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.

BPA exposure before birth linked to breast cancer

(NaturalNews) To many people interested in healthy living, the term BPA is nothing new. It stands for bisphenol A, an industrial chemical used in many hard plastic bottles and metal-based food and beverage cans since the 1960s. A known hormone disruptor, BPA is hard to avoid. But once you learn about its dangers, you know why it’s worth the effort to look for BPA-free products. For example, NaturalNews has carried story after story about evidence that links BPA to all sorts of serious health problems from cancer, kidney and developmental problems to heart disease and diabetes (http://www.naturalnews.com/024207_BPA_health_plastics.html#ixzz1ZfCMqUyV). Now there’s breaking research news showing how BPA could be doing harm inside the bodies of babies even before they are born. Another modern day plague is also associated with prenatal BPA exposure — breast cancer. A recent study conducted by scientists at the Swiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research found that exposure in the womb to the kinds of BPA doses that are widespread in the environment alters long-term hormone response in females. The study, which is set for publication in Molecular Endocrinology , a journal of the Endocrine Society, shows BPA can cause dangerous changes in breast development that increase the odds of developing cancer. The scientists pointed out in a media statement that although their BPA study used animals, it mimicked the exposure humans typically have to the compound as it leaches from BPA-containing plastics, such as beverage bottles, and the lining of tin cans. The research team added the chemical to the drinking water of breeding mice. Then, after weaning, the female mice from BPA-drinking parents were moved to a BPA-free environment and followed over time. The researchers analyzed changes in the mammary glands of female offspring exposed to BPA through their mothers both before birth and while being breast fed and discovered BPA exposed females showed an increased response to the hormone progesterone. This is a crucial point because lifetime exposure to progesterone is associated with an increased risk for breast cancer. What’s more, the researchers found that adult females who had been exposed to BPA while in the womb and breast fed had a 1.5 fold increase in cell numbers in their milk ducts. They may not sound like such a big deal but consider this: it is comparable to what’s seen with similar exposure to diethyllbestrol (DES), another estrogenic compound. And DES, widely prescribed by mainstream doctors to millions of pregnant U.S. women for over 30 years as a “safe” treatment to prevent miscarriages, was eventually found to cause horrific health problems in later life to the children of those women. A lesson from the DES nightmare Although DES use was halted in l971, health problems continue to haunt, and sometimes kill, the children of the women who took the drug, including many who had no idea their mothers were given the dangerous “miscarriage treatment.” In general, women whose mothers took DES reached their young adulthood before problems started showing up — including the inability to have children due to a misshapen uterus and cancer. According to the Swiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research scientists, DES in the human population has been shown to increase the relative risk of women developing breast cancer two-fold by the time they reach their fifties. BPA, unlike DES, is not a prescribed drug that can be taken off the market. It is already widespread and is now detected in body fluids of more than 90 percent of the human population — which means it could be putting far more people at risk for health problems than even the large numbers exposed to DES. Long known to have estrogen-like properties, many scientists have expressed concern exposure to BPA could have developmental effects on various hormone-responsive organs including the breasts. However, the FDA has continued to “study” the problem and do little to actually protect the public from BPA. In fact, the feds have been far more aggressive going after people selling unpasteurized milk than mega corporations manufacturing and selling BPA loaded products. The latest official statement from the US government this year noted that “On the basis of results from recent studies using novel approaches to test for subtle effects, both the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health and FDA have some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children. In cooperation with the National Toxicology Program, FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research is carrying out in-depth studies to answer key questions and clarify uncertainties about the risks of BPA.” That’s right. The FDA only has “some” concern and they are waiting on the completion of other studies before taking a meaningful stand on the safety of BPA — as if there were not already multiple studies completed by numerous scientists providing evidence that BPA is a clear and present risk to the human population. “While we cannot extrapolate these results directly from mice to humans, the possibility that some of the increase in breast cancer incidence observed over the past decades may be attributed to exposure to BPA cannot be dismissed,” Cathrin Brisken, MD, of the Swiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research and co-author of the study, said in a statement to the media. “Our study suggests that pregnant and breastfeeding mothers should avoid exposure to BPA as it may affect their daughters breast tissue.” [Editor's Note: NaturalNews is strongly against the use of all forms of animal testing. We fully support implementation of humane medical experimentation that promotes the health and wellbeing of all living creatures.] Sources for this article include: http://mend.endojournals.org/ http://www.endo-society.org/ http://www.naturalnews.com/BPA.html http://www.naturalnews.com/024207_BPA_health_plastics.html http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/DES

NaturalNews pledges $15,000 to the IRT in matching fund donations to help end GMOs

(NaturalNews) We are on the verge of achieving a significant milestone in the fight to eradicate GMOs from the U.S. food supply. A California ballot initiative has just been launched that seeks to put a mandatory GMO labeling requirement in place (http://www.naturalnews.com/033763_GMOs_California_ballot_initiative.html). This, in turn, would result in nearly all U.S. food producers discontinuing the use of GMOs to avoid the embarrassment of having to admit GMOs on their labels. Yesterday I released a groundbreaking interview with Ronnie Cummins of the OCA who explained how this law works and why it could be a “death blow” to GMOs. Click this link to listen to that interview on SoundCloud: http://soundcloud.com/naturalnews/ronnie-cummins-gmo-labeling-ballot Today we posted an interview with Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT). He explains that victory against GMOs is well within our reach, but your support is needed. The IRT is teaching people how to speak about GMOs, and it’s a very effective strategy for raising awareness. I met the CEO of Beanitos (www.Beanitos.com) at the anti-GMO rally in Austin last weekend, and it turns out that he has taken Jeffrey Smith’s course, too, and now he’s speaking out against GMOs! When people know how dangerous GMOs are to their health — and to the environment — they suddenly “get it” that removing genetically engineered ingredients from the food supply is the No.1 priority for protecting public health and the future of sustainable agriculture for our world. We can’t do this without your support Your help is greatly needed at this hour for people like Jeffrey Smith to continue his education and awareness efforts. The IRT, not surprisingly, receives no grant money from the federal government. There are no big corporate advertisers who fund the non-profit with millions of dollars. The IRT is a small but amazingly effective organization funded by people like you and mission-driven groups like NaturalNews. That’s why we’re announcing today our donation of $15,000 in matching funds to the IRT. For every dollar donated to the IRT (which is an IRS-approved non-profit) by NaturalNews readers, we will match it up to a total of $15,000. Our goal is to raise $30,000 for the IRT. It’s not a lot compared to the millions being spent by companies like Monsanto, but it’s enough to help the IRT hire one employee to help coordinate the army of volunteers who are hard at work around the country and across the globe educating people about GMOs. Click this link to make a donation to the IRT today: http://responsibletechnology.org/friends Whatever you can donate — ten dollars, twenty-five dollars or even a hundred — gets DOUBLED by NaturalNews (up to $15,000 total). This is your opportunity to help support victory against GMOs, so that when we all look back at this in five years, we can say, “I was part of that victory! I supported it!” And YES, I believe we can achieve complete victory against GMOs in the United States within the next five years . Before long, we will see one company after another announcing they are dropping GMOs and removing genetically engineered ingredients from their products. All it takes is more awareness about the public health and environmental dangers of GMOs, and that’s exactly what Jeffrey Smith and the IRT are very, very good at accomplishing. This is a time of year, by the way, that many grassroots organizations are asking for financial support from their members, but notice something interesting here: NaturalNews isn’t asking for donations to NaturalNews; we’re asking for your help in supporting the IRT! And we’re backing that up with $15,000 of our own money, too, because we believe so strongly in what the IRT is doing. This donation could never have been possible without your support of our NaturalNews Store, and your support of our sponsors whose banner ads you see on the right side of every article we post. Thank you to our sponsors for giving us the opportunity to make such an important financial contribution to the IRT. Click here to listen to my full interview with Jeffrey Smith (just posted yesterday) on SoundCloud, where he lays out the milestones of victory against GMOs. Or click here to get the MP3 file directly from NaturalNews: http://www.naturalnews.com/files/GMO-update-Jeffrey-Smith.mp3 You can also read the highlights of this interview at: http://www.naturalnews.com/033771_Jeffrey_Smith_GMOs.html Watch my recent speech on the steps of the Texas state capitol building in Austin, where I speak about protecting life from the scourge of GMOs: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=F2537B7C2992CE627CFDE768FD192F99 With a little financial help, Jeffrey Smith and the IRT can do even more! If you agree that this is a worthy cause, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the IRT today. Jeffrey has spent many months, tirelessly traveling across India and around the globe, gathering film footage and interviews with farmers, regulators and everyday people who have amazing stories about GMOs. Financial support is needed to organize all these amazing true stories Jeffrey has gathered and help package them into videos and interviews that can be released to the public. Your donation to the IRT can help further this effort to expand awareness of GMOs to the point of critical mass — the tipping point — where the giant food producers in America abandon GMOs for good. So please, if you believe in this cause, help support the IRT with whatever donation you feel is appropriate. Click this link to donate to the IRT now: http://responsibletechnology.org/friends As the editor of NaturalNews.com, I thank you for your support. Every dollar is needed in this grassroots battle against the domineering, greed-driven corporations that are attempting to monopolize the world’s food supply. For the sake of our children — and our environment — we must resist these corporate seed tyrants and restore sanity to food production ! This effort will require commitment, and volunteers… and financial resources. People like Jeffrey Smith bring the commitment to use the financial resources that are available to their best strategic use in achieving the ultimate goal here. And what ultimate goal is that? The complete removal of genetically engineered ingredients from the global food supply . That goal is achievable! Your donation can help make it a reality. We are fighting for the future of life on our planet Thank you for helping this critically important cause in this time of great need. We are all quite literally fighting for the future of life on our planet here. We are fighting to save the seeds, to save sustainable agriculture and to protect the seeds of human life as well — the fertility of the human race. I believe there is no more important opportunity at our feet than this one. It begs for our action and demands resistance to that which is evil and destructive. If you believe in life, and light, and the protection of the very seeds which have sustained human civilization from its inception, help support this epic victory in the name of Mother Nature . Your donation can make a significant different right now, and your prayers and meditations are also welcomed as well. Let us achieve victory in the name of Mother Nature against Monsanto and the “scientific” seed destroyers of our world. Let us protect that which is sacred to life. Let us have the strength and the courage to face great evil in this time of great need, to see through the deceptions, to connect with the seeds of the Earth, to hold sacred those foods which have sustained human life on this planet, and to halt the enemies of life with the power of truth, and justice, and light. This is a moment in history in which we understand who we really are, as we realize that our actions define us . And although there are corporate betrayers who have decided to worship greed and monopolistic control in their quest for domination and power, the rest of us actually hold far greater power in the fact that we have decided to pursue truth and justice in the name of protecting life on our planet. That is a decision I made long ago, and it’s why I serve as the editor of NaturalNews. It’s why we work tirelessly, night after night, compiling interviews, articles and videos to raise awareness and teach the principles of natural healing, personal liberty and global justice. There is no greater and more humbling work than to serve in the protection of life and Mother Nature, and that’s exactly why this campaign to end GMOs means so much to me. Please join us in our efforts. Thank you for your support. – Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, editor of NaturalNews.com

Is crude oil still gushing in the Gulf? New ten-mile oil slick spotted near Deepwater Horizon

(NaturalNews) Roughly a year and a half after the BP oil disaster left the Gulf of Mexico saturated with crude oil and toxic Corexit chemicals, new evidence has surfaced showing what appears to be more crude oil spewing into the ocean. Raw Story explains that Dr. Bonny Schumaker, founder of OnWingsOfCare.org, a nonprofit organization devoted to protecting and preserving wildlife and the environment, recently spotted a ten-mile-long oil slick near the BP Macondo oil well that was supposedly capped shut. Dr. Schumaker’s video of the oil slick, which was uploaded to YouTube on August 30, 2011, can be viewed here: http://youtu.be/mlWKptW74CY On September 18, 2010, The Washington Post reported that the BP Macondo oil well was officially dead, adding the US government’s declaration that the well was “physically incapable of leaking another drop (of oil)” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/17/AR2010091706725.html). But Dr. Schumaker’s stunning flyover suggests otherwise, revealing what appears to be endless, wispy streams of oil continuing to trail through Gulf waters. Dr. Schumaker was not the only one to spot the oil, either. Two men from Louisiana State University (LSU) last week took a boat out to the area near the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and they, too, spotted oil slicks all around their boat. They also saw numerous oil “blooms” rising to the top of the water, which indicate perpetual leaks coming from somewhere on the ocean floor. You can view their video here: http://video-embed.al.com/services/player/bcpid634644574001?bctid=1127508644001 BP, of course, denies that the oil leaks are connected to the Macondo well. If it is later determined, however, that the well is still leaking, or that BP’s drilling operations have caused fissures elsewhere that are now producing the leaks, the company may incur further liability, particularly from suits that were previously dismissed on the assumption that the well had been capped and that cleanup was already in progress (http://www.myweathertech.com/2011/06/18/federal-judge-rules-bp-not-responsible-for-clean-up-tax-payers-are/). Sources for this story include: http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/new-evidence-of-a-massive-oil-slick-near-deepwater-horizon-site/

Exposed: California officials manipulated safety data on methyl iodide, ignored scientist warnings against approving deadly strawberry chemical

(NaturalNews) Many of those plump, juicy strawberries found on produce section shelves are hiding a deadly little secret. In 2010, regulators in California, where over 90 percent of conventional strawberries are grown, quietly approved the use of toxic methyl iodide as a fruit pesticide after the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved it nationally. But new evidence has now surfaced that government officials twisted study data to make the chemical falsely appear safe in order to get it approved — and individuals everywhere are now increasingly demanding that methyl iodide be banned. A recent report from Mother Jones explains that the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) cherry-picked data from varying studies on methyl iodide in order to paint the chemical in an artificially positive light. The agency then used this deceptive data to justify allowing smaller buffer zones between farms that use methyl iodide and farms that do not use methyl iodide. DPR also used the flawed data to increase the permitted spray concentration maximum for the chemical. Early on, DPR’s own scientists decried the agency’s intended actions, having noted in an internal memo that numbers cited in the agency’s report endorsing methyl iodide had been extracted from “different risk assessment methodologies that are not interchangeable.” They added that such data was “not scientifically credible,” and that any data of that type is only accurate when compiled from the same source. But DPR refused to listen to these scientists, and instead approved methyl iodide in spite of the evidence against it. Not long after, environmental protection groups, farmers, and ordinary citizens together sparked a burgeoning battle to force the state to ban methyl iodide, including a recent rally that took place on the steps of the California State Capital. Methyl iodide causes miscarriages, thyroid dysfunction, cancer Arysta LifeScience, the chemical company that produces methyl iodide, claims that it is largely safe, and that the neurotoxic damage it can cause is “transient.” But according to data cited by leading scientists, this is simply not the case, and permanent brain damage can ensue from exposure to methyl iodide. Back in 2007 before methyl iodide’s approval, a group of more than 35 esteemed scientists wrote a letter to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) urging it to deny approval for the chemical on the grounds that it is “highly toxic,” and has a “significant adverse impact on public health.” After methyl iodide was approved anyway, the same group sent another letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson once again urging the agency to withdraw approval for the chemical (http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/Jackson_MeI_5-7-11_Final-1.pdf). “Due to the potent toxicity of methyl iodide, its transport and ultimate fate in the environment, adequate control of human exposure would be difficult, if not impossible,” wrote scientists from California’s Scientific Review Committee (SRC) concerning methyl iodide. “We have concluded there is little doubt that the compound possesses significant toxicity.” SRC’s thorough report also notes that, despite claims made by Arysta about methyl iodide’s supposedly transient neurotoxicity, “no robust studies of neurotoxicity (were) actually conducted.” If they had been, it would have been revealed, of course, that methyl iodide is a highly neurotoxic substance that is known and recognized by the state of California to cause cancer (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/files/P65single061308.pdf). Methyl iodide, of course, is the same chemical that scientists have used to deliberately create cancer cells in laboratories for research purposes that is how powerfully dangerous it is! The Pesticide Action Network – North America (PANNA) also notes that methyl iodide is responsible for causing late-term miscarriages as well, especially at the 100 pounds (lbs) per acre spread rate to which it has been approved for California strawberries (http://www.panna.org/cancer-free-strawberries). Methyl iodide has no legitimate place in American agriculture On December 30, 2010, Earthjustice and California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. filed a lawsuit against DPR for approving of methyl iodide, which ignored all available evidence against the chemical, as well as the more than 53,000 comments submitted by Californians against the chemical’s use. The use of methyl iodide violates the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Birth Defects Prevention Act, and the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act, according to the suit. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of PANNA and numerous other groups representing farmers and consumers, many of whom stand to be affected most by the pumping of soils with toxic methyl iodide gas. Many of the farm fields that spray methyl iodide are located directly near homes and schools, where high-risk individuals like pregnant mothers and young children face routine exposure. In truth, there really is no need to use methyl iodide on strawberries, peppers, or any of the other varieties of produce for which it has been approved. Several large strawberry growers, including Swanton Berry, Driscoll’s, and Martinez Farms, have been able to develop thriving organic strawberry operations that require no pesticides — surely the rest can make modifications to avoid pumping toxic poisons into the soils of one of America’s major produce production regions. Sources for this story include: http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/08/california-methyl-iodide-scientists http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/07/methyl-iodide-controversy_n_602904.html http://www.pesticidereform.org/article.php?id=342

U.S. corporations set to profit well from ‘green’ light bulb production in China, with Treasury Department help

(NaturalNews) Have you heard about those expensive new “green” light bulbs the government will force you to begin using next year? The reasoning behind a law that requires a phase-out of the current incandescent bulbs in favor of the new green bulbs – the latter are more efficient and better for the environment – might be a good idea the surface. But when you find out the same government that is forcing us to begin paying $2-$3 each for light bulbs is not only involved financially with the deal, but is helping to fund the Chinese company that will be making the bulbs, the good intentions begin to lose their luster. According to a recent published report, two U.S. corporations – banking monster Goldman Sachs and networking giant Cisco – have invested mightily in Chinese lighting maker NVC Lighting Holding Co. Ltd., a Cayman Islands-listed firm that was founded in 1998. Goldman Sachs, via its Asian subsidiary, and Cisco, through its investment vehicle SAIF, or SB Asian Investment Fund, began buying the stock in 2008 and 2006 respectively. The lighting company went public in 2010 on the Hong Kong stock exchange, and both SAIF and Goldman Sachs were represented on the board. At the time of NVC’s share offering, SAIF was listed as the largest single shareholder. In fact, SAIF owned 36 percent of NVC’s shares, while Goldman Sachs initially owned about 11 percent, which has dropped to 9.36 percent. The initial buy-ins were particularly timely, because the law requiring a phase-out of old bulbs was passed in 2007. And shortly thereafter NVC, China’s premier lighting company, began a multi-million dollar marketing campaign to make sure that China is successful in manufacturing a huge portion of the new green bulbs Americans and other Westerners are going to be required to use. That’s a nice little financial arrangement if you can get it. Enter the Treasury Department. This entire effort to enrich China’s dominant lighting firm, as well as the U.S. corporations “lucky enough” to have bought into the company just in time , is being funded by a financing vehicle known as the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). And the Treasury Department is a major contributor to the GEF. Overseas sales accounted for 20 percent of NVC’s revenues last year, but the company says it hopes to increase that to 50 percent in the “near future,” according to the company’s prospectus . NVC wants to capture about 21 percent of a $39 billion global industry over the next three years. And, one of the major factors in that growth is the mega-million dollar GEF project. The U.S. (meaning, you ) has contributed $90 million to the fund this year alone, and plans to contribute another $575 million between 2011 and 2014. So in essence, American taxpayers are subsidizing the growth of a Chinese lighting company so it can sell expensive, government-mandated light bulbs back to us, while a pair of well-positioned U.S. corporations profit, all while ensuring that more Chinese workers are employed as the U.S. unemployment rate continues to hover near double digits. Didn’t President Obama just give a jobs speech the other night? Sources: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/06/us-firms-set-to-profit-from-green-light-bulb-production-in-china/#ixzz1XG3jgZwc http://www.nvc-lighting.com/upfile/relations/Prospectus(En).pdf

OP-ED COLUMNIST; New Farmers Find Their Footing

Mark Bittman Op-Ed column welcomes the growing pool of sustainable farmers, noting that everyone benefits from their concern for the environment and desire to grow, and eat, better food; holds that these new farmers deserve recognition for their bold and often creative programs

Cancer is curable NOW! Thirty experts reveal most advanced and effective cancer treatments and cures available today

(NaturalNews) Alternative cancer treatment has grown into a powerful movement that is catching on quickly all over the world — a movement which will finally reveal the ignorance of conventional treatments by showing how cancer is ALREADY curable right now: not with medicine or drugs, but with knowledge. Marcus Freudenmann and his wife Sabrina, a naturopathic doctor, traveled the world with their four children for almost three years in order to meet experts in the field of alternative cancer treatment. Their mission was to create a film about natural cancer treatments that would “wake up the world.” The new feature-length documentary available on NaturalNews and NaturalNews.TV, called CANCER is Curable NOW , might be exactly the eye-opening breakthrough that does just that. This documentary is powerful enough to bring millions of people to alternative cancer treatments. The more people who witness countless others getting well by doing these non-toxic treatments, the faster these remarkable alternative treatments will catch on. Click here to watch the amazing two-minute video trailer about this remarkable documentary . The combined knowledge of thirty holistic healing experts CANCER is Curable NOW pulls together wisdom from more than 30 international holistic professionals who have been working passionately in the field of cancer alternatives — doctors, scientists, researchers and writers from around the world. Most of us have probably heard about many of these experts in books and on television, but this documentary brings their knowledge together and condenses the most important elements into a 90-minute documentary that will forever enlighten you on the REAL cures for cancer. To create this film, Marcus and Sabrina interviewed a vast array of experts from both the English-speaking world and foreign locales, such as doctors from cancer clinics in Mexico and Germany. The documentary allows viewers to experience the treatments used in the top clinics around the world such as ozone therapy, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, insulin potentiated treatments and all the forms of hyperthermia — AND hear the top doctors from these clinics explaining in depth how each treatment works. Delivering nearly two hours of groundbreaking wisdom on healing cancer using alternative methods, this professionally-composed movie is presented in an honest, yet light-hearted manner, combined with impressive 3D animations and cartoons to break up the serious nature of the topic. Click here to check it out right now . The awakening has begun CANCER is Curable NOW shows how alternative cancer treatment has grown into a commanding movement that’s gathering power and momentum, growing much faster than almost anyone anticipated. An ever-growing number of talented people are involved in this rapidly occurring shift of consciousness, and by viewing this video, you can tune in to the latest groundbreaking therapies that are reversing cancers in people across the world right now. More and more patients are simply turning to the doctors and treatments that work rather than wasting their time with toxic conventional treatments that only harm them. CANCER is Curable NOW advises viewers to vote with their money and take their business to those who promote HEALING rather than toxic treatments. Thanks to the rapidly growing population of people who are aware of the success of alternative treatments, within a couple of decades, conventional medicine as we know it could very well be dead and gone. The kind of MDs that exist today will either be nonexistent, or they will have learned about supplements, good nutrition, hyperthermia, ozone therapy and the many other treatments they now mistakenly call “quackery.” As one expert says in the film, someday people will look back and wonder “what kind of Neanderthals we were” for practicing surgery, radiation and chemotherapy (or, cut, burn and poison). He also calls conventional approach to cancer treatment “Medieval.” Giving just one example, this same expert points out there is no proof that mastectomy — removal of the whole breast — extends the life of breast cancer patients at all, yet doctors go right on doing it on a regular basis. The women undergoing these treatments are scarred for life. Some doctors even push mastectomies as a cancer prevention method for women who haven’t even been diagnosed with cancer! Another doctor from Denmark cites a German study of women over age 80 with breast cancer. Those who received no treatment lived eleven months longer on average than those who received conventional cancer treatments. (Most women who “die from cancer” actually die from the cancer treatments, not the cancer itself…) Success through education and healing, not bullying This staggering documentary interviews doctors who talk about how patients are bullied and pressured by conventional oncologists. Sometimes they’re even hustled onto the operating table the day after their diagnosis without having any other choices explained to them. What’s worse is that conventional patients are also being killed by the food they’re fed in hospitals. All the doctors in this movie unanimously explain that sugar is the No. 1 killer for every cancer patient; and while every medical doctor should know that fact, they still continue to give their patients sugary treats in the chemotherapy room. (Incredible!) You will be shocked, surprised and immensely informed by what you learn in this groundbreaking documentary film. Click here to watch the trailer and get instant access to the full documentary . Health politics CANCER is curable NOW is not a “political” health movement. The film is merely based on common sense while challenging conventional oncologists and the big drug companies on their quack science and runaway greed. The message of this film isn’t to sign a petition or anything; it’s to “go to alternative doctors only and let the other guys wonder what happened.” Common sense cannot be denied. And the criminal cancer industry is now being exposed for what it truly is: A profit center that exploits sickness and suffering in order to pad the pockets of doctors, hospitals and drug companies. If someone you love is on the fence about whether or not to try alternative cancer treatment, this documentary is exactly what they need to see . Beyond the growing number of books, reports, articles and websites about alternative cancer treatment, this CANCER is Curable NOW documentary has emerged as one of the most powerful educational tools for opening the eyes of skeptics. This movie is the “inconvenient truth” about the cancer industry, and literally everyone needs to see this. Be sure to share this documentary with friends and family members so they, too, can come to understand the truth about the cancer industry. Seeing is believing, and thanks to this film, your loved ones can get to know alternative cancer experts up close and personal, learning for themselves that these successful and knowledgeable professionals aren’t criminals, quacks or charlatans, but rather extremely well-informed pioneers of science and medicine that the cancer industry doesn’t want you to know about. Click here to watch the entire film right now (instant access) . What really causes cancer Cancer isn’t something that just happens to us randomly. Yet you’ll never hear a word from most conventional doctors about what CAUSES cancer, much less how to naturally get rid of the toxins in your body. As one expert says in the film, “Cancer doesn’t just strike you, an innocent victim, all of a sudden. You have been brewing conditions inside your body for probably decades.” Anyone who gives the documentary a fair chance will find out why people get cancer to begin with, and more importantly, what each of us can do about it. Each newborn infant in America has 287 toxins in their blood the day they’re born, and there are 83,000 toxic substances in the environment around us every single day. But this in no way means things are hopeless. There are simple and effective methods for cleansing these toxins out of your body, and the film quickly introduces viewers to several of them. This highly enlightening documentary acknowledges that changing our habits isn’t easy, and it offers practical advice on how to do it. Dr. Francisco Contreras tells viewers, “If you believe cancer is going to kill you it will. The power is within you to cure yourself.” Sound advice from the pros Would you ever make a very important purchase by buying the first product you see? People often go to whatever conventional oncologist they’re sent to and do every single thing he or she says. That’s crazy. This documentary helps you learn how to choose a doctor who can help you heal rather than making you sicker. One of the doctors in the films says you shouldn’t just get a second opinion; you should get a third opinion, too. Here’s one way to narrow it down: “Any doctor who tells you nutrition doesn’t matter has no clue,” says Dr. Garry Gordon. For patients trying to figure out how to change bad habits, this documentary offers advice on why it is crucial to surround ourselves with supportive people. This includes people who eat right, exercise, and take active steps to get the stress out of their lives and deal with their emotional issues. After all, we pick up the habits of the people we spend time with, so we might as well choose to be around people who help us heal, right? The film covers proven, well-established alternative cancer treatments that are accepted by advanced medicine doctors who actively care for cancer patients on a regular basis. Although there are a huge number of cancer treatments with a lack of evidence to back them up, this film sticks to presenting only the proven therapies you can trust . Share this information with your doctor and your friends In spite of the growing number of helpful resources on this subject, many alternative practitioners such as naturopaths are often nearly as ignorant as conventional medical doctors when it comes to cancer treatment. Sadly, they can’t offer the majority of the treatments without losing their license or going to jail; so they often don’t bother to learn about them. These treatments have been effectively run out of town, so to speak. (And that’s by design. The cancer industry doesn’t want you to cure your cancer!) One American naturopath in the film describes ozone treatment , a method used in many European clinics. He claims to know of only a couple of American doctors who will administer the treatment, both of which keep very quiet about it. While the treatment is actually legal in the US, the climate of persecution is so significant that these doctors are still afraid they could be dragged before medical boards and lose their licenses to practice medicine. Cancer is Curable Now has the potential to vastly help doctors like these — and countless numbers of patients — raise their heads above the trenches and see that this war is beginning to be won. The age of toxic cancer “poisons” is coming to an end, and the dominance of the utterly insane conventional cancer treatments practiced today will soon collapse, to be replaced by advanced medicine that focuses on true healing . Help this cause simply by purchasing access to this documentary and sharing the information you learn with as many people as possible. This is a powerful, yet easy-to-watch tool that we can all use to contribute to the paradigm shift that’s necessary for a more conscious future, especially in healthcare and disease treatment. The cure for cancer exists right now, friends. In fact, there are MANY cures for cancer that exist right now, and you can learn about the most promising ones in this remarkable documentary. Click here to get instant access to the full documentary . Enjoy!

New EPA-approved DuPont herbicide linked to widespread killing of trees, authorities unconcerned

(NaturalNews) The DuPont chemical company recently received approval from the US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) for its new herbicide Imprelis (aminocyclopyrachlor), which has been alleged as an “environmentally friendly” alternative to other herbicides. However, a recent New York Times (NYT) report implicates the herbicide in causing the widespread deaths of thousands of trees across the country, including Norway spruces, eastern white pines, willows, poplars, and conifers. DuPont originally designed Imprelis with the stated intent to kill lawn weeds like dandelion and clover — both of these “weeds” happen to be highly nutritious foods, by the way (http://www.naturalnews.com/dandelion.html) — because, frankly, most people want their lawns to be perfectly homogenous in every way. But the chemical, despite being marketed as safe for the environment, is killing off trees as well, which has caused quite an uproar. The NYT report indicates that DuPont, various local nurseries and garden supply stores that carry and sell Imprelis, and even authorities, are receiving hordes of complaints from the public that the herbicide is their killing trees en masse. And yet DuPont remains in denial that Imprelis is to blame, and has already come out claiming that customers might be at fault for improperly mixing or applying the chemical. And the EPA appears to be taking a similar approach, despite giving very unconvincing lip-service that it is taking the situation “very seriously.” “We’ve made 1,000 applications and had 350 complaints of dead trees, and it’s climbing,” lamented Matt Coats, services manager for Underwood Nursery in Adrian, Mich., to the NYT. “I’ve done nothing for the last three weeks but deal with angry customers. We’re seeing some tree doing OK, with just the tips getting brown, and others are completely dead and it looks like someone took a flamethrower to them.” Coats went on to say that while his nursery has liability insurance to replace the dead trees, each incident holds a $500 deductible. In other words, his company has already spent $150,000 out of pocket to pay for damages caused by Imprelis, and these costs are escalating. Many landscapers, however, have it far worse, as their insurance policies largely do not cover dead trees, many of which were mature and irreplaceable. The EPA deserves much of the blame for approving Imprelis in the first place The fact that DuPont markets Imprelis as having “low toxicity to mammals and low environmental impact” — all while the chemical cocktail is actually causing a real-life, utterly-devastating environmental impact as we speak — is despicable. And while it is easy to put all the blame on DuPont for selling a product that is mislabeled, at best, it is important not to forget that the EPA is actually responsible as well because the agency approved the herbicide in the first place. According to the NYT, the EPA spent 23 months investigating Imprelis prior to granting it approval. It is unclear what type of investigating the agency actually performed during this time, though, as one would think that a basic platform of product testing would include seeing how trees, plants, and other non-target shrubs respond to the herbicide — which it appears the agency did not do. The EPA either never performed any safety testing on Imprelis at all, in which case it has proven itself to be an utterly useless “protector” of the environment, or it performed tests and did not consider the findings to be of much concern. In either case, the EPA has demonstrated that it is unable to properly perform its job duties, and deserves to be stripped of all regulatory authority. Since pyralids, the class of herbicides to which Imprelis belongs, have been known to poison non-target plants as far back as 2008, the indictment of the EPA goes even deeper. Pyralids biodegrade so slowly that they can remain in soil for years and leech directly into groundwater supplies. And if the soil is ever composted, the herbicide can spread even further, causing extensive damage (http://www.motherearthnews.com/Organic-Gardening/2008-10-01/Aminopyralid-Garden-Threat.aspx). Such easily-accessed information must have come up during the EPA’s 23-month “investigation” of Imprelis, which suggests that the EPA was willfully complicit in approving a dangerous product that is mislabeled as being safe. And if this is the case, then the EPA must be immediately investigated and held liable for potential criminal activity. No synthetic chemical herbicide is truly safe, despite claims made by chemical companies What all of this really comes down to is the fact that no synthetic chemical formula is safe. No matter how creatively the chemical companies try to label their products as “safe” or “low impact,” such claims are patently false when the chemicals in question have been synthetically engineered to kill plants. The only effective and safe ways to deal with weeds is either to pull them out by hand, or learn to accept them and the many benefits they can actually provide, which include improving soil health and reducing the need for excess watering. There are also a variety of companies that produce truly-safe and natural lawn care products that will help with lawn management. To learn more, visit: http://www.safelawns.org Sources for this story include: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/science/earth/15herbicide.html

Report: North Carolina nuclear facility with superheated uranium leaking ten gallons of radioactive cooling water per hour

(NaturalNews) A nuclear research reactor at North Carolina State University (NCSU) in Raleigh, NC, was recently shut down after it was discovered that the plant has been leaking about ten gallons of nuclear cooling water per hour for at least the past week. Officials from the university, however, claim that the leak, which stems from the 15,000 gallons of water used to cool the superheated uranium reactor core, poses “no public health threat.” The announcement comes on the heels of several others involving US nuclear plants, including the potentially ill-fated Fort Calhoun Nuclear facility near Omaha, Neb. (http://www.naturalnews.com/032870_Fort_Calhoun_nuclear_power_plant.html), and the Los Alamos National Laboratory that was threatened by wildfires last week (http://www.naturalnews.com/032871_wildfires_plutonium.html). In the NC case, reports do not indicate why radioactive cooling water is leaking from the facility, but its operators insist, just like the experts associated with the other nuclear plants are doing, that everything is just fine. “The leak is the size of a pinhead,” said NCSU spokeswoman Caroline Barnhill concerning the incident, in an attempt to quell concern. The school insists that the radioactive water poses no threat whatsoever to humans or to the environment because exposure to it is allegedly the equivalent of undergoing an X-ray. The school also says that because the leak is under 350 gallons per hour, it did not even have to notify the public about it (but decided to anyway). It is interesting how every time there is a radioactive discrepancy, experts insist that it is harmless — and they almost always, especially in recent days, refer to it as being no different than an X-ray. Worried about the radiation emitted by naked body scanners at the airport? Do not worry, they say, it is just like getting an X-ray. Radioactive water is leaking from a nuclear facility? No worries — it is no different than an X-ray. Even in Japan, just after the massive earthquake and tsunami hit Fukushima, experts basically ordered people not to worry because the radioactive fallout was no different than “a chest X-ray,” they falsely said (http://www.naturalnews.com/031759_radioactive_food_Japan.html). If radiation was not the serious, deadly substance that it is, such idiotic propositions about its safety would be humorous. Every disaster, after all, whether it is a small water leak or a three-core nuclear meltdown, ends up being the equivalent of an X-ray and nothing more. And as silly as it sounds, experts routinely use the line about X-rays in their attempts to placate the public and rock it back to sleep. Reports do not indicate very many details about the situation at NCSU, other than to denounce that it is of any danger whatsoever. But clearly this statement alone is untrue based on the X-ray explanation, because X-rays themselves are dangerous and are known to cause cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/X-rays.html). So to suggest that the radioactive water leak in NC poses absolutely no threat is itself a lie by default. And if experts are willing to lie about the little things, there is no telling what else they might be hiding from the public. Sources for this story include: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8236927

« Previous Page — Next Page »