Saturday, August 31, 2013

MINDS, NOT MINES: Why the real revolution is being achieved with consciousness, not bombs

 Friday, August 30, 2013 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) I don't know if you can see it yet, but you are living through the unfolding of the most profound revolution in human history. This is a revolution of raising consciousness, advancing real science, holding corporations accountable and empowering individuals. Sites like Natural News are hubs of this revolution, but the real power comes from readers, bloggers, customers and activists like you.



What kind of revolution is underway, exactly? Well, there are several of them happening all at the same time, and all of them are bloodless:

• Honest food revolution where food corporations are held accountable for what's really in their food (GMOs, heavy metals, BPA, contaminants and more)

• Food freedom revolution where farmers, homeowners and commercial growers are now demanding increased freedom to grow what they want to grow. It's only a matter of time before prohibition against industrial hemp is lifted.

• Independent media revolution where all the big-name media outlets are practically in free-fall collapse as more and more readers flock to independent "truth" media sites like this one. It seems the population has finally decided it's tired of being lied to all the time!

• Personal liberty revolution where more and more people are standing up and demanding freedom from government surveillance, oppression, censorship, punitive tax audits and suffocating governance. This is true across the political spectrum: both conservatives and liberals are fed up with war, NSA spy surveillance and the crushing economic cost of a police state government gone wild.

• Consciousness revolution where an increasing number of people are waking up to the reality that consciousness is real, "minds" exist beyond the physical, animals such as dolphins have memories and consciousness, and our universe is far more than the reductionist physical construct worshipped by conventional science. See my article on Rupert Sheldrake to really understand the consciousness revolution happening right now, in more detail. Or watch this video by Graham Hancock, "The War on Consciousness," which TED has viciously censored. (TED Talks are now the high priesthood of status quo thinking, and TED goes out of its way to silence the world's brightest scientific minds who "accidentally" got scheduled to talk.)



Revolution at the speed of the internet

Thanks to the internet, revolutions can now spread at the speed of broadband connections. New findings can be spread to tens of millions of people literally overnight, bypassing the mainstream media information controllers and political spin doctors.

Although social media sites and search engines were all set up from the get-go by NSA-funded groups that we now know have "backdoor access" for spooks to spy on users, these same tools can also be used to spark peaceful revolution by spreading information that leads to heightened awareness followed by action.

For example, the very structure of the internet was first created by none other than DARPA, a military research organization. The TCPIP packet structure of internet traffic was specifically designed to maintain data connections even when nuclear bombs destroyed internet traffic hubs.

But today we use this DARPA-created infrastructure to do things like spread the truth about the mysterious fibers found in Chicken McNuggets. We use the internet to distribute investigative reports and critically important food safety data that would have traditionally been completed censored by the mainstream media. And later this year, Natural News is going to announce information about food that dramatically impacts consciousness (and no, I'm not talking about psychedelics...).

It is the combined efforts of all of us -- bloggers, tipsters, whistleblowers, journalists, readers, sponsors and more -- who power this great engine of total transparency that ultimately leads to bloodless revolution.

Because in a world where corporations are subjected to total transparency, all the crimes they routinely commit against humanity are inevitably halted. The GMOs get outlawed. The predatory banking practices get exposed. The death-pushing pharma CEOs get arrested and prosecuted. These are the kind of positive, revolutionary outcomes we can fully expect to see happen as we drive forward with a shared goal of total transparency, total truth and total dedication to serving the public good.

The Health Ranger thanks you for participating in the greatest revolution in human history

So I want to take this opportunity thank you for your support, your energy, your contributions and your positive intentions in making these revolutions reality.

We are winning on so many fronts that it's easy to forget just how much progress we've made. Monsanto is on the verge of losing its war against humanity as GMOs will soon be shut out of the marketplace. Pharmaceutical medicine is on the verge of collapse followed by rebirth of a new era based on holistic principles. The dead, pasteurized, processed food system is also on the verge of collapse as the truth about the links between nutrition and health become undeniable.

As more and more of this information comes out -- on consciousness, nutrition, liberty and more -- it sooner or later becomes impossible for the status quo to deny these realities any longer.

The most powerful revolutions are silent revolutions

Revolutions take place when a set of ideas that has been slowly building up in the minds of the people is suddenly catapulted across the remaining population and becomes "common sense." Real revolutions are powerful precisely because they are so subtle: all of a sudden an idea that used to be considered outlandish is widely accepted as being obviously true (like the idea that you are more than your physical body or that you are a conscious being, not a biological robot like most "modern" scientists continue to claim).

These kinds of revolutions are more powerful than bullets and bombs. They are what shape the future of human civilization. And we are shaping these ideas right now, together, as we explore breakthroughs in consciousness, liberty, food, farming, nutrition, self-healing and more.

That's why right now, instead of dropping bombs on nations like Syria, we should be dropping bombshell ideas on the entire world like the idea that we are all conscious beings who share in the powerful common interests of sustaining life on our planet and ending suffering everywhere (through lifelong empowerment, not band-aid handouts).

Thank you for joining me on this journey, and I assure you the real fun has only just begun.

Friday, August 30, 2013

Feds Approve Marijuana Legalization Laws!

7 Replies

At a press briefing Thursday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it will allow Colorado and Washington to move forward with implementation of laws establishing state-regulated systems of marijuana production and distribution.
“Today’s announcement is a major and historic step toward ending marijuana prohibition,” said MPP director of federal policy Dan Riffle. “The Department of Justice’s decision to allow implementation of the laws in Colorado and Washington is a clear signal that states are free to determine their own policies with respect to marijuana.
“We applaud the Department of Justice and other federal agencies for its thoughtful approach and sensible decision. It is time for the federal government to start working with state officials to develop enforcement policies that respect state voters, as well as federal interests. The next step is for Congress to act. We need to fix our nation’s broken marijuana laws and not just continue to work around them.”
james cole
Dep. Attn. Gen. James Cole
While the memo reiterates that marijuana use and distribution are still in violation of federal law, it lays out the priorities for the Department of Justice in states where marijuana policy differs from federal law:

  • the distribution of marijuana to minors;
  • revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels;
  • the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states;
  • state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;
  • violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana
  • drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use;
  • growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands;
  • preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.
After the last memo issued by Cole regarding state medical marijuana law and federal enforcement, states with very clear policies in place to control and regulate marijuana distribution saw little or no interference. This latest memo seems to echo that position in the cases of Washington and Colorado for adult use, so hopefully we can expect the Department of Justice to continue this trend moving forward.
- See more at: http://blog.mpp.org/tax-and-regulate/feds-approve-marijuana-legalization-laws/08292013/#sthash.xjD5oxPD.dpuf

Thursday, August 29, 2013

8 GMO Foods to Avoid

image                    

This is an old subject here at Natural News because reader’s are very educated on nutrition.  However, my patient base isn’t quite on to the basics and unfortunately, here in Indiana, many don’t even know what GMO means.  They certainly aren’t aware of the dangers of Monsanto and big pharma!!!  I encourage you to share this with family, friends and those not as savvy in the field.  Any little bit of information can help!!!
WHAT is a GMO?????

What is a GMO?
A GMO (genetically modified organism) is the product of a lab process that takes genes from on species and inserts them into another species to attain a desired trait. Viruses or bacteria are used to infect animal or plant cells with the new DNA. The DNA is coated with tiny metal pellets and shot into the cells. Then, the new DNA is injected into fertilized eggs and electric shocks create holes in the membranes of sperm forcing the new DNA into the holes. Although, no research on humans has shown detrimental effects from eating GMO foods, numerous studies on animals have shown immune damage, pre-cancerous cell growth and many unexplained anomalies.
For more information on the history of GMO’s visit HERE

Here are the top 8 GMO foods to avoid

1. CORN– corn is the most prominent genetically modified crop here in the US. Please know your farmer if you want good fresh sweet corn–and ask what type of seeds he uses.  Local farmer’s markets rock!!!

2. SOY–90% of soy is genetically engineered to be resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup.

3. SUGAR–since 2009, genetically modified beets have been used to make beet sugar
.
4. ASPARTAME -not only is one of those toxic food additives, it is actually made from genetically modified bacteria.

5. PAPAYAS—yep, this wonderful fruit is exported here from Hawaii since 1999 and is genetically modified to be resistant to the Ringspot virus. They are banned in all European countries.

6. CANOLA– canola is made from rapeseed which is one of the most chemically modified and adapted oils.

7. DAIRY– 1/5 of all dairy cows are injected with rBGA growth hormone from Monsanto—Drink organic or plant-based. Remember that 93% of all soy is GMO— Silk Brand Soy milk is non-GMO.

8. ZUCCHINI AND YELLOW SQUASH– most are genetically modified to resist viruses.
Luckily, Connecticut and Maine have recently passed laws requiring manufacturers to label all products with Genetically Engineered ingredients.

4 Tips to avoiding GMO

1. Buy organic–labels saying 100% organic or made with organic ingredients
2. Buy Non GMO–labels saying “artificial hormone free”
3. Avoid high risk ingredients–corn, soybean, canola, cottonseed, sugar beets, corn syrup
4. Download shopping guide and get the app “ShopNoGMO”—a great app with plenty of good information and specific products to avoid.

About the author:
Angela DeBord Henriksen, MD received her undergraduate degree in Biology from Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana and her MD degree from Indiana University School of Medicine.   She completed her residency training in Internal Medicine through St. Vincent’s Hospital in Indianapolis.   Dr. Henriksen currently has a private practice at IU Health after serving as a hospitalist there. 
For more information visit her site

Your Daily Additives – Anticaking Agents





At one point during my research I read the FDA, USDA  and food manufacturers were blatantly adding poisonous material to the food supply. If you are unaware of what’s actually going on in the food system you might want know, Hilter, Henry Kissinger and the head of the U.N food supply suggested using food as a weapon. Now, if you think about it… Why else would they be putting petroleum, silicon, aluminum, mercury, lead and arsenic among so many other toxic chemicals in food? What sense does it make?

I have to ask: If you know you’re being poisoned slowly, incrementally with the collective of chemicals you consume everyday, would you attempt to make a switch to what I call, “real food”? Does the food-like-products you eat really taste that good to be willing to slowly degenerate your own health and well-being for a crunchy GM potato chip, or a chicken nugget with no chicken?
General research

ANTI-CAKING AGENTS
Used in vending machine powders (coffee, cocoa, soup) milk and cream powders, grated cheese, icing, sugar, baking powder, cake mixes, instant soup powders, drinking chocolate, table salt, pre-made seasonings.
Some common Anticaking Agents allowed in food (These will be listed throughout the week)
  • Aluminum calcium silicate
  • Calcium silicate (including synthetic)
  • Magnesium silicate
  • Prussiate of soda, yellow
  • Silicon dioxide
  • Sodium aluminosilicate
Silicate – Any of numerous compounds containing silicon

Silicon

Extremely hazardous in case of skin contact (corrosive, irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation.
Corrosive solid. Do not touch spilled material Do not ingest

Eye contact can result in corneal damage or blindness.

Skin contact can produce inflammation and blistering. Skin inflammation is characterized by itching, scaling, reddening, or, occasionally, blistering.

Inhalation of dust will produce irritation to gastro-intestinal or respiratory tract, characterized by burning, sneezing and coughing.

Severe over-exposure can produce lung damage, choking, unconsciousness or death. Inflammation of the eye is characterized by redness, watering, and itching.

The substance is toxic to lungs, mucous membranes.

Repeated skin exposure can produce local skin destruction, or dermatitis. Repeated exposure to a highly toxic material may produce general deterioration of health by an accumulation in one or many human organs.

Repeated or prolonged inhalation of dust may lead to chronic respiratory irritation.

Personal Protection:
Splash goggles. Synthetic apron. Vapor and dust respirator. Be sure to use an approved/certified respirator or equivalent. Gloves.
Other Regulations:
DOT Classification:
  • CLASS 8: Corrosive solid.
  • CLASS 6.1: Poisonous material.
OSHA: Hazardous by definition of Hazard Communication Standard
WHMIS (Canada):
  • CLASS D-1B: Material causing immediate and serious toxic effects (TOXIC)
  • Class D-2A: Material causing other toxic effects (VERY TOXIC).
  • CLASS E: Corrosive solid.
References
Legal G.R.A.S
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/21/184.1
G.R.A.S. List
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fcn/fcnNavigation.cfm?rpt=eafusListing
Some extra reading material

From Monsanto to High level Government Jobs, Amazing!

NAME
MONSANTO JOB
GOVERNMENT JOB
ADMIN
Toby Moffett
Monsanto Consultant
US Congessman
D-CT
Dennis DeConcini
Monsanto 
Legal Counsel
US Senator
D-AZ
Margaret Miller
Chemical Lab Supervisor
Dep. Dir. FDA, 
HFS
Bush Sr,
Clinton
Marcia Hale
Director, Int'l 
Govt. Affairs
White House 
Senior Staff
Clinton
Mickey Kantor
Board Member
Sec. of Commerce
Clinton
Virginia Weldon
VP, Public Policy
WH-Appt to CSA, Gore's SDR
Clinton
Josh King
Director, Int'l 
Govt. Affairs
White House Communications
Clinton
David Beler
VP, Gov't & Public Affairs
Gore's Chief Dom. 
Polcy Advisor
Clinton
Carol Tucker-Foreman
Monsanto Lobbyist
WH-Appointed Consumer Adv
Clinton
Linda Fisher
VP, Gov't & Public Affairs
Deputy Admin 
EPA
Clinton, 
Bush
Lidia Watrud
Manager, New Technologies
USDA, EPA
Clinton,
Bush, Obama
Michael Taylor
VP, Public Policy
Dep. Commiss. FDA
Obama
Hilary Clinton
Rose Law Firm, Monsanto Counsel
US Senator,
Secretary of State
D-NY
Obama
Roger Beachy
Director, Monsanto Danforth Center
Director USDA NIFA
Obama
Islam Siddiqui
Monsanto Lobbyist
Ag Negotiator
Trade Rep
Obama

A Monsanto executive told The New York Times that the safety of genetically engineered foods was the government's problem, not the company's:
“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," said Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job.”
As Angell implies, Monsanto's interest in selling as much genetically engineered food as possible is in direct conflict with the government's responsibility for food safety.
Monsanto has induced politicians to abdicate their responsibility to protect consumers through generous campaign contributions and heavy lobbying.
The most telling evidence that Monsanto's strategy has been an overwhelming succes is the number of former Monsanto employees who have been given jobs in the FDA and other regulatory agencies that monitor Monsanto's products.
Margaret Miller is just one example. While working as a Monsanto researcher, she contributed to a scientific report for the FDA on Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. Shortly before the report was submitted, Miller left Monsanto to work at the FDA, where her first job was to review the same report! Assisting Miller was another former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen.
Needless to say, the FDA accepted Monsanto's findings, which became the basis for its approval of Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone and its decision not to require labels on milk produced through the use of the artificial hormone.
The FDA official who made the decision not to label Monsanto's milk was Michael Taylor, who had worked as a lawyer for Monsanto. Today, Michael Taylor is in the Obama Administration, in charge of food safety.

LEARN MORE:

We Know Who You Are: 71 Senators Reject States’ Rights to Label GMOs (List)


  • By Katherine Paul 
    Organic Consumers Association, May 30, 2013 
For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

On the eve (May 24, 2013) of a worldwide protest  against Monsanto, 71 U.S. senators (listed below) voted against an amendment to the Senate version of the 2013 Farm Bill  that would have guaranteed states the right to enact mandatory GMO (genetically modified organism) labeling laws.

Seventy-one Senators voted against you, the 90 percent of consumers who have said  that you want labels on foods containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients.

Seventy-one Senators – including 28 so-called liberal Democrats and 43 Republican so-called defenders of states’ rights - voted against your state’s Constitutional Tenth Amendment right to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens and local businesses.

We know who those Senators are. And we plan to make certain that everyone who cares about food safety and food sovereignty knows who they are, too.

We’ll make sure that every consumer, citizen, voter knows that last year Monsanto donated almost $6 million , more than any other company, to the agriculture lobby. And that almost $1 million of that money went directly to political candidates, including some of the 71 Senators who voted against states’ rights to label GMOs.

And we will make sure that every one of those Senators knows that if they support any amendment or rider to the Farm Bill that would preempt state labeling laws, that if they fight labeling laws in any of their home states, we’ll support efforts to recall them where possible, or oppose them if recall isn’t an option.

The Sanders Amendment: What and Why


The Sanders amendment (S.AMDT.965) was introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt). Co-sponsored by Sens. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the amendment was intended to definitively establish that states have the right to require labeling of GE ingredients.

In fact, states already have the right to enact mandatory GMO labeling laws, just as they’ve passed nearly 200 other state laws governing food safety and agriculture. State GMO labeling, and other food safety and food labeling laws, are guaranteed under the Constitution. Federal law, upheld for decades by federal court legal decisions, allows states to pass laws relating food safety or food labels when the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has no prior regulations or prohibitions in place. There is currently no federal law or FDA regulation on GMO labeling, except for a guidance statement on voluntary labeling, nor is there any federal prohibition on state GMO or other food safety labeling laws. 

But with so many states, including Washington, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, and others, threatening to actually pass GMO labeling laws, the biotech industry is fighting back. Realizing that they can’t fight GMO labeling laws in every state, they’re coming after states’ rights.

Sanders’ home state, Vermont, passed  H. 112, GMO labeling law, out of the House on May 13. The Senate will take up the bill in in January 2014. If the Vermont legislation is signed into law next year, Sanders anticipates a fight – one that his amendment might have averted.

Last year, when Vermont legislators signaled they might pass a GMO labeling law, Monsanto threatened  to sue the state, causing the Governor to back down. That’s when Sanders first introduced his amendment, to the Senate version of the 2012 Farm Bill, where it was quashed by a vote of 26 to 73. (This year’s vote was 27 to 71). The 2012 Farm Bill stalled before it could be finalized, while Congress was distracted by the national elections.

The Corporate Takeover of Local Decision-Making

Arguing against the Sanders Amendment, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), the chair of the Agriculture Committee, said  that the amendment “ . . . would interfere with the FDA’s science-based process to determine what food labeling is necessary for consumers.” Stabenow’s statement shows either her ignorance of, or dismissal of, the existing scientific evidence  that GE food has been linked to everything from allergies to kidney failure to cancer.

But Stabenow’s real argument was one of efficiency.

“It’s also important to note that around the world now we are seeing genetically modified crops that have the ability to resist crop diseases and improve nutritional content and survive drought conditions in many developing countries. . . We see wonderful work being done by foundations like the Gates Foundation and others, that are using new techniques to be able to feed hungry people.”

Let’s forget for a moment that Stabenow took in $739,926  in campaign contributions from Big Ag in 2012. Or that Bill Gates is a Monsanto shareholder. Or that there’s plenty of evidence  refuting the claim that GMO crops can solve world hunger, improve nutrition or survive drought. The focus on efficiency over health and safety, when we’re talking about our food, should be enough to set off alarm bells. Claiming efficiency, whether it’s a valid claim or not, as a reason to trample states’ rights to make their own decisions regarding food and agriculture, should have us thinking “slippery slope.” 

In their book, Slow Democracy, Susan Clark and Woden Teachout write:

“ What we have now is the McDonald’s of democracy. It isn’t necessarily a rapid process, any more than our processed foods – with slaughterhouses, processing plants, intercontinental transportation routes, and months in the freezer – are actually quick. But it’s fast in the sense that fast food is fast: It’s a centralized process based on the premise of efficiency, delivering a simple, easy-to-use product, but one that leaves citizens unnourished and unsatisfied. Like industrial agriculture, this ‘fast democracy’ has encroached on our communities in a silent and invisible way. And Americans, with a deep stake in the quality of these decisions, know we are losing out.”

When 71 Senators ignore 90 percent of their constituents, we are losing out. When 71 Senators ignore the science that says, at the least, GE food should be adequately tested and labeled and at the most, it should be banned, we are losing out. When 71 Senators are willing to trample on the Constitution that guarantees states’ rights to protect the health and safety of their citizens, we are losing out.

It’s time for the 71 Senators who voted against the Sanders Amendment to start voting with the citizens who pay their salaries, not the lobbyists who fill their campaign coffers. If they don’t? It’s time for us to demand that they leave. And vote, or throw, them out if they refuse.

The 71 Senators Who Voted Against Your Right to Know

Alexander (R-TN)
  Ayotte (R-NH)
  Baldwin (D-WI)
  Barrasso (R-WY)
  Baucus (D-MT)
  Blunt (R-MO)
  Boozman (R-AR)
  Brown (D-OH)
  Burr (R-NC)
  Carper (D-DE)
  Casey (D-PA)
  Chambliss (R-GA)
  Coats (R-IN)
  Coburn (R-OK)
  Cochran (R-MS)
  Collins (R-ME)
  Coons (D-DE)
  Corker (R-TN)
  Cornyn (R-TX)
  Cowan (D-MA)
  Crapo (R-ID)
  Cruz (R-TX)
  Donnelly (D-IN)
  Durbin (D-IL)
  Enzi (R-WY)
  Fischer (R-NE)
  Franken (D-MN)
  Gillibrand (D-NY)
  Graham (R-SC)
  Grassley (R-IA)
  Hagan (D-NC)
  Harkin (D-IA)
  Hatch (R-UT)
  Heitkamp (D-ND)
  Heller (R-NV)
  Hoeven (R-ND)
  Inhofe (R-OK)
  Isakson (R-GA)
  Johanns (R-NE)
  Johnson (D-SD)
  Johnson (R-WI)
  Kaine (D-VA)
  Kirk (R-IL)
  Klobuchar (D-MN)
  Landrieu (D-LA)
  Lee (R-UT)
  Levin (D-MI)
  McCain (R-AZ)
  McCaskill (D-MO)
  McConnell (R-KY)
  Menendez (D-NJ)
  Moran (R-KS)
  Nelson (D-FL)
  Paul (R-KY)
  Portman (R-OH)
  Pryor (D-AR)
  Risch (R-ID)
  Roberts (R-KS)
  Rubio (R-FL)
  Scott (R-SC)
  Sessions (R-AL)
  Shaheen (D-NH)
  Shelby (R-AL)
  Stabenow (D-MI)
  Thune (R-SD)
  Toomey (R-PA)
  Udall (D-CO)
  Vitter (R-LA)
  Warner (D-VA)
  Warren (D-MA)
  Wicker (R-MS)

Is GMO Genetically Modified Food Really Food?

Someone has decided that Genetically Modified Food (GMO) is safe for consumption. These foods have FDA approval, so we can relax – Right?

Genetically modified foods (GMO’s) have had their DNA changed by genetic engineering techniques. You have to be careful when messing with the way God / the Creator made things.
Is GMO genetically modified food really food?
Is GMO Genetically Modified Food Safe?
Our bodies and digestive systems have not changed. It probably does not understand how to breakdown and use genetically modified food.

Genetically Modified Foods:
Good or Bad?

A new report claims that genetically modified foods (or organisms) can damage your health and even cause cancer, but some experts say they’re an inexpensive and healthy way to put dinner on your table. We’re going to be discussing both sides of the issue on our show today. This GMO debate got so hot, our expert guests couldn’t even be on our stage at the same time to discuss their points of view.

Modifying the genetic structure of food is not a new concept. For centuries, farmers have improved our food supply by cross-breeding different types of plants or animals  to come up with new organisms that would taste better, yield more, and grow in more difficult conditions. The result is thousands of different crops that feed billions of people.

These practices were once limited to combining the traits of organisms only within the same species. Today, due to advances in biotechnology, that is no longer the case. Scientists can now genetically engineer different species so that they share the same genetic material. For example, they can breed corn with a built-in pesticide that can kill bugs or survive chemical sprays. Or they can move the gene from a fish that lives in cold water into a tomato so it can survive in cold weather. This new technology has the potential to revolutionize how we produce food to feed a growing population – but at what cost?

These advancements have concerned consumers and activists. Though the intentions may be for good, the effects of these foods are controversial. Is this new form of genetic modification safe?
A new French study says no. Why? This is what they found: NK603 is a type of corn that has been genetically modified to be tolerant of a commonly used herbicide, which would eliminate surrounding weeds, but it would also be present in small quantities in the foods we eat. The scientists fed rats NK603 that contained levels of the herbicide. They found the rats eventually developed massive tumors after seven months and died earlier than animals fed a “regular” diet.

However, scientists who are in support of genetically modified foods say the research is flawed – even accusing the authors of going on a “statistical fishing trip” and selecting numbers that suited their study while throwing out the unsuitable data. The opposing scientists also claimed the authors used a breed of rats who were bred to develop tumors as they aged anyway. The authors failed to mention the amount of food given in the article, which is important since high amounts of food, GMO or normal, can increase the risk of tumors. Not to mention, they also had a very small control group (fed non-GMO food) of 20 rats that also developed tumors.

Despite the results of the contested study, more research needs to be done on the long-term effects of genetically modified foods on humans. Until that happens, many European countries, like Russia and the UK, have already banned certain types of GMOs for human consumption.

Amidst this controversy, California voters will decide if food companies should label genetically modified food products. Proposition 37 will be on the ballot on November 6 this year. If passed, California will “require labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.” Furthermore, those companies will be prohibited from labeling or advertising such food as “natural.”

Both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Medical Association support voluntary labels, while recognizing that “there currently is no evidence that there are material differences or safety concerns in available bioengineered foods.” Read this statement provided by the FDA
I will be keeping an eye on this California proposition in November to see what happens. Find out what foods to avoid for your safety until more research comes out.
Raw Foodists and Microwaves
For the purist, altering food in any way diminishes the nutritional value. Heating food in microwave ovens changes the molecular structure of the food. If you heat water in the microwave, let it cool and put it on a plant, the plant will die in a couple days. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about that.
Those who believe in the raw food and living food lifestyle, believe that heating over 115degrees Farenheit, kills the food. Enzymes necessary for digestion and food untilization are destroyed by heating.

FDA approval
Both the Food and Drug Administration and the American Medical Association are supposed to be concerned about the health of the United States population.  And the FDA is particularly tasked with protecting our food. At FDA.gov, you can find the U.S. Food & Drug Administration approval list.

GMOs have passed the test. In 2009 the FDA rulled that “Genetic engineering is a targeted and powerful method of introducing desirable traits into animals using recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology.”
Is Genetically Modified Food Safe?

Not sure about the desirable traits that the FDA mentions. And obviously the FDA doesn’t see the dangers ofgenetically engineered foods. They say genetically modified foods is safe to eat. I say no.

GMO food is in the same class as the chemically manufactured stuff that passes as food in the grocery story. Ifgenetically modified food compromises rather than nourishes my body, than GMO’s don’t function as food for me.

Common Ingredients Derived from GMO Risk Crops

Monitored Crops (those for which suspected or known incidents of contamination have occurred, and those crops which have genetically modified relatives in commercial production with which cross-pollination is possible; we test regularly to assess risk, and move to “High-Risk” category for ongoing testing if we see contamination):
  • Beta vulgaris (e.g., chard, table beets)
  • Brassica napa (e.g., rutabaga, Siberian kale)
  • Brassica rapa (e.g., bok choy, mizuna, Chinese cabbage, turnip, rapini, tatsoi)
  • Curcubita (acorn squash, delicata squash, patty pan)
  • Flax
  • Rice
  • Wheat
Common Ingredients Derived from GMO Risk Crops
Amino Acids, Aspartame, Ascorbic Acid, Sodium Ascorbate, Vitamin C, Citric Acid, Sodium Citrate, Ethanol, Flavorings (“natural” and “artificial”), High-Fructose Corn Syrup, Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein, Lactic Acid, Maltodextrins, Molasses, Monosodium Glutamate, Sucrose, Textured Vegetable Protein (TVP), Xanthan Gum, Vitamins, Yeast Products.
You may also be wondering about…
  • Tomatoes: In 1994, genetically modified Flavr Savr tomatoes became the first commercially produced GMOs. They were brought out of production just a few years later, in 1997, due to problems with flavor and ability to hold up in shipping. There are no genetically engineered tomatoes in commercial production, and tomatoes are considered “low-risk” by the Non-GMO Project Standard.
  • Potatoes: Genetically modified NewLeaf potatoes were introduced by Monsanto in 1996. Due to consumer rejection by several fast-food chains and chip makers, the product was never successful and was discontinued in the spring of 2001. There are no genetically engineered potatoes in commercial production, and potatoes are considered “low-risk” by the Non-GMO Project Standard.
  • Salmon: A company called AquaBounty is currently petitioning the FDA to approve its genetically engineered variety of salmon, which has met with fierce consumer resistance. Find out more here.
  • Pigs: A genetically engineered variety of pig, called Enviropig was developed by scientists at the University of Guelph, with research starting in 1995 and government approval sought beginning in 2009. In 2012 the University announced an end to the Enviropig program, and the pigs themselves were euthanized in June 2012.

Wikipedia defines GMO

GloFish, the first genetically modified animal to be sold as a pet
genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. Organisms that have been genetically modified include micro-organisms such as bacteria and yeast, insects, plants, fish, and mammals. GMOs are the source of genetically modified foods, and are also widely used in scientific research and to produce goods other than food. The term GMO is very close to the technical legal term, 'living modified organism' defined in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates international trade in living GMOs (specifically, "any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology").
This article focuses on what organisms have been genetically engineered, and for what purposes. The article on genetic engineering focuses on the history and methods of genetic engineering, and on applications of genetic engineering and of GMOs. Both articles cover much of the same ground but with different organizations (sorted by organism in this article; sorted by application in the other). There are separate articles on genetically modified cropsgenetically modified foodregulation of the release of genetic modified organisms, and controversies.

Regulation[edit source | editbeta]

The regulation of genetic engineering concerns the approaches taken by governments to assess and manage the risks associated with the use of genetic engineering technology and the development and release of genetically modified organisms (GMO), including genetically modified crops and genetically modified fish. There are differences in the regulation of GMOs between countries, with some of the most marked differences occurring between the USA and Europe.[101] Regulation varies in a given country depending on the intended use of the products of the genetic engineering. For example, a crop not intended for food use is generally not reviewed by authorities responsible for food safety.[102] The European Union differentiates between approval for cultivation within the EU and approval for import and processing. While only a few GMOs have been approved for cultivation in the EU a number of GMOs have been approved for import and processing. [103] The cultivation of GMOs has triggered a debate about coexistence of GM and nonGM crops. Depending on the coexistence regulations incentives for cultivation of GM crops differ. [104]

Recognition of originators[edit source | editbeta]

On June 19, 2013 the leaders of the three research teams who originated the technology, Robert T. Fraley of Monsanto; Marc Van Montagu of Ghent University in Belgium and founder of Plant Genetic Systems and Crop Design; and Mary-Dell Chilton of the University of Washington and Washington University in St. Louis and Syngenta were awarded with the World Food Prize. The prize, of $250,000, is awarded to people who improve the “quality, quantity or availability” of food in the world. The three competing teams first presented their results in January 1983.[106]

Mammals[edit source | editbeta]

Some chimeras, like the blotched mouse shown, are created through genetic modification techniques like gene targeting.
Genetically modified mammals are an important category of genetically modified organisms.[32] Ralph L. Brinster and Richard Palmiter developed the techniques responsible for transgenic mice, rats, rabbits, sheep, and pigs in the early 1980s, and established many of the first transgenic models of human disease, including the first carcinoma caused by a transgene. The process of genetically engineering animals is a slow, tedious, and expensive process. However, new technologies are making genetic modifications easier and more precise.[33]
The first transgenic (genetically modified) animal was produced by injecting DNA into mouse embryos then implanting the embryos in female mice.[34]
Genetically modified animals currently being developed can be placed into six different broad classes based on the intended purpose of the genetic modification:
  1. to research human diseases (for example, to develop animal models for these diseases);
  2. to produce industrial or consumer products (fibres for multiple uses);
  3. to produce products intended for human therapeutic use (pharmaceutical products or tissue for implantation);
  4. to enrich or enhance the animals' interactions with humans (hypo-allergenic pets);
  5. to enhance production or food quality traits (faster growing fish, pigs that digest food more efficiently);
  6. to improve animal health (disease resistance)[35]