The Codex, Fluoride, Auschwitz, Monsanto Connection
By Barbara H. Peterson
What do Codex Alimentarius with its official food standards, the fluoridation of our water and food supply, genocide at the Auschwitz concentration camp, and Monsanto, the company responsible for genetically altering the world’s food supply all have in common? Is there a connection that binds these seemingly diverse organizations together? Yes, there is. In fact, they are so inextricably bound that separating them is all but impossible.
Let’s start at the beginning with Auschwitz and connect the dots.
Auschwitz
Auschwitz was known for its “network of concentration and extermination camps built and operated in Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany during the Second World War. It was the largest of the German concentration camps (Wikipedia).”
Auschwitz also had a factory called I. G. Auschwitz:
I.G. Auschwitz, founded in Kattowitz on April 7, 1941, was intended to be the largest chemical factory in Eastern Europe and at the same time a building block in the process of “Germanizing” the region. According to the plan, the production facilities were to supply the Eastern European market with plastics in peacetime, following their use for wartime production. In addition to German skilled workers and forced laborers from all over Europe, increasing numbers of prisoners from the Auschwitz concentration camp were deployed at the gigantic construction site in Auschwitz. In 1942 I.G. Auschwitz built its own corporate concentration camp, Buna/Monowitz. (Wollheim Memorial)
In fact, I.G. Auschwitz was designed from the very first to be an extremely complex chemical factory, producing, besides Buna, high-performance fuels (including aviation gasoline and fuel oil for naval use), various plastics, synthetic fibers, stabilizing agents, resins, methanol, nitrogen, and pharmaceuticals. (Wollheim Memorial)
I.G. Farben, which consisted of BASF, Bayer, and Hoechst (now known as Aventis), owned I.G. Auschwitz. A man called Frits ter Meer was on the I.G. Farben Managing Board from its foundation, and was responsible for I.G. Auschwitz. I. G. Auschwitz had a cozy relationship with the Auschwitz concentration camp, in that it used forced labor of the prisoners to work in its factory, and also used them as guinea pigs.
Under Frits ter Meers direction, I.G. Farben used a fluoridation program to control the population at the Auschwitz concentration camp in any given area through the mass medication of drinking water supplies.“By this method they could control the population in whole areas, reduce population by water medication (fluoride) that would produce sterility in women, and so on.” (ShopUSI)
Frits ter Meer was ultimately convicted at Nuremberg of plundering and slavery, but his sentence was commuted due to friends in high places. Fritz then went on to become one of the architects of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 1962/3.
Codex Alimentarius
Codex was created by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations (UN). According to the Codex official site:
The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The main purposes of this Programme are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations.(Codex Alimentarius)
The Codex Alimentarius Commission implements the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program, the purpose of which is to protect the health of consumers and to ensure fair practices in the food trade.(Organic Consumers)
In other words, under the auspices of “protecting the public health and ensuring fair trade practices,” the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program is implemented by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The FAO and WHO set the standards, and the Codex Commission implements them. All members of the UN are obligated to comply with these standards.
So, what does Codex have to do with fluoridation, and just how could a mass fluoridation program be implemented without our knowledge or consent under Codex guidelines?
The answer is – WHO has already determined that fluoride should be included in our food and water supply because it is “necessary for public health:”
Many countries that are currently undergoing nutrition transition do not have adequate exposure to fluoride. There should be promotion of adequate fluoride exposure via appropriate vehicles, for example, affordable toothpaste, water, salt and milk. It is the responsibility of national health authorities to ensure implementation of feasible fluoride programmes for their country. Research into the outcome of alternative community fluoride programmes should be encouraged.
Here is the reference document:
Diet, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases PDF
A 1994 World Health Organization expert committee suggested a level of fluoride from 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L (milligrams per litre) (Wikipedia)
Currently, compliance with WHO’s directive of the fluoridation of water, salt, and milk varies from country to country. Water fluoridation has been introduced by varying degrees in many countries. View each country HERE. An interesting fact to note is that drinking water is not fluoridated in any part of Germany. Is it mere coincidence that one of the founders of the Codex Alimentarius Commission just happened to be in charge of the fluoridation program at Auschwitz, and that Germany is somehow exempt from fluoridation? Or, maybe they know something that we don’t.
The Public Fluoridation Deception
Most are aware of the water fluoridation program that has been foisted upon us as a “treatment for dental disease” and cure for cavities. This is proven propaganda and has been disputed in the EPA’s own documents, which list fluoride as a contaminant, as well as in countless other professional publications. Yet, the mass water fluoridation program continues, causing food and liquids that use this contaminated water to contain fluoride also. According to our own CDC Department of Health and Human Services:
“fluoridated water is diffused throughout the population as residents of non-fluoridated communities increasingly consume foods and beverages processed and bottled in fluoridated communities. Thus, many individuals residing in non-fluoridated communities have benefited from fluoridation policies.”
This is called “Building Capacity to Fluoridate.” (CDC)
So you see, our country is complying with the UN/WHO/FAO/Codex fluoridation policy and we the people don’t even know it. Just like the prisoners at Auschwitz most likely didn’t know that they were being subjected to a fluoridation program and being poisoned with their water until it was too late. If food is produced using fluoridated water, then it contains fluoride. All you have to do is contaminate the water, and the food issue takes care of itself.
The following chart shows just how “in compliance” the U.S. is: Percent of U.S. Population Receiving Fluoride
And if some of you are still wondering if we are really following Codex mandates, wonder no more. Many do not know this, but ‘Codex’ already consists of around 300 official food standards, some of which have been in ‘global effect’ since as long ago as 1966 (Rath Foundation). So it shouldn’t come as a big surprise to find out that fluoridation is just another facet of this program. Here is a list of foods from the Codex Alimentarius site.
The Monsanto Connection
Monsanto, Cargill, BASF, Bayer, and Aventis (or I.G. Farben) are all in partnership under the banner of Crop Science. They are partnered in various ways, such as:
BASF Plant Science and Monsanto to expand their collaboration in maximizing crop yield.
Monsanto, Bayer team up on herbicide tolerance
Monsanto and Cargill are in a 50/50 joint venture partnership. Monsanto makes the seeds, which make the crops, and Cargill makes the fertilizer. Cargill also just happens to be responsible for 70-75% of the hazardous waste hydrofluosilicic acid used in fluoridation programs. (Fluoride Action Network)
The U.S. government considers the basic chemical composition of hydrofluosilicic acid, a toxic waste, and fluoride to be the same when dumped in the water supply:
Due to the obviously intriguing aspect of this “waste disposal policy”, there has naturally been quite a bit of curiosity concerning the safety of this public health practice. Apparently, however, there are no government safety studies currently available on fluosilicic acid. This is because the government is basing their fluoridation policy on the assumption that there is no chemical difference, after dilution into the water supply, between pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride and the industrial grade hydrofluosilicic acid.(Fluoride Action Network)
Oregon, which is very low on the compliance list with only 19.4% fluoridation, is attempting to increase that level considerably. In 2007, HB 3099, the Oregon water fluoridation bill, would have required community water suppliers serving more than 10,000 people to “optimally fluoridate.” Fortunately, it was not passed. If passed, it would have increased the fluoride levels in Oregon to 68%. Good for Cargill and Monsanto, bad for us.
Reasons Not to Fluoridate
The following partial list is compiled from Fluoride Alert:
Fluoride is a cumulative poison.
Chromosome damage
Kidneys
Brain
Alzheimers
Rats dosed prenatally demonstrated hyperactive behavior. Those dosed postnatally demonstrated hypoactivity (i.e. under activity or “couch potato” syndrome)
Lowering of IQ
Early onset of puberty
Affects thyroid gland
Arthritis
Cancer
Infertility
Harms bones – brittle
It is up to us to stand up and say no to mass water fluoridation. If someone wants fluoride, then let him/her take it. I have no problem with that. But to forcibly administer this poison to an unsuspecting and unwilling populace without prior knowledge or consent is criminal. We are not Auschwitz prisoners….yet.
© 2010 Barbara H. Peterson
Monsanto Stirs Trouble in China: Milk Scandal
By: John Robbins
Huffingtonpost.com
Female Infants Growing Breasts: Another Disaster From Hormones in Milk Production
People are very upset about this, and for good reason. Female infants in China who have been fed formula have been growing breasts.
According to the official Chinese Daily newspaper, medical tests performed on the babies found levels of estrogens circulating in their bloodstreams that are as high as those found in most adult women. These babies are between four and 15 months old. And the evidence is overwhelming that the milk formula they have been fed is responsible.
Synutra, the company that makes the baby formula consumed by these babies, says it’s not their fault. They insist that “no man-made hormones or any illegal substances were added during the production of the milk powder.”
Then what is the source of the hormones? A Chinese dairy association says the hormones could have entered the food chain when farmers reared the cows. “Since a regulation forbidding the use of hormones to cultivate livestock has yet to be drawn up in China,” says Wang Dingmian, the former chairman of the dairy association in the southern province of Guangdo, “it would be lying to say nobody uses it.” Bovine growth hormones are used in China, as they are in the U.S., to promote greater milk production.
An extraordinary number of food products sold in the U.S. today come from China. Could some of this tainted formula be making its way to the U.S.?
There is currently no way for consumers to know whether infant formula they might purchase has been made with milk products from China.
If this problem appears in the U.S., who will be held responsible? The retailers? The importers? The Chinese producers? Will anyone be called to account?
As I describe in my books The Food Revolution and Diet For a New America, and on my website, this isn’t the first time something like this has happened. In the 1980s, doctors in Puerto Rico began encountering cases of precocious puberty. There were four-year-old girls with fully developed breasts. There were three-year old girls with pubic hair and vaginal bleeding. There were one-year-old girls who had not yet begun to walk but whose breasts were growing. And it wasn’t just the females. Young boys were also affected. Many had to have surgery to deal with breasts that had become grossly swollen.
Writing a few years later in the Journal of the Puerto Rico Medical Association, Dr. Carmen A. Saenz explained the cause. “It was clearly observed in 97 percent of the cases that the appearance of abnormal breast tissue was…related to local whole milk in the infants.”
The problem was traced, and found to stem from the misuse of hormones in dairy cows. When Dr. Saenz was asked how she could be certain the babies and children were contaminated with hormones from milk rather than from some other source, she replied simply: “When we take our young patients off… fresh milk, their symptoms usually regress.”
Along with China, the U.S. is today one of the few countries in the world that still allows bovine growth hormones to be injected into dairy cows. Though banned in Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and most of Europe, the use of these hormones in U.S. dairy is not only legal, it’s routine in all 50 states.
The U.S. dairy industry assures us that this is not a problem. But there is a very real problem, and its name is Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1). Monsanto’s own studies, as well as those of Eli Lilly & Co., have found a 10-fold increase in IGF-1 levels in the milk of cows who have been injected with bovine growth hormone (BGH).
Why is that a problem? A report by the European Commission’s authoritative international 16-member scientific committee not only confirmed that excessive levels of IGF-1 are always found in the milk of cows injected with BGH. It also concluded that excess levels of IGF-1 pose serious risks of breast, colon and prostate cancer.
How serious is the increased risk? According to an article in the May 9, 1998 issue of the medical journal The Lancet, women with even a relatively small increase in blood levels of IGF-1 are up to seven times more likely to develop breast cancer than women with lower levels.
IGF-1 that is consumed by human beings in dairy products is rapidly absorbed into the bloodstream. It isn’t destroyed by human digestion. And pasteurization is no help. In fact, the pasteurization process actually increases IGF-1 levels in milk.
What’s a consumer to do?
If at all possible, breast-feed your babies, and support breast-feeding friendly workplaces and other environments. It’s hard to overstate the health advantages of breast-feeding for both mother and baby. They are enormous, and particularly so today, when the possibility exists that commercially available infant formula could be contaminated with excess hormones.
If you are going to buy dairy products, try to get them from organic sources. Organic milk products by law can’t be produced with bovine growth hormone (BGH). Or look for dairy products that specifically say they are produced without BGH (also called recombinant bovine somatotropin, or rBST). Starbucks only uses dairy products that have not been produced with the hormone. Ben & Jerry’s ice cream likewise uses only milk and cream from dairy farms that have pledged not to use BGH.
If you’re going to eat cheese, remember that American-made cheeses are likely to be contaminated with BGH and excess levels of IGF-1 unless they’re organic or labeled BGH-free. Most cheeses that are imported from Europe are safe, though, since much of Europe has banned the hormone.
Have you ever wondered why dairy products made from cows injected with the hormone aren’t labeled? It’s because Monsanto, the original manufacturer of BGH, has aggressively and successfully lobbied state governments in the past to make sure that no legislation is passed that would require such labeling.
As if that wasn’t enough, Monsanto has also insistently sought to make it illegal for dairy products that are BGH-free to say so on their labels, unless the labels also included wording exonerating BGH. How does Monsanto justify such a dangerous condition? They say that allowing retailers to tell consumers that a dairy product is BGH-free shouldn’t be allowed, even if it’s true, because it unfairly stigmatizes BGH.
Monsanto acts as though accurately labeling products would make them the victim of some irrational cultural bias. But the company’s products are, in fact, responsible for untold damage to human health.
My compassion is not for Monsanto. My heart goes out to the babies in China and their families, to the children in Puerto Rico and their families, and to the millions of others who have been or will be adversely affected by the abuse of hormones in dairy production.
To learn how to steer clear of potentially dangerous foods and household products, and how to make healthier, safer, cost-saving choices, read The New Good Life: Living Better Than Ever in an Age of Less. For more information about my work, and if you like, sign up for my email list, please visit my website, johnrobbins.info.
Supreme Court rules against ban on GMO alfalfa, but requires complete safety study first
From NaturalNews.com
By Ethan Huff, citizen journalist
(NaturalNews) The battle continues as agri-giant Monsanto pushes to have its genetically-modified (GM) alfalfa approved for use in the U.S. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Monsanto by ruling against a lower court’s nationwide ban on the GM alfalfa; however, the court is requiring the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to complete a comprehensive safety study before the “franken-crop” can officially be approved.
The whole thing started when the USDA first approved Monsanto’s GM alfalfa back in 2007. The Center for Food Safety (CFS) immediately filed a lawsuit against the approval, citing valid concerns that the seeds would take over pasture lands and become uncontrollable. The federal district judge who heard the case agreed, ruling also that the USDA had acted irresponsibly by failing to complete an environmental safety study prior to approving the seeds for planting. The same judge banned GM alfalfa nationwide.
The reason why GM alfalfa is particularly dangerous is that alfalfa is an aggressive spreader, and would likely end up in all sorts of fields, including organic ones. Alfalfa is typically used to feed dairy cattle, so if GM alfalfa is ever approved, it could destroy the entire organic beef and dairy industry. In the long term, it could ruin the entire organic food industry.
However, the Supreme Court recently ruled 7-to-1 that a nationwide ban was inappropriate, but it has allowed the ban to stay in place until the USDA completes the necessary Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
According to the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), Monsanto was quick to spin the ruling as being in its favor, essentially telling the media that it had won a victory. But truth be told, the nationwide ban on GM alfalfa is still in place, and planting the crop is still illegal. Though the ruling allows Monsanto to move forward in trying to gain approval, there is no guarantee that the multi-national giant will be successful.
Part of the EIS process involves reviewing the more than 200,000 public comments received since December 2009 concerning GM alfalfa, most of which are likely in protest of the crop.
So it is important to keep letting your voice be heard on important issues like this one, especially when there is an open comment period. 200,000 people voiced their opinions about GM alfalfa, and this could greatly influence the USDA’s final decision in the matter.
Sources:
Genetically Modified Foods: More Reason to Avoid Them; Why They Threaten Organic Agriculture
Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foods – Institute for Responsible Technology
Monsanto: The world’s poster child for corporate manipulation and deceit
FWD: Naturalnews.com
Monsanto: The world’s poster child for corporate manipulation and deceit
by Jeffrey M. Smith
(NaturalNews) At a biotech industry conference in January 1999, a representative from Arthur Anderson, LLP explained how they had helped Monsanto design their strategic plan. First, his team asked Monsanto executives what their ideal future looked like in 15 to 20 years. The executives described a world with 100 percent of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented. Anderson consultants then worked backwards from that goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with the steps and procedures needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in which natural seeds were virtually extinct.
This was a bold new direction for Monsanto, which needed a big change to distance them from a controversial past. As a chemical company, they had polluted the landscape with some of the most poisonous substances ever produced, contaminated virtually every human and animal on earth, and got fined and convicted of deception and wrongdoing. According to a former Monsanto vice president, “We were despised by our customers.”
So they redefined themselves as a “life sciences” company, and then proceeded to pollute the landscape with toxic herbicide, contaminate the gene pool for all future generations with genetically modified plants, and get fined and convicted of deception and wrongdoing. Monsanto’s chief European spokesman admitted in 1999, “Everybody over here hates us.” Now the rest of the world is catching on.
“Saving the world,” and other lies
Monsanto’s public relations story about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are largely based on five concepts.
1. GMOs are needed to feed the world.
2. GMOs have been thoroughly tested and proven safe.
3. GMOs increase yield.
4. GMOs reduce the use of agricultural chemicals.
5. GMOs can be contained, and therefore coexist with non-GM crops.
All five are pure myths — blatant falsehoods about the nature and benefit of this infant technology. The experience of former Monsanto employee Kirk Azevedo helps expose the first two lies, and provides some insight into the nature of the people working at the company.
In 1996, Monsanto recruited young Kirk Azevedo to sell their genetically engineered cotton. Azevedo accepted their offer not because of the pay increase, but due to the writings of Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro. Shapiro had painted a picture of feeding the world and cleaning up the environment with his company’s new technology. When he visited Monsanto’s St. Louis headquarters for new employee training, Azevedo shared his enthusiasm for Shapiro’s vision during a meeting. When the session ended, a company vice president pulled him aside and set him straight. “Wait a second,” he told Azevedo. “What Robert Shapiro says is one thing. But what we do is something else. We are here to make money. He is the front man who tells a story. We don’t even understand what he is saying.” Azevedo realized he was working for “just another profit-oriented company,” and all the glowing words about helping the planet were just a front.
A few months later he got another shock. A company scientist told him that Roundup Ready cotton plants contained new, unintended proteins that had resulted from the gene insertion process. No safety studies had been conducted on the proteins, none were planned, and the cotton plants, which were part of field trials near his home, were being fed to cattle. Azevedo “was afraid at that time that some of these proteins may be toxic.”
He asked the PhD in charge of the test plot to destroy the cotton rather than feed it to cattle, arguing that until the protein had been evaluated, the cows’ milk or meat could be harmful. The scientist refused. Azevedo approached everyone on his team at Monsanto to raise concerns about the unknown protein, but no one was interested. “I was somewhat ostracized,” he said. “Once I started questioning things, people wanted to keep their distance from me. . . . Anything that interfered with advancing the commercialization of this technology was going to be pushed aside.” Azevedo decided to leave Monsanto. He said, “I’m not going to be part of this disaster.”
Monsanto’s toxic past
Azevedo got a small taste of Monsanto’s character. A verdict in a lawsuit a few years later made it more explicit. On February 22, 2002, Monsanto was found guilty for poisoning the town of Anniston, Alabama with their PCB factory and covering it up for decades. They were convicted of negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass, and outrage. According to Alabama law, to be guilty of outrage typically requires conduct “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”(1)
The $700 million fine imposed on Monsanto was on behalf of the Anniston residents, whose blood levels of Monsanto’s toxic PCBs were hundreds or thousands of times the average. This disease-producing chemical, used as coolants and lubricants for over 50 years, are now virtually omnipresent in the blood and tissues of humans and wildlife around the globe. Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group says that based on Monsanto documents made public during a trial, the company “knew the truth from the very beginning. They lied about it. They hid the truth from their neighbors.” One Monsanto memo explains their justification: “We can’t afford to lose one dollar of business.” Welcome to the world of Monsanto.
Infiltrating the minds and offices of the government
To get their genetically modified products approved, Monsanto has coerced, infiltrated, and paid off government officials around the globe. In Indonesia, Monsanto gave bribes and questionable payments to at least 140 officials, attempting to get their genetically modified (GM) cotton accepted.(2) In 1998, six Canadian government scientists testified before the Senate that they were being pressured by superiors to approve rbGH, that documents were stolen from a locked file cabinet in a government office, and that Monsanto offered them a bribe of $1-2 million to pass the drug without further tests. In India, one official tampered with the report on Bt cotton to increase the yield figures to favor Monsanto.(3) And Monsanto seems to have planted their own people in key government positions in India, Brazil, Europe, and worldwide.
Monsanto’s GM seeds were also illegally smuggled into countries like Brazil and Paraguay, before GMOs were approved. Roberto Franco, Paraguay’s Deputy Agriculture Ministry, tactfully admits, “It is possible that [Monsanto], let’s say, promoted its varieties and its seeds” before they were approved. “We had to authorize GMO seeds because they had already entered our country in an, let’s say, unorthodox way.”
In the US, Monsanto’s people regularly infiltrate upper echelons of government, and the company offers prominent positions to officials when they leave public service. This revolving door has included key people in the White House, regulatory agencies, even the Supreme Court. Monsanto also had George Bush Senior on their side, as evidenced by footage of Vice President Bush at Monsanto’s facility offering help to get their products through government bureaucracy. He says, “Call me. We’re in the ‘de-reg’ business. Maybe we can help.”
Monsanto’s influence continued into the Clinton administration. Dan Glickman, then Secretary of Agriculture, says, “there was a general feeling in agro-business and inside our government in the US that if you weren’t marching lock-step forward in favor of rapid approvals of biotech products, rapid approvals of GMO crops, then somehow, you were anti-science and anti-progress.” Glickman summarized the mindset in the government as follows:
“What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good, and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. Without thinking, we had basically taken this issue as a trade issue and they, whoever ‘they’ were, wanted to keep our product out of their market. And they were foolish, or stupid, and didn’t have an effective regulatory system. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of the issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches.”(4)
He admits, “when I opened my mouth in the Clinton Administration [about the lax regulations on GMOs], I got slapped around a little bit.”
Alex Jones: Exposes GMO’s
In a recent infowars.com article, Alex Jones posted two new videos exposing GMO’s and the truth about the food supply:
“The grocery store, along with your kitchen sink, are two of the most dangerous places in the world.
In a special video, Alex Jones addresses one of the darkest modes of power the globalists have used to control the population– food. The adulteration of the planet’s staple crops, genetically-altered species and intentionally-altered water, food and air all amount to a Eugenics operation to weaken the masses and achieve full spectrum domination.”
These videos are filled with great information and are helping to inform the masses about GMO’s in our food. Keep passing them on in the fight against Monsanto!
How GMOs are Created
The first step to understanding what a genetically modified organism is, is to learn how they are created. To make a genetically modified plant that has a built in insecticide to kill insects, for example, a protein from a gene that kills insects is inserted with signals that enable the protein to be made by the cell, which is called a promoter, and to stop the production of the protein called the terminator. The end product which includes the promoter, gene, and terminator, is known as a unit construct. The outcome of several unit constructs stacked together is a plasmid, which is part of the DNA in bacteria that multiplies so that the construct is copied millions of times. These copies are launched into the cells or embryos of organisms so the construct can be inserted into the genome of a cell. To get the constructs into the cells, geneticists either use mechanical means or gene splicing into a vector. Mechanical methods include using a glass pipette to inject fine gold and tungsten particles with the genes coated on them to fire it into the cell membrane, which most of the time causes a lot of damage to the cells. Vectors are created by viruses or bacteria that can get into cells; the construct is spliced into the vector which is then able to get it into the cell.
Sources:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FAQ.php
Monsanto’s Patent Policies Restricted in Europe
Last week, Europe’s highest court decided that patents on DNA only apply to live plants.
Panna.org explains:
“The ruling comes as a result of a suit by Monsanto against Dutch companies who were importing soy meal from Argentina – where Monsanto doesn’t hold a patent and farmers can grow RoundupReady soybeans (designed to withstand heavy applications of Monsanto’s flagship herbicide, Roundup) without paying any of the licensing agreements or fees imposed on American and European farmers. After Monsanto found traces of its RoundupReady DNA in soy meal imported from Argentina to the Netherlands, the company filed suit in a Dutch court, demanding seizure of the imported soy meal. The Dutch court asked for a ruling, but Monsanto decided to settle out of court for an undisclosed amount after a preliminary opinion indicated that they would probably lose the suit. The European Court of Justice decided to proceed with its ruling in order to clarify the European Union’s biotechnology directive, which was passed in 1998.”
This recent court decision is wonderful news for it places restrictions on Monsanto’s patents and control of the food supply. However these restrictions are narrow and this ruling is just one small step in the right direction.
Labels on GM Foods Gaining Lawmakers Support
Dennis Kucinich is a well respected advocate for GM labeling and is helping stop the madness Monsanto has created for this world. He recently introduced three new bills to the House realting to GM food labeling. More specifically, “labeling of food containing genetically engineered material, the cultivation and handling of genetically engineered crops, and the establishment of a set of farmer rights regarding genetically engineered animals, plants, and seeds.” (GMO Journal)
Kucinich stated:
To ensure we can maximize benefits and minimize hazards, Congress must provide a comprehensive regulatory framework for all Genetically Engineered products. Structured as a common-sense precaution to ensure GE foods do no harm, these bills will ensure that consumers are protected, food safety measures are strengthened, farmers’ rights are better protected and biotech companies are responsible for their products.
This is Kucinich’s fifth attempt to label GMOs. In both 2003 and 2008 his Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act bills only made it to House sub-committees. His newest bill holds more hope because it is backed with the support of the recent Suprme Court decision on GMOs.
Protect our Choice for Drug-Free Milk—Without Bovine Growth Hormone (rbGH/rbST)
Unlike Raw, Organic Milk, conventional store shelves are lined with numerous brands of hormone, chemical, DDT, fungicide, defoliant and radioactive fallout, cow’s milk produced by abused animals injected with rBGH. HB2121 is a bill that will make it very complicated for national dairy brands to properly label their products as rBGH free. Please email Governor Sebelius before the deadline to veto HB2121, which is April 16th.
Quick rBGH Facts (Genetically-engineered bovine growth hormone)
Despite the lies by Monsanto and the FDA rBGH is unsafe for humans and cows alike.
• rBGH makes cows sick. Monsanto has been forced to admit to about 20 veterinary health risks on its Posilac label including mastitis and udder inflammation.
• rBGH milk is contaminated by pus from mastitis induced by rBGH, and antibiotics used to treat the mastitis.
• rBGH milk is contaminated by the GE hormone which can be absorbed through the gut and induce immunological effects.
• rBGH milk is chemically and nutritionally very different from natural milk.
• rBGH milk is supercharged with high levels of a natural growth factor (IGF-1), excess levels of which have been incriminated as major causes of breast, colon, and prostate cancers.
• rBGH factory farms pose a major threat to the viability of small dairy farms. Thus, rBGH enriches Monsanto while posing risks but no benefits to the entire U.S. population.
Monsanto Threatens Fox:
Video that shows how Monsanto kept Fox News from airing a report on cancer-causing health effects from rBGH.
Milk The Deadly Poison:
Milk The Deadly Poison
Quick video that shows how milk contains powerful growth hormones, viruses, a host of deadly chemical and biological bacterial agents, bovine proteins that cause allergies, insecticides, antibiotics, all this can trigger the growth of cancer and contributes to today’s problem of obese children.
Recommended Books:
Milk- The Deadly Poison
Got (Genetically Engineered) Milk? The Monsanto rBGH/BST Milk Wars Handbook
Sources:
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/bgh.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/monsanto-forced-fox-tv-to_b_186428.html
Coca Cola’s New GM Hoax: Truvia.
Countless people are now being pulled into Coca Cola’s prime new hoax: the genetically modified sweetener Truvia. Do not let them fool you as Truvia is not the same as Stevia. This is because Stevia is an extract of half a dozen natural steviosides (glycosides), and Truvia is chemically pure Rebaudioside A, derived from genetically modified plants. Long term studies must be taken before we can fully understand what Truvia does to the human body. Consuming this product is being a guinea pig for this GM fraud.
A list of Truvia side effects can be found here.
Sources
Help Stop Monsanto News 
2 comments