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.

Big Money Wins Out In New Bogus GMO Labeling Law

John Phillips: Bio-geneticist and nutrition specialist, has shown links between GMO foods and Alzheimer's.

Perhaps too many citizens are unaware that a new GMO labeling law has been passed, but it is littered with loopholes large enough to drive a metaphorical Mack truck through.  The cynical corporate and government masterminds behind it realized they had to provide some cover for themselves given the uproar in this country concerning the lack of GMO labeling. 

Thus,  multinational and corporate "big food" and its allies spent $100 million to get a bogus labeling law passed in order to counter the anti-GMO labeling movement.  Much of their effort was forced by Vermont's GMO labeling law - now rendered null - which would have spread  to other states had the bogus federal law not emerged  (After all, the M.O. in this country is whenever a serious political challenge or movement arises, create front groups to defuse the issues, the movement or both)

Millions have justifiably expressed concern at this tactic given that - as John Phillips (Barbadian bio -geneticist) has found, Glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide) is present in all genetically engineered foods. And it’s not something that can be washed off or taken out of the food by cooking or purification – it’s integrated into the plant on a fundamental level.   Monsanto- the maker-  was also a manufacturer of the pesticide DDT, which now has been conclusively linked to the development of Alzheimer’s, as well as many other degenerative diseases in humans.

Experts like Mr. Phillips now believe that glyphosate is even worse than DDT. It decimates beneficial bacteria in the gut, disrupts immune function, and has been correlated with shocking precision to the rise in autism and other cognitive diseases and conditions. 

But let's return to the bogus labeling law, which on the surface sounds legit. After all, as Mark Bittman in the NY Times has pointed out (9/10): "it mandates that the Department of Agriculture define what constitutes a genetically modified food ingredient and then requiring food manufacturers to label products that contain them". What's not to like?  Well, the loopholes and latitude allowed including (ibid.):

- As a label, food producers can substitute a "toll -free number" for consumers to call to get further information on their own.

- Or they can scan a UPC code using a smartphone to get the info needed

As Bittman puts it,  the message to the American consumer is "You deserve to know what's in your food", but to food producers, "Feel free to make the information as difficult to find as you'd like"

The FDA, as I noted before, has declared GMOs not to be harmful, hence no need for labeling. But the feds have still failed to apply the precautionary principle, that it is the GMO producers' job to prove their products are safe, not for outside observers to disprove it. Further, offering a simple declaration based on research done by those linked to Monsanto and other GMO producers, doesn't make the proof standard. As Bittman puts it: "Our system for declaring products safe leaves much to be desired" - which is putting it mildly.

Bittman goes on to note that while it is true GMO crops, like soybeans and corn, "have led to fewer applications of herbicides"  they have "also encouraged the growth of weeds that have become resistant to herbicides after years of exposure."

And most to the point:

"GMOs have become an indispensable crutch for the fertilizer and pesticide-dependent monoculture that is wrecking our land and water and generating the execrable excess of corn and soy-based junk food that is sickening our population and decreasing our life spans":

Which reinforces local Dem candidate Electra Johnson's recent take (Colorado Springs Independent, Aug. 18-19, p. 20 ):

"Our leaders are not looking after us....we are not cared for at the level of our very survival".

What are our leaders looking after? Well, the profits for the corporations - businesses that give them most of their political campaign largesse. God forbid these poltroons "bite the hand that feeds them".

Bitmann avers that now that we're "allowed" to know at least some of what's in our foods (if we dig deep enough) there are other questions we may have to ask including:

-  Where are the ingredients from?

- Were antibiotics routinely administered to animals?

- What pesticides and other chemicals were used?

- What farming practices were used?

- How much water was required?

Bittman acknowledges all this information and more could be made available and also that "some people may care while others don't" but the point is that whether maximal info content is used ought to be a choice of the consumer - not the product manufacturer.   As Bittman puts it at the end of his piece:

"Companies doing things well should seize the chance to put whatever they can on the package ...companies that don't disclose information could be assumed to have something to hide."

This is well put, and something all of us ought to seriously consider when we make our next food purchase, and as Bittman notes "we're long overdue for a transparency revolution"

Indeed!

Obama's Defense Of TPP: Wrong Move At Wrong Time

Sometimes - despite batting on a "losing wicket" - one has to give props. In this case they go to Obama for his defense of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal three days ago. Thus, while being the absolute wrong political move at the time he stood side by side the PM (Lee Hsien Loong) from Singapore :


and, as if Mr. Long was peering into his mind, delivered perhaps the most robust and spirited arguments on behalf of this now moribund deal.

Make no mistake that other than in Obama's mind this deal is dead on arrival. With both candidates putatively against it (and they dare not do otherwise with so much of their political support hinging on it) there is neither Repub or Demo in favor or voting for it. Politically, it's as toxic as ingesting a cyanide capsule.  That Obama still believes there's a path to passage is incomprehensible, especially now that Hillary VP pick Tim Kaine has ditched it and no Reep lawmaker wants to touch it with the proverbial ten foot pole.

Yet Obama insists he "is still President" and plans to do that and more.  Well, maybe there is another parallel universe where that happens but not this one.

The sustained resistance to the TPP has led many pundits from all the major elite news sources (WSJ, NY Times, Financial Times etc.) to question what's wrong with Trump and Sanders' supporters but their own news sources have vindicated their negative take. For example the Times three days ago, ran a piece explaining how the benefits of  past trade deals (including NAFTA)  have only redounded to roughly the top 35 percent. That means 65 percent either broke even or lost.

Jobs, in fact, have not been created - at least the decent paying ones beyond barista, Uber driver and burger flipper- and money has continued to flow out to support overseas services and manufacture.  Even the so-called "rosy" econ stats have turned out to be dodgy as reported in a recent Denver Post Business analysis ('Economic Data Miss Big Picture', June 12, p. 3K). The Post noted, for example, that the number of full time jobs has risen only 1.3 percent since 2007. By contrast, part time positions are up 12 %.

Meanwhile, incomes for the "average U.S. household" ticked up 0.7 percent from 2008 to 2014 after taking inflation into account, though the Post observes (ibid.):

"But even that scant increase reflected mainly the rise in incomes for the richest tenth of households which pulled up the average"

Most recently, the latest jobs report noted 255,000 added, included in fields as diverse as finance (18,000), professional and business services (70,000) and health care (43,000). And yet despite the growth in jobs the actual economic growth only clocked in at 1.2 percent in the 2nd quarter. The main reason? Most job wage increases with benefits and wages still only trickled down to a relatively small fraction of the working population.

In other words, unraveling the stats, most workers in the aggregate barely broke even or lost ground - certainly if only the richest tenth could make just a fractional percent increase difference. (Bear in mind the richest tenth features average incomes of $1- 1.5 million each). The take accompanying the new jobs report was that there exists a "disconnect between business investment and hiring at home". In other words, corporations are more inclined to invest overseas than in new and better jobs domestically.

So it's no surprise a lot of Americans (many of whom are Sanders or Trump supporters) haven't been feeling the joy or "greatness" heralded at the DNC. And given they haven't felt that oomph via incomes, it's no surprise they be foursquare against the TPP which stands to make their lives and those of their offspring even worse.  How so?

If passed, the TPP would expand trade over the 12- nation Asia-Pacific region - particularly removing tariffs and investment barriers. For nations like Singapore and Vietnam it's terrific, for citizens of the U.S. not so much.  For one thing, the Neoliberal order would now seat the 'dictator'  of the  marketplace  everywhere. Specifically, with the backing of big corporations such as  Halliburton, global fracking would be literally unstoppable. For example, all local bans on fracking as well as New York's ban could conceivably be challenged since the TPP would allow foreign governments to sue if fracked oil or gas quotas were not met. 

Meanwhile, Monsanto (prime producer of GMO seeds and foods) would have carte blanche over the global food supply even as Obama last Friday signed the DARK act, denying Americans the right to know what the fuck is in their food.

See, e.g.   http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/68383/how-one-gmo-nearly-took-down-the-planet


Quote:

On Friday, President Obama signed bill S.764 into law, dealing a major blow to the movement to require GMO labeling. The new law, called the "Deny Americans the Right to Know" (DARK) Act by food safety groups, has at least three key parts in it that undermine Vermont's popular GMO labeling bill and make it nearly impossible for you and me to know what's in our food.

The law claims to set a federal labeling standard by requiring food producers to include either a QR bar code that can be scanned with a phone, or a 1-800 number that consumers can call to find out whether a product contains genetically modified ingredients.  But according to the Institute for Responsible Technology, this bill doesn't require most processed foods to have a label, the bill defines genetic engineering so narrowly that most GMOs on the market don't qualify..

So basically, Obama "set the table" in expectation of the TPP's  passage. Your only hope to avoid unknowingly eating GMOs then will be to totally go organic and hope there isn't some hidden provision in the TPP (assuming if by some stretch it passes) that allows member nations to sue the U.S. for offering a food class they can't afford to produce.

Nor is this mere aimless conjecture. We know from what's been revealed thus far. Hence,  according to Public Citizen, we know that the "TPP could ship millions of good-paying US jobs overseas.  We also know that the TPP could increase the costs of health care and medicine, while hurting health and safety standards . Overall, as with NAFTA before it,  the TPP will weaken domestic environmental regulations while boosting corporate power's leverage in global markets. Also, it will pressure lower wages in the U.S. since workers here will have to directly compete against workers in Vietnam who may only earn 68 cents an hour. Thus, like NAFTA, the pressure will be on to expedite a rush to the bottom - with corporations using labor in the cheapest trade partners opposed to more costly home-grown.

Also the Environmental chapter sets a terribly low bar with the measures falling way below U.S. standards for trade deals. Interested people can find out more at:

https://act.350.org/sign/congress-tpp/?gclid=CMiwvN6hssUCFZeDaQodlRgAHQ

Given the forces and major party candidates arrayed against the TPP, Obama's best move now would be to drop his crusade for passage. In the end it can only hurt the Dems and Hillary, especially if the unraveling Trump decides to use it against the D-ticket. The Republicans in the Senate also are in no disposition to help pass it, given so many of the GOP base are enraged against global trade deals.

The best bet for Obama is to drop pushing aggressively for TPP passage as part of his legacy and let Hillary carry the potential torch forward. In the latter case to perhaps "flip" later as  The Washington Post  reported  Virginia guv Terry McAuliffe blurted a week ago: i.e. "she will support the Trans-Pacific Partnership once she's in the White House". . Of course, in that case Hill might end up the first Dem one term president since Jimmy Carter.

See also:
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/68501/clinton-should-tell-obama-to-withdraw-tpp-to-save-her-presidency

As Alzheimer's Disease Numbers Rise - An Even Greater Need To Label GMO Foods

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


In the latest Bulletin received from 'Food & Water Watch' with assorted added documents, I've been informed the battle is now joined to get GMO foods labeled. Vermont has already passed legislation requiring genetically engineered foods to be labeled and the governor has signed it into law. But make no mistake the big 'guns' of the Neoliberal state are out to try to kill it, since they know labeling could be mandated by other states.

So no surprise that a bill was introduced in the last session of congress which intent is to kill all labeling initiatives for GMO foods.  As with the case of fracking - whereby many state governments have outlawed initiatives to halt it - the momentum of the purveyors is to have the little people live in heaping piles of shit, including unlabeled shit for food. Who or what is behind this anti-labeling campaign? The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) whose 300 member corporations have now poured $54.7 million into bribing our politicos to screw the rest of us. DO they care if we get Alzheimer's disease or cancer? Hell no! Because these vermin - like Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) mastermind of the current legislation - already have "Cadillac"  health plans to deal with any ills. Even if they get pancreatic, kidney, colon or other cancers they won't have to shell out tens of thousands a year for drugs to stay alive.

According to the 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."

Wonder why so many people are now needing kidney and liver transplants? This may be one huge contributing factor.

Among the other alarming facts is the horrific link to glyphosate as exposed by 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 ties it into the increasing numbers of people in the U.S. suffering from Alzheimer's disease - which destroys the brain and renders victims little more than zombies. (If you can, see the recent film 'Still Alice' to get a grasp of how it destroys a professor's mind and life).  European numbers by contrast are low, well because they are among the 64 intelligent and caring nations that require GMO labeling.

In his excellent Wall Street Journal piece, 'Yes - We Deserve to Know What's In the Food We  Eat' (July 13, p. R1), Andrew Kimbrell lays out the crux of the matter:

"Chemical and food companies claim they shouldn't have to label because genetically engineered foods have not been proven unsafe. But every day we see labeling for food additives or processes such as 'made from concentrates' that have been found safe.

The Food and Drug Administration standard for labeling has nothing to do with danger. Rather, the law requires labeling to inform consumers about novel contents or changes that may not be obvious and the consumer would have an interest in knowing.

Do genetically engineered foods fit the bill? Yes, they do. Virtually all commercialized, genetically engineered food crops come from novel bacterial, viral, or other DNA sources never before seen in foods, often creating novel proteins as well. If the FDA were to actually test GMO foods, which it does not, and find them hazardous, it would not label them, it would remove them from supermarket shelves. "

Kimbrell goes on to write that while opponents often claim GMO foods would be "too expensive" to label, this is really a PR crock. In fact, "food companies change their labels all the time." and that "adding 'produced with genetic engineering' on the package would be of negligible cost."

Kimbrell's piece is potent because it's typeset along side a clear PR piece ('It's Simply a Ploy To Make Consumers  Worry') by a Penn State prof (Nina Federoff) who ought to be ashamed of herself. One wonders in fact if she received as much money for that PR slop as Willie Soon has for his anti-global warming drivel.

Why the desperate refusal to label GMOs? 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.

Labeling, as I said and Kimbrell gives a powerful justification for, is rational and 64 other nations already do it. They are determined to protect their citizens from potential Alzheimer's and cancer cases while ours seems more interested in enabling profits for the corporations that benefit from GMO food sales.

Meanwhile, as we await labeling, there are things you can do to avoid consuming GMO foods, as listed in the  'Food & Water Watch'  enclosure:

1. Know the top GMO crops and common GMO ingredients, which include:

- Canola (also called rapeseed oil)

- Corn (including high fructose corn syrup)

-Cottonseed oil (common in vegetable oil and margarine)

- Soybeans (may also appear in ingredients' lists as simply 'sugar')

- Sugar beets ("   "     "      "       "         "      "       "       "    ")


2. Buy organic - since the USDA prohibits GMO crops from being used in certified organic crops for food and animal feed.

3. Look for products that are specifically labelled 'Non -GMO or GMO Free')

4. Shop Local : Most GMO foods are produced on large, industrial farms and by huge corporate food companies. Your best bet is to buy local foods at farmers' markets.

5. Make it from scratch: By avoiding prepared and processed foods you control every ingredient, giving you final say on what you eat.

Finally, learn how to decode labels and do not be misled by the fake word "natural" - which is merely a deceptive marketing ploy.

For more information on label decoding of foods go to:

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/consumer-labels/decoding-food-labels/

Update:

The House bill to prevent GMO food labeling passed 275-150 on Thursday.

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/

 

Why Does Tom Colicchio & Food Policy Action Oppose the GM Food Labeling Ban?

John Phillips: Bio-geneticist and nutrition specialist, has found new links between GMO foods and Alzheimer's, liver  & kidney cancers and autism.

Despite Nutrition specialist and biochemist John Phillips linking GMO foods to increased kidney and liver cancers, Alzheimer's disease as well as autism, it appears political pressure in this country is on to keep food consumers in the dark on what they're eating.   This is via a House bill entitled, The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act.   Opposing this perfidy is a petition created by food guru Tom Colicchio and Food Policy Action which seeks to convince Congress not to ban GMO labels and has attracted 231,000 signatures in just over a week. 

Meanwhile, on the side of fortuitous state -level sanity, Vermont lawmakers have just passed legislation that requires all food made with genetically modified organisms or GMOs to be labeled. This marks the first law of its kind in the Neoliberal-dominated U.S. - but it must now get approval from VT. Governor Shumlin though this should not be a problem as he's consistently supported labeling.

Vermont's state House of Representatives approved the bill on Wednesday by a vote of 114- 30 and the State Senate passed it last week by a vote of 28-2.  The law goes into effect July 1, 2016 and will apply to any foods even partially manufactured with genetic engineering. Those tomatoes derived from mouse genes? Yes, they will now have to be properly labeled as "GMO".  Vermont isn't alone here. Despite a range of opinions on the potential threats (or non-threats) posed by the production and consumption of genetically modified foods, most consumers (and several states) already agree to support identifying GMO food as such.

Vermont lawmakers as well as their pro-labeling cohort in other states, therefore, are doing the will of their citizens, as opposed to bending to the Neoliberal food Nazis who want no one to know what the hell they're eating. I suppose they believe that if enough cancers etc, erupt then they can surreptitiously decrease the population and avoid large "entitlement" costs. What the hell else could it be? If these damned foods are so grand, and there's "no difference" from organic or regular sources, why the need to conceal the information?  In every other sphere (caloric content, saturated fats, sugars etc.) food labeling is regarded as an inviolate right of the consumer to know what he's eating. Why not here?

Utterly opposed to this, we have the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act", introduced April 9 in the House. The label itself is absurd since as Mr. Phillips has shown, GMO foods are not "safe" and the mandate of the "act" is to prevent labeling!  And we need it! As John explains via recent email:

 "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."

Glyphosate, let us note, is not something that can be washed off or taken out of the food by cooking or purification – it’s integrated into the plant on a fundamental level.   Monsanto- the maker-  was also a manufacturer of the pesticide DDT, which now has been conclusively linked to the development of Alzheimer’s, as well as many other degenerative diseases in humans.

Experts like Mr. Phillips now believe that glyphosate is even worse than DDT. It decimates beneficial bacteria in the gut, disrupts immune function, and has been correlated with shocking precision to the rise in autism and other cognitive diseases and conditions.  The moral of the story is that you should stop eating GMO foods at all costs.   The problem is that our Neoliberal bought and sold reps want you to be kept in perpetual ignorance and think the GMO foods are just fine and all is hunky dorey.   Thus, they seek to block these GMO labels on the grounds that they will pose an "undue burden" on producers.   But never mind the undue burden of health care costs - including for cancer treatments, autism and Alzheimer's patient care imposed on you the ordinary citizen. See, in the Neoliberal frame you are expendable! (A painful lesson the Ukrainians will soon learn to their dismay if they are pulled into the Neoliberal orbit. )

Frankly, it's odd that our government, which professes to be so concerned about exploding debt  yet refuses to allow GMO foods to be labeled. This despite the fact that if 25 % of all Americans are affected by Alzheimer's in 20 years we are looking at a $15 trillion health spending calamity.  And then add on to that all the GMO -food consumers who will soon need kidney and liver transplants - adding to lists already tens of thousands long. Doesn't it make more sense, then, to allow GMO labeling so people can choose not to consume these damaging foods - than not to do so and enable massive Alzheimer's disease increases that will sap the Treasury dry? 

Reasonable people would think so - but see, a Neoliberal coercive market isn't reasonable, because it inevitably places corporate profits (like those for Monsanto) over the welfare of people. If GMO labels are then required they will lose market share because most sensible people will naturally opt for non-GMO foods which don't carry autism, cancer or Alzheimer's risks.  (The trope that labeling itself will drive costs up is blatant balderdash as a number of studies in California have indicated. In fact, the increase per food item is barely 3 cents. It isn't the labeling costs per se the anti-Labelers are worried about, but the costs to them of consumers using their feet to walk elsewhere to buy their produce, etc.)

Meanwhile, Vermont and its lawmakers are putting aside a "war chest" with at least $1.5 million to help the state protect its people as the anti-labeling Neoliberal  predators file lawsuits. Citizens will also be able to contribute voluntarily to the fund and settlements won in other court cases can be added to it by the state attorney general The Burlington Free Press reported.

Two other states, Maine and Connecticut, are the only others to have passed GMO labeling laws though they only go into effect if surrounding states pass similar laws. Vermont's law, by contrast, is a stand alone. Meanwhile, on the international scene GMO labeling is required in 64 countries including the European Union.  Why are we in the U.S. expendable? Because our politicos are bought and paid for whores and they want us to be guinea pigs for this massive food experiment.

Tom Colicchio and Food Policy Action recognize this and merit our signatures on their petition to fight the absurd banning of GMO food labeling.


See also:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/potential-health-hazards-of-genetically-engMaine cineered-foods/8148

Alzheimer's Epidemic from Eating GMO Foods? What Can Be Done?

 John Phillips: Bio-geneticist and nutrition specialist, has found new links between GMO foods and Alzheimer's.

Okay, some background: John Phillips 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 a light house and instruments at the Harry Bayley Observatory), and is a spiritual scholar whose work exposed the Bible at about the "eighth grade" reading level.

 Most interesting to me have been his  ongoing investigations into “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.

See also: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-tidal-wave-of-cancer-coming-worldwide.html

John's latest findings appear to confirm a link between Alzheimer's disease and  consuming GMO foods. This is something I have always suspected, as well as a link to consuming beef products, since as reported more than ten years ago (Project Censored) there is some evidence that Kreutzfeldt-Jacob ("Mad cow")  disease has spread to North America, see e.g. http://www.ringnebula.com/project-censored/1995/1995-story25.htm

Anyway, the link to GMOs may be more pernicious given how widely they are consumed, and as John notes:

"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."


The worst part is that GMO foods are everywhere…if something is not explicitly labeled as organic and GMO-free, you should assume that it contains glyphosate. The most damnable shame is that our own Neoliberal government refuses to justify labeling these foods - so consumers have no way of knowing.   This issue is huge because medical experts estimate that within twenty years, a shocking twenty-five percent of all Americans will be affected by Alzheimer's disease. 

Even in its early stages, Alzheimer's can cause debilitating memory loss, brain fog, fatigue, anxiety, and depression. Poor brain health has even been linked to cancer, heart disease, diabetes, autism, ADHD, mental illness, and autoimmune disorder. Because the symptoms of early onset Alzheimer’s are subtle and complex, many people don’t even realize they’re being affected until it’s too late. Yes, forgetting your keys and locking yourself out of your home may be a mild, happenstance anomaly - but it could mean something more serious. And perhaps eating too many GMO foods, especially corn and soy.

 

As John observes, short of ceasing all consumption of GMO foods there's no way to ensure you won't get Alzheimer's, perhaps even by the age of 50.  What is it about the GMO foods that is most pernicious?  Without missing a beat he says, "Glyphosate".  

 

Glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide) is present in all genetically engineered foods. And it’s not something that can be washed off or taken out of the food by cooking or purification – it’s integrated into the plant on a fundamental level.   Monsanto- the maker-  was also a manufacturer of the pesticide DDT, which now has been conclusively linked to the development of Alzheimer’s, as well as many other degenerative diseases in humans.

Experts like Mr. Phillips now believe that glyphosate is even worse than DDT. It decimates beneficial bacteria in the gut, disrupts immune function, and has been correlated with shocking precision to the rise in autism and other cognitive diseases and conditions.  The moral of the story is that you should stop eating GMO foods at all costs. Do not consume anything (especially soy and corn) that isn’t specifically labeled as non-GMO.

 

 

Frankly, it's odd that our government, which professes to be so concerned about exploding debt (especially soon to descend with all the damage inflicted on vets in two 'wars' of choice) yet refuses to allow GMO foods to be labeled. This despite the fact that if 25 % of all Americans are affected by Alzheimer's in 20 years we are looking at a $15 trillion health spending calamity.  Doesn't it make more sense, then, to allow GMO labeling so people can choose not to consume these damaging foods - than not to do so and enable massive Alzheimer's disease increases that will sap the Treasury dry? 

Reasonable people would think so - but see, a Neoliberal coercive market isn't reasonable, because it inevitably places corporate profits (like those for Monsanto) over the welfare of people.

 

But you can be at least aware of which companies - brand names- are against any GMO labeling.

Here’s an infographic that lists brands for and against the disclosure of GMO product ingredients … you may be surprised by some of the “organic” brands that are found on that list. An app called Buycott is another great resource. It allows you to scan product barcodes as you shop, and displays detailed information about whether or not the product is linked to GMO-supporting organizations.

 

When I asked John what we can do to try to avoid the worst effects of cognitive decline via glyphosate in the GMO foods, he recommended :

 

- drinking plenty of purified water

 

- consuming lots of healthy fats, including: omega-3 fats and Coconut oil

 

These are "powerful antioxidants and neuroprotectants" which protect your brain from the degeneration triggered by glyphosates in GMO foods.

- Take regular vitamins, supplements (especially B-12, zinc, magnesium, calcium, choline, folic acid) given the glyphosate reduces the nutrients in those same GMO foods.

- reduce caloric intake

See also:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/potential-health-hazards-of-genetically-engineered-foods/8148