US Doctors’ association calls for Moratorium on GMO Foods

financialsense.com | May 21, 2009

by F. William Engdahl

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

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

* A moratorium on GMO food; implementation of immediate long term safety testing and labelling of GMO food.

* Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community and the public to avoid GMO foods.

* Physicians to consider the role of GMO foods in their patients’ disease processes.

* More independent long term scientific studies to begin gathering data to investigate the role of GMO foods on human health.

The AAEM chairperson, Dr Amy Dean notes that ‘Multiple animal studies have shown that GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients’ and the public’s health.’ The President of the AAEM, Dr Jennifer Armstrong stressed that ‘Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.

The most common foods in North America which are consumed that are GMO are corn, soy, canola, and cottonseed oil.’ The AAEM’s position paper on Genetically Modified foods can be found at http:aaemonline.org.

The paper further states that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) technology ‘abrogates natural reproductive processes, selection occurs at the single cell level, the procedure is highly mutagenic and routinely breeches genera barriers, and the technique has only been used commercially for 10 years.’

The AAEM paper further states, ‘several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signalling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.’

They add, ‘There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill’s Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility. The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.’

GMO is toxic

The AAEM paper should give grounds for official rethinking of the current quasi laissez faire regulatory stance to GMO in which the solemn word of the GMO seed companies such as Monsanto is regarded as scientifically valid proof of safety. The AAEM study is worth citing in detail in this regard:

‘Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn. This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signalling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth and disruption of the intestinal immune system. ‘

The AAEM study also reviewed the biotechnology industry claims that GMO foods can feed the world through production of higher crop yields. It cited contrary evidence that the opposite appeared to be true, namely that over time GMO harvest yields were lower than conventional yields and required over time, more not less, highly toxic herbicidal chemicals such as glyphosate. The report noted, ‘The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialized major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn.’ However, the slight yield gain for Bt corn they report was ‘largely due to traditional breeding improvements,’ and not to GMO.

They conclude that because GMO foods ‘pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements. The most commonly used definition is from the 1992 Rio Declaration that states: ‘In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.’

Under intense public pressure, the German Minister of Agriculture recently issued a prohibition of planting for Monsanto MON810 GMO corn. Unfortunately, two weeks later she permitted planting of GMO potato seeds. Amflora, a genetically modified potato manufactured by chemicals giant BASF (a joint venture GMO partner of Monsanto), was declared by the German Ministry as posing ‘no danger for human health or the environment,’ The Ministry cited ‘in-depth examination’ and talks with scientific and economic experts as basis for the reckless decision.

The publication of the sensational critique of GMO by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has been greeted with stone silence by most major US media and international press.

Genetically Modified Foods Pose Huge Health Risk

opposingviews.com | May 20, 2009

By Institute for Responsible Technology

LOS ANGELES — This week, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.” They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”

Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

Pregnant women and babies at great risk

Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become “the experimental animals.”

The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy. The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue. Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm. Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA. Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.

Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.

In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.

Food designed to produce toxin

GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt—produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic, has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.

Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.
The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton.[xiii] In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India reported, “Victims of itching have increased massively this year . . . related to BT cotton farming.”

GMOs provoke immune reactions

AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation,” including increase in cytokines, which are “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation”—all on the rise in the US.

According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies.” Even Monsanto’s own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn. A November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.

GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties, GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a known soy allergen, and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy. Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

Animals dying in large numbers

In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.” In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.

In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.

Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.

In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks. Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.

Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of us

The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.

When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.

Warnings by government scientists ignored and denied

Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests.[xxvii] But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice president.

Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases

AAEM states, “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the “potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”

Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”

Dr. Schubert points out, “If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.” If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.

This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood—but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.

If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.

To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their “members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.”

Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets—unless it says organic or “non-GMO.” There is a pocket Non-GMO Shopping Guide, co-produced by the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, which is available as a download, as well as in natural food stores and in many doctors’ offices.

If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food industry will likely respond as they did in Europe—by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, AAEM’s non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.

Aspartame: One Man’s Poison, Another Man’s Profit

“Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.”

- Bertrand Russell, “The Impact of Science on Society”, 1953, pg 49-50

Aspartame: One Man’s Poison … Another Man’s Profit

Part 1 of a series

DORway | May 17, 2009

By Paris Reidhead

Methanol is the chemical cornerstone of the world’s predominant artificial sweetener: aspartame (also know as NutraSweet and Equal). Any ingested product that contains methanol (methyl alcohol) will, at some point, cause adverse health problems for persons consuming it. Aspartame contains 10% methanol, 40% aspartic acid, and 50% phenylalanine. However, in proteins amino acids are in balance. Some such as aspartic acid and phenylalanine found in aspartame cannot be isolated because they become excitotoxic and neurotoxic. They cause metabolic and physiological disorders in humans, which I will address later.

Of these three aspartame components, methanol has the longest history – a history of politics and greed going back to the Prohibition Era. In 1919, with passage of the 18th Amendment, the federal government outlawed the production and consumption of grain alcohol (ethanol). Organized crime’s illegal activities broke and circumvented the new laws during the fourteen years of that era. Central to those illegal activities was the notorious, ever-present, organized bootlegging.

The United States’ mandated withdrawal from the alcohol vice led to widespread corruption of politicians and law enforcement agencies. Prohibition also helped finance powerful crime syndicates: money which would have been collected as liquor tax wound up in the wrong hands. Besides the murders of law enforcement officers, bootleggers more commonly caused death and disability through methanol poisoning.

Methanol – highly-toxic wood alcohol – found its way into much bootleg liquor. When methanol denatured industrial alcohol was not sufficiently diluted, or was consumed in large quantities, paralysis, blindness, and death resulted. In 1927, almost 12,000 deaths were attributed to alcohol poisonings, many of these among the urban poor who could not afford imported liquors. In 1930, U.S. public health officials estimated that 15,000 persons were afflicted with “jake foot,” a debilitating paralysis of the hands and feet brought on by drinking denatured alcohol flavored with ginger root.

Politics greased FDA’s Aspartame approval

After Prohibition, wood alcohol poisoning cases nearly vanished. Since there was plenty of ethanol, there was no need to stretch it with methanol. The following high spots were compiled by Jim Turner in his “Aspartame Timeline,” which detailed just how methanol resurfaced, this time legally. Turner is a Washington DC-based consumer advocate attorney, whose public advocacy career began with Nader’s Raiders. Turner’s work was instrumental in getting cyclamate taken off the market in 1970 (Examine his timeline in depth at www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/history.faq). Here are the lowlights from Turner’s aspartame history:

1965: While working on an ulcer drug, Dr. James Schlatter, a chemist at G.D. Searle Company, accidentally discovered aspartame. He was constructing a new molecule out of methanol and two amino acids (aspartic acid and phenylalanine). Some of the white precipitate ended up on his finger. Instinctively, he licked it off (generally not a good practice in chemistry labs). That powder was extremely sweet, measuring 180 times the sweetness of sugar. But that new substance had no calories!

1970: Cyclamate, the #1 low-calorie artificial sweetener, was pulled off the market by the federal Food and Drug Administration after some scientists found that cyclamates caused cancers. The only other artificial sweetener, saccharin, also became suspect as a cancer-causer, thus leaving the field wide open for aspartame. Searle Company executives contrived a “Food and Drug Sweetener Strategy,” propaganda which they hoped would positively spin aspartame to the FDA.

1971: Neuroscientist Dr. John Olney [whose pioneering work with monosodium glutamate (MSG) was responsible for removing that chemical from baby foods] informed Searle that his studies showed that aspartic acid caused holes in the brains of infant mice. One of Searle’s researchers confirmed Olney’s findings. Both MSG and the aspartic acid in aspartame are biochemically categorized as excitotoxins. (An excitotoxin is a substance added to foods and beverages that literally stimulates neurons to death, causing brain damage of various degrees.)

1974: Attorney Jim Turner met with Searle representatives to discuss Dr. Olney’s 1971 studies. None-the-less, the FDA granted aspartame’s approval for use in dry foods. Jim Turner and Dr. John Olney filed the first objections against aspartame approval.

1977: FDA requested the U.S. Attorney’s office to investigate whether indictments should be filed against Searle for knowingly misrepresenting research findings pertaining to aspartame safety tests. This was the first time that FDA ever requested a criminal investigation of a manufacturer. Searle then hired prominent Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld as its new CEO to turn the company around. A former member of congress and Secretary of Defense in the Gerald Ford Administration, Rumsfeld brought in several Washington cronies as top management. Both U.S. Attorneys Sam Skinner and William Conlon hired on with the defense team, and the statute of limitations expired.

1980: The FDA’s Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) concluded that NutraSweet should not be approved, pending further investigations of brain tumors in animals. PBOI stated that “it has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive.”

1981: On January 21, the day after Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as President, Searle Company resubmitted its petition for approval of aspartame. According to former Searle salesperson Patty Wood- Alcott, Searle’s President (and then former Secretary of Defense) Donald Rumsfeld had claimed that, if necessary, “he would call in all his markers and that, no matter what, he would see to it that aspartame would be approved that year.” Ronald Reagan had to decide between Rumsfeld and George H.W. Bush as running mate during his 1980 campaign. Bush got V.P. and Rumsfeld got owed a favor. True to Rumsfeld’s word, FDA approved aspartame for use in dry products on July 15, 1981.

1983: Attorney Jim Turner (Community Nutrition Institute) and Dr. Woodrow Monte (Arizona State University’s Director of Food Science and Nutrition Laboratories) filed suit against the FDA, objecting to aspartame approval, alleging unresolved safety issues. That fall, carbonated beverages containing aspartame were, for the first time, sold for public consumption.

1985: May and August, U.S. Congressional hearings on NutraSweet: Health and safety concerns. Scientists and physicians spoke out.

1987: Another Congressional hearing was held on aspartame, “NutraSweet: Health and Safety Concerns”, chaired by Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Chairman of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

1998: Monsanto petitioned FDA for approval of Neotame, approximately 10,000 times as sweet as sugar. Monsanto created Neotame by taking aspartame and adding to it one molecule of 3-dimethylbutyl. The EPA lists 3-dimethylbutyl as “a most hazardous chemical.”

1999: Monsanto sold its sweetener division (NutraSweet) to four entities: Merisant (a group of Monsanto managers), Ajinomoto Company, J.W. Childs Partnership, and Michael Dell.

2002: FDA approved Neotame, despite formal objections by scientists, physicians, and activists.

To the present … March 2009: National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and Independent Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) proposed that the FDA include non-nutritive sweeteners in the standards of identity for 17 different dairy products, to encourage children to consume low-fat dairy products.

Full Story

_________

Related

The link between aspartame and brain tumors: What the FDA never told you about artificial sweeteners

The truth about aspartame – Dr Russell Blaylock



Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic

Sweet Misery

The artificial sweetener, aspartame, is the bedrock of the diet industry. Found in everything from fizzy drinks to vitamin pills and marketed under a variety of different names, it is difficult to detect and even harder to avoid. But how safe is it? Does it really cause brain tumours, blindness and other serious illnesses? This shocking documentary investigates how the FDA came to approve such a potentially dangerous product.

ASPARTAME: HOW SWEET IS IT?

Aspartame: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You

Rat Study Links Aspartame to Cancer
Lymphoma, Leukemia in Rats Fed Sweetener; Industry Group Says Aspartame Is Safe

House of Lords holds hearing on effects of adding toxic nanotechnology to food supply

Experts Present Evidence to Committee on Nanotechnology in Food

AZoNano.com | May 6, 2009

In a hearing held yesterday in the U.K. House of Lords, Professor Ken Donaldson from the University of Edinburgh and Dr Qasim Chaudhry from the Food and Environment Research Agency presented evidence to the Select Committee on Nanotechnologies in Food. The hearing focussed specifically on nanoparticles in food. Both Donaldson and Chaudhry are leading experts in the field of nanotechnology risk issues, and both are members of the Safety of Nanomaterials Interdisciplinary Research Centre (SnIRC) and have worked extensively with IOM and SAFENANO.

As part of the evidence given, several key points were raised including:

1. the ability of nanoparticles to cross the gut wall and other cellular barriers;

2. the potential novel toxic effects of such nanoparticles in the human body;

3. the possibility that other materials in the gut (e.g. bacteria or other contaminants) may attach to the nanoparticles and be transported across the gut wall (the Trojan Horse Effect).

Other important concerns included the ability of nanoparticles to interfere with cellular processes in the body e.g. oxygen metabolism, and the antimicrobial properties of some nanoparticles which may result in further harmful effects.

It was also emphasised that research to date has primarily been investigator driven, a consequence of the responsive funding mode adopted in the UK, and as such has focussed primarily on inhalation and dermal exposure to nanoparticles. This has led to a lack of research into the effects of ingestion of nanoparticles combined with a non-generalisability of current research. A more strategic coordinated approach, such as that recommended in the 2004 Royal Society Report, was necessary. These major gaps in the knowledge base, specifically relating to ingestion, was a key finding of the recent SAFENANO-led report EMERGNANO, one of the documents discussed at the hearing.

_______

Related

Click here to watch a webcast of the full proceedings.

More background of the House of Lord’s Nanotechnologies and Food Inquiry can be found here.

Nanotechnology use in food creates a stir

Scientists warn of nanotechnology threat similar to asbestos

Activists fear agribusiness and biotechnology lobbyists are conspiring to outlaw organic farming and home gardens

Family Farmers Fear Being Run Over by Food Safety Juggernaut

Organic and Local Farmers Seek Protections in Washington

PRNewswire | Apr 3, 2009

CORNUCOPIA, Wis., April 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Momentum is building in Congress for new food safety reforms aimed at addressing the growing cycle of food contamination outbreaks. But concerns are also being raised cautioning legislators not to trample organic farmers, backyard gardeners and consumers of fresh local foods in the rush to fix food safety problems.

“There is no question that our increasingly industrialized and concentrated food production system needs a new regulatory focus,” said Will Fantle, of The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based organic food and agriculture watchdog. “No one disputes that our food safety system is broken,” Fantle added.

In the last several years, contamination of bagged spinach, lettuce, tomatoes, peppers, beef and peanuts have sickened thousands of Americans. And currently a massive recall of food products containing pistachios is underway.

After years of industry-friendly regulations and deteriorating inspection budgets, holes in the food safety net have prompted a push for increased federal oversight.

The process has sparked an internet flurry, with some warning that agribusiness and biotechnology lobbyists are conspiring to outlaw organic farming and home gardens. One bill, The Food Safety Modernization Act (HR 875), sponsored by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), has been a lightning rod for criticism.

Congresswoman DeLauro is scrambling to assure organic advocates that they are not the target of her bill: “The purpose of this bill is to improve the safety of food products derived from large industrial processing facilities by increasing the inspection frequency and safety standards at these plants.”

Added DeLauro: “Organic farmers have a strong record in providing safe, high quality foods to American families and I will continue to work toward making sure that organic farming continues to thrive.”

Hearings have already begun on food safety legislation in the U.S. House. Of the multiple bills being considered, the FDA Globalization Act (HR 759), sponsored by Congressman John Dingell (D-MI), appears most likely to be voted on, with elements of the other bills, including DeLauro’s, possibly incorporated into the bill.

After the 2006 spinach contamination outbreak in California, that affected consumers across the country, the state adopted a regulatory model that has economically injured growers producing a diverse selection of fresh foods for local markets.

Organic farmer Eve Kaplan-Walbrecht, of Riverhead, NY, is critical of this type of plan. “They are burdening produce growers with the impossible task of ’sterilizing’ their farms. We need good regulatory oversight that doesn’t penalize smaller-scale owner-operated farms of farmers and marketers like me.”

Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association said that citizens, who are seeking safer and nutritionally-superior food are willing to pay a premium for organics, “In order for consumers to have continued access to this high quality food family size farmers must be protected from regressive regulation.”

The Cornucopia Institute is calling on farmers and consumers to stand up for and protect organic and sustainable local farmers. An action alert with talking points and guidance can be found at:

http://www.cornucopia.org/2009/03/action-alert-critical-pending-food-safety-legislation/

Nanotechnology use in food creates a stir

ausfoodnews.com | Mar 30, 2009

by Daniel Palmer

The use of nanotechnology in food could lead to food tasting and looking better, but knowledge regarding any possible negative health affect is scarce.

Leading Australian consumer group Choice believes nanotechnology is already used in around 800 non-food products, with food manufacturers now exploring its potential behind closed doors.

“(There are) invisible sunscreens, where there’s a nano-scale titanium dioxide, which gives transparent protection from UV,” Choice spokesman Christopher Zinn told ABC radio on Saturday. “There’s also shirts that don’t actually stain because they’ve copied the nano-structure of Lotus leaves to create water repellent surfaces.”

Mr Zinn added that there was now a lot of work being carried out in the food sector to capitalise on the new technology.

“Developing an ice cream which has lower fat content but has the same fatty texture and flavour,” was one of the current tests being undertaken, he noted. “Food packaging can keep food fresher if you’re using nano-materials. There’s a lot of applications; there’s a lot of work going on.”

Choice is, however, concerned that foods made using nanotechnology could enter the food system without informing the public.

“Under our current food code there’s no requirement for any of this to be specifically labelled the use of nano-particles,” Mr Zinn advised. “They’re so small they can actually enter cells and enter parts of the body, which might not routinely happen with normal food stuffs. And that’s why want to see a regime with Food Standards Australia New Zealand, where there is going to be much greater safety assessments carried out.”

The Australian Office of Nanotechnology, which oversees FSANZ and develops nanotechnology policy, is confident in the current regulations Australia has in place.

“A major report just commissioned by the Australian Government by Monash University found that right across the board the regulatory systems in Australia are sufficient to cover most things,” Craig Cormick from the Australian Office of Nanotechnology said. “However, they did point to some areas where we have to do a lot more work to make sure we keep on top of these things.”

Associate Professor Thomas Faunce, from Australian National University’s Medical School, reported some doubts about the Monash University report.

“All the research at the moment tends to indicate nanoparticles have unusual toxicities related to size and shape,” he told ABC radio. “In this sort of climate it’s much better if regulatory authorities apply the precautionary principle and start developing nano-specific regulatory structures. If we don’t we’re going to have a catastrophe-driven approach to regulation, where we wait for a major public health crisis to arise because of nanoparticles causing toxicity in people.”

The European Food Safety Authority recently carried out an assessment into nanotechnology and its impact on health, concluding that products needed to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Given current data limitations and a lack of validated test methodologies, risk assessment of specific nano products remained very difficult and subject to a high degree of uncertainty, they reported.

The European Parliament has since passed amendments to proposed reforms of the EU’s novel food regulation, which will force food manufacturers to state if their products contain nanoparticles. The legislation is likely to be in effect before the end of the year.

Australia’s food regulatory body, FSANZ, is currently reviewing its requirements for foods using nanotechnology.

All new products containing nanoparticles will be required to undergo a safety assessment by FSANZ and may need to have specific labelling requirements, the Australian Food and Grocery Council noted last week.

“…Each technology must be assessed carefully by food regulators to ensure its safety and to determine any specific labelling requirements,” AFGC Chief Executive Kate Carnell said. “We are not aware of nanotechnology currently being used in Australian food and grocery manufactured products, but clearly the industry is considering what opportunities may exist.”

“In the end the food industry will listen to its consumers, and ensure products provided meet all their needs. They will be safe and they will be labelled so consumers can make informed choices,” Ms Carnell concluded.

Food giants may be secretly adding toxic nanoparticles to your groceries

An ice cream low in fat, but with the same fatty texture and flavour? Choice says it’s one use of nanotechnology that the food industry is researching. (Flickr: Jökull Sólberg Auðunsson, file photo)

“All the research at the moment tends to indicate nanoparticles have unusual toxicities…”

Some food giants are reported to be researching the technology, though none have publicly acknowledged it.

Consumer magazine Choice says nanotechnology is already used in around 800 products.

abc.net.au | Mar 28, 2009

Standards under scrutiny as food giants explore nanotechnology

By Rachael Brown for AM

An ice cream low in fat, but with the same fatty texture and flavour? Choice says it’s one use of nanotechnology that the food industry is researching.

Take a strand of your hair, divide its width by 100,000 and that’s the size of a nanoparticle, a tiny particle with the potential to create a big stir in the food world.

The technology promises to make food look and taste better but little is known about its health impact.

Some food giants are reported to be researching the technology, though none have publicly acknowledged it.

Europe is poised for a moratorium on the technology’s use in food, while Australia thinks its current regulatory standards are sufficient.

Consumer magazine Choice says nanotechnology is already used in around 800 products.

These include “invisible sunscreens”, where nanoscale particles of titanium dioxide give transparent protection from UV rays, according to Choice spokesman Christopher Zinn.

“There’s also shirts that don’t actually stain because they’ve copied the nano-structure of lotus leaves to create water repellent surfaces,” he said.

Mr Zinn says some of the food giants are exploring the use of the technology for food additives to enhance taste and texture.

“[They are] developing an ice cream that has lower fat content but has the same fatty texture and flavour,” he said.

“Food packaging can keep food fresher if you’re using nanomaterials. There’s a lot of applications; there’s a lot of work going on.”

But he says the food giants have been keeping hush on their research, and he is worried the technology could find its way into food and says consumers would be none the wiser and could get sick.

“Under current food code no requirement for any of this to be specifically labelled the use of nanoparticles,” he said.

“They’re so small they can actually enter cells and enter parts of the body, which might not routinely happen with normal food stuffs.

“That’s why we want to see a regime with Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, where there is going to be much greater safety assessments carried out.”

The ABC contacted food giants Unilever, Kraft and Nestle.

Kraft and Nestle say they have no local nanotechnology research underway but neither could speak for their international arms.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand declined an interview.

The Australian Office of Nanotechnology oversees the authority and develops nanotechnology policy.

Spokesperson Craig Cormick says the office thinks Australia’s regulations are tough enough.

“A major report commissioned by the Australian Government by Monash University found that right across the board the regulatory systems in Australia are sufficient to cover most things,” he said.

“However, they did point to some areas where we have to do a lot more work to make sure we keep on top of these things.”

Associate Professor Thomas Faunce, from Australian National University’s Medical School, doubts the veracity of the Monash University report.

“All the research at the moment tends to indicate nanoparticles have unusual toxicities related to size and shape,” he said.

‘In this sort of climate it’s much better if regulatory authorities apply the precautionary principle and start developing nano-specific regulatory structures.

“If we don’t we’re going to have a catastrophe-driven approach to regulation, where we wait for a major public health crisis to arise because of nanoparticles causing toxicity in people.”

Monsanto called ‘Best Corporate Citizen’

St. Louis Business Journal | Mar 9, 2009

Monsanto Co. was the only St. Louis-based company to make the 100 Best Corporate Citizens List in Corporate Responsibility Officer Magazine.

Monsanto jumped to No. 20 on the list, up from No. 88 in 2008.

Monsanto boosted its score in five of the seven criteria used to rank the companies: employee relations, environment, financial, human rights and philanthropy.

The winners were announced Friday at a news conference in New York City.

Bristol Myers Squibb ranked No. 1, General Mills No. 2 and IBM No. 3.

Monsanto (NYSE: MON), which is based in Creve Coeur, Mo., develops insect- and herbicide-resistant crops and other agricultural products. Monsanto is one of the largest employers in St. Louis with 4,000 work

Related

• Monsanto is ready to round up seed patent violators
• US judge rules against GM crops
• Study Confirms Genetically Modified Crops Threaten Human Health and Fertility
• GMO corn variety potentially toxic, scientists warn
• More EU states wary on GMO maize
• Scientist Said Agent Orange Was Safe While Being Paid By Monsanto
• Renowned cancer scientist was paid by Monsanto for 20 years
• GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers committing suicide after using genetically modified crops
• Monsanto Whistleblower Says Genetically Engineered Crops May Cause Disease
• Multinationals make billions in profit out of growing global food crisis
• “Seeds of Destruction, The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation”
• EU Commission set to approve controversial GMO potato
• GM crops: ‘Point of no return in ten years’

Morgellons: Terrifying New Disease Reaching Pandemic Status

NaturalNews | Mar 3, 2009

by Barbara Minton

It sounds like something from a bad sci-fi movie. People report the sensation of creatures crawling under their skin, mysterious moving fibers appear, and finally bugs and worms pop out. Unfortunately, these terrifying symptoms are all too true. The people having them are experiencing Morgellons, the latest and scariest in the series of bizarre diseases appearing in the last few years, seemingly from nowhere. Morgellons is now reaching epidemic proportions in the U.S. and abroad.

Morgellons is a multi-dimensional disease

Morgellons starts with relentless itching, stinging or biting sensations. Cotton-like balls may appear on the body with no reasonable explanation. Soon skin rash develops along with lesions that will not heal. Many sufferers report string-like fibers of varying color popping out through the skin lesions. These fibers can be black, white, red or even iridescent blue. Others report black specks falling from their bodies that litter their sheets and bathrooms. Eventually a variety of bugs and worms begin to find their way out of the body through the lesions. Other accompanying symptoms include hair loss, debilitating and chronic fatigue, hard nodules beneath the skin, and joint pain.

Morgellons also has a cognitive aspect. People with the disease experience neurological damage that manifests as difficulty concentrating, inability to process and use language effectively, and generalized brain fog. The presence of reduced cognitive ability has made it easier for doctors to dismiss Morgellons and send patients away with a diagnosis of delusional parasitosis, meaning they are imagining they are infected by parasites. After the typical eight minute visit, traditional doctors pull out their prescription pads and write these people prescriptions for antidepressants or antipsychotic medications.

As a result, Morgellons also has a psychological component. Once people become aware that symptoms such as theirs are treated as delusions they are reluctant to seek further medical attention and tend to withdraw from society with their only contact with others being through the internet. They begin living the lifestyle of the leper. Many have to give up their jobs and become dependent on public assistance. This adds to the psychological debilitation of the disease. Not being taken seriously when you know you have a terrifying and devastating disease causes permanent psychological damage.

Morgellon’s victims feel the resentment other patients do when they are told it is all in their heads. As Morgellon’s progresses and the neurological symptoms become more manifest, patients can become difficult to care for and deal with. Isolated with only the internet, they become less able to effectively care for themselves. Some Morgellons patients have committed suicide.

It is a sad situation that the traditional doctor’s visit must often end in a diagnosis, but the doctor is unwilling or unable to take the time to make sure it is a correct diagnosis. The traditional medical set up is frequently unable to deal with patients who present with a variety of diverse symptoms affecting several body systems at one time.

Oakland A’s player Billy Koch and his family all have Morgellons. They have been open about their disease and have made some attempt to educate others. Billy had to retire from his baseball career as a result of the disease. Singer Joni Mitchell also has Morgellons, and the disease has negatively impacted her career as well.

Many morgellons victims end up trying to treat themselves

Anyone with Morgellons’s symptoms will probably spend a lot of time going from doctor to doctor. While the unhelpful ones simply tell them they are delusional, the helpful ones prescribe a variety of creams used for scabies, ring worm and other parasitic diseases, but nothing works for more than a few days. With no help from the medical community, people with Morgellons turn to the internet where they learn the name for their disease and the names for the parasites that are coming through their skin. As a result of desperation and the lack of information about the disease except from chat boards, many victims end up trying a variety of toxic treatments at home.

Authorities on the disease are emerging

One of the few people to take the disease seriously was Randy Wymore, a neuroscientist at Oklahoma State University Center for Health Science. He received samples from a range of people who claimed the fibers had come through their skin. Although the samples all resembled one another, to him they looked like no other synthetic or natural fiber with which he compared them. He finally asked the Tulsa police department’s forensics team to examine them.

The team identified the chemical structures of the fibers and compared them to their database of 800 fibers. They found no match, so they used gas chromatography to compare the fibers to their data on 90,000 organic compounds. The fibers did not match up with any of them. They concluded that the fibers were unknown, and not contaminants from clothing sticking to scabs on the lesions as had been thought by those so ready to dismiss what their patients were saying. Wymore and the forensic team concluded that the disease producing these fibers was very real and very frightening.

Wymore then asked the chief of the pediatrics department at Oklahoma State University Hospital, Rhonda Casey, to take a look at some of the patients. At first she was tempted to dismiss them too, but she began to realize how ill the people were. They had neurological symptoms that included confusion, loss of control of their feet that resulted in difficulty walking, and their mouths sagged when they spoke. Many had been diagnosed with neurological diseases.

Dr. Casey examined the patients, took biopsies of their lesions as well as from their healthy skin. Using a dermatoscope, she was able to observe fibers under completely unbroken skin. She found them embedded in the healthy tissue of the patients as well as the diseased tissue, and admitted seeing the full range of fiber colors. She reported seeing a lesion on a young girl’s thigh with black fibers just barely protruding from it, and concluded that she could not have done this to herself.

Another person taking the disease seriously is Trisha Springstead, a registered nurse in Florida who has become a beacon of light for Morgellon’s patients in the area. She has seen the fibers come through their skin, and has spent hours with patients extracting parasites embedded so deeply that a needle is required to extract them. According to her, a dermatoscope does not penetrate deeply enough to reveal the full extent of parasite involvement.

CDC begins epidemiologic investigation into Morgellons

In April, 2006, the CDC recommended an epidemiological investigation of what they were then referring to as a public health concern. In January, 2008 they announced a grant to health care giant Kaiser Permanente to test and interview 150 to 500 patients suffering from Morgellons. The study is being done in the Bay Area of northern California, where many Morgellons patients live. Kaiser Permanente doctors have been among the most ready to classify Morgellons as delusional parasitosis.

The National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne, and Enteric Diseases (ZVED) provided statements posted on the CDC website regarding what the CDC now calls “Unexplained Dermopathy (aka Morgellons”). This organization was created in 2007 under CDC’s Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases. ZVED promotes itself as proving leadership, expertise, and service in laboratory and epidemiological science, bioterrorism preparedness, applied research, disease surveillance, and outbreak response for infectious diseases.

The term zoonotic refers to any disease that is able to jump the divide from animals to people. Microbes created for bioterrorism are zoonotic. There are many known zoonotic diseases, such as Lyme disease and malaria. Vectors are the transmitters of disease-causing organisms that carry the pathogens from one host to another. By common usage, vectors are considered to be invertebrate animals, usually arthropods. Technically, vertebrates can also act as vectors, including foxes, raccoons, and skunks, which can all transmit disease to humans through a bite. Mosquitoes and ticks are the most notable disease vectors, although mites and gnats may also carry disease. Enteric diseases are bacterial and viral infections of the gastrointestinal tract that account for an under appreciated burden of morbidity and mortality domestically and abroad.

The involvement of ZVED in creating the CDC webpage for Mogellons clearly implies acceptance by the CDC that Morgellons is a disease involving not just fibers but parasites.

ZVED’s vision statement describes three goals: accelerating prevention, control, and preparedness of ecologically mediated microbial threats; global vision, global presence, global reach, and health impact; and working at the intersection of human, animal, and ecological health to achieve healthier people, places, and a healthier world.

The Morgellons, GMO link persists

About the time that Dr. Wymore’s forensic investigation of fibers was completed, a specialist in infectious disease detection, Ahmed Kilani, claimed to have broken down two fiber samples and extracted their DNA. He found that they belonged to a fungus.

Meanwhile, Vitaly Citovsky, Professor of Biochemistry and Cell Biology at Stony Brook University in New York, discovered the fibers contained the substance Agrobacterium Tumafaciens, the bacteria causing crown gall disease in plants (formation of tumors in more than 140 species of dicot plants). It is a genus of gram-negative bacteria capable of genetically transforming not only plants, but also other eukaryotic species, including humans.

Anonymous samples were provided to Professor Citovsky by the Morgellon’s Research Foundation to use in investigating the potential presence of Agrobacterium Tumafaciens in biopsies from Morgellon’s patients. Control reactions included samples provided by healthy donors. Only Morgellons, not healthy subjects, tested positive for the bacterium in these studies.

Professor Citovsky issued a statement saying his observation does not imply that Agrobacterium Tumafaciens causes Morgellons, or that Morgellons is indeed an infectious disease. However, he has called for further study to determine (1) statistical significance of data, (2) whether the bacterium is not only present extracellularly, but also causes genetic transformation of the infected tissues, and (3) whether infection of laboratory animals with the bacterium can recreate symptoms of Morgellons.

Agrobacteerium Tumafaciens is a soil bacterium. Symptoms of grown gall disease are caused by the insertion of a small segment of DNA into the plant cell, which is incorporated at a semi-random location into the plant genome. They are parasitic and detrimental to the plant.

DNA transmission capabilities of Agrobacterium have been extensively exploited by biotechnologists as a means for inserting foreign genes into plants. They discovered the gene transfer mechanism between Agrobacterium and plants, and developed methods to alter Agrobacterium into an efficient delivery system for gene engineering in plants. This is done by cloning the desired gene sequence into the transfer DNA (T-DNA) that will be inserted into the host DNA. Under laboratory conditions the T-DNA has also been transferred to human cells, demonstrating the diversity of insertion application. The mechanism through which Agrobacterium inserts materials into the host cell is very similar to mechanisms used by pathogens to insert materials (usually proteins) into human cells.

British scientists condemn using children in GM food trials as unacceptable

Children in China and America were fed GM rice in a controversial trial

Among the leading bodies behind the GM Golden rice project are the biotech company Syngenta, the Rockefeller Foundation and the charitable foundation set up by Microsoft boss Bill Gates.

Daily Mail | Feb 17, 2009

By Sean Poulter

Children have been used as ‘lab rats’ in GM rice trials that were carried out in breach of ethics rules drawn up in response to the medical crimes of Nazi Germany, it is claimed.

Youngsters aged 6-10 were fed so-called Golden Rice, which has been modified to contain enhanced levels of beta carotene or vitamin A.

The rice is being developed to combat Vitamin A deficiency, which is linked to damage to the sight, poor brain development and immune system failure.

However high consumption can also have harmful toxic effects and cause birth defects.

Critics are furious that the GM rice was not put through animal feeding trials to ensure it was safe before being given to children.

The decision to use the children has been condemned as ‘completely unacceptable’ by a group of 22 scientists – all GM critics – from Britain and around the world.

They claim it is indicative of moves by the biotech lobby, led by the USA and biotech firms, to force GM food into the mouths of the world without proper assessment.

The project was financed and run through the US National Institutes of Health and involved children in China and America.

The scientists have written an open letter to the team behind the experiments, condemning the way they were conducted.

It states: ‘We are writing to express our shock and unequivocal denunciation of the experiments being conducted by your colleagues which involve the feeding of genetically modified Golden Rice to human subjects.’

The letter says there has been ‘woefully inadequate pre-clinical evaluation’ of the rice.

The scientists argue there is a large body of evidence showing GM food production can trigger gene mutations which ‘can result in health damaging effects when GM food products are fed to animals’.

The letter adds: ‘Our greatest concern is that this rice, which is engineered to overproduce beta carotene, has never been tested in animals’.

It says there is evidence that certain chemicals derived from beta carotene ‘are both toxic and cause birth defects’.

Critics of the GM experiments says the Nuremburg code states that children under 10 are not considered legally capable of giving consent to participation in such experiments.

They say the code also requires that human guinea pigs should not be used if scientists have an alternative experimental method.

Thirdly, experiments on humans should not be conducted until tests with animals have identified potential hazards.

Among the leading bodies behind the GM Golden rice project are the biotech company Syngenta, the Rockefeller Foundation and the charitable foundation set up by Microsoft boss Bill Gates.

The list of signatories to the protest letter includes Malcolm Hooper, emeritus professor of medicinal chemistry at Sunderland University, who said: ‘This type of experimentation is frightening – children as lab rats – it is not on.’

Another is Prof David Schubert, of the Salk Institute of Biological Studies, San Diego, who said: ‘It is completely immoral to feed this rice to children without proper safety testing…It’s like putting a new drug on the market with no toxicology or safety trials.’

Other signatories include Prof Carlo Leifert, director of the Tesco Centre for Organic Agriculture at Newcastle University; and Dr Stanley WB Ewen.

Dr Ewen was involved in rat feeding trials in Scotland in 1999 which linked GM potatoes to harmful toxic effects.

Dr Brian John, of GM Free Cymru said: ‘These irresponsible and dangerous trials must be stopped immediately, and the Golden Rice Project team must put its much-vaunted product through a full and transparent testing process before it is allowed to pass the lips of any other human being.’

Project manager at the Golden Rice Organisation, Dr Adrian Dubock, denied that the Nuremburg Code has been breached. He said the feeding trials had been approved by independent ethical review panels.

‘Parents were not given financial rewards for their children’s participation – to avoid undue pressure on poor families – but children were rewarded with school bags and pencils and paper as a thank you for participating,’ he said.

Dr Dubock said 6,000 people around the world die every day due to illnesses related to failing immune systems where Vitamin A deficiency is a factor.

‘The Golden Rice contains the food colours found everywhere in coloured natural foods and the environment…There is no possible way the trials could do any harm to the participants.’

Dr Dubock said animal experiments would not have helped. ‘As humans are the designed beneficiaries of Golden Rice, animal testing could not answer the questions posed,’ he said.

This appears odd as all GM foods, which are designed to be eaten by humans, are required to go through animal testing by food safety authorities in many countries.

______

Related

Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Why Eating GM Food Could Lower Your Fertility

GM food can cause cancer

GM Crops Climb to Nearly One-Tenth of Global Crop Production

Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops: Why We Need A Global Moratorium

War Against the Weak
The main culprits were the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune, in league with America’s most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Harvard, Yale and Princeton, operating out of a complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island.

Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N!
The Rockefeller Foundation is the prime sponsor of public relations for the United Nations’ drastic depopulation program.

Eugenics and the Nazis — the California connection
Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune.

Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research
The Rockefeller clan had a powerful control over the Bush ancestors. Samuel Prescott Bush (grandfather to George Herbert Walker Bush and great-grandfather to George Walker Bush) Was employed by John D Rockefeller’s brother Frank at Buckeye Steel Castings Company. Sam Bush succeeded as president of Buckeye when Frank Rockefeller retired. Sam Bush was also director of William Rockerfeller’s interests in the Pennsysvania Railroad, and was enlisted to aid Percy Rockefeller’s Remington Arms get more government business during WWI. Sam Bush’s son Prescott Sheldon Bush was an eugenicist on record, lost his first election attempt as Connecticut senator when it was revealed that he was Treasurer of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut. As usual Bush lied about his past. Prescott Bush’s connection to eugenics is listed elsewhere. This collection is assembled just to demonstrate John D. Rockefeller’s ties to the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research eugenics mentality. Step by step the story becomes clear about supporting mass murder willfully, deliberately, intentionally, knowingly.