Posts Tagged ‘gmos’

Is your Vitamin C on GMO’s

Photo: ZUMA Press

GMO’s in the news

I haven’t had a news update lately, there’s a lot to share!

Did you know that your Vitamin C is  most likely made from GMO  corn?

For more than a year now, supplements manufacturers have watched quietly as

an angry chorus has risen up against genetically modified organisms. So far,

though, GMO questions have stayed planted in the produce and grocery

sections of natural products stores.

But now one small but vocal retailer concerned about GMOs in the environment

has started asking his supplements suppliers if there are GMOs in the

vitamin C he sells. The answers he says he’s gotten have ranged from “we

don’t think so but we don’t know for sure” to “probably.” That’s not good

enough for Joe Lemieux, owner of the 2,500-square-foot Go To Health store in

Brooksville, Fla.

“People think that health food stores are a kind of haven from things like

GMOs,” Lemieux said. “That’s why this issue is so explosive, because I can’t

tell them that the vitamin C is made without GMOs.” He’s not saying the

products are unsafe, but he says that genetically modified crops are bad for

the environment, and the agriculture business needs to get that message from

consumers and retailers, which is why he’s taking a stand in his store.

Lemieux still stocks vitamin C but is telling his own customers not to buy

the products, and he’s letting others in the industry know about his

boycott–through word-of-mouth and a Web site that deals with organic

issues–until someone can make a non-GMO vitamin C.

You can read the rest, here:

And there are a few brands of Non-GMO vitamin C

Source Naturals is making one:

As is Cardiovascular Research. We’ve been using this one:;jsessionid=RNFEKMT4BSUM4CQUC4YFAGIKCQL00UNE?id=CV-1041

China rejects U.S. corn cargo, citing GMOs

China has rejected a cargo of U.S. corn after finding it contained an unsanctioned genetically modified strain, two sources familiar with the situation said on Friday.

“China only allows 11 varieties of GM corn to be imported to the country, and the cargo was found with GM material outside the 11 varieties,” said one source, who declined to be identified.

“The animal and plant quarantine department has barred it from entering China,” the source said. He said it was supplied by a Japanese trading house.

The cargo of 50,000-60,000 tonnes was shipped to a port in the China’s southern province of Guangdong in September. The problem was detected only in October, the same source said.

China’s first ever rejection of a U.S. corn cargo, if confirmed, risks deepening a trade spat with the United States and a bigger diplomatic row with Japan.

Top 10 ways to avoid GMOs

Maria Rodale explains how to stay away from genetically modified organisms.

This month, October, is Non-GMO Month. I find most people are really confused about what a GMO is and where GMOs are found. Some people tend to think that GMO seeds are similar to the type of hybridization that has been going on amongst gardeners for centuries. Not true! The type of genetic modification that happens to create GMO seeds involves the forceful insertion of things like E.coli genes or genes that produce glyphosphate (an herbicide) or cause Roundup resistance (allowing farmers to dump more Roundup onto the plants) into corn and soybeans and cotton.

GMOs exist for one reason only: for the chemical companies who make them to enable themselves to sell more chemicals to farmers. Do not, I repeat, do not fall for any marketing sales efforts that claim GMOs will help feed the world and save farmers from drought. It’s a lie!!!!

And remember, as I write in “Organic Manifesto,” the only safety testing on humans or animals for GMOs is happening right now, on you, on your kids, and on farm animals around the world. Early results are showing everything from digestive failure to kidney and liver failure and accelerated aging. Terrible stuff.

Here are 10 ways to avoid GMOs:

1. Buy USDA-certified organic food. It is currently the only official way you can avoid GMOs, since GMOs are not allowed to be used according to USDA organic regulations. THANK YOU, GOVERNMENT! (For once!)

2. Avoid all nonorganic soy products like the plague. That means things like nonorganic veggie burgers, tofu, tempeh, edamame, and miso products.

3. Don’t buy anything that claims to be “non-dairy” that isn’t organic. Soy is used to create everything from Cool Whip to Coffee-Mate…in addition to the obvious non-dairy soy treats in your health-food store freezer. Yup, they are filled with GMOs, too.

4. Don’t buy or eat anything with corn in it that isn’t organic. That means corn chips, cereals with corn (or soy, for that matter), or even corn bread!

5. At all costs, eliminate high-fructose corn syrup (a.k.a. “corn sugar”) from your diet. It is just an excuse for chemical companies to convince farmers they can keep growing GMO corn and poisoning you and your family.

6. Avoid biofuels and ethanol; they’re a toxic GMO festival. No one seems to care if corn is poisoned if it’s just going to drive our cars. Problem is, we are all being poisoned by it.

Read the rest here:

We just finished the first ever Non-GMO month in October. Let’s make it a Non-GMO year!

Read more, great Fight Back Friday posts here:

Read more, great Pennywise Platter Thursday posts here:

Read more, great Real Food Wednesday posts here:

Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality

Here’s another article that Jeffrey gave us permission to share, in his wonderful speaker training.

Moms – if you are feeding your babies soy formula – it IS GMO – read the below.

Non-GMO day is this coming Sunday – lets all call the companies that make baby formula and tell them that we DON’T want GMOs – genetically modified soybeans –  in baby formula:

Mead Johnson makes Enfamil, Pregestimil, Nutramigen, and Nutramigen AA – 1-847-832-2420

Abbott Labs Ross division makes Similac, Isomil, Alimentum, and EleCare (800) 551-5838

Nestlé the largest producer of formula in the world, makes Good Start; owns Gerber, 1-800-284-9488


Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality

By Jeffrey M. Smith

April 20, 2010

“This study was just routine,” said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century. Surov and his colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. What he discovered may uproot a multi-billion dollar industry.

After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.

And if this isn’t shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths—a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy.

The study, jointly conducted by Surov’s Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security, is expected to be published in three months (July 2010)—so the technical details will have to wait. But Surov sketched out the basic set up for me in an email.

He used Campbell hamsters, with a fast reproduction rate, divided into 4 groups. All were fed a normal diet, but one was without any soy, another had non-GM soy, a third used GM soy, and a fourth contained higher amounts of GM soy. They used 5 pairs of hamsters per group, each of which produced 7-8 litters, totally 140 animals.

Surov told The Voice of Russia,

“Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs’ growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly.”

He selected new pairs from each group, which generated another 39 litters. There were 52 pups born to the control group and 78 to the non-GM soy group. In the GM soy group, however, only 40 pups were born. And of these, 25% died. This was a fivefold higher death rate than the 5% seen among the controls. Of the hamsters that ate high GM soy content, only a single female hamster gave birth. She had 16 pups; about 20% died.

Surov said “The low numbers in F2 [third generation] showed that many animals were sterile.”

The published paper will also include measurements of organ size for the third generation animals, including testes, spleen, uterus, etc. And if the team can raise sufficient funds, they will also analyze hormone levels in collected blood samples.

Hair Growing in the Mouth

Earlier this year, Surov co-authored a paper in Doklady Biological Sciences showing that in rare instances, hair grows inside recessed pouches in the mouths of hamsters.

“Some of these pouches contained single hairs; others, thick bundles of colorless or pigmented hairs reaching as high as the chewing surface of the teeth. Sometimes, the tooth row was surrounded with a regular brush of hair bundles on both sides. The hairs grew vertically and had sharp ends, often covered with lumps of a mucous.”

(The photos of these hair bundles are truly disgusting. Trust me, or look for yourself.)

At the conclusion of the study, the authors surmise that such an astounding defect may be due to the diet of hamsters raised in the laboratory. They write, “This pathology may be exacerbated by elements of the food that are absent in natural food, such as genetically modified (GM) ingredients (GM soybean or maize meal) or contaminants (pesticides, mycotoxins, heavy metals, etc.).” Indeed, the number of hairy mouthed hamsters was much higher among the third generation of GM soy fed animals than anywhere Surov had seen before.

Preliminary, but Ominous

Surov warns against jumping to early conclusions. He said, “It is quite possible that the GMO does not cause these effects by itself.” Surov wants to make the analysis of the feed components a priority, to discover just what is causing the effect and how.

In addition to the GMOs, it could be contaminants, he said, or higher herbicide residues, such as Roundup. There is in fact much higher levels of Roundup on these beans; they’re called “Roundup Ready.” Bacterial genes are forced into their DNA so that the plants can tolerate Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Therefore, GM soy always carries the double threat of higher herbicide content, couple with any side effects of genetic engineering.

Years of Reproductive Disorders from GMO-Feed

Surov’s hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce.

In a telling coincidence, after Ermakova’s feeding trials, her laboratory started feeding all the rats in the facility a commercial rat chow using GM soy. Within two months, the infant mortality facility-wide reached 55%.

When Ermakova fed male rats GM soy, their testicles changed from the normal pink to dark blue! Italian scientists similarly found changes in mice testes (PDF), including damaged young sperm cells. Furthermore, the DNA of embryos from parent mice fed GM soy functioned differently.

An Austrian government study published in November 2008 showed that the more GM corn was fed to mice, the fewer the babies they had (PDF), and the smaller the babies were.

Central Iowa Farmer Jerry Rosman also had trouble with pigs and cows becoming sterile. Some of his pigs even had false pregnancies or gave birth to bags of water. After months of investigations and testing, he finally traced the problem to GM corn feed. Every time a newspaper, magazine, or TV show reported Jerry’s problems, he would receive calls from more farmers complaining of livestock sterility on their farm, linked to GM corn.

Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine accidentally discovered that rats raised on corncob bedding “neither breed nor exhibit reproductive behavior.” Tests on the corn material revealed two compounds that stopped the sexual cycle in females “at concentrations approximately two-hundredfold lower than classical phytoestrogens.” One compound also curtailed male sexual behavior and both substances contributed to the growth of breast and prostate cancer cell cultures. Researchers found that the amount of the substances varied with GM corn varieties. The crushed corncob used at Baylor was likely shipped from central Iowa, near the farm of Jerry Rosman and others complaining of sterile livestock.

In Haryana, India, a team of investigating veterinarians report that buffalo consuming GM cottonseed suffer from infertility, as well as frequent abortions, premature deliveries, and prolapsed uteruses. Many adult and young buffalo have also died mysteriously.

Denial, Attack and Canceled Follow-up

Scientists who discover adverse findings from GMOs are regularly attacked, ridiculed, denied funding, and even fired. When Ermakova reported the high infant mortality among GM soy fed offspring, for example, she appealed to the scientific community to repeat and verify her preliminary results. She also sought additional funds to analyze preserved organs. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Samples were stolen from her lab, papers were burnt on her desk, and she said that her boss, under pressure from his boss, told her to stop doing any more GMO research. No one has yet repeated Ermakova’s simple, inexpensive studies.

In an attempt to offer her sympathy, one of her colleagues suggested that maybe the GM soy will solve the over population problem!

Surov reports that so far, he has not been under any pressure.

Opting Out of the Massive GMO Feeding Experiment

Without detailed tests, no one can pinpoint exactly what is causing the reproductive travesties in Russian hamsters and rats, Italian and Austrian mice, and livestock in India and America. And we can only speculate about the relationship between the introduction of genetically modified foods in 1996, and the corresponding upsurge in low birth weight babies, infertility, and other problems among the US population. But many scientists, physicians, and concerned citizens don’t think that the public should remain the lab animals for the biotech industry’s massive uncontrolled experiment.

Alexey Surov says, “We have no right to use GMOs until we understand the possible adverse effects, not only to ourselves but to future generations as well. We definitely need fully detailed studies to clarify this. Any type of contamination has to be tested before we consume it, and GMO is just one of them.”

To learn more about the health dangers of GMOs, and what you can do to help end the genetic engineering of our food supply, visit

To learn how to choose healthier non-GMO brands, visit

International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey Smith is the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified (GM) foods. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on the topic. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, provides overwhelming evidence that GMOs are unsafe and should never have been introduced. Mr. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, whose Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to create the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs, forcing them out of our food supply.

Below’s a link to Jeffrey’s must read, Genetic Roulette:

Read more, great Fight Back Friday posts here:

Read more, great Pennywise Platter Thursday posts here:

Read more, great Real Food Wednesday posts here:

The Tipping Point

I just finished taking a fabulous 5 session GMO activist training with Jeffrey Smith. He’s so knowledgeable about GMO’s and about how to pass along the information about them in an empowering way.  This year the focus is to reach the tipping point where consumers outright reject GMO’s.  Monsanto would like us to just eat organic foods to avoid GMO’s but what will really make an impact is when we are telling the processed food companies that we will not eat there products until they are GMO free.  See our ‘What You Can Do’ page for the phone numbers of the Frankenfood Fifteen,

They can make their same products, in exactly the same way but without the GMO ingredients. Since I don’t what my kids to be the lab rats for the untested GMO food, I am boycotting any processed foods until they no longer use any GMO ingredients. If we hit them in their profit margin, they will pay attention!

Here’s an article from Jeffrey Smith, posted with permission.


It’s time to reclaim a food supply without dangerous genetically modified organisms (GMOs). And we can do it—together.

When European consumers said no to GMOs, the food companies kicked them out. As more and more US consumers rejected GM bovine growth hormone, most dairies and brands, including Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, Dannon, and Yoplait, responded.

No we are joining forces nationwide in the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America—designed to achieve the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMO to force them out of the market.

October is Non-GMO Month and 10-10-10 is Non-GMO Day. Between now and then, we will send out a series of articles you won’t want to miss.

Find out:

•About the serious documented health risks of genetically modified (GM) foods.

•Why children and pregnant mothers are most at risk.

•How scientists who uncovered these findings were threatened, vilified, and fired.

•About the sneaky ways the industry scientists rig their research to avoid problems.

•The way the biotech industry hijacked the FDA and regulators worldwide, and ignored the warnings of their own scientists about GMO health risks.

•Which brands are non-GMO, so you can protect yourself and your family.

•What you can do to make this campaign go viral.

•Why even 5% of US consumers choosing healthier non-GMO brands could achieve a tipping point, eliminating GMOs for the rest of the nation.

After you read these articles, please pass them onto your entire network, and encourage them to do the same.

It is past time for us to look to the government to bail us out of this mess. We are on the top of the food chain, and we can make things happen—together.

Safe eating.

Jeffrey M. Smith

To learn more about the health dangers of GMOs, and what you can do to help end the genetic engineering of our food supply, visit

To learn how to choose healthier non-GMO brands, visit

International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey Smith is the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified (GM) foods. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on the topic. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, provides overwhelming evidence that GMOs are unsafe and should never have been introduced. Mr. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, whose Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to create the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs, forcing them out of our food supply. Watch the free online video today, for the big picture.

Read more great, Fight Back Friday posts here:

Read more great, Pennywise Platter Thursday posts here:

Read more great, Real Food Wednesday posts here:

You can buy Genetic Roulette by Jeffrey Smith, at Amazon, link below. Highly Recommended!

GMOs in the News

GMO’s in the news

Genetically modified food introduces host of dangers

Sen. Richard Lugar’s (R-Ind.)  bill touting genetically modified (GM)  foods is emblematic of well-meaning leaders who have been duped by the biotech industry about safety – yet again.  The Lugar-Casey Food Security Bill states foreign aid shall be used to conduct research on genetically modified organisms (GMOs)  without offering other options. It is time that Congress holds hearings to learn what lobbyist won’t tell them about what’s in their children’s diet.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) cites horrific results of GMO animal feeding studies, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, organ damage and gastrointestinal disorders. AAEM called for an immediate moratorium and asks physicians to prescribe non-GMO diets to all patients.

How did these high-risk products get in our food? Under the false impression that GMOs would increase U.S. exports, the Bush Administration instructed the FDA to fast-track approvals. The agency dutifully allowed GMOs onto our plates without a single required safety study or label. They justified their position claiming GM foods were not significantly different, but a 1998 lawsuit exposed this ruse. Subpoenaed FDA documents revealed the actual consensus among their scientists was that GMOs could lead to allergies, toxins, diseases and nutritional problems.

It’s time for our leaders, and the public, to know the whole story.

Jeffrey M. Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, Fairfield, Iowa


Experts Debunk Calls to Allow GMOs in Organics

    * By Ken Roseboro, ed.

      The Organic and Non-GMO Report, May 2010

      Straight to the Source

To Subscribe to the Non-GMO Report call 1-800-854-0586 or visit

Supporters of biotechnology have proposed integrating genetically modified organisms into organic agriculture. Spearheading this concept are Pamela Ronald, a professor of plant pathology at the University of California- Davis, and her husband Raoul Adamchak, an organic farmer at the UC-Davis’s certified organic farm. The two co-authored a book, Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food, which argues that combining both systems of agriculture-genetic engineering and organic techniques-offers the best solution to feeding the world in a sustainable way.

Tomorrow’s Table has been praised by GM crop supporters such as Bill Gates, and even by Stewart Brand, creator of the Whole Earth Catalog.

Working with vs. controlling nature

But several noted experts in organic agriculture dismiss the idea, saying the two approaches are fundamentally at odds. They say that genetically modified foods raise health and environmental concerns, narrow genetic diversity, reduce consumer choice, and don’t offer proven solutions to organic agriculture.

Dag Falck, organic program manager at Nature’s Path Foods, calls the proposed marriage of GMOs and organics a “non-starter for a conversation.”

“Organic is always looking to nature for answers; it is a very thought out and studied high-input agricultural system.”

Jim Riddle, organic outreach coordinator at the University of Minnesota and past chairman of the National Organic Standards Board, says “Organic agriculture is based on the establishment of a harmonious relationship with the agricultural ecosystem by farming in harmony with nature. Genetic engineering is based on the exact opposite-an attempt to control nature at its most intimate level-the genetic code.”

Health risks

Most organic experts point to health risks surrounding GM foods as a major reason why GMOs could never be integrated into organic agriculture.

Pamela Ronald has written that “there has not been a single case of illness associated with these (GM) crops.” This claim is often repeated by proponents of biotechnology but the reality is that no one knows if anyone has gotten sick eating GM foods because there is no monitoring to see if illnesses are linked to GM foods. “There is no data from independent, long-term studies on the human health impacts from eating GM crops,” says Tim LaSalle, chief executive officer of the Rodale Institute.

Others agree. “Right now, we clearly don’t know enough about GMOs to integrate them into anything,” says David Vetter, president of Grain Place Foods and organic farmer of 35 years.

“GM crops are comprised of novel genetic constructs which have never been part of the human diet and may not be recognized by the intestinal system as digestible food, leading to the possible relationship between genetic engineering and a dramatic increase in food allergies, obesity, diabetes, and other food-related diseases,” Riddle says.

Environmental impacts

Organic experts see opposite impacts on the environment with the two approaches. “Organic agriculture is based on the fundamental principle of building and maintaining healthy soil, aquatic, and terrestrial ecosystems,” Riddle says. “To date, GM has led to an increase in the application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, with associated increases in soil erosion and water contamination, while producing foods with lower nutritional content.”

“Organic farming is about concerns for environment and stewardship, and I don’t think that GM crops fit in that context of stewardship and concern for the land,” says Maury Johnson, president, Blue River Hybrids, an organic seed company.

While organic farming aims to enhance genetic and biological diversity, GM crops are seen as reducing genetic diversity. “GM crops narrow and restrict our genetic base, which narrows and reduces options for our nutritional needs,” Vetter says.

Ronald and Adamchak point to the success of Bt cotton in reducing pesticide use as an example of how genetic engineering could benefit organic farmers. Kirschenmann says this “single tactic therapeutic intervention” creates unintended consequences. Pests eventually develop resistance as they’ve done to Bt cotton in India or other pests become a problem. The solution, says Kirschenmann, is an approach that encompasses the entire farming system, not just focusing on one pest.

“Pipe dream, not based on reality”

Organic experts say GMOs offer no benefits to organic agriculture. The two main genetically modified traits are a built-in pesticide, Bt, and herbicide tolerance. Dag Falck says neither application could benefit organic agriculture. “There is no GM application we could even remotely imagine being beneficial in organic. It’s a pipe dream and not based on reality.”

“To this point, biotech crops have not produced the yield advantages or biological resilience to multiple stressors. If we’re looking for reliable, multi-benefit, future-oriented farming options in an inputlimited world, biotech is not a player,” LaSalle says.

Eliminate consumer choice

Allowing GMOs into organic foods would also reduce consumer choice. “If genetic engineering became part of organic it would deprive people who want non-GMO foods,” says Margaret Mellon, senior scientist at Union of Concerned Scientists.

Organic consumers have already said they don’t want GMOs. A 1997 draft proposal to allow GMOs in the National Organic Program rules was removed after the US Department of Agriculture received more than 275,000 comments from people outraged by the possibility.

While there is strong consumer demand for organic foods, Riddle points out there is zero demand for GM foods. “Consumers aren’t demanding that foods be genetically engineered.”

“I’d rather rely on mother nature’s wisdom than man’s cleverness.” -Wendell Berry

David Vetter says this quote best captures his response to the idea of allowing GMOs in organics.

Any decision to allow GMOs in organics would not be decided by Pamela Ronald, Raoul Adamchak, Bill Gates, or the Biotechnology Industry Organization. “It resides with people in the organic community,” said Mellon, speaking to an audience of organic farmers at the Organic Farming Conference this past February. “It is your question to answer and not anyone else’s.”

Today, the answer remains-as it did in 1997 when 275,000 people told the USDA-a resounding “no.”

U.S. attempting global censorship of GMO food labeling

(NaturalNews) I received an urgent alert from Jeffrey Smith today about a dangerous situation taking place right now at the international CODEX conference. The U.S. is attempting to push its agenda to censor all GMO labeling of foods everywhere around the world. This would result in a global GMO cover-up as consumers are left in the dark about whether their foods and grocery products are genetically modified or not.

Your help is urgently needed to send a message to the Secretaries of State (Clinton), Agriculture (Vilsack), and Health and Human Services (Sebelius) to urge them to halt the USA’s nefarious attempts to install a global GMO deception.

Take part in this online petition, go here:

Please understand that the U.S. is attempting to outlaw non-GMO labeling of foods, thereby making it illegal for a non-GMO food product to even claim “non-GMO” on the label. If the U.S. succeeds in this global GMO cover-up, the FDA could seize any products in the USA that make “non-GMO” claims. Additionally, the USA could file lawsuits through the World Trade Organization against any country that allows non-GMO labeling or claims on its products.

Why is the U.S. pursuing such a devious and sinister course of action? Because, as you well know, virtually the entire federal government caters to the financial interests of powerful corporations — and these include the “Big Ag” giants like Monsanto that want to patent all seeds while destroying the no-GMOs movement. They want to turn non-GMO foods into violations of the law and thereby strip all such products from store shelves.

They want to keep American consumers left in the dark, ignorant of the real dangers posed by GMOs. And of course, they want to dominate the entire U.S. food supply with their toxic GMO crops.

These powerful, dangerous corporations are willing to do anything to achieve their global agenda, including forcing GMO censorship on the entire world.

They might just get away with it, too, unless you join us in speaking up right now to oppose this devious and dangerous action.

Add your voice to the online petition right here:

Health Ranger interviews Jeffrey Smith

Watch my recent interview with Jeffrey Smith at the Health Freedom Expo in California.

Here, Jeffrey reveals the astounding truth about how dangerous GMOs really are for your health:

Check out the Non-GMO shopping guide

The non-profit Center for Food Safety offers a fantastic free Non-GMO Shopping Guide available at

Check it out. There, you can learn which products are truly non-GMO, and you can learn how to avoid products that are most likely made with GMOs.

It teaches you to avoid corn, soybeans, canola and cottonseed ingredients, among other things. It’s sponsored by some of the most responsible natural products companies in the business: Nutiva, Nature’s Path, Straus, Woodstock Farms and others.

NaturalNews plans to expand its coverage of GMOs in the weeks ahead. Watch for more updates as this saga on GMOs is unveiled.

Read more great, Fight Back Friday posts here:

Read more great, Real Food Wednesday posts here:

Why Do People Hate Monsanto

Why Do People Hate Monsanto?

By Jim Duncan, reprinted with permission of the author.

Monsanto – Crown Prince of the New Robber Barons

We keep hearing an old story that should have died years ago: An organic farmer invites his children’s city cousins to visit. After the urban kids reveal that they eat McDonalds French fries twice a day, the farmer decides to experiment by having his own kids lay down in a field next to the city kids. After awhile, the farm kids are swatting away potato beetles but not single beetle comes near their city cousins.

True believers of this story are aware of some little known history. In the 1990’s, Monsanto released a “new leaf” potato genetically engineered with enough Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to repel potato beetles. McDonalds bought new leaf potatoes for its fries. No studies were ever done on the long term effects on people who consumed large quantities of such potatoes. We have never met any such storytellers who could identify an actual farmer who performed this test, so the story was always probably apocryphal. It’s undoubtedly so today because the new leaf potato never gained more than a five per cent share of the market, McDonalds quit buying them back in 2000 and Monsanto retired them soon afterwards.

The story lives on though because it incorporates the main ingredients of an urban (rural) legend – a worrisome hypothesis, an entertaining application and a logical conclusion. Therefore, it keeps finding new tellers among the growing tribe of those who are suspicious of industrial agriculture and all it represents.

Monsanto is the new Standard Oil, the corporation that typifies today the same relentless dominance of its industry that John D. Rockefeller’s company did in the Gilded Age. Like the old robber barons, Monsanto has successfully enlisted government support that helped them privatize profits while socializing the real costs of their products through subsidies, write-offs (of health and environmental damage) and ruthless stifling of both dissent and competition. Because both Monsanto and Standard Oil extracted the raw materials of their new technologies from the earth, with only a secondary regard for sustainability, they have been equally vilified by conservationists, naturalists and anyone who ever got in the way of their will.

In historical hindsight, it’s hard to hate Standard Oil. Few of us would choose to return to the days of whale oil lighting, steam engine transportation and pre-plastic economies. Though civilization might have found its way through the 20th century without Rockefeller’s indomitable guidance, it surely would not have done so as quickly or brightly. If governments turned their eyes away from the tactics of the old robbers barons it was because they had sold themselves as agents of a future prosperity that would trickle down to all. Monsanto similarly enjoys a privileged access through revolving doors of government because they have sold themselves as agents for universal prosperity.

Probably another hundred years will tell for sure but Monsanto has already convinced their farmer customers that they are “feeding the world” through higher yields, “saving the environment” with reduced use of pesticides and, lately, “promoting sustainability” by using seeds that are genetically modified to require less water. (That latter message has particularly irked the audience of National Public Radio where it’s been played via Monsanto sponsorship announcements.) On paper, those sound like reasonable endorsements for Monsanto’s technological innovations. Yet, that company has alienated so many people that it’s hard to find folks within the organic community who don’t believe Monsanto’s claims are disingenuous. How on earth did they manage to do that? Let’s begin to count the ways.

1. Impudently patenting mother earth. Monsanto, more than any other company, appropriated the concept of intellectual property rights to control farmers. To purchase their genetically modified seeds, a farmer must sign an “end-user agreement” that limits what he can do with them. Agreements are considered necessary to protect intellectual property, justifiably precluding replications that make the seeds unique. However, Monsanto and their ilk also explicitly forbid the use of the seeds for independent research. Scientists can be sued if they examine whether such genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects. Thus the only research that ever gets published in peer-reviewed journals is that approved by industrial seed companies. According the Scientific American, “In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering.”

2. Bullying law suits. Monsanto’s lawyers spent a decade tracking down farmers who might have saved seeds for replanting, like responsible farmers have done since civilization began. They sued them and broke them. They also sued a number of organic dairy farmers who advertised that their milk came from cows that had not been fed bovine growth stimulants. Monsanto, which owned the most commercially successful such stimulant rBGH, claimed such ads implied there was something wrong with their product. With control over most research, Monsanto almost always won such cases.

3. Sterilizing Mother Earth. In 1998, the infamous US Patent # 5,723,765 threatened to change farming forever by giving Delta & Pine Land Co. rights to a new technology that sterilizes seeds, as well as any other seeds contaminated by them. Named genetic use restriction technology (GURT) and nicknamed The Terminator, it was frightfully unpopular in countries like India where farmers still primarily grow foods with seeds saved from previous crops. Monsanto pledged a moratorium on commercialization of Terminator technology but then it bought Delta & Pine Co. The Terminator would free Monsanto lawyers from hunting down farmers who save their seeds, so their pledge is viewed cynically by many folks.

4. Sterilizing Mother Earth – unless. GURT’s latest form, called reversible transgenic sterility, is nicknamed The Zombie and appears to be Monsanto’s way around its pledge. Whereas Terminator technology produces plants with sterile seeds, Zombie technology requires an annual chemical application (patented and sold by guess whom) to trigger fertility.

5. Bullying the media. Monsanto’s influence has long managed to kill stories unfavorable to the company, That is most famously documented in the movie “The Corporation” and in Jeffrey Smith‘s book “Genetic Roulette and Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods.” Both documented a 1990’s case in which a Fox-affiliated television station in Florida killed a thoroughly researched story about ill effects from milk produced by dairy cows given Monsanto’s rBGH.

6. Blatantly influencing FDA and USDA policy. Revolving doors swing between industry and government agencies all over the world but Monsanto’s manipulation of them has left its critics with jaws agape. Anyone who thought things might change in the Obama Administration was dismayed by this summer’s appointment of Monsanto’s former Vice President for Public Policy as Special Assistant to the FDA Commissioner – for Food Safety. Michael Taylor is credited with ushering Monsanto’s rBGH through the FDA regulatory process and into the milk supply – unlabeled. He is also regarded as responsible for the FDA’s decision to treat genetically modified organisms as “substantially equivalent” to natural foods and therefore not requiring any safety studies. That “substantially equivalent” ruling allowed the FDA to ignore evidence that genetically engineered foods are in fact quite different from natural foods and pose specific health risks.

With Taylor back in charge of implementing whatever food safety laws Congress might pass, Monsanto’s opponents are growing. They now have an entire line of anti-Monsanto T-shirts ( Most ask people to trust GMO’s based on past performances of products Monsanto would like us to forget – agent orange, P.C.B., aspartame, etc. Our favorite says “Soil is Soul” and “Monsanto deals in dirt.” That’s why many of the others are too dirty for us to print.

Reprinted with permission from Jim, from:

Thanks Jim!

Read more, great Fight Back Friday posts here:

Read more, great Pennywise Thursday Posts here:

Read more, great Real Food Wednesday Posts here:

A Day of No GMO Demonstrating

(Sheila and I at the Demonstration)

We had a wonderful gathering yesterday at the San Diego Convention Center. 

There was a Science Conference, and Monsanto was there talking about their ‘sustainable’ plans for the future of food.  (It’s unconscionable that they’re using the word ‘sustainable’ in their talks about the devastating destruction they are doing to our food and environment)

I first heard about the demonstration last Wednesday from my friend Sheila. (thank you Sheila!) She belongs to a San Diego Community Farm & Garden meet up group and it was Carly who first suggested getting people together to demonstrate.

Everyone was terrific about getting the word out. I think we had at least 100 people there with only a 3-4 day advance notice. The signs were fantastic and Tim spent over an hour leading us in some great chants as we marched in front of the convention center.

It’s been so long since I’ve demonstrated, that I wasn’t sure what to expect. Was the convention center going to tell us to leave?  Would the police come?  Well, the security at the center was wonderful. They only asked us not to block the crosswalks and other then that left us alone.  The people from the conference for the most part were great as well. Some ignored us and some took brochures and flyers and asked questions too.

My hope, with Moms For Safe Food has always been to educate. I think there are many people who still don’t even know that GMO’s exist and I do think we reached a great number of people yesterday.

The Institute of Responsible Technology sent me a box of Non-GMO shopping guides and other wonderful resources.

Sean Croxton of Underground Wellness brought a backpack full of The Institues ‘GMO Health Risk Brochures’.  I gave away every last shopping guide and there were a number of us passing out the brochures.  Sean has a great video of the day here:

It was such an empowering experience joining together with a group of people who are also committed to spreading the truth of what Monsanto is doing to our food supply and environment. It is my sincere hope that this is the first of many more demonstrations. Power to the People!

Read more great, Fight Back Friday posts here:

Read more great, Pennywise Platter Thursday posts here:

Read more great, Read Food Wednesday Posts here:

GMOs in the News

Non-GMO label getting a local push by Lundberg Family Farms


Posted Jan. 11th

RICHVALE — Lundberg Family Farms is among the leaders in a trend to label foods as non-GMO.

GMO stands for genetically modified organisms, which are created through transferring genes from one organism to another.

Most Americans consume genetically modified foods every day. The majority of soy, cotton, corn and canola grown in the United States contains genetically modified crops, most of which have been altered to resist pests and weeds.

Other genetically modified foods may contain higher nutrients, are more tolerant to adverse growing conditions or produce higher yields.

Previously there has been no organized system in the United States for people to know whether the foods they buy contain GMOs.

Over the past two years, Lundberg Family Farms, which produces organic rice products, and others in the organic industry have created a new labeling system and verification process to label foods as “non-GMO.”

The group is a nonprofit organization called the Non-GMO project.

Grant Lundberg, chief executive officer of his family’s business in Richvale, said Lundberg Family Farms has long been opposed to genetically modified foods, created through biotechnology.

Some genetically modified crops, such as corn and soybeans, spread pollen easily and can cross-pollinate with other crops, Lundberg explained.

“There is the potential to lose a lot of genetic history because when a product is released, it is very hard to keep it contained,” Lundberg said.

Some food consumers have also had difficulty if they want to buy foods that do not contain genetic modifications.

About two years ago, the company that specializes in organic rice products joined other natural food companies to develop a nonprofit group to label non-GMO products, “to give the consumers an informed choice about what they are eating,” Lundberg said.

The program has set up a “supply chain from seed breeders all the way through to retailers and consumers,” he continued.

The program includes a third-party verification process, followed by inclusion of the non-GMO label.

“We know our customers have those concerns,” Lundberg said. “The person who goes into the natural food store has certain expectations of their food. Our hope for the project is that we’re creating a standard.”

Other companies that helped fund the labeling project include Whole Foods Market, Eden Organic, Nature’s Path and United Natural Foods.

Lundberg said many foreign countries, including Japan, Australia and the European Union, require labeling if products contain genetically modified foods, which creates a trade barrier for some U.S. products.

“The general U.S. ag policy has been pro-GMO,” Lundberg said.

Currently, 50 brands in the United States and Canada have signed up for the new non-GMO project, he said, accounting for about 3,000 products.

Part of the labeling criteria includes a protocol to trace, test and segregate foods used, said Megan Westgate, executive director for the Non-GMO Project, based in Southern California.

The standard chosen by the group is 0.9 percent or less GMOs in foods — the same standards used in the European Union, Westgate explained.

The goal of the program is to make testing very efficient, so companies that do not use genetically modified foods don’t end up spending a lot of money on testing.

For example, Westgate said, 91 percent of soy grown in the United States is genetically modified. If a company uses soy oil, testing each truckload could cost up to $16,000 a year.

But if the soy oil is tested further up the supply chain, the cost for testing is greatly reduced, she said.

“We’re creating a structure in making non-GMO an affordable and practical thing.

“The most efficient place to test is when a crop is processed,” Westgate said.

In the next couple of months, companies will be using up the remainder of their packaging material and rolling out with the redesigned containers that include the non-GMO seal.

She said the hope is that people will see the labels and become more informed about GMOs.


Supermarket News Forecasts Non-GMO uprising

By Jeffrey Smith

Author and founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology

Posted: January 8, 2010 05:26 PM

For a couple of years, the Institute for Responsible Technology has predicted that the US would soon experience a tipping point of consumer rejection against genetically modified foods; a change we’re all helping to bring about. Now a December article in Supermarket News supports both our prediction and the role the Institute is playing.

“The coming year promises to bring about a greater, more pervasive awarenes” of the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food supply, wrote Group Editor Robert Vosburgh, in a trade publication that conventional food executives and retailers use as a primary source of news and trends in the industry. Vosburgh describes how previous food “culprits” like fat and carbs “can even define the decade in which they were topical,” and suggests that GMOs may finally burst through into the public awareness and join their ranks.

Vosburgh credits two recent launches with “the potential to spark a new round of concern among shoppers who are today much more attuned to the ways their food is produced.” One is our Institute’s new non-GMO website, which, he says, “provides consumers with a directory of non-GMO brands . . . developed for the 53% of Americans who say they would avoid GMOs if labeled.'”

The other launch is the Non-GMO Project, offering “the country’s first consensus-based guidelines, which include third-party certification and a uniform seal for approved products. . . . The organization also requires documented traceability and segregation to ensure the tested ingredients are what go into the final product.”

He alerts supermarket executives that, “the growth of the organic (which bans GMO ingredients), local and green product categories reflects a generation of consumers who could be less tolerant of genetic modification.”

Please allow me to sit back with an I-told-you-so grin of satisfaction. Two years ago, I wrote a newsletter article describing three components that would move the market on GMOs:

1. The Non-GMO Project’s new “widely accepted definition for non-GMO” would spark a GMO cleanout, starting with the brands in the natural food industry.

    Our Institute endorses the Non-GMO Project and encourages food companies to enroll their products with this excellent nonprofit organization. Their official seal was introduced in October 2009 and has quickly become the national standard for meaningful non-GMO claims.

2. “Providing clear Non-GMO product choices” with our Non-GMO Shopping Guide would make it easier for consumers to select “non-GMO products by brand and category.”

    The same Guide is available as a website, a spread in magazines, a pocket guide, a two-sided download, and coming soon, a mobile phone application.

3. “Educating Health-Conscious Shoppers” about the health effects of GMOs is the key means by which GMOs will become a marketing liability—the next culprit.

From, and read the rest here:

Will Organic farmers embrace GM crops to help feed the world?

Posted on: January 14, 2010 12:19 PM, by Pamela Ronald

In an interview with The Times, Gordon Conway, Professor of International Development at Imperial College London and a former government adviser said that the ban on organic farmers using GM crops was based on an excessively rigid rejection of synthetic approaches to farming and a misconception that natural ways were safer and more environment- friendly than man-made ones.

I completely agree with Gordon Conway that it makes sense for farmers to use the most powerful tools available to make their production more sustainable. Still, I think it unlikely in the short term that organic farmers will embrace the concept.

It is not that feeding the world, health of the consumers or care of the land are unimportant issues, it is just that the organic “brand” is now making a lot of money for all in the industry (Farmers, food processors, large corporate retailers such as Whole Foods, etc) and so there is zero incentive to change certification rules.


If you go to the link above, there are some great comments and I’m sure we could all add some more!  – Mom

Read more, great Real Food Friday posts here:

Three Approved GMOs Linked to Organ Damage

Three Approved GMOs Linked to Organ Damage

by Rady Ananda

In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto’s GM maize.

All three varieties of GM corn, Mon 810, Mon 863 and NK 603, were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities. Made public by European authorities in 2005, Monsanto’s confidential raw data of its 2002 feeding trials on rats that these researchers analyzed is the same data, ironically, that was used to approve them in different parts of the world.

The Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and Universities of Caen and Rouen studied Monsanto’s 90-day feeding trials data of insecticide producing Mon 810, Mon 863 and Roundup® herbicide absorbing NK 603 varieties of GM maize.

The data “clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system,” reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.

Although different levels of adverse impact on vital organs were noticed between the three GMOs, the 2009 research shows specific effects associated with consumption of each GMO, differentiated by sex and dose.

Their December 2009 study appears in the International Journal of Biological Sciences (IJBS). This latest study conforms with a 2007 analysis by CRIIGEN on Mon 863, published in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, using the same data.

Monsanto rejected the 2007 conclusions, stating: “The analyses conducted by these authors are not consistent with what has been traditionally accepted for use by regulatory toxicologists for analysis of rat toxicology data.”1

In an email to me, Séralini explained that their study goes beyond Monsanto’s analysis by exploring the sex-differentiated health effects on mammals, which Doull, et al. ignored:

“Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data.”

Other problems with Monsanto’s conclusions

When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.

Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests “lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases,” wrote Seralini et al. in their Doull rebuttal.2

Further, Monsanto’s analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, “In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic non-GM equivalent.”

The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.

They have called for “an immediate ban on the import and cultivation of these GMOs and strongly recommend additional long-term (up to two years) and multi-generational animal feeding studies on at least three species to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods.”

Human health, of course, is of primary import to us, but ecological effects are also in play. Ninety-nine percent of GMO crops either tolerate or produce insecticide. This may be the reason we see bee colony collapse disorder and massive butterfly deaths. If GMOs are wiping out Earth’s pollinators, they are far more disastrous than the threat they pose to humans and other mammals.


Read more, great, Real Food Friday posts here:

Soy in prison diets prompts lawsuit

Soy in Illinois prison diets prompts lawsuit over health effects

Group says plant protein causes problems for inmates

By Monica Eng

December 21, 2009

Soy-enhanced chili mac, turkey patties with soy, soy-studded country gravy, soy-blend hot dogs, soy-spiked sloppy joes, Polish sausages packed with soy, soy chicken patties.

These aren’t items from the latest vegetarian diet, but rather dishes served over a week at Danville

Correctional Center, according to a recent menu. They’re also the basis of a lawsuit filed in U.S. District

Court this summer by nine plaintiffs who allege that the Illinois Department of Corrections is endangering

the health of the inmates — especially those with allergies, sensitivities and existing gastrointestinal and

thyroid problems — by serving them too much soy.

Tens of thousands of inmates in Illinois prisons are being fed “up to 100 grams” of soy protein a day,

according to the Weston A. Price Foundation, which is funding the lawsuit. The U.S. Food and Drug

Administration recommends consuming about 25 grams of soy protein per day.

Based in Washington, D.C., the foundation promotes the consumption of whole, traditional and

largely unprocessed foods. Foundation president Sally Fallon called the soy diet served in Illinois

prisons “the Tuskegee of the 21st century,” referring to the syphilis experiments performed on

African-Americans from the 1930s to ’70s. “Never before have we had a large population like this being served such a high level of soy with almost no other choice,” she said.

The plaintiffs are “suffering irreparable, actual harm by being forced to continue to eat food that has

too much soy in it,” according to an amended complaint filed in June.

The effects have ranged from acute allergic reactions and heart problems to gastrointestinal distress

and thyroid dysfunction, it says. Fallon said the foundation got involved after inmates from various Illinois facilities contacted her. Last month, the foundation hosted a local panel on the soy issue before its annual national conference in Schaumburg.

The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that would stop the Department of Corrections from serving

soy in Illinois prisons as well as damages from the prisons’ contracted health care provider.

The department says it started serving soy-enhanced foods in March 2004 as a cost-cutting measure.

But it declined to comment on most aspects of the pending litigation and is awaiting a ruling on its

motion to dismiss the suit.

Nancy Chapman, executive director of the Soyfoods Association of North America, said she doubts

prisoners are consuming as much soy as the foundation alleges. “One hundred grams of any protein from plants or animals would not be economically feasible and would be an enormous load on the kidneys,” Chapman said.

Prison menus indicate inmates are served as many as seven soy-enhanced “meat” entrees a week. But

the foundation contends the inmates consume more soy through cooking oils and soy cheeses as well

as baked products enhanced with soy protein concentrates.

Once the darling of the health-food community, soy — especially non-fermented and genetically

modified soy — has fallen out of favor in some health circles. Last year the American Heart

Association urged the FDA to stop recommending soy as a way to reduce heart disease risk, saying

“direct cardiovascular benefits of soy protein or isoflavones are minimal at best.”

Scientific studies have volleyed back and forth on whether high soy consumption reduces or increases

cancer risk, inhibits mineral absorption and affects sperm concentrations.

But most agree that soy, especially unfermented varieties, can cause problems with the thyroid

function and digestion.

Recommendations vary on how much soy is healthy to consume. The American Dietetic Association

“believes that up to two servings of soy per day for adults could be part of a healthy diet,” said

spokeswoman Christine Gerbstadt. Examples of a serving include a half-cup of edamame, a cup of

soy milk, a half-cup of tofu or a slice of bread in which soy flour is a component.

United Soybean Board consultant and researcher Mark Messina similarly recommends 15 to 20 grams

of soy protein per day. Eating one soy burger (14 grams) and a cup of soy milk (7 grams) would

exceed that level.

Thomas Salonis, a former inmate who is not a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said he nearly passed out in

2008 from gastrointestinal pain at the Hill Correctional Center in Galesburg.

He was diagnosed by a prison doctor as being allergic to soy — one of the eight most common food

allergies in the U.S., according to the FDA.

The doctor even wrote out a note, obtained by the Tribune, saying Salonis was allergic to soy. But the

prison made no changes, according to Salonis. Finally, after a hunger strike, he was offered work that

allowed him to buy instant soup from the commissary for his meals, he said.

The Department of Corrections says it accommodates medical diets but did not provide details as to


At the panel the Weston A. Price Foundation hosted in Rogers Park, Salonis spoke about suffering

soy-induced stomach pain and bloating in prison. “Gas was really an issue,” said Salonis, who was released from prison last fall. “And most of my (cellmates) were real big, and they were like, ‘Hey man you gotta take that somewhere else.’ But I was like, ‘Where am I gonna take it?’ The whole thing was just offensive.”

The legal complaint alleges that tests show all nine plaintiffs have hormone, lipid and enzyme levels

consistent with thyroid damage caused by soy. Messina said soy intake is an issue only for those with

pre-existing thyroid conditions and/or iodine deficiencies. All agree that people with soy allergies

should not eat it.

The foundation says the Department of Corrections obtains most of its soy from Archer Daniels

Midland through its contracts with Central Management Services, which oversees food procurement

for the prisons. ADM said it has a contract to provide texturized vegetable protein and soy protein

concentrates to the department, but neither party would disclose the amounts.

The foundation also contends prisons are serving genetically modified soy, which it says can further

aggravate allergic reactions and mineral absorption.

Research by Monsanto, which developed herbicide-resistant soy, has found that the genetically

modified product has up to 27 percent more of a potential allergen called trypsin inhibitor than other

soy, said Jeffrey Smith, author of “Seeds of Deception,” a book that criticizes genetically modified


ADM said it cannot determine whether the soy products they supply to the Department of Corrections

come from genetically modified beans. The foundation has received nearly 200 letters about soy from prisoners in Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York and Florida, according to Fallon, who urges a return to older food-service models. “Ten years ago many prisoners grew their own food,” she said. “They raised their beef, their chicken,

their vegetables and there was enough left over to sell it on the open market. … We need to go back to

that at prisons all over the country, teach them skills, get them outdoors in the sunlight with animals,

eating real nutritious foods so they can truly be rehabilitated back into society.”

When Fallon hears from families of soy-sensitive inmates, she urges them to send their incarcerated

relatives money so they can purchase foods from the commissary.

“We recommend sardines, summer sausage and, of all things, SPAM,” said Fallon, who usually

advocates eating chemical-free meat from pastured animals. “They supply good protein, stable fats,

vitamins A and D, and good minerals. They are in general very nutritious foods and provide just what

they are missing in their prison diet.” Fallon said the foundation also is concerned about the growing use of soy in institutions serving children and the elderly.

“Illinois has a pilot program to bring this kind of diet to the schools, to growing children,” she said.

Indeed, Chicago Public Schools menus incorporate soy-based texturized vegetable protein into their

meat products and regularly serve doughnuts made with soy flour. Despite the alleged suffering of inmates, Fallon says the diet in Illinois prisons presents an opportunity “to see what happens when you feed people soy with no other choices. This situation has brought it out into the open.”

[email protected]

Soy in Illinois prison diets prompts lawsuit over health effects – …

GMOs in the News

GMO’s in the news

Here’s some recent GMO news, from around the world.

GE FREE NORTHLAND (NZ) Press Release l0 December 2009

Local Communities Reject The Risks Of GMO Land Use

The telephone poll on genetic engineering, recently commissioned by the Northland/Auckland Councils, clearly shows Auckland and Northland residents seek stricter regulation of any genetically modified (GE) plants and animals grown in their areas (or an outright ban on such activities).

The GE poll results show that concerns are widespread and the councils on the Working Party have been vindicated in adopting a precautionary approach in response to the wishes of their communities. Two thirds or more of those questioned favor regulation that would make users of GMOs legally responsible for any environmental or economic harm

The poll found clear support from the Northland and Auckland communities for establishing a GE-Free Zone, meaning only producing food that is GM free.

GE FREE NORTHLAND supports Northland councils acting on a local level to put in place substantive rules protecting their constituents and the environment from GMO land use. Extended lobbying of central government to date has failed to produce any result and there are still inadequate rules to protect primary producers, consumers, and the environment from users of GMOs.

GE FREE NORTHLAND Chairman Martin Robinson said today he applauded the commitment of local government to address the critical GE issue, as central government continues to ignore the concerns of many eminent scientists, territorial authorities and our key markets, as well as the majority of New Zealanders.

“The government needs to listen to the community. It is time for a strategy to protect and manage the New Zealand brand. If we are to succeed as a country and profitably export food to the world, someone needs to be able to stop GE contamination, unsustainable factory farming, and the destruction of our international reputation which so many Kiwi primary producers rely on,” said Martin Robinson.

“It is critical that the interests of local government are protected and the wishes of their communities are addressed.”

Martin Robinson said genetic engineering and the lack of strict liability has galvanised Northlanders, with the issue raising one of the most serious biosecurity risks to the region.

Councils’ concerns about GE relate mainly to uncertainties over the economic risks to conventional and organic food producers, the uncertainties over who should bear liability relating to these risks, and the failure by central government agencies to perform professionally.

Without a strict liability regime, innocent third parties and local authorities remain at risk. Liability for unforeseen adverse effects of GE needs to be satisfactorily resolved before any GE experiments are permitted in Auckland/Northland peninsula.

The majority of New Zealanders don’t want to eat genetically engineered food, and they don’t want genetically engineered organisms released into their backyard.

Northland is a prime candidate for REGIONAL EXCLUSION ZONE designation, due to its geographical location and the risks GE presents to our economy and environment.


How to avoid genetically modified organisms (GMOs) food products

December 2, 12:18 PMRaleigh Environmental Health ExaminerMonica B

The Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) launched a new website that takes the guesswork out of how to avoid genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and gene-spliced food products. With polls indicating that 9 out of 10 Americans want GMOs labeled, 53% of Americans who say they would avoid GMOs if labeled. It also lists popular brands that don’t use ingredients from the eight GM crops such as GM soy and corn. It also lists dairy products that don’t allow the controversial GM bovine growth hormone.

If it’s not labeled organic, avoid products made with the “Big Four” GM crops: Corn, Soybeans, Canola, and Cottonseed, used in processed foods. Also, more than 50% of Hawaiian papaya is GM and a small amount of zucchini and yellow squash. Also, become familiar with their  list of invisible GM ingredients and avoid sugar from GM Sugar Beets.

The only feeding study done with humans showed that GMOs survived inside the stomach of the people eating GMO food. No follow-up studies were done. Various feeding studies in animals have resulted in potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, damaged immune systems, smaller brains, livers, and testicles, partial atrophy or increased density of the liver, odd shaped cell nuclei and other unexplained anomalies, false pregnancies and higher death rates.


Choice Organic Teas to be Non-GMO Verified

SEATTLE—Choice Organic Teas is the first tea company to enroll as an official participant in the Non-GMO Project’s Verification Program. The company’s flagship “Original” product line is in the process of being verified, with other products to follow.

The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization created by leaders in all sectors of the natural and organic products industry from the United States and Canada to offer consumers a consistent non-GMO choice for organic and natural products that are produced without genetic engineering or recombinant DNA technologies. It began as a collaborative effort among independent natural food retailers who wanted to ensure their customers had an abundant selection of clearly labeled, independently verified non-GMO choices. The Project verifies all types of products, including those (like tea) that are not yet produced commercially in GMO form. This allows shoppers to easily identify non-GMO items, and also helps reduce the likelihood of new GMO crops being commercialized.

“We’re proud to be at the forefront of yet another critical issue facing our industry and our customers,” says Ray Lacorte, head of operations for Choice Organic Teas. “By supporting the Non-GMO Project we hope to inspire other manufacturers to seek alternatives to GMOs into the future.”


GMOs could affect wildlife

Students Samantha Butenas, Brian Noland, Kyle Plyman and Mark Wagner examined the effects of genetically modified organisms on wildlife around the world.

“While genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have allowed for a new paradigm of development for agriculture, controversy remains as to the safety and potential adverse effects of GMOs on wildlife.

Insect populations in particular, whose destruction remains the object of many GMOs, have rapidly developed resistance to GMOs and the pesticides required for their maintenance. Genetically modified species of trees, also known as ‘Frankentrees,’ provide cause for concern about the potential imbalances that can result from GMOs.

In addition, genetically modified animals now allow for the realization of a ‘Frankenfuture’ of destructive potential for natural ecosystems and the wildlife they help to sustain.

Please visit our web site ( to learn more.”


And this is NOT good news:

Syngenta GMO maize finally approved for feed, food imports

Monday, 30 November 2009 15:05

After several months of impasse, Syngenta’s genetically modified maize type MIR604 has been finally approved by the European Commission today. The maize type has been authorised for food and feed uses as well as imports and processing in the EU (however growing it will not be allowed). The Commission says in a statement. Following to the EU’s decision, imports of soymeal and soybeans for animal feed could start again.

The request for authorization was addressed to EU Council after that the European Committee for Human Food and Animal Feed failed to find an agreement about the proposal – not in favor nor against it. Accordingly to the current legislation, the authorization request has then went back to the European Commission, which today has finally approved it.

“The MIR604 maize received a positive safety assessment from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) – which has been hit by recent polemics – and underwent the full authorisation procedure set up in the EU legislation”, the Commission said.