National Public Radio underwritten by Monsanto?

(NaturalNews) There was a strong reaction recently observed over public radio stations touting Monsanto and running Monsanto’s promotional ads. Technically, it wasn’t NPR (National Public Radio) as most assumed, but a program called Marketplace that is underwritten by Monsanto. American Pubic Media (APM) produces Marketplace. But both NPR and Marketplace broadcast during the same time frame from stations that are public radio affiliates. They share the same network apparatus and appeal to the same audience. Monsanto’s use of the APM platform is a crafty PR maneuver to suck in gullible listeners by using the “feeding the world mantra” while ignoring Monsanto’s dark legacy of profiting from toxic destruction and harassing farmers who try to do the right thing. (Legacy in source below) Naive Public Perception of Public Radio American Public Media’s 32 million listeners, many of whom are liberal academics, accept public radio as unbiased, truthful news coverage. The same is true of NPR. They are all considered not-for-profit public radio, and they are carried by local not for profit radio stations. But why don’t APM’s or NPR’s reporters and the majority of its listeners know what’s really going on with Monsanto? There are some really well done, accurate documentaries that reveal the truth about Monsanto. “The World According to Monsanto,” “The Corporation” and “Food Inc” are examples. They have all been released during this past decade and are available on DVD. The best of those three, “The World According to Monsanto” was even available for viewing on the internet until it was taken down – by Monsanto maybe? Perhaps politically correct public radio listeners consider such information conspiracy theory rubbish. Being politically correct is more important than conspiracy reality for many. And perhaps decent paying jobs in public radio are more important to journalists than real investigative reporting. NPR escaped culpability of broadcasting Monsanto propaganda by pointing to APM’s Marketplace, which aired this type of underwriting (sponsor) announcement for two years. Marketplace is supported by Monsanto, committed to sustainable agriculture creating hybrid and biotech seeds designed to increase crop yields and conserve natural resources. Learn more at ProduceMoreConserveMore.com. A more recent short documentary, “Farmer to Farmer,” clearly showed GMO farming is unsustainable. This documentary included GMO and conventional farmers’ testimonies. So here is yet another documentary ignored by public radio. Besides being a blatant lie on all counts, this announcement pushed FFC guidelines to the limit for public broadcast. Announcing who is underwriting (sponsoring) is allowed, but promoting or allowing that sponsor to promote is not permitted. While many listeners may have winced and let those short announcements go, there was a recent Monsanto propaganda report on Marketplace that many could not ignore. The title alone is the tip of the iceberg. The Non-Organic Future The title is “The Non-Organic Future.” It was not a report registering concern over all that threatens organic agriculture, as one would expect from public radio. It condemned organic farming as a threat to topsoil while praising conventional and GMO farming as the true solutions to feeding the world. (Report broadcast transcript in sources below) There were no interviews of anyone who opposed pesticide monoculture farming or GMOs. A couple of shills for GMO and conventional farming with establishment “credentials” did all the talking. And the reporter, Adriene Hill, introduced the report with this comment regarding the concept of small organic farms around cities “This isn’t the future — not if we want to feed everyone.” Get over it? Evidently Ms. Hill and Marketplace conveniently overlooked the 2009 conclusions of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development (IAASTD), sponsored by the UN and World Bank. It took 4.5 years for the IAASTD’s 400 experts to arrive at the conclusion that small organic farming is the only way to maintain sustainable agriculture that could feed the world. Follow the Money According to Anna Lapp, author of Diet for a Hot Planet , the biotech friendly marketplace report was not sloppy reporting. Anna wrote, “Rather than being sloppy, it turns out that the reporting is actually a carefully constructed thank you gift for a prized advertiser.” NPR was not really the culprit this time . But let’s have a look at NPR’s association with Bill Gates and his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. According to a Seattle Times February 19, 2011 article “Does Gates media funding taint objectivity?” a $3.6 million Gates grant went to PBS’ News Hour, another $3.3 million to Public Radio International, $1 million to PBS’ Frontline, and $5 million to NPR . The Gates Foundation distributes these funds for “influencing policy and advocacy.” The approach is sly. Influence the public to get behind tackling issues such as vaccinations and “sustainable” farming to cure the world’s ills. This is the same Bill Gates who now owns a huge chunk of stock in Monsanto valued at over $23 million in 2010. And it’s the same Gates who announced this century as the vaccine century, which he went on to say could help reduce the world population by 15%. Vaccines cause more harm than good and have been used as carriers of infertility agents in third world vaccination campaigns. Yes, appearing like a mild-mannered concerned geek gets a lot of support from the politically correct naive who don’t know the dark side of GMOs and vaccinations. Gates’ approach is sly and slick. He usually appeals to the need for actions rather than the what the actions really do. This makes it easier for public opinion to marginalize critics of GMOs and vaccinations, even when they are forced in Africa by gunpoint. (Natural News below) A financial alliance with Monsanto, directly or indirectly, is a pact with the devil. Despite public radio’s claiming their reporting is not affected by its “underwriters”, a public radio euphemism for sponsor, the Marketplace report and its Monsanto ads prove otherwise. One does not bite the hand that feeds it, especially if it’s the devil’s hand. Organic Consumer Organization’s (OCA) Millions Against Monsanto would like you to email a complaint in your name to Marketplace/APM using their form via this link. http://capwiz.com/grassrootsnetroots/issues/alert/?alertid=13418576 Sources used in this article and for your perusal: Monsanto’s dark legacy http://www.badseed.info/resources/monsanto.pdf The transcript from the “Non Organic Future” Mareketplace report http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/05/04/pm-the-non-organic-future/ Gates policy influence media funding amounts http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014280379_gatesmedia.html Gates Foundation Monsanto investments http://www.infowars.com/gates-foundation-invests-in-monsanto/ Gates Foundation gunpoint forced vaccinations in Africa http://www.naturalnews.com/033119_vaccinations_gunpoint.html NPR Monsanto funding disclaimer http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2009/06/npr_is_not_running_monsanto_sp_1.html American Public Media site http://americanpublicmedia.publicradio.org/ Monsanto targets public media to propagandize http://www.grist.org/article/national-public-propaganda

Superbug horror — scientists discover gonorrhea superbug that defies all known antibiotics

(NaturalNews) The danger of superbugs — infectious germs that are resistant to a host of Big Pharma’s drug arsenal — a growing and deadly problem in the 21st century. For example, as NaturalNews covered earlier this year, the U.S. meat supply is contaminated with disease-causing bacteria, including the superbug variety (http://www.naturalnews.com/032099_poultry_superbugs.html). And hospitals are now breeding grounds for the antibiotic resistant germs. In fact, the heartbreaking truth is that newborn babies are acquiring these superbug infections at an alarming rate in neonatal units (http://www.naturalnews.com/026587_infections_infection_superbug.html). But while superbugs are resistant to most antibiotics, a new superbug strain has been found that is completely resistant to every antibiotic . That’s the finding of an international research team who just announced their discovery — a superbug form of gonorrhea — at the International Society for Sexually Transmitted Disease Research (ISSTDR) currently underway in Quebec City, Canada. In a statement to the media, Dr. Magnus Unemo of the Swedish Reference Laboratory for Pathogenic Neisseria, warned that the new strain is likely to transform a common and once easily treatable infection into nothing less than a global threat to public health. Dr. Unemo, Dr. Makoto Ohnishi and their colleagues have identified a variant of the bacterium which causes gonorrhea, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, that has never been documented before. And, as the researchers analyzed this new strain, (called H041, for short) they found genetic mutations in the bacterium that have resulted in a fearsome superbug that shows what the scientists called “extreme resistance” to all cephalosporin-class antibiotics — the only drugs that, until now, have remained effective in treating gonorrhea. “This is both an alarming and a predictable discovery,” Dr. Unemo said in the media statement. “Since antibiotics became the standard treatment for gonorrhea in the 1940s, this bacterium has shown a remarkable capacity to develop resistance mechanisms to all drugs introduced to control it.” “While it is still too early to assess if this new strain has become widespread, the history of newly emergent resistance in the bacterium suggests that it may spread rapidly unless new drugs and effective treatment programs are developed,” Dr. Unemo continued. The new superbug strain is especially dangerous because gonorrhea is one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases on the planet. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the number of cases in the U.S. alone is around 700,000 annually. It’s a particularly insidious STD because it doesn’t immediately produce symptoms in around half of infected women and approximately 2 to 5 percent of men. When symptoms occur, they include a burning sensation during urination and a discharge of pus from the genitals. If it is left untreated — or, in the case of the new strain, can’t be treated, gonorrhea can cause serious, irreversible health complications in both sexes, including skin, blood, joint and heart problems leading to death. Not only can infection with gonorrhea result in chronic pelvic pain and ectopic pregnancy, it can cause infertility in women (and, to a lesser degree, in men). It also increases the risk of HIV transmission. Babies born to mothers infected with gonorrhea are at high risk for developing serious blood and joint infections and may be blind, too. While the discovery a new strain of gonorrhea superbug is worrisome, don’t panic. Remember that your first line of defense is safe sex and a healthy immune system bolstered by good nutrition and a healthy lifestyle. In addition, you can search the NaturalNews archives for natural approaches to fighting superbugs without relying on Big Pharma’s drugs. For more information: http://www2.ulaval.ca/en/press-room.html http://www.naturalnews.com/superbugs.html http://www.naturalnews.com/027879_superbugs_disinfectants.html

The truth about tanning beds: They boost vitamin D production

(NaturalNews) The FDA has the media and subsequently many Americans in a (perhaps unjustified) uproar about teens using tanning beds, and they are now pushing to ban tanning for people under 18. It is time to set some of this witch-hunting straight. The ruckus comes in the wake of a report that was released last year by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization. The report resulted in the IARC’s changing the status of tanning beds from ‘possibly carcinogenic’ to ‘carcinogenic.’ With the same argumentation and evidence, the sun itself would fall into that category. The media definitely talks about it as a danger, and it provides real-world stories about people who contracted melanoma after too much exposure to the sun. The problem is that often, the most extreme, rare and dramatic cases are cited, which serves to convince the American public that fear of the sun is justified. Just take a look at how many Americans behave – putting sunscreen on every morning, only walking to their car, then to their office building, etc., avoiding “overexposure” at every turn. What used to be a glorious, golden orb in the sky is now a menace to society. With all the jargon and evidence the FDA cites as dangers for humans, people are becoming increasingly afraid to venture out into the light of day. In fact, tanning beds are designed to synthesize the perfect conditions of a summer’s day, when the UV-rays are balanced to perfectly stimulate the maximum growth of melanin pigment, as well as vitamin D. It is because of these ideal conditions that people can absorb all the UVs and produce all the vitamin D they need in such a short period of time. And if you look at the evidence from an unbiased viewpoint, you will find that while some Americans are receiving too much UV rays, many more are receiving too few. Vitamin D is a crucial for the human body; even the FDA knows that. But with the media’s constant scapegoating of the sun and tanning beds as the cause of melanoma and cancer, many people are getting the wrong idea. Demonizing the sun is having a profoundly negative impact on our society. According to Dr. Michael Holick, author of The UV Advantage , 40% of Americans are suffering from a vitamin D deficiency, which causes depression, SAD, and has been linked to late development of Schizophrenia. See Natural News’ interview with Dr. Holick at (http://www.naturalnews.com/005546_Dr_Michael_Holick_vitamin_D_deficiency.html) for more details. While I am not advocating a consistent solar diet of 3-4 hours of exposure per day, the benefits of some exposure are substantiated. Clearly, there are some people who are tanning too much and contracting melanoma as a consequence. The evidence cited in the IARC study is not completely fallacious, but is likely provided in a biased context, which magnifies the negative implications of sun exposure. For instance, the study found that teens and 20-somethings who used tanning beds were 75% more at risk for melanoma. That is a significant number, but may be more indicative of how much pressure American teens are under to look tan and beautiful, than it is of the danger of tanning beds. If teens think that they will attract more attention if they are tan, then many will not stop at the tanning bed. Slapping a law into effect that bans the teens from tanning beds, would only send the vast majority of those kids out into the sun for their daily bronzing, which would not stop the problem. We should look a little harder at what the data actually means and how it should be interpreted. When the FDA wages war on tanning beds, they are waging a de facto war on the sun itself, which our bodies are genetically predisposed to need in order to remain healthy and happy. The FDA should be a little more careful about the effects their messages have on the people they are intended to advise. If the message is causing widespread depression, then it needs to change. Of course, depression feeds the pharmaceutical industry, so they may be achieving the impact they want, after all. Sources: (http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm186687.htm) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43302984/ns/health-skin_and_beauty/) (http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/how-to-get-your-vitamin-d/uvb-exposure-sunlight-and-indoor-tanning/)

Chief scientists continue to ignore science by promoting GMOs

(NaturalNews) U.K. authorities recently released a report entitled Global Food and Farming Futures which recommends that “new technologies” in agriculture not be excluded merely on ethical or moral grounds. But Britain’s Chief Scientist took this language and perverted it into an endorsement for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), despite the fact that a more credible report issued by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Scientific and Technology for Development (IAASTD) expresses quite the opposite concerning biotechnology in agriculture. Upon first release of the report, the U.K. mainstream media went wild, falsely reporting that it proved the need for GMOs to feed the world, and that planting “Frankencrops” is the only way for agriculture to survive in the long term. And Beddington made a series of ignorant and unscientific statements himself, suggesting that GMOs will solve the problems of water shortages and salination, and that they are the “key to human survival.” For being “Chief Scientist”, Beddington seems to have a minimal grasp on reality, let alone actual science. Twenty-five years of GMO research has yet to produce a single drought-resistant crop. It has also failed to produce a salt-tolerant crop, or any other crop that outperforms conventional crops, for that matter. It has, however, increased pesticide use and multinational corporate control over agriculture, though. Yet none of these facts stopped the “chief” or the media choir from blabbing their nonsensical opinions about the alleged benefits of GMOs. The only thing the report actually illustrates is the fact that the current industrial food system and its biotechnological leanings are taking us in the wrong direction. This was also the conclusion of the highly-credible IAASTD report as well, which points toward small-scale, diversified agriculture as the real answer to the world’s food problems. According to GroundTruth , many of the “400 authors and contributors” to the Global Food and Farming Futures report did not even actually contribute to it. “I didn’t participate in any meetings, discussions, findings, or report writing,” explained one scientist listed as a contributor. Instead, he was asked to write a review for another publication. He added that GMOs were never mentioned anywhere in any of the material he dealt with, though, and that they were never the issue at hand. It turns out that a government advisory group actually funded the study with the purpose of convincing officials to keep an open mind to things like GMOs, and to contradict the IAASTD report. So the report is nothing more than an unscientific, fraudulent propaganda piece that Britain’s Chief Scientist and his country’s media repertoire are using to advance a pro-GMO agenda, and nothing more. Sources for this story include: http://www.panna.org/blog/gmo-apologists-ignore-science-again

Fukushima already ten times worse than Chernobyl in ocean waters, suggests data

(NaturalNews) Recent readings taken roughly 19 miles out to sea from the Fukushima nuclear power facility in Japan have revealed radioisotope levels ten times higher than those measured in the Baltic and Black Seas after the massive Chernobyl disaster. Because Fukushima is much closer to water than the Chernobyl plant is, the ongoing fallout there is shaping up to be far worse than Chernobyl, at least as far as the world’s oceans are concerned, and time will tell just how devastating this massive disaster will be on the entire world as radiation continues to circulate around the globe. “Given that the Fukushima nuclear power plant is on the ocean, and with leaks and runoff directly to the ocean, the impacts on the ocean will exceed those of Chernobyl, which was hundreds of miles from any sea,” said Ken Buessler, Senior Scientist in Marine Chemistry at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, several months back. Since that time, it has been revealed that Fukushima reactors 1, 2, and 3 have all experienced “melt-throughs,” which are considered to be the worst possible outcome in a nuclear disaster (http://www.naturalnews.com/032657_Fukushima_meltdown.html). Various atomic experts are now in agreement that the unfolding situation in Japan truly is “as serious as it gets in a nuclear disaster.” Even the Japanese government itself is now admitting the grave reality of the situation, having recently announced it will submit a report to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) explaining the details of the melt-throughs, which basically mean that radioactive fuel appears to have burned through the outer containment vessels of the reactors and have gone directly into bare earth. “Dangerous levels of radioactive iodine and cesium have already contaminated the sea, the soil, groundwater, and the air,” said reporter Mark Willacy of the Australian Broadcast Corporation in a recent Lateline interview (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3241508.htm). “This week plutonium was detected for the first time outside the stricken plant, and Strontium-90, known as a bone seeker because it can cause bone cancer and Leukemia, has now been found as far away as 60 kilometers (37+ miles) from the facility.” Sources for this story include: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/26-7

WHO panel warns that cell phone use may cause cancer

(NaturalNews) Scientists from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a group affiliated with the World Health Organization (WHO), say that mobile phones are a “possible” carcinogen that may be a cause of cancer. The findings, which support previous research on the subject, add to the growing body of evidence which suggests that the electromagnetic radiation emitted from mobile phones causes serious health problems. “A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered … to be credible,” states the IARC. However, in the same train of thought, the agency claims that evidence is “limited” to suggest that mobile phone usage is linked to glioma or acoustic neuroma, two types of brain cancer. In 2009, IARC published a study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that linked mobile phone usage to an 18 percent increase in brain tumor risk. And because it was observed that such tumors tended to form on the sides of brains where mobile phones were primarily used, the connection between the two is even more striking (http://www.naturalnews.com/027448_cell_phone_brain_health.html). Another report issued in 2010 by the International Electromagnetic Field Cooperative (IEFC) also found a link between mobile phone usage and increased rates of brain tumors. Included in this report is a Swedish study that found a 420 percent increase in brain cancer rates among children who began using mobile and cordless phones as teenagers, as opposed to those that did not (http://www.naturalnews.com/028078_cell_phones_brain_cancer.html). With all of this research now available and the latest announcement from IARC, one would think more people would be concerned about the risks involved with the excessive use of mobile phones and looking for less-risky alternatives or using hands-free devices at the very least. But because the period between when a cancer patient is exposed to this radiation and when he or she develops tumors typically spans several decades, some experts claim that the link between the two is inconclusive and are content to tell the public there is really little to worry about. Sources for this story include: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110531/ap_on_he_me/eu_med_cellphones_and_cancer

Do cell phones cause cancer?

(NaturalNews) This week the World Health Organizations officially classified cellphones as possibly carcinogenic to humans. This statement was made from a team of 31 scientists from 14 countries who made this decision after reviewing the data from previous peer-reviewed studies. The team looked for links between cancer and the type of radiation found in cellphones. Their conclusion was to classify cellphones in category 2B which means cellphones are possibly carcinogenic to humans. Other compounds in the 2B category include lead, nickel, DDT, chloroform and gasoline exhaust. Dr. Christopher Wild, director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, said this new WHO report is important “first and foremost just because of the large number of users worldwide that have access now to this technology.” Globally, it’s estimated there are 5 billion cell phones being used, that’s three fourths of the population on earth. However, because cellphone usage habits have changed since the early studies, it’s difficult to know whether the conclusions from previous studies are still relevant today. Also, the current studies haven’t looked at usage longer than 10 years. So, there is a lot more research to be conducted to get a clear sense of whether cell phones actually cause cancer. In the meantime, if you are concerned about any potential health risks of cellphones the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have suggested some steps to take including: – Use of cell phones mainly for shorter conversations, or for times when a landline phone is not available. – Switch to a cell phone with a hands-free device that will place more distance between the phone and your head. Sources: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/cellular.html http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/ucm116293.htm

Water fluoridation is a civil rights violation say Atlanta civil rights leaders

(NaturalNews) On April 18, Atlanta civil rights leaders called for an end to Georgia’s mandatory water fluoridation practices April on the grounds that it negatively and disproportionately impacts the health of black families and the poor. Andrew Young, former U.N. Ambassador and former Atlanta Mayor, along with Reverend Dr. Gerald Durley, Pastor of Providence Baptist Church in Atlanta, both inductees in the International Civil Rights Walk of Fame, expressed concerns about the fairness, safety, and full disclosure regarding fluoridation in letters to the state’s minority and majority legislative leaders. Studies show that despite fluoridation, tooth decay is higher in blacks. Dental fluorosis, caused by overexposure to fluoride which can result in pitting of tooth enamel and mottling of the teeth, is also higher in blacks. The Department of Health and Human Services proposes to lower water fluoride levels to alleviate the growing dental fluorosis epidemic but the Fluoride Action Network submitted scientific evidence to HHS indicating that, to preserve health, fluoridation must stop completely. “My father was a dentist,” Young said. “I formerly was a strong believer in the benefits of water fluoridation for preventing cavities. But many things that we began to do 50 or more years ago we now no longer do, because we have learned further information that changes our practices and policies.” Fluoride has been linked to many health problems, according to FAN, including lowered IQ in 24 human studies and damage to the brain in over 100 animal studies. “The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences has designated kidney patients, diabetics, seniors and babies as ‘susceptible subpopulations’ that are especially vulnerable to harm from ingested fluorides.” Dudley said. “Black citizens are disproportionately affected by kidney disease and diabetes, and are therefore more impacted by fluorides.” Infants, one of the sensitive subpopulations, who are fed formula made with fluoridated tap water will receive up to 175 times more fluoride than breast-fed infants, according to FAN. Infants zero to six months old, the smallest and most vulnerable in our population, were completely excluded from risk calculations in HHS’s proposal. “I am most deeply concerned for poor families who have babies.” Young said. “If they cannot afford unfluoridated water for their babies’ milk formula, do their babies not count?” “This is an issue of fairness, civil rights, and compassion,” he said. “We must find better ways to prevent cavities, such as helping those most at risk for cavities obtain access to the services of a dentist.” The attack on water fluoridation is just one of many building across the country. Others include: An American Association for Justice Newsletter for trial lawyers describes potential fluoride legal actions based on personal injury, consumer fraud, and civil rights harm; a bipartisan group of Tennessee legislators, in a letter to their state’s Health Commissioner, expressed their concern about fluoridation’s undesirable impact on babies and other groups; a bipartisan group of New York City Council Members has also introduced legislation to stop fluoridation in NYC; and, in Central Texas, Austin’s City Council recently held a hearing on fluoridation in response to pressure from local citizens. “I support the holding of ‘Fluoride-gate’ hearings at the state and national level,” Durley said, “so we can learn why we haven’t been openly told that fluorides build up in the body over time [and] why our government agencies haven’t told the black community openly that fluorides disproportionately harm black Americans…” Sources for this article include: http://fluoridealert.org/press.release.4-14-11.html

Published review highlights lack of proper GMO safety studies in scientific journals

(NaturalNews) A recent study published in the journal Environment International has found that within the body of published literature on genetically-modified organisms (GMO), there exists almost an equal number of both studies suggesting they are safe and identical to natural varieties, and studies suggesting they are questionable and even dangerous. And among those studies that claim GMOs to be safe, the vast majority are funded by biotechnology companies that either produce the involved GMOs, or have a vested interest in their promotion. Jose Domingo and Jordi Gine Bordonaba from the Universitat Rovira i Virgili Laboratory of Toxicology and Environmental Health conducted a review of available published GMO studies in databases like PubMed and Scopus. They found that the overall number of studies involving GMOs has increased since 2006 when the group last conducted an investigation. But such studies tend to focus mainly on corn and soy, two of the most widely propagated GMO crops, and were largely conducted by the biotechnology companies that created them. Though all the reviewed studies were published in credible, peer-reviewed journals, both sides of the GMO debate are represented, which raises an interesting and obvious point about the credibility of the peer-review process in general. And interestingly, some authors of the studies that proposed GMOs to be as safe as conventional varieties have since expressed concern about the limited findings of their studies, suggesting that additional long-term reviews be conducted to verify without a doubt that GMOs are safe for human consumption. One study published in 2009 in the journal Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition actually cites animal toxicity studies in which GMOs inflicted organ and other bodily damage, including hepatic, pancreatic, renal and reproductive failures. The same study points to GMOs causing increases in insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1 levels), a protein implicated in causing cancer (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835). Conclusively, the new study demonstrates clearly that there is a lack of solid evidence proving GMOs to be safe. No long-term studies have ever been conducted to prove that GMOs do not cause harm to the environment, to animals, or to humans. On the contrary, there are plenty of independent studies that continue to legitimately question the safety of GMOs, and why they have been allowed into the food supply without proper review. Sources for this story include: http://www.gmwatch.eu/latest-listing/1-news-items/13012-a-literature-review-on-the-safety-assessment-of-gm-plants-new-study

World food supply threatened by Japan nuclear radiation

(NaturalNews) Fallout from the current meltdown occurring at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, which was hit by the 9.0+ mega earthquake and tsunami last Friday, could contaminate the world’s food supply with toxic radiation, say experts. If the plant’s radioactive particles get caught in the jet stream and travel the world over, they will end up contaminating crops and grazing fields. “The explosions could expose the population to longer-term radiation, which can raise the risk of cancer. These are thyroid cancer, bone cancer and leukemia. Children and fetuses are especially vulnerable,” said Lam Ching-wan, a chemical pathologist at the University of Hong Kong. “For some individuals even a small amount of radiation can raise the risk of cancer. The higher the radiation, the higher the risk of cancer.” According to experts, there are many ways in which radioactive particles can travel. They can bind to rain droplets and fall with the rain, or they can just travel in the wind and be inhaled by animals and humans. Either way, radioactive particles eventually end up embedding in soil and water where they contaminate the environment, wildlife, crops, and drinking water. Even cows grazing on radioactive grass will produce dangerous milk unsuitable for consumption. As of this writing, officials have declared that the situation in Japan is currently a Level Six on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES). The scale ranges from Level One, which represents little danger, to Level Seven, which represents a large release of radioactive material where widespread environmental and health effects are to be expected. The Fukushima plant has experienced four major explosions thus far since the earthquake, and Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan has urged everyone within roughly 20 miles of the plant to remain indoors with their windows and doors closed. All reactors at the site are confirmed or suspected to have gone into partial core meltdown at this point. Radiation levels have begun escalating in Tokyo, and radioactive particles are expected to spread out towards the Pacific Ocean in the coming days, according to weather simulation models released by South Korea’s Meteorological Administration. Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/us-japan-nuclear-health-idUSTRE72E2JF20110315 http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/15/japan.nuclear/?hpt=T2 http://rt.com/news/meltdown-radiation-japan/

« Previous Page — Next Page »