Pass the Freak Dijon Mustard Please


darkbeaver
#1
A Moratorium on Genetically Manipulated (GMO) Foods

By F. William Engdahl

Global Research, May 22, 2009


US Association of Physicians calls for Moratorium on GMO Foods

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has just issued a call for an immediate moratorium on Genetically Manipulated (GMO) Foods.

In a just-released position paper on GMO foods, the AAEM states that ‘GM foods pose a serious health risk’ and calls for a moratorium on GMO foods. Citing several animal studies, the AAEM concludes ‘there is more than a casual association between GMO foods and adverse health effects’ and that ‘GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health.’ The report is a devastating blow to the multibillion dollar international agribusiness industry, most especially to Monsanto Corporation, the world’s leading purveyor of GMO seeds and related herbicides.


In a press release dated May 19, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, which describes itself as ‘an international association of physicians and other professionals dedicated to addressing the clinical aspects of environmental health,’ called immediately for the following emergency measures to be taken regarding human consumption of GMO foods:

* A moratorium on GMO food; implementation of immediate long term safety testing and labelling of GMO food.
* Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community and the public to avoid GMO foods.
* Physicians to consider the role of GMO foods in their patients' disease processes.
* More independent long term scientific studies to begin gathering data to investigate the role of GMO foods on human health.

The AAEM chairperson, Dr Amy Dean notes that ‘Multiple animal studies have shown that GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients' and the public's health.’ The President of the AAEM, Dr Jennifer Armstrong stressed that ‘Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions. The most common foods in North America which are consumed that are GMO are corn, soy, canola, and cottonseed oil.’ The AAEM's position paper on Genetically Modified foods can be found at http:aaemonline.org.

The paper further states that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) technology ‘abrogates natural reproductive processes, selection occurs at the single cell level, the procedure is highly mutagenic and routinely breeches genera barriers, and the technique has only been used commercially for 10 years.’
The AAEM paper further states, ‘several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signalling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.’
They add, ‘There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility. The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.’

GMO is toxic
The AAEM paper should give grounds for official rethinking of the current quasi laissez faire regulatory stance to GMO in which the solemn word of the GMO seed companies such as Monsanto is regarded as scientifically valid proof of safety. The AAEM study is worth citing in detail in this regard:
‘Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn. This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signalling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth and disruption of the intestinal immune system. ‘
The AAEM study also reviewed the biotechnology industry claims that GMO foods can feed the world through production of higher crop yields. It cited contrary evidence that the opposite appeared to be true, namely that over time GMO harvest yields were lower than conventional yields and required over time, more not less, highly toxic herbicidal chemicals such as glyphosate. The report noted, ‘The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialized major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn.’ However, the slight yield gain for Bt corn they report was ‘largely due to traditional breeding improvements,’ and not to GMO.
They conclude that because GMO foods ‘pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements. The most commonly used definition is from the 1992 Rio Declaration that states: ‘In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.’
Under intense public pressure, the German Minister of Agriculture recently issued a prohibition of planting for Monsanto MON810 GMO corn. Unfortunately, two weeks later she permitted planting of GMO potato seeds. Amflora, a genetically modified potato manufactured by chemicals giant BASF (a joint venture GMO partner of Monsanto), was declared by the German Ministry as posing ‘no danger for human health or the environment,’ The Ministry cited ‘in-depth examination’ and talks with scientific and economic experts as basis for the reckless decision.
The publication of the sensational critique of GMO by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has been greeted with stone silence by most major US media and international press.

GMO politics

As I describe in great detail in my book, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, , GMO was released on the general public in the early 1990’s in the USA under an executive decision by then President George Herbert Walker Bush, reportedly following closed door meetings with leading Monsanto executives. President Bush mandated that there should be no special health and safety tests done by any US Government agency before releasing GMO for food consumption. It came to be known as the Doctrine of Substantial Equivalence.

The US Government, on urging of Monsanto and the GMO lobby, further decided that labelling of a food product as ‘GMO free’ should be prohibited, using the vaguely formulated and entirely unscientific ‘doctrine’ proclaimed by President Bush in 1992, namely that GMO plants and non-GMO or ordinary plants were ‘substantially equivalent’ and hence needed no special testing before being released to the public.

That Substantial Equivalence Doctrine, despite the fact that it directly contradicts the demand of the GMO companies for exclusive patent rights to their GMO seeds as being ‘unique’ and different from ordinary seeds, enabled Monsanto, Dow Chemicals, DuPont and other GMO patent holders to proliferate their products with no control. Most Americans naively believe that the Government Food and Drug Administration and US Department of Agriculture are there to make certain industrial food products are confirmed fully safe for human and for animal consumption before licensing.

That de facto prohibition on labelling GMO foods has meant that most Americans have no idea how much of their daily diet from store-bought Corn Flakes to soybeans to corn and additives in every food on the supermarket shelf contained GMO contamination.

Coincident with the mass introduction of GMO into the human and animal diet in the United States beginning the end of the 1990’s, there have been reported epidemic levels of allergic outbreaks in humans, strange diseases and numerous other health issues. The fact it is forbidden by Federal law to label GMO products means most health professionals are not even aware there might be any connection to a GMO diet for millions of Americans. The US population, since the 1992 ruling of President Bush—a ruling reaffirmed by presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and now by Barack Obama and his pro-GMO Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack—has been in effect treated as human guinea pigs in mass experimentation for substances never independently proven in long-term (ten years or longer) studies to be safe.
 
hermite
#2
Oh great, another strike from the Bush family.

Thanks for posting that DB. I do my best to avoid the modified foods but I fear we've gone too far to turn back now.
 
darkbeaver
#3
Mornin Hermite; The Bush legislation made it impossible to avoid the junk what, that was by designe of course, the ramifications are chilling, population culling, it's a good thing we have ultrasecure seed banks encased deep in stone eh. Too bad they don't belong to the people. Yes some agency has gone too far, also by designe.
 
hermite
#4
I just read this somewhere else, looks like everything is gonna be a-ok after all.

White House Food Safety Working Group Takes Shape


President Obama announced on March 14th, 2009, the creation of a White House Food Safety Working Group to improve and coordinate the government's approach to the nationwide food safety crisis.

Agri-Pulse reported that former Monsanto lobbyist Michael Taylor, who has been serving on President Obama's Department of Agriculture Transition Team, was "the leading candidate to staff the White House [food safety] working group." Michael Taylor, who now promotes himself as a food safety expert, is a lawyer whose accomplishments include shepherding Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH) through Clinton's FDA as the Deputy Administrator for Policy.
................................

There, don't you feel better now?
 
CDNBear
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by hermite View Post

There, don't you feel better now?

Not really, this is a Pandora's Box and the lids been torn off.

Monsanto, is as far as I'm concerned, a group of mad scientists playing God with food.

This should be outlawed. In almost every instance of Monsanto's interference with the seed base, there has been widespread failure and devastation.

No wonder their products are being scrutinized with greater and greater intensity, everywhere else but the US.

This situation is criminal and nothing less.
 
Cannuck
#6
I wouldn't lose any sleep. You have to look at the source. The fact that AAEM "recognizes" electromagnetic hypersensitivity should tell you where they are coming from....and of course the guy is selling a book.
 
CDNBear
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

I wouldn't lose any sleep. You have to look at the source. The fact that AAEM "recognizes" electromagnetic hypersensitivity should tell you where they are coming from....and of course the guy is selling a book.

This source may be suspect Cannuck, but it certainly isn't the only one.

There are legitimate issues with genetically modified foods.
 
Cannuck
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

This source may be suspect Cannuck, but it certainly isn't the only one.

Then post something from them. Discussions about or involving AAEM should be relegated to the spiritual/religion forum.
 
CDNBear
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Then post something from them. Discussions about or involving AAEM should be relegated to the spiritual/religion forum.

Monsanto GM-corn harvest fails massively in South Africa - Digital Journal: Your News Network

Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?

For starters, there are literally thousands of sites dedicated to the topic. I don't have the time to filter out the loonies at the moment, but you would be better served if you looked into the problems related to GMF's, if not just better informed. You do have a right to know what you are consuming.
 
YukonJack
#10
Every food one eats today was developed by genetic research.

Who is foolish enough to say that the ORIGINAL potato was anything like the many great varieties of potatoes we enjoy today?

Same for corn, tomatoes, peppers, wheat, and just about everything one can think of. Or for that matter, beef, chicken, pork, lamb and turkey were all developed for maximum yield of meat, by genetic research and careful breeding.

Yet, fear-mongers would like nothing better than promote hunger, famine and malnutrition by spreading lies.

Anyone that refuses to eat GMO foods, deserves to suffer hunger, famine and malnutrition.
 
CDNBear
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

Every food one eats today was developed by genetic research.

Who is foolish enough to say that the ORIGINAL potato was anything like the many great varieties of potatoes we enjoy today?

Same for corn, tomatoes, peppers, wheat, and just about everything one can think of. Or for that matter, beef, chicken, pork, lamb and turkey were all developed for maximum yield of meat, by genetic research and careful breeding.

Yet, fear-mongers would like nothing better than promote hunger, famine and malnutrition by spreading lies.

Anyone that refuses to eat GMO foods, deserves to suffer hunger, famine and malnutrition.

YJ, we're not talking about plant breeding, a legitimate form of engineering, pulling the best qualities of different genus to one variety, what we're talking about is the modification of a plants gene's and DNA to manipulte it genetically.

This leads to all sorts of other issues.

Read up on the differences.
 
Cannuck
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

For starters, there are literally thousands of sites dedicated to the topic.

Yes, there are also thousands of sites dedicated to the CIA's involvement in 9/11.

I'm well aware of the controversies surrounding GMO's. All I'm saying is that if one wishes to discuss this scientifically, then perhaps one should begin from a scientifically defensible position.
 
Tonington
#13
Genetically modified organisms, so what about selective plant breeding then. Are they fine with that? Or is it just organisms which have foreign nucleic acids in their genome?

Genetically modified foods are one of those boogeymen like nuclear power, and stem cells, and particle accelerators that some people will never accept. Humans already consume more than the earth can sustainably provide, and if we want to feed people beyond the next few generations, we may need more food production than the green revolution the last half century gave us. This may require modified organisms which can be farmed in marginal and frontier areas/regions.
 
YukonJack
#14
"YJ, we're not talking about plant breeding, a legitimate form of engineering, pulling the best qualities of different genus to one variety, what we're talking about is the modification of a plants gene's and DNA to manipulte it genetically.

This leads to all sorts of other issues."

Please, define those issues.
 
CDNBear
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

Yes, there are also thousands of sites dedicated to the CIA's involvement in 9/11.

I'm well aware of the controversies surrounding GMO's. All I'm saying is that if one wishes to discuss this scientifically, then perhaps one should begin from a scientifically defensible position.

You won't get any arguments out of on that one.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Genetically modified foods are one of those boogeymen like nuclear power, and stem cells, and particle accelerators that some people will never accept. Humans already consume more than the earth can sustainably provide, and if we want to feed people beyond the next few generations, we may need more food production than the green revolution the last half century gave us. This may require modified organisms which can be farmed in marginal and frontier areas/regions.

I would otherwise agree with you Tonn, but what of the seemingly criminal acts perpetrated by Monsanto?

If we look at the issue myopically, I would agree, we as a people need to achieve better food growth to facilitate the needs of mankind, but at what cost?

Monsanto doesn't seem to be in it for the humanity of it Tonn. As seen through their litigious nature and iron fisted control over seed markets abroad and domestically. Compound that with the statical anomolies found in their bovine products, you have a recipe for greater need to control and have greater oversight as to the long term effects.

I would not advocate abandoning the idea, but it does need to have safe guards, farmers need to have some protection and their needs to be a way to return to as it was, without going through what many farmers have found to be a life threatening process.

Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

Please, define those issues.

What am I, your personal informational Sherpa?

Try a little research, then come back and challenge me.
 
Nuggler
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

"YJ, we're not talking about plant breeding, a legitimate form of engineering, pulling the best qualities of different genus to one variety, what we're talking about is the modification of a plants gene's and DNA to manipulte it genetically.

This leads to all sorts of other issues."

Please, define those issues.


Wellllllll, fer one; fertilizer "genes" and "pest control" genes are incorporated, (in the seed), making for a poisonous plant, which, when consumed, has killed people.

Mostly, third world countries have been used as guinea pigs by Monsanto, testing their genetic manipulation.

There's a helluval great doc. about Monsanto, which might be available online. I'll have a look for it later on today.

Considering that one of Monsanto's brightest stars is one of Obama's henchmen, it might be concluded we're all royally screwed........

Enjoy yer oatmeal.
 
Nuggler
#17
......Here's one

Monsanto's Harvest of Fear

Check out "freedocumentaries.org"
 
CDNBear
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Nuggler View Post

......Here's one

Monsanto's Harvest of Fear

Check out "freedocumentaries.org"

That was an awesome read Nugg, thanx.

Reminiscent of the French documentary I watched not to long ago on Monsanto. "The World According to Monsanto. Which was banned in the US, go figure.

It was even removed from Google and YouTube.

Go figure.

It's back on Google now though.

Controlling Our Food

An awesome flick.
Last edited by CDNBear; May 24th, 2009 at 08:27 AM..
 
CDNBear
#19
Safeway, Starbucks and Kraft won't use, sell or produce products with rBST. The bovine growth hormone.

Which is banned in Canada, btw.

Ottawa bans bovine growth hormone

Not Even Monsanto Wants GM hormone - GMWATCH temporary site
Last edited by CDNBear; May 24th, 2009 at 08:50 AM..
 
darkbeaver
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Genetically modified organisms, so what about selective plant breeding then. Are they fine with that? Or is it just organisms which have foreign nucleic acids in their genome?

Genetically modified foods are one of those boogeymen like nuclear power, and stem cells, and particle accelerators that some people will never accept. Humans already consume more than the earth can sustainably provide, and if we want to feed people beyond the next few generations, we may need more food production than the green revolution the last half century gave us. This may require modified organisms which can be farmed in marginal and frontier areas/regions.

The yields are signifigantly lower with GM crops and the production costs are signifigantly up so whatever our bugaboos about GM tech might be, the crap scienceis still an inefficent dangerous idea that fattens only the bankers. Normal plant and animal husbandry is proven scientifically GMOs are definately not.
The problem with modern agriculture is well understood to be A/ distribution and B/massive waste and C/ monopilization and consolodation serveing industrial and banking interests. The green revolution is directly from the sick mind of Rockerfeller. Your comment about what some people will accept is just plain funny (in a twisted sort of way) coming from someone who accepts the majesty of particle acclerators. Faith based worship Tonnington, it's an invasive slippery thing, gets in where you'd least expect it.
 
darkbeaver
#21
The green revolution will be the restoration of the family farm, and nothing else.
 
CDNBear
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

The yields are signifigantly lower with GM crops and the production costs are signifigantly up so whatever our bugaboos about GM tech might be, the crap scienceis still an inefficent dangerous idea that fattens only the bankers. Normal plant and animal husbandry is proven scientifically GMOs are definately not.
The problem with modern agriculture is well understood to be A/ distribution and B/massive waste and C/ monopilization and consolodation serveing industrial and banking interests. The green revolution is directly from the sick mind of Rockerfeller. Your comment about what some people will accept is just plain funny (in a twisted sort of way) coming from someone who accepts the majesty of particle acclerators. Faith based worship Tonnington, it's an invasive slippery thing, gets in where you'd least expect it.

I'll have to agree with that whole heartedly.

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

The green revolution will be the restoration of the family farm, and nothing else.

Would be a nice thing to see, the reintroduction of the family farm and the decrease in the necessity of the over immunized live stock and agro biz.
 
Nuggler
#23
That was an awesome read Nugg, thanx.

Reminiscent of the French documentary I watched not to long ago on Monsanto. "The World According to Monsanto. Which was banned in the US, go figure.""

Thx, Bear. The one you mentioned is the one I was trying to find.

Scary.
 
CDNBear
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Nuggler View Post

That was an awesome read Nugg, thanx.

Reminiscent of the French documentary I watched not to long ago on Monsanto. "The World According to Monsanto. Which was banned in the US, go figure.""

Thx, Bear. The one you mentioned is the one I was trying to find.

Scary.

Very scary stuff...

I did find this feel good story from Sask. though...

Local seed vs big guns

Seems if you can keep the legal bills going, you may actually be able to beat Monsanto at their own game. They had to pay to clean up and decontaminate Schmeiser's fields of their seeds.

I hope we see more seed savers and less dependence on GM seeds in the future. I hope some of the lessons being tought here are heeded.
 
L Gilbert
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by hermite View Post

Oh great, another strike from the Bush family.

Thanks for posting that DB. I do my best to avoid the modified foods but I fear we've gone too far to turn back now.

I beg to differ. We grow our own veggies & fruit for the most part and we do it from unmodified seed (you can find it on the net and it has COG's, GOCA's, or someone else's seal of approval).
 
L Gilbert
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Mornin Hermite; The Bush legislation made it impossible to avoid the junk what, that was by designe of course, the ramifications are chilling, population culling, it's a good thing we have ultrasecure seed banks encased deep in stone eh. Too bad they don't belong to the people. Yes some agency has gone too far, also by designe.

Bull
 
L Gilbert
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJack View Post

Every food one eats today was developed by genetic research.

Who is foolish enough to say that the ORIGINAL potato was anything like the many great varieties of potatoes we enjoy today?

Same for corn, tomatoes, peppers, wheat, and just about everything one can think of. Or for that matter, beef, chicken, pork, lamb and turkey were all developed for maximum yield of meat, by genetic research and careful breeding.

Yet, fear-mongers would like nothing better than promote hunger, famine and malnutrition by spreading lies.

Anyone that refuses to eat GMO foods, deserves to suffer hunger, famine and malnutrition.

Bull shyte. I sell Gravenstein apples from my trees, which either are from the early 1900s or else trees that have been grown from the old ones. Some of them are older than the heads of companies modifying stuff.
Same thing about my cherry trees, plum trees, etc. There are too many people around still raising old species (plants AND animals) for the market to be absolutely full of modified foods.
 
L Gilbert
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Genetically modified organisms, so what about selective plant breeding then. Are they fine with that? Or is it just organisms which have foreign nucleic acids in their genome?

Genetically modified foods are one of those boogeymen like nuclear power, and stem cells, and particle accelerators that some people will never accept. Humans already consume more than the earth can sustainably provide, and if we want to feed people beyond the next few generations, we may need more food production than the green revolution the last half century gave us. This may require modified organisms which can be farmed in marginal and frontier areas/regions.

Ton, some people just don't like the idea of some company (companies) with its main focus on bottom line forcing them to eat what the company wants. This house contains some of those types of people. We are not on this planet to help some company playing god with food get rich.
 
YukonJack
#29
Prove to me that the genetically modified potato/beef is chemically different from the regular potato/beef

Then prove to me that if I eat it I will die. I'd be willing to take my chances.

So far I had no chance to take my own chances. But if I had to trust anyone I would much rather trust Monsanto than some pinko, politically correct, starvation promoting, loving liberal.
 
L Gilbert
#30
lol Some people just have no idea what the consequences of genetic engineering can do.

Looking Back at Genetic Engineering's First Deadly Disaster: L-tryptophan
 

Similar Threads

35
Does this Freak anyone else out?
by manda | Jul 1st, 2018
31
Is Hayden Penettiere a freak?
by dirtdiggr | Mar 19th, 2018
5
Man dies in freak badger accident.
by Blackleaf | Apr 20th, 2006