Scarier Than 'The Exorcist', Michael Myers And A Zombie Herd: Brominated Flame Retardants

Some of the many products in our homes bearing brominated flame retardants.

According to two chemists (Arlene Blum and Bruce Ames) based at the University of  California - Berkeley, and published in Science:

"The main flame retardant in children's pajamas is a mutgen and should not be used."

To be specific, the culprit ingredient is known as tris (2,3 -dibromopropyl) phosphate, or Tris-BP for short, a frontline flame retardant. It's main claim to infamy is not only as a likely carcinogen, but a factor for sterility in animal studies. It also features a chemical composition alarmingly similar to ethyl dibromide (EDB) the lead scavenger and also used as a fumigant for crops.

As with the notable work of Devra Davis ('The Secret History of the War On Cancer') who exposed the multiple ways chemicals in the environment are the primary cancer agents, so also Blume and Ames have exposed the danger of chemicals in flame retardants - which are now ubiquitous in all manner of products.

Since the 1970s, when the use of brominated flame retardants exploded,  Tris -BP has found ways to enter the ecosystem.   The ramping up of brominated flame retardants occurred largely owing to a misjudgment of California state regulators in dealing with increased house fires caused by cigarettes. Prior to the 70s it had been known that cigarette makers had been adding chemicals to make cigs last longer, up to ten minutes. This led to many house fires, as people smoking in bed would inevitably nod off before they knew the bedroom was in flames.  State regulators and legislators then called on manufacturers to develop cigs less likely to start fires.

But the tobacco industry cleverly shifted the blame from its products to common household furniture and wares that were too "flammable" .  (In one case describing a foam couch as laden with "solid gasoline") Then, in 1975, a California state agency enacted a regulation that was a godsend for chemical manufacturers.  It mandated a rule that all furniture offered for sale was required to withstand 12 seconds of exposure to an open candle flame.  The Ethyl Corporation then rushed to produce products to satisfy the reg - the rest as they say, is history.  Brominated flame retardants since have found their way into a dizzying array of household items - not just furniture, but carpeting and flooring materials, bedding, baby products, computers, televisions and other electronic equipment, as well as cars, boats and aircraft.

Worried about your kid  ingesting too much candy, or watching too many zombie flicks e.g.

Then you're perhaps targeting the wrong culprits, and maybe ought to look at his or her bedding, PJs,  Ipad, iPhone, or even backpacks - for brominated flame retardants.

What's the fuss about? Blum and Ames in their research discovered that  Tris-BP inevitably turned up in the ecosystem via wastewater from laundry. They found that six bedsheets treated with Tris- BP and washed in 30 gallons of water resulted in 6 parts per million of the toxin in the wash water- this despite only 1 ppm needed to kill goldfish.


They also found that, like many other flame retardant chemicals, Tris-BP leached readily into the bodies of people who treated fabrics.  As they were quoted in The NATION investigatory piece ('Worse Than Lead?)  from which the bulk of this information was gathered (Sept. 2018, pp. 15-20):

"We found a child who'd never worn Tris-treated pajamas. We had the child wear Tris-treated pajamas for one night and later found Tris-breakdown products in her urine."

Blum added (ibid.) "It was easily picked up and screamingly mutagenic."

No surprise perhaps that three months after the Blum and Ames paper was published, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned brominated Tris in children's clothing. How did the manufacturers respond? Well,  they just substituted a new product: chlorinated Tris - still carcinogenic but doesn't show up in the urine quite so fast.

Needless to say the PR mills of the flame retardant makers have been working overtime to cast Blum and Ames as too fussy scientific provocateurs and merely stirrin

Flame Retardants: Debate Still Being Driven By Outdated Science and …

The ACSH's  arguments might carry much more ballast had Devra Davis not already exposed the chicanery of the American Chemical Industry in spreading its toxins all over tarnation. Also, it might help if they weren't an industry-friendly  PR front outfit,  Seg up a storm in a teacup. See .e.g
e, e.g.

https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-you-cant-trust-the-american-council-on-science-and-health/ 


See also a recent lecture by Devra Davis on why chemical, tobacco companies etc. can't be trusted  here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkL2A78dJkE

Soft Soaping The Deadly Chemical Inventory: Trump's Motto Ought To Be "Make America Sick Again"

Yep, sick from everything from salmonella because of rodent feces found in eggs shipped out without regulatory oversight (e.g. 'Egg Recall Stems From Infested Facilities', WSJ, April 21, p. B2) to multiple cancers, including breast, prostate, and the liver cancer that took out  my youngest bro. Trump, aka Dotard, basically wants to gut all essential citizen protections so all the federal agencies charged with regulatory responsibility - say over our food, air and water - can just hit the snooze button while the rest of us get sick. Oh, and at the same time he wants to gut the only available health care so when we DO get salmonella, or breast or prostate cancer, we can't afford to deal with it.

And nowhere is this deplorable approach more pronounced than at Scott Pruitt's EPA. Recall this is the same guy who as Oklahoma’s attorney general described himself as “a leading advocate against the E.P.A.’s activist agenda.”. Barely two months ago this maggot-   who is up to his neck in 12 separate ethics investigations (including getting an aide to try and chase down an old Trump mattress and Ritz Carlton lotion) - said in an interview published in The Daily Caller lthat he would no longer allow the EPA to use studies that include nonpublic scientific data to develop rules to safeguard public health and prevent pollution.

Opponents of the agency and of mainstream climate science had labeled these studies “secret science.” But that is pure, unadulterated balderdash and twaddle.   Peer review ensures that the analytic methodologies underlying studies funded by the agency.  It is the optimum way to learn which chemicals and practices will kill you, give you prostate cancer, or just make you sick as a dog.

Thus, some of those studies, particularly that determine the effects of exposure to chemicals and pollution on health, rely on medical records that by law are confidential because of patient privacy policies. These studies summarize the analysis of raw data and draw conclusions based on that analysis. Other government agencies also use studies like these to develop policy and regulations, and to buttress and defend rules against legal challenges. They are, in fact, essential to making sound public policy.  We ignore them - like Pruitt wants to do - at our own risk.

This doesn't even touch on the studies Pruitt has had terminated such as one last August, by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine into links between surface mining and health. Specifically, the health complications and illnesses that arise form exposure to cola dust in the air and in drinking water.

According to Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences (NY Times, June 10, p. 18):

"We never got a clear reason why it was cancelled."

Well, it's fairly easy to figure out: Pruitt, in debt to the fossil fuel industry for its many campaign donations, rejected any findings that tied inhalation of coal dust, or drinking it - once dissolved in water -  to any brain, lung, liver or prostate cancers. 

But hold strain, the sicknesses may just be getting underway.  According to the latest news (NY Times, June 10, p. 1) the Trump administration, after heavy lobbying by the chemical industry, is scaling back the way the federal government determines health and safety risks associated with the most dangerous chemicals on the market, documents from the Environmental Protection Agency show.

To get a perspective here, under a law passed by Congress during the final year of the Obama administration, the E.P.A. was required for the first time to evaluate hundreds of potentially toxic chemicals and determine if they should face new restrictions, or even be removed from the market. The chemicals include many in everyday use, such as dry-cleaning solvents, paint strippers and substances used in health and beauty products like shampoos and cosmetics.

But under pressure from Pruitt, and as it moves forward reviewing the first batch of 10 chemicals, the E.P.A. has been ordered to exclude from its calculations any potential exposure caused by the substances’ present  in the air, the ground or water, according to more than 1,500 pages of documents released last week by the agency.

Instead - in a "softball" approach,  the agency will focus on possible harm caused by direct contact with a chemical in the workplace or elsewhere.  In other words you will actually have to make direct contact with the carbon tetrachloride or 2, 4 dinitrophenylhydrazine to ascertain that it actually killed or poisoned you. 

The approach means that the improper disposal of chemicals — leading to the contamination of drinking water, for instance — will often not be a factor in deciding whether to restrict or ban them. Fracking companies,  like many here in Colorado, . can then toss out as many drums of hydrogen cyanide as they want with impunity, and no one will be the wiser.  Until people get sick - and maybe not even then.

Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, who retired last year after nearly four decades at the E.P.A., where she ran the toxic chemical unit during her last year. said flatly (ibid.):

“It is ridiculous! You can’t determine if there is an unreasonable risk without doing a comprehensive risk evaluation.”

We know, but the problem is Scott Pruitt won't hear of it.  He'd rather see 100 million sick of asthma, lung cancer, you name it - than lift a finger. Especially when he has special hotel brand lotions to chase down.

But again, we've barely touched the tip of the toxic "iceberg".  For example, while the nation's attention had been focused on the lead in Flint's water supply, few attended to Pruitt's EPA..  It turns out Pruitt has done next to nothing to address the nationwide problem of drinking water contamination. For example, he blocked the release of a study showing that toxic chemicals are contaminating water supplies across the nation.

Among the very real effects of this contamination are: an array of cancers (e.g. esophagus, lungs, prostate, breasts, etc., low birth weight, and thyroid disruption.   Yet the EPA, with Pruitt's consent, sits on a critical report from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry asserting the information will "cause a public relations nightmare."

So what? Ever head the phrase, 'Let justice be done or the heavens fall'?

Here in south central Colorado we've been alerted to the presence of polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in our drinking water. This was via recently released EPA emails documenting the agency decision - again under Pruitt - to suppress the truth about PFAs. Dealing with painful or embarrassing prostate cancer treatments, or the horrific effects of chemo to treat breast cancer?  It may well be because you were one of the 60,000 El Paso County residents who ingested PFAS. 

For as long as records show, the "safe" level for PFAS in drinking water had been identified at 12 parts per trillion.   This is compared to the current EPA safe level of 70 parts per trillion, or nearly six times more.  

On the larger scale, over 6 million people across the nation are drinking PFAS- contaminated water.  This, even as we learned (NYTimes, June 9, p. 1) that the Trump Justice Dept. wants to roll back allowance for pre-existing conditions in the ACA. They reckon it's the best way to gut this health insurance program - if they can't repeal it.

If you get cancer in the next few years, perhaps inoperable (like my youngest brother) - or requiring regular chemo as well as radiation, which you will no longer be able to afford, thank Trump.  Oh, and his toxic lap dog, Scott Pruitt.

The Weeds Are Winning -And Allergies Increasing - Thanks to Global Warming

Pigweed - now growing as if on 'afterburners' with CO2 the fuel.

 

The recent (June 2, Personal Journal, p. 2) article in The Wall Street Journal ('Allergies Worse in Some Years?')  provided a sobering reminder of how conditions on Earth have radically changed in just five years, enabling a much longer and miserable allergy season as well as the continued growth of super weeds and hyper-pollination. All this owing to global warming's advance which too many still deny.

The article quoted a fellow with the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, in noting how "the allergy season is so weather driven, short term and long term". He also wasn't inhibited about implicating global warming-climate change, observing:

"In northern states where global warming is already having an effect, winter is shorter and spring might come earlier, which can lengthen the pollen season".

He went on to indicate that a "dream year" for allergy sufferers would be one in which there is a long winter and rain in the spring" given the rain "washes out tree pollen" and a longer winter delays the pollen season.

Alas, that trend is not in the cards, given global warming's pattern is for ever shorter winters ultimately ending in the first "year of no seasons"  by 2040 and possibly as early as 2030. In such a nightmarish world, allergy sufferers would be bombarded year round and even rains would be of little help - amping up grasses and weeds that people now mainly endure in late summer - such as ragweed.


Five years ago one beheld in the The Wall Street Journal (June 4, p A16, 'Superweeds Trigger New Arms Race'; June 21, p. D1, 'Least Welcome Sign of Summer') the announcement of the arrival of "super weeds".

According to that account, "by the middle of this decade"  (2015)  "at least 40% of U.S. corn and soybean crops will harbor Roundup resistant super weeds". Roundup, and especially Monsanto's Roundup -ready seeds, have been amongst the biggest "success stories" in the domain of weed control, primarily because of its primary constituent - glyphosate- which is one of the least toxic around. As one farmer cited in the first article put it: If glyphosate isn't the safest herbicide, it's damned close".

At the time of the writing Roundup and generic competitors were used on nearly 4 times as many acres as any other herbicide, but true to evolutionary dictates and principles - the weeds had adapted, and new, hardier variants emerged resistant to the weedicides. Many scientists agree that enhanced CO2 plays no small role in facilitating this adaptation, since stronger, larger weeds are the result.

One variant of pigweed reported on a farmer's property grew to six feet in height on a stalk the width of a baseball bat's wide end. The weed was so tough, it damaged mechanical parts of his cotton picking equipment and had to be rooted out by hand. The farmer had to hire 20 labor hands to attack the weeds using hoes, even then breaking a number of them.

The emergence of these super weeds, especially as threats to farm productivity had already convinced many farmers they had to resort to much more toxic weedicides to get the job done. That included using such infamous carcinogenic agents as: 2, 4- D, dicamba and paraquat. But critics warned given the uncontrolled factors afoot, such as ever increasing CO2 concentrations (now tipping at nearly 400 ppm) this solution may be 'too little, too late'.

Today, and as I've  noted in previous blog posts, the situation has gotten so bad that a new GMO version of ENLIST -enhanced crops has entered the food supply. Enlist DUO engenders a new potent herbicide mix of 2,4 D and glyphosate which Mehmet Oz (in his Sept. 19, 2014 show) described as a "health calamity" because of the likely effects including, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, Parkinson's disease and even Alzheimer's disease, see also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/alzheimers-epidemic-fro-eating-gmo.html

As noted therein:

"GMO foods contain glyphosate, a horrifically destructive chemical that saps nutrients from foods and quite literally makes them toxic to consume."


We clearly have even bigger concerns going forward than enhanced allergy intensity - as bad as that will be. Indeed, if we are headed for an even larger increment in warming (4C or 6C by 2100) the situation could well become intolerable for billons. In addition given this new increment we could see the first year of no seasons much earlier, even before 2030. While climate change deniers are yukking it up, the weeds are on overdrive thanks to a greenhouse gas the deniers dismiss as a threat. Go figure!

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.jp/2015/05/the-new-reality-global-mean-temperature.html

The Physician Whores Going After Mehmet Oz - WHY Are They Doing It?

Last week a group of "doctors" (maybe whores is more like it, as I will show) dispatched a letter to Columbia University, asking them to remove Dr. Mehmet Oz from their staff. What had their panties in a twist? According to the news segment this morning, shown on CBS, the statement says in part:

"Dr. Oz has repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence -based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops."

Pay special attention to the very last part because that is really what this asinine complaint is all about (and to a lesser extent likely Oz' maintaining that eliminating all vitamin supplements is not a good idea, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/03/believe-anti-vitamin-scolds-and-you-may.html

And WHO is the top physician -"researcher" whore trying to get rid of Oz?  None other than Henry Miller - a pro-corporate worm ensconced at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank which has also harbored a bunch of lamebrains who've done numerous anti-global warming screeds. In other words, some of the biggest anti-scientific assholes on the planet.  One of these turds actually - according to an ABC News report - served 22 months in prison for Medicaid fraud. Four of the other smearing degenerates have been linked to the "American Council on Science and Health" (ACSH) and received money from companies that sell GMOs. In other words, craven sellout whores.

Oz obviously came into the target sights of Miller and his clique of knuckle dragger "physician" henchmen because of highlighting the dangers of GMO foods, which - of course -  would  mean less money for the likes of Monsanto. In one of his shows, in fact, Dr Oz noted the dangers of glyphosate used in these damned foods and the havoc it can wreak on human health.

For example, on his Sept. 19, 2014 show we beheld a "health calamity" to use Oz's expression, as non-Hodgkins lymphoma, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's and other conditions spread as the horrific weedicide Enlist entered our food supply via GMO foods.

Oz began by putting up on the screen a section of a letter put out by dozens of worried scientists, physicians. The letter began by stating:

"We the undersigned scientists, medical professionals, and researchers are writing to urge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency not to register a double herbicide mix of 2,4- D and glyphosate - the 'Enlist DUO weed killer"

In the letter all the probable health risks were detailed, as noted in the first paragraph. In terms of the horrors of glyphosate and how it wreaks havoc on foods, I already discussed this in a previous post, e.g.   http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/alzheimers-epidemic-fro-eating-gmo.html

In that post I quoted Barbadian biogenetic researcher John Phillips:

"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.






















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

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.  Wonder why Alzheimer's keeps ramping up - blame the GMO foods, and now - with Entry DUO - the potential to add on other diseases like Parkinson's.

In his opening segment  on 9/19/14  Dr. Oz set out the facts as we know them:

1- Seventy to Eighty percent of the foods we eat today contain GMOs.

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

3- 70 - 170 million pounds of additional highly toxic pesticides will be used if the FDA approves Enlist.

One of the worst scourges is how glyphosate is now in the blood of many kids, and triggering outbreaks of autism (which too many blame on vaccines). As one mom featured on Oz's show observed, her son showed all the symptoms and when she had his blood tested she found inordinate levels of glyphosate. She then went totally organic and the symptoms subsided.

One claim made by the GMO makers (like Monsanto) and promoters is GMOs are crucial to feed a hungry world - by offering higher yields. But as Oz's other guest, Mark Bittman (Food columnist for the NY Times) 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."

Indeed, it is precisely because of the widespread pesticide-herbicide use connected with GMO foods, that a more powerful toxin has been demanded - by agri-business, and farmers in the maw of the GMO giants. This is because the herbicide overuse has led to the invasive weeds becoming adapted to the toxins and being more difficult to put down. The bottom line: glyphosate alone isn't enough to do the job.

2,4 - D, let us bear in mind, was also used in Agent Orange - the dastardly chemical used to devastate millions of acres of crops in South Vietnam and which left thousands of U.S. military personnel with debilitating conditions,  and tens of thousands of Vietnamese infants with hideous birth defects the country is still dealing with today.

One of the other worrisome effects Oz presented was the dispersive and diffusive potential from GMO crops - say in the proximity of schools, other public places. Oz demonstrated this dispersal as when winds blow to drive it off onto bordering areas - schools, homes, towns. He stated: "It's just hard to put a fence around it. The Environmental Working Group found that over 5500 schools within 200 feet of these pesticides drift range and GMO farms, potentially putting thousands of children and their families at risk of serious health problems.."

This drift and dispersal scenario is also one with which John Phillips concurs - which is why he's vigorously argued against the use of GMO crops in Barbados.

The corporate whore kingdom often cites the FDA or other government agencies to bestow benediction on GMO foods, i.e. that they are "safe" - but of course these federal agencies have already been bought out long ago and become de facto PR- whore extensions for the corporatocracy. This is why they incessantly fight to keep labels off GMO foods.

And while anti-GMO folks are lampooned by the Neoliberal governmental -business estate and its lackeys, let's bear in mind 64 countries already require labeling of GMO foods or ban them outright. Why is the U.S. different? Or better, why is the U.S. the exceptional dumb nation here? Could it be the corporate state has our gov't by the balls, lock, stock and barrel? Maybe! As Heather White observed on Oz' s 9/19/14 show, they are only willing to "rubber stamp" what the corporations want and most of our agencies are in their maw. That makes them corporate whores!

Meanwhile, kudos to Columbia University for showing support of Dr. Mehmet Oz so he can continue his position there while also speaking out against the rampant poison of GMOs. In a statement released yesterday the university wrote:

"Columbia is committed to the principle of academic freedom and to upholding faculty members' freedom of expression for statements they make in public discussion."


As for Oz complainer Henry Miller: he needs to remove his brain from the corporate propaganda axis, stop emulating tools like John McAdams, and try to learn about the real dangers of GMO foods - minus all the BS and tomfoolery.

Solar Energy Comes of Age in the U.S.

Barely ten years ago, the idea of solar power was still mostly mocked as the limited energy purview of assorted "tree hugger", arugala-munching  elites, but too expensive for the average person.  Even the arugala-munching  elites mainly used it for water heating. The expansion to utility power companies and multi-purpose uses had not yet occurred. Basically, thin -film photovoltaics (PV) had not yet emerged. Silicon had been the element of choice for solar panels, which was more efficient but expensive and difficult to mass -produce. Now that's changed.

Favorable economics for the PV thin-film panels have led to an explosion in solar energy potential most Americans are only dimly aware of. For example, most don't know that on February 9th a utility -scale solar power plant (run by "Desert Sunlight") was officially dedicated.

This occurred on 3,800 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management - and most noteworthy - is now the 6th operational plant on federal property. (The gov't operates 250 million acres, mostly in the sunny, arid West, perfect for solar panels.)

The problem of utility scale solar plants poses an interesting conundrum. They need to be somewhere with year round sunlight, in a space vast enough to contain hundreds of thousands of solar modules, but close enough to civilization to easily connect to the grid.  Fortuitously, Desert Sunlights plant meets all the criteria, situated just outside Desert Center - a tiny town southeast of Joshua Tree National Park.

The site features millions of 1.2m by 0.6m panels each covered by a thin film of glass that absorbs sunlight and captures elections creating an electric current that flows into wires in the rear of each module. This represents d.c. (direct current) power which is then converted into a.c. by inverters. The converted power is then transferred to the electrical grid via a nearby substation. Each panel generates 90 to 100 watts,

Other facts of the burgeoning solar power industry with which you may be unaware:

- Desert Sunlight's solar plant has 8 million solar panels in all.

- About 160,000 homes are solar-powered by Desert Sunlight

- Fifty two utility scale renewable energy projects have been approved since 2009, including 29 solar plants.

- Solar power is now a $15 billion a year business in the U.S., employing more people than coal mining

- In 2014 alone, solar energy accounted for 36 percent of the country's new (installed) energy capacity

- First Solar has plans to build a 750 MW plant in Riverside, CA, even bigger than Desert Sunlight's.

All these ought to give Americans reason to hope that we've turned the corner on solar energy and perhaps very soon we might be able to pull back a bit on fossil fuels, including fracked oil and natural gas. In any case we have to, there's no issue on it.

Bill McKibben's 2, 795 gigatons is perhaps the scariest number most people never heard of- but Americans need to drill into their craniums. . It represents the total stored reserves of carbon held by coal, gas and oil companies. It was first highlighted and brought to global attention by the Carbon Tracker Initiative - a group of London financial analysts and environmentalists.  It is what the fossil fuel industry plans to exploit in the future by its whole spectrum of methods, whether deep sea drilling, oil shale fracking or natural gas fracking.

It is, in other words, five times more carbon than will already blow a gasket in our world and send it toward runaway greenhouse. It is a number we cannot afford to realize if we want to pass this planet on in any form to future generations.

And solar power may be the key to helping us avoid reaching it!

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/

 

Powerful Toxin 'Enlist'- If Approved By FDA For GMO Foods - Poses Serious Health Risks

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


The warning went out loud and clear on Dr. Mehmet Oz's show on Sept. 19th. But one wonders how many are paying attention, as the potential nears to poison most of the nation - and we behold a "health calamity" to use Oz's expression, as non-Hodgkins lymphoma, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's and other conditions spread as the horrific weedicide Enlist enters our food supply via GMO foods.

Oz began by putting up on the screen a section of a letter put out by dozens of worried scientists, physicians. The letter began by stating:

"We the undersigned scientists, medical professionals, and researchers are writing to urge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency not to register a double herbicide mix of 2,4- D and glyphosate - the 'Enlist DUO weed killer"

In the letter all the probable health risks were detailed, as noted in the first paragraph. In terms of the horrors of glyphosate and how it wreaks havoc on foods, I already discussed this in a previous post, e.g.   http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/alzheimers-epidemic-fro-eating-gmo.html

In that post I quoted Barbadian biogenetic researcher John Phillips:

"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.

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.  Wonder why Alzheimer's keeps ramping up - blame the GMO foods, and now - with Entry DUO - the potential to add on other diseases like Parkinson's.

In his opening segment Oz set out the facts as we know them:

1- Seventy to Eighty percent of the foods we eat today contain GMOs.

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

3- 70 - 170 million pounds of additional highly toxic pesticides will be used if the FDA approves Enlist.

One of the worst scourges is how glyphosate is now in the blood of many kids, and triggering outbreaks of autism (which too many blame on vaccines). As one mom featured on Oz's show observed, her son showed all the symptoms and when she had his blood tested she found inordinate levels of glyphosate. She then went totally organic and the symptoms subsided.

One claim made by the GMO makers (like Monsanto) and promoters is GMOs are crucial to feed a hungry world - by offering higher yields. But as Oz's other guest, Mark Bittman (Food columnist for the NY Times) 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."

Indeed, it is precisely because of the widespread pesticide-herbicide use connected with GMO foods, that a more powerful toxin has been demanded - by agri-business, and farmers in the maw of the GMO giants. This is because the herbicide overuse has led to the invasive weeds becoming adapted to the toxins and being more difficult to put down. The bottom line: glyphosate alone isn't enough to do the job.

2,4 - D, let us bear in mind, was also used in Agent Orange - the dastardly chemical used to devastate millions of acres of crops in South Vietnam and which left thousands of U.S. military personnel with debilitating conditions.

One of the other worrisome effects Oz presented was the dispersive and diffusive potential from GMO crops - say in the proximity of schools, other public places. Oz demonstrated this dispersal as when winds blow to drive it off onto bordering areas - schools, homes, towns. He stated: "It's just hard to put a fence around it. The Environmental Working Group found that over 5500 schools within 200 feet of these pesticides drift range and GMO farms, potentially putting thousands of children and their families at risk of serious health problems.."

This drift and dispersal scenario is also one with which John Phillips concurs - which is why he's vigorously argued against the use of GMO crops in Barbados.

Introducing Heather White, executive director of the  Environmental Working Group -  she made it clear that 2, 4 -D will "coat corn and soybean crops across the country, and those are the raw materials for the highly processed foods we eat." She expressed the greatest concern for school kids in the proximity of these GMO fields, and going out inhaling the stuff.

Thankfully, we in Colorado at least will have the ability come November to have control of what we eat - by knowing whether the food we buy has GMOs. This is not a "ban" as the hysterical GMO promoters insist, but merely providing the labeling identifying the basis of the food, so we know what we are purchasing.

And while anti-GMO folks are lampooned by the Neoliberal governmental -business estate and its lackeys, let's bear in mind 64 countries already require labeling of GMO foods or ban them outright. Why is the U.S. different? Or better, why is the U.S. the exceptional dumb nation here? Could it be the corporate state has our gov't by the balls, lock, stock and barrel? Maybe? As Heather White observed on Oz' show, they are only willing to "rubber stamp" what the corporations want and most of our agencies are in their maw.

Passing Colorado Proposition 105 will at least put an end to the continued food ignorance of Colorado's citizens. What we really need is a national referendum to enable all our citizens to have the same choice. No one ought to be denied information which may well determine whether Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or autism is in their future.