Monsanto partners with USAID to push GM corn in Nepal

(NaturalNews) The southeast Asian country of Nepal is once again having to fight against foreign interests that are trying to take over its agricultural system. Biotechnology giant Monsanto apparently has its sights set on bringing genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) to this sliver of a country just north of India, and it is allegedly working with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), a so-called humanitarian group, and officials in Nepal to make it happen. USAID issued a statement on Sept. 13, 2011, saying that it had partnered with Nepal’s Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MoACs) and Monsanto to “promote hybrid maize (corn) seeds among 20,000 farmers of Chitwan, Nawalparasi and Kavre districts and provide training to them.” Media across Nepal quickly picked up on the story, and massive public outcry ensued. GMOs are not widely cultivated in Nepal, and the country has always taken a very cautious approach to adopting them. In fact, when it was discovered that some GMO ingredients had potentially already contaminated the nation’s food supply back in 2003, government officials quickly made precautionary recommendations at the time to require GMO labeling on all food items. But with multinational corporations and the US government working overtime to force GM corn on Nepali farmers, Nepal appears to be getting pushed to the brink of no return. Though Nepal still imports some of its corn from elsewhere, the country is having no problems with the conventional, organic, and heirloom varieties it currently cultivates, and has no need whatsoever for GM varieties. Since the controversy erupted, Nepali officials have reportedly backed off from the plan. Hari Dahal, joint secretary at MoACs, told reporters recently that his agency had “no idea why USAID issued the statements saying that the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives was partnering with Monsanto” because “no agreement had been signed.” USAID was a little more ambiguous about whether or not MoACs was specifically involved in the matter, but the agency did make it very clear that it is working with Monsanto to promote GMOs around the world, including in Nepal. And based on the way Monsanto continues to thrust GMOs on the people of India just to the south, there is no doubt that the biotech giant is doing the same thing to people of Nepal as we speak. Sources for this article include: http://www.nepalitimes.com/issue/2011/11/8/Nation/18676 http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/90064942?Monsanto%20focus%20of%20controversy%20in%20Nepal%20over%20hybrid%20maize

New study reveals expensive MRIs pushed on women for breast cancer screening have no medical benefit

(NaturalNews) The use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, better known simply as MRI, for breast cancer screening is increasing and so is its use in guiding breast surgery when cancer is discovered. Obviously, that means healthcare costs are soaring, too, as more and more women are advised to get MRIs in addition to mammograms. The push started in 2007. At that time, the New York Times reported a breast MRI cost $1,000 to $2,000, and sometimes more — at least 10 times the cost of mammography. So for every million breast MRIs performed each year, healthcare costs spike by at least a billion dollars. Sometimes, but not always, these test are covered by Medicare and insurance. Of course, despite this enormous cost, the only reason doctors and medical centers would be urging women to have these expensive tests is because there must be convincing proof breast MRIs are excellent for spotting breast cancer and/or for directing cancer therapy. But this is not true. Although it may be hard to believe, here comes the shocking truth, as just reported in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet . Monica Morrow from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues meticulously reviewed research from the past decade to examine the belief that breast MRIs are effective at finding and treating breast cancer. What they found was just the opposite. There is little to no evidence breast MRIs benefit the vast majority of women. In fact, there’s not even evidence showing breast MRIs are particularly effective at helping direct breast-conserving surgery. Selling women on breast MRIs with no proof the tests increase survival The new study did indicate breast MRI can be valuable in screening women at very high risk for breast cancer due to their genetic heritage. However, let’s take a closer look at that finding. According to a media statement, the researchers noted that while a breast MRI can identify tumors missed by mammograms and ultrasound in women at risk of breast cancer due to a known gene mutation or their family history, “little is known about whether or not this improved detection has any impact on survival.” “MRI has, over recent years, been widely adopted into clinical practice based on the assumption that its increased sensitivity at detecting cancer will improve outcomes for patients,” the authors noted in a media release. Bottom line: they found there’s no actual evidence having a breast MRI that spots cancer in a high risk woman means they will live any longer than they would have if they’d never had the test. According to the research team, that fact that breast MRIs produce more sensitive images does not translate into better surgical treatment or prognoses when used to evaluate women before surgery, either. “The available data does not support the idea that MRI improves patient selection for breast-conserving surgery or that it increases the likelihood of obtaining negative margins [no cancer cells found in margins of resection] at the initial surgical excision,” they wrote. Sources for this article include: http://www.thelancet.com/ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/health/28mri.html

USDA gives half million in taxpayer dollars to AquaBounty to promote GM salmon

(NaturalNews) Biotechnology company AquaBounty has had quite a bit of trouble getting quick regulatory approval for its genetically-modified (GM) salmon, called AquAdvantage, because the “frankenfish” is not always sterile as claimed and could spread its corrupted genes into the wild. So in order to help move things along, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has awarded the company nearly $500,000 in taxpayer funds to conduct research on how to fully sterilize the fish, according to Grist . Neither the USDA nor the FDA seem to care that the public remains overwhelmingly opposed to AquaBounty’s GM salmon regardless of whether or not it is sterile. Not only do consumers not want to eat the fake fish, which has been shown to be highly allergenic, but they also most certainly do not want their hard-earned cash handed over to AquaBounty on a silver platter to ensure that the unwanted salmon eventually makes it to grocery store shelves (http://www.naturalnews.com/GM_salmon.html). But this is exactly what the USDA has done. While AquaBounty’s president and CEO Ronald L. Stotish sneers at those who rightfully oppose his company’s intention to force dangerous GM salmon into the food supply against the will of the people, the USDA is busy giving the company the people’s money. And eventually, this generous donation may result in AquAdvantage getting full approval, rather than plunging into oblivion as it was on course to do. In other words, American taxpayers are now subsidizing the research and development that AquaBounty itself cannot afford to undertake. The company, after all, has already lost $2.8 million and three board members since its inception, as it has failed to produce a safe product that appeals to, well, anyone. So now the government is artificially propping up the failing company with a cash infusion to ensure that AquAdvantage eventually makes its way to market. The US government, of course, has absolutely no business using taxpayer dollars to fund the development of a GM fish that nobody in the public wants to see released, and definitely does not want to consume. AquaBounty was well on its way to extinction, as it should have been, until the nation’s corrupt regulatory bodies decided to intervene and change its course. Commenting on the FDA’s potential approval of the GM salmon, regardless of whether or not a sterile version is developed, Colin O’Neil, regulatory policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety, said it best. Grist quotes him as saying that it is “reckless for the FDA to approve genetically engineered salmon given the large number of environmental, human health, animal welfare and economic risks that have been raised by scientists, members of Congress and members of the FDA’s own Advisory Committee.” Sources for this story include: http://www.grist.org/food/2011-09-29-feds-help-gmo-salmon-swim-upstream

Did Merck buy off California legislators who voted to pass AB499 vaccination consent bill?

(NaturalNews) After months of quietly making its way through both the California House of Representatives and the Senate, Assembly Bill 499 (AB 499) has now officially been signed into law by California Gov. Jerry Brown. The bill allows for children as young as 12 to be vaccinated against sexually transmitted diseases like Hepatitis B and human papillomavirus (HPV) without parental knowledge or consent. The bill amends current California state law which previously required that minors obtain parental consent before receiving school vaccinations. Now, children as young as 12 will be permitted to decide for themselves, presumably with a little extra prodding and manipulation by school officials, whether or not to opt for controversial and dangerous vaccines like Merck and Co.’s cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil (http://www.naturalnews.com/Gardasil.html). Assemblywoman Toni Atkins (D-San Diego), who sponsored the anti-parent bill, just so happens to have received a generous campaign donation from Merck prior to endorsing it — and she later lied about this fact when confronted about it (http://maplight.org/california/legislator/1378-toni-atkins). According to CalWatchdog, a California-based government accountability group, 25 of the California senators and assemblymen that voted in favor of the bill also received campaign contributions from Merck that collectively totaled nearly $40,000 (http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/09/06/merck-funded-anti-parent-bill/). In passing this bill, Gov. Brown, Asw. Toni Atkins and the rest of the cronies in California government that supported AB 499 have officially signed away the health freedom of parents and their children for drug money. And parents of school children will now have to actively warn their children not to accept any vaccinations, no matter what their teachers or school nurses say about them, or pull their children out of public school altogether. A few weeks ago, NaturalNews petitioned its readers to call, write, and fax Gov. Brown’s office to urge him not to sign AB 499 in to law. Though he ended up signing it anyway, we are once again urging readers to bombard his office with opposition to the bill, which is a flagrant affront to parental rights. Not only does AB 499 put millions of California children at risk from dangerous vaccines, but it also restricts parental access to the full medical records of their own children. Based on the bill’s provisions, parents will only be allowed to access portions of their children’s medical records once they reach 12 years of age. See the commentary on this from Mike Adams at: http://www.naturalnews.com/033831_Jerry_Brown_Gardasil.html To contact Gov. Brown’s office: Governor Jerry Brown c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 445-2841 Fax: (916) 558-3160 Sources for this article include: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2011/10/gov-the-governor-also-signed-a-measure-allowing-minors-who-are-12-years-of-age-or-older-to-consent-without-their-parents-kn.html

Raw organic foods have stronger ‘energy field’ than cooked or pasteurized conventional foods

(NaturalNews) Food is food, some might claim, and it does not really matter whether or not it is cooked or raw, conventional or organic. The nutritive value remains the same regardless. Or does it? A recent report from Activist Post explains that, based on analysis using a technique known as Kirlian photography, researchers have discovered that the energy fields surrounding raw, organic produce are stronger and more uniform than the energy fields surrounding cooked, conventional produce. This discovery was made possible by an earlier one stumbled upon by the late Semyon Kirlian, a Russian inventor, back in 1939. Kirlian learned that, when connected to a source of voltage, an object placed in contact with a photovoltaic plate will produce a corresponding image of that object on the plate. And the resulting image will also contain a visual display of the object’s electrical “aura,” of sorts, that both surrounds and emanating from it. The theory behind this energy field, of course, is that the stronger and more vibrant it is, the healthier and more “alive” the object. And based on this theory, it has been observed that the energy field of an apple, for instance, is the strongest right after it has first been picked. The longer it remains off the tree and is allowed to ripen, the weaker its energy field becomes. In the documentary The Beautiful Truth , which was released in 2008, a team of scientists used Kirlian photography to analyze various foods. They found that organic foods emitted a clearly more vibrant and harmonious energy field than conventional foods. Raw foods also fared better in the energy department than cooked and pasteurized foods, the latter of which appeared duller and less uniform than their raw counterparts. You can view a roughly two-minute clip from the film where the Kirlian technique is used here: http://youtu.be/suBjc9rIFNY If this energy field is truly indicative of a food’s “life source,” then it appears as though whole, clean foods eaten as close as possible to the way nature intended are more life-giving than over-processed, pesticide-ridden foods. It also means that simply counting calories and looking at ingredient content are not enough to determine the true nutritional capacity of food. Sources for this story include: http://www.activistpost.com/2011/09/kirlian-photography-shows-organic.html

While homes burned, feds told Texas volunteer firefighters to go home – interview with Daniel Miller

(NaturalNews) Daniel Miller of the president of the Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM), a group that advocates Texas become its own sovereign nation rather than a “state” of the USA. Regardless of whether or not you believe in the growing movement toward states’ independence from federal control, the really interesting thing about the TNM is that its members organize volunteer relief efforts to help the people of Texas during natural disasters or other times of need. When the recent fires struck central Texas, TNM members saddled up and headed to Bastrop country, where the largest fires of the year threatened thousands of homes. Using gear they purchased with their own money, many volunteers drove all night to arrive on the scene last Tuesday, with the hope of pitching in to help fight the raging fires. What they found when they got there, however, was more than a bit frustrating: the federal government had arrived and seized “control” of the situation, ordering volunteer firefighters to go home! Washington doesn’t want states to solve their own problems That this would happen in America shocks a lot of people. What happened to the idea of allowing capable Texans to help save Texas families from a raging fire? The federal government, it seems, doesn’t want local communities solving their own problems. Now, everything is supposed to be done from a central authority in Washington D.C. , which usually has no clue about what’s really going on at the local level. To explain this whole story, TNM president Daniel Miller joined me by phone for a recorded interview, during which he lays out the story of exactly what happened with the volunteer firefighters in Bastrop and why Texas would be far better off without federal interference at all levels. The TNM website is available at www.TexasNationalist.com As you’ll hear when you listen to the interview, Daniel believes that Texas would be far more economically successful if it did not operate under the financial burdens of the federal government at all. Unlike most states, Texas actually produces a huge surplus of both food and energy, and its economy could thrive if it were free from the suffocating regulations and backward policies of the federal government, says Daniel. Listen to the full interview to hear it in his own words: http://snd.sc/nnB5pv You can also listen to the interview right here by clicking the PLAY button on the SoundCloud object below: Interview with Daniel Miller about central Texas fires by NaturalNews The fires in central Texas are still not fully under control, by the way, and the federal government continues to claim it is the highest authority there, usurping power from both county and state officials.

NPR poll: Majority of Americans prefer organics, most want produce from either farmers markets or home gardens rather than supermarkets

(NaturalNews) When it comes down to pure consumer preference, the majority of Americans prefer organic food over conventional food, according to the results of a new poll released by NPR. Most Americans also prefer to obtain produce from either a farmers market or from a home garden rather than from a supermarket, which represents an important shift in public awareness concerning food. NPR conducted its poll via telephone, asking more than 3,000 adults various questions about their organic and non-organic food buying preferences. Fifty-eight percent of respondents said they prefer to buy and eat organic food over non-organic food, while thirty-six percent said they prefer to buy fruits and vegetables from a farmers market rather than from a supermarket. Twenty percent of respondents stated that produce grown in a home garden was their first choice. The most popular stated reason for preferring organic food over conventional was a desire to support local farmers rather than factory-farm conglomerates, followed by concern over toxins and other chemicals as the second most popular reason. Those with the highest levels of education were also the most concerned about toxins in non-organic food. Interestingly, the 31 percent of folks who said they prefer non-organic food over organic food stated that higher cost was their biggest issue. The second most popular reason stated for preferring non-organic over organic concerned the limited availability of organics in the market. Overall, 11 percent of respondents stated that they did not care whether or not the food they buy and consume is organic or non-organic. Older respondents tended to care less about organics than younger respondents, as 17 percent of the elderly expressed unconcern about organics. To view the entire NPR report containing full poll details, visit: http://www.factsforhealthcare.com/pressroom/NPR_report_OrganicFoods.pdf Sources for this story include: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/07/20/138534183/organic-foods-have-broad-appeal-but-costs-temper-demand

Widely used CAD mammography tool fails to find invasive breast cancer, causes needless tests and stress

(NaturalNews) Computer-aided detection (CAD) technology, which analyzes mammography images and marks suspicious areas for radiologists to review, has been widely hyped and pushed on women as a way to insure invasive breast cancer is spotted on mammograms. And it has grown into a huge industry, adding millions of dollars to the cost of healthcare. The problem is, CAD simply doesn’t work — at all. That’s right. Despite the fact CAD is now applied to the large majority of screening mammograms in the U.S. with annual direct Medicare costs exceeding $30 million (according to a 2010 study in the Journal of the American College of Radiology ), new research by University of California at Davis (UC Davis) scientists shows the expensive technology is ineffective in finding breast tumors. But it does something extremely well. It causes enormous stress by greatly increasing a woman’s risk of being called back for more costly testing following a CAD analyzed mammogram. The new research, just published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute , used data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium to analyze 1.6 million mammograms. Entitled “Effectiveness of Computer-Aided Detection in Community Mammography Practice,” the study specifically looked at screening mammograms performed on more than 680,000 women at 90 mammography facilities in seven U.S. states, between the years of 1998 and 2006. The results are being hailed as the most definitive findings to date on whether the super popular mammography tool is effective in locating cancer in the breast. The findings? CAD is a waste of time and money. The false-positive rate increased from 8.1 percent before CAD to 8.6 percent after CAD was installed at the medical centers in the study. What’s more, the detection rate of breast cancer and the stage and size of breast cancer tumors were similar regardless of whether or not CAD was used. “In real-world practice, CAD increases the chances of being unnecessarily called back for further testing because of false-positive results without clear benefits to women,” Joshua Fenton, assistant professor in the UC Davis Department of Family and Community Medicine, said in a statement to the media. “Breast cancers were detected at a similar stage and size regardless of whether or not radiologists used CAD.” This isn’t the first time the CAD technology has been questioned by researchers. The current study follows a previous study of the computer aided mammography tool that was published by Dr. Fenton in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2007. That examination of mammography screening results in 43 facilities, including seven that used CAD, found that CAD was actually linked to reduced accuracy of mammogram screenings and produced no difference in the detection rate of invasive breast cancer. “In the current study, we evaluated newer technology in a larger sample and over a longer time period,” Fenton noted in a statement to the press. “We also looked for the first time at cancer stage and cancer size, which are critical for understanding how CAD may affect long-term breast cancer outcomes, such as mortality.” CAD software was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration back in 1998, but its use only skyrocketed after Medicare began covering it in 2001. According to 2009 Medicare data, using CAD adds another $12 to the costs of having a mammogram (about $81 for film mammography and $130 for digital mammography), representing a 9 percent to 15 percent additional cost for CAD use. For more information: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/newsroom/releases/ http://www.naturalnews.com/mammograms.html

AIDS drugs linked to premature aging, dementia, and heart disease

(NaturalNews) A study recently published in the journal Nature Genetics explains that nucleoside analog reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, or NRTIs, which are drugs used primarily in Africa and other developing regions of the world to treat HIV and AIDS, are responsible for causing heart disease, dementia, premature aging, and other age-related illnesses. Originally introduced in the late 1980s, many NRTIs have since been replaced in developed countries by newer, and much more expensive, antiretroviral drug cocktails that may be just as damaging. But the older NRTIs are still being used on the poor with HIV and AIDS, and their devastating side effects are only just now beginning to be realized. “It takes time for these side effects to become apparent, so there is a question mark about the future and whether or not the newer drugs will cause this problem,” said Patrick Chinnery, lead author of the study from the Institute of Genetic Medicine at Newcastle University, to Reuters in a telephone interview. “They are probably less likely to, but we don’t know because we haven’t had time to see.” Scientists observed that the chemical compounds in NRTIs damage DNA in patients’ mitochondria, which are the power producers for cells. When these important structural elements become harmed or destroyed, they are unable to produce energy for cells, which can lead to a host of health problems and eventually death. “The DNA in our mitochondria gets copied throughout our lifetimes and, as we age, naturally accumulates errors,” added Chinnery. “We believe these HIV drugs accelerate the rate at which these errors build up. So over the space of, say, ten years, a person’s mitochondrial DNA may have accumulated the same amount of errors as a person who has naturally aged 20 or 30 years.” The findings illustrate the general fact that the unknown, long-term dangers associated with all types of drugs have not been properly identified. Because NRTIs and most other drugs have never been tested for long-term side effects, it is highly likely that a great majority of them will eventually be identified as damaging in much the same way as NRTIs. Sources for this story include: http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110627/hl_nm/us_aids_drugs_ageing

British government squanders millions conducting secret GM potato trials while non-GM variety already performs spectacularly

(NaturalNews) For the past ten years, the British government has been quietly subsidizing research aimed at developing a genetically-modified (GM) potato resistant to blight, the fungal disease responsible for causing the infamous Irish potato famine. According to Indymedia UK , Sainsbury Laboratory, the group tasked with development, has already spent roughly 1.7 million pounds ($2.7 million) worth of public funds to develop the GM potato, despite the fact that a natural blight-resistant variety has already been successfully bred and in use for the past three years. Unlike in the US where GM crops are widely cultivated, GM crops have never been commercially grown in the UK. Widespread public opposition to their introduction back in 1997, as well as continued opposition, has kept them largely out of food and off the land. And yet reports explains that the GM potato research being conducted by Sainsbury — with public funding — is so secretive that nobody knows for sure whether or not any open-air trials of test GM potatoes have taken place. Meanwhile, a small Welsh research group three years ago successful bred a natural, non-GM potato variety with natural resistance to blight — and that potato variety has been in cultivation ever since that time. As opposed to GM crops, this blight-resistant potato — which is now available in more than six different varieties — is safe for the environment, safe for human consumption, and it does not require the yearly repurchasing of terminator seeds and expensive chemical pesticides in order to grow. But the British government continues to pour money into useless endeavors to develop a GM variety, which has prompted Stop GM, a UK group devoted to ending the spread of GMOs, to take action. The group is holding an event on July 23 to speak out against the abuse of public funds by the UK government, and it needs your help to make it a success. Part of this event will include the dropping off of a trailer full of safe, non-GM, blight-resistant potatoes at the Sainsbury research center where the GM potato trials are taking place. To learn more about how you can help fight GMOs in the UK, visit: http://www.stopgm.org.uk/take-action.html Sources for this story include: http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/06/480991.html

« Previous Page — Next Page »