--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" wrote: > > http://www.foodrevolution.org/blog/former-pro-gmo-scientist/ > > Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of Genetically > Engineered Food Published May 11, 2013 | By Ocean Robbins > > > By Thierry Vrain > > I retired 10 years ago after a long career as a research scientist for > Agriculture Canada. When I was on the payroll, I was the designated > scientist of my institute to address public groups and reassure them that > genetically engineered crops and foods were safe. There is, however, a > growing body of scientific research - done mostly in Europe, Russia, and > other countries - showing that diets containing engineered corn or soya > cause serious health problems in laboratory mice and rats. > > I don't know if I was passionate about it but I was knowledgeable. I > defended the side of technological advance, of science and progress. > > In the last 10 years I have changed my position. I started paying attention > to the flow of published studies coming from Europe, some from prestigious > labs and published in prestigious scientific journals, that questioned the > impact and safety of engineered food. > > I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered > crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they > have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat. > > There are a number of scientific studies that have been done for Monsanto by > universities in the U.S., Canada, and abroad. Most of these studies are > concerned with the field performance of the engineered crops, and of course > they find GMOs safe for the environment and therefore safe to eat. > > Individuals should be encouraged to make their decisions on food safety > based on scientific evidence and personal choice, not on emotion or the > personal opinions of others. > > We should all take these studies seriously and demand that government > agencies replicate them rather than rely on studies paid for by the biotech > companies. > > The Bt corn and soya plants that are now everywhere in our environment are > registered as insecticides. But are these insecticidal plants regulated and > have their proteins been tested for safety? Not by the federal departments > in charge of food safety, not in Canada and not in the U.S. > > There are no long-term feeding studies performed in these countries to > demonstrate the claims that engineered corn and soya are safe. All we have > are scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed > engineered food die prematurely. > > These studies show that proteins produced by engineered plants are different > than what they should be. Inserting a gene in a genome using this technology > can and does result in damaged proteins. The scientific literature is full > of studies showing that engineered corn and soya contain toxic or allergenic > proteins. > > Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding > of the genome based on the One Gene - one protein hypothesis of 70 years > ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project > completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong. > > The whole paradigm of the genetic engineering technology is based on a > misunderstanding. Every scientist now learns that any gene can give more > than one protein and that inserting a gene anywhere in a plant eventually > creates rogue proteins. Some of these proteins are obviously allergenic or > toxic. > > I have drafted a reply to Paul Horgen's letter to the Comox Valley > Environmental Council. It is my wish that it goes viral as to educate as > many people as possible rapidly. Any and all social media is fine by me. > This can also be used as a briefing note for the councilors of AVICC or > anywhere else. Thank you for your help. [Click here for original source with > replies from Dr. Paul Horgen] > > I am turning you towards a recent compilation (June 2012) of over 500 > government reports and scientific articles published in peer reviewed > Journals, some of them with the highest recognition in the world. Like The > Lancet in the medical field, or Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, or > Biotechnology, or Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, European Journal of > Histochemistry, Journal of Proteome Research, etc â?¦ This compilation was > made by a genetic engineer in London, and an investigative journalist who > summarized the gist of the publications for the lay public. > > GMO Myths and Truths - an evidence based examination of the claims made for > the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops. A report of 120 > pages, it can be downloaded for free from Earth Open Source. "GMO Myths and > Truths" disputes the claims of the Biotech industry that GM crops yield > better and more nutritious food, that they save on the use of pesticides, > have no environmental impact whatsoever and are perfectly safe to eat. > Genetic pollution is so prevalent in North and South America where GM crops > are grown that the fields of conventional and organic grower are regularly > contaminated with engineered pollen and losing certification. The canola and > flax export market from Canada to Europe (a few hundreds of millions of > dollars) were recently lost because of genetic pollution. Did I mention > superweeds, when RoundUp crops pass their genes on to RoundUp Resistant > weeds. Apparently over 50% of fields in the USA are now infested and the > growers have to go back to use other toxic herbicides such as 2-4 D. Many > areas of Ontario and Alberta are also infested. The transgenes are also > transferred to soil bacteria. A chinese study published last year shows that > an ampicillin resistance transgene was transferred from local engineered > crops to soil bacteria, that eventually found their way into the rivers. The > transgenes are also transferred to humans. Volunteers who ate engineered > soybeans had undigested DNA in their intestine and their bacterial flora was > expressing the soybean transgenes in the form of antibiotic resistance. This > is genetic pollution to the extreme, particularly when antibiotic resistance > is fast becoming a serious global health risk. I can only assume the > American Medical Association will soon recognize its poorly informed > judgement. > > In 2009 the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a > moratorium of GM foods, safety testing and labeling. Their review of the > available literature at the time noted that animals show serious health > risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune > dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with > cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein > formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal > system. Monsanto writes "There is no need to test the safety of GM foods". > So long as the engineered protein is safe, foods from GM crops are > substantially equivalent and they cannot pose any health risks." The US Food > and Drug Administration waived all levels of safety testing in 1996 before > approving the commercialization of these crops. Nothing more than voluntary > research is necessary, and the FDA does not even want to see the results. > And there is certainly no need to publish any of it. If you remember 1996, > the year that the first crops were commercialized, the research scientists > of the US FDA all predicted that transgenic crops would have unpredictable > hard to detect side effects, allergens, toxins, nutritional effects, new > diseases. That was published in 2004 in Biotechnology if you recall seeing > it. > > I know well that Canada does not perform long term feeding studies as they > do in Europe. The only study I am aware of from Canada is from the > Sherbrooke Hospital in 2011, when doctors found that 93% of pregnant women > and 82% of the fetuses tested had the protein pesticide in their blood. This > is a protein recognized in its many forms as mildly to severely allergenic. > There is no information on the role played by rogue proteins created by the > process of inserting transgenes in the middle of a genome. But there is a > lot of long term feeding studies reporting serious health problems in mice > and rats. The results of the first long term feeding studies of lab rats > reported last year in Food and Chemical Toxicology show that they developed > breast cancer in mid life and showed kidney and liver damage. The current > statistic I read is that North Americans are eating 193 lbs of GMO food on > average annually. That includes the children I assume, not that I would use > that as a scare tactic. But obviously I wrote at length because I think > there is cause for alarm and it is my duty to educate the public. > > One argument I hear repeatedly is that nobody has been sick or died after a > meal (or a trillion meals since 1996) of GM food. Nobody gets ill from > smoking a pack of cigarette either. But it sure adds up, and we did not know > that in the 1950s before we started our wave of epidemics of cancer. Except > this time it is not about a bit of smoke, it's the whole food system that is > of concern. The corporate interest must be subordinated to the public > interest, and the policy of substantial equivalence must be scrapped as it > is clearly untrue. > > -- Thierry Vrain, Innisfree Farm > > Thierry Vrain is a former research scientist for Agriculture Canada. He now > promotes awareness of the dangers of genetically modified foods. > > Originally published in: Prevent Disease.
[Article image] Post a Comment <http://www.nationofchange.org/monsanto-protection-act-may-soon-be-repea\ led-thanks-activism-1369061405#comments> Resize Text + | - | R Plain Text <http://www.nationofchange.org/reader/38110> Print <http://www.nationofchange.org/print/38110> SHARE <http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationofchange.org\ %2Fmonsanto-protection-act-may-soon-be-repealed-thanks-activism-13690614\ 05> Email <http://www.nationofchange.org/monsanto-protection-act-may-soon-be-repea\ led-thanks-activism-1369061405#> The so-called Monsanto Protection Act <http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-protection-act-corporations-power-us\ -government/> signed into law earlier this year caused such an outrage that people around the world are planning to protest the biotech company later this month. Now a United States Senator is <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/jeff-merkley-monsanto-repeal_n\ _3288209.html> expected to try and repeal that law after mounting pressure. The notorious `Monsanto Protection Act' rider stuffed into the non-related Senate spending bill may soon be repealed thanks to the massive amounts of activism and outrage that have now amounted into a legislative charge towards action. Action that has turned into legislation progress through Senator Jeff Merkley <http://www.merkley.senate.gov/> of Oregon, who has announced an amendment that would remove Section 735 (the Monsanto Protection Act as its known) from the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 Senate spending bill. The rider, which almost managed to slip incognito and pass by the alarm system of the alternative media, grants GMO juggernaut Monsanto full immunity from federal courts in the event that one of its genetically modified creations is found to be causing damage to health or the environment. Essentially, it grants Monsanto power over the United States federal government. Thankfully, I was able to get on the subject through news tips and covered the Monsanto Protection Act all the way up until the bill containing it was signed into law <http://naturalsociety.com/obama-signs-monsanto-protection-act-into-law-\ after-promising-gmo-labeling-in-2007/> by Obama. Most news sources are funded by corporations and investors. Their goal is to drive people to advertisers while pushing the corporate agenda. NationofChange is a 501(c)3 organization funded almost 100% from its readersyou! Our only accountability is to the public. Click here to make a generous donation. <https://secure.nationofchange.org/?em=2> Ultimately, as the Monsanto Protection Act became more a hot issue, we had an increasing amount of publicity but the Senate vote came just too quickly for the attention to put a halt on the rider. But even after its passing, sources like Russia Today <http://rt.com/usa/protection-repeal-act-monsanto-444/> , NaturalNews <http://www.naturalnews.com/039668_Monsanto_Protection_Act_Obama_decepti\ on_GMOs.html> , Infowars <http://www.infowars.com/top-10-excuses-for-obama-signing-the-monsanto-p\ rotection-act/> , and myself here at NaturalSociety were sounding the alarm big time. Enough so that it even led to an apology from the top Senator who actually ended up approving the bill containing the rider. Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland actually went and released <http://www.mikulski.senate.gov/media/pressrelease/3-28-2013.cfm> a statement apologizing for allowing the Monsanto Protection Act through and vowing to fight against GMOs and Monsanto. Ultimately, multiple Senators had entered damage control after the jig was up. That is besides Senator Roy Blunt from Missouri, who actually worked with Monsanto <http://naturalsociety.com/surprised-monsanto-openly-wrote-own-monsanto-\ protection-act/> (as in he let them write it while he received funding) on the Monsanto Protection Act rider. A rider he says is perfectly reasonable. After all, why not give Monsanto full immunity from the legal system the rest of us are subject to? Even Obama was getting blasted on his Facebook <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSHy5eTjcp0> page following the approval of the Monsanto Protection Act, with the majority of comments coming into his page criticizing his signature on the bill that contained the rider. Thanks to this activism, it looks like the Monsanto Protection Act may soon be repealed after this new bill hits Washington. This time, we will have plenty of time to let the Senators know that they are voting against the public if they choose to side with Monsanto. And with such a specific agenda for this bill, I see it doing well in the Senate.
