Tag: GMO

Bill Gates Donates $4 Million Dollars To New GM Mosquito Project

(Natural Blaze by Brandon Turbeville) Bill Gates is at it yet again. After promoting dangerous vaccines at home and abroad as well as GMOs in the third world, Gates is continuing on with his mission of promoting genetic modification by donating money to into a project allegedly designed to eradicate malaria.

The project consists of using genetically modified mosquitoes designed to pass on a self-destructive gene to their offspring, thus bringing about the demise and reduction of the Aedes aegypti mosquito.

Gates is pouring in $4 million of his own money into the project overseen by UK company Oxitec. The plan is to eradicate the Anepholes species of mosquito or, at the very least, to vastly lower its numbers in the wild.

Related: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

The genetically modified version of Anepholes is not yet ready but Oxitec expects them to be ready for trial by 2020.
If this program sounds familiar, that’s because it is. 

Oxitec has been creating franken-mosquitoes for years under the guise of eradicating dengue fever, Zika virus, and now malaria. Gates has also been involved with the same project, having donated $4.9 million to work on various “killer mosquitoes” projects.

One risk associated with the Oxitec experiment (both Aedes aegypti and Anopheles) is the potential for the release of genetically engineered biting females into the environment. Since female mosquitoes are the mosquitoes which bite humans, Oxitec claims that its GE mosquito population is an all-boys club. However, due to the method by which the mosquitoes are sorted, the potential for release of female mosquitoes is very real.

As Eric Hoffman writes, “The sorting is conducted by hand and could result in up to 0.5 percent of the released insects being female. This would raise new human health concerns as people could be bit by GE mosquitoes. It could also hamper efforts to limit the spread of dengue fever.”

It should also be noted that eradicating the Aedes aegypti type of mosquito might well leave the area open to invasion by other species who may, in fact, be much more dangerous to human health. For instance, the Asian Tiger mosquito, considered one of the most invasive species in the world, is known to be a carrier of both dengue fever and the West Nile Virus. What would be the result of an Asian Tiger invasion into South Florida? An eradication of Aedes aegypti might well provide us with an answer.

Likewise, one must ask what the effects would be of an eradication of the Anopheles species in areas currently afflicted with malaria.

In December 2011, I wrote an article entitled “Releasing Genetically Engineered Mosquitoes Poses Unknown Risks to Florida” where I documented the Oxitec plans to release 5-10,000 GM mosquitoes near the Florida Keys. This program was presented to the public under the guise of an attempt to eradicate dengue fever and is still awaiting approval from regulatory agencies despite widespread opposition from the public. So if it is true that there is a link between the GM mosquitoes and Zika virus, then Florida may soon be covered in ticking time bombs over its swamps, waiting to provide us with yet another public health emergency.

Yet the program itself is actually older than that. In 2009, also under the guise of preventing the spread of dengue fever, GM mosquitoes were released by Oxitec in the Cayman Islands. In fact, it is this release that has many questioning whether or not the GM mosquitoes actually have a link to increased rates of dengue fever. After all, shortly after the release of the GM mosquitoes in the Caymans, cases of dengue fever in Florida doubled. Is it merely a coincidence that cases of dengue increased shortly after millions of mosquitoes capable of carrying the fever were released miles away in the Cayman Islands?

I highly recommend reading my article, “Zika Mosquitoes Same As GM Mosquitoes Released Off The Coast Of Florida” in order to get a better understanding of how projects like this, particularly with Dengue fever have been of particular interest to the US government and US military in the past.

However, for now, it is undoubtedly worth it to ask whether or not the third world countries currently suffering under malaria will be seeing a spike in the disease as a result of Oxitec’s new genetic modification experiment. Even more so, it is undoubtedly worth it to explore the “unknown unknowns” in regards to the potential environmental and health disasters that may result yet again from Bill Gates.

Please fuel more news by sharing!

This article (Bill Gates Donates $4 Million Dollars to New GM Mosquito Project) was created by and appeared first at Natural Blaze. It can be reshared with attribution but MUST include link to homepage, bio, intact links and this message. 

Get a nifty FREE eBook – Like at Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Can republish but MUST include author name + link back at the TOP, links and bio intact. Must include this message! 

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom

How Farmed and Frankenfish Salmon Endanger Our Most Perfect Food

(Dr. Mercola) In November 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved AquaBounty salmon, a genetically engineered (GE) “frankenfish” that’s being touted as a way to solve overfishing and world hunger. The GE salmon are engineered to grow about twice as fast as typical farm-raised salmon, an eerie feat achieved by inserting the DNA from two other fish, a growth-promoting gene from a Chinook salmon and a “promoter” gene from the eel-like ocean pout.

This genetic tweaking results in fish with always-on growth hormone, and because they grow so much faster than other salmon, they also require less food. The fish are being grown on land and have several other supposed safeguards in place to prevent both escape and breeding with wild populations but, in nature, nothing is foolproof.

If you live in the U.S., the fish haven’t reached grocery store shelves — yet — but there’s a chance they could become the first GE animal food to be sold in the U.S. to date, with completely unknown consequences.

Recommended: Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections

GE Salmon, Already Sold in Canada, May Soon Be in US Grocery Stores

While the FDA approved AquaBounty’s salmon over two years ago, a rider attached to an Alaskan budget bill imposed an import ban, effectively blocking the FDA from allowing GE salmon into the U.S. In Canada, however, the GE fish are already being sold and eaten, to the tune of 5 tons in 2017 (none of which were labeled as such).1 Meanwhile, AquaBounty has recently acquired a fish farm in Indiana, where they’re making plans to start raising GE salmon.

“That means the company’s salmon could be on sale in the U.S. by 2019, which would make it the first genetically modified animal food ever sold and eaten in this country,” wrote Richard Martin, senior editor for energy at S&P Global Market Intelligence, for BioGraphic. “Opposition, naturally, is fierce.”2

The creation of GE salmon is anything but natural. For the last 13 generations of AquaBounty salmon, dating back to a single GE fish from 1992, every fish carries a copy of the “mutant” gene set that leads to the supergrowth and is passed down to the next generation. As such, gene splicing doesn’t take place at every AquaBounty facility, although intense breeding of the GE fish does. Martin explained:3

“At spawning time, conventional females are milked of their eggs by hand, a method that requires two fish wranglers per female — one to handle the fish and another to hold the container that collects the eggs. The technicians use the same squeeze technique to extract semen, or ‘milt,’ from the males … When combined, the eggs and milt produce fertilized eggs.

The technicians place the developing embryos in a stainless-steel tube where they are subjected to high pressure. This renders all the embryos’ cells triploid, meaning they have three sets of chromosomes instead of two, which makes the fish incapable of reproducing …

After a period of incubation at the Bay Fortune hatchery [on Prince Edward Island, Canada], the sterile, all-female transgenic embryos are flown to a rearing facility in the highlands of Panama, where the resulting salmon are grown to maturity before being reimported into Canada …

Eventually, AquaBounty plans to produce market-ready fish at a new facility under construction at Rollo Bay, on Prince Edward Island, and at the Indiana facility — an existing fish production factory that belonged to a now-defunct aquaculture company.”

Recommended: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

Most Americans Say They Would Not Eat GE Fish

In the U.S., negative public opinion has been instrumental in keeping GE fish off store shelves. In 2013, a New York Times poll revealed that 75 percent of respondents would not eat GE fish and 93 percent said such foods should be labeled as such.4 Yet, as in Canada, which does not require GE seafood to be labeled, the FDA concluded that AquaBounty salmon is “not materially different from other Atlantic salmon” and thus would not require any special labeling.5

If the frakenfish does end up in U.S. stores in the next year, then, you won’t be able to distinguish it from other salmon. Further, many experts are concerned that the release of GE salmon hasn’t been thought through and could pose a risk to wild salmon species.

Martin quoted Anne Kapuscinski, a professor of sustainability science at Dartmouth College, and George Leonard, chief scientist at the Ocean Conservancy, who stated, “The future of GE fish farming will surely involve larger fish farms, with less confinement, in many different environments.”6

As such, no one knows what future expansion could mean for the marine environment. A lawsuit led by the Center for Food Safety, and joined by U.S. tribes in the Pacific Northwest, including the Quinault Indian Nation, is challenging the FDA’s approval of AquaBounty’s salmon, alleging the agency “has not adequately assessed the full range of potentially significant environmental and ecological effects presented by the AquaBounty application.”7

Recommended: How Farmed Fish Degrades Our Health and the Environment – Better Options Included

The lawsuit is pending, but for now the FDA continues to maintain that AquaBounty’s salmon “is as safe to eat as any nongenetically engineered … Atlantic salmon, and also as nutritious.”8 They also state the approval “would not have a significant impact on the environment of the United States,” but the Center for Food Safety sees it differently, stating:9

“Salmon is a keystone species and unique runs have been treasured by residents for thousands of years. Diverse salmon runs today sustain thousands of American fishing families, and are highly valued in domestic markets as a healthy, domestic, ‘green’ food.

When GE salmon escape or are accidentally released into the environment, the new species could threaten wild populations by mating with endangered salmon species, outcompeting them for scarce resources and habitat, and/or introducing new diseases.

Studies have shown that there is a high risk for GE organisms to escape into the natural environment, and that GE salmon can crossbreed with native fish. Transgenic contamination has become common in the GE plant context, where contamination episodes have cost U.S. farmers billions of dollars over the past decade. In wild organisms like fish, it could be even more damaging.”

Aquaculture’s Farmed Salmon Are Environmentally Destructive

In the U.S., farmed salmon is one of the most popular seafood choices, with many being misled to believe it is a safe choice for dinner. In reality, while farmed salmon is not genetically engineered like AquaBounty’s frankenfish, it is still one of the worst seafood choices available in terms of pollutants and the environment. One of the major problems is that farmed salmon are typically raised in pens in the ocean, where their excrement and food residues are disrupting local marine life. The potential for escape is also high.

Even land-based salmon aquaculture is problematic, according to research published in Scientific Reports, which performed an analysis of four salmon aquacultures in Chile.10

The facilities, often described as CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) of the sea, pump water from rivers into their hatcheries, then pump it back out to the river once it’s no longer clean. The researchers found the water is often contaminated with dissolved organic matter (DOM) — a mixture of liquid excrement, food residue and other salmon excretions, along with disinfectants and antibiotics.

The release of DOM into Chile’s rivers is causing significant ramifications for the entire ecosystem. Upstream of the fish farms, the researchers detected higher amounts of natural algae biofilms on rocks, which help to produce oxygen and provide food for organisms that fish later eat.

Downstream, however, biofilms had a greater abundance of bacteria, which use up oxygen and may lead to low-oxygen environments that could threaten many species. The researchers suggested that no additional fish farms should be installed on Chilean rivers, noting, “[R]ivers should not be misused as natural sewage treatment plants.”11

Viruses, Sea Lice From Farmed Salmon Threaten Wild Fish

Since farmed salmon pens are often placed along wild salmon runs, they pose a severe threat to wild salmon stocks that pass by, exposing wild fish to diseases that run rampant among the confined fish, such as sea lice, pancreas disease, infectious salmon anemia virus and piscine reovirus. Piscine reovirus is a highly contagious blood virus that causes heart disease in the affected fish.

The virus was first discovered in Norwegian salmon farms and has proven to be nearly impossible to eradicate. And, with the spread of this disease into wild populations, wild salmon may soon go extinct. Alexandra Morton, a Canadian marine biologist who has spent decades studying the impact of salmon farming on wild salmon, has also reported that sea lice from salmon farms are eating young wild salmon to death, while Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has failed to take action.

In fact, an oceanic watchdog group recently reported a sea lice outbreak in Clayoquot Sound UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, located on the west coast of Vancouver Island in British Columbia, Canada.

Fish farms in the area had salmon lice up to 10 times higher than the rate that requires treatment, at numbers that could prove lethal to wild salmon. While DFO requires salmon farms to monitor and control sea lice via the use of chemicals in feed or hydrogen peroxide baths, the measures don’t appear to be working — and are toxic in and of themselves.

British Columbia has granted aquaculture company Cermaq Canada a permit to apply 2.3 million liters of Paramove 50, a pesticide, to 14 salmon farms in Clayoquot Sound in order to fight sea lice. Not only may the pesticide be toxic to other marine life such as Dungeness crab, prawns and herring, but it’s also known to suppress salmon immune systems, making them even more susceptible to viruses. In turn, wild salmon swimming by may be further exposed to deadly diseases.

“So just as the young salmon are passing by the farms, we could shock these farmed fish into getting PRV or that becoming HSMI (heart and skeletal muscle inflammation disease) which is deadly to wild salmon,” watchdog group Clayoquot Action Campaigns director Bonny Glambeck told The Narwhal.12 She continued in a news release:13

“This outbreak is an environmental disaster — we are seeing wild juvenile salmon carrying lethal loads of salmon lice … These fish have been given a death sentence … We don’t expect the new pesticides that they want to use will work. It’s not working in Norway right now. Studies show there is no way these fish will survive to spawn and reproduce … Basically the industry is unable to control sea lice. So that’s why we want to see these farms come out of the oceans.”

Tire Chemicals, PCBs Common in Farmed Salmon

Nutritionally speaking, farmed salmon are also a far inferior choice to the wild variety. For starters, their pens are often placed near shore, which means they’re close to land-based sources of pollutant runoff. In addition, they’re fed a diet of ground-up fishmeal, which may lead to concentrated levels of PCBs.

In a global assessment of farmed salmon published in the journal Science, PCB concentrations in farmed salmon were found to be eight times higher than in wild salmon.14 Similarly, when the Environmental Working Group (EWG) tested farmed salmon from U.S. grocery stores, they found farmed salmon had, on average:15

  • 16 times more PCBs than wild salmon
  • 4 times more PCBs than beef
  • 3.4 times more PCBs than other seafood

Further, ethoxyquin, developed by Monsanto in the 1950s, is a rubber stabilizer (used in the production of tires), pesticide, preservative and antioxidant all in one that’s often added to farmed salmon feed. While it doesn’t have the health benefits normally associated with dietary antioxidants, it does prevent oxidation of fats, which is why it’s used in different types of animal feed, including fish feed and pet food.16

But studies have also shown ethoxyquin adversely affects cell metabolism, especially the metabolic pathways of renal and hepatic cells in rats, and the mitochondria in bovine hearts and kidneys. Due to its potential toxicity, the EU has strict limits for ethoxyquin levels in fruits, nuts, vegetables and meat. However, since it was never intended for use in fish, and fish feed manufacturers never informed health authorities that they were using it, there are no limits on how much of the chemical is allowed in seafood.

On top of more toxins, farmed salmon lack the correct ratio of healthy fats that many people are seeking when eating a “healthy” fish meal. Half a fillet of wild Atlantic salmon contains about 3,996 milligrams (mg) of omega-3 and 341 mg of omega-6.17 Half a fillet of farmed salmon from the Atlantic contains just a bit more omega-3 — 4,961 mg — but an astounding 1,944 mg of omega-6;18 more than 5.5 times more than wild salmon.

While you need both omega-3 and omega-6 fats, the ratio between the two is important and should ideally be about 1-to-1. The standard American diet is already heavily skewed toward omega-6, thanks to the prevalence of processed foods, and with farmed salmon, that unhealthy imbalance is further magnified rather than corrected.

Choose Wild Salmon for Your Health — and the Environment

If you’re wondering how can you tell whether salmon is wild or farm-raised, the flesh of wild sockeye salmon is bright red, courtesy of its natural astaxanthin content. It’s also very lean, so the fat marks, those white stripes you see in the meat, are very thin. If the fish is pale pink with wide fat marks, the salmon is farmed. Avoid Atlantic salmon, as typically salmon labeled “Atlantic Salmon” currently comes from fish farms.

The two designations you want to look for are “Alaskan salmon” and “sockeye salmon,” as Alaskan sockeye is not allowed to be farmed. So canned salmon labeled “Alaskan Salmon” is a good bet, and if you find sockeye salmon, it’s bound to be wild. As for GE salmon, if it comes to your grocery store it’s not currently slated to be labeled as such, but it’s another variety of Atlantic salmon, so steering clear of Atlantic salmon in favor of wild varieties will help you steer clear of adding this frankenfish to your dinner plate.

USDA Wants Deceptively Cute Images For GMO Labels, But Cuts The Phrase “Genetically Modified”

(Natural Blaze) The public comment period is now open on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s just unveiled proposal for food labeling of products using GMOs—a plan that would have labels without the words “genetically modified” or “genetically engineered,” but instead adorned with cheerful images.

The images are just as insulting to consumers as the law, which the chemical and junk food industry lobbyists spent $400 million to pass.” –Katherine Paul, Organic Consumers Association

According to Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, the proposal represents “a gift to industry from our now Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, who authored the legislation to squash the Vermont GMO labeling law and mandatory labels.”

The proposal follows President Barack Obama’s 2016 signature on an industry-approved bill—dubbed the DARK Act—that required national labeling standard rules, and which critics blasted for having loopholees and lacking a mandate for adequate GMO labels. That law, which pre-empted Vermont’s first-of-its-kind labeling law, also required a deadline for the final rules by July 29, 2018, hence the USDA’s rollout this week.

Among the problems with the proposal, says Hauter, is that the “rule refers to GMOs as ‘bioengineered,’ or BE foods. This is a deceptive strategy because most consumers don’t know what that means.”

Andrew Kimbrell, executive director at Center for Food Safety, agreed, saying, “USDA’s exclusion of the well-established terms, GE and GMO, as options will confuse and mislead consumers, and the agency must instead allow the use of those terms.”

As for the images that will bear the acronym BE—”Wait ’till you see them,” writes Katherine Paul, associate director of the Organic Consumers Association. “All bright and cheery, with sunburst and smiley-faced images—but without ‘GMO’ appearing anywhere on the labels.”

“The images are just as insulting to consumers as the law, which the chemical and junk food industry lobbyists spent $400 million to pass—under the specious name of the ‘Safe and Affordable Food Labeling Act,’” Paul said.

The problems go beyond the symbol, say food safety groups.

“One of the many loopholes,” Hauter added, is that it “would allow a company that knowingly sells canned GMO sweetcorn to use a label that says ‘may be bioengineered’ because less than 85 percent of sweetcorn grown is genetically engineered.”

In addition, it would allow companies to use electronic QR codes, instead of a clear symbol, which would necessitate consumers having a clear internet connection, a smart phone, and the time for the hassle it would take to scan them.

“USDA should not allow QR codes,” Kimbrell said bluntly. “USDA’s own study found that QR codes are inherently discriminatory against one third of Americans who do not own smartphones, and even more so against rural, low income, and elderly populations or those without access to the internet. USDA should mandate on-package text or symbol labeling as the only fair and effective means of disclosure for GE foods.”

In sum, the groups say, the proposal leaves consumers in the dark.

“This is a ‘Call to Action’ to all Americans who have waited for decades to finally have GE foods labeled,” says Kimbrell. “Now is the time to tell the Trump administration to do the right thing and meaningfully label these foods.”

This article (USDA Wants Deceptively Cute Images for GMO Labels, But Cuts the Phrase Genetically Modified) appeared first at Common Dreams and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. (Image: Organic Consumers Association)

1,200 Percent Increase of Weed Killer in Your Body

(Dr. Mercola) Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, is the most heavily used agricultural chemical of all time. In the U.S., over 1.6 billion kilograms of the chemical have been applied since 1974, with researchers stating that, in 2014 alone, farmers sprayed enough glyphosate to apply 0.8 pound per acre on every 2.47 acres of U.S. cultivated cropland along with 0.47 pounds/acre on all cropland globally.1

It’s a mind-boggling amount of usage for one agricultural chemical, and it was only a matter of time before the wide-reaching environmental and public health implications became apparent.

Monsanto advertised Roundup as “biodegradable” and “environmentally friendly,” even going so far as to claim it “left the soil clean” — until they were found guilty of false advertising because the chemical is actually dangerous to the environment.2 It’s also increasingly showing up in people, at alarming levels, with unknown effects on human health.

Study Reveals 1,200 Percent Increase in Glyphosate Levels

Researchers from University of California San Diego (UCSD) School of Medicine tested urine levels of glyphosate and its metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) among 100 people living in Southern California over a period of 23 years — from 1993 to 2016.3The starting year is noteworthy, because in 1994 genetically engineered (GE) crops were introduced in the U.S.

Glyphosate is used in large quantities on GE glyphosate-tolerant crops (i.e., Roundup Ready varieties), and its use increased nearly fifteenfold since 1996.4 Glyphosate is also a popular tool for desiccating (or accelerating the drying out) of crops like wheat and oats, with the UCSD researchers noting in JAMA that Roundup is “applied as a desiccant to most small non-genetically modified grains.” So for both the GE crops and non-GE grains, glyphosate “is found in these crops at harvest.”

Related: Gluten, Candida, Leaky Gut Syndrome, and Autoimmune Diseases

At the start of the study, Paul Mills, professor of family medicine and public health at the University of California San Diego, stated that very few of the participants had detectable levels of glyphosate in their urine, but by 2016, 70 percent of them did.5 Overall, the prevalence of human exposure to glyphosate increased by 500 percent during the study period while actual levels of the chemical, in ug/ml, increased by a shocking 1,208 percent.6

It’s unknown what this means for human health but, in 2017, separate research revealed that daily exposure to ultra-low levels of glyphosate for two years led to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in rats.7 Mills stated that the glyphosate levels revealed by their JAMA study were 100-fold greater than those detected in the rat study.

In response to the featured study, Monsanto was quick to say that the amounts reported “do not raise health concerns,” and that the fact that the chemical is detected in urine is just “one way our bodies get rid of nonessential substances.”8 Speaking to GM Watch, Michael Antoniou of King’s College London had another take on the matter:9

“This is the first study to longitudinally track urine levels of glyphosate over a period before and after the introduction of GM glyphosate-tolerant crops. It is yet another example illustrating that the vast majority of present-day Americans have readily detectable levels of glyphosate in their urine, ranging from 0.3 parts per billion, as in this study, to ten times higher – 3 or more parts per billion – detected by others.

These results are worrying because there is increasing evidence to show that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides below regulatory safety limits can be harmful.”

While the JAMA study did not look into potential health ramifications of their findings, follow-up studies, including one tracking liver problems, are planned. Mills is even heading up UCSD’s Herbicide Awareness & Research Project, which is aiming to reveal the health-related effects of GE foods and the herbicides applied to them.10

EU Votes in Support of Banning Glyphosate

Concerns over glyphosate’s toxicity have been mounting since the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) 2015 determination that glyphosate is a “probable carcinogen.” As of July 2017, California’s Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) also listed glyphosate as a chemical known to cause cancer under Proposition 65, which requires consumer products with potential cancer-causing ingredients to bear warning labels.

Related: Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods

Meanwhile, in the EU, European Commission leaders met in March 2016 to vote on whether to renew a 15-year license for glyphosate, which was set to expire in June of that year. The decision was tabled amid mounting opposition, as more than 180,000 Europeans signed a petition calling for glyphosate to be banned outright. Ultimately, more than 2 million signatures were collected against relicensing the chemical.

In June 2016, however, the European Commission granted an 18-month extension to glyphosate while they continued the review. In October 2017, the European Parliament voted in favor of phasing out glyphosate over the next five years and immediately banning it for household use. As EcoWatch reported, Nathan Donley, a senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity noted:11

“This wasn’t just a vote against glyphosate. This was a vote supporting independent science and a vote against an industry that has manipulated, coerced and otherwise soiled independent decision-making in Europe and the rest of the world.”

Monsanto Manipulation Continues

The increasing concerns over glyphosate come as Monsanto’s reputation continues on a steady decline. For starters, in October 2017 members in the European Parliament (MEPs) announced that Monsanto officials would no longer be able to meet MEPs, attend committee meetings or even use “digital resources” in Brussels or Strasbourg parliament premises, essentially banning them from parliament.12

Recommended: How to Detoxify From Antibiotics and Other Chemical Antimicrobials

The blow came after the biotech giant refused to attend a hearing organized by environment and agriculture committees over allegations that Monsanto engaged in regulatory interference, by influencing studies into the safety of glyphosate. One study in question was conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini. The lifetime feeding study, published in 2012, revealed numerous shocking problems in rats fed GMO corn, including massive tumors and early death. Rats given glyphosate in their drinking water also developed tumors.

The following year, the publisher retracted the study saying it “did not meet scientific standards,” even though a long and careful investigation found no errors or misrepresentation of data. Interestingly enough, in the time between the publication of the study and its retraction, the journal had created a new position — associate editor for biotechnology; a position that was filled by a former Monsanto employee. The editor of the journal that retracted the study was also reportedly paid by Monsanto.

As GM Watch reported, “Emails released show that Monsanto was active in the retraction process, though it tried to hide its involvement.”13 Séralini not only republished the study in another journal, he also took legal action, and at the end of 2015, he won two court cases against some of those who tried to destroy his career and reputation. It’s also become clear that the company may have worked with a U.S. EPA official to stop glyphosate investigations.

Email correspondence showed Jess Rowland, who at the time was the EPA’s deputy division director of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC), helped stop a glyphosate investigation by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, on Monsanto’s behalf.

In an email, Monsanto regulatory affairs manager Dan Jenkins recounts a conversation he’d had with Rowland, in which Rowland said, “If I can kill this I should get a medal,”14 referring to the ATSDR investigation, which did not end up occurring.

Monsanto Fights to Put Even More Poison on Food

As if the environmental assault by glyphosate wasn’t enough, Monsanto has now released Roundup Ready Xtend for cotton and soybeans, which are GE plants designed to tolerate both glyphosate and another herbicide, dicamba. Dicamba has been used by farmers for decades, but the release of Roundup Ready Xtend crops prompted its use to become more widespread, as well as used in a different way, now sprayed over the top of the GE cotton and soy, where it can easily volatilize and drift onto nearby fields.15

Related: The Difference Between Heirlooms, Hybrids, and GMOs

Monsanto sold dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybean seeds to farmers before the herbicide designed to go with them (which is supposedly less prone to drifting) had gotten federal approval. In 2016, when farmers sprayed their new GE crops with older, illegal formulas of dicamba, and it drifted over onto their neighbors’ non-dicamba-resistant crops, devastating crop damage was reported in 10 states.16

Newer dicamba formulations are supposedly less prone to drifting, but this hasn’t stopped the onslaught of reports of dicamba damage, not only to cropland but also to trees. Glyphosate-resistant superweeds like pigweed are now driving farmers to seek out dicamba-resistant crops, but dicamba-resistant weeds have already sprouted in Kansas and Nebraska, raising serious doubts that piling more pesticides on crops will help farmers.

Monsanto, meanwhile, is already facing a slew of lawsuits over their dicamba-tolerant crops and resulting dicamba-damaged crops nearby, but is still set to enjoy the profits not only of farmers buying their GE seeds because they want to, but also those buying them out of fear of what will happen to their crops if they don’t.

Monsanto even held a “dicamba summit” in September 2017 near its headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri, hoping to gain approval from more scientists about its damaging weed killer, but of the approximately 60 people invited, only about half attended. University of Missouri plant sciences professor Kevin Bradley, who’s been tracking crop damage due to dicamba sprayings across the U.S., was among those who declined to attend, citing the company’s unwillingness to discuss volatilization.17

According to Bradley, a past president of the Weed Science Society of America, as of August 2017, an estimated 3.1 million acres across the eastern half of the United States had been damaged by dicamba drift,18 and after he spoke out about his findings, Monsanto executives started to call his supervisors. He told WNCW, “What the exact nature of all of those calls were, I’m not real sure, but I’m pretty sure that it has something to do with not being happy with what I was saying.”19

How Much Glyphosate Is in Your Body?

Laboratory testing commissioned by the organizations Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse revealed that glyphosate is now showing up virtually everywhere. The analysis revealed glyphosate in levels of 76 μg/L to 166 μg/L in women’s breast milk. As reported by The Detox Project, this is 760 to 1,600 times higher than the EU-permitted level in drinking water (although it’s lower than the U.S. maximum contaminant level for glyphosate, which is 700 μg/L.).20

This dose of glyphosate in breastfed babies’ every meal is only the beginning. An in vitro study designed to simulate human exposures also found that glyphosate crosses the placental barrier. In the study, 15 percent of the administered glyphosate reached the fetal compartment.21 Glyphosate has also been detected in a number of popular foods, including oatmeal, coffee creamer, eggs and cereal, such as Cheerios.

Related: Dicamba – The Herbicide Monsanto is Promoting to Replace Roundups Glyphosate

If you’d like to know your personal glyphosate levels, you can now find out, while also participating in a worldwide study on environmental glyphosate exposures. The Health Research Institute (HRI) in Iowa developed the glyphosate urine test kit, which will allow you to determine your own exposure to this toxic herbicide.

Ordering this kit automatically allows you to participate in the study and help HRI better understand the extent of glyphosate exposure and contamination. In a few weeks, you will receive your results, along with information on how your results compare with others and what to do to help reduce your exposure. We are providing these kits to you at no profit in order for you to participate in this environmental study.

In the meantime, eating organic as much as possible and investing in a good water filtration system for your home are among the best ways to lower your exposure to glyphosate and other pesticides. In the case of glyphosate, it’s also wise to avoid desiccated crops like wheat and oats.

Canadians Are Unknowingly Eating GM Salmon

(Natural Blaze) Ottawa – August 7, 2017 – AquaBounty revealed on August 4, in its quarterly financial results, that it has sold approximately five tonnes of genetically modified (GM or genetically engineered) Atlantic salmon fillets in Canada. (1) This is the world’s first sale of GM fish for human consumption and has occurred without GM product labeling for Canadian consumers.

Related: Genetically Modified Salmon Is On Its Way To Your Store

“No one except AquaBounty knows where the GM salmon are,” said Lucy Sharratt of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN). “The company did not disclose where the GM salmon fillets were sold or for what purpose, and we’re shocked to discover that they’ve entered the market at this time.”

Without mandatory labeling in Canada, CBAN works to track GM foods to keep Canadians informed.

“The immediate remedy is for grocery stores to commit to keeping GM salmon out,” said Sharratt. So far, two grocery companies in Canada have published statements online responding to consumer concerns over GM salmon: IGA Quebec states that it only orders non-GM salmon, and Costco’s website states that it does not intend to sell it.(2)

“We clearly need mandatory labeling of all GM foods,” said Thibault Rehn of the Quebec network Vigilance OGM, a member group of CBAN.

Related: What Do Natural, Organic, and Non-GMO Actually Mean?

There is no federal government tracking of GM products in the market and Members of Parliament voted down a Private Members Bill for mandatory GM food labeling in May. GM salmon is approved for human consumption in the US and Canada, but there is an import ban in the US until labeling guidelines are published.

“When it comes to GM foods, Canadian consumers are shopping blind,” said Sharratt.

NOTES:
(1) AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. Quarterly Filing, 10-Q, 08/04/17  http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=197553&p=irol-sec#15145522

(2) IGA Quebec: “Non-GMO salmon: At IGA, we order only non-GMO salmon from our suppliers, even though genetically modified salmon is legal and approved by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).” https://www.iga.net/en/in_the_community/buying/sustainable_fishing
Costco: “Costco does not intend to sell genetically modified salmon.” https://www.costco.com/sustainability-fisheries.html