150 scientists condemn Seralini GMO study retraction as attack on scientific integrity

Natural News

Scores of scientists have condemned a journal editor’s retraction of a study that reported a number of serious side effects in lab rats that consumed Monsanto’s genetically modified maize and Roundup herbicide.

In all, according to a press release by a group called End Science Censorship, the number of scientists decrying the retraction has climbed to 150.

The group said the editor of the Elsevier journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), Dr. A. Wallace Hayes, claimed that the retraction of a study conducted by a team headed by Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini was due to some “inconclusive” findings. But that rationale has been roundly criticized by scientists who point out that many studies contain findings that are not at all conclusive.

What is also noteworthy, they point out, is that the retraction comes just a few months after the arrival of a former Monsanto scientist on the editorial board of the scientific journal.

“It is a criminal attitude,” said Dr. Mohamed Habib, a professor of entomology at the University of Campinas, Brazil, who has signed a petition opposing the retraction.

Truth and ethical values have to be considered as more important than money. The article must be reinstated,” he said, adding that the retraction appeared to indicate that powerful economic interests influenced the journal’s decision.

Watchdog group powerless to do anything

A former member of the editorial board of FCT, Marcel Roberfroid, also critiqued the retraction. In a letter to the editor of the journal, he wrote, “Your decision, which can be interpreted as a will to eliminate scientific information that does not help supporting industrial interests is, in my view, unacceptable.”

End Science Censorship said that, in a separate initiative, more than 1,200 scientists have promised to boycott Elsevier because of the retraction.

Nevertheless, an ethics watchdog over the scientific community appears powerless to intervene, said observers.

Critics of the retraction have noted that it violates guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics, or COPE, an organization of which FCT is a member. The journal’s editor Hayes, on the other hand, has maintained that COPE’s guidelines support his retraction decision.

Per the press release:

COPE has responded to a complaint from Prof GE Seralini about the retraction with an admission that it is powerless to investigate or make a judgment on the dispute, saying that the decision on how COPE guidelines are interpreted “lies with the editor and publisher”.

Claire Robinson, coordinator of End Science Censorship, called COPE’s response “disappointing.”

“This shows the limitations of voluntary guidelines in cases of unethical or unscientific behaviour on the part of editors of scientific journals,” she said. “Nothing can be enforced, so editors have ‘carte blanche’ to play fast and loose with scientists’ research and reputations.”

“In the interests of not misleading scientists who submit papers to the journal, FCT should resign from COPE, since the editor’s actions are incompatible with the COPE guidelines,” she added.

New push coming for GM eggplant – after retraction

Another watchdog group, Retraction Watch, accused Hayes of doing a “verbal dance” around COPE guidelines in an attempt to justify his decision.

“Claiming COPE guidelines somehow support this decision doesn’t seem valid,” said the organization.

The retraction has been used as a springboard for a GMO industry lobbying group, ISAAA, to push for the release of a GM pesticide-containing eggplant in the Philippines, after a court there banned field trials of the eggplant over safety concerns last year. ISAAA officials say the retraction means that the Philippine court’s decision should be overturned.

“It seems that the editor of FCT, Dr Hayes, effectively did the job for the GM and agrochemical industry that the expert witnesses failed to do,” said Robinson. “The witnesses couldn’t demolish the study through scientific argument, so it had to be removed from the record. That is what Seralini’s critics told Hayes to do; and he obliged.”

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

Is It Time To Acknowledge Roundup Herbicide As A Contraceptive?

Natural Blaze
by Sayer Ji

How much longer will we deny the growing body of research linking Roundup to infertility before calling this chemical a contraceptive?

Following closely on the heels of the EPA’s decision to allow Roundup herbicide residues in your food at concentrations a million times higher than shown carcinogenic, a concerning new study published in the journal Free Radical Medicine & Biology implicates the herbicide, and its main ingredient glyphosate, in male infertility, at concentration ranges well within the EPA’s “safe level” for food.

Performed by Brazilian researchers, the study found acute Roundup exposure at low doses (36ppm, 0.036g/L) for 30 minutes induced cell death in Sertoli cells in prepubertal rat testis. Sertoli cells are known as “mother” or “nurse” cells within the testicles, as they are responsible for maintaining the health of sperm cells, and are required for normal male sexual development.

Roundup herbicide exposure was found to induce oxidative stress and to activate multiple-stress response pathways within affected cells, and was associated with an increase in intracellular calcium (Ca2+) concentration leading to Ca2+ overload, and cell death.

Thirty-minute incubation tests with glyphosate alone (36 ppm) also increased Ca2+ uptake, and both Roundup and glyphosate were observe to downregulate reduced glutathione levels. As glutathione is an antioxidant (electron donor) found within every cell in the human body, protecting it against oxidative stress, as well as maintaining a wide range of biochemical reactions such as DNA and protein synthesis and repair, amino acid transport, prostaglandin synthesis, amino acid and enzyme activation, a dysregulation of glutathione can result in a wide range of adverse effects.

The researchers noted “Glyphosate has been described as an endocrine disruptor affecting the male reproductive system; however, the molecular basis of its toxicity remains to be clarified. We could propose that Roundup® toxicity, implicating in Ca2+ overload, cell signaling misregulation, stress response of the endoplasmic reticulum and/or depleted antioxidant defenses could contribute to Sertoli cell disruption of spermatogenesis that could impact male fertility.”

This study adds to a growing body of research implicating Roundup herbicide in male infertility:

A 2007 study published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology found that Roundup herbicide altered the structure of the testis and epididymal region (part of the tubular spermatic duct system), as well as the serum levels of testosterone and estradiol, in male ducks, leading the researchers to conclude that Roundup “…may cause disorder in the morphophysiology of the male genital system of animals.”

A 2010 male rat study published in the Archives of Toxicology revealed prepubertal exposure to commercial formulation of the herbicide glyphosate alters testosterone levels and testicular morphology, leading researchers to describe the herbicide as “a potent endocrine disruptor.”

A 2011 male rat study published in the Archives of Toxicology revealed maternal exposure to glyphosate disturbed the masculinization process and promoted behavioral changes and histological and endocrine problems in reproductive parameters.

A 2011 study published in the journal Toxicology In Vitro found a glyphosate-based herbicide induced necrosis and apoptosis in mature rat testicular cells in vitro, and testosterone decrease at lower levels. In the study, Roundup and glyphosate at concentrations as low as 1 part per million produced a testosterone decrease in sperm cells by 35%.
A more recent 2013 study in male rats published in the journal Ecotoxicology and Reproductive Safety found glyphosate (in combination with another pesticide) provoked severe oxidative stress in male testes, resulting in inhibited testosterone production and disrupted gonadotropin levels.

Given the growing body of research clearly revealing Roundup’s toxicity to the germline of animal species, the argument can be made that this chemical has contraceptive properties and therefore genocidal consequences. By directly affecting the biologically immortal cells within the testes, whose DNA contains over 3 billion years worth of information essential for there being a future for our species as a whole, Roundup should be considered an instrument of mass destruction. At the very least, the precautionary principle should be applied, and any chemical that signals the potential to disrupt or destroy our species’ germline cells, should be banned unless the manufacturer can prove beyond a reasonable doubt its safety to exposed populations.

For additional research on the wide spectrum of adverse health effects now linked to glyphosate-based herbicide formulations such as Roundup, view our research articles on GMOs, as well as view and download our free biomedical PDF on glyphosate/Roundup research:

PDF on the adverse health effects associated with glyphosate-based herbicide

Related: EPA Raises Glyphosate Concentrations on Food Crops

EPA to American People: ‘Let Them Eat Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Cake’

GreenMedInfo

The EPA, whose mission is to “to protect human health and the environment,” has approved Monsanto’s request to allow levels of glyphosate (Roundup) contamination in your food up to a million times higher than have been found carcinogenic.

If you haven’t already heard, it’s now official. Monsanto’s request to have the EPA raise allowable levels of its herbicide glyphosate in food you may soon be eating has been approved [see Final Rule]. Public commenting is also now closed, not that it was anything but a formality to begin with.

Here is the original registration application, lest detractors claim it was not Monsanto behind this bold move to legalize what an increasingly educated public considers a form of institutionalized mass poisoning:

1. EPA Registration Numbers: 524-421, 524-475, and 524-537. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0132. Applicant: Monsanto Company, 1300 I Street NW., Suite 450 East, Washington, DC 20005. Active ingredient: Glyphosate. Product Type: Herbicide. Proposed Uses: Add wiper applicator use over the top to carrot and sweet potato, add preharvest use to oilseed crop group 20, add the use Teff (forage and hay), and conversion of the following old crop groups to the following new crop groups: Vegetable, bulb, group 3 to vegetable, bulb, group 3-07; vegetable, fruiting, group 8 to vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10; fruit, citrus, group 10 to fruit, citrus, group 10-10; fruit, pome, group 11 to fruit, pome, group 11-10; and berry group 13 to berry and small fruit, group 13-07. Contact: Erik Kraft, (703) 308-9358, email address: kraft.erik@epa.gov.

Notice above, the proposal includes “Add wiper applicator use over the top to carrot and sweet potato,” revealing that one reason why Monsanto wants tolerances on glyphosate raised is because this chemical will be applied directly not just to Roundup Ready plants but to non-GMO crops as well, virtually guaranteeing that unless you eat 100% USDA organic concentrations of grave concern will end up in your food and body.

How grave? The Food Poisoning Bulletin describes the new tolerances as follows:

Under the new regulation, forage and hay teff can contain up to 100 ppm (100,000 ppb) glyphosate; oilseed crops can contain up to 40 ppm (40,000 ppb) glyphosate, and root crops such as potatoes and beets can contain 6000 ppb glyphosate. Fruits can have concentrations from 200 ppb to 500 ppb glyphosate. These numbers are magnitudes higher than the levels some scientists believe are carcinogenic.

Indeed, only last month, a new study found that glyphosate has ‘xenoestrogen’ properties and stimulated breast cancer proliferation in the parts per trillion range – that would be six orders of magnitude lower levels than presently receiving the EPA’s Monsanto-friendly stamp of approval. So how does the EPA address the potential for carcinogenicity in section 3 of their Exposure Assessment? They state their position as follows:

“EPA has concluded that glyphosate does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.”

According to this ruthless logic, since the EPA designates itself a higher authority than the independent scientific evidence clearly signaling glyphosate’s carcinogenicity (view the toxicological data yourself here), it requires no safety testing. Let the exposed populations eat Roundup Ready cake and fester in an epidemic of cancers, as it turns a self-blinded eye to the problem.

The EPA has just made such a mockery of its own mission statement, which is “to protect human health and the environment,” that one wonders why they have not already declared themselves a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto.

The obvious reason why Monsanto and its ‘EPA cheerleading division’ successfully raised the tolerances of glyphosate in your food, is because the contamination is getting so bad they had no other choice. Either limits are raised, or Monsanto breaks the law (by contaminating our food and poisoning us beyond the “acceptable level of harm” already determined by the EPA) and the EPA is shown to be completely impotent to enforce anything resembling its mission statement.

But despite Monsanto’s latest apparent success, a growing grassroots movement comprised of millions of concerned citizens is defiantly expressing their own form of “glyphosate-resistance,” armed with a growing body of published toxicological data linking the glyphosate herbicide to over 30 health problems. This movement is mirrored poetically by the “super weeds” emerging throughout the Roundup Ready monocultured farmland of the world. In both cases, the center of real power is shifting away from Monsanto back to the people who are realizing that unless they retake back control over their food, they will be coerced and poisoned into a form of biological slavery the likes of which this world has never seen before, and if it manifests fully, will likely never recover from.

See PDF on the adverse health effects associated with glyphosate-based herbicide 

Monsanto Buys Whole Foods: Fact or Rumor?

Natural Society

Since early 2011, there has been a lot of information circulating regarding Monsanto’s purported purchasing of the natural health food store known as Whole Foods; topics like ‘Monsanto buys whole foods‘ and others quickly became hot search terms. Interestingly enough, Monsanto was also rumored to have bought Blackwater (Xe), a private military company. While it is understandable that Monsanto would buy or at least work with Blackwater (as they are both in the same corrupt business), who would believe that Monsanto could scoop up Whole Foods? In actuality, the biotechnology giant did not buy Blackwater, and did not buy Whole Foods. Here are the details.

Monsanto Buys Whole Foods?
It all started in early 2011, when the USDA finally made the decision to deregulate genetically modified alfalfa without restrictions – a decision which caused many individuals, companies, and farmers to become very upset. Before the decision was made, the USDA was considering two options which they would present to the industry: to fully deregulate the alfalfa or to deregulate it with restrictions. Unfortunately, there was no option presented to the industry by the USDA for an outright ban on GM alfalfa, so Whole Foods went with the better option available.

“Whole Foods Market advocated strongly for deregulation with restrictions to preserve the ability of non-GE and organic growers to avoid contamination. It seemed that the USDA was finally recognizing that cross-contamination of GE alfalfa could potentially impact organic and non-GE farmers and consumers, both domestically and for our export markets…Unfortunately, the USDA’s decision fell far short of this mark, and we believe that unrestricted planting of GE alfalfa without setting any clear coexistence framework, with thresholds for contamination and providing for ongoing testing and verification, is irresponsible,” states a post on the Whole Foods website.

“Many people have asked us why we endorsed the coexistence option rather than an outright ban on GE alfalfa. That was never an option in Washington!..the option of an outright ban was not on the table,” the post on the Whole Foods website said. “Whole Foods Market — along with the National Cooperative Grocers Association, the National Organic Coalition, the Organic Trade Association, and other companies and groups — endorsed the path of deregulation with restrictions, or coexistence, not because it was a perfect path, but because it was a path to create meaningful change right now in the regulating of genetically engineered foods and the protection of non-GE foods. “

Since Whole Foods supported the USDA’s approach of coexistence, some consumer groups said the company started supporting GM foods, but along with the ‘Monsanto buys Whole Foods’ rumors, this also wasn’t true. The Organic Consumer Association’s (OCA) released a rather misleading article titled “Whole Foods Caves to Monsanto” in 2011, which was the start of ‘Monsanto buys Whole Foods’ rumors.

“No! What crazy talk! We’ve never had any affiliation with that company. We are publicly traded; our majority shareholders are listed in documents filed with the SEC and, I promise, Monsanto is not on the list and never has been…You see, Whole Foods Market and others in the organic food industry met with the US Secretary of Agriculture in support of farmers’ rights to grow Non-GMO crops. Because we did not take the exact hard-line stance that the OCA did, they accused us of ‘being in bed with Monsanto’” said a Whole Foods employee.