singursaga

Dr. Betty Martini,D.Hum. <bettym19@mindspring.com> · Mon, 28 Jun 2010 01:33:47 -0400

>From: Robert Mann <robtm@xtra.co.nz><mailto:ban-gef-request@txinfinet.com?subject=subscribe>ban-gef-bounces@txinfinet.comban-gef-bounces@txinfinet.comhttp://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Safety/gmo/problems_with_genetically_modified_foods_2902100104.htmlineered RoundupReady crops.   Dr. Carrasco, 
 >who works in Argentina's Ministry of Science, 
>said his studies of amphibians suggest that the 
>herbicide could cause defects in the brain, 
>intestines, and hearts of fetuses.  Moreover, 
>the amount of Roundup used on GM soy fields was 
 >as much as 1,500 times greater than that which 
>created the defects.  Tragically, his research 
>had been inspired by the experience of desperate 
>peasant and indigenous communities who were 
>suffering from exposure to toxic herbicides used 
 >on the GM soy fields throughout Argentina.
>
>According to an article in Grain, the biotech 
>industry "mounted an unprecedented attack on 
>Carrasco, ridiculing his research and even 
 >issuing personal threats."  In addition, four 
>men arrived unannounced at his laboratory and 
>were extremely aggressive, attempting to 
>interrogate Carrasco and obtain details of his 
>study.  "It was a violent, disproportionate, 
 >dirty reaction," he said.  "I hadn't even 
>discovered anything new, only confirmed conclusions that others had reached."
>
>Argentina's Association of Environmental Lawyers 
 >filed a petition calling for a ban on Roundup, 
>and the Ministry of Defense banned GM soy from its fields.
>
>
>Epidemiologist Judy Carman used to investigate 
>outbreaks of disease for a state government in 
 >Australia.  She knows that health problems 
>associated with GM foods might be impossible to 
>track or take decades to discover.  Moreover, 
>the superficial, short-term animal feeding 
>studies usually do not evaluate "biochemistry, 
 >immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, 
>liver function, and kidney function" and are too 
>short to test for cancer or reproductive or 
>child health.  Dr. Carman has critiqued the GMO 
 >approval process on behalf of the Public Health 
>Association of Australia and speaks openly about 
>her concerns.  As a result, she is repeatedly 
>attacked.  Pro-GM scientists threatened 
>disciplinary action through her Vice-Chancellor, 
 >and circulated a defamatory letter to government and university officials.
>
>Carman was awarded a grant by the Western 
>Australia government to conduct some of the few 
>long-term animal feeding studies on 
 >GMOs.  Apparently concerned about what she might 
>find, GMO advocates wrote letters to the 
>government demanding that the grant be 
>withdrawn.  One scientist tried to convince the 
>Western Australia Agriculture minister that 
 >sufficient safety research had been conducted 
>and he should therefore cancel the grant.  As 
>his evidence, however, he presented a report 
>summarizing only 60 GMO animal feeding studies - 
>an infinitesimal amount of research to justify 
 >exposing the entire population to GM foods.
>
>A closer investigation, however, revealed that 
>most of the 60 were not safety studies at 
>all.  They were production studies, measuring, 
>for example, the animals' carcass weight.  Only 
 >9 contained data applicable to human 
>health.  And 6 of the 9 showed adverse effects 
>in animals that ate GM feed! Furthermore, there 
>were several other studies with adverse findings 
>that were mysteriously missing from the 
 >compilation.  Carman points out that the report 
>"does not support claims that GM crops are safe 
>to eat.  On the contrary, it provides evidence 
>that GM crops may be harmful to health."
 >
>When the Western Government refused to withdraw 
>the grant, opponents successfully interfered 
>with Carman's relationship with the university 
>where she was to do the research.
>
 >
>Prominent virologist Terje Traavik presented 
>preliminary data at a February 2004 meeting at 
>the UN Biosafety Protocol Conference, showing that:
>* Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield 
 >developed serious symptoms while the corn was pollinating;
>* Genetic material inserted into GM crops 
>transferred to rat organs after a single meal; and
>* Key safety assumptions about genetically 
 >engineered viruses were overturned, calling into 
>question the safety of using these viruses in vaccines.
>The biotech industry mercilessly attacked Dr. 
>Traavik. Their excuse?-he presented unpublished 
 >work. But presenting preliminary data at 
>professional conferences is a long tradition in 
>science, something that the biotech industry 
>itself relied on in 1999 to try to counter the 
>evidence that butterflies were endangered by GM corn.
 >
>Ironically, three years after attacking Traavik, 
>the same biotech proponents sharply criticized a 
>peer-reviewed publication for not citing 
>unpublished data that had been presented at a 
 >conference. The paper shows how the runoff of GM 
>Bt corn into streams can kill the "caddis fly," 
>which may seriously upset marine ecosystems. The 
>study set off a storm of attacks against its 
 >author, ecologist Emma Rosi-Marshall, which 
>Nature described in a September 2009 article as a "hail of abuse."
>
>Companies Prevent Studies on Their GM Crops
>
>When Ohio State University plant ecologist 
 >Allison Snow discovered problematic side effects 
>in GM sunflowers, Pioneer Hi-Bred International 
>and Dow AgroSciences blocked further research by 
>withholding GM seeds and genes.  After Marc 
 >Lappé and Britt Bailey found significant 
>reductions in cancer-fighting isoflavones in 
>Monsanto's GM soybeans, the seed seller, Hartz, 
>told them they could no longer provide 
>samples.  Research by a plant geneticist at a 
 >leading US university was also thwarted when two 
>companies refused him GM corn.  In fact, almost 
>no independent studies are conducted that might 
>find problems. According to a scathing opinion 
 >piece in an August 2009 Scientific American, 
>"Agritech companies have given themselves veto 
>power over the work of independent researchers. 
>. . .  Only studies that the seed companies have 
 >approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal."
>
>A group of 24 corn insect scientists protested 
>this restriction in a letter submitted to the 
>Environmental Protection Agency.  They warned 
 >that the inability to access GM seeds from 
>biotech companies means there can be no truly 
>independent research on the critical questions. 
>The scientists, of course, withheld their 
>identities for fear of reprisals from the companies.
 >
>Restricted access is not limited to the 
>US.  When a Japanese scientist wanted to conduct 
>animal feeding studies on the GM soybeans under 
>review in Japan, both the government and the 
 >bean's maker DuPont refused to give him any 
>samples.  Hungarian Professor Bela Darvas 
>discovered that Monsanto's GM corn hurt 
>endangered species in his country.  Monsanto 
>immediately shut off his supplies.  Dr. Darvas 
 >later gave a speech on his preliminary findings 
>and discovered that a false and incriminating 
>report about his research was circulating.  He 
>traced it to a Monsanto public relations 
>employee, who claimed it mysteriously appeared 
 >on her desk - so she faxed it out.
>
>
>GMO Contamination: Don't Ask and Definitely Don't Tell
>
>In 2005, a scientist had gathered seed samples 
>from all over Turkey to evaluate the extent of 
 >contamination by GM varieties. According to the 
>Turkish Daily News, just before her testing was 
>complete, she was reassigned to another 
>department and access to her lab was denied.
>
>The unexpected transfer may have saved this 
 >Turkish scientist from an even worse fate, had 
>she discovered and reported contamination.  Ask 
>Ignacio Chapela, a microbial ecologist from UC 
>Berkeley.  In 2001, he discovered that the 
>indigenous corn varieties in Mexico-the source 
 >of the world's genetic diversity for corn-had 
>become contaminated through cross pollination 
>with GM varieties. The government had a ban 
>against GM corn to prevent just this 
>possibility, but apparently US corn imported for 
 >food had been planted nonetheless.
>
>Dr. Chapela submitted the finding to Nature, and 
>as a courtesy that he later regretted, informed 
>the Mexican government about the pending 
>publication.  He was called in to meet with a 
 >furious Director of the Commission of Biosafety 
>and GMOs. Chapela's confirmation of 
>contamination would hinder introduction of GM 
>corn.  Therefore the government's top biotech 
>man demanded that he withdraw his 
 >article.  According to Chapela, the official 
>intimidated and threatened him, even implying, 
>"We know where your children go to school."
>
>When a traumatized Chapela still did not back 
 >down, the Underminister for Agriculture later 
>sent him a fax claiming that because of his 
>scientific paper, Chapela would be held 
>personally responsible for all damages caused to 
>agriculture and to the economy in general.
 >
>The day Chapela's paper was published, Mary 
>Murphy and Andura Smetacek began posting 
>messages to a biotechnology listserve called 
>AgBioWorld, distributed to more than 3,000 
>scientists.  They falsely claimed that Chapela 
 >was biased, that his paper had not been 
>peer-reviewed, that Chapela was "first and 
>foremost an activist," and his research was 
>published in collusion with 
>environmentalists.  Soon, hundreds of other 
 >messages appeared, repeating or embellishing the 
>accusations.  The listserve launched a petition 
>and besieged Naturewith a worldwide campaign demanding retraction.
>
>UC Berkeley also received letters from all over 
 >the world trying to convince them not to grant 
>Chapela tenure.  He had overwhelming support by 
>his college and department, but the 
>international biotech lobby was too 
>much.  Chapela's tenure was denied.  After he 
 >filed a lawsuit, the university eventually reversed its decision.
>
>When investigators later analyzed the email 
>characteristics sent by agitators Mary Murphy 
>and Andura Smetacek, the two turned out not to 
 >be the average citizens they claimed.  According 
>to the Guardian, both were fabricated names used 
>by a public relations firm that worked for 
>Monsanto. Some of Smetacek's emails also had the 
 >internet protocol address of 
>gatekeeper2.monsanto.com-the server owned by Monsanto.
>
>Science and Debate is Silenced
>
>The attacks on scientists have taken its 
>toll.  According to Dr. Chapela, there is a de 
 >facto ban on scientists "asking certain 
>questions and finding certain results."  He 
>says, "It's very hard for us to publish in this 
>field. People are scared."  He told Nature that 
 >young people "are not going into this field 
>precisely because they are discouraged by what they see."
>
>New Zealand Parliament list-MP Sue Kedgley told 
>a Royal Commission in 2001: "Personally I have 
 >been contacted by telephone and e-mail by a 
>number of scientists who have serious concerns 
>about aspects of the research that is taking 
>place . . . and the increasingly close ties that 
>are developing between science and commerce, but 
 >who are convinced that if they express these 
>fears publicly, . . .  or even if they asked the 
>awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out of their institution."
>
>University of Minnesota biologist Phil Regal 
 >testified before the same Commission, "I think 
>the people who boost genetic engineering are 
>going to have to do a mea culpa and ask for 
>forgiveness, like the Pope did on the 
>inquisition."  Sue Kedgley has a different 
 >idea.  She recommends we "set up human clinical 
>trials using volunteers of genetically 
>engineered scientists and their families, 
>because I think they are so convinced of the 
>safety of the products that they are creating 
 >and I'm sure they would very readily volunteer 
>to become part of a human clinical trial."
>
>To learn more about the health dangers of GMOs, 
>and what you can do to help end the genetic 
 >engineering of our food supply, visitwww.ResponsibleTechnology.org.
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 >To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
>http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp >Subject: [Ban-GEF] GM industry silences scientists who find harm > >          >Sender:  >Errors-To:  > >Great article summarizing how the GM industry  >silences scientists who find harm with GMOs! > > > > >Biochemist Arpad Pusztai had more than 300  >articles and 12 books to his credit and was the  >world's top expert in his field.  But when he  >accidentally discovered that genetically  >modified (GM) foods are dangerous, he became the  >biotech industry's bad-boy poster child, setting  >an example for other scientists thinking about blowing the whistle. > >In the early 1990s, Dr. Pusztai was awarded a $3  >million grant by the UK government to design the  >system for safety testing genetically modified  >organisms (GMOs).  His team included more than  >20 scientists working at three facilities,  >including the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen,  >Scotland, the top nutritional research lab in  >the UK, and his employer for the previous 35  >years.  The results of Pusztai's work were  >supposed to become the required testing  >protocols for all of Europe.  But when he fed  >supposedly harmless GM potatoes to rats, things didn't go as planned. > >Within just 10 days, the animals developed  >potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, smaller  >brains, livers, and testicles, partially  >atrophied livers, and damaged immune  >systems.  Moreover, the cause was almost  >certainly side effects from the process of  >genetic engineering itself. In other words, the  >GM foods on the market, which are created from  >the same process, might have similar affects on humans. > >With permission from his director, Pusztai was  >interviewed on TV and expressed his concerns  >about GM foods.  He became a hero at his  >institute - for two days.  Then came the phone  >calls from the pro-GMO prime minister's office  >to the institute's director.  The next morning,  >Pusztai was fired.  He was silenced with threats  >of a lawsuit, his team was dismantled, and the  >protocols never implemented.  His Institute, the  >biotech industry, and the UK government,  >together launched a smear campaign to destroy Pusztai's reputation. > >Eventually, an invitation to speak before  >Parliament lifted his gag order and his research  >was published in the prestigious Lancet.  No  >similar in-depth studies have yet tested the GM  >foods eaten every day by Americans. > > >Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist at the  >Russian National Academy of Sciences, was  >shocked to discover that more than half of the  >baby rats in her experiment died within three  >weeks.  She had fed the mothers GM soy flour  >purchased at a supermarket.  The babies from  >mothers fed natural non-GMO soy, however, only  >suffered a 10% death rate.  She repeated her  >experiment three times with similar results. > >Dr. Ermakova reported her preliminary findings  >at a conference in October 2005, asking the  >scientific community to replicate her study.  >Instead, she was attacked and vilified.  Her  >boss told her to stop doing anymore GM food  >research.  Samples were stolen from her lab, and  >a paper was even set fire on her desk.  One of  >her colleagues tried to comfort her by saying,  >"Maybe the GM soy will solve the overpopulation problem." > >Of the mostly spurious criticisms leveled at  >Ermakova, one was significant enough to raise  >doubts about the cause of the deaths. She did  >not conduct a biochemical analysis of the  >feed.  Without it, we don't know if some rogue  >toxin had contaminated the soy flour.  But more  >recent events suggest that whatever caused the  >high infant mortality was not unique to her one  >bag of GM flour.  In November 2005, the supplier  >of rat food to the laboratory where Ermakova  >worked began using GM soy in the  >formulation.  All the rats were now eating  >it.  After two months, Ermakova asked other  >scientists about the infant mortality rate in  >their experiments.  It had skyrocketed to over 55%. > >It's been four years since these findings were  >reported.  No one has yet repeated Ermakova's  >study, even though it would cost just a few thousand dollars. > > >Embryologist Andrés Carrasco told a leading  >Buenos Aires newspaper about the results of his  >research into Roundup, the herbicide sold in  >conjunction with Monsanto's genetically  >eng >_______________________________________________
>Ban-GEF mailing list
>Ban-GEF@txinfinet.comhttp://204.greenbuilder.com/mailman/listinfo/ban-gef >   «¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»

§ Health_and_Healing - PULSE ON 21st CENTURY ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE! §

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Health_and_HealingHealth_and_Healing-subscribe@yahoogroups.com 

DETOX WITH ALL NATURAL PURE GREEN CALCIUM BENTONITE CLAY USED INTERNAL/EXTERNAL   http://clayadvantage.com/http://WWW.THEOPENLINE.ORG  

ENERGY HEALING TECHNIQUE FOR CHRONIC PAIN, PTSD & OTHER ISSUES THAT TROUBLE YOU.  http://vibrantenergy.webs.com Subscribe send email to:   THE OPEN LINE NEWSPAPER, HEALTH NEWS, SPIRITUAL, ENVIRONMENT, ETC.    

singursaga

Welcome

Twitter

Monday, June 28, 2010

Fwd: [MedicalConspiracies] GM industry silences scientists who find harm in GM products

No comments:

Contributors

Blog Archive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvoSLuqYvQs

Subject:	[Health_and_Healing] [Ban-GEF] GM industry silences scientists who find harm
Date:	Mon, 28 Jun 2010 01:33:47 -0400
From:	Dr. Betty Martini,D.Hum. <bettym19@mindspring.com>
Reply-To:	Health_and_Healing@yahoogroups.com