Why GMOs Can Never be Safe

© unknown

Farm Wars: Why GMOs Can Never be Safe
July 22, 2013 | ISS | Dr. May-Wan Ho

Institute of Science in Society

The new genetics tells us that organisms need to engage in natural genetic modification in order to survive; artificial genetic modification interferes fundamentally with the natural process, and it is well-nigh impossible to avoid doing so Dr Mae-Wan Ho

This report is based on invited lectures delivered in GMOs and Food Safety International Forum 2013, 9-10 July 2013, Yunnan University of Finance Economics, Kunming, Yunnan; and 13 July 2013, Gloria Plaza Hotel Beijing, China.

Power point presentation available for download here

From ivory tower academic to science activist 

I was an ivory-tower academic who had rejected mechanistic biology from the start, and kept changing fields in search of the meaning of life, until just over 20 years ago, when some of the world’s top physicists and chemists inspired me (see [1] Quantum Jazz Biology, interview) to invent a new quantum physics of the organism [2] The Rainbow and the Worm, The Physics of Organisms. Soon after that, I met remarkable people like Vandana Shiva and Chee Yokeling of the Third World Network, who taught me just how important science is in shaping people’s lives and how crucial to get the science right. To me, science is the most intimate knowledge of nature that is beautiful beyond compare; it is also reliable knowledge that enables us to live sustainably with nature, and I have dedicated my life since to defending and promoting that science.

The greatest danger of GM

One main theme of my book [3] Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare, the Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business – first published by Vandana in 1997 and by Third World Network in 1998 ahead of the commercial publications and translations – is to elaborate what I consider to be the greatest danger of genetic modification: its being misguided by the ideology of genetic determinism.

The rationale and impetus for genetic engineering and genetic modification is the ‘central dogma’ of molecular biology that assumes DNA (deoxyribose nucleic acid) carries all the instructions for making an organism. Individual ‘genetic messages’ in DNA faithfully copied into RNA (ribosenucleic acid),  is then translated into a protein via a genetic code; the protein determining a particular trait, such as herbicide tolerance, or insect resistance; one gene, one character.  If it were really as simple as that, genetic modification would work perfectly. Unfortunately this simplistic picture is an illusion.

Instead of linear causal chains leading from DNA to RNA to protein and downstream biological functions, complex feed-forward and feed-back cycles interconnect organism and environment at all levels to mark and change RNA and DNA down the generations (Figure 1).  Molecular geneticists have coined the term ‘fluid genome’ by 1980. The fluid genome belongs in the organic quantum paradigm of interconnectedness, as Vandana says. Organisms work by intercommunication at every level, and not by control. Control belongs in the static mechanistic paradigm of the central dogma.

Figure 1   The new genetics of the fluid genome versus the central dogma

In order to survive, the organism needs to engage in natural genetic modification in real time, an exquisitely precise molecular dance of life in which RNA and DNA respond to, and participate fully in ‘downstream’ biological functions.  That is why organisms and ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to the crude, artificial GM RNA and DNA created by human genetic engineers. It is also why genetic modification can probably never be safe.

More importantly, the human organism shapes its own development and evolutionary future; that is why we must take responsible action to ban all environmental releases of GMOs now. Not only have GM crops failed to deliver on the many false promises, they are unsafe for health and the environment [4] (Ban GMOs Now, ISIS publication), and obstructing the shift to sustainable non-GM agriculture that’s productive, resilient and health-promoting (see [5] Food Futures Now *Organic *Sustainable *Fossil Fuel Free , ISIS/TWN publication), and precisely what we need in times of climate change.

Big difference between natural and artificial genetic modification 

A  GMO (genetically modified organism) is simply an organism with synthetic genetic material inserted into its genome.  It is made in the laboratory with sterile techniques, which also means without sex. The genome is all the genetic material of an organism (apart from those in mitochondria and chloroplasts), a copy of which is in practically every cell; and in cells with a nucleus, the genome is enclosed within the nucleus, organised into chromosome

Figure 2   What is involved in making a GMO (see text)

A transgene (Fig. 2) is a unit of the synthetic genetic material transferred into cells to make a GMO that expresses the required protein. It consists of a signal for starting the transcription, the promoter, the coding sequence determining the amino acid sequence of the protein and the signal for ending, the terminator. The three parts of the transgene are typically from different sources and variously modified with synthetic sequences that bear no relationship to any natural DNA; and this applies to each of the parts as well. More than one transgenes are usually included in a GM construct, most often, an antibiotic resistance gene to help select for cells that have taken up the GM construct.

There are big differences between natural genetic modification done by organisms themselves and the artificial genetic modification done by ‘genetic engineers’ in the lab (Table 1). Natural genetic modification is precise and predictable. It happens in the right place, at the right time without damaging the genome, and as appropriate to the organisms as a whole in relation to its environment. In contrast, artificial genetic modification is crude, imprecise, unpredictable and uncontrollable. The artificially created GM constructs have to be smuggled in by (disarmed) pathogenic bacteria and viruses that infect the cells, or otherwise forced into the cells by gene guns or electric shocks. The artificial constructs get scrambled in the process and could land anywhere in the genome, scrambling and damaging the genome in the process. Aggressive promoters are used essentially to force foreign genes to be expressed out of context.

Table 1   Contrasting natural and artificial genetic modification
Natural genetic modification	Artificial genetic modification
Precisely negotiated by the organism as a whole	Crude, imprecise, unpredictable uncontrollable
Takes place at the right place & time without damaging the genome	Forced into cells with no control over where & in what forms the artificial constructs land with much collateral damage to the genome
Appropriate to the organism as a whole in relation to its environment	Aggressive promoters force foreign genes to be expressed out of context

There is, therefore, nothing natural about artificial genetic modification done in the lab.

• It lacks the precision and finesse of the natural process
• It is greatly enhanced gene transfer without sex, also called horizontal gene transfer
• GM constructs are designed to cross species barriers and to jump into genomes with aggressive promoters to force expression of transgenes out of context
• It enables genes to be transferred between species that would never have exchanged genes otherwise
• GM constructs tend to be unstable – with weak joints from being cobbled together from different sources as well as well-known break points associated with promoters and terminators –  and hence, more prone to further horizontal gene transfer after it has integrated into the genome

Consequently, all the signs are that genetic modification is inherently hazardous.

GM inherently hazardous 

Reliable evidence obtained by scientist independent of the biotech industry fully corroborates real life experiences of farmers in the field from different parts of the world (hitherto dismissed by the scientific establishment as “anecdotal evidence”): GM feed and other exposures to GMOs invariably cause harm, regardless of the species of animal, the GM crop, or the genes and constructs involved. A full list is presented in our report [4], and it includes the most horrendous cases of excess deaths, birth defects, infertility, tumours and cancers (some of which will be presented by other scientists at this conference). The inevitable conclusion one comes to is that genetic modification is inherently hazardous, on account of the new genetics of the fluid and responsive genome. I list the categories of hazards in Table 2.

Table 2   Hazards of GMOs

1. Uncontrollable, unpredictable impacts on safety due to the genetic modification process* Scrambling the host genome* Widespread mutations* Inactivating genes* Activating genes* Creating new transcripts (RNAs) including those with regulatory functions* Creating new proteins Creating new metabolites or increasing metabolite to toxic levels* Activating dormant viruses* Creating new viruses by recombination of viral genes in GM insert with those in the host genome*

2. Toxicity of transgene protein(s) introduced (intentionally or otherwise) Transgene protein toxic* Transgene protein allergenic or immunogenic* Trangenic protein becoming allergenic or immunogenic due to processing* Unintended protein created by sequence inserted may be toxic or immunogenic

3. Effects due to the GM insert and its instability* Genetic rearrangement with further unpredictable effects* Horizontal gene transfer and recombination* Spreading antibiotic and drug resistance* Creating new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases Creating mutations in genomes of cells to which the GM insert integrate including those associated with cancer*

4. Toxicity of herbicides used with herbicide tolerant GM crops*

*Documented in scientific literature

Although the weight of evidence against the safety of GMOs is overwhelming, we are still largely in the dark as to the precise nature of the hazard(s) associated with different GMOs. Toxicity has been found for transgene products such as the Bt proteins from different strains of the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis expressed in many GM crops,  while the multiple toxicities, endocrine disrupting propensity and carcinogenicity of glyphosate herbicides, heavily used with glyphosate tolerant GM crops, are no longer in doubt as reviewed in detail in our report [4]. There remains a range of hazards not so easily identified without dedicated research, even though evidence exists for most, if not all of them in the scientific literature. These are due to the unpredictability and uncontrollable nature of the genetic modification process itself (Table 2, category 1), which can activate or inactivate genes, scramble genomes, create new proteins, new nucleic acids, new metabolites, and others due to the transgenic DNA and its instability (Table 2 category 3), of horizontal gene transfer – the direct transfer of DNA into the genomes of cells – from the GMO to all other species that come into contact with the GMO.

Transgene instability & the illegality of GMOs 

Since the 1990s, some of us have raised the possibility of unintended secondary horizontal gene transfer from GMOs released into the environment with detailed reviews and reports, many of which were sent to our regulators (see [4] for references). At first the regulators and GM proponents denied that horizontal gene transfer could happen at all, or the probability is so tiny as to be practically zero. Later, when it became clear from molecular genetic analyses that rampant horizontal gene transfer has taken place in the course of evolution and in recent times, they said horizontal gene transfer is a natural process and therefore no need to worry; anti-GM is just anti-science.

Horizontal gene transfer is indeed a natural process, normally under the control of the organism itself, which is why GM DNA is such a threat. On account of its increase propensity for horizontal gene transfer, GM DNA can take over the natural process to gain access to the organisms’ genome regardless of whether it is appropriate or not.

The increased propensity of GM DNA for horizontal gene transfer translates into the instability of transgenic lines. Transgenes not only get silenced (no longer expressed) in successive generations, but can also become rearranged or lost. Transgene instability is an open secret buried under the permissive regulatory carpet. Independent scientists in Europe first discover that all commercially approved and hence risk assessed and molecularly characterized GM inserts were different from what was reported by the companies. Since then, at least one of them, MON 810, was found to have rearranged again, and now there is a substantial literature on transgene instability (see [4]). This is not at all surprising, given that GM DNA is unstable, and the foreign DNA does not really fit in with the whole organism, which is why transgenes tend to be silenced or lost.

The implications of transgene instability are far reaching. Transgene instability makes a mockery of the risk assessment process, because any change in transgene expression, or worse, rearrangement or movement of the transgenic DNA insert(s) would create another transgenic plant different from the one that was characterized and risk assessed. And it matters little how thoroughly the original characterization and risk assessment may have been done. The legislature should take note: unstable transgenic lines are illegal. Not only should they not be still growing commercially, they are also strictly ineligible for patent protection.

Horizontal gene transfer from GMOs does happen and often

There is now no doubt that horizontal gene transfer from GMOs does happen. For the first time, a proper study was carried out in 2012 by scientists in China, who found ampicillin resistance bacteria in all 6 of China’s major rivers [6]. Sequencing confirmed that the gene is a synthetic version derived from the laboratory, and different from the wild type. It is the same as the version present in numerous GM crops released in China commercially or in field trials (see [7] GM Antibiotic Resistance in China’s Rivers, SiS 57). The researchers suggested that horizontal gene transfer of genetically engineered plasmids may underlie the rise in antibiotic resistance in animals as well as humans.

In the only authenticated feeding trial of GM food on human volunteers carried out by scientists in the UK, the complete transgene DNA of Roundup Ready soybean was recovered from the colostomy bag in 6 out of 7 subjects after a single meal, at levels up to 3.7 % of intake. In 3 subjects, about 1 to 3 per million bacteria cultured from the contents of the colostomy bag were positive for the GM soybean transgene, showing that horizontal transfer of GM DNA had occurred; but no bacteria were found to have taken up the vastly more abundant non-transgenic soybean DNA. This is direct evidence that GM DNA has a much greater propensity for horizontal gene transfer, as I have maintained from the start [3].

It is now clear that horizontal transfer of GM DNA does happen, and very often. Evidence dating from the early 1990s indicates that ingested DNA in food and feed can indeed survive the digestive tract, and pass through the intestinal wall to enter the bloodstream. The digestive tract is a hotspot for horizontal gene transfer to and between bacteria and other microorganisms.

Recent evidence obtained with direct detection methods indicates that horizontal transfer of GM DNA is routinely underestimated, largely because the overwhelming majority of bacteria in the environment and particularly in the gut cannot be cultured. GM DNA transfers at high frequencies to bacteria and fungi on the surfaces of leaves and stems, helped by the plant wound hormones; and the soil around the plant roots (rhizosphere) is also a hotspot for horizontal gene transfer. Higher organisms including human beings are even more susceptible to horizontal gene transfer than bacteria, because unlike bacteria, which require sequence homology (similarity) for incorporation into the genome, higher organisms do not.

To make things worse, DNA and RNA are now known to be actively secreted by living cells in a nucleic acid intercommunication system; the nucleic acids are taken up by target cells to modify gene expression and may be integrated into the cell’s genome. The profile of the circulating nucleic acids changes according to states of health and disease. Cancer cells use the system to spread cancer around the body. This nucleic acid intercom leaves the body very vulnerable to GM DNA and RNA, because they can take over the system for horizontal gene transfer into cells of all tissues including germ cells.

One type of nucleic acids, the microRNAs (miRNAs), are specifically involved in gene silencing via a vastly complex and flexible process that changes according to the environmental context. Consequently, GMOs based on miRNAs have many potentially adverse off-target effects, which are radically unpredictable and uncontrollable [8] RNA Interference “Complex and Flexible” & Beyond Control, SiS 59).

Dangers of GM DNA and its horizontal transfer 

What are the dangers of GM DNA from horizontal gene transfer?  Horizontal transfer of DNA into the genome of cells per se is harmful, but there are extra dangers from the genes or genetic signals in the GM DNA, and also from the vector used in delivering the transgene(s).

· GM DNA jumping into genomes  cause ‘insertion mutagenesis’ that can lead to cancer, or activate dormant viruses that cause diseases

· GM DNA often contains antibiotic resistance genes that can spread to pathogenic bacteria and make infections untreatable

· Horizontal transfer and recombination of GM DNA is a main route for creating new viruses & bacteria that cause diseases

· The CaMV 35S promoter, widely used in GM DNA for crops on the mistaken assumption that it works only in plants, actually works in practically all living species including bacteria and human cells; recent research also suggests it may enhance the multiplication of disease-associated viruses including HIV (human immunodeficiency virus). In addition, the promoter overlaps with a virus gene (gene VI) that inhibits gene-silencing, a crucial host defence against viral infections

· The Agrobacterium vector, most widely used for creating GM plants is found to transfer genes also to fungi and human cells, and to share genetic signals for gene transfer with common bacteria in the environment. In addition, the Agrobacterium bacteria and its gene transfer vector tend to remain in the GM crops created, constituting a ready route for horizontal gene transfer to all organisms that come into contact with the GMO or the soil on which GM crops are grown. In 2008, Agrobacterium was linked to the outbreak of Morgellons disease. The Centers for Disease Control in the US launched an investigation but failed to investigate the link to Agrobacterium.

The full story of what I have tried to convey is in the final chapter of our report [4] with more than 140 references for that chapter alone. I hope this convinces you to avoid GMOs as far as possible; and especially don’t let your children eat GM food.  We must ban further environmental releases while we recall and destroy existing ones. We can’t wait for our central governments, or the European Union, or the United Nations to do that. Ban them from your home, your local community, your fields, your village, your town, your city, your province. The governments will follow your lead.

It is often said that GMOs once released is uncontrollable. But nothing is really controllable in the new fluid-genome organic paradigm. Fortunately, organisms are resilient, and able to heal themselves, and ecosystems are like organisms [2]; once we stop releasing GMOs and stop insulting them with other practices of industrial monoculture, ecosystems can recover and regain their health and productivity under sustainable agro-ecological farming [5]. That’s all the more reason for us to stop GMOs now; before it is really too late.

References

1. Riley D, McCraty R, and Snyder S. Quantum jazz biology, Mae-Wan Ho, Pioneering work in understanding life. Science in Society 47, 4-9, 2010.
2. Ho MW. The Rainbow and the Worm, the Physics of Organisms, World Scientific, 1993, 2nd edition, 1998, 3rd enlarged edition, 2008, Singapore and London, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/rnbwwrm.php
3. Ho MW. Genetic Engineering Dream of Nightmare? The Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business, Third World Network, Gateway Books, MacMillan, Continuum, Penang, Malaysia, Bath, UK, Dublin, Ireland, New York, USA, 1998, 1999, 2007 (reprint with extended Introduction). http://www.i-sis.orucg.uk/genet.php
4. Ho MW and Sirinathsinghji E. Ban GMOs Now, ISIS Report, 2013, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Ban_GMOs_Now_-_Special_ISIS_Report.php
5. Ho MW, Burcher S, Lim LC, Cummins J. et al. Food Futures Now, Organic, Sustainable, Fossil Fuel Free, ISIS/TWN, London/Penang, 2008. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/foodFutures.php
6. Chen J, Jin M, Qiu ZG, Guo C, Chen ZL, Shen ZQ, Wang XW, Li JW. A survey of drug resistance bla genes originating from synthetic plasmid vectors in six Chinese rivers. Environmental Science & Technology 2012, 46, 13448-54.
7. Sirinathsinghji E. GM antibiotic resistance in China’s rivers. Science in Society 57, 6-7, 2013.
8. Ho MW. RNA interference “complex and flexible” & beyond control. Science In Society 59 (to appear).

Please circulate widely and repost, but you must give the URL of the original and preserve all the links back to articles on our website. If you find this report useful, please support ISIS by subscribing to our magazine Science in Society, and encourage your friends to do so. Or have a look at the ISIS bookstore for other publications.

s.  Each chromosome unwinds into long threads of chromatin, consisting of proteins coating the double helix DNA. Strip off the proteins, and the DNA can be chopped and changed and recombined in test tubes, copied, amplified, and transferred into any organism, and that is what artificial genetic engineering and genetic modification involves (Figure 2).

We’re Here in This Reality to Learn About Who We Are

We’re Here in This Reality to Learn About Who We Are
July 21, 2013 | Waking Times | Angela Pritchard

What is life for? So many things seem important; there are so many things to do. All of them are vying for our attention, and our interests drive our lives via the many seemingly small and insignificant choices we make each day.

But what is it that is ultimately important? Why does this world, with all its limitations, struggle, opposition, and darkness exist? I believe the answer is fundamentally quite simple—that this world exists for us (consciousness) to learn about who we are. The ancients called this self-knowledge.

The ever increasing number of recorded near-death experiences (NDEs) provide some of the most compelling evidence for this. Floating away from their bodies, no longer constrained by the physical world and soaring into the majesty of an eternal and spiritual realm, the experiences of those who have died and been sent back share many consistent and common themes.

All of a sudden, the career, the kids, the TV, the projects they were working on are totally gone, and many are faced with what is called a “life review” in which they experience every moment of their life all over again, but feeling in a profound way not only what they went through, but also how their own actions made others feel. This learning is the sum total of what they took from the life they’d left behind.

What was important was not what they’d learnt from reading or degrees, or watching videos or the news, but from their interactions with others. Most of all—how they had treated those around them. It’s easy to get caught in the events of life and to miss what is really important; it’s easy to go off on tangents of just acquiring intellectual knowledge and information (even of a spiritual kind), and feel a sense of progress. But an intellectual knowledge is totally different from self-knowledge, which is based on conscious experience.

In NDEs there are no congratulations for becoming a bestseller, and no one else to blame for whatever they did or didn’t do. There is no special treatment for the famous or the expert – everyone is graded by their level of consciousness.

Many who’ve had an NDE also describe experiencing an understanding and knowledge of the universe from a spiritual perspective that was beyond words, and that this understanding was instantaneous. It becomes apparent then, that the understanding they had to get in life was not even about the universe itself, but about who they are.


 This video interviews a number of people who had an near-death experience, with many of them recalling a life review and being guided as to what was important in their lives.
 
Life is a school for consciousness; sometimes people from NDEs are told to go back to learn and do more. The higher part of our being has chosen for us to be here, whatever our circumstance, and our job while we’re here is to learn about ourselves and realize our full inner potential. It is the one type of understanding that can’t be gained anywhere else or in any other way, and is what this world is for. The understanding of the world around us only serves as a mirror in which we can see ourselves more clearly.

 Like any school, life has different grades and levels, and someone can progress to higher and higher levels of learning the more they grow in consciousness (and all its qualities like love and peace); graduation from this school of life is called enlightenment, but the learning is infinite. The interactions we have each day are what we are being graded on. How we spend our day, is how we spend our year, and how we spend our life; it’s important to get it right and actively determine where we are headed through our own learning.

The struggle against darkness in the world, and the wish to spread the light of truth, brings even greater opportunities for learning as well as creating them for others too. Someone working for truth in the world, for example, is going to learn more about who they are as well as help others to realize the same, than someone who spends hours in front of a television and even shut away in a meditation room.

Today, is an important day. There is something each of us has to take from it right now and use in the eternal journey of our consciousness.

[Jesus said] Now, since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion, examine yourself, and learn who you are, in what way you exist, and how you will come to be. Since you will be called my brother, it is not fitting that you be ignorant of yourself. And I know that you have understood, because you had already understood that I am the knowledge of the truth. So while you accompany me, although you are uncomprehending, you have (in fact) already come to know, and you will be called ‘the one who knows himself’. For he who has not known himself has known nothing, but he who has known himself has at the same time already achieved knowledge about the depth of the all.
~ Jesus to Thomas from The Book of Thomas the Contender
His disciples asked him and said to him, “Do you want us to fast? How should we pray? Should we give to charity? What diet should we observe?” Jesus said, “Don’t lie, and don’t do what you hate, because all things are disclosed before heaven. After all, there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and there is nothing covered up that will remain undisclosed.”
~ The Gospel of Thomas

About the Author

Angela Pritchard is the author of a number of books on out-of-body experiences, dreams, self-knowledge, and esoteric wisdom including A Course in Astral Travel and Dreams which became a bestseller in its genre. His book Gazing into the Eternal was finalist in the Best Book Awards 2009 in spirituality, and he has appeared on over 60 radio and television programs internationally.

Please visit her excellent website, Belsebuub.com.

Psychology and the Prevention of War Trauma: An Article Rejected by American Psychologist

Psychology and the Prevention of War Trauma: An Article Rejected by American Psychologist
July 18, 2013 | Project Censored | Marc Pilisuk and Ines-Lena Mahr

Author Notes

Marc Pilisuk, emeritus professor, University of California; professor, Saybrook University is a past President of the Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict and Violence. His awards for teaching, research, and action in peace, justice and transformative change include the 2011 Howard Zinn award from the Peace and Justice Studies Association.

Ines-Lena Mahr completed her undergraduate degree in Liberal Arts and Science at the University College Maastricht in the Netherlands, focusing on Psychology and International Relations. In Fall, 2013, she will start the Masters programme in Social and Cultural Psychology at the London School of Economics.

Abstract

The role of professional psychology in providing assistance to soldiers and veterans was highlighted by an issue of the American Psychologist devoted to  a program for using positive psychology for resilience training. Shortcomings of that approach led to the AP agreeing to another issue to alternative perspectives. This article was not accepted by their reviewers. Since it is critical of the relation between the American Psychological Association and US military, readers deserve the opportunity to see what was rejected. Psychologists have an obligation to provide a full measure of options for addressing soldier distress including those that might encourage release from service. Psychologists also have an ethical obligation to question the rationale by a sponsoring organization, the armed services, for exposing the soldier recipients of psychological services to unwarranted risks of preventable wars. Application of positive psychology to resilience training in the current military system fails to meet these responsibilities.

Continue reading here…

Origins and conceptual models of compassion

SOTT: Origins and conceptual models of compassion
Aug 27, 2013 | CcareStanford | Stephen Porges, Ph.D.


The Science of Compassion: Origins, Measures, and Interventions, which took place July 19th to 22nd in Telluride Colorado, was the first large-scale international conference of its kind dedicated to scientific inquiry into compassion. The conference convened a unique group of leading world experts in the fields of altruism, compassion, and service to present their latest research. This talk was part of panel Origins and Conceptual Models of Compassion by Stephen Porges, Ph.D.

Millions Against Monsanto: On the Road to Victory

Millions Against Monsanto: On the Road to Victory
July 18, 2013 | Green Med Info | Ronnie Cummins

" The harder they come the harder they fall, one and all."
~ Jimmy Cliff, reggae classic

After enjoying a year of maximum profits, record stock prices, the defeat of a major GMO labeling campaign in California, pro-industry court decisions, and a formidable display of political power in Washington, D.C. – including slipping the controversial Monsanto Protection Act  into the Federal Appropriations bill in March - the Biotech Bully from St. Louis now finds itself on the defensive.

It is no exaggeration to say that Monsanto has now become the most hated corporation in the world.

Plagued by a growing army of Roundup-resistant superweeds and Bt-resistant superpests spreading across the country, a full 49 percent of American farmers are now frantically trying to kill these superweeds and pests with ever-larger quantities of toxic pesticides, herbicides and fungicides including glyphosate (Roundup), glufosinate, 2,4D ("Agent Orange"), dicamba, and neonicotinoids (insecticides linked to massive deaths of honey bees).

Reacting to this dangerous escalation of chemical farming, toxic residues on foods and environmental pollution, over a million consumers and organic farmers have pressed the Obama administration to reject a new generation of GE "Agent Orange" and dicamba-resistant crops, forcing the USDA to postpone commercialization of these crops, at least temporarily.

According to the trade press thousands of U.S. farmers, as well as farmers worldwide, are moving away from biotech crops and searching for non-GMO (genetically modified organism) alternatives. At the same time U.S. and global market demand for non-GMO organic foods and crops is steadily increasing.

Compounding Monsanto's superweed and superpest problems, scientific evidence continues to mount that GMO feed and foods, laced with Bt toxins and contaminated with ever-increasing residues of Monsanto's deadly weedkiller, Roundup, are severely damaging animal and human health.

As the June 24, 2013 newsletter issue of GreenMedInfo.com puts it:

" . . . within the scientific community and educated public alike, there is a growing awareness that Roundup herbicide , and its primary ingredient glyphosate, is actually a broad spectrum biocide , in the etymological sense of the word: "bio" (life) and "cide" (kill) – that is, it broadly, without discrimination kills living things, not just plants.  Moreover, it does not rapidly biodegrade as widely claimed, and exceedingly small amounts of this chemical – in concentration ranges found in recently sampled rain, air, groundwater, and human urine samples – have DNA-damaging and cancer cell proliferation stimulating effects."

On May 25, two million people from 436 cities, in 52 countries, on six continents took to the streets in a global "March Against Monsanto." From New York to New Delhi, protestors reaffirmed their determination not only to force the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods, as has already been accomplished in the European Union, India and at least 36 other nations, but also to drive all GMOs off the market. That includes GMOs in human food, animal feed, cotton, nutritional supplements, body care products, and GMO cotton and biofuels.

The same week as the global March Against Monsanto, the New York Times reported that U.S. food companies, "large and small" are starting to make arrangements to reformulate the ingredients in their processed foods and reorganize their supply lines so to avoid having to admit that their brand name products contain GMOs. Monsanto and its Junk Food allies recognize that if the Washington State ballot initiative on mandatory GMO labeling passes on November 5, which now appears likely, their ability to keep food consumers in the dark will be over.

Large processed food and beverage companies, such as Kellogg's, General Mills, Nestle, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, Unilever, Dean Foods, Wal-Mart and others understand that once labeling is required in one strategic state, such as Washington, they will be forced to label in all 50 states.

The anti-GMO movement in the U.S. has identified Monsanto's Achilles heel—GMO food labeling at the state level—and has begun to achieve some preliminary victories, both in the marketplace and in the legislative arena. For example, Whole Foods Market and dozens of natural food stores and co-ops, along with restaurants like Chipotle, are, or are planning to, voluntarily label GMOs. And Connecticut and Maine have passed GMO labeling laws.

Our common task now must be to win the all-important Washington State ballot initiative. This will require a tremendous fundraising effort and netroots-grassroots get-out-the-vote effort. If you have not already made a donation to this effort, please do so now. If you would like to volunteer, sign up here.

Monsanto's Minions React

The food industry knows it will be difficult to stop voters in Washington State from bypassing the politicians and the federal government and directly voting into law a mandatory GMO food labeling initiative on November 5. So the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) is circling the wagons. Claiming that pro-labeling consumers have created "an unprecedented period of turmoil" for the food industry, the GMA convened a meeting, on July 10, in Washington D.C., of large food manufactures and supermarkets. Their agenda? Figure out how to co-opt and neutralize the growing anti-GMO movement.

One of the strategies apparently being put forth by members of the GMA is to ask the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to step in and formulate watered-down federal rules on GMO food labeling. The GMA would like weak labeling laws, similar to those in Japan and other nations, that would contain loopholes, high tolerances and weak enforcement, coupled with a lengthy implementation period, so as to preempt strict state labeling requirements and deflate the growing GMO-Right to Know movement.

On the international level, Monsanto and Big Food, joined by other large corporations concerned about the growing grassroots power of consumer, environmental, and Fair Trade networks, are lobbying for fast track passage of new secretly negotiated Free Trade Agreements, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), popularly known as "TAFTA," and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Both TAFTA and TPP are basically supercharged versions of the highly unpopular NAFTA and WTO trade agreements.

These "forced trade" agreements would, among other things, lower standards on food safety and environmental protection, including taking away the rights of nations and states to require strict GMO food labeling and safety-testing. Provisions in these trade agreements would allow corporations to sue a nation if pro-consumer or environmental laws interfered with their trade and "expected profits."  Judgments and penalties would be determined by secret trade tribunals, with corporate lawyers serving as judges. Under the TAFTA/TPP regime, the U.S. and other countries would be required to hand over national sovereignty to foreign investors and multinational corporations.

So even as we mobilize for strategic GMO right-to-know victories in Washington, Vermont and other states, we must simultaneously mobilize the public to fight against federal preemption on GMO labeling, and stop the next generation of these secret Forced Trade agreements.

GMO Food Labeling: Just the First Step

Passing I-522, Washington State's GMO labeling initiative, is a necessary first step toward honest labeling of GMO ingredients in the U.S. But Monsanto has survived mandatory food labeling in the EU and scores of other nations. The biotech giant will likely survive strict labeling requirements by U.S. states, too. What Monsanto can't  survive is mass awareness and rejection of all GMOs, especially GMO cotton and GMO animal feed on factory farms. A successful global boycott of factory-farmed meat and animal products and GMO-tainted cotton, combined with GMO food labeling, will literally drive genetic engineering out of the marketplace.

Eighty percent of all processed foods in the U.S. contain GMOs. Yet if we examine the entire global production and consumption cycle of GMOs, we learn that only 20 percent of GMOs grown worldwide go into human food. The other 80 percent end up in animal feed, cotton production, biofuels, body care products, and nutritional supplements.

Even in Europe, where GE foods are rarely sold in grocery stores or restaurants, several billion dollars worth of GE animal feed from North America, Brazil and Argentina are imported every year. Although EU consumers have forced voluntary labeling of GMO-fed non-organic meat and animal products in Germany, France and Austria, and in large chains throughout Europe, there is no mandatory GMO animal feed labeling law in the EU. India is the only major country up until now that requires labels on GMO animal feed. No country yet requires labels on GMO cotton clothing, nutritional supplements, body care products or biofuels.

Almost half of Monsanto's profits now derive from its sales outside the U.S., especially GMO crops for animal feed.  So if we're serious about turning back the biotech threat, and building up an alternative food and farming system that is organic, local, climate-friendly and humane, we need to strengthen our international solidarity and cooperation as well as our domestic efforts. Once we take into account the full scope of agricultural biotechnology and its myriad products, we can position ourselves for the next stage of the battle: a comprehensive and global anti-GMO offensive, strategically targeting the entire GMO food, fiber, fuel, supplements and body care industry where they are most vulnerable. This Great GMO Boycott and GMO Right to Know mobilization will require a broader coalition, both domestically and internationally, and an unprecedented mass education effort around the role of GMOs and factory farms in exacerbating our health, environmental, animal welfare and climate crisis.

All Out for Washington State Nov. 5

But first things first. The consumer, farmer and fishing community insurgency that frightens Monsanto and its allies the most is the upcoming ballot initiative (I-522) in Washington State on Nov. 5. As Monsanto and its allies, such as the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) understand, this is the most crucial battle against GMOs today. If voters pass mandatory labeling in Washington, reinforced by contingent state labeling laws already passed or in progress in Connecticut, Maine and Vermont, it will mean the end of the road for genetically engineered food in U.S. grocery stores.

As the biotech lobby has readily admitted, GMO food labeling is a "skull and crossbones" that will drive genetically engineered foods off the market in the U.S. and North America. As evidenced by marketplace trends in Europe, the largest agricultural market in the world, once GMOs are labeled, consumers will not buy them, food companies and grocery stores will not sell them, and farmers will not grow them. This is why Monsanto and Big Food corporations—hiding behind the façade of their trade association, the GMA—will likely pour up to $20 million into defeating I-522.  Pro-labeling forces currently have a commanding lead in the polls in Washington. But we need to raise at least $4 million more (to augment the four million dollars we've raised already) to buy enough TV and radio time to counter the forthcoming flood of lies that Monsanto and its minions will launch in Washington State. We already know what those lies will look like: Labeling will raise food prices, hurt family farmers and  confuse consumers.

The Road to Victory means building up our war chest in Washington State for the Nov. 5 ballot initiative. Please spread the word. This is the most important food and farming battle in the world today. If you haven't already made a donation to the Yes on I-522 campaign please do so now.

About

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots non-profit 501(c)3 public interest organization campaigning for health, justice, and sustainability. The OCA deals with crucial issues of food safety, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering, children's health, corporate accountability, Fair Trade, environmental sustainability and other key topics.

Is Your Child Risking a Brain Tumor with Cell Phone Usage?

© Natural Society

Is Your Child Risking a Brain Tumor with Cell Phone Usage?
July 19, 2013 | Natural Society | Elizabeth Renter

What is the appropriate age for a child to have a cell phone? Just a couple decades ago, the mobile technology was only in use by a small percentage of the population. But cell phone use has grown exponentially in a relatively short amount of time, and it’s not just adults who are using them. Children as young as 10 (and sometimes younger) are given cell phones, and some experts say this could be putting them at a heightened risk of brain tumors and cancer.
 
The connection between cell phone use and increased risk of brain tumors has been made several times, with some nations taking it more seriously than others. In Australia, the link between cell phones and possible brain tumors in children is being taken quite seriously. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) is distributing a fact sheet to all families purchasing cell phones, warning against the dangers of radiation and their potential link to brain tumors. They are urging parents to limit cell phone use by children and teens and telling them to keep the phone away from their head while in use.

Radiation put off by cell phones has been classified as a possible human carcinogen by the World Health Organization in the U.S., although some might say the U.S. is focusing less on the issue at hand – despite saying that cell phones are in the same cancer-causing category as lead and engine exhaust just a couple years ago. While we don’t allow our children to play with pesticides or diesel, we readily hand them cell phones.

Related Read: Why Children Should LIMIT Cell Phone Use

Just a few Reasons to Limit Cell Phone Use (Especially for Children)

• Researchers with a study released in July 2011 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute said they found no connection between cell phone use and the risk of brain tumors in children. But immediately after, they were lambasted by the Environmental Health Trust, who said their study included many statistical errors and their conclusion was flawed. Rather than not showing a link, the Trust determined the study actually proved a 115% increased risk of brain tumors in children who used cell phones over those who didn’t.

“There’s every indication that this study actually found that children have a doubled risk of brain cancer,” said Lloyd Morgan, a senior research fellow of the Trust. “For them to just state that we don’t think there’s a problem is, for me, quite mystifying.”

• Another study conducted at the Örebro Hospita in Sweden revealed that 10 years of cellphone use resulted in an average 290% increased risk of brain tumor development. Interestingly, the tumor development was found on the side of the head in which the cellphone was most used.

• But the risk of developing a brain tumor isn’t the only consequence. One report shows just how damaging EMFs can be for children, revealing that due to developing organs, lower bone density of the skull, lower body weight, and a less effective blood brain barrier, children are very vulnerable to cell phone radiation. This is especially true for unborn children, with research showing that microwave radiation emitted by cell phones negatively influencing fetal brains.

A smaller brain means a bigger risk. While there may be a heightened risk for brain tumors among cell phone users of all ages, younger people have smaller brains with more connective tissue than mature brains. In other words, they can absorb up to three times as much radiation.

Additional Sources:

ABC News

Trees Have Internal Clocks Too, Study Finds

Tasmanian blue gum trees follow daily cycles
of water and carbon dioxide intake.
Credit: metriognome | Shutterstock

Trees Have Internal Clocks Too, Study Finds
July 18, 2013 | Live Science | Tanya Lewis

Like human bodies, some trees have internal clocks that coordinate the activities of their cells with the cycles of day and night, a new study finds.

Scientists knew of these circadian rhythms in leaves, but the new study is the first to demonstrate them in whole trees. In the study, the researchers looked at the Tasmanian blue gum tree, and found it appears to use its internal clock to regulate its intake of water and carbon dioxide. These cycles could affect models of climate change, the scientists say.

"It had never been shown that the circadian rhythm of the leaf affected the whole tree," said study researcher Rubén Díaz Sierra, a physicist at the National University of Distance Education in Spain. "If it works for the tree, it works for the whole forest," he added.

Díaz Sierra's colleagues monitored trees in special "whole-tree chambers" as part of the Hawkesbury Forest Experiment near Sydney, Australia — a broader experiment to study how Australia's eucalypt forests will respond to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate. These chambers enable researchers to control the air temperature, humidity and amount of light the trees are exposed to, although these parameters were allowed to vary in this study. [Nature's Giants: Tallest Trees on Earth]

The researchers measured how much carbon dioxide the trees took in and how much water vapor they lost through small openings in the their leaves called stomata. The scientists then compared these values during overcast nights, when the environment stays mostly constant throughout the evening, with nights that saw dramatic changes in temperature and humidity.

Both carbon-dioxide intake and water loss declined in the six hours after dusk, but increased noticeably during the six hours before dawn, even on nights when temperature and humidity remained constant. Because the environment wasn't changing, the increase can only be explained by the biological clock, said study researcher Víctor Resco de Dios of the University of Western Sydney in Australia.

Artificial neural networks — machine-learning models inspired by the brain — were used to determine just how much the circadian rhythms affected the opening of stomata and the trees' water use.

The findings carry important implications for models of climate change. "Right now, the models don't take into account the time of the day," Díaz Sierra said, adding that if the time of day affects trees' carbon-dioxide consumption, it would alter models of how climate change will affect ecosystems.

Still, Díaz Sierra expects some resistance to the notion that whole trees display circadian rhythms. There's still a lot of work to do with other plants, he said. "But if it works on small plants on the leaves, why not the whole tree?" he said.

Follow Tanya Lewis on Twitter and Google+. Follow us @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on LiveScience.com.

All Corn Syrup Contains MSG

© Prevent Disease

All Corn Syrup Contains MSG
July 18, 2013 | Prevent Disease | Natasha Longo

Processed free glutamic acid (MSG) is deadly and it's unlabeled in hundreds of foods. One of the tricks played by the food industry is the deceptive insertion of "no MSG added" on food labels. While there may be no "extra" MSG added, there is sufficient amounts through processing and hidden within many ingredients which cause havoc to our health. One those ingredients found in many foods is corn syrup.

 What is MSG?

Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) is not a nutrient, vitamin, or mineral and has no health benefits. The part of MSG that negatively affects the human body is the "glutamate", not the sodium. The breakdown of MSG typically consists of 78% glutamate, 12% sodium, and about 10% water. Any glutamate added to a processed food is not and can not be considered naturally occurring. Natural glutamate in plants and animals is known as L-glutamic acid.

In contrast, processed free glutamic acid (MSG) contains both L-glutamic acid and D-glutamic acid, and is also accompanied by pyroglutamic acid and other impurities. The impurities differ according to the starting materials and methods used to produce the glutamic acid (MSG). It is only acid hydrolyzed proteins that contain mono and dichloro propanols (which are carcinogenic), and it is only reaction flavors that contain heterocyclic amines (which are also carcinogenic).

By FDA definition, processed free glutamic acid (MSG) is "naturally occurring," because the basic ingredients are found in nature. "Naturally occurring" does not mean that a food additive is being used in its natural state. "Naturally occurring" only means that the food additive began with something found in nature. By FDA definition, the ingredient "monosodium glutamate" is natural. So is hydrochloric acid. So is arsenic. "Natural", especially in our beloved food industry, doesn't mean "safe."

Processed free glutamic acid (MSG) is created when protein is either partially or fully broken apart into its constituent amino acids, or glutamic acid is secreted from selected bacteria. A protein can be broken into its constituent amino acids in a number of ways (autolysis, hydrolysis, enzymolysis, and/or fermentation). When a protein is broken down, the amino acid chains in the protein are broken, and individual amino acids are freed. These processes are discussed in some detail in food encyclopedias -- wherein articles on glutamic acid and "monosodium glutamate" are generally written by persons who work for Ajinomoto, Co., Inc., the world's largest producer of the food ingredient "monosodium glutamate."

It used to be that when any ingredient contained 78%-79% processed free glutamic acid (MSG), and the balance was made up of salt, moisture, and up to 1 per cent impurities, the FDA required that the product be called "monosodium glutamate", and required that the product be labeled as such. The FDA required that other MSG-containing ingredients be identified by names other than "monosodium glutamate." Never has the FDA required mention of the fact that an ingredient contains processed free glutamic acid (MSG).

While the glutamic acid in "monosodium glutamate" is generally produced through bacterial fermentation, the glutamic acid in the other MSG-containing ingredients is made through use of chemicals (hydrolysis or autolysis), enzymes (enzymolysis), fermentation, or a complex cooking process wherein reaction flavors are produced from a combination of specific amino acids, reducing sugars, animal or vegetable fats or oils, and optional ingredients including hydrolyzed vegetable protein.

It is now essentially unregulated when it comes to labeling standards. A label may say "yeast extract", "calcium caseinate", or "beef flavoring", but the product still contains varying amounts of "free" glutamic acid. This makes it very difficult for consumers who are trying to avoid it. It is also very dangerous for those who suffer severe reactions to it. Many people who are very sensitive to MSG experience respiratory, neurological, muscular, skin, urological and even cardiac symptoms.

Some of the common ingredients which contain MSG are: Plant Protein, Hydrolyzed Corn Gluten, Hydrolyzed Pea Protein, Textured Protein, Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Autolyzed Plant Protein, Yeast Extract, Calcium Caseinate, Sodium Caseinate, Gelatin, Disodium Guanylate, Disodium Inosinate, Carrageenan, Xanthum Gum, Maltodextrin, Natural Flavor, Barley Malt, Malt Extract, Soy Protein Isolate, Ultra-pasteurized Soy Sauce, Whey Protein Concentrate, Soy Protein Concentrate, Whey Protein Isolate, Protease Enzymes, Protein Fortified anything, Enzyme Modified anything and Citric Acid.

MSG in Corn Syrup

All corn syrup contains some processed free glutamic acid (MSG). In producing corn syrup, producers do not take the time nor undertake the expense to remove all proteins. The remaining protein is broken down during production, resulting in processed free glutamic acid. The final product would also contain free aspartic acid, free phenylalanine, and the free form of the other amino acids found in corn protein.

"There is no corn syrup without free glutamic acid present, it doesn't exist," said food scientist Mae Geraldine. "It is a byproduct of processing and the expense to remove it would exceed production costs."

High fructose corn syrup may be worse for an MSG-sensitive person than is plain corn syrup because an enzyme is added to high fructose corn syrup, further breaking down any protein that may be present.

A study published in Genes & Nutrition suggests that eating high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) may boost risk of various liver diseases such as adiposity, hepatic steatosis, hepatic fibrosis and liver damage like cirrhosis.

Previous studies show that a variety of dietary components such as fat, sugars, and neonatal treatment with MSG contribute to the development of liver disease. Exposure to HFCS promoted hepatic fibrosis and markers of liver dysfunction

MSG within corn syrup can cause harmful effects on the function of hypothalamus-pituitary-target gland system. It leads to erosive and ulcerative lesions of the gastric mucosa and an increased secretion of hydrochloric acid and an increased body weight.

Cycle of MSG leading to Obesity:

1. MSG is eaten.
2. Cells in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus that produce dopamine and regulate appetite are destroyed.
3. Hypothalamus becomes leptin-resistant
4. Glutamate activates AMPK, which slows metabolism AND desire for physical activity ("lazy mice").
5. The fat cells release leptin to stop AMPK, but the hypothalamus ignores the signal.
6. Appetite stays high, activity is depressed. Calorie intake goes up, calories expended by metabolism go down, calories expended in activity go down.
7. MSG although it is an amino acid, signals the pancreas to release insulin
8. Insulin drops our blood sugar - causing increased hunger at the same time it packs away excess calories as fat
9. Obesity

ALWAYS Contain MSG

OFTEN Contain MSG

Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) Glutamate anything Glutamic Acid Hydrolyzed anything Hydrolyzed Corn Gluten Hydrolyzed Pea Protein Plant Protein Textured Protein Autolyzed anything Autolyzed Yeast Extract Autolyzed Plant Protein Yeast Extract Yeast Nutrient Caseinate anything Calcium Caseinate Sodium Caseinate Gelatin Aspartame (any artificial sugar) The next ingredients listed do not contain MSG, but are added to activate MSG already contained in the food product. These two chemicals are very expensive and have no other function. If you find them on the label you can be assured that MSG is present. Disodium Guanylate Disodium Inosinate

Carrageenan (ingredient in Chocolate Milk) Xanthum Gum (ingredient in Salad Dressings) Maltodextrin (ingredient in Splenda) Flavor(s) and Flavoring(s) anything Malt Flavoring Natural Flavor(s) & Flavoring(s) anything beef, pork, chicken, etc Bouillon and Broth anything Barley Malt Malt Extract Soy Sauce Extract Soy Protein Isolate Ultra-pasteurized Soy Sauce Whey Protein Concentrate Soy Protein Concentrate Pectin Soy Protein Whey Protein Isolate Whey Protein Protease Protease Enzymes Protein Fortified anything Enzyme Modified anything Enzymes anything Fermented anything Citric Acid Seasoning(s) (the actual word) Spice(s) (the actual word)

ALWAYS Contain MSG	OFTEN Contain MSG
Ranch Salad Dressing (Most salad dressings are of concern, but Ranch is the worst.) Vegetable Dips All Flavored Chips Sun Chips Doritos Flavored Potato Chips Bouillon (including those that claim MSG Free) Meat and Vegetable Stock and Broth (including those that claim MSG Free) Baby Formulas and Foods	Hair Care Products Hair Shampoo Hair Conditioner Toothpaste Teeth Whitening Agents Fluoride Treatments Teeth Cleaning Pumice at the Dentist Medication Gel Capsules (contains Gelatin) Children's Cough Syrup

Sources:

msgmyth.com
nih.gov
preventdisease.com

Natasha Longo has a master's degree in nutrition and is a certified fitness and nutritional counselor. She has consulted on public health policy and procurement in Canada, Australia, Spain, Ireland, England and Germany.

Evidence-Based Medicine: A Marketing Ploy

© Gaia Health Blog

Evidence-Based Medicine: A Marketing Ploy
July 18, 2013 | Gaia Health Blog


Evidence-based medicine is little more than a marketing ploy. Both JAMA and the Cochrane Collaboration agree that little of what’s done in clinical medicine has anything to do with evidence. Studies are hidden when they don’t provide desired results, and what’s reported tends to be selective. The result is that patients are routinely treated based on what Big Pharma wants to sell.

Nearly two years ago, Gaia Health predicted that the plans of JAMA and the Cochrane Collaboration would go nowhere … and that’s just what seems to have happened. Here’s what was said back then:
 
The prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association and the Cochrane Collaboration have jointly and officially concluded, albeit tacitly, that evidence-based medicine does not generally exist. To counter that lack, they are suggesting voluntary changes in how medical studies are reported.

JAMA’s article on the subject, “A Model for Dissemination and Independent Analysis of Industry Data“, starts with the statement:

Each day, patients and their physicians make treatment decisions with access to only a fraction of the relevant clinical research data.

Cochrane’s statement, “The Cochrane Collaboration Supports Free Access to all Data from all Clinical Trials“, says:

Selective reporting of trial results occurs frequently, leading to exaggerated findings of the beneficial effects of healthcare interventions and underestimates of their harms. As a consequence, many patients are unknowingly treated with interventions that have little or no effect, and may be harmed unnecessarily. This is unethical and has been said to violate the implicit contract between healthcare researchers and patients, where the aim of research is to improve treatment of future patients.

Gaia Health applauds this acknowledgement by JAMA and Cochrane. However, the two journals suggest dramatically different approaches to resolving the problem. JAMA suggests only voluntary commitment by industry, whereas Cochrane advises laws with teeth in them. Neither one, in the view of Gaia Health, goes far enough.

The Acknowledged Problem

As Gaia Health keeps noting, so-called evidence-based medicine is nothing of the sort. The studies on which the concept stands only too often are little more than jury-rigged systems designed to produce the results desired by profiteering corporations. Conclusions are often not supported by the evidence given. Yet, that is merely the tip of the iceberg. As JAMA and Cochrane both admit, most of the data isn’t even provided!
Nonetheless, we’re expected to accept and believe Big Pharma and doctors’ claims about the efficacy and safety of the treatments given. Over and over—generally after countless numbers of people have been harmed or killed—we find that the claims were utterly false. The most commonly cited case is that of Vioxx, which killed tens of thousands.

However, the case of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is far more egregious, and we haven’t begun to count the maiming and deaths caused by it, though the incidence of invasive, usually deadly, breast cancer was increased many times over. HRT was sold through study after fraudulent study claiming it reduced the risks of many diseases, including heart attacks and cancer. The real experiment, the application of HRT on millions of women routinely prescribed estrogen and progesterone, demonstrated that it increased the incidence of those diseases, among others.

Fraudulent junk science pays off in big profits.

The Offered Solutions

The JAMA Solution

The JAMA solution suggests voluntary cooperation by the medical industry. On the surface, that appears to be little more than a show. Most significantly, it still keeps the data itself away from the general public, allowing access to data only by those who meet internal standards set up by an “independent coordinating organization”. How such an “independent coordinating organization” would be set up and who would be on it is unstated—and that is a fatal flaw.

The FDA is supposed to be independent. So are the NIH and CDC. None of them are. All are neck-deep in Big Pharma money. Gaia Health does not believe that such an organization could possibly remain independent of Big Pharma. Add to that the fact that only people who have been named by this organization would have access to the data, and we’d be looking at little more than an agency that would end up fronting for Big Pharma, while giving the gloss of legitimacy to its products.

The Cochrane Solution

The Cochrane Collaboration offers a more acceptable solution. They say that free access to all data from all studies must be made available to everyone at no cost, including in electronic format. They also suggest that governments make laws requiring the release of this data within one year of the end of a randomized phase of a trial. While this sounds good, it doesn’t go far enough:

• First, it covers only randomized trials, which is not all medical trials, so it would allow a significant number of them to slip through the cracks. Gaia Health can easily imagine a new paradigm emerging, one suggesting something other than randomized trials as the best source of evidence, to counter this approach.
• Second, it waits until the end of the randomized phase of a trial. However, this phase often lasts for years, whereas early reports are often released based on less complete data. Therefore, a simple method of evading this law would be to never officially end a trial.
• Third, waiting a year to provide actual data would allow bad products to be marketed before they’ve been properly examined. While it’s certainly better than the existing state of data never being released, it isn’t adequate.

Cochrane does make a suggestion with which Gaia Health wholeheartedly agrees. They suggest that there be punitive damages for anyone not providing the required data.

The most significant and favorable part of the Cochrane suggestions is the availability of open access to everyone. They also imply, though don’t specifically state, that studies with results contrary to those desired would also have to provide all relevant information, including data.

The Likely Winner: JAMA or Cochrane?

Overall, with the exceptions noted above, Gaia Health is delighted with the Cochrane Collaboration’s suggestions. Such openness could only benefit the public, and possibly end part of the scourge of junk science. Sadly, it doesn’t go far enough and wouldn’t end all of it—and the likelihood of Big Pharma slipping around it is high. The simple expedient of redefining or even just renaming studies as something other than random would evade Cochrane’s approach.

Will Cochrane’s approach be accepted? Not likely—not while Big Pharma money rules. Because the corruption within the world of medical science is becoming more and more apparent to more and more people, the industry needs to do something to give the impression that it’s doing something.

If they can get away with a marketing approach to the problem, they will. In all likelihood, we’ll see a voluntary system that still allows the data to be hidden away and only studies it chooses to be subjected to pseudo-independent analysis. Such a system would likely be met with fanfare and a big show to give the impression that it’s working. Within a short time, though, it would, at best, become an arm of Big Pharma.

Massive Bumblebee Die-Off Prompts Temporary Pesticide Ban in Oregon

Activist Post: Massive Bumblebee Die-Off Prompts Temporary Pesticide Ban in Oregon
July 17, 2013 | Waking Times | Alex Pietrowski

In what may be the single largest mass bumblebee die-off on record, some 50,000 plus bees were recently found littering the parking lot of a Target store in Wilsonville, Oregon recently after a landscaping company sprayed surrounding trees with the insecticide Safari. Concerning shoppers and the community, the event also raised significant alarm amongst the Oregon Department of Agriculture, which has now enacted a temporary ban on the pesticide used in this incident, and for an additional 17 other insecticide products containing the chemical dinotefuran.

Dinotefuran, a popular insecticide found in agricultural, professional and household products is an insecticide of the neonicotinoid class, a class of insecticides widely suspected to be the primary cause of the global bee and pollinator die-off we are witnessing today. Neonicotinoids include a number of other insecticides other than dinotefuran, and have for decades been suspected of being especially dangerous to bees:

Neonicotinoids are a relatively new class of insecticides that share a common mode of action that affect the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and death. They includeimidacloprid, acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, nithiazine, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam. According to the EPA, uncertainties have been identified since their initial registration regarding the potential environmental fate and effects of neonicotinoid pesticides, particularly as they relate to pollinators. Studies conducted in the late 1990s suggest that neonicotinic residues can accumulate in pollen and nectar of treated plants and represent a potential risk to pollinators. [Beyond Pesticides]

Representing over 300 colonies and many potential future queen bees, the Oregon die-off has caused considerable alarm and the Oregon department of health is acting swiftly:

To prevent another bee killing, the Oregon Department of Agriculture is also temporarily banning the use of 18 pesticide products. Pesticides containing dinotefuran can no longer be used on plants, or at least not until the ban is lifted. 

ODA officials said they’re acting “in an abundance of caution” in issuing the ban. Director Katy Coba said she hopes the decision minimizes the potential for more bee deaths connected to pesticide products while the state continues to investigate and gather information. – Fox

 This is certainly encouraging news, yet oddly enough dinotefuran products and other neonicotinoids will still be available for sale in Oregon and only licensed pesticide applicators will be liable in this ban.

“We’re not trying to get it off the shelves, or trying to tell people to dispose of it, we’re just telling people not to use it,” said Bruce Pokarney, a spokesperson for the department of agriculture. [Oregon Live]

The mindset behind this action is telling, especially when considering the gravity of the implications of a global collapse in pollinators. If the single largest bee die-off in history, known to have been directly caused by neonicotinoid insecticides, doesn’t prompt a more thorough and meaningful ban on the widespread use of these dangerous chemicals, then what will it take?

The complete list of temporarily banned products can be seen here:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PEST/docs/pdf/DinotefLimitList06272013.pdf.

Sources:

http://inhabitat.com/oregon-temporarily-bans-pesticides-to-investigate-bee-deaths/

http://www.kptv.com/slideshow?widgetid=83253

http://blog.beealive.com/2013/07/in-wake-of-massive-bee-kills-oregon.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinotefuran

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pollinators/chemicals.php

http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/science/science-a-environmental/43996-in-wake-of-massive-bee-kills-oregon-temporarily-bans-some-pesticide-uses.html

About the Author

Alex Pietrowski is an artist and writer concerned with preserving good health and the basic freedom to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com and an avid student of Yoga and life.