~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Friday, April 11, 2014

GMO Labeling Bill Would Gut States' Right To Label GMO Foods



This is the action of corporate bought and sold representatives in collusion with their corporate benefactors running scared from the truth being disseminated and taking hold. This is the essence of the anti-democratic corporate state where their favor trumps the will of the people.

Close to 90% of Americans polled want labels on foods indicating they were made with genetically engineered ingredients. This bill will do nothing to see disclosure and truth supported. It in essence gives the responsibility of labeling to the FDA-the very agency that allowed these organisms to be set free in our environment without proper testing to begin with. And of course, Michael R. Taylor, former Monsanto employee is now Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the FDA. Watch that revolving door spin.

This is one reason why they need to be banned. Expecting any level of government beyond the state level to do anything that puts principle and people before profit is a waste of time and now they aim to try to circumvent that as well to keep their secrets and lies intact. This is why education and action on the part of the people is so important. Unless you learn what GMOs are, how to avoid them and how to stick companies in their profits, they will succeed in poisoning you, your children and the only planet we have for a false choice.

Suffice it to say, I will do all in my power as a citizen to make sure the soulless wraiths in the Congress and the companies they serve know I am an informed citizen who will not sit silently while they destroy our world.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GMO labeling bill would trump states

By JENNY HOPKINSON

Food manufacturers don’t have to label products that contain genetically modified ingredients, and now they have a bill that would keep it that way.

Rep. Mike Pompeo on Wednesday morning introduced The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014, a bill that would give ultimate authority of GMO labeling to the Food and Drug Administration, which favors a voluntary approach to the issue. The measure, which has the support of the food, biotechnology and agriculture industries, looks to nullify efforts in no less than 20 states to require mandatory labeling for foods that contain GMOs.

“The scientific community has spoken with one voice,” the Kansas Republican said in a teleconference with reporters to promote his bill. Biotechnology is safe and “there is not a single example” of anyone getting sick after eating food made with GMOs. Requiring labels on foods that contain GMOs misleads consumers to believe that there is a health and safety risk, similar to warning labels on cigarettes, he said.

SNIP

Despite the promise of more support, the prospects for Pompeo’s bill remain unclear. The measure will likely get a June or July hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, of which Pompeo is a member. The committee has jurisdiction over the issue as it applies to interstate commerce. After that, there is no guarantee that it will gain floor time or a final vote, Pompeo said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's hope to see this bill die. Besides his blatant lie regarding GMO scientific consensus read the last bolded sentence spoken by this drone bought by KOCH INDUSTRIES and tell me how in the world these people get in Congress if the machines aren't really rigged. Also amazing how certain members of Congress care about States' Rights only when it suits their own agendas.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TAKE ACTION:

Big Food is trying to kill your right to know if the food you’re eating is genetically engineered.

With their anti-labeling allies like Monsanto and Dow, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) has teamed up with Koch brothers-backed Congressman Mike Pompeo of Kansas to introduce a federal bill that would deny your right to know.

The bill, which we're calling the “Deny Americans the Right-to-Know Act (DARK Act),” would:

Prevent states from adopting their own GE labeling laws.

Block any attempt by states to make it illegal for food companies to put a “natural” label on products that contain GE ingredients.

Prevent the Food and Drug Administration from requiring companies to label GE ingredients and instead continue a failed “voluntary” labeling policy.

The bill--crafted by the Grocery Manufacturers Association-led Coalition for Safe and Affordable Food, has just been introduced by Rep. Pompeo, and has reportedly picked up two co-sponsors: Reps. Butterfield (D-NC 1st district) and Blackburn (R-TN 7th district). All three lawmakers serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over GE food labeling.

Tell Congress not to squash your right to know about genetically engineered foods!

It’s no surprise that industry chose the Kansas Republican as their cheerleader. Pompeo was the single largest recipient of campaign funds from Koch Industries in 2010. It’s clear that corporate money = legislative favors with Congressman Pompeo.

And now the Koch brothers are teaming up with Monsanto? Monsanto was the single largest contributor against the recent Washington State ballot initiative to label GE foods. Between Washington State and California, Monsanto, along with GMA and other agribusiness companies, have contributed over $67 million to keep consumers in the dark.

But there is still time to stop this bill--Tell Congress not to deny your right to know!

So what’s wrong with “voluntary” GE food labeling? In a word: everything. It is grossly misleading for industry—let alone members of Congress—to continue trumpeting the idea that voluntary labeling will solve the overwhelming consumer demand for labeling in the marketplace. In the 13 years that FDA has allowed companies to voluntarily label genetically engineered foods, not one single company has done so.

Without mandatory labeling of GE foods, consumers are being left in the dark about the foods we are purchasing and feeding our families. In 2013, over 50 GE labeling bills were introduced in 26 states, including Hawaii, Washington, Indiana, Missouri, and Vermont.

This industry-backed bill will cut these state labeling bills off at the knees and replace them with an undemocratic, hollow “voluntary” labeling scheme that does nothing to address consumer interests and only serves to allow corporations to deny us our right to know.

Tell Congress to drop this corporate hand-out of a bill!



Safe? I think not.

How You Might Be Investing In Monsanto's Toxic Legacy Without Realizing It



How You Might Be Investing In Monsanto's Toxic Legacy Without realizing It

Time to divest from Monsanto and all of these companies using our money to destroy our planet. To not care is to be a party to their crimes.

Take Action

Saturday, April 5, 2014

Muzzled by Monsanto



Muzzled By Monsanto: Is Big Ag squelching research showing its new RNAi GMOs may be dangerous?

This is an incredibly well researched article that must be read. After reading it I am convinced there are scientists who are good decent people who are trying to use this research in RNA to cure diseases and they know how to do it without making it dangerous for humans. The crux of this story is the muzzling and intimidation by Monsanto in league with their minions that is actually seeking to stop this kind of research in lieu of continuing down a path they know is potentially dangerous to human health as well as stopping it in order to give preference to pharmaceutical companies and their expensive drugs.

That Dr. Zhang would have his research dismissed and not even want to mention Monsanto by name along with the experience of Dr. Vance solidifies the reality of the GMO /biotech junk science taking over that is clearly for profit without any concern for the precautionary principle in deliberately making a product that is dangerous not only to the environment but to the health of humans and all other species.

I am more convinced than ever now that Monsanto in league with the "scientists" they employ who are selling out good science that could potentially work to cure diseases must be stopped. The corporate takeover of science must be stopped. The corporate takeover of our planet must be stopped. Those involved in it have no morals. All they care about is their agenda at any cost.

I am against using RNA technology in food especially where long term/cumulative effects on health and transmission as well as environmental effects have not been studied. The real scientists mentioned in this article know of the risks and they are the ones who must be listened to regarding not allowing this technology to fall into the wrong hands. Think Monsanto had no hand in the Seralini study being retracted now? I don't think there's any doubt- which makes it all the more important for it to be read and for us to FIGHT FOR LABELING AND ULTIMATE BANNING OF THESE ORGANISMS.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excerpt(s)

By Caitlin Rockett

After nearly 30 years studying how plants use their genes to defend against viruses, Vicki Vance, a professor at the University of South Carolina, doesn’t see genetically modifying plants as a malevolent or arrogantly God-like endeavor.

“There’s DNA in the world and it gets passed from one organism to another and it’s the natural thing. If that’s the problem you have with transgenic plants, that’s not a good reason to be against them,” Vance says.

She does, however, have a problem with mega corporations allegedly using their money and power to hide the risks of new forms of genetic technology.

“I didn’t use to be an anti-GMO person and I didn’t use to have strong feelings about Monsanto, but …,” she says, her voice trailing off.

But that was before the Chinese research, before the calls from Monsanto, before she couldn’t get funding for work that she feels could change the way we treat cancer and other diseases. Her research put her at odds with one of the most powerful corporations in the world.

End of excerpt.

SNIP

Vance is less convinced in the innocence of the partnership.

“I think Monsanto was trying to get some legitimacy by bringing in these people from [miRagen] because they have some, what I would consider, establishment animal microRNA people — there are some highly thought of people on their scientific advisory boards,” she says.

“But it’s Monsanto who’s spearheading this thing, and they have this company as first author and last author, whereas they’re all in the middle. That’s another thing that’s saying, ‘This isn’t really Monsanto. Pay no attention to the Monsanto people. First author and last author, that’s the important thing,’ and that is the important thing,” Vance says. “First author, that’s typically the one that did the most work. Last author, in [the microbiology] field, is the person usually who is the communicating author, the one who takes responsibility for the work. But is Monsanto driving this from behind?”

Vance believes both companies have a financial interest in discrediting the Chinese paper.

“On the other hand, I think [miRagen] has some interest in discrediting this Chinese paper. They are trying to use microRNAs therapeutically, and it’s hard to get them [through the blood stream to the cell], and so there’s all sorts of things you have to do to make them work and those things are expensive and they have their downsides. And so what this Chinese paper says is, “Well, you don’t have to do any of that stuff, all you have to do is make it in plants and then eat it. All you have to do is ingest it.”

Such a finding would have major implications on drug industry research and development which desires to create expensive, profitable medicines that can be sold as opposed to developing foods that could fight certain diseases simply by being ingested.

While Zhang declined to comment directly on Monsanto steering any research, he did say he felt slighted by Nature Biotechnology.

Zhang published a response to the correspondence from Monsanto/miRagen critiquing Zhang’s study, and while Nature Biotechnology published the response immediately following the critique, Zhang says he’s disappointed that the journal didn’t mention his response in the editorial about the importance of reproducibility.

“They did not mention at all our reply, they just said, ‘Well, somebody reproduced this study and they couldn’t reproduce our data.’ I cannot believe — it’s really unbelievable — that such a decent scientific journal had such unfair and unprofessional behavior,” says Zhang.

“I just want to say,” he adds, “obviously something is going on. It’s not pure science. I just think something is maybe behind them.”

He pauses, then adds quickly, “I don’t want to say anymore.” Zhang seems uncomfortable saying the word Monsanto, often calling it “the company.”

“I don’t want to attach to them,” he says. “[When the paper came out] they contacted me, the Chinese office. I don’t want to have any relationship to them. Even right now I don’t want to say anything about transgenic or GM food.”

End of excerpt

SNIP

Prior to the release of the Zhang paper and Vance’s refusal to be listed on ILSI’s risk assessment paper, Monsanto had invited Vance to give a talk at the International Symposium of Biosafety of GMO Plants, a biennial international meeting organized by the International Society for Biosafety Research.

The meeting was, perhaps oddly enough, held in St. Louis that year, where the agricultural behemoth Monsanto is headquartered. According to Vance, Monsanto was in charge of the session on the safety of RNAi plants.

“They asked me to give the same overview of RNAi that I had given at the [ILSI] meeting. They had already paid my way, made my hotel reservations, I had an abstract, I was listed on the schedule and everything. Then this fuss came up over the [Zhang] paper,” Vance says. “They called me and asked, was I going to talk about [the Zhang paper] at the symposium and I said, ‘Well yeah, that’s part of the story, it has to be discussed.’”

Vance says Monsanto was adamant that she not mention the Zhang paper in her overview. Her insistence on bringing it up only made the situation more complicated.

“I had to participate in a conference call and [Monsanto] had lawyers present. They eventually called me back and uninvited me from the [International Symposium of Biosafety of GMO Plants],” she says.

But the calls didn’t end.

“They kept calling me because I’d said [my lab] had data consistent with the Zhang paper, and they wanted to ‘help me with experiments’ because I had results that were in conflict with their results. They said they wanted to make sure I was doing the right controls on my experiments. I said, ‘I’ve been a scientist for 30 years, I think I know what I’m doing and when I publish the paper you can comment on it.’

According to Vance, Monsanto representatives told her, “We were hoping to get to it before that happens.”

After another series of phone calls in which Monsanto asked if they could send only two scientists instead of a team to Vance’s lab, Vance told them they were simply not invited.

“I was really surprised that Monsanto took the time and effort to try to squash my research because it’s such a contrast — I’m a little old lady running a little lab in South Carolina,” Vance says.

“Maybe I’m being paranoid,” offers Vance, “but I feel there’s an effort from a large company with a lot of money toward discrediting the work of this other group and keeping people from publishing their work.”

End of excerpt

Read rest of article at link.

Also see:

Next Generation Of GMOs Could Be Especially Dangerous

Gene Silencing Pesticides By Monsanto

Scientific Journal Withdraws Seralini paper on Round Up Toxicity

GM Apples Headed For USDA Approval

Scientists Declare No Consensus On GMO Safety

New Study Shows BT Toxins And Effect On Mammalian Blood

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Monsanto Ad Banned in South Africa Due to Deceptive GMO Messaging



Monsanto Ad Banned in South Africa Due to Deceptive GMO Messaging

It isn't the first time they have been cited for false advertising and it won't be the last. They are desperate to make profits. It is all they care about.

Time for these companies to pay for their crimes.

Good For South Africa.

Excerpt:

On March 20, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) of South Africa ordered Monsanto to immediately withdraw an unsubstantiated radio ad that touted the benefits of crops containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), according to AllAfrica.

The ASA also told Monsanto to "ensure that it holds proper substantiation for its advertising claims” or risk attracting further sanctions. Protests have sprung up across South Africa that question the safety of GMO foods. Photo credit: March Against Monsanto South Africa Facebook Page The African Centre for Biosafety lodged a complaint with the ASA following an advertisement on Radio 702 that claimed genetically engineered crops “enable [Monsanto] to produce more food sustainably whilst using fewer resources; provide a healthier environment by saving on pesticides; decrease greenhouse gas emissions and increase crop yields substantially.”

The ASA gave Monsanto an opportunity to substantiate its claims, but all the oversight organization received were links to documents on the agriculture giant’s website. Since Monsanto didn’t provide independent and credible data—which is required by South African law—the order was given to pull the ad from airing in the country’s heavily populated Guateng Province where Johannesburg is located.

“We are elated with this decision,” said Mariam Mayet, executive director of the African Centre for Biosafety. ”Monsanto has already been warned by the ASA as far back as 2007, that it needs to substantiate its claims from an independent and credible expert … regarding its claims of the so-called benefits of [GMO] crops. However, it appears Monsanto does not have much regard for South African law as it is hell bent on disseminating false information to the South African public.”

BAN GMOS!

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

France Bans Planting and Cultivation of MON 810 Corn



France Bans Planting and Cultivation of MON 810 Corn

Excellent move by France. We need to see these pseudo food plants being banned across the world before irreversible damage is done to our natural world!

Excerpt:

The French government, which argues GE crops present environmental risks, kept pushing to institute the new ban even after the country’s highest court struck down similar measures in the past, according to Reuters.

“France’s reinstatement of its previous ban of Monsanto’s controversial genetically engineered crop … is another encouraging sign that the biotech industry’s iron grip on foreign government’s is slipping and that resistance to these flawed products is continuing to take hold,” said Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now!.

The decision was strategically timed to block the seasonal planting of Monsanto’s corn by French farmers before a draft law is debated on April 10, which is aimed at banning the cultivation of foods made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

“The sale, use and cultivation of varieties of [Monsanto's corn seed] … is banned in the country until the adoption, on the one hand, of a final decision, and secondly, of European Union community action,” a French decree stated.

The annual planting of corn in France typically gets under way in the second half of March.

The current Socialist government, like its conservative predecessor, has repeatedly opposed the growing of GMO crops in light of public suspicion and widespread protests from environmental groups.

Ongoing differences between EU countries resurfaced in February when they failed to agree on whether to approve another type of GE corn (developed by DuPont and Dow Chemical), leaving the possibility open for the EU Commission to approve its cultivation.

France is trying to gain support to overhaul the EU rules.

“As more nations reject Monsanto’s dangerous technology, the U.S. government is finding itself increasingly alone in failing to protect cropland and farmers here,” said Michele Simon, JD, MPH, president of Eat Drink Politics. ”The U.S. should follow France’s lead in placing people over profits.”


Bolding in article my emphasis.

First sentence bolded is to make the point that this is NOT a political issue, this is an issue that concerns our biodiversity, environmental stability and health. That effects ALL of us. The USDA and Obama administration need to see that as well. That is in reference to the second bolded sentence. Perhaps should the US govt. start putting people before politics/profit we may not see so many disaffected citizens. Stand up for US for once and start doing what you took an oath to do.

Saturday, March 15, 2014

GMO Grass?!

UPDATE: 4-12-14: House Mows Down Bill Banning GMO Grass Seed

Really Rep Cook? You care more about Scotts and their profits than the harm this seed could do to the environment and the health of those workers? How many $$$$$ were promised? Once again we see that political party doesn't matter. All politicians care about is covering their own a**es.

This message from GMO Free CT:

"Don't Let the Connecticut General Assembly Silence Your Voice.

Wednesday the Senate passed SB443, a bill to ban genetically engineered grass seed, on a bipartisan vote of 25-11. This seed threatens the integrity of our organic farms and will lead to an escalation of pesticide use.

Unfortunately, all of that was undone when the CT House Leadership prematurely called the bill for a vote in order to kill it before our voices could be heard.

We need to remind Speaker Sharkey and the legislators who voted against protecting the health of the citizens of our state that it is not without consequence. These politicians put politics and corporate interests above public health and we cannot tolerate it.

Please join with us today as we elevate our collective voice and hold our elected officials accountable. This is an election year and they have to care what you think.

Please call and e-mail your Senator & Representative today. You can find out how your legislator voted by clicking below:

Click here for Senators> Senators

Click here for Representatives> Representatives

To learn more click here>House Puts Politics Over Policy

To read our statement click here> GMO Free CT Statement

Don't let your voice be silenced.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



The USDA can kiss my grass.

Scotts In League With Monsanto To Sell "Round Up Ready" GMO Grass

The nature killers are at it again..."Easily windblown" pollen. Their employees are being allowed to spread this on their lawns without any precautions or regulation. Without any concern for transgenic contamination. Without any concern for the effects on the environment. And what of the effects on cattle and other animals? Studies have already shown that the bt remains in the gut bacteria of animals. The only way to stop this now is for consumers to be made aware of what is happening and to BOYCOTT these seeds everywhere.

PLEASE SIGN: STOP THIS IN ITS TRACKS

Also see:

How GMO Farming and Food Is Making Our Gut Flora UNFRIENDLY

Saturday, March 8, 2014

Renowned NYU Professor: GMOs Could Literally Destroy the Planet



Renowned NYU Professor: GMOs Could Literally Destroy the Planet

Nassim Taleb, a renowned New York University (NYU) professor recently raised eyebrows when he said genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have the potential to cause “an irreversible termination of life at some scale, which could be the planet.” Taleb, who specializes in risk engineering, has outlined the dangers of GMOs in The Precautionary Principle, a paper recently made available to the public.

Often, GMO seeds are favored because of their ability to yield larger harvests and avoid certain pests or weeds that usually eat up some of their productivity, reports Daily Finance. Taleb’s primary concern isn’t that ingesting GMOs is necessarily bad for people; rather, he’s focused on what effects the genetic manipulation of nature will have on the worldwide ecosystem. While Taleb concurs the risk of any one GMO seed ruining the planet is incredibly small, he argues that people are underestimating the domino effect of risk that’s involved.

For example, if one genetically modified seed produced holds a 0.1 percent chance of causing a catastrophic breakdown of the ecosystem, then the probability of such an event will only increase with each new seed that’s developed. Taleb writes that given enough time the “total ecocide barrier” is bound to be hit despite incredibly small odds. The argument hinges on the fact that GMOs represent a systemic, and not localized, risk. As GMO goods continue to be exported to countries throughout the world, the idea of being able to control GMOs in nature is impossible to guarantee.

As Taleb says, “There are mathematical limitations to predictability in a complex system, ‘in the wild,’ which is why focusing on the difference between local (or isolated) and systemic threats is a central aspect of our warnings.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are those who claim people warn about GM seeds simply because we wish to get Monsanto. Great scapegoat, but no. The reason why many are against GM seeds as am I is exactly the reason pointed out by Professor Taleb. The technology upon which these seeds is based is not sound. It is not linear. It has no natural function within our environment. Nature has a rhythm all its own. It has a symbiosis in which all organisms interact to make one circular system of life and death, naturally. It is a system that when used respectfully and in awareness of The Precautionary Principle yields infinite benefits for all species.

However, to cross the line- to dare to play God as if man alone has power over nature disrespecting that symbiosis will in the end reap nothing but catastrophe. Monoculture, worldwide famine, biodiversity loss. These are effects that cannot be dismissed as small when considering the cumulative effects on the entire ecosystem and all species that inhabit this Earth and interact and interconnect with each other.

Example: One seed eaten by a corn borer worm that then dies sees that worm eaten by a bird. The bird is then eaten and so on and so on. A cow eats GM feed. It settles in the gut and the cow is then eaten by a human passing it on into the biosphere to another place and perhaps to other generations. Genetic pollution travelling in the wind to contaminate other crops over time will reach saturation. Over time the effects upon our entire world multiply to a point where they can no longer be pulled back. There is no knowing the effects on the biosphere or humans and other species on the whole over decades of use regarding what species would be stronger, weaker or whether some would undergo genetic mutations or other effects that would lead up the food chain.

Also, if a gene from a bacteria injected in a seed is exposed to environmental stresses (primarily more frequent and severe droughts and floods due to climate change) not taken into account the effects upon the world could well bring on a famine worldwide as monoculture seeds failing would effect all places on the globe that were planted. It has always been the excuse of chemical companies in putting out these seeds and the chemicals that are used with them that they only wish to "target" a certain "pest." This is disingenuous and unscientific because once you put this out into the world the entire world becomes the target.

This is why we need to see GM seeds banned if we are to preserve the biodiversity we still have left. There is no reason to believe these chemical company monstrosities are needed to feed our world. Matter of fact they may well in some areas already be proving that their effects on nature are a red flag. Monarch butterflies, bees, certain nematodes and other soil dwelling organisms are already being affected by these seeds and chemicals.

If we do not pull back but instead plow ahead in our arrogance, greed and hubris we may well as Professor Taleb explained see our world forever changed resulting in the irreversible termination of life.

Makes one wonder why the Bill/Melinda Gates Foundation has joined with Monsanto, Syngenta and the Rockefeller Foundation to invest millions in the 'Doomsday' Seed Vault in Svalbad. What exactly do they already know about the plans to unleash these seeds upon mankind without respect for nature and the ecosystems that have sustained us for eons and their effects? Why should the world's poor be at their mercy?



A worldwide cataclysm or the cumulative effects of GMOs on our biosphere leading to famine- will these scenarios both lead to the population of the world then being under the control of the few rich who would then control all seed? This thought is truly frightening. I used to think it a scenario that could only be seen in a sci-fi movie. Now, it is real.

Seed Banks

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Steve Marsh GM Trial Near End

UPDATE: 3-8-14:

Steve Marsh GMO Case

The trial has ended. Judgement is expected In April 2014.



Negligence claims rejected in GM canola case

Closing arguments and end of trial coming this week.

I wish the best for Steve Marsh but I have a sinking feeling... Mr. Baxter in my opinion had a duty to make sure transgenic pollution did not drift onto Mr. Marsh's property and he should also have been aware of the effects of that transgenic contamination on organic crops.

Read more here:

Synopsis of trial events

New GMO Studies Demonstrate ‘Substantial Non-Equivalence’



New GMO Studies Demonstrate ‘Substantial Non-Equivalence’

########################################################

Studies document substantial differences of GM maize and GM soybean from their conventional non-GM counterparts, exposing a permissive regulatory regime that has failed miserably in protecting public health and biodiversity.

Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji

Several new studies carried out by scientists independent of the biotech industry are showing up glaring differences between GMOs and their non-GMO counterparts. This makes a mockery of the regulatory principle of ‘Substantial Equivalence’ which has facilitated approvals of GMOs with practically no protection for public health and the environment [1] (see [2] The Principle of Substantial equivalence is Unscientific and Arbitrary, ISIS news).

The principle of ‘Substantial Equivalence’

The concept of ‘Substantial Equivalence’ was first introduced in 1993 by the Organisation for Economic Development (OECD), an international economic and trade organisation, not a public health body. The principle states that if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent to an already existing food product, it can be treated the same way as the existing product with respect to safety. This concept has greatly benefited the trade of GM produce, allowing it to effectively bypass regulatory requirements that would apply to novel food and other products including novel chemical compounds, pharmaceuticals, pesticides and food additives, all of which require a range of toxicological tests and can be subject to legal limitations on safe consumption/intake.

Regulatory agencies including the US Food and Drug Administration, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Japan’s Ministry of Health and Welfare, generally base their GM food safety regulations on substantial equivalence.

There are many good reasons for consumers to feel unprotected by these regulatory policies, not least because the principle itself is designed to be as flexible and open to interpretation for the approval of just about any and every GMO submitted. In practice, the principle allows the comparison of a GM line to any existing variety within the same species, and even to an abstract entity made up of ingredients from a collection of species. This means that a GM variety can have all the worst traits of many different varieties and still be deemed substantially equivalent [1, 2]. Traits used for comparisons are also based solely on gross and insensitive chemical compositional tests such as levels of carbohydrate, protein and sugars. This process cannot even begin to tackle safety issues. Ironically, for the GMOs to be patentable as they are, a clear novelty, i.e., a difference or non-substantial equivalence is indeed required.

Independent assessments of substantial equivalence have shown how this ill-defined practice is not only inadequate but untrustworthy [3- 5], and the new studies most clearly confirm this.

Studies in Egypt showed substantial non-equivalence and toxicity for GM corn In April 2013, an Egyptian publication led by Professor El-Sayed Shaltout at Alexandria University found that Monsanto’s 810 Corn (Ajeeb-YG®), modified to express the insecticidal Bt Cry1Ab gene, has increased total protein, crude fat, crude fibre & total saccharides and decreased starch content compared with non- GM Ajeeb corn. Abnormal levels of certain amino acids, fatty acids and elements were also recorded [6]. These compositional differences only gave the merest hint of the toxicity of the GM corn revealed in previous male rat feeding studies conducted by the same team documenting a wide range of organ and tissue abnormalities [7, 8]. Liver cells displayed vacuolation and fatty degeneration. The kidneys had congested blood vessels and dilation of renal tubules. The testes showed signs of necrosis and desquamation of spermatogoneal germ cells lining the seminiferous tubules. The spleens were congested with slight lymphocytic depletion. The small intestines showed hyperplasia and hyperactivation of mucous secretory glands, with necrosis of intestinal villi. Most certainly, the GM corn was not substantially equivalent to non-GM corn.


GM and non-GM soybeans not substantially equivalent

Read the rest of this report here

New GMO Studies Demonstrate ‘Substantial Non-Equivalence’

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Also see my entry on this from three years ago.

Substantial equivalence- anything but equivalent or substantial

This is the misleading precept that the biotech /chemical companies have been using since the introduction of GM seeds (or rather, their shoving them down our throats without respect for the precautionary principle and without our consent) to "legally" validate their existence and the subsequent profits of these companies at the expense of our biodiversity, health and food system.

It is a ruse they have been getting away with because it has been assumed that this "substantial equivalence" smokescreen they are hiding behind can't be challenged. I truly think this is why labeling initiatives also wind up failing because they can use this as a reason why labels are not needed. We need to tear down this substantial equivalence curtain to expose them.

This is also why they work to discredit any reputable scientists who dare expose the truth about their garbage- because it null and voids their substantial equivalence smokescreen which is the basis of their existence. Knock that down and they would fall like the tower of Mordor. I am encouraged by seeing that there are scientists not bowing to the gagging and intimidation because bringing the truth about this GMO scam is imperative to preserving the biodiversity of our planet and our genetic health.

Case in point:

Monsanto's Roundup may be linked to fatal kidney disease, new study suggests

Substantially equivalent? No way.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Gene Silencing Pesticides By Monsanto- Next Step Showing Their Hatred Of Nature



Gene-silencing pesticides raise fears, hopes

"By zeroing in on a genetic sequence unique to one species, the technique has the potential to kill a pest without harming beneficial insects. That would be a big advance over chemical pesticides.

“If you use a neuro-poison, it kills everything,” said Subba Reddy Palli, an entomologist at the University of Kentucky who is researching the technology, which is called RNA interference. “But this one is very target-specific.”

But some specialists fear that releasing gene-silencing agents into fields could have unintended effects on wildlife and even human health. The Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates pesticides, held a meeting of scientific advisers this week to discuss the potential risks.

“To attempt to use this technology at this current stage of understanding would be more naïve than our use of DDT in the 1950s,” the National Honey Bee Advisory Board said in comments submitted to the EPA before the meeting, at the agency’s conference center in Arlington, Va.

RNA interference is of interest to beekeepers because one possible use, under development by Monsanto, is to kill a mite that is believed to be at least partly responsible for the mass die-offs of honeybees in recent years.

Monsanto has applied for regulatory approval of corn that is genetically engineered to use RNAi, as the approach is called for short, to kill the western corn rootworm. And it is trying to develop a spray that would restore the ability of its Roundup herbicide to kill weeds that have grown impervious to it."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As previous posts on this blog noted RNA interference has been the next step in biotech/ag's plan to play God with the natural world. Using "pests" (that BTW can be managed effectively through IPM (Integrated Pest Management) as their first test subject is just the beginning. This was why Round Up was introduced to fail...in order to bring us to the next level of even more lethal pesticides and RNA Interference without knowing the potential consequences of them. I always wonder how it is that the word "targeted" is used when marketing pesticides as if putting it out into the environment won't somehow infect the whole environment at one point. For all of their supposed genius they are woefully ignorant of the effects these pesticides have on the natural world up the food chain... Oh hell, no they're not, they just don't care.

Also notice how Monsanto is deferring to mites killing off bees to cover up for the fact that Round Up and GMOs have been responsible as well and using it to spin their image to make us think they care about anything in the natural world after over a century of doing nothing but destroying it. It absolutely sickens me. I sincerely hope RNA Interference/gene silencing in regards to animals and let's face it in the future- humans is roundly condemned by scientists.

Also see:

USDA: RNA-interference Pesticides Will Need Special Safety Testing

New GM Nightmares With RNA

"DsRNA technology to silence genes based on specific sequence matching has numerous unintended off-target effects, and is no improvement over the conventional hit and miss GM technology that has already proven every bit as hazardous as some of us have predicted (see ISIS’ recent reviews ([22] Bt Crops Failures and Hazards, SiS 53, [23] Why Glyphosate Should Be Banned, ). We have been calling for a global ban on GM crops and a shift to sustainable non-GM agriculture since 2003 [24] The Case for A GM-Free Sustainable World (Independent Science Panel Report, ISIS publication). The case is stronger than ever now."