USDA Mandating Of GMO Food Labeling Is Welcome - But Interpretations Will Be Necessary

John Phillips: Barbadian bio-geneticist and nutrition specialist, was one of the first to point out the links between consuming GMO foods and Alzheimer's.


First, let's dispel the nonsense that there is an "anti-science" agenda on the Left as much as on the Right (e.g. John Stossel,  "The War on Science Has A Surprising Source - The Liberal Left', Colorado Springs Gazette,  April 26).   In Stossel's case (he's long since been a shill for the libertarian, corporate Right though he began his career as a general debunker) he insists the Left is way worse than the Right's climate deniers e.g. bringing up the campus attacks on 'Bell Curve' co-author Charles Murray, e.g. "scientists can't even talk about whether genes affect intelligence".   But maybe Stossel never saw or read the excellent skewering of that sham treatise ('Behind the Curve', Review by Leon Kamin in The Scientific American, February, 1995, p. 99).  As Kamin concludes, "On close examination this scientific emperor is wearing no clothes."  In other words, it's plain old pseudo science which merits no respect.   See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/07/was-splc-wrong-to-educate-middlebury.html

Stossel also weighs in on GMO foods with such claptrap as:  "Some research on genetically modified foods became taboo because of protests from the left and may have prevented a second green revolution."  Which is horse manure.  In fact, the left activists mainly objected to cross-species genetic modification, i.e. inserting mouse genes into tomatoes to enhance shelf life. It was not an all- out protest to stop all research, and indeed John Phillips (see photo)has encouraged more work on other genetic modifications so long as the results conform to the precautionary principle. By the precautionary principle it is not the activists who must demonstrate "safety concerns" attendant on GMO foods,  it is the GMO food producers' job to prove their products are safe.  Up to now they have not done so, all the corporate media banter and baloney to the contrary.  This is why we have insisted on proper labeling of GMO foods, not an outright ban on them.  Every citizen is entitled to know what he or she is ingesting, and not merely taking the word of some "authority".

Recall that in July, 2015  the House of Representatives - by a 275- 150 vote passed the 'Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act'.   Also known by anti-GMO activists as the DARK Act, it pre-empted all state and local labeling laws, such as those Vermont and Colorado had written. So even if your state happened to pass an amendment or referendum to mandate GMO food labeling, this specious law can overturn it. Welcome to Neoliberal democracy!

Earlier, in June, 2015,  the FDA rejected a citizens' petition by activist groups demanding mandatory  GMO labeling. The FDA response noted that the petition presented no evidence that "such foods present any different or greater concerns than foods developed by traditional plant breeding"   Of course, this merely shows the FDA to be another co-opted federal agency, more driven to uphold corporate profits than citizen welfare. But hell, don't take my word, do some of your own research.

Start with the well known study by Arpad Pusztai in which he fed lab rats potatoes that had been genetically engineered to contain lectin (from a snowdrop bulb to make them pest resistant). When he processed the results he found that the rats which consumed these high-tech potatoes showed evidence of organ (liver, stomach) damage and poor brain development. Pusztai's study went down as the very first independent study (i.e. one not sponsored by a biotech corporation) to examine the effects of bio-engineered foods. Tragically, Pusztai’s boss, the Director of the Rowett Institute, attempted to suppress the revelations in the GMO potato study. According to a report -article from In These Times (Jan. 10, 2000);

"He fired Pusztai, broke up his research team, halted the six other similar projects his team was then working on and seized his data"

Interested readers can read more on the expose of the PR peddlers and their hands in the Pusztai debacle here:  http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/24/03/bleifuss2403.html

Again, this tactic ought to come as no big mystery, considering that a multinational like Monsanto (the biggest GMO producer) has more power, heft than most nations

More recently, according to a 2016  Bulletin from 'Food & Water Watch' :

"GMO ingredients are hidden in 70 percent of processed food in this country. This is only a 'best guess'  because no one knows for sure as they are not labeled. Also, very little is known of the long term effects of what GMOs can do to your health because they've not been properly tested. But what facts we do have are alarming."

The Bulletin then references:

"Real lab rats fed GMOs have suffered kidney and liver damage, cancerous tumors and even premature death."

Among the other alarming facts is the horrific link to glyphosate as exposed by my long time friend and Barbadian geneticist and nutritionist John Phillips, who has noted:

"Among other toxins and other health-disrupting contaminants, GMO foods contain glyphosate, a horrifically destructive chemical that saps nutrients from foods and quite literally makes them toxic to consume."

 Phillips also tied the prevalence of glyphosate to the increasing numbers of people with Alzheimer's in the U.S. This disease destroys the brain and renders victims little more than zombies.  According to Phillips,  glyphosphates multiply the structures known as tangles in the brain. In concert with a sticky substance known as beta amyloids, the result can be Alzheimer's disease such as took out Janice's cousin Desmond, e.g.


And is now wreaking havoc with her sister-in-law, Krimhilde. 

By contrast, European incidence is lower per capita - attributed to their GMO labeling laws. Why the desperate refusal to label GMOs in the U.S.? Because it would cut into the profits of the biggest GMO producers like Monsanto which now rings up $11.8 billion a year in sales. 

Anyway, the latest news (NY Times, Sunday, 'What Will GMO Labels Tell Consumers?) is that the United States Dept. of Agriculture has mandated a new GMO labeling scheme to come into effect by 2020. The problem is that it will not carry the freighted letters "G.M.O," or "genetically modified".  The reasoning, according to the article is that the initials and words are "stigmatized".   Transl.  The terms G.M.O. and 'genetically modified'   are way too transparent and truthful so a more euphemistic, PR friendly substitute is needed. (As if we didn't already have enough mushy words in our language.)

The replacement term will be "bioengineered" (BE) .  It's bloodless, technical and relatively obscure, so will not likely make anyone squirm.  But be advised it still means genetically modified, and that means it still designates foods that have not met the standard of the precautionary principle.

In addition, it is well to point out the new labels will not apply to all genetically modified foods.  Thus, any foods that have been modified using the CRISPR technique will not have the "BE" label.  All such foods will have been introduced by maybe deleting a snippet of genetic information - or by inserting a more desirable trait from one breed into another. 

Labels will also be exempt from highly refined sugars and oils, such as made from genetically modified sugar beets and corn.  Not surprisingly, consumer groups oppose such a move which would drastically reduce the number of foods to carry any label.

If you're not satisfied with this labeling rubric now is the time to weigh in (at the USDA site). The public has until July 3rd to comment on the proposed guidelines.

Dr. Oz Exposes A Rogue's Gallery of Critics - And the 'DARK Act'

"For the first 30 minutes of his hour-long show—which celebrates its 1,000th episode on May 7—Oz took a chainsaw rather than a scalpel (metaphorically speaking) to his 10 fellow physicians who signed an open letter demanding his dismissal from the Columbia University Medical School faculty"- Commentator on 'The Daily Beast'


It was gratifying, indeed, to see Dr. Mehmet Oz taking a "chainsaw" as opposed to a "scalpel" to the rogue's gallery of A-holes that attacked him.  And as I noted in a previous blog post, I wouldn't even go so far as to call these critics physicians but rather bought out whores. They sold whatever 'souls' and self-respect they had long ago, to become shills for the corporate state and attack all those with whom they disagreed.

Readers may not be aware that a similar debacle played out some years ago but had a decidedly different outcome. This concerned the study by Dr. Arpad Pusztai in which he fed lab rats potatoes that had been genetically engineered to contain lectin (from a snowdrop bulb to make them pest resistant). When he processed the results he found that the rats which consumed these high-tech potatoes showed evidence of organ (liver, stomach) damage and poor brain development. Pusztai's study went down as the very first independent study (i.e. one not sponsored by a biotech corporation) to examine the effects of bio-engineered food on mammals.

Tragically, Pusztai’s boss, the Director of the Rowett Institute, attempted to suppress the revelations in the GMO potato study. According to a report -article from In These Times (Jan. 10, 2000);

 "He fired Pusztai, broke up his research team, halted the six other similar projects his team was then working on and seized his data"

Tragically, the action was taken after the  research became known to physician  "colleagues". Interested readers can read more on the expose of the PR muggers and their hands in the Pusztai debacle here
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/24/03/bleifuss2403.html

So, let's get it straight this sort of attack isn't new - only the cast changes.  Whenever the agenda of bought out  corporate whores is  challenged or criticized, in this case the drive not to label  GMO foods, they enter and try to shut up the source.....or get him fired from a top position.

Back to Dr. Oz'  Thursday show.  He immediately flashed on the screen the forlorn, guilt-ridden faces of the 10 rats that came out against him,  The gallery - with faces shown -includes:

- Henry I. Miller, Fellow in Scientific Philosophy, Hoover Institution

- Scott W. Atlas, M.D., Hoover Institution

- Jack Fisher, M.D. Prof. of Surgery, Univ. of California, San Diego

-Shelley Fleet, Anesthesiologist, Longwood, FL

-Gordon N. Gill, Dean of Translational Medicine, Univ. of California, San Diego

- Gilbert Ross, M.D.,  Acting President, American Council on Science and Health

- Samuel Schneider, Psychiatrist, Princeton, NJ

- Michael Mellon, Pediatric Allergist, San Diego, CA

- Glenn Swogger Jr., Dir. Will Menninger Center for Applied Behavioral Sciences, (retired), The Menninger Foundation, Topeka, KS

- Joe Tapper, Dept, of Radiation Oncology, Univ. of North Carolina

As noted in the expose intro, the guy who drafted the letter and whose name is in the top spot is Henry Miller, whose vita at first glance "looks impressive". But "put him under the microscope and there's more to the story". We learn, for instance, that Miller strongly supports genetically modified foods, which Dr. Oz maintains ought to be labeled.  Miller  and his ilk almost singlehandedly defeated Proposition 37 in California that would have required GMO labeling. (He was the face and voice of 'NO on 37' that brainwashed consumers to vote against their best interests)

Miller also got into hot water for making one anti-Prop 37 ad on the Stanford University campus.  The ad identified him as being with Stanford - undoubtedly to add bogus name cachet - though he is actually based at the Hoover Inst. which has nothing to do with Stanford apart from its geographical location on the campus. So no surprise the university demanded he pull the dishonest ad.

Oz' expose also presented documents on screen showing Miller was a key supporter - get this - of the freaking tobacco industry in the 1990s! Do bought out physician whores have no honor at all? Are they willing to prostitute themselves for any and everything? It seems so! Hell, this scumball  even "helped write the guiding scientific principles for a group that was assembled to fight smoking restrictions".

All this is thanks to the dedicated research of Source Watch which tracks industry ties to assorted critics and hot shots in the medical news.  According to Gary Ruskin, Executive Director of 'Right to Know':

"What Henry Miller does is speak on behalf of big corporations who have big problems and he tells big lies on their behalf."

Miller is also involved with the bogus, corporate front organization (they pop up all over the damned place now) the American Council on Science and Health. A rep from Oz' show who went to the alleged headquarters in New York City found only an empty room with some file cabinets and a copy machine (seen through the window)

While these losers sound scientific and pro-consumer, they have spoken in defense of cigarettes, pesticides, GMOs and other poisons, all "while taking money from tobacco companies, pesticide makers, and firms behind GMO foods."   This, according to documents leaked to Mother  Jones magazine. There is a "direct line", in fact, between the corporations that the ACSH solicits and the positions it takes in public. In other words you can't trust ANY of them, any more than you can trust John McAdams' take on the Kennedy assassination.

Gary Ruskin actually calls them "rent -a -scientist" - much like the fossil fuel front groups that rent other scientific prostitutes to criticize global warming science. Guys like Willie Soon.

Then there is ACSH acting President Gilbert Ross, who is also famous - but not the way you'd think! He's actually a convicted felon. As Oz' report notes, "while working as a doctor Ross was charged in a Medicaid fraud scheme that cost the state of New York $8 million. Ross was sentenced to nearly 4 years and served time in federal prison."

So why believe this jail bird when he yaps complaints about Dr. Oz?  You'd have to be a moron or a totally brainwashed dupe.

Two other rogues mentioned in connection with ACSH include Glenn Swogger Jr. and Jack Fisher.  Their backgrounds led the Source Watch contact to note "this is definitely a smear campaign against Dr. Oz., driven by critics connected to big industry."

Meanwhile, a fifth critic, Scott Atlas, works with Henry Miller at the Hoover Inst. Evidently, he's more useful as a propagandist shill than acting the part of a real doctor. No surprise here since  "Hoover has taken money from producers of genetically modified foods."

Dr. Joel Fuhrman, guest physician on the show, observed:

"Number one, these doctors are not representative of the medical profession. Number two, it's an attack against all physicians - any professionals that don't adopt a standard party line. It's important we recognize this is anti-American and anti-freedom to help people in the best way possible."

Another aspect Dr. Fuhrman noted was the total irresponsibility of the corporate media, "to explode it all over the place, which is sloppy and dangerous journalism because they didn't do any background checks, they didn't know who these people were, they didn't understand their agenda".

In other words, typical kindergarten-level MSM reporting!

But we've  already seen in the past how the whore media acts, such as being cheerleaders in the run-up to the Iraq  War, and using propaganda tactics such as framing and suppression by omission as well as euphemisms (e.g. Iran-Contra scandal instead of Iran-Contra conspiracy) to deflect serious people from conspiracy thinking.  See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_22.html

This brings us to the DARK Act, which Oz also exposed and which, if passed, would totally disallow any future citizen referenda or state initiatives to label what's in their food.  The D-A-R-K act is an acronym for:

DENY

AMERICANS

RIGHT to

KNOW

What is in this Neoliberal attempt to poison people by the millions? As Oz explains:

"The sponsors of the bill claim that GMO labeling is not needed. The bill specifically makes mandatory labeling of GMO foods impossible and that takes away your right to vote in your state for what you and your family want to eat. "

According to guest Scott Faber, Vice President of  the Environmental Working Group:

"This is a radical, radical proposal when you think about the fact that ninety percent of Americans want to know whether their food contains GMOs, just like consumers in sixty four other countries. It's just incredible that congress would pass a law that would block all state GMO labeling laws and make it virtually impossible for the FDA to mandate labeling. The congress is saying 'we don't trust you to make those choices"

  Also, he notes if the DARK Act became law all the existing state laws that require GMO labeling would be "wiped off the books" and the 17 bills now pending in state legislatures would all be blocked, effectively forever.

But what about the Democrats, wouldn't they filibuster this bill on our behalf?

Don't count on it because the Democratic Party is as infected by the virus of Neoliberalism as the pro-market Repukes. There isn't one chance in a million the Dems would exert the energy - however minimal- to filibuster the DARK Act. So we are literally on our own, or will be if this trash passes.

If the law passes, state control of any labeling, including 'use by' and 'sell by' dates would also be in jeopardy   We need to write the congressional whores now and let them know we are on to their hidden and corrupt agenda and if they want future votes they had better conform to citizens' will- not lobbyist money.

Update: Who hired this moron as "editor" for Salon.com?

I refer to Colin Gorenstein who scribbled this piece of refuse at salon:


http://www.salon.com/2015/04/27/john_olivers_glorious_dr_oz_takedown_you_are_the_worst_person_in_scrubs_who_has_ever_been_on_television_including_katherine_heigl/

Note that while this imbecile attacks Oz, noting the "ten doctors" who criticized him, he shamefully avoids pointing out their despicable backgrounds. (As I have here). Anyone who avoids doing that is simply another shill, or better, hack. How this character got to be a salon editor is beyond me when he's not even qualified to edit comic books,

As for citing John Oliver, a comic (though a sometimes smart one) that doesn't wash because Oz has always made it abundantly clear when he mentions this or that product he: 1) isn't conveying medical advice or acting as a medical expert, and 2) he expects viewers to do their own research and learn more about it. 

Most of Oz' proffered products or solutions I ignore after doing my research as HE advises. It is appalling that Oliver (like Gorenstein) goes after Oz as opposed to the dumb people who take his advice too literally and don't follow his own cautionary statements. JEEZ!

Anti-GMO Labelers Wage Massive Disinformation Campaign in Colorado

How much money does it take – most from outside interests – to take down an effort to label GMO-based foods? Better perhaps, how much disinformation does it take to alter voters’ minds to force them to subvert their own nutrition –food choices?  It turns out the answers may be much more than we believed for the first ($9.7m vs. $330,000 for proponents), and much less for the second. The latter since now the Denver Post has tossed its hat into the GMO labeling ring and given a rousing endorsement to vote down Proposition 105 in its Sunday editorial.

But then we already knew the Denver Post – while allowing a few liberal memes – did staunchly also wage a brief for unlimited fracking over a year ago – arguing it was critical for the state’s economy. Can we call ‘bollocks’ on that too? I believe so, especially after surreal gloating and smug satisfaction fairly oozed from the paper’s pages after Jared Polis removed from the Nov. ballot  the initiatives to give local control of fracking to Colorado communities.

The image attached was taken from a flyer delivered in the mail. The flyer included canards that have been repeated in assorted ads on TV and also by the Denver Post in its editorial.  Some of the more prominent include:

1) Farmers and food producers would be required to separate, repackage and re-label ingredients from throughout the country – just for our state.

2) Proposition 105 would cost Colorado taxpayers millions by requiring a new state bureaucracy to enforce its Colorado-only regulations for tens of thousands of products.

3) Proposition is so full of exemptions it would not tell consumers which foods are produced with GMOs.

Responses:

The first is overblown fear mongering. Most of Colorado’s foods are locally grown as people have become more aware of the advantages. Many places (e.g. Whole Foods) already have GMO labeling which conforms with the law. Any residual issues are not as huge a problem as portrayed as Vermont has already found out, as well as Switzerland – not exactly a backwater nation! (See my posts on it from last month). The Swiss have the sense to use a threshold for labeling GMO which is that samples tested contain less than 0.9 percent GMO products. We can do the same!

The Second complaint  is more hype and the regulatory body needed can be modeled again after Vermont – after mandating their own GMO labeling law, or after Switzerland. “Enforcement” is another bugbear as consumers will basically do the “enforcing” with their food purchase choices.  No special “police” or “code violation” body will be needed.

As for (3),  yes, there are exemptions, because over-ambitious labeling demands would not have gotten the signatures needed and likely invited even more lawsuits than the ones planned. As progressives always harp on in elections: “You cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good!” 

Given the progressives' clarion call, of course meat and dairy aren’t forced to be labeled since the animals are only raised on GMO foods, they are not themselves genetically re-configured animals (e.g. cows actually being engineered from rat, skunk or vampire bat DNA).  Restaurants also don’t need GMO labeling because many (e.g. Chipotle) are already doing it and finding a competitive edge because of it. As for Alcoholic beverages, these also need no special GMO labels. For one thing, most everyone conscious knows it is a drug and also the ill effects, including on the liver and brain. Whether in fact GMOs play any role in alcoholic beverages is therefore akin to worrying about whether the cancer sticks you’re smoking have bisphenol –A filters.

Other objections to Proposition 105 are even more ludicrous, such as Colorado commissioner of agriculture Don Ament arguing (Denver Post, Sept. 28) that genetic engineering has been going on for thousands of years – actually referring to hybridization, e.g. of cattle. In this way, many have been led to believe voting for the Proposition is ridiculous and redundant because – hey!  - those things have been with us like forever.

But there’s a huge difference. In hybridization, similar species can be cross-bred because they share similar genetic traits. (Such as two types of cow being mammals and ungulates).  Hybrids can occur naturally or they can be created by grafting and cross-pollination.

By contrast, genetic engineering involves splicing of two distinct species (e.g. cows and alligators, or tomatoes and mice) that would never occur naturally in a million years – or ten million. Since the GMOs are not natural – they don’t represent natural creatures that would have evolved, or plants, and we simply don’t know what the health consequences might be.

We do know there were some earlier studies, such as  Arpad Pusztai’s in Britain. This study processed the results over several years and found that the rats which consumed GMO potatoes showed evidence of organ (liver, stomach) damage and poor brain development. Pusztai's study went down as the very first independent study (i.e. one not sponsored by a biotech corporation) to examine the effects of bio-engineered food on mammals. Alas, after he tried to publish the results he lost his job  - see:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/24/03/bleifuss2403.html

More recently, families have been made aware of glyphosate in these foods and how it reduces their nutritive value and also raises the specter of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease  and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. This will be particularly pronounced if the new Enlist DUO Weedicide is approved for use with GMO crops, as Dr. Oz Mehmet already exposed – as well as others, see e.g.

 http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/09/more-powerful-toxins-associated-with.html

For Colorado's premium newspaper, The Denver Post gets many things wrong as well in its Anti-105 editorial. Thus, the issue of “cost” is again carped about despite the fact David Byrne – former European commissioner for health and consumer protection - declared that GMO labeling “did not result in increased costs despite the horrifying predictions of some interests.”

The Post also complained that some would ban GMOs which “ironically have resulted in a large decrease in the use of insecticides etc.”

But as Mehmet Oz  observed:

-        There are 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides used per year, used on GMO crops - because those crops are designed to survive the poisons.

 70 - 170 million pounds of additional highly toxic pesticides will be used if the FDA approves Enlist.

Oz then flatly skewered the notion that “less” toxins are being used, and in fact the very design of GMO crops encourages the use of MORE toxins because they are designed to survive them.  As Oz’ guest, journalist Mark Bittman  also noted:

“Yields are not up and pesticide use is not down. So when you talk about feeding a hungry world, GMOs have not moved us in that direction."

Do you really want the residues of 2,4 –D, the chemical used in Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, splotched all over your food if Enlist is approved by the multinational-compromised EPA?

The bottom line here is one of buyer choice: Do you deserve to know if that tomato you’re purchasing is the product of the natural tomato being spliced with mouse genes, or not?  (The aim being to increase its shelf life).  Sixty four European nations already have a ban or moratorium and strict regulation of GMO foods including labeling.

Switzerland, probably a European nation more advanced than many:

“ funded thirty projects to investigate the risks and benefits of GMOs. These projects concluded that there were no clear health or environmental dangers associated with planting GMOs. However, they also concluded that there was little economic incentive for farmers to adopt GMOs in Switzerland.” (Wikipedia)

Our Swiss friend Rolf told us that the main concern of farmers in Switzerland is the accidental dispersion of GMOs (from areas dedicated to their cultivation)  to outside farms and crops – thereby contaminating them. The worries he cites are well worth noting, but he also averred no Swiss citizen wished to be kept in the dark over what he’s eating.

As he asked me while we were staying in Appenzell,

“If it’s good enough for we Swiss, why isn’t it good enough for Americans to have your food labeled?”

Indeed!

 See also:

http://www.salon.com/chromeo/article/the_real_dangers_of_gmos_dow_chemical_doesnt_want_you_to_know_about_partner/

 

A "Tidal Wave of Cancer" Coming Worldwide? YES - But the Real Causes Are Hidden by PR

Above- biochemist John Phillips of Barbados: His research discloses GMO foods are causing massive increases in assorted cancers, including of liver, pancreas, stomach, colon.


According to the  scientists at the World Health Organization ,  a ‘tidal wave of cancer’ will sweep the globe in the next 20 years'  As reported in the Times of London and the UK Independent, the number of new cancer cases worldwide in a single year will rise by 70 per cent  from 14.1 million in 2012 to 24 million in 2035, this as quoted from the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said in their latest World Cancer Report.

Alas, the Report primarily names the "usual suspects": diet, alcohol and smoking, but takes no note of the hidden ones including massive chemical pollution (such as now affecting Charleston, West Virginia's water, as well as the creeping chemicals from the fracking craze - see image). In effect, like the American Cancer Society, the WHO warns of a coming cancer wave, but refuses to lay blame where it really belongs - on the chemical and oil industries, as well as the GMO pushers. (Who still have used legal dodges and the FDA to refuse to allow GMO labeling of our foods.)

In regard to the malignant spread of fracking, we're now aware  of a hidden epidemic with little mainstream attention and ongoing the past few years. Stretching from Oklahoma to the highlands of Appalachia, tens of thousands of people are being diagnosed with all kinds of cancers: brain tumors, leukemias, breast and prostate cancers, as well as liver cancers.

One of the worst culprits is the process of "hydro-fracking" which is used to tap into large reserves of natural gas in the United States, uses enormous quantities of fresh water to open fissures in rock to stimulate the release of oil and gas. One such device, in Pennsylvania, is shown in the accompanying image. The dangers to water supplies, in terms of cancer-causing pollutants, were exposed for example in Josh Fox's documentary Gasland II.

Three years ago I drew attention to a hitherto hidden report finally excavated owing to three diligent Democrats: Henry Waxman of California, Diana DeGette or Colorado, and Edward Markey of Massachusetts. The report finally exposed the extent of the pollution of our precious watersheds thanks to the hydro-fracking industry.  As a result,  we now know the extent of potential ground water contamination and what the primary culprits are, and it isn't pretty. In the words of Diana DeGette:

"It is deeply disturbing to discover the content and quantity of toxic chemicals, like benzene and lead, being injected into the ground without the knowledge of communities whose health would be affected."

According to the report obtained by DeGette et al, oil and gas companies injected hundreds of millions of gallons of carcinogenic chemicals into wells in more than 13 states from 2005- 09. In one spill in Pennsylvania, site of the photo, tens of thousands of gallons of contaminated drilling water leaked from a well cap and flowed downhill onto a farm property, extirpating a 50' swath of forest and killing a pond - leaving not one single bass or even insect in all of it. Even after the accident, the frack pump is still running.

According to the report, the product of an inquiry by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, fourteen of the nation's most active hydraulic fracturing companies used 866 million gallons of chemical fracturing products, and more than 650 of the chemicals named in the report were known carcinogens, supposedly regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Among the most toxic of the chemicals used (11.4 million gallons in all) were: benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene. In addition, the report showed 12 of the same companies injected 32.2 million gallons of diesel directly into underground layers, in possible violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

To see Erin Brockovitch's map of all the locations in the U.S. with water resources at threat from fracking chemicals, go to this link:

http://www.communityhealthbook.com/map

WHY has the WHO not exposed this risk as a major contributor to the coming cancer  tidal wave? Well, because they don 't wish to antagonize the U.S. -from which 90% of the world wide fracking industry is built, or be put under the cross hairs of the mighty Oil companies and their lackeys. In other words, they don't wish to rock the boat. It's much easier to browbeat people over their own 'nasty' habits like smoking (which ok, does contribute to 20 percent more cancers, but not the 55% from toxic chemicals) or eating too many fats, or drinking too many beers.

This is not new and has been going on since the cancer-chemical connection first appeared. Referencing the fracking chemicals above, we know from Devra Davis' landmark book, The Secret History of the War on Cancer, the first two of these toxic chemicals (benzene, toluene)  have well known correlations to brain carcinomas and chordomas. The other two, to liver, breast and prostate cancers. 

Davis' book is critical in blowing away the smokescreen that organizations like the American Cancer Society (ACS) have used for decades, i.e. in blaming people's eating habits and foods for cancers rather than toxic chemicals in the environment. The ruse is easy to understand since it follows capitulation to the fundamental attribution error (known from psychology) in assigning the burden of cause to victims, rather than a systemic, out of control toxic energy and chemical industry. This way, guess what? It makes it almost impossible to sue for any kind of monetary satisfaction!

As to the GMO foods, in an interview with John Phillips from two years ago, Mr. Phillips insisted that it should come as no surprise GMO foods cause cancer-  because cancer is a disease affecting cell –DNA machinery. In this case, the cells of an organ undergo too accelerated mitosis and result in abnormal growth that can threaten the organism. GMO foods are developed at the gene level which directs genes and their function. Most haven’t been adequately tested over the long term, for adverse impacts on humans. But that they can cause tumors or abnormal growths should not amaze anyone.

He also cited the well known study by Arpad Pusztai in which he fed lab rats potatoes that had been genetically engineered to contain lectin (from a snowdrop bulb to make them pest resistant). When he processed the results he found that the rats which consumed these high-tech potatoes showed evidence of organ (liver, stomach) damage and poor brain development. Pusztai's study went down as the very first independent study (i.e. one not sponsored by a biotech corporation) to examine the effects of bio-engineTragically, Pusztai’s boss, the Director of the Rowett Institute, attempted to suppress the revelations in the GMO potato study. According to a report -article from In These Times (Jan. 10, 2000);

"He fired Pusztai, broke up his research team, halted the six other similar projects his team was then working on and seized his data"

Interested readers can read more on the expose of the PR muggers and their hands in the Pusztai debacle here
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/24/03/bleifuss2403.html

Again, this tactic ought to come as no big mystery, considering that a multinational like Monsanto (the biggest GMO producer) has more power, heft than most nations.

Recall also the study released Wednesday, September 19, 2012,  which found that rats fed Monsanto’s genetically modified corn or exposed to the biotech giant’s herbicide, Roundup, developed tumors and organ damage. As Reuters then reported,

“The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females [in the test group] died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group.” The lead researcher of the French study is an outspoken Monsanto critic, which, according to Reuters, “may make other experts wary of drawing hasty conclusions.”

These problems, as Phillips noted, are nothing to ignore. Indeed, he maintains that up to one third of future cancers will emerge from consuming GMO foods. They are not on the radar yet to the extent they ought to be because it will take 10-20 years to develop the cancers at the levels of GMO corn, etc. ingested. (Unlike in the Pusztai study where rats were fed inordinate amounts of GMOs to speed up the observational framework).

People can, of course, do what they will - and either ignore these factors or attend more to diet, alcohol intake etc. My point is they can do all the "right" things in this regard, but if toxic chemicals and GMO foods are a major source of the cancers, none of that will matter.

Fortunately, John Phillips' research has also shown that taking certain supplements can delay the onset of many of these cancers even if we can't control our toxic environments, or water. His recommendations included: boron, magnesium and B-complex as well as vitamin C and D3.

When asked of the coming wave of cancer he forecast, and the consequences of ignoring any protective supplements, his response was  blunt:  "Those who make such a choice  will more likely die before they can collect Social Security or Medicare. Deficit problem half solved!"

When I argued that in reality we can't know what particular cause can be linked to what effect, say cancer - or any particular vitamin being beneficial -   and it's largely a matter of "belief" he laughed.  He responded:

"That's the lazy man's way out, The default excuse. In the extreme, that can be invoked to express skepticism over anything and lead to an endless ambiguity of choice. The fact is we do know what causes most cancers, toxic chemicals in the environment and GMO foods, and if we ignore that information we do so at our own peril."

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/54061/diary-of-a-dying-country

GMO-Foods = CANCER FOODS

John Phillips: Bio-geneticist, nutrition specialist and astronomer from Barbados.

John Phillips, 66 years old (see earlier blog also) is perhaps the closest person Barbados has to a ‘Renaissance Man’. He is a bio-geneticist, nutrition specialist,avid amateur astronomer (who devised a method to measure the speed of light using Bajan landmarks), and a spiritual scholar. Most interesting to me has been a recent conversation concerning “GMO” (genetically modified organisms) and their role in producing human cancers. John is convinced, from his research, that up to forty percent of all cancers are GMO-based.

His view is also reinforced by a number of studies.

For example, there is Arpad Pusztai's study in which he fed lab rats potatoes that had been genetically engineered to contain lectin (from a snowdrop bulb to make them pest resistant). When he processed the results he found that the rats which consumed these high-tech potatoes showed evidence of organ (liver, stomach) damage and poor brain development. Pusztai's study went down as the very first independent study (i.e. one not sponsored by a biotech corporation) to examine the effects of bio-engineered food on mammals.

Tragically, Pusztai’s boss, the Director of the Rowett Institute, attempted to suppress the revelations in the GMO potato study. According to a report -article from In These Times (Jan. 10, 2000);

"He fired Pusztai, broke up his research team, halted the six other similar projects his team was then working on and seized his data"

Drastic? Maybe! But the results had to be kept concealed so American corporate interests – already battling the America “haters” who demanded labels on GMO foods – were not put in greater peril. At least their profits. Interested readers can read more on the expose of the PR muggers and their hands in the Pusztai debacle here
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/24/03/bleifuss2403.html

Then there is the study just released Wednesday which found that rats fed Monsanto’s genetically modified corn or exposed to the biotech giant’s herbicide, Roundup, developed tumors and organ damage. As Reuters reported,

“The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females [in the test group] died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group.” The lead researcher of the French study is an outspoken Monsanto critic, which, according to Reuters, “may make other experts wary of drawing hasty conclusions.”

None of this surprised John. Some of his takeaways for those interested:

On the occurrence of cancers:

This should come as no surprise because cancer is a disease affecting cell –DNA machinery. In this case, the cells of an organ undergo too accelerated mitosis and result in abnormal growth that can threaten the organism. GMO foods are developed at the gene level which directs genes and their function. Most haven’t been adequately tested over the long term, for adverse impacts on humans. But that they can cause tumors or abnormal growths should not amaze anyone.

If you splice mouse genes into tomatoes and hence enable the mouse as "GMO tomato", with its attendant genetic impact on a widely used human food, why be surprised if there’s a deleterious effect? Why be incredulous if when these manipulated tomatoes meet the human digestion system (and metabolism) certain untoward consequences arise?

On the lack of GMO food labeling in the United States:

Again, no surprise since the GMO corporate monoliths like Monsanto dominate in the U.S. Their interest is in keeping Americans uninformed about what they’re eating, so they don’t make a fuss. “Just eat it and pretend it’s a real, organically grown tomato and shut up!”

They know product labeling would mash up their sales because then consumers would immediately see what was engineered and not buy the products.

On the argument that GMO critics are threatening food production for starving peoples

This is an old and hackneyed argument. They’re basically saying it’s better the poor be fed with these foods now, and take care of their liver, bowel, stomach, prostate and pancreatic cancers twenty years hence. But who’s going to pay for their care? Surely not the critics of GMO skeptics! The solution to the food production problem is not to create more GMO foods but to control population, using birth control – contraception.

On his own dietary regimen:

There’s much to be said for growing one’s own foods! I grow all my own, don’t use ‘Roundup’ or any other poisons, but rather the natural, biologically-based weed and insect repellers developed over two decades ago by Colin Hudson here in Barbados. I eat no meats, no animal fats. That’s why I look 30 years younger than I am!

On the use of supplements if one can’t obtain nutritious foods:

I’ve no problem with them especially if people can’t grow their own vegetables, fruits, because of the extent to which modern foods are diluted in vitamins, minerals. I suggest at least one B-complex a day, and something like magnesium, to balance calcium intake.

On the continued media attacks on vitamin supplements:

This should amaze no one. The U.S. corporate media as the primary communication arm of its Fortune 500 corporations (comprising its management boards), including health insurance companies, don’t want Americans living overly long because of the claimed “entitlement crisis” and deficits. If people follow their advice and leave out supplements, they know they’re more likely to die before they can collect social security or Medicare. Deficit problem half solved!

Advice to Americans who consume GMO foods:

Make sure you get regular cancer screenings!