Do you enjoy farmer's markets? Do you ever envision yourself as a small entrepreneur of artesian breads or gourmet cheeses from your homestead kitchen? How about providing fresh herbs or vegetables to a local restaurant...or buying such things from a local, small time farmer? Well heads up...AGAIN! A new bill, HR 2749 is being fast-tracked in Congress to alter all that. You may ask, Why would "they" do that? It's called money...big money from big agri-business...and it WILL affect you one way or the other. Please read excerpts from a great article, which you may read in full, at Food Freedom
HR 2749: Totalitarian Control of the Food Supply
June 16, 2009 ·
A new food safety bill is on the fast track in Congress-HR 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. The bill needs to be stopped.
Alarming Provisions:
HR 2749 would impose an annual registration fee of $500 on any “facility” that holds, processes, or manufactures food. [isn't this every home in the US, every garden?]
HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested. It puts the federal government right on the farm, dictating to our farmers.
* HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.”
* HR 2749 would empower FDA to make random warrantless searches of the business records of small farmers and local food producers, without any evidence whatsoever that there has been a violation.
HR 2749 charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services with establishing a tracing system for food. Each “person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds such food” [Is this not every home in the US?] would have to “maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food,” and “establish and maintain a system for tracing the food that is interoperable with the systems established and maintained by other such persons.” The bill does not explain how far the traceback will extend or how it will be done for multi-ingredient foods.
HR 2749 creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to $100,000 for each violation for individuals.
Please take action and contact your Congressman! Here's how:
Contact your Representative now! Ask to speak with the staffer who handles food issues. Tell them you are opposed to the bill. Some points to make in telling your Representative why you oppose HR 2749 include:
1. The bill imposes burdensome requirements while not specifically targeting the industrial food system and food imports, where the real food safety problems lie.
2. Small farms and local food processors are part of the solution to food safety; lessening the regulatory burden on them will improve food safety.
3. The bill gives FDA much more power than it has had in the past while making the agency less accountable for its actions.
HR 2749 needs to be defeated!! Please take action NOW.
To contact your Representative, use the finder tool at www.Congress.org or send a message through the petition system (the petition will be on our website this evening) athttp://www.ftcldf.org/petitions_new.htm. Or call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.
To check the status of HR 2749, go to www.Thomas.gov and type “HR 2749″ in the bill search field
To read a detailed account of the bill, go to: http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-15june2009.htm
Showing posts with label GMO foods. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GMO foods. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Academy of Environmental Medicine: Issues Immediate Moratorum on Genetically Manipulated Foods!
A Moratorium On Genetically
Manipulated (GMO) Foods
By F. William Engdahl
5-21-9
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has just issued a call for an immediate moratorium on Genetically Manipulated (GMO) Foods.
In a just-released position paper on GMO foods, the AAEM states that 'GM foods pose a serious health risk' and calls for a moratorium on GMO foods. Citing several animal studies, the AAEM concludes 'there is more than a casual association between GMO foods and adverse health effects' and that 'GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health.' The report is a devastating blow to the multibillion dollar international agribusiness industry, most especially to Monsanto Corporation, the world's leading purveyor of GMO seeds and related herbicides.
In a press release dated May 19, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, which describes itself as 'an international association of physicians and other professionals dedicated to addressing the clinical aspects of environmental health,' called immediately for the following emergency measures to be taken regarding human consumption of GMO foods:
* A moratorium on GMO food; implementation of immediate long term safety testing and labelling of GMO food.
* Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community and the public to avoid GMO foods.
* Physicians to consider the role of GMO foods in their patients' disease processes.
* More independent long term scientific studies to begin gathering data to investigate the role of GMO foods on human health.
The AAEM chairperson, Dr Amy Dean notes that 'Multiple animal studies have shown that GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients' and the public's health.' The President of the AAEM, Dr Jennifer Armstrong stressed that 'Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions. The most common foods in North America which are consumed that are GMO are corn, soy, canola, and cottonseed oil.' The AAEM's position paper on Genetically Modified foods can be found at http:aaemonline.org.
The paper further states that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) technology 'abrogates natural reproductive processes, selection occurs at the single cell level, the procedure is highly mutagenic and routinely breeches genera barriers, and the technique has only been used commercially for 10 years.'
The AAEM paper further states, 'several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signalling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.'
They add, 'There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility. The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.'
GMO is toxic
The AAEM paper should give grounds for official rethinking of the current quasi laissez faire regulatory stance to GMO in which the solemn word of the GMO seed companies such as Monsanto is regarded as scientifically valid proof of safety. The AAEM study is worth citing in detail in this regard:
'Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS).Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn. This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signalling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth and disruption of the intestinal immune system. '
The AAEM study also reviewed the biotechnology industry claims that GMO foods can feed the world through production of higher crop yields. It cited contrary evidence that the opposite appeared to be true, namely that over time GMO harvest yields were lower than conventional yields and required over time, more not less, highly toxic herbicidal chemicals such as glyphosate. The report noted, 'The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialized major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn.' However, the slight yield gain for Bt corn they report was 'largely due to traditional breeding improvements,' and not to GMO.
They conclude that because GMO foods 'pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements. The most commonly used definition is from the 1992 Rio Declaration that states: 'In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.'
Under intense public pressure, the German Minister of Agriculture recently issued a prohibition of planting for Monsanto MON810 GMO corn. Unfortunately, two weeks later she permitted planting of GMO potato seeds. Amflora, a genetically modified potato manufactured by chemicals giant BASF (a joint venture GMO partner of Monsanto), was declared by the German Ministry as posing 'no danger for human health or the environment,' The Ministry cited 'in-depth examination' and talks with scientific and economic experts as basis for the reckless decision.
The publication of the sensational critique of GMO by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has been greeted with stone silence by most major US media and international press.
GMO politics
As I describe in great detail in my book, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, , GMO was released on the general public in the early 1990's in the USA under an executive decision by then President George Herbert Walker Bush, reportedly following closed door meetings with leading Monsanto executives. President Bush mandated that there should be no special health and safety tests done by any US Government agency before releasing GMO for food consumption. It came to be known as the Doctrine of Substantial Equivalence.
The US Government, on urging of Monsanto and the GMO lobby, further decided that labelling of a food product as 'GMO free' should be prohibited, using the vaguely formulated and entirely unscientific 'doctrine' proclaimed by President Bush in 1992, namely that GMO plants and non-GMO or ordinary plants were 'substantially equivalent' and hence needed no special testing before being released to the public.
That Substantial Equivalence Doctrine, despite the fact that it directly contradicts the demand of the GMO companies for exclusive patent rights to their GMO seeds as being 'unique' and different from ordinary seeds, enabled Monsanto, Dow Chemicals, DuPont and other GMO patent holders to proliferate their products with no control. Most Americans naively believe that the Government Food and Drug Administration and US Department of Agriculture are there to make certain industrial food products are confirmed fully safe for human and for animal consumption before licensing.
That de facto prohibition on labelling GMO foods has meant that most Americans have no idea how much of their daily diet from store-bought Corn Flakes to soybeans to corn and additives in every food on the supermarket shelf contained GMO contamination.
Coincident with the mass introduction of GMO into the human and animal diet in the United States beginning the end of the 1990's, there have been reported epidemic levels of allergic outbreaks in humans, strange diseases and numerous other health issues. The fact it is forbidden by Federal law to label GMO products means most health professionals are not even aware there might be any connection to a GMO diet for millions of Americans. The US population, since the 1992 ruling of President Bush-a ruling reaffirmed by presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and now by Barack Obama and his pro-GMO Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack-has been in effect treated as human guinea pigs in mass experimentation for substances never independently proven in long-term (ten years or longer) studies to be safe.
It remains to be seen if the scientific critique of the AAEM is given the attention it warrants.
F. William Engdahl is author of Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation (
Manipulated (GMO) Foods
By F. William Engdahl
5-21-9
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has just issued a call for an immediate moratorium on Genetically Manipulated (GMO) Foods.
In a just-released position paper on GMO foods, the AAEM states that 'GM foods pose a serious health risk' and calls for a moratorium on GMO foods. Citing several animal studies, the AAEM concludes 'there is more than a casual association between GMO foods and adverse health effects' and that 'GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health.' The report is a devastating blow to the multibillion dollar international agribusiness industry, most especially to Monsanto Corporation, the world's leading purveyor of GMO seeds and related herbicides.
In a press release dated May 19, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, which describes itself as 'an international association of physicians and other professionals dedicated to addressing the clinical aspects of environmental health,' called immediately for the following emergency measures to be taken regarding human consumption of GMO foods:
* A moratorium on GMO food; implementation of immediate long term safety testing and labelling of GMO food.
* Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community and the public to avoid GMO foods.
* Physicians to consider the role of GMO foods in their patients' disease processes.
* More independent long term scientific studies to begin gathering data to investigate the role of GMO foods on human health.
The AAEM chairperson, Dr Amy Dean notes that 'Multiple animal studies have shown that GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With this mounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients' and the public's health.' The President of the AAEM, Dr Jennifer Armstrong stressed that 'Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions. The most common foods in North America which are consumed that are GMO are corn, soy, canola, and cottonseed oil.' The AAEM's position paper on Genetically Modified foods can be found at http:aaemonline.org.
The paper further states that Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) technology 'abrogates natural reproductive processes, selection occurs at the single cell level, the procedure is highly mutagenic and routinely breeches genera barriers, and the technique has only been used commercially for 10 years.'
The AAEM paper further states, 'several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signalling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.'
They add, 'There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility. The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.'
GMO is toxic
The AAEM paper should give grounds for official rethinking of the current quasi laissez faire regulatory stance to GMO in which the solemn word of the GMO seed companies such as Monsanto is regarded as scientifically valid proof of safety. The AAEM study is worth citing in detail in this regard:
'Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS).Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn. This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signalling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth and disruption of the intestinal immune system. '
The AAEM study also reviewed the biotechnology industry claims that GMO foods can feed the world through production of higher crop yields. It cited contrary evidence that the opposite appeared to be true, namely that over time GMO harvest yields were lower than conventional yields and required over time, more not less, highly toxic herbicidal chemicals such as glyphosate. The report noted, 'The several thousand field trials over the last 20 years for genes aimed at increasing operational or intrinsic yield (of crops) indicate a significant undertaking. Yet none of these field trials have resulted in increased yield in commercialized major food/feed crops, with the exception of Bt corn.' However, the slight yield gain for Bt corn they report was 'largely due to traditional breeding improvements,' and not to GMO.
They conclude that because GMO foods 'pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergy and immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health and are without benefit, the AAEM believes that it is imperative to adopt the precautionary principle, which is one of the main regulatory tools of the European Union environmental and health policy and serves as a foundation for several international agreements. The most commonly used definition is from the 1992 Rio Declaration that states: 'In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.'
Under intense public pressure, the German Minister of Agriculture recently issued a prohibition of planting for Monsanto MON810 GMO corn. Unfortunately, two weeks later she permitted planting of GMO potato seeds. Amflora, a genetically modified potato manufactured by chemicals giant BASF (a joint venture GMO partner of Monsanto), was declared by the German Ministry as posing 'no danger for human health or the environment,' The Ministry cited 'in-depth examination' and talks with scientific and economic experts as basis for the reckless decision.
The publication of the sensational critique of GMO by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has been greeted with stone silence by most major US media and international press.
GMO politics
As I describe in great detail in my book, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, , GMO was released on the general public in the early 1990's in the USA under an executive decision by then President George Herbert Walker Bush, reportedly following closed door meetings with leading Monsanto executives. President Bush mandated that there should be no special health and safety tests done by any US Government agency before releasing GMO for food consumption. It came to be known as the Doctrine of Substantial Equivalence.
The US Government, on urging of Monsanto and the GMO lobby, further decided that labelling of a food product as 'GMO free' should be prohibited, using the vaguely formulated and entirely unscientific 'doctrine' proclaimed by President Bush in 1992, namely that GMO plants and non-GMO or ordinary plants were 'substantially equivalent' and hence needed no special testing before being released to the public.
That Substantial Equivalence Doctrine, despite the fact that it directly contradicts the demand of the GMO companies for exclusive patent rights to their GMO seeds as being 'unique' and different from ordinary seeds, enabled Monsanto, Dow Chemicals, DuPont and other GMO patent holders to proliferate their products with no control. Most Americans naively believe that the Government Food and Drug Administration and US Department of Agriculture are there to make certain industrial food products are confirmed fully safe for human and for animal consumption before licensing.
That de facto prohibition on labelling GMO foods has meant that most Americans have no idea how much of their daily diet from store-bought Corn Flakes to soybeans to corn and additives in every food on the supermarket shelf contained GMO contamination.
Coincident with the mass introduction of GMO into the human and animal diet in the United States beginning the end of the 1990's, there have been reported epidemic levels of allergic outbreaks in humans, strange diseases and numerous other health issues. The fact it is forbidden by Federal law to label GMO products means most health professionals are not even aware there might be any connection to a GMO diet for millions of Americans. The US population, since the 1992 ruling of President Bush-a ruling reaffirmed by presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and now by Barack Obama and his pro-GMO Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack-has been in effect treated as human guinea pigs in mass experimentation for substances never independently proven in long-term (ten years or longer) studies to be safe.
It remains to be seen if the scientific critique of the AAEM is given the attention it warrants.
F. William Engdahl is author of Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation (
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Organic Farming/NAIS/ and You....
Despite the arguments about H.R. 875 you may read on the internet, one thing is clear...something is up. Whenever there is "big" money involved, if we the people haven't figured it out, what is fed to the sheeples on the surface as something "good" most likely contains something we have come to know as "pork" is beneath the surface..which is not good. Most people who support H.R. 875 will even admit that some of the language is "vague" and can be misconstrued. In light of what is happening in our country today...where most language used is no longer vague, but in your face, we need to pay attention to what laws are being past and how it can affect us now and in the future. Perhaps there are some very good parts of this bill...I do not argue that...but, at least clean up the language and ensure that the rights of those that want to organic garden, participate in local farmers markets, etc. will NOT be affected by this bill...isn't that why we voted in our representatives?
Further, most bills that are presented, as stated before, present very good measures to ensure that our food supply is safe and healthy. But just as this bill has the earmarks of becoming too intrusive, so has a very innocuous bill, the NAIS, or National Animal Identification System, become intrusive, and does, in fact, threaten all people of the United States from owning and raising their own live stock.
What exactly is the NAIS? "The USDA’s proposed National Animal Identification System (NAIS) was originally designed to give the big beef producers help in getting export markets which required disease controls. The idea is that every single livestock animal in the United States will be identified and tagged. All livestock animal movements will be tracked, logged and reported to the government. The benefit is to the big factory farms who probably do need this type of regulation. They get to do single ID’s for large groups of animals. Small farmers, pet owners and homesteaders will have to tag and track every single animal.
There are no exceptions - even small farms that sell direct to local consumers will be required to pay the fees and file all the paper work on all their animals. Even horse, llama and other pet owners will be required to participate in NAIS. Homesteaders who raise their own meat and grandma with her one egg hen will also have to register their homes as ‘farm premises’ and obtain a Premise ID, tag all their animals and submit all the paperwork and fees. Absurd? Yes - There are no exceptions under the current NAIS plan. The USDA has slipped this plan in the back door without any legislation. This is going to be very expensive and guess who is going to pay for it in higher food prices… You!"
nonais.org
Further, most bills that are presented, as stated before, present very good measures to ensure that our food supply is safe and healthy. But just as this bill has the earmarks of becoming too intrusive, so has a very innocuous bill, the NAIS, or National Animal Identification System, become intrusive, and does, in fact, threaten all people of the United States from owning and raising their own live stock.
What exactly is the NAIS? "The USDA’s proposed National Animal Identification System (NAIS) was originally designed to give the big beef producers help in getting export markets which required disease controls. The idea is that every single livestock animal in the United States will be identified and tagged. All livestock animal movements will be tracked, logged and reported to the government. The benefit is to the big factory farms who probably do need this type of regulation. They get to do single ID’s for large groups of animals. Small farmers, pet owners and homesteaders will have to tag and track every single animal.
There are no exceptions - even small farms that sell direct to local consumers will be required to pay the fees and file all the paper work on all their animals. Even horse, llama and other pet owners will be required to participate in NAIS. Homesteaders who raise their own meat and grandma with her one egg hen will also have to register their homes as ‘farm premises’ and obtain a Premise ID, tag all their animals and submit all the paperwork and fees. Absurd? Yes - There are no exceptions under the current NAIS plan. The USDA has slipped this plan in the back door without any legislation. This is going to be very expensive and guess who is going to pay for it in higher food prices… You!"
nonais.org
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Lose Your Property for Growing Food?????
There is a draconian bill being introduced. It is HR 875/S 425. It is imperative that you familiarize yourself with this bill. Who stands to gain from a bill that is trying to regulate all facets of agriculture? And yes, it will affect all facets...you have to read the fine print. Who is promoting and supporting such a bill? The following facts were taken from www.organicconsumers.org WHO BENEFITS FROM GM CROPS? *the real beneficiaries are the GM companies which profit from patents, expensive GM seeds, and increased pesticide sales *Monsanto is the world's largest seed firm *Monsanto holds a near monopoly in the biotech "traits" incorporated in GM seeds *Monsanto is the world's fifth largest pesticide firm *Monsanto markets Roundup, the world's biggest selling pesticide *Monsanto controls roughly 60% of the market for glyphosate (the active ingredient of Roundup) *Roundup is used in conjunction with Monsanto's 'Roundup Ready seeds'
ARE GM CROPS REDUCING PESTICIDE USE? *almost all GM crops involve just 2 traits, mainly just one trait - herbicide tolerance *herbicide tolerance is found in over 80% of all GM crops planted worldwide *GM crops have contributed substantially to increased pesticide use *most new GM crop varieties are also pesticide-promoting *GM crops have caused an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds *this is encouraging the use of more toxic petsicides, including ones banned in some European countries.
Please also read this timely and infomative article:
March 16, 2009
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Lose Your Property For Growing Food?
ARE GM CROPS REDUCING PESTICIDE USE? *almost all GM crops involve just 2 traits, mainly just one trait - herbicide tolerance *herbicide tolerance is found in over 80% of all GM crops planted worldwide *GM crops have contributed substantially to increased pesticide use *most new GM crop varieties are also pesticide-promoting *GM crops have caused an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds *this is encouraging the use of more toxic petsicides, including ones banned in some European countries.
Please also read this timely and infomative article:
March 16, 2009
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Lose Your Property For Growing Food?
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Genetically Modified Food! Which Foods Have GMOs and Which Foods Are Safe
Please visit this very informative website http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/guide%208_11%20layout.pdf to discover which foods you should avoid because they contain genetically modified ingredients and also find foods which are still safe to eat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
