http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14468:doctor-speaks-on-seralini-gmo-safety-and-industry-qscienceq

Doctor speaks on Seralini, GMO safety, and industry "science"
Thursday, 22 November 2012 22:52

Misinformed by "science"
John Day, MD
The Automatic Earth
September 2012

<>

Yes, this is ALL Monsanto data we are discussing, and it is 12 years old, and it has been kept secret, pried out by Greenpeace lawsuits and such.

We only have Monsanto data to talk about here, but now, after more than a decade, the raw data and methods are available for review.

<>

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26621.cfm

Organic Consumers Association Calls for Boycott of Organic Brand Parent Companies That Helped Defeat Prop 37

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


FINLAND, Minn. - Nov. 15, 2012 - The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) today called for a national boycott of the popular natural and organic brands owned by 10 parent companies that donated to defeat Prop 37, the California Right to Know GMO labeling initiative.

The OCA is also calling on other consumer protection groups, and public health, agriculture, natural health, environmental and political groups to urge their members and supporters to participate in the boycott.

"Among the largest bankrollers of the NO on 37 campaign were huge multinational food and beverage companies whose subsidiaries make billions selling popular organic and 'natural' brands," said Ronnie Cummins, Director of the OCA and the Organic Consumers Fund, which donated more than $1 million to the YES on 37 campaign. "It's time to send these companies a message: Either start supporting GMO labeling initiatives, including the upcoming one in Washington State, or consumers will stop buying your products," Cummins said.

Prop 37was narrowly defeated on Nov. 6, thanks to a relentless, deceitful $46-million advertising blitz. Among the food companies that helped to defeat the measure were:

PepsiCo (Donated $2.5M): Naked Juice, Tostito’s Organic, Tropicana Organic

Kraft (Donated $2M): Boca Burgers and Back to Nature

Safeway (Member of Grocery Manufacturers Association, which donated $2M):“O” Organics

Coca-Cola (Donated $1.7M): Honest Tea, Odwalla

General Mills (Donated $1.2M): Muir Glen, Cascadian Farm, Larabar

Con-Agra (Donated $1.2M): Orville Redenbacher’s Organic, Hunt’s Organic, Lightlife, Alexia

Kellogg’s (Donated $791k): Kashi, Bear Naked, Morningstar Farms, Gardenburger

Smucker’s (Donated $555k ): R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz Organic

Unilever (Donated $467k): Ben & Jerry’s

Dean Foods (Donated $254k): Horizon, Silk, White Wave

The OCA's million-plus network of consumers, along with the 5 million Californians who voted YES on 37 and the 90% of consumers nationwide who want mandatory GMO labeling, are gearing up for the next GMO labeling battles, in Washington State, Vermont, and Connecticut. The boycott is part of a strategy to force the parent companies of organic and natural brands to side with consumers, or risk losing their brand loyalty.

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots non-profit 501(c)3 public interest organization campaigning for health, justice, and sustainability. The Organic Consumers Fund is a 501(c)4 allied organization of the Organic Consumers Association, focused on grassroots lobbying and legislative action.

http://www.willamettelive.com/2012/news/corporate-giant-comes-out-against-gmos/

Corporate Giant Comes Out Against GMOs

By: Salem Weekly Editors
November 15, 2012

[img][/img]

It has come to our attention that Kaiser Permanente, the largest managed healthcare organization in the United States, has advised its members against GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in food.

In its Northwest Fall 2012 newsletter, Kaiser suggested membership limit exposure to genetically modified organisms.

“GMOs have been added to our food supply since 1994, but most people don’t know it because the United States does not require labeling of GMOs,” according to the newsletter.

Sounding like a radical organic health proponent, the huge corporate Kaiser continued, “Despite what the biotech industry might say, there is little research on the long-term effects of GMOs on human health.”

Independent studies have shown GMOs to cause organ damage in rats and the inability to reproduce. Kaiser gave tips on how its members can avoid GMOs, including buying organic, looking for the “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal and to download the “ShopNoGMO” app.

<>

[img][/img]

http://current.com/1qrm0kc

[img][/img]

PolitiCal
On politics in the Golden State

More than 3 million ballots still to be counted in California
November 9, 2012 | 7:00 am

For those California candidates whose contests were too close to call on election day, patience is being recommended.

While more than nine million ballots were counted Tuesday, but state election officials say there are more than three million others that are uncounted and still need to be tabulated throughout California.

The uncounted are mostly vote-by-mail ballots submitted on election day and provisional ballots that include those turned in by people whose names were not on the lists at polling places, but who believe they are registered to vote.

The Secretary of State’s Office reported 3.08 million uncounted ballots late Thursday, including 2.1 million vote-by-mail ballots. That list does not include uncounted ballots from 12 of the 58 counties, including San Bernardino and Santa Barbara counties.

<...>

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-09-03/news/0009030374_1_genetically-modified-new-proteins

"Genetically Altered Foods: We Are Being Exposed to One of the Largest Uncontrolled Experiments in History"

Martha Herbert
Chicago Tribune

September 3, 2000

BOSTON - Today the vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified substances whose effects on our health are unknown. As a medical doctor, I can assure you that no one in the medical profession would attempt to perform experiments on human subjects without their consent. Such conduct is illegal and unethical. Yet manufacturers of genetically altered foods are exposing us to one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history.

In less than five years these companies have flooded the marketplace with thousands of untested and unlabeled products containing foreign genetic material. These genetically modified foods pose several very real dangers because they have been engineered to create novel proteins that retard spoilage, produce their own pesticides against insects, or allow plants to tolerate larger and larger doses of weed killers. Despite claims that these food products are based on "sound science," in truth, neither manufacturers nor the government has studied the effects of these genetically altered organisms or their new proteins on people-especially babies, the elderly, and the sick. Can these products be toxic? Can they cause immune system problems? Can they damage an infant's developing nervous system? We need answers to these questions, and until then genetically altered ingredients should be removed from the food we eat.

As a pediatric neurologist, I especially worry about the safety of modified foods when it comes to children. We know that the human immune system, for example, is not fully developed in infants. Consequently, pediatricians have long been concerned about early introduction of new proteins into the immature gut and developing body of small children. Infants with colic are often switched to soy formula. Yet we have no information on how they might be affected by drinking genetically engineered soy, even though this product may be their sole or major source of nutrition for months. Because these foods are unlabeled, most parents feed their babies genetically altered formula whether they want to or not. Even proteins that are normally part of the human diet may, when introduced too early, lead to auto-immune and hypersensitivity or "allergic" reactions later.

Some studies suggest that the epidemic increase in asthma (it has doubled since 1980) may have links to early dietary exposures. The behavior problems of many children with autism and attention disorders get worse when they are exposed to certain foods. Yet as more unlabeled and untested genetically engineered foods enter the market, there is no one monitoring how the millions of people with immune system vulnerability are reacting to them and the novel proteins and fragments of viruses they can contain. In fact, without labeling, there is no possible way to track such health effects. This is not sound science, and it is not sound public health.

<>

More at link.

http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/ViewPage.aspx?pageId=119

This piece was originally published in the Virginia Environmental Law Journal, Volume 20, No.2, 2001 page 267-294.

http://gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14400:council-for-responsible-genetics-in-fundamental-disagreement-with-aaas-board-

Statement re: AAAS Board Statement Against Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods
Council for Responsible Genetics, November 5 2012

http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/IW4C8PBTQ0.pdf

The Council for Responsible Genetics is in fundamental disagreement with the recent statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in which it offered assurances that genetically modified foods (GMOS) are safe and that therefore labeling of foods containing GM ingredients is unnecessary.  The AAAS leadership did not reach this decision, a response to Proposition 37 in California, by a vote of its membership.

We are deeply concerned that a scientific body such as the AAAS would take such an action without giving a complete review of the science behind its statement.

As scientists, they should know that citing a few studies in favor of their position can no longer be considered a compelling argument. Indeed, the AAAS Board did not conduct a thorough analysis of the literature, nor did they include studies that could cast doubt upon their conclusions.

The truth is we do not know conclusively what the long-term effects of growing and consuming GM crops will be. There have been very few systematic and independent animal studies testing the safety of GM crops.  Since 1992 the FDA policy considers the insertion of foreign genes into the plant genomes of crops as the equivalent of hybrid crops-crosses within the same species-and therefore exempt from the regulations on food additives.

Yet we know enough to have valid concerns. The plant genome is not like a Lego set; it is more like an ecosystem.  You simply cannot predict the safety of gene inserts unless you do the testing.

Most GM food studies have been generated by industry and it is the industry itself with sole access to so much of the data.  There is little funding of independent studies on the effects of GM foods, and those few scientists who have engaged in such studies and reported concerns are discounted.  Their concerns cannot be resolved without serious and independent scientific study.

We are particularly concerned that at a time when conflicts of interest have become a major concern in science that the AAAS Board would not openly divulge that some in the AAAS leadership appear to have longstanding ties to the biotech industry.    Since these ties have not been transparently disclosed, it is unclear whether there could also be ties to industrial concerns that might influence decision making of the AAAS leadership.    Surely any reader of their position is entitled to such facts in considering their position. We advocate for full disclosure of all such ties by AAAS leaders.

The fact that no deaths have been attributed to GM crops does not mean they are safe. We do not see deaths associated with bisphenol A (BPA) and yet there are hundreds of studies pointing to risks.  Risks that consumers have carefully considered when choosing whether or not to buy products containing BPA.

The Council for Responsible Genetics has supported GM food labeling for three decades. It is an integral part of our Genetic Bill of Rights.  We further support an active move toward a comprehensive and independent risk assessment for GM foods; not the untenable default state that GMOs are safe.  The public interest is not served when industry supported studies and government cooperation with industry are cited as proof of product safety.

Before we reach any conclusions with regard to GM foods, they must be studied.    That's a basic scientific principle that the AAAS Board appears to have circumvented with their statement.  In the meantime, consumers have the right to know which foods have GM ingredients before they choose what to feed themselves and their families.

A pdf of the statement can be accessed at the following url:
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/IW4C8PBTQ0.pdf

Since 1983, the Council for Responsible Genetics has represented the public interest and fostered public debate about the social, ethical and environmental implications of genetic technologies.  CRG is a leader in the movement to steer biotechnology toward the advancement of public health, environmental protection, equal justice, and respect for human rights.

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14399:gm-cancer-study-academic-hits-back

GM cancer study academic hits back
Monday, 05 November 2012 17:21