spatial navigational ability. It’s important because it allows them to find female mates that are dispersed throughout the environment. Female deer mice do not need to search for mates so their navigational abilities have not been enhanced by evolution. But when the University of Missouri researchers tested the navigational skills of male mice that had been exposed to BPA early in their development, something was terribly wrong. Each male mouse had two five minute opportunities per day, for seven days, to try to find their way in to a home cage through one of several holes placed around the edge of an open maze. What’s more, the maze was marked with a set of visible navigational cues to help the animals. Yet many of them could not find the exit. On the other hand, all the male mice who had not been exposed to BPA found the correct exit quickly – some on the first day. Adding to the strong evidence that the BPA dramatically changed the ability of the male mice to navigate normally, the scientists found that the non-BPA exposed mice quickly learned the most direct approach to finding the correct hole, while the exposed males appeared to sort of randomly and inefficiently wander around looking. The female deer mice also were turned off by potential mates who had been exposed to BPA. In a mate choice experiment, the scientists measured the females’ level of interest in a stranger male by observing specific behaviors, such as nose-to-nose sniffing and the amount of time the female spent checking out her potential partner. According to Dr. Rosenfeld, both non-exposed and BPA-exposed females strongly preferred control males over BPA-exposed males. “These findings presumably have broad implications to other species, including humans, where there are also innate differences between males and females in cognitive and behavioral patterns,” Rosenfeld said in the media statement. “In the wide scheme of things, these behavioral deficits could, in the long term, undermine the ability of a species such as the deer mouse to reproduce in the wild. Whether there are comparable health threats to humans remains unclear, but there clearly must be a concern.” This research, which is set for publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , is the latest in a mounting and damning array of studies showing the dangers of BPA. For example, as NaturalNews has covered extensively, BPA has been found to cause precancerous conditions, kidney and developmental problems in animals. And research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) showed that humans could be walking time bombs of health problems related to the ingestion of BPA, which is found in virtually all packaged foods. The JAMA study reported for the first time that the chemical might well be linked to the epidemic of heart disease and diabetes in this country (http://www.naturalnews.com/024207_BPA_health_plastics.html). Editor’s note: NaturalNews is opposed to the use of animals in medical experiments that expose them to harm. We present these findings in protest of the way in which they were acquired. For more information: http://www.naturalnews.com/BPA.html http://www.missouri.edu/

FDA sued to halt antibiotics in animal feed

(NaturalNews) Since the 1950′s livestock have had antibiotics added into their feed to speed up their growth and to prevent and treat illness. However, recently several environmental and public health groups have filed suit against the Food and Drug Administration to try and force the government to stop farmers from routinely adding the antibiotics to the feed. The groups say that the wide spread use of the drugs and the FDA’s allowance of it are dramatically adding to a public health crisis. The crisis being an increase in the prevalence of “superbugs” that infect people but do not properly respond to antibiotics. Margaret Mellon, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, one of the groups who filed the complaint in federal court, along with the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Food Animals Concern Trust and Public Citizen stated, “the longer we use these drugs, the less effective the arsenal becomes.” Debate has been ongoing for the past 30 years about the use of antibiotics in animal feed. Amid rising concerns the FDA began to question whether they should be used so broadly and on healthy animals. “Anti-modern livestock production groups are trying to compel the FDA to ban antibiotics used to prevent animals from getting sick because those groups have a belief – not scientific evidence – that such FDA-approved animal health products are causing antibiotic resistance in people.” Said Doug Wolf, president of the National Pork Producers Council, and a pork producer from Lancaster, WI. As farming has become more industrialized, farmers have become more reliant on antibiotics because they help animals digest more effectively and stay healthy in crowded conditions. Last year the FDA gave voluntary guidance to farmers, calling the resistant-bacteria problem a “public health issue of some urgency.” Mellon went on to say that the FDA is “trying to jawbone the industry into voluntarily giving up these drugs. I don’t know how they would get the industry to act that way, because it’s against their interests.” Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), the only microbiologist in congress has filed legislation that would ban the use of seven antibiotic classes unless animals are ill or drug companies can prove their use does not harm human health. “We should be able to buy our food without worrying that eating it will expose our families to bacteria no longer responsive to medical treatments.” She stated. Sources for this article include: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/groups-sue-fda-to-stop-addition-of-antibiotics-in-livestock-feed/2011/05/25/AGxfbVBH_story.html

USDA fines family four million dollars for selling bunny rabbits

(NaturalNews) When the Dollarhite family of Nixa, Mo., first started raising and selling bunnies as part of a lesson to teach their teenage son about responsibility and hard work, they had no idea they would eventually meet the heavy hand of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). According to a recent article covered in Breitbart’s Big Government , the USDA recently ordered the Dollarhite family to pay more than $90,000 in fines because they sold more than $500 worth of rabbits in a year — and if they fail to pay the fine by Monday, May 23, the fine will multiply to nearly $4 million. It all started back in 2006 when John Dollarhite and his wife Judy rescued two rabbits that ended up breeding. The family cared for and raised the new rabbits, and eventually began to sell them to neighbors, friends, and others for $10 or $15 each. Having started by first selling the animals for meat, and later for show, the Dollarhites carefully and humanely raised the small creatures on their three-acre homestead, all while teaching their son honest values in a business environment similar to running a small lemonade stand. Eventually, the Dollarhites developed such a highly-respected reputation across Missouri that the popular Branson, Mo., theme park Silver Dollar City, and even a local pet store, Petland, began purchasing bunnies from the family in 2009. And according to John, individuals from both Silver Dollar City and Petland, as well as a rabbit competition judge, told him that the family’s bunnies were among the best they had ever seen — healthy, beautiful, and very well-cared for. All seemed well until a USDA inspector showed up at the family’s home in the fall of 2009, and asked to do a “spot inspection” of the rabbitry. The inspector made no indication that anything was amiss, but only that she wished to see the facility. After meandering the premises, the inspector claimed that a few very insignificant aspects of the raising facility were in violation of USDA standards, even though the Dollarhites were not USDA certified, nor were they required to be. She then asked if the Dollarhites wished to be part of the voluntary USDA certification system, upon which they told her they would look into it. After the inspector left, the Dollarhites heard nothing more from the USDA until January 2010 when a Kansas City-based USDA inspector called the family and said he needed to have a meeting with them because they sold more than $500 worth of rabbits in a single year. When the Dollarhites asked why this was a problem and what law this violated, the man refused to offer an explanation over the phone. Upon meeting in person, the inspector said he was only there to investigate the rabbitry and take notes for a report, upon which he instructed the family to contact another USDA office if they failed to hear anything further from the USDA after six weeks. As the eighth week arrived without any communication, John called the office and was redirected to the Washington, DC, office where a lady shockingly and bluntly explained to him that she had his report, and that the USDA planned to prosecute him and his family “to the maximum that we can” in order to “make an example” out of him. Shortly thereafter, the Dollarhites received a letter from the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) ordering them to pay a fine of $90,643 for supposedly violating a mystery law that prohibits the selling of more then $500 in rabbits within a year, even though the Dollarhites were in full accordance with Missouri state law, did not sell their rabbits across state lines, and raised their rabbits humanely and in excess of minimum requirements. The letter outlined that the Dollarhites had until May 23 to pay the exorbitant fine, or else face additional fines totaling nearly $4 million — all for selling about $4,600 worth of rabbits that netted the family a mere $200 in profits. The whole scenario proves, once again, that the USDA is nothing more than a tag-team terrorist duo with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Both agencies’ insatiable lust for power and control over private affairs is never satisfied, as they continue to prowl around like bloodthirsty predators seeking whoever and whatever they can devour. When will Americans finally stand up to their tyranny and say enough is enough? To read the full account of the Dollarhite saga, visit: http://biggovernment.com/bmccarty/2011/05/20/family-facing-4-million-in-fines-for-selling-bunnies/ To contact the APHIS division of the USDA responsible for this mess and express your thoughts on the matter, write, call, or email: USDA/APHIS/AC 4700 River Road, Unit 84 Riverdale, MD 20737-1234 ace@aphis.usda.gov (301) 734-4978 You can also read a follow-up to the original story that includes a response from the USDA here: http://bobmccarty.com/2011/05/19/usda-stands-behind-hare-raising-fine/

New warning: dangerous antibacterial soap chemical found in fish

(NaturalNews) The current mania over putting anti-bacterial chemicals in everything from cleaning wipes and hand soap to detergent and toothpaste has resulted in the widespread contamination of the environment with two related toxins often found in these products — triclocarban (TCC) and triclosan. Never mind that in lab studies these chemicals have been found to disrupt hormones, probably cause cancer and spur the growth of drug-resistant superbugs. The FDA seems to think it’s fine and dandy that humans keep pumping these substances into our bodies through contact with skin, and flushing these toxins down the drain into the water table. At the recent national meeting of the American Chemical Society held in Anaheim, California, scientists sounded yet another warning about the clear and present danger of the antibacterial ingredient TCC — at least in the aquatic ecosystem. For the first time, scientists have evidence that this endocrine system disruptor is accumulating in fish. The animals encounter TCC as they swim in water that washes down drains and flows out of sewage treatment facilities into lakes and streams. And, no, this isn’t some minor finding. The researchers found TCC has a “strong” tendency to bioaccumulate in fish — that means the fish take in the substance far faster than their bodies can break it down and eliminate it. Because TCC so strongly bioaccumulates in fish, even minute and seemingly harmless amounts in the water can build up to toxic amounts inside the animals’ bodies. “Due to its widespread usage, TCC is present in small amounts in 60 percent of all rivers and streams in the United States,” study leader Ida Flores of the University of California-Davis said in a press statement. “Fish are commonly exposed to TCC, even though much of it is eliminated by wastewater treatment plants.” Dr. Flores soft-pedaled the idea that fish becoming loaded with TCC has much to do directly with human health — because TCC supposedly doesn’t bioaccumulate in humans and certain other mammals. Instead, the human body quickly breaks down, or metabolizes, TCC. That changes it into other substances that are excreted in urine and feces. However, this skips over several important possibilities. First of all, because TCC is an endocrine disruptor, will fish contaminated with the chemical lose the ability to reproduce, thereby reducing the availability of fish as food? And if fish contaminated with TCC are eaten, what does that mean for the human body? If TCC is “changed into other substances” by the human body, where is the proof those metabolites are safe for human health? Dr. Flores noted that unmetabolized compounds, such as dioxins, can’t be excreted from the human body — unlike TCC — and so they are particularly dangerous to humans. People are exposed to dioxins through the environment and the food chain, including dairy products, meat, fish and shellfish. The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned this exposure can cause reproductive and developmental problems, damage the immune system and may cause cancer. Unfortunately, although this was not covered by Dr. Flores, other investigators have uncovered a critical connection between an anti-bacterial soap chemical and dioxins. As previously covered in NaturalNews , University of Minnesota civil engineering professor William Arnold and his colleague Kristopher McNeill have published their findings that TCC-related triclosan, when exposed to sunlight, generates dioxins . And other researchers from the University of Minnesota’s Institute of Technology, Pace Analytical (Minneapolis), the Science Museum of Minnesota and Virginia Tech, have documented that triclosan is transformed into dioxins that are accumulating in the environment. Bottom line: any line of reasoning that downplays the seriousness of environmental contamination with anti-bacterial chemicals is just plain fishy — and probably dangerous to human as well as animal health. For more information: http://www.naturalnews.com/029006_antibacterial_soap_dioxins.html http://www.naturalnews.com/022178_triclosan_toothpaste_bacteria.html http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es1001105

US meat and poultry widely contaminated with bacteria including superbugs

(NaturalNews) How would you like a big, juicy burger loaded with onions, mustard, ketchup — and a big helping of drug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), a bacteria linked to a wide range of human diseases? If you find that dish stomach-churning instead of appetizing, then maybe you should think twice before eating not only meat but chicken and turkey, too, at least in the U.S. According to a nationwide study just released by the Flagstaff, Arizona-based Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen), meat and poultry from U.S. grocery stores have an unexpectedly high rate of dangerous disease-causing bacteria, including antibiotic resistant superbugs. In fact, almost half (47 percent) of all meat and poultry samples tests were contaminated with S. aureus. What’s more, 52 percent of these contaminated meats contained superbugs, meaning the bacteria were resistant to multiple classes of antibiotics.That adds up to multi-antibiotic resistant Staph germs being present in about one out of every 4 samples of meat, chicken or turkey. “For the first time, we know how much of our meat and poultry is contaminated with antibiotic-resistant Staph, and it is substantial,” Lance B. Price, Ph.D., senior author of the study and Director of TGen’s Center for Food Microbiology and Environmental Health, said in a statement to the media. The research, published today in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases , is the first national investigation of antibiotic resistant S. aureus in the U.S. food supply. The scientists collected and analyzed 136 samples of beef, chicken, pork and turkey sold under 80 brands in 26 retail grocery stores in Los Angeles, Chicago, Fort Lauderdale, Flagstaff and Washington, D.C. So where does this downright nauseating contamination come from? The TGen researchers reported that DNA testing shows the food the animals themselves were fed is likely the major source of contamination. “The fact that drug-resistant S. aureus was so prevalent, and likely came from the food animals themselves, is troubling, and demands attention to how antibiotics are used in food-animal production today,” Dr. Price added. The dirty truth many Americans — especially meat eaters — don’t want to face is that conditions on so-called industrial farms are not only often inhumane but downright sickening. Animals raised for slaughter are packed together densely and steadily fed low doses of antibiotics in their food. The new report concludes these industrial farms are the ideal breeding grounds for drug-resistant bacteria that can move from animals to the human population. “The emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria — including Staph — remains a major challenge in clinical medicine,” Paul S. Keim, Ph.D., Director of TGen’s Pathogen Genomics Division and Director of the Center for Microbial Genetics and Genomics at Northern Arizona University (NAU), emphasized in a media statement. “This study shows that much of our meat and poultry is contaminated with multidrug-resistant Staph. Now we need to determine what this means in terms of risk to the consumer,” Dr. Keim, a co-author of the paper, added. But doesn’t the U.S. government routinely survey retail meat and poultry for drug-resistant bacteria? The study points out the feds only check for four types of superbugs — but S. aureus is not among them. The paper urges a more comprehensive inspection program and points out S. aureus can cause devastating health problems. While it’s true Staph germs can usually be killed with proper cooking, the scientists pointed out Staph still poses a substantial health risk through improper food handling and cross-contamination in the kitchen. Infections with S. aureus can cause a range of illnesses from minor skin infections to life-threatening diseases, such as pneumonia, endocarditis (inflammation of the heart) and sepsis (infection in the bloodstream). And should you get one of these antibiotic-resistant strains from meat or poultry, treatment can be difficult. “Antibiotics are the most important drugs that we have to treat Staph infections; but when Staph are resistant to three, four, five or even nine different antibiotics –like we saw in this study — that leaves physicians few options,” Dr. Price stated. For more information: http://www.tgen.org/

Australia to outlaw thousands of plants, including national flower

(NaturalNews) In what it claims is an effort to stamp out plants and flowers that can be used as drugs, Australian authorities have proposed insane legislation that will outlaw hundreds, if not thousands, of common plant species, including the golden wattle, its national flower. If the law passes, nurseries, commercial growers, farmers, cactus collectors, and even backyard gardeners will become criminals overnight — even though many of the plants being targeted are not even used as drugs. Currently, only five plants are banned from cultivation in Australia because of their alleged inherent drug components. But the new legislation will ban from cultivation any plant that contains dimethyltryptamine (DMT), a naturally-occurring hallucinogen, which according to the Australian Attorney General includes many common and native plants, from various cacti and fodder grasses, to simple backyard ornamental plants. The entire list of plants slated for elimination can be viewed here: http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/alldoc/395048FB6D99F64ACA257803000541F1/$file/Discussion%20Paper%20-%20Implementation%20of%20model%20schedules%20for%20Commonwealth%20serious%20drug%20offences.pdf While DMT does have hallucinogenic properties, the component is found in literally thousands of plant species that are native to the Australian landscape. Farmers use many of the grasses and legumes on the list to feed their animals, for instance. Countless gardeners, landscapers, and plant collectors cultivate many of the plants on the list as well. And numerous seed banks that collect and save plant species will have to dump their seed stocks, should the legislation be passed. The proposal is an irresponsible, ill-derived threat to Australian freedom, and it needs to be stopped. The Australian Minister for Justice, the Hon Brendan O’Connor MP, is accepting public comments on the issue up until March 11, 2011. Those concerned are urged to send email opposition to: Criminal.Law@ag.gov.au. To learn more about the issue, please visit: http://www.gardenfreedom.com/

Monsanto’s Roundup Triggers Over 40 Plant Diseases and Endangers Human and Animal Health

The following article reveals the devastating and unprecedented impact that Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide is having on the health of our soil, plants, animals, and human population. On top of this perfect storm, the USDA now wants to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa, which will exacerbate this calamity. Please tell USDA Secretary Vilsack not to approve Monsanto’s alfalfa today . [Note: typos corrected from Jan 16th, see details ] While visiting a seed corn dealer’s demonstration plots in Iowa last fall, Dr. Don Huber walked passed a soybean field and noticed a distinct line separating severely diseased yellowing soybeans on the right from healthy green plants on the left (see photo). The yellow section was suffering from Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a serious plant disease that ravaged the Midwest in 2009 and ’10, driving down yields and profits. Something had caused that area of soybeans to be highly susceptible and Don had a good idea what it was. The diseased field on the right had glyphosate applied the previous season. Photo by Don Huber Don Huber spent 35 years as a plant pathologist at Purdue University and knows a lot about what causes green plants to turn yellow and die prematurely. He asked the seed dealer why the SDS was so severe in the one area of the field and not the other. “Did you plant something there last year that wasn’t planted in the rest of the field?” he asked. Sure enough, precisely where the severe SDS was, the dealer had grown alfalfa, which he later killed off at the end of the season by spraying a glyphosate-based herbicide (such as Roundup). The healthy part of the field, on the other hand, had been planted to sweet corn and hadn’t received glyphosate. This was yet another confirmation that Roundup was triggering SDS. In many fields, the evidence is even more obvious. The disease was most severe at the ends of rows where the herbicide applicator looped back to make another pass (see photo). That’s where extra Roundup was applied. Don’s a scientist; it takes more than a few photos for him to draw conclusions. But Don’s got more–lots more. For over 20 years, Don studied Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate. He’s one of the world’s experts. And he can rattle off study after study that eliminate any doubt that glyphosate is contributing not only to the huge increase in SDS, but to the outbreak of numerous other diseases. ( See selected reading list. ) Sudden Death Syndrome is more severe at the ends of rows, where Roundup dose is strongest. Photo by Amy Bandy. Roundup: The perfect storm for plant disease More than 30% of all herbicides sprayed anywhere contain glyphosate–the world’s bestselling weed killer. It was patented by Monsanto for use in their Roundup brand, which became more popular when they introduced “Roundup Ready” crops starting in 1996. These genetically modified (GM) plants, which now include soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, have inserted genetic material from viruses and bacteria that allows the crops to withstand applications of normally deadly Roundup. (Monsanto incentivizes farmers who buy Roundup Ready seeds to also use the company’s Roundup brand of glyphosate. For example, they only provide warranties on the approved herbicide brands and offer discounts through their “Roundup Rewards” program. This has extended the company’s grip on the glyphosate market, even after its patent expired in 2000.) The herbicide doesn’t destroy plants directly. It rather cooks up a unique perfect storm of conditions that revs up disease-causing organisms in the soil, and at the same time wipes out plant defenses against those diseases. The mechanisms are well-documented but rarely cited. The glyphosate molecule grabs vital nutrients and doesn’t let them go. This process is called chelation and was actually the original property for which glyphosate was patented in 1964. It was only 10 years later that it was patented as an herbicide. When applied to crops, it deprives them of vital minerals necessary for healthy plant function– especially for resisting serious soilborne diseases. The importance of minerals for protecting against disease is well established. In fact, mineral availability was the single most important measurement used by several famous plant breeders to identify disease-resistant varieties. Glyphosate annihilates beneficial soil organisms, such as Pseudomonas and Bacillus bacteria that live around the roots. Since they facilitate the uptake of plant nutrients and suppress disease-causing organisms, their untimely deaths means the plant gets even weaker and the pathogens even stronger. The herbicide can interfere with photosynthesis, reduce water use efficiency, lower lignin, damage and shorten root systems, cause plants to release important sugars, and change soil pH–all of which can negatively affect crop health. Glyphosate itself is slightly toxic to plants. It also breaks down slowly in soil to form another chemical called AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) which is also toxic. But even the combined toxic effects of glyphosate and AMPA are not sufficient on their own to kill plants. It has been demonstrated numerous times since 1984 that when glyphosate is applied in sterile soil, the plant may be slightly stunted, but it isn’t killed (see photo). Glyphosate with sterile soil (A) only stunts plant growth. In normal soil (B), pathogens kill the plant. Control (C) shows normal growth. The actual plant assassins, according to Purdue weed scientists and others, are severe disease-causing organisms present in almost all soils. Glyphosate dramatically promotes these, which in turn overrun the weakened crops with deadly infections. “This is the herbicidal mode of action of glyphosate,” says Don. “It increases susceptibility to disease, suppresses natural disease controls such as beneficial organisms, and promotes virulence of soilborne pathogens at the same time.” In fact, he points out that “If you apply certain fungicides to weeds, it destroys the herbicidal activity of glyphosate!” By weakening plants and promoting disease, glyphosate opens the door for lots of problems in the field. According to Don, “There are more than 40 diseases of crop plants that are reported to increase with the use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize the association between glyphosate and disease.” Roundup promotes human and animal toxins Photo by Robert Kremer Some of the fungi promoted by glyphosate produce dangerous toxins that can end up in food and feed. Sudden Death Syndrome, for example, is caused by the Fusarium fungus. USDA scientist Robert Kremer found a 500% increase in Fusarium root infection of Roundup Ready soybeans when glyphosate is applied (see photos and chart). Corn, wheat, and many other plants can also suffer from serious Fusarium -based diseases. But Fusarium’s wrath is not limited to plants. According to a report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization , toxins from Fusarium on various types of food crops have been associated with disease outbreaks throughout history. They’ve “been linked to the plague epidemics” of medieval Europe, “large-scale human toxicosis in Eastern Europe,” oesophageal cancer in southern Africa and parts of China, joint diseases in Asia and southern Africa, and a blood disorder in Russia. Fusarium toxins have also been shown to cause animal diseases and induce infertility. As Roundup use rises, plant disease skyrockets When Roundup Ready crops were introduced in 1996, Monsanto boldly claimed that herbicide use would drop as a result. It did–slightly–for three years. But over the next 10 years, it grew considerably. Total herbicide use in the US jumped by a whopping 383 million pounds in the 13 years after GMOs came on the scene. The greatest contributor is Roundup. Over time, many types of weeds that would once keel over with just a tiny dose of Roundup now require heavier and heavier applications. Some are nearly invincible. In reality, these super-weeds are resistant not to the glyphosate itself, but to the soilborne pathogens that normally do the killing in Roundup sprayed fields. Having hundreds of thousands of acres infested with weeds that resist plant disease and weed killer has been devastating to many US farmers, whose first response is to pour on more and more Roundup. Its use is now accelerating. Nearly half of the huge 13-year increase in herbicide use took place in just the last 2 years. This has serious implications. As US farmers drench more than 135 million acres of Roundup Ready crops with Roundup, plant diseases are enjoying an unprecedented explosion across America’s most productive crop lands. Don rattles off a lengthy list of diseases that were once under effective management and control, but are now creating severe hardship. (The list includes SDS and Corynespora root rot of soybeans, citrus variegated chlorosis (CVC), Fusarium wilt of cotton, Verticillium wilt of potato, take-all root, crown, and stem blight of cereals, Fusarium root and crown rot, Fusarium head blight, Pythium root rot and damping off, Goss’ wilt of corn, and many more.) In Brazil, the new “Mad Soy Disease” is ravaging huge tracts of soybean acreage. Although scientists have not yet determined its cause, Don points out that various symptoms resemble a rice disease (bakanae) which is caused by Fusarium . Corn dies young In recent years, corn plants and entire fields in the Midwest have been dying earlier and earlier due to various diseases. Seasoned and observant farmers say they’re never seen anything like it. “A decade ago, corn plants remained green and healthy well into September,” says Bob Streit, an agronomist in Iowa. “But over the last three years, diseases have turned the plants yellow, then brown, about 8 to 10 days earlier each season. In 2010, yellowing started around July 7th and yield losses were devastating for many growers.” Bob and other crop experts believe that the increased use of glyphosate is the primary contributor to this disease trend. It has already reduced corn yields significantly. “If the corn dies much earlier,” says Bob, “it might collapse the corn harvest in the US, and threaten the food chain that it supports.” A question of bugs In addition to promoting plant diseases, which is well-established, spraying Roundup might also promote insects. That’s because many bugs seek sick plants. Scientists point out that healthy plants produce nutrients in a form that many insects cannot assimilate. Thus, farmers around the world report less insect problems among high quality, nutrient-dense crops. Weaker plants, on the other hand, create insect smorgasbords. This suggests that plants ravaged with diseases promoted by glyphosate may also attract more insects, which in turn will increase the use of toxic pesticides. More study is needed to confirm this. Roundup persists in the environment Monsanto used to boast that Roundup is biodegradable, claiming that it breaks down quickly in the soil. But courts in the US and Europe disagreed and found them guilty of false advertising. In fact, Monsanto’s own test data revealed that only 2% of the product broke down after 28 days. Whether glyphosate degrades in weeks, months, or years varies widely due to factors in the soil, including pH, clay , types of minerals, residues from Roundup Ready crops, and the presence of the specialized enzymes needed to break down the herbicide molecule. In some conditions, glyphosate can grab hold of soil nutrients and remain stable for long periods. One study showed that it took up to 22 years for glyphosate to degrade only half its volume! So much for trusting Monsanto’s product claims. Glyphosate can attack from above and below. It can drift over from a neighbors farm and wreak havoc. And it can even be released from dying weeds, travel through the soil, and then be taken up by healthy crops. The amount of glyphosate that can cause damage is tiny. European scientists demonstrated that less than half an ounce per acre inhibits the ability of plants to take up and transport essential micronutrients (see chart). As a result, more and more farmers are finding that crops planted in years after Roundup is applied suffer from weakened defenses and increased soilborne diseases. The situation is getting worse for many reasons. The glyphosate concentration in the soil builds up season after season with each subsequent application. Glyphosate can also accumulate for 6-8 years inside perennial plants like alfalfa, which get sprayed over and over. Wheat affected after 10 years of glyphosate field applications. Glyphosate residues in the soil that become bound and immobilized can be reactivated by the application of phosphate fertilizers or through other methods. Potato growers in the West and Midwest, for example, have experienced severe losses from glyphosate that has been reactivated. Glyphosate can find its way onto farmland accidentally, through drifting spray, in contaminated water , and even through chicken manure! Imagine the shock of farmers who spread chicken manure in their fields to add nutrients, but instead found that the glyphosate in the manure tied up nutrients in the soil, promoted plant disease, and killed off weeds or crops. Test results of the manure showed glyphosate/AMPA concentrations at a whopping 0.36-0.75 parts per million (ppm). The normal herbicidal rate of glyphosate is about 0.5 ppm/acre. Manure from other animals may also be spreading the herbicide, since US livestock consume copious amounts of glyphosate–which accumulates in corn kernels and soybeans. If it isn’t found in livestock manure (or urine), that may be even worse. If glyphosate is not exiting the animal, it must be accumulating with every meal, ending up in our meat and possibly milk. Add this threat to the already high glyphosate residues inside our own diets due to corn and soybeans, and we have yet another serious problem threatening our health. Glyphosate has been linked to sterility, hormone disruption, abnormal and lower sperm counts, miscarriages, placental cell death, birth defects, and cancer, to name a few. ( See resource list on glyphosate health effects. ) Nutrient loss in humans and animals The same nutrients that glyphosate chelates and deprives plants are also vital for human and animal health. These include iron, zinc, copper, manganese, magnesium, calcium, boron, and others. Deficiencies of these elements in our diets, alone or in combination, are known to interfere with vital enzyme systems and cause a long list of disorders and diseases. Alzheimer’s, for example, is linked with reduced copper and magnesium. Don Huber points out that this disease has jumped 9000% since 1990. Manganese, zinc, and copper are also vital for proper functioning of the SOD (superoxide dismustase) cycle. This is key for stemming inflammation and is an important component in detoxifying unwanted chemical compounds in humans and animals. Glyphosate-induced mineral deficiencies can easily go unidentified and untreated. Even when laboratory tests are done, they can sometimes detect adequate mineral levels, but miss the fact that glyphosate has already rendered them unusable. Glyphosate can tie up minerals for years and years, essentially removing them from the pool of nutrients available for plants, animals, and humans. If we combine the more than 135 million pounds of glyphosate-based herbicides applied in the US in 2010 with total applications over the past 30 years, we may have already eliminated millions of pounds of nutrients from our food supply. This loss is something we simply can’t afford. We’re already suffering from progressive nutrient deprivation even without Roundup. In a UK study, for example, they found between 16-76% less nutrients in 1991, compared to levels in the same foods in 1940. Livestock disease and mineral deficiency Roundup Ready crops dominate US livestock feed. Soy and corn are most prevalent–93% of US soy and nearly 70% of corn are Roundup Ready. Animals are also fed derivatives of the other three Roundup Ready crops: canola, sugar beets, and cottonseed. Nutrient loss from glyphosate can therefore be severe. This is especially true for manganese (Mn), which is not only chelated by glyphosate, but also reduced in Roundup Ready plants (see photo). One veterinarian finds low manganese in every livestock liver he measures. Another vet sent the liver of a stillborn calf out for testing. The lab report stated: No Detectible Levels of Manganese– in spite of the fact that the mineral was in adequate concentrations in his region. When that vet started adding manganese to the feed of a herd, disease rates dropped from a staggering 20% to less than ?%. Veterinarians who started their practice after GMOs were introduced in 1996 might assume that many chronic or acute animal disorders are common and to be expected. But several older vets have stated flat out that animals have gotten much sicker since GMOs came on the scene. And when they switch livestock from GMO to non-GMO feed, the improvement in health is dramatic. Unfortunately, no one is tracking this, nor is anyone looking at the impacts of consuming milk and meat from GM-fed animals. Alfalfa madness, brought to you by Monsanto and the USDA As we continue to drench our fields with Roundup, the perfect storm gets bigger and bigger. Don asks the sobering question: “How much of the hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate that have been applied to our most productive farm soils over the past 30 years is still available to damage subsequent crops through its effects on nutrient availability, increased disease, or reduced nutrient of our food and feed?” Instead of taking urgent steps to protect our land and food, the USDA just made plans to make things worse. In December they released their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Roundup Ready alfalfa, which Monsanto hopes to reintroduce to the market. Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop in the US, grown on 22 million acres. It is used primarily as a high protein source to feed dairy cattle and other ruminant animals. At present, weeds are not a big deal for alfalfa. Only 7% of alfalfa acreage is ever sprayed with an herbicide of any kind. If Roundup Ready alfalfa is approved, however, herbicide use would jump to unprecedented levels, and the weed killer of choice would of course be Roundup. Even without the application of glyphosate, the nutritional quality of Roundup Ready alfalfa will be less, since Roundup Ready crops, by their nature, have reduced mineral . When glyphosate is applied, nutrient quality suffers even more (see chart). The chance that Roundup would increase soilborne diseases in alfalfa fields is a near certainty. In fact, Alfalfa may suffer more than other Roundup Ready crops. As a perennial, it can accumulate Roundup year after year. It is a deep-rooted plant, and glyphosate leaches into sub soils. And ” Fusarium is a very serious pathogen of alfalfa,” says Don. “So too are Phytophthora and Pythium ,” both of which are promoted by glyphosate. “Why would you even consider jeopardizing the productivity and nutrient quality of the third most valuable crop in the US?” he asks in frustration, “especially since we have no way of removing the gene once it is spread throughout the alfalfa gene pool.” It’s already spreading. Monsanto had marketed Roundup Ready alfalfa for a year, until a federal court declared its approval to be illegal in 2007. They demanded that the USDA produce an EIS in order to account for possible environmental damage. But even with the seeds taken off the market, the RR alfalfa that had already been planted has been contaminating non-GMO varieties. Cal/West Seeds, for example, discovered that more than 12% of their seed lots tested positive for contamination in 2009, up from 3% in 2008. In their EIS, the USDA does acknowledge that genetically modified alfalfa can contaminate organic and non-GMO alfalfa, and that this could create economic hardship. They are even considering the unprecedented step of placing restrictions on RR alfalfa seed fields, requiring isolation distances. Experience suggests that this will slow down, but not eliminate GMO contamination. Furthermore, studies confirm that genes do transfer from GM crops into soil and soil organisms, and can jump into fungus through cuts on the surface of GM plants. But the EIS does not adequately address these threats and their implications. Instead, the USDA largely marches lock-step with the biotech industry and turns a blind eye to the widespread harm that Roundup is already inflicting. If they decide to approve Monsanto’s alfalfa, the USDA may ultimately be blamed for a catastrophe of epic proportions. Please send a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack , urging him not to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa, and to fully investigate the damage that Roundup and GMOs are already inflicting.

Warning: Scientists discover mad cow disease-causing prions infect through air

(NaturalNews) Cancer and Alzheimer’s disease are usually described as the two most dreaded health disorders. But there is probably no more ghastly way to suffer and inevitably die than to contract so-called mad cow disease or Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Prions are known to cause mad cow disease, also termed bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and Creutzfeldt-Jakob in humans. These infectious agents produce a progressive and always lethal break-down of brain cells; they literally turn brains into sponge-like mush. It is well established that these nightmarish infections can be spread by surgical instruments contaminated by prions and, more rarely, through blood transfusions. Food made from BSE-infected cows can also induce the disease. But mainstream medicine has long insisted that prions can’t cause disease in the way common flu or cold viruses do — by traveling through the air and being inhaled into the body. In fact, the scientific community has long declared that airborne prions are no threat to health. Turns out, they’ve made a deadly and dangerous mistake. Swiss scientists at the University of Zurich, the University Hospital Zurich and the University of Tubingen have discovered and documented for the first time that inhaling prions can induce mad cow-type disease. What makes this especially alarming is that at the present time scientific laboratories, animal feed factories, slaughterhouses and other environments where prions could well be found do not have stringent measures in place to keep prions from floating around in the air — and that means there’s no protction for humans or animals breathing breathing potentially prion-laden air in these places. The team of Swiss scientists, headed by Professor Adriano Aguzzi, placed both immunodeficient and totally healthy mice in special inhalation chambers and then exposed them to aerosols containing prions. The results? Inhaling prions induced disease with what the researchers called “frightening efficiency”. Just a single minute of exposure to the prion containing aerosols was sufficient to infect 100% of the animals, Professor Aguzzi noted in a statement to the media. He added that the findings were entirely unexpected and appear to contradict the widely held view that airborne prions are innocuous. The study, just published in the journal PLoS Pathogens , also found that the longer the exposure lasted, the shorter the time of incubation in the prion breathing mice and the sooner clinical signs of brain-destroying prion disease occurred. When inhaled, prions apparently transfer directly from the airways and rapidly colonize the brain. The researchers concluded that their new findings suggest “…it may be advisable to consider the possibility of airborne prion transmission, and to create regulations aimed at minimizing the prion infection risks to humans and animals.” Editor’s note: NaturalNews is opposed to the use of animals in medical experiments that expose them to harm. We present these findings in protest of the way in which they were acquired. For more information: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1001257

« Previous Page — Next Page »