Ramanisblog

Tag: Monsanto

  • GM Corn Causes Tumour and Reduces Life Span

     

    Genetically Modified Foods has been suspected of being hazardous to health.

    There has been wide spread  agitation on the introduction of BT Brinjal in India.

    There seems to be undue haste in promoting BT Brinjals in India,when Monsanto has already ruined our Agriculturists.
    The side effects of BT on soil and the health of humans are yet to be fully studied.
    Why hurry?
    Karnataka is Right.
    Story:
    Karnataka Horticulture Minister Umesh Katti on Monday (February 8) said that the state government would enforce ban on the commercial cultivation of Bt Brinjal in the state. “We will ban commercial cultivation of Bt Brinjal. We have already written to the Centre seeking its deferment,” Horticulture Minister Umesh Katti said. Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has already said that the Centre would announce its decision on commercial production of the genetically modified crop on February 10
    http://www.timesnow.tv/Karnataka-to-impose-ban-on-Bt-Brinjal/articleshow/4338075.cms

    http://ramanisblog.in/2010/02/08/bt-brinjal-scientific-study/

    Now GM’s Corn has come under scanner.

    A Study has revealed that the GM Corn induces tumours in rats and the veracity of the Report published in The study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology,  which was the first to look at rats over their normal lifespan of two years.

    'GM_Corn-causes-tumours'gif
    GM Corn

    “For the first time ever, a GM organism and a herbicide have been evaluated for their long-term impact on health, and more thoroughly than by governments or the industry,” Seralini told AFP. “The results are alarming.”

    Two hundred male and female rats were split into 10 groups of 10 animals.

    One was a “control” group which was given ordinary rat food that contained 33 percent non-GM corn, and plain water.

    Three groups were given ordinary rat food and water with increasing doses of Roundup, reflecting various concentrations of the herbicide in the food chain.

    The other six were fed rat food of which 11, 22 or 33 percent comprised NK603 corn, either treated or not with Roundup when the corn was grown.

    The researchers found that NK603 and Roundup both caused similar damage to the rats’ health, whether they were consumed together or on their own.

    Premature deaths and sickness were concentrated especially among females.

    At the 14-month stage of experiment, no animals in the control groups showed any signs of cancer, but among females in the “treated” groups, tumours affected between 10 and 30 percent of the rodents.

    “By the beginning of the 24th month, 50-80 percent of female animals had developed tumours in all treated groups, with up to three tumours per animal, whereas only 30 percent of controls were affected,” it said

    Males which fell sick suffered liver damage, developed kidney and skin tumours and digestive problems.

    Breaking with a long tradition in scientific journalism, the authors allowed a selected group of reporters to have access to the paper, provided they signed confidentiality agreements that prevented them from consulting other experts about the research before publication.

    Asked to respond, the French unit of Monsanto said “it is too soon to make a serious comment because we have to evaluate the study. As soon as it is available, our experts will look closely at it to give their scientific assessment.”

    Green groups say GM crops could be dangerous to health and the environment, although this claim has so far found no traction in large-scale studies.

    The Monsanto spokesman said that “more than 300 peer-reviewed studies” had found that GM food was safe.

    In 2009, the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) panel on GM organisms determined that NK603 was “as safe as conventional maize”.

    http://www.france24.com/en/20120920-france-cancer-link-gm-corn-seralini-university-caen-anses-rats-tumours-monsanto-genetically-modified?ns_campaign=nl_quot_en&ns_mchannel=email_marketing&ns_source=NLQ_20120921&f24_member_id=1000193755880&ns_linkname=node_5355203&ns_fee=0

    Now France/EU has  ordered a Review.

    The Author’s Reply.

    The French author of a study linking a type of genetically modified corn to higher health risks in rats dismissed criticism of his research methods on Thursday, describing the work as the most detailed study to date on the subject.

    Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen and colleagues said on Wednesday that rats fed on Monsanto’s genetically modified corn or exposed to its top-selling weed killer suffered tumors and multiple organ damage and premature death.

    But experts not involved with the study were skeptical, describing the French team’s statistical methods as unconventional and accusing them of going “on a statistical fishing trip”.

    Speaking at a news conference in Brussels on Thursday, Seralini defended the peer-reviewed study, which was published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.

    “This study has been evaluated by the world’s best food toxicology magazine, which took much more time than people who reacted within 24 hours without reading the study,” he told Reuters Television._Reuters”

    ”

     

     

  • Modified Apple Triggers Virulent New Virus diseases .

    Playing with Nature ,especially with Plants,Food shall have disastrous consequences.

    Monsanto seems to be doing this with impunity.

    Government looks on.

    Best way to stop Corporates in their tracks is to ignore the Product .

    Apples, once the darling of nutrition, have become genetically modified (GMO) to increase production, sales and profits. The once formidable addition to our diets has become a shadow of its former self because apples no longer have the nutritional value of their chemical-free predecessors.

    Some scientists opine that GMO apples have 76% less nutritional value than the chemical-free, organic version of the same food. A chemical-free, natural organic apple has significantly higher levels of all 21 nutrients analyzed compared with genetically modified fruits including vitamin C (27% more), magnesium (29% more), iron (21% more) and phosphorous (14% more).

    How did a treasured American fruit become not only tasteless but harmful to children and adults alike? It is because the food industry uses the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) as a “gene promoter” to create these new apples.

    The apple seed is split with the virus so that a pesticide gene can be inserted to kill insects. The pesticide causes the stomachs of insects to explode.

    The Cauliflower Mosaic Virus is used because it is a powerful virus that cannot be destroyed during gene splitting. It is a retro-virus that alters the RNA, that causes changes in the DNA, resulting in similar viruses that ultimately become HIV, Leukemia Virus and hepatitis B. This is a very dangerous virus. Industry scientists ignore the axiom, “If you play with fire, you get burned.”

    The virus is found in every cell of the DNA and RNA of the GMO apple and the residue in the apples stays in your gut and leads to Crohn’s disease, IBD and IBS.

    Dr. Daniel C. Dantini, a noted expert on the topic of food allergies and intolerance, opines that, “Any virus, bacteria, parasite, or yeast can inflame the intestine.” This will lead to immune problems within the body, inflammation and even include delayed food allergies.

    It also produces “more virulent new virus diseases . . . CaMV viruses may also incorporate genes from the host plant creating virulent new diseases”. Professor Joe Cummins made it clear that there is still a statistical risk involved for the creation of a dangerous virus. Much like a sci-fi film, it is another “mad scientist” playing with fire. From Frankenstein to Swamp Thing, films and literature are filled with these types of experiments gone bad.

    According to author and expert, Jeffrey M. Smith, “This means that long after we stop eating GMOs [apples], we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us.”

    Sadly, genetically modified apples are further contaminated by the need for the farmer to use multiple applications of pesticides. More than 400 chemical pesticides are regularly used in genetic farming to kill weeds, insects and other pests. If that number frightens you, consider this: non-organic apples are routinely sprayed up to 16 times with 36 different pesticides before being picked. Then the apples are sprayed with ethylene and covered with wax to make them look prettier.

    In addition, Big Food scientists even field tested chicken genes in apples. Chicken genes? What were they trying to do? Get the apples to sprout wings and fly to the market to save shipping costs? Make no mistake about it, these are not the apples your grandparents ate every day. Nor the “one a day keeps the doctor away” apples that doctors recommend.

    As a result, Americans are eating an abnormal, adulterated copies of natural organic apples (modified by a “mad scientist” in a lab) soaked in pesticides and sprayed with chemicals. Do you really want to feed an adulterated apple to your child?

    If you feed your child an apple a day, it will not keep the doctor away. On the contrary, a child will be exposed to more viruses, the possibility of childhood illness and disease, weight gain and obesity. Adults fare no better eating a genetically modified chemically soaked apple a day.

    For expectant mothers, these are the types of foods that lead to chemically altering the DNA of a fetus and/or starting that fetus down the road to childhood diseases. Just look at the growing statistics on childhood illnesses to validate the problem. Is this what we want in our society – chemical garbage instead of the “real thing”? Do we really want to make our children chemical dump sites for Big Food?

    Johnny Appleseed lived by the Golden Rule as he planted the seeds of apples in the United States. He remained connected to nature and mankind through his deeply religious values. He was known to have no fear of man or beast.

    One can only wonder how sad he would be to realize that the beast within man could destroy those beautiful seeds and have no conscious about harming others. What ever happened to that Golden Rule? Johnny Appleseed must be turning over in his grave.

    This is why the nutritional value of GMO apples are negligible. Anything that increases the number of harmful chemicals in your body should be avoided.  Any fruit that can alter your DNA and RNA and leave bacterias and viruses in your intestines should be banned from public consumption.

    The food industry scientists are rolling the dice with peoples’ lives. If they roll the dice long enough, society will lose. That loss is already measured by the increase in diabetes, cancer, kidney and liver failure and the long line of Americans waiting for kidney and liver transplants.

    None of this happened before scientists created genetically modified foods and more than 9,000 addictive chemicals now used in our food supply.

    Mannie Barling and Ashley F. Brooks, R.N., are the authors of award winning books – Arthritis, Inflammation, Gout, Crohn’s, IBD and IBS – How to Eliminate Pain and Extend your Life (Books and Authors 2010 Best Books in the Health, Diet & Reference Categories) and Mannie’s Diet and Enzyme Formula – A Change of Lifestyle Diet Designed for Everyone (Blogger News Net 2010 Best Health And Nutrition Book Award winner) available at HowToEliminatePain.com, Amazon, Barnes&Noble, and other booksellers around the world.

    http://www.bloggernews.net/125881

    The industry marketing pitch to the public is that bioengineered seeds and plants will help the environment by reducing toxic herbicide/pesticide use. Isolated examples are given, but the overall reality is exactly opposite. The majority of GM agricultural products are developed specifically for toxin-resistance ~ namely for higher doses of herbicides/ pesticides sold by the largest producer companies ~ Monsanto, Dupont Novaris, Dow, Bayer, Ciba-Geigy, Hoescht, AgroEvo, and Rhone-Poulenc.

    http://musicians4freedom.com/2010/12/30/harmful-effects-of-genetically-modified-foods/


  • Dangerous Sweetener by Monsanto.

     

    Apart from ruining plant life , Monsanto is now ruining  us directly.Plain sugar is not the real reason for Diabetes.it is Carbohydrates,among other things..

    Neotame is a chemical derivative of aspartame, and judging by the chemicals used in its manufacturing, it appears even more toxic than aspartame, although the proponents of neotame claim that increased toxicity is not a concern, because less of it is needed to achieve the desired effect.

    Neotame is bad science brought to you by the Monsanto Company.

    If Monsano truly had nothing to fear with either of these artificial chemical sweeteners, they would have funded rigorous independent testing for safety. To date they have not, and they won’t, because virtually every independent analysis of aspartame not conducted by Monsanto partners has revealed a long list of disturbing side effects, mostly neurological in nature.

    Monsanto also has now sold the NutraSweet Company to someone else, but the approval of neotame came under Monsanto’s ownership, and was most likely a result of Monsanto’s cozy relationship with the FDA. More about that in a minute.

    Why is Neotame Dangerous?

    Hopefully by now you are aware of the dangers of aspartame, if you aren’t, please review this previous article.

    But as if aspartame wasn’t bad enough, NutraSweet (a Monsanto subsidiary at the time of neotame’s approval) “improved” the aspartame formula, making neotame 7,000-13,000 times sweeter than sugar (sucrose) and 30-60 times sweeter than aspartame.

    How did they do this?

    In 1998, Monsanto applied for FDA approval for neotame, “based on the aspartame formula” with one critical addition: 3-dimethylbutyl, which just happens to be listed on the EPA’s most hazardous chemical list.

    So not only is neotame potentially more devastating to your health than aspartame, it is also approved for use in a wider array of food products, including baked goods, because it is more stable at higher temperatures.

    What is 3-Dimethylbutyl?

    Neotame is manufactured by combining aspartame with 3,3-dimethylbutyraldehyd, which was added to block enzymes that break the peptide bond between aspartic acid and phenylalanine, thereby reducing the availability of phenylalanine.

    This eliminates the need for a warning on labels directed at people who cannot properly metabolize phenylalanine.

    However, 3,3-Dimethylbutyraldehyde is categorized as both highly flammable and an irritant, andcarries risk statements for handling including irritating to skin, eyes and respiratory system.

    In other words, the NutraSweet company assures you that neotame is perfectly safe, while at the same time they manufacture neotame through a chemical reaction between aspartame and a substance that is highly flammable and a skin, eye and respiratory irritant (that must be handled with extreme caution by anyone involved in the manufacturing process).

    Does this sound like something you want to put into your body?

    Why are These Chemicals Approved for Human Consumption?

    Many people actually consider the FDA to be a “subsidiary” of the Monsanto Company. It sounds impossible, but when you look at all the Monsanto executives who have gone through the revolving door between private industry and government oversight, a truly disturbing picture emerges of the foxes guarding the henhouse..

    The FDA is packed by pro-business, pro-corporation advocates who often have massive conflicts of interest when it comes to protecting the health of the public.

    In fact, the revolving door between private industry and government oversight agencies is so well established these days, it has become business as usual to read about scandal, conflicts of interest and blatant pro-industry bias, even when it flies in the face of science or the law.

    A few examples include:

    Why Aspartame and Neotame are NOT a Dieters Best Friend

    On of the biggest marketing and PR tactics for man-made chemical sweeteners has been the claim that they help in the battle against obesity. Folks, they don’t. They never have and they never will.

    The research and the epidemiologic data suggest the opposite is true, and that artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and neotame tend to lead to weight gain. As I’ve often said, there’s more to weight gain or weight loss than mere calorie intake.

    One reason for aspartame and neotame’s potential to cause weight gain is because phenylalanine and aspartic acid – the two amino acids that make up 90 percent of aspartame and are also present in neotame — are known to rapidly stimulate the release of insulin and leptin; two hormones that are intricately involved with satiety and fat storage.

    Insulin and leptin are also the primary hormones that regulate your metabolism.

    So although you’re not ingesting calories in the form of sugar, aspartame and neotame can still raise your insulin and leptin levels. Elevated insulin and leptin levels, in turn, are two of the driving forces behind obesity, diabetes, and a number of our current chronic disease epidemics.

    Over time, if your body is exposed to too much leptin, it will become resistant to it, just as your body can become resistant to insulin, and once that happens, your body can no longer “hear” the hormonal messages instructing your body to stop eating, burn fat, and maintain good sensitivity to sweet tastes in your taste buds.

    What happens then?

    You remain hungry; you crave sweets, and your body stores more fat.

    Leptin-resistance also causes an increase in visceral fat, sending you on a vicious cycle of hunger, fat storage and an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, metabolic syndrome and more.

    The Real Reason Artificial Sweetener Use Has Exploded

    If you want some answers in scenarios like this it is typically useful to follow the money trail. Aspartame currently has the largest market share of all artificial sweeteners, and the people at NutraSweet would like to keep it that way.

    Artificial sweeteners cost a great deal less than real sugar, corn syrup or molasses, so the processed food and beverage industry saves money by using LESS of these man-made chemicals to create MORE sweetness in their products.

    Neotame is manufactured from aspartame, and builds on aspartame’s ability to provide more sweetness from less raw material, as it is 30-60 times sweeter than aspartame.

    Unfortunately, one byproduct your body creates by breaking down aspartame is formaldehyde, which is extremely toxic to your health even in very small doses. The NutraSweet Company claims the addition of 3,3-Dimethylbutyraldehyde to aspartame makes it more stable at higher temperatures, and reduces the availability of phenylalanine. But nowhere do they discuss the formation of formaldehyde when your body breaks down aspartame, which is the main ingredient of neotame.

    In a search of pubmed.gov, the U.S. National Library of Medicine, which has over 11 million medical citations, neotame returns zero double-blind scientific studies on toxicity in humans or animals.

    If neotame was indeed completely safe to ingest, you would think the NutraSweet Company would have published at least one double-blind safety study in the public domain? They haven’t.

    You have to ask yourself “why not?”

    Have You Experienced a Bad Aspartame or Neotame Reaction? Be Heard!

    Did you know that only a fraction of all adverse food reactions are ever reported to the FDA? This is a problem that only you as the consumer can have an impact upon.

    In order to truly alert the FDA to a problem with a product they’ve approved, they must be notified – by as many people as possible who believe they have experienced a side effect. This mean you can take action against the manufacturers of these chemicals that continue to put your optimal health at risk, if you feel you have had a bad reaction to their product.

    I urge you, if you believe you have experienced side effects from aspartame or neotame, let the FDA know about it!

    Please go to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator page, find the phone number listed for your state, and report your adverse reaction.

    There’s no telling just how many reports they might need before considering taking another look at the safety of aspartame or neotame, but the only way to press them is by reporting any and all adverse effects!

    And in the meantime, do your health and the health of your family a favor and treat all foods and drinks that contain aspartame or neotame as if they were deleterious to your optimal health. Because, in my opinion, they are.

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/02/08/neotame-receives-fda-approval-but-is-not-widely-used-yet.aspx

    Related Links:

     


  • Monsanto triggers Diseases in plants,animals and humans-Study.

    Herbicide glyphosate effect in weeds, maize cr...
    Image via Wikipedia

     

    It is really astonishing how a company with such products is allowed to function,

    Money talks!

    Read my blogs on the same subject under Health.

    Story:

    Don Huber spent 35 years as a plant pathologist at Purdue University and knows a lot about what causes green plants to turn yellow and die prematurely. He asked the seed dealer why the SDS was so severe in the one area of the field and not the other. “Did you plant something there last year that wasn’t planted in the rest of the field?” he asked. Sure enough, precisely where the severe SDS was, the dealer had grown alfalfa, which he later killed off at the end of the season by spraying a glyphosate-based herbicide (such as Roundup). The healthy part of the field, on the other hand, had been planted to sweet corn and hadn’t received glyphosate.

    This was yet another confirmation that Roundup was triggering SDS. In many fields, the evidence is even more obvious. The disease was most severe at the ends of rows where the herbicide applicator looped back to make another pass (see photo). That’s where extra Roundup was applied.

    Don’s a scientist; it takes more than a few photos for him to draw conclusions. But Don’s got more—lots more. For over 20 years, Don studied Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate. He’s one of the world’s experts. And he can rattle off study after study that eliminate any doubt that glyphosate is contributing not only to the huge increase in SDS, but to the outbreak of numerous other diseases. (See selected reading list.)

    Sudden Death Syndrome is more severe at the ends of rows, where Roundup dose is strongest. Photo by Amy Bandy.

    Roundup: The perfect storm for plant disease

    More than 30% of all herbicides sprayed anywhere contain glyphosate—the world’s bestselling weed killer. It was patented by Monsanto for use in their Roundup brand, which became more popular when they introduced “Roundup Ready” crops starting in 1996. These genetically modified (GM) plants, which now include soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, have inserted genetic material from viruses and bacteria that allows the crops to withstand applications of normally deadly Roundup.
    http://current.com/technology/92927602_monsantos-roundup-triggers-over-40-plant-diseases-and-endangers-human-and-animal-health.htm?xid=320

  • Monsanto’s Seeds Of Growth.


    It is not merely a question of Anti Trust as for as Monsanto is concerned.it is a question of depleting soil ,disturbing food production and killing agriculturists( at least in India).The company should be closed.
    Story:
    No one wants to see a welcome sign that says “America: Land of Some Opportunity.” It would be an especially bad message to send if you wanted to encourage investments that drive economic growth, job creation, and exports.

    Over the past 30 years, American investments in invention and creativity–activities protected by intellectual property law–produced world-class businesses in computer hardware and software, semiconductors, entertainment and biotechnology, making global icons of Avatar and Intel, Microsoft and Monsanto, Viacom and Viagra, among others. Market skeptics and less successful competitors, however, are pressing governments to use antitrust laws to limit returns to market-leading patent and copyright holders, pitting antitrust against intellectual property law. That’s a dangerous game.

    Antitrust and intellectual property laws are complements, not opposites. Intellectual property law is designed to provide incentives for increased invention, development and diffusion of practical ideas and creative works. Antitrust is supposed to deter serious interference with normal operation of competition in commercial markets.

    In a world in which more and more business involves competition based on ideas, intellectual property law helps protect some investments that provide the building blocks for future competition. Of course, being property laws, they function by granting exclusive control rights for a time. Any grant of exclusivity can be cast as limiting competition, but that is hardly useful to legal analysis. Antitrust doesn’t prohibit everything that limits competition in any way–a law that broad would bring commerce to a standstill by stopping the entire array of contracts and rights that underlie modern business. No one contends that antitrust law goes that far. Yet many scholars, lawyers and pundits casually assert that IP law conflicts with antitrust simply by limiting competition in some dimension.

    Cases dealing with high-technology products are the common setting for claims that competition is unfairly impeded when a leading firm keeps others from building on patented or copyrighted technology that its rivals–having failed to supplant it with their own offerings–deem critical to success. Inevitably the technology at issue represents the result of successful investment in research and development, and gives the investor only temporary leadership unless it continues to innovate and successfully commercialize the right innovations. Just as Avatar doesn’t give James Cameron permanent hegemony over cinematic entertainment, other successes built on good ideas don’t guarantee continued leadership. Giving innovators exclusive rights to their innovations doesn’t prevent competition; it channels the competition into the search for better ideas and better ways of bringing them to consumers.

    Surprisingly, inquiries by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Justice into competition in agriculture have elicited comments similarly miscasting market-leading innovation as an antitrust culprit to be eliminated, rather than an IP success to be emulated. Take, for instance, suggestions that the seed industry needs regulation because one company (Monsanto ( MON – news – people )) dominates competition for production of seeds that incorporate that company’s own patented, herbicide-resistant trait or very similar traits. The seed industry is highly competitive; farmers choose seeds each year and can switch producers if they please; hundreds of firms produce and sell seeds; and other major firms (including firms far larger than Monsanto) invest heavily in developing their own competing seeds and seed traits.
    http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/11/antitrust-intellectual-property-monsanto-dupont-opinions-contributors-ronald-a-cass.html?partner=alerts