October 6th, 2010
By: Mike Adams
As the world awaits the FDA’s decision on whether to approve genetically modified salmon as “safe enough” to allow into the food supply, it seems that not enough people in the existing fishing industries have really thought this through. As you’ll see here, approval of GE salmon could destroy the existing salmon industry. Why? Here’s the reason:
The FDA says that once it approves GE salmon (which now seems likely), it will not require GE salmon to be labeled as “genetically modified” or “genetically engineered.” In fact, the FDA ridiculously claims it would be illegal to require these GE fish to be labeled as such because they are, in the minds of the FDA, no different from regular fish.
Now here’s why this matters: If consumers are not told which salmon is GE, many will avoid buying ALL salmon.
In fact, organizations like NaturalNews and many others like the Organic Consumers Association would likely take strong action, warning people to avoid all salmon because you never know which salmon is genetically modified.
As word about the non-labeling of GE salmon spreads, more and more consumers would avoid buying salmon altogether. This is precisely how the introduction of GE salmon into the food supply could destroy the existing salmon industry.
The FDA’s inexcusable non-labeling of genetically modified salmon creates distrust in the entire category. And just as the natural health community has been successful in warning people to avoid MSG and HFCS, we will almost certainly be successful in warning people away from eating salmon, too (if GE salmon infects the food supply). And that’s a shame because, by and large, the natural health industry supports wild-caught salmon as a healthy source of omega-3 oils. But virtually overnight, the FDA’s approval of GE salmon could reverse our position on this issue and make us outspoken opponents of buying and consuming salmon.
I wonder if the salmon industry is aware that this situation could devastate existing salmon farms and fisheries?
Opening the floodgates to more GE factory farmed animals
That GE salmon could cause sharp losses across the existing salmon industry is only the beginning of the problems potentially unleashed by the FDA’s disturbing shortsightedness. There has never been a genetically engineered animal approved for use in the U.S. food supply, but once the FDA approves GE salmon, it sets a precedent for other genetically engineered animals to follow.
Imagine a genetically modified cow with triple growth hormone genes, carrying muscles (meat) so large that it can’t even stand on its own feet. It is grown in a “cow factory” where it suffers every day from the pain of its unnatural existence. It never sees the outdoors or experiences a single day of freedom in a pasture. Instead, it is fed antibiotics and GMO feed crops through a system of tubes, much like the imprisoned characters in The Matrix. The sole purpose of its life is to grow premium steaks and ground beef, sold by a company that genetically engineers animals to create greed-driven food profits without a single thought about the suffering of the animal itself.
This is exactly what could be unleashed by the FDA’s decision on GE salmon. Only it wouldn’t end with just cows: Imagine genetically modified pigs, chickens and lambs, all distorted into artificial meat-producing forms to satisfy corporate profits.
Vaccines from sheep flesh
And it won’t end with just food, either. Scientists are already experimenting with genetically modified animals who “grow” pharmaceuticals. Imagine a factory farm of sheep whose bodies are tapped to produce vaccines or hormone drugs.
This is the sick, demented world to which the biotechnology industry is now looking for the next wave of profits. Fueled by arrogant greed and a deeply-rooted disrespect for the natural world (and the suffering of sentient beings, which include farm animals), they will pursue bottom-line profits by any means necessary… even if it means playing God with the genes of animals and giving rise to Franken-animals that experience tremendous pain and suffering while being grown for food. (Much like in The Matrix, once again.)
The pain and suffering committed by factory farms today is more than enough reason to consider giving up all conventionally-raised meat products, by the way. But it could get far worse if the industry is allowed to start genetically engineering mutant animals designed to produce more meat (or milk) more quickly and with higher profits. And it all starts with GE salmon.
How do we even know, by the way, whether the genetically modified salmon who grow twice as fast as regular salmon experience some sort of unnatural pain as a result of their gene distortions? These gene modifications can, from another point of view, be described as a kind of “birth defect,” and some birth defects quite literally result in tremendous suffering for those being unfortunate enough to be affected by them.
Not surprisingly, the experience of the animal isn’t even being taken into account by the FDA! This agency, which is blind to the experience of animals, only cares about the impact of GE salmon on people who eat its flesh, not about the experience of the fish.
If this same lack of empathy is applied to future decisions regarding GE animals, it will only lead us down a dark path of Frankenfood misery, where humanity becomes the monster that creates horrific mutant animals to be grown and harvested in dark places, behind the closed doors of the sickening meat industry.
Action you can take right now
What can you do to stop this crime against nature? For starters, you can contact the FDA right now and tell them two things:
1) You oppose allowing GE salmon to be introduced into the food supply.
2) If it is approved, you support honest labeling of the salmon to indicate that it is genetically engineered.
Find the FDA’s contact information here:
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Outreach and Information Center
5100 Paint Branch Parkway HFS-009
College Park, MD 20740-3835
Toll-Free Information Line:
Industry email: email@example.com
Consumers email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Get ready to boycott salmon
If the FDA approves GE salmon, get ready to join NaturalNews in a nationwide boycott of salmon products.
As long as GE salmon is not honestly labeled, we will boycott salmon products, and we will coordinate with other non-profits who share our belief that consumers have a right to know what they’re buying and eating.
For the FDA to say that they refuse to require the honest labeling of GE salmon is an outrageous insult to consumer intelligence. It’s beyond an insult, actually: It’s more like a crime against the People because it consciously seeks to misinform the public about what they’re eating.
This demonstrates yet again how dangerous the FDA has actually become. Far from protecting consumers, the FDA has become the single greatest threat to the health and safety of the American people. This agency actively seeks to keep people in the dark about what they’re buying and eating. It is a purveyor of ignorance and disinformation, and it is engaged in a conspiracy to commit yet another crime against humanity (against the entire planet, actually) in order to protect biotech profits.
Why can’t the FDA just tell the truth and, at minimum, require that GE salmon be labeled as such?
Because being honest apparently isn’t in the agency’s genes. Maybe we need to genetically modify the FDA and insert some “truth hormone” proteins so it attains the ability to tell the truth. That would be a radical modification from the current behavior of the agency, wouldn’t it?
September 13, 2010
by David Gutierrez
Mothers who took 4,000 IU of vitamin D daily cut their risk of premature delivery by half, in a study conducted by researchers from the Medical University of South Carolina and presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies in Vancouver.
“We never imagined it would have as far-reaching effects as what we have seen,” lead author Carol Wagner said. “The message is that all pregnant women should be supplementing with 4,000 IU per day of vitamin D.”
Researchers assigned 494 women between their 12th and 16th weeks of pregnancy to take either 400 IU, 2,000 IU or 4,000 IU of vitamin D per day. They found that the more vitamin D a pregnant woman took, the higher the levels of the vitamin in her blood and in that of the child at birth.
Higher levels of vitamin D were significantly associated with a lower risk of infection, preterm labor and preterm birth.
Premature birth is the foremost cause of newborn death in Canada.
Vitamin D has long been known to play an important role in the development and maintenance of healthy teeth and bones, and newer research has implicated it in maintaining a healthy immune system and preventing infection, cancer, heart disease and autoimmune disorders. Yet for a long time, researchers falsely believed that the vitamin could cause birth defects.
Later, researchers discovered that the defects initially attributed to vitamin D were caused by a genetic defect that affected the vitamin’s metabolism in the body.
“For 30-plus years it was dogma that [vitamin D in pregnancy] was dangerous, that you didn’t need very much and what you did need you could get from just casual sunlight exposure,” Wagner said. “What we know now, from a decade of very intensive research, is that that’s not the case.”
Wagner cautioned that even though the study took place in South Carolina, 85 percent of participants had insufficient vitamin D levels when the study began.
“This is even more important for Canadians,” Wagner said. “You’re at a much higher latitude. The best that you can have is probably six months of sunlight exposure, at your lowest latitude, where you can actually make vitamin D.”
August 30, 2010
by David Gutierrez
A product survey conducted by The Independent found that the toxic chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) is used in 18 on the 20 top-selling canned food products in the United Kingdom.
BPA is one of the most widely produced chemicals in the world. It is used to harden plastic in everything from infant and water bottles to mobile phone and computer casings, and also to make linings for cans of food, beverages and infant formula. Yet a growing body of research has implicated the chemical as an endocrine (hormone) disruptor that can lead to cancer, birth defects, behavioral problems and other diseases.
The FDA recently reversed its position on the safety of BPA, acknowledging concern over the chemical’s effects on the development and brains of infants and young children. This move sparked a new, still-ongoing review of the chemical’s safety by the European Food Safety Authority. The British Food Standards Agency still maintains that BPA poses no health risks.
The Independent surveyed manufacturers General Mills, Heinz, Spam, Asda, Baxters, John West, Princes, Premier Foods, Sainsburys and Tesco about the use of BPA in the liners of several of their canned food products. Together, the 20 products represented account for £921 million ($1.4 billion) in sales, or 43 percent of the total for all canned food sold in the United Kingdom.
Every manufacturer sold at least one product lined with BPA. The only cans not lined with the chemical were those containing Tesco canned fruit and Tesco Value tomato products. Yet Tesco and Tesco Value canned fish both came in cans lined with BPA.
Other top-selling products in BPA-lined cans included soups, baked beans, corned beef, canned pies, chopped ham, long spaghetti and Green Giant Niblets.
Claire Dimmer of Breast Cancer UK called for manufacturers to clearly label all cans that are lined with BPA.
“Otherwise it’s impossible for us to make a decision on ways of limiting our and our families’ exposure to this chemical,” she said.
February 22, 2010
By S.L. Baker
Gastroschisis is a birth defect in which the intestines, and sometimes other organs, develop outside the fetal abdomen and poke out through an opening in the abdominal wall. Long considered a rare occurrence, gastroschisis has mysteriously been on the rise over the last three decades. In fact, the incidence of the defect has soared, increasing two to four times in the last 30 years. But why?
Researchers think they’ve found the answer. The culprit behind the suffering of babies born with this condition appears to be the agricultural chemical atrazine. That’s the conclusion of a study just presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) held in Chicago.
Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle were alerted to a higher than normal number of cases in of the birth defect in babies born in eastern Washington. So they began investigating to see if the increased incidence was due to some kind of environmental exposure in that area.
“Our state has about two times the national average number of cases of gastroschisis,” Dr. Sarah Waller, one of the study’s authors, said in a statement to the media. “The life expectancy for fetuses with this diagnosis is better than 90 percent; however it requires delivery at a tertiary care center with immediate neonatal intervention which often separates families and can cause serious financial and emotional stress.”
The condition can lead to poor function of the bowel after delivery and potential long term feeding problems. Bottom line: babies with this birth defect must undergo the trauma of surgery right after birth. And while most survive, some babies with gastroschisis have significant damage to the bowel due to direct contact between the intestine and amniotic fluid or because the intestine was twisted. These infants may develop a condition known as “short gut” which can lead to stunted growth and a host of feeding and other problems.
For the new study, Dr. Waller and her research team went to work investigating all cases of live born infants with gastroschisis during the period between 1987 and 2006. They matched birth certificates with databases from the U.S. Geological Survey that revealed where agricultural spraying took place and what chemicals were used. It turns out the chemicals atrazine, nitrates, and 2, 4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid were heavily sprayed in the area.
Of the 805 cases and 3,616 controls in the study, gastroschisis developed far more frequently among babies whose mothers lived less than 25 km from the site of high surface water that was specifically contaminated with one of the chemicals — atrazine. What’s more, the risk of gastroschisis was found to especially rise in babies of women who conceived in the spring, from March through May. Those are the months when use of the chemical is the most prevalent.
The problem with atrazine
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), atrazine is applied to crops (especially corn, sorghum, and sugarcane) before and after planting to control broadleaf and grassy weeds. It is used most heavily in the Midwest on agricultural crops but it is also applied to residential lawns, particularly in Florida and the Southeast.
Problems linked to atrazine have been in the news previously. Earlier research showed it causes sexual abnormalities in frogs and the chemical has also been linked to prostate cancer in workers at an atrazine manufacturing plant.
So why is it still widely used? Unfortunately, the EPA has done little to address the mounting evidence that atrazine is harmful to humans as well as animals. Last fall the agency announced it was going to start a new assessment of the chemical in 2010 that could take months to years to complete. In the meantime, tons of atrazine will continue to be sprayed on crops and lawns — and mothers and their unborn babies will continue to be exposed to this chemical now linked to a serious and potentially deadly birth defects.