FDA Approves GMO Apples And Potatoes

Modern Farmer

Amazing non-browning GMO apples and potatoes from two different companies have officially passed FDA inspection. They are as safe and nutritious as non-modified versions, says the agency. Will customers agree?

When people think of genetically modified foods (or GMOs, the O standing for organisms), a common thought is of beastly, unnatural items: basketball-sized fruits that won’t spoil, pigs with chicken hearts, who knows! Scary stuff! But typically the real reasons to go into the DNA are much more mundane. Take the six new types of GMO potatoes and two new types of GMO apples that the FDA approved for consumption [in mid-March of this year]: they look just like regular produce! Except they won’t brown after you cut them.

Arctic Apple, which we’ve covered before, is the brand name for the two varieties of apple that have just been approved. You’ll be able to get either a Granny Smith or a Golden Delicious version, both of which have been modified to remove the enzyme that turns an apple brown after it’s been exposed to oxygen in the air. The enormous agribusiness corporation J.R. Simplot is responsible for the potatoes, which will be marketed under the name Innate and have been modified in a similar way—except with the addition of reducing acrylamide, a substance that shows up when you fry potatoes for chips or french fries and that may cause cancer (nobody’s quite sure yet).

The FDA is generally pro-, or at least not anti-GMO, and noted in Friday’s announcement that “people have been modifying plants for thousands of years through breeding and selection.” The agency also stated that after researching the new apples and potatoes, they are confident in stating that the produce is “as safe and nutritious as their conventional counterparts.” That means they’re safe to sell, though it’ll be up to the states to regulate further (Vermont, for example, wants mandatory labeling on all GMO products.)

The debate over GMOs isn’t likely to end with this announcement, but it does mark a new chapter: these are easy-to-understand modifications, and they’ll be available on store shelves. Whether people will buy them is yet to be seen.

Bill Gates, Monsanto, Chemtrails & Vaccines:The Critical Tie Points

(Liberty Beacon) The video contained in this article has many eye opening points and facts concerning Monsanto, GMO’s, Vaccines, Chemtrails, Bill Gates and their connections.

Many of us who are aware know or suspect there is a connection (the big picture) but lack the tie points.

This video provides some vital tie points and the possible motive! This video is not extremely detailed but does give references you can research (so be prepared to hit the ‘pause’ button). We have and it scares the hell out of us, but you judge for yourself …

The activity of aluminum appears to play a vital role in disrupting the maturation of the immune system in infants and children. Vaccines contain aluminum. Why put a substance that harms the immune system in vaccines?

Chemtrails saturate the ground with aluminum, fact. There is a concerted effort by Monsanto and other GMO related companies to produce aluminum resistant plants, a substance rarely seen in the soil?

Fluoride facilitates the movement of soft metals across the blood/brain barrier to infiltrate our brain tissue. Fluoride increases bone and other cancer rates. Cancer is a $500 Billion/Year medical industry.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was a known associate and attorney for Monsanto. He refuses to recuse himself on cases involving Monsanto…

How does all this and more tie together …

“If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are souls of those who live under tyranny.” -Thomas Jefferson

GMO fail: Monsanto foiled by feds, Supreme Court, and science

Grist
by Tom Laskawy

It’s been a good week if you enjoy a little GMO schadenfreude. The FDA has reportedly bowed to public pressure to extend the comment period on its approval of genetically engineered salmon, and Illinois, Maryland, and Iowa are the latest states to buck GMOs by introducing labeling bills into state legislature.

Even the Supreme Court has an opportunity to take Monsanto down a peg. On Feb. 19, the court will hear arguments in a patent infringement case between an Indiana farmer and Monsanto (I covered it in detail here). If Monsanto prevails, it’ll move a few more paces towards agricultural monopoly; if it loses, the company will take a couple steps back. It’s encouraging that the Supreme Court chose to hear the case over the solicitor general’s urging to dismiss it, but Monsanto could have an inside man: As in other Monsanto-related cases, former Monsanto-lawyer-turned-Supreme-Court-Justice Clarence Thomas has no plans to recuse himself.

But GMOs took the biggest punch this week from academia: Tom Philpott highlights a USDA-funded study [PDF] by University of Wisconsin scientists who found that several types of GMO seeds (including Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready varieties) actually produce a lower yield than conventional seeds. Only one seed — a corn that produces its own pesticide to combat the corn borer — offers any significant yield benefit. In other words, planting most genetically modified seeds results in less harvest per acre than planting non-genetically modified seeds.

The researchers looked at 20 years of data from test plots in Wisconsin from 1990-2010, both on research plots and on plots in participating farmers’ fields. Philpott flags a key point from the study:

Then there’s the question of so-called “stacked-trait” crops — that is, say, corn engineered to contain multiple added genes — for example, Monsanto’s “Smart Stax” product, which contains both herbicide-tolerant and pesticide-expressing genes. The authors detected what they call “gene interaction” in these crops — genes inserted into them interact with each other in ways that affect yield, often negatively. If multiple genes added to a variety didn’t interact, “the [yield] effect of stacked genes would be equal to the sum of the corresponding single gene effects,” the authors write. Instead, the stacked-trait crops were all over the map. “We found strong evidence of gene interactions among transgenic traits when they are stacked,” they write. Most of those effects were negative — i.e., yield was reduced.

This matters because stacked-trait crops are a favored approach to combat the superweeds and bugs that are part and parcel of years of GMO crops. But the more you stack, the worse your yield. The scientists also found evidence of a “yield penalty” that comes simply from the act of manipulating plant genes.

In short, the more one meddles with plant genes, the worse yields get; when you change multiple genes at once, yields drop even further. This should give pause to those who see GMO seeds as the means to address more complex problems like drought tolerance, nutritional value, or plant productivity. These are traits involving dozens, if not hundreds, of genes. This study suggests genetic manipulation of food crops at such a scale is a losing game.

A few years ago, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a report with a similar conclusion, but this is one of the first rigorous attempts to establish through controlled experiments the yield benefit (or penalty) of GM seeds. The UW scientists do note that they determined that GM seeds do provide farmers with lower “yield risk”; essentially, that farmers are less likely to face catastrophic crop losses when using GMO seeds. But there are other conventional techniques that researchers have concluded can support yield, reduce environmental harm, and increase farmer income without having to pay big bucks to biotech companies.

Not that we should expect biotech companies to just roll over: With five such companies controlling nearly 60 percent of the global seed business, it may be impossible for farmers to find sufficient conventional seed. (Learn how the seed business became so consolidated in the Center for Food Safety’s new report “Seed Giants vs. U.S. Farmers.”)

But we should take what we can get. Between Supreme Court justices who may be fed up with the company’s aggressive intellectual property tactics and farmers who could get fed up with its ineffective intellectual property, Monsanto’s stumbles could mean a few sure steps forward for food growers and eaters.

Pesticide Use Increases as GMO Technology Backfires

Wake Up World
by Mary West

The GMO nightmare continues to unfurl, as the crop technology designed to reduce the need for pesticides has backfired. Farmers’ heavy adoption of these modified crops has sparked an increase in “superweeds” and hard-to-kill insects, creating the need to use more toxic herbicides.

Proponents of GMOs have alleged that these crops are a vital tool for weaning farmers off of toxic pesticides, but this claim has been resoundingly refuted by a recent study published in Environmental Science Europe. Chuck Benbrook, a researcher for Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, found that GMO use has led to a “monsoon in herbicides.” Not only have these crops necessitated the need for higher applications of Roundup, Monsanto’s herbicide, but the problem has also forced farmers to use older herbicides that have more harmful effects, says Benbrook.

Statistics demolish Monsanto’s claim that GMOs reduce the need for herbicides.

The magnitude of the increase in pesticide use is illustrated by the statistics of the study. In the period between 1996, when the use of Roundup-ready crops began, and 2011, herbicide use increased by 527 million pounds, equating to 11 percent.

During the first few years of the use of Roudup-ready crops, these GMOs actually fulfilled Monsanto’s promise of reducing the need for herbicides: they reduced the use of these chemicals by 2 percent between 1996 and 1999. This advantage, however, was short-lived. After this period, weeds started developing resistance to Roundup, which led to farmers’ increasing their application of this herbicide by 21 percent, evidenced by a 19 million spike in its use, Benbrook tells The Guardian. The stepped up use of Roundup eliminated the weak weeds, which gave the resistant weeds, or “superweeds,” the opportunity to proliferate and take over.

Statistics revealing a 24 percent increase in pesticide use between 2009 through 2010 show the problem is only getting worse. Benbrook relates to The Guardian that by this time the problem of resistant weeds had fully kicked in, resulting in the use of greater volumes of Roundup as well as more toxic herbicides such as 2,4-D, a component of the infamous Agent Orange.

What about Bt seeds, the other main biotech product?

Resistance problems leading to pesticide increases are not limited to Roundup-ready crops but also include the other primary biotech product – Bt seeds. These seeds have been engineered to contain a gene present in Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) that is toxic to insects. This product’s purported benefit is that it will take care of the insect problem, but has it worked?

Although it initially reduced the need for insecticides, the resistance problem developed by Roundup-ready crops has now begun to manifest in these crops as well. Just as weeds acquired resistance to Roundup, so also rootworm, the biggest pest of corn, is showing signs of resistance to the Bt technology. In areas of the Midwest where these crops have been popular, agricultural experts are advising farmers to spray other insecticides because the Bt trait is failing.

Greater use of chemicals translates into more health hazards.
The harmful effects of pesticides, including Roundup, are not confined to weeds and inserts. Studies show they increase health risks in people and animals exposed to them through food and water. Experts say the use of more chemicals leads to more health hazards. Benbrook aptly characterizes the GMO problem as a “slowly unfolding train wreck.”

This Is What We Are Facing

YouTube
Posted by Natural Society

Your body is currently under direct assault. This is what we are facing, and it is up to you to make the difference.

The old health paradigm relies on cutting, burning, and drugging to ‘treat’ disease, while the new health paradigm looks to utilize the beneficial powers of natural healing substances and natural health as a whole.

Currently, the funding for the scientific advancement pertaining to the study of natural herbs like turmeric is nothing compared to the massive amount of financial backing that is packed into research for the latest pharmaceutical drug. Millions more are even pumped into GMOs, or genetically modified organisms on a global scale.

Even with limited funding and research, turmeric alone has been found to positively affect over 525 conditions, this includes cancer and other life-threatening illnesses. So why is the mainstream medical establishment ignoring these advancements and discoveries?

This is really what we are facing.

It is up to you to help aid in re-shaping the health ‘crucible’ which currently exists within the United States and elsewhere. It is only through peaceful action and the spread of information will serious change occur.

Related:  Drug deaths and medical accidents