Category Archives: Health and Science

New Scientific Review: ‘No Evidence’ Water Fluoridation Prevents Cavities

It’s time the US stops adding it to the water

By Anthony Gucciardi
July 2, 2015
Natural Society

 

sodium-fluoride-does-not-prevent-cavitiesA new and highly-needed scientific review has found that there’s no real evidence linking water fluoridation with cavity prevention, further proving that the IQ-damaging substance known as sodium fluoride truly does not have a place in our water supply.

It was back in 2012 that I shared with you the results from a major Harvard study that revealed the dark relationship between IQ levels and sodium fluoride consumption. Specifically, the Harvard researchers detailed the fact that children who lived in areas with high sodium fluoride content had ‘significantly lower’ IQ than those in areas with less added fluoride content. What’s more, this research was published in a federal government medical journal known as Environmental Health Perspectives.

The researchers from Harvard specifically stated:

“The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas.”

Remember, this was back in 2012. So why has almost nothing changed? A particularly valid question when we note that in 2011, the government actually called for ‘lower fluoride levels’ amid a growing body of research that it was negatively affecting the health of Americans.

Fast forward to April of 2015, and finally the federal government decides to lower fluoride levels for the first time in 50 years. A monumental event in the history of water fluoridation and public health.

Now, in June of 2015, another landmark study has hit: sodium fluoride in the water supply isn’t even preventing cavities! Now is the time to make this a well-known study, instead of a footnote buried within the latest news feed. After all, it’s huge news that this information is finally being displayed by the mainstream media after years of anti-fluoride activists enduring the label ‘conspiracy theorist.’

Let’s look at the piece by Newsweek entitled “Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows,” which states:

“The review identified only three studies since 1975—of sufficient quality to be included—that addressed the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay in the population at large. These papers determined that fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth, says study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom. The authors found only seven other studies worthy of inclusion dating prior to 1975. “

Thomas Zoeller, a scientist at UMass-Amherst who played a role in the study, breaks it down:

“I had assumed because of everything I’d heard that water fluoridation reduces cavities but I was completely amazed by the lack of evidence,” he says. “My prior view was completely reversed.”

The fact is that the science is quite clear: true independent scientists that study the safety and effectiveness of sodium fluoride in the water supply simply cannot believe the lack of both safety and effectiveness. This latest study is just another example of how sodium fluoride’s so-called ‘effectiveness’ in the water supply is not based on solid scientific reasoning, but rather political pressure to assert the ‘cavity-preventing’ benefits of water fluoridation.

These ‘benefits,’ however, never existed when it comes to water fluoridation. What does come from adding sodium fluoride into our water is a much more dangerous result: an attack on human IQ and overall health.

 

 

New Study Finds GMO Corn Makes Rats Infertile

Unlike GM corn, non-GMO corn doesn’t cause sterility

By Christina Sarich
July 01, 2015
Natural Society

 

Rat in templeStill think GMOs and their non-GMO counterparts are equivalent? Think again. Unlike GM corn, non-GMO corn doesn’t cause sterility. A new study released by Egyptian scientists found that rats fed a GMO diet suffer from infertility, among other health issues.

Researchers from the Food Technology Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Anatomy and Embryology, and Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt, have found that several unsavory changes occur when rats were fed GM corn.

The rats’ organs/body weight and serum biochemistry were altered, indicating potential adverse health and toxic effects.

“GM corn or soybeans leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice, particularly in livers and kidneys. In addition they found other organs may be affected too, such as heart and spleen, or blood cells. The kidneys of males fared the worst, with 43.5% of all the changes, the liver of females followed with 30.8%”

Additionally, by day 91, many of the rats fed a GM diet were completely sterile.

As reported by Sustainable Pulse:

In the third study, histopathological examination was carried out on the rats fed the GM maize, and the results were compared with rats fed non-GM maize. The study found clear signs of organ pathology in the GM-fed group, especially in the liver, kidney, and small intestine. An examination of the testes revealed necrosis (death) and desquamation (shedding) of the spermatogonial cells that are the foundation of sperm cells and thus male fertility – and all this after only 91 days of feeding.”

Read: GMO Soy Linked to Sterility, Birth Defects, Infant Mortality

How long do you think this effect will take to show up in human beings who eat GM food?

The study abstract reads:

“This study was designed to evaluate the safety of genetically modified (GM) corn (Ajeeb YG). Corn grains from Ajeeb YG or its control (Ajeeb) were incorporated into rodent diets at 30% concentrations administered to rats (n= 10/group) for 45 and 91 days…General conditions were observed daily…and serum biochemistry were measured. The data showed several statistically significant differences in organs/body weight and serum biochemistry between the rats fed on GM and/or Non-GM corn and the rats fed on AIN93G diets. In general, GM corn sample caused several changes by increase or decrease organs/body weight or serum biochemistry values. This indicates potential adverse health/toxic effects of GM corn and further investigations still needed.”

This study simply corroborates previous findings, proving the same deleterious effects. Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov and his colleagues found that Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction – in many cases, causing infertility. Animals who ate GM soy were sterile by the third generation.

Years ago, Natural Society unveiled proof that hamsters fed Monsanto’s GM soy for two years had growth and development abnormalities, and also – became sterile.

If you don’t see a pattern here, you might need to look again.

 

 

Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga.

What Does “Low Dose” Mean When It Comes to Exposure to Toxic Chemicals?

A major study reveals how exposure over 80 different chemicals could have synergistic impacts on the development of cancer.

By Genna Reed
July 01, 2015
AlterNet, June 29, 2015

 

The chemicals that we’re exposed to in our daily lives are often approved by the government under the assumption that they’re safe in small doses, even over a long period of time. For years, regulators relied on the old adage “the dose makes the poison” to try to explain their logic. While that might have appeared true for certain chemicals for many years, we now live in a world where exposure to a large variety of chemicals is unavoidable and it’s finally becoming clear that we can’t evaluate these chemicals in isolation.

Think about a simple picnic in a city park. The air you breathe is filled with particulate matter from car exhaust, the landscaping was likely treated with chemical fertilizers and Roundup or another weedkiller, the plastic surrounding your food or drink items might contain BPA or phthalates, your drinks could contain preservatives, the antibacterial spray you use on your hands after eating might contain triclosan and the sunscreen you apply on your skin probably contains nanomaterials. Now extrapolate that scenario to each and every activity you partake in on a daily basis.

The agriculture sector experiences this chemical cocktail at a more extreme level. The inputs that may go onto a farm in a growing season could include nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium–filled fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. These chemicals have individual limits to how much can be used in a season, but these limits don’t take into account all of the other chemicals that will be applied throughout the year. Herbicide use has gone up as weeds have become resistant to the most popular herbicide, glyphosate (Roundup), requiring the use of older, more toxic herbicides like 2,4-D and dicamba. In effect, agricultural workers, farmers and surrounding communities are exposed to a mix of chemicals, the combined, or “synergistic,” effects of which have never been studied.

But this month, a study by 174 scientists from 28 countries was released that, for the first time, looked at how low levels of exposure to 85 different chemicals over time could have synergistic impacts on the development of cancer. All of the chemicals were selected because they are ubiquitous in the environment and are not classified as human carcinogens on their own. However, because each of these chemicals disrupts different pathways and mechanisms in people, the authors hypothesized that interactions between different chemicals and pathways could elevate the risk of cancer.

The teams found that 50 out of 85 of the chemicals could impact cancer-causing pathways at low doses that are realistic in the environment. The research is compelling but preliminary, and calls on regulators to change their risk assessments to consider the impacts of chemical mixes and conduct more research on environmental triggers of cancer and on different chemical mixes and their effects on various cancer-related disruptions.

You may remember that The World Health Organization’s cancer research arm, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently issued an evaluation of Roundup that determined that it should be classified as a 2A carcinogen, meaning it is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” This week, the IARC reviewed 2,4-D and did not alter its opinion on the chemical (it remains classified as group 2B, “possibly carcinogenic to humans”), though they found that there was evidence of its ability to create genetic mutations and to negatively impact the human immune system. It is important to add that although the IARC task force did not find 2,4-D to be carcinogenic, it’s possible that thepresence of Dow (the maker of 2,4-D) representatives and other agribusinesses on the panel influenced the majority opinion. Earlier this month, Food & Water Watch and other coalition groups raised concerns about conflicts of interest within WHO taskforces.

Since Dow’s Enlist 2,4-D and glyphosate tolerant corn and soybeans were approved, the probable and possible carcinogens are now being used together on farms, yet the two chemicals’ interactions have never been studied. However, there is emerging research on some of the impacts of other chemical interactions possible in agriculture. For example, astudy published in mBio showed that the presence of glyphosate, 2,4-D or dicamba at application levels recommended to farmers, can induce the ability of bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics. There is also evidence that certain fungicides can actually amplify the toxicity of some neonicotinoids (an insecticide class) to honey bees. These are just a couple of examples of research that have only scratched the surface of the interactions that can occur between mixtures of chemicals, let alone all of the chemical cocktails present in the environment.

Just this week, Food & Water Watch submitted comments to the USDA because it is planning to make changes to its biotechnology regulations. We urged the department to consider the herbicides used with GMOs as they decide whether or not to approve a new crop. This kind of approach could lead to a decision to reject a new GMO crop due to the risks associated with the chemicals that are used to grow that crop.

Stay tuned for ways to weigh in on USDA’s approval process and the fight to get meaningful evaluations of the safety of GMO crops and the chemicals that come with them.

“Intolerable Levels” of Monsanto’s Glyphosate (Roundup) Found in Breast Milk

By Christina Sarich
June 30, 2015
Natural Society

 

baby-breast-milk-735-350After testing 16 women from different regions all over Germany, the Green Party has found that traces of the chemical glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Round Up, are appearing in breast milk at ‘intolerable levels’ that could harm a developing baby and the mother.

The weed killer traces in breast milk were found to be between 0.210 and 0.432 nanograms per millilitre (PPB). Drinking water is allowed to have no more than 0.100 nanograms of glyphosate.

Irene Witte, professor of toxicology at the University of Oldenburg, described the findings as “intolerable.”

Witte stated:

“I would never have guessed that the quantities are so high.”

Though the sample size in these initial tests was small, and Witte believed it should be expanded, it is still indicative of a major problem. These 16 women indicate that larger sections of the population are being poisoned with glyphosate – a substance which the WHO has called carcinogenic. If Monsanto is allowed to keep selling these chemicals, it amounts to mass-murder.

Witte explained that if the chemical has been proven to cause cancer, then no amount should be tolerated in our food supply. As a reminder, the World Health Organization recently delivered a huge blow to Monsanto, pronouncing that glyphosate – and subsequently Monsanto’s Round Up – is ‘probably carcinogenic.’ The organization also recent declared 2 other pesticides – Lindane and DDT – as being cancer-causing to humans.

Further commenting on the glyphosate residues found in breast milk, Witte said:

“There is not upper limit you can then put on the quantity. Every molecule could cause cancer.”

The chair of the Environmental Committee in the Bundestag (German parliament) Bärbel Höhn of the Green Party said:

“The government needs to take glyphosate out of circulation until the question of its links to cancer has been cleared up.”

Sadly, past studies have found similar results to this. The herbicide has been found in breast milk, urine, and even blood:

  • A piece of research found that the toxic ingredient is actually found in the breast milk of women, leading to damage to underdeveloped human beings.
  • In addition to being found in urine and breast milk, glyphosate has also been found in people’s blood in 18 different countries.

The link is clear. It’s time to stop these biotech companies, now.

Learn how to test for Glyphosate Residues, here.

Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

WHO Says Widely-Used Dow Herbicide 2,4-D “Possibly Carcinogenic” to Humans

Advocacy groups warn new classification is latest proof that ‘we cannot continue down the path of dousing our fields with ever more toxic chemicals’

By Sarah Lazare
June 24, 2015
Common Dreams

 

"We have known for decades that 2,4-D is harmful to the environment and human health, especially for the farmers and farm workers applying these chemicals to crops," said Mary Ellen Kustin, Environmental Working Group. (Photo: Chafer Machinery/flickr/cc)

“We have known for decades that 2,4-D is harmful to the environment and human health, especially for the farmers and farm workers applying these chemicals to crops,” said Mary Ellen Kustin, Environmental Working Group. (Photo: Chafer Machinery/flickr/cc)

The World Health Organization revealed on Tuesday that 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic, a key ingredient of a widely-used herbicide produced by Dow, is “possibly carcinogenic” to humans—a classification that public health and environmental advocates say is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the overall dangers the chemical poses.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer—a Lyon, France-based wing of the WHO—published the findings Tuesday in The Lancet Oncology and also disclosed them in a public statement (pdf).

The agency said there is “strong evidence that 2,4-D induces oxidative stress that can operate in humans and moderate evidence that 2,4-D causes immunosuppression, based on in-vivo and in-vitro studies.”

The classification of “possibly carcinogenic” puts 2,4-D two levels above “probably not carcinogenic” but one below “probably carcinogenic.”This development did not come as a shock to public health and environmental advocates.

“We have known for decades that 2,4-D is harmful to the environment and human health, especially for the farmers and farm workers applying these chemicals to crops,” said Mary Ellen Kustin, senior policy analyst for the Environmental Working Group, in a press statement.

However, advocacy groups say that the agency’s findings come at a particularly critical time.

“Now that farmers are planting 2,4-D-tolerant GMO crops, this herbicide is slated to explode in use much the way glyphosate did with the first generation of GMO crops,” said Kustin. “And we know from experience—and basic biology—that weeds will soon grow resistant to these herbicides, making GMO crop growers only more dependent on the next chemical fix.”

Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network, said that this dependency underscores the importance of immediate action: “We must heed the warning: we cannot continue down the path of dousing our fields with ever more toxic chemicals as a temporary solution to today’s epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds—a problem greatly exacerbated in recent years by dependence on glyphosate, now classified as a probable carcinogen.”

Troublingly, 2,4-D is just one key ingredient in Dow’s Enlist Duo herbicide that was approved in April for use in 15 states by the Environmental Protection Agency. The other key ingredient is glyphosate, which the WHO said in March is a “probable carcinogen” for humans.

What’s unknown, and perhaps even more alarming, is the fact that “when the EPA approved Enlist Duo for use on GMO crops, the agency did not consider the effects the two harmful defoliants may have on human health when mixed together,” EWG warned Tuesday.

Drug Companies Donated Millions to California Lawmakers Prior to Forced Vaccination Bill

Should we not have the right to choose?

By Christina Sarich
June 21, 2015
Natural Society

 

vaccine_vial_need_scale_w_735_350One in 50 children are now autistic. No, you didn’t read that wrong. Despite the fact that a CDC whistleblower recently came forward admitting that the government agency obfuscated evidence linking vaccines to autistic behavior, California lawmakers passed a mandatory vaccine bill (SB277) which removes parental exemptions – making it so parents couldn’t refuse or delay vaccines. Even more damning evidence has surfaced proving that Big Pharma had their hands in the creation of the bill.

The Sacramento Bee is reporting that State lawmakers behind bill SB277 have ties to the makers of vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies and their trade groups gave current members of the Legislature more than $2 million. Nine of the top 20 recipients of these funds are either members of the Senate health committee, or leaders who could influence the outcome of the bill, as well as push it through to law.

One senator, in particular, is also a doctor, Richard Pan, who received more than $95,000 in campaign cash. He also just happens to be the man who wrote the bill.

As if that weren’t bad enough, Big Pharma also donated more than $500,000 to outside campaign spending groups that helped some of these top nine individuals be elected to their current legislative positions.

Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies contributed nearly $3 million in additional cash to the 2013-2014 legislative session lobbying, among these representatives, the state pharmacists’ board, and other agencies – who could also sway the outcome of SB277 – for mandatory vaccines.

Dr. or Senator Pan, whichever title you choose, is an ‘industry insider’ with far-reaching influence. He has been a teaching faculty member at UC Davis Children’s Hospital, and served many organizations which determine medical funding.

While he has flip-flopped on the vaccine issue in the past, previously introducing a bill which would have required parents to get their doctor’s approval to refuse a vaccine for their child, he recently said that the Disney measles episode, argued by some to be a false flag, was reason enough to promote forced vaccinations ‘for public health.’

Read: California Lawmakers Voice Resounding ‘NO’ to Forced Vaccines

Thousands of people are now calling for the resignation of Dr. Pan for obvious conflict of interest, and a recall of the bill which caused massive protests in California before legislators voted it into law.

A petition has also been started with the same intent:

“We call on California State Senator, Dr. Richard Pan to resign from his position due to his vested interests in profiting from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and literally dozens of pharmaceutical companies, and the conflict of interest this causes.” (Change.org)

Massive Protests in California Against SB277

The petition was already delivered on June 9th, and had gained 9000 signatures in just days of its posting. A Voice for Choice stated:

“To the Honorable Governor and Legislature of the State of California,

We, the undersigned people of California, are writing in regards to the unquestionably unconstitutional Senate Bills 277 and 792, and Assembly Bill 1117. It shocks the conscience to consider that there are Senators and Assembly Members who deem it within their province to utterly annihilate fundamental rights that all of the members of the California Legislature swore to uphold.

A vote in contravention of the knowledge that SB 277, SB 792, and AB 1117 are clearly incomprehensible under both the United States and California constitutional laws, and in cognizance of the fact that despite the fact that vaccines cause demonstrable injuries, and yet under California laws, doctors and manufacturers remain completely immune from liability, is an attestation to the fact that you are mandating a medical procedure for all children, as well as for adults working as preschool and child care workers, without even a glimmer of choice. If you feel comfortable making that decision, knowing full well the potential ramifications of such a vote, then we see no reason why you would not agree to be held personally responsible, both morally and financially, should any subsequent vaccine injuries or deaths occur. We are strongly opposed to SB 277, SB 792, and AB 1117 and demand that you vote against these bills.

America is a Constitutional Republic and the Supreme Law of this Republic guarantees under Article IV, Section 4, a republican form of government for every state.

In the best interests of the People, businesses and industries of California, and to protect them from economic devastation and bodily harm, the government of California will vote “No” on SB277, SB792, and AB1117. These bills violate the U.S. Constitution, in particular, the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments; and the California Constitution, in particular, Article 9; as well as the California Education Code, by which all children are to be afforded a free public education. There is no compelling state interest to deny children in California the right to a public education. And according to the California Department of Public Health, “[v]accination coverage in California is at or near all-time high levels.”

The document continues to outline how California legislators are going against Constitutional law. You can read it in its entirety here: AVoiceforChoice.org/petition/

Related: $15,000 Tax Penalty Enforced for Not Vaccinating

A press conference in Berkeley, California will also be held on Monday, June 22 at 11:00 a.m. to address “the unconstitutional aspects of SB 277 as well as informing about the Consumer Protection Amendment in English, Spanish, and Russian.” Details here.

Additional Sources:

CDPH.ca.gov

Monsanto Now Billing Itself as a “Sustainable Agriculture Company”

But is anyone really buying this?

By Christina Sarich
June 13, 2015
Natural Society

 

When you read headlines like these, you may be confused. Should you get angry, or laugh? Monsanto as a sustainable agriculture company? Monsanto truly has decided to market itself as a ‘sustainable agriculture’ company despite spending billions to provide the world with destructive, carcinogenic chemicals.

You can see Monsanto’s propaganda piece here. The biotech giant also says that it aims to “empower” farmers around the world, while arguably leading to mass farmer suicides taking place all throughout India. What’s more, Monsanto is completely wreckinging the organic farmer’s industry in the US. As far as ‘empowering’ farmers, nearly 300,000 have sued Monsanto for contaminating their seed.

And the resistance against Monsanto doesn’t stop (nor even start) at the organic farmer. Even top scientists are speaking out against GMOs at large. A recent example can be seen with former senior scientist from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He has studied the impacts of altered crops on the environment for years, and exposes the genetically modified world and the ‘pesticide treadmill’ that biotech has us all running on.

The former professor states that GE crops provide no significant increase in crop yields, but do pose several other major concerns: namely cross-pollination of non-GM species, and negative impacts to the environment. He calls these ‘side effects’ of broken biotech promises.

And lest not forget the corporate atrocities of Monsanto such as PCBs, dioxin, Agent Orange, or their latest chemical concoction which is a combination of cancer-causing glyphosate and dicamba.

I guess we’re supposed to forget how unsustainable Monsanto’s business practices are as they sue competitors. The corporate seed monopolizer is still dwarfing small farmers.

Monsanto also tried to buy out another pesticide pusher, Syngenta, with a $45 billion offer, which Syngenta refused – but yes, they are all about “empowering farmers.” Though their aim is to make sure that every country is over-run with genetically modified crops and the chemicals that they sell to grow them.

With Monsanto’s $45 million bid for Syngenta, it shows exactly what kind of agriculture they are aiming to practice, and it is anything but sustainable.

Report: Pfizer ‘Hid Link’ Between Anti-Depressants and Birth Defects

Something we’ve been reporting on for years

By Anthony Gucciardi
June 9, 2015
Natural Society

 

Pharmaceutical mammoth Pfizer faces more than 1,000 lawsuits from victims who say that the company knew about the relationship between birth defects and their #1 best-selling anti-depressant. A claim that Pfizer has, of course, battled against.

Now, however, new reports have surfaced that Pfizer’s own scientific advisers were warning of the deadly link for more than a year. Something that my team told you in 2012 was already going on. According to Bloomberg:

“A Pfizer Inc. report shows a scientist warned executives last year about a potential link between the anti-depressant drug Zoloft and birth defects and recommended changes to the medication’s safety warning.

The document from a Pfizer drug-safety official might complicate the company’s efforts to fend off lawsuits brought by parents of children with malformed hearts. Pfizer has consistently rejected suggestions Zoloft caused newborn abnormalities and said Monday the document was taken out of context by lawyers suing the company.”

In other words, Pfizer likely employed a popular Big Pharma tactic: ignore any science that reveals serious side effects, and instead choose to pay some relatively meager fines for the damages. After all, paying a few million (or billion) in fines is often nothing compared to the profits from drugs like Zoloft, which rakes in around $2.9 billion per year alone.

After all, Pfizer has a familiar history with government fines. It was in 2009 when the corporation paid one of the largest health care fraud settlements of all time, shelling out $2.3 billion for “the intent to defraud or mislead” consumers with their painkiller Bextra. Again, a fine that is less than the sales of Zoloft for a single year.

As we read further down into the Bloomberg report, yet again it seems that research indicating serious side effects was simply ignored:

“Pfizer researchers also acknowledged in a 1998 report, which has been introduced into evidence in the Philadelphia trial, they’d found more than a dozen side-effect reports about babies’ birth defects for which their mothers’ Zoloft use couldn’t be ruled out as a cause.”

Sadly, this is nothing new for the mega pharmaceutical conglomerate. Eli Lilly & Co., the manufacturers of Prozac, did their best to hide the link between Prozac and increased risk of suicide for a number of years. Ultimately, it took a Harvard psychiatrist to proclaim that Americans were being treated like ‘guinea pigs’ by Eli Lilly & Co.’s Prozac for real public interest.

Will Pfizer end up paying a couple billion or less in fines for leading to an unknown number of life-threatening birth defects? It is the most likely outcome, for which the company is quite thankful. As long as they can write off the settlement loss and continue to take in the yearly profits, the company will get over it quickly.

Former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Scientist Speaks Out Against GMOs

While hundreds more scientists realize the dangers

By Christina Sarich
June 9, 2015
Natural Society, June 7, 2015

 

gmo_corn_cobA former senior scientist from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been speaking out against GMOs, but his voice is especially noteworthy among the many scientists who talk about genetically modified organisms. Why? Because he studied the impacts of altered crops on the environment. Read on to find out what this expert has to say about a genetically modified world and the ‘pesticide treadmill’ that biotech has us all running on.

Dr. Ramon Seidler’s credentials are nothing to sneeze at. He was a professor of microbiology at Oregon State University for 16 years before he worked at the EPA. He holds many honors, too, including being listed by the International Biographical Centre of Cambridge, England as one of the 2,000 outstanding World Scientists of the 20th Century.

During Seidler’s tenure at the EPA, he (along with other scientists) conducted GMO experiments that were contained in indoor environments. The experiments were meant to mimic what happens outside, just as if a farmer had planted a GM crop in Idaho, Michigan, or California. The gene transfer capabilities and survival rates of genetically modified seed were observed. He also observed transgenic DNA and Bt toxin products in agricultural ecosystems.

What he and his scientific peers found was that GE bacteria survived for years in soil, even after it was removed from the plants.

The former professor states that GE crops provide no significant increase in crop yields, but do pose several other major concerns: namely cross-pollination of non-GM species, and negative impacts to the environment. He calls these ‘side effects’ of broken biotech promises.

He also points out that one-third of the world already has the choice to ‘opt-out’ of GMOs because their food is labeled, and though Americans overwhelmingly want GM foods to be labeled, they are not.

As other scientists have pointed out, Seidler mentions the fact that very little true research has been conducted by independent scientists at any American universities. Biotech has restricted these studies by requesting that professors sign an agreement prior to the research being completed which forces them to send all results to the biotech companies before being published – ostensibly – to be vetted and discounted should it paint their GM seed in any negative light.

Ramon Seidler, Ph. D.
Ramon Seidler, Ph. D. // Photo credit: Non-gmoreport.com

The former scientist says this is nothing short of censorship, and individuals who have conducted years of research are unable to publish their findings in any reputable journals because biotech would simply veto the results.

Seidler also details how the biotechnology industry has parroted the claim that “pesticide use has declined’ since they introduced GMOs, but he states this is absolutely untrue. He commented:

Initially, insecticide use declined due to the effectiveness of Bt toxin in controlling pest insects. However, as time went on glyphosate use increased some 13-fold to control weeds and other non-genetically engineered synthetic chemicals were introduced to control insects as the Bt toxin became ineffective.

Glyphosate has been extensively applied to hundreds of millions of acres of genetically engineered crops, and the residues are in our air, water, and human bodies. 

Now virtually all of genetically engineered seeds are coated with insecticides and fungicides and these chemicals have increased some 10-fold in the last 10 years.

When seed coated pesticides are added to those pesticides that are injected into the soil at seed planting, pesticide use climbed back to where it was approximately 10-12 years ago.”

This ‘pesticide treadmill’ as Seidler has dubbed it, has all of us sick, and our soil contaminated.

To read more about a former EPA’s stance on GMOs, read the entire interview here.

Mainstream Media Blackout: Another Country Bans Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide

By Arjun Walia
June 8, 2015
Collective Evolution

 

bermudaWhy is it that in North America, we rarely see mainstream media discussing the fact that a number of countries are banning the use of Roundup herbicide? Roundup herbicide is the most commonly used herbicide in the world, and as of late it’s become wholly clear that this product (among many others) is most definitely a danger to both the environment and human health. (On a related note, it’s worth mentioning here that more than sixty countries now require mandatory GMO labelling.)

The latest country to Ban Rounup is Bermuda.

“Effective immediately, all importers of glyphosate/Roundup will be notified that the approval for all glyphosate products has been suspended, pending the continuing assessment of the emerging research.”Jeanne Atherden, Bermuda Minister of Health (source)

This ban comes shortly after a recently published study – in what is considered to be one of the most (if not the most) credible medical journals of today, The Lancet Oncology – determined that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp pesticide, is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” The study was published earlier this month, and was conducted by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. It analyzed data from studies that have been conducted on the chemical over the past couple of decades. (source)

Sri Lanka is another recent country to do the same, after a study was publishing linking Roundup to a deadly kidney disease. You can read more about that story here.

The Netherlands have also followed suit, you can read more about that here.

Basically, the research that has been available for quite some time now, through various international scientific journals, makes it quite clear. This stuff has been linked to Alzheimer’s disease, autism, cancer, kidney, birth defects, disease, and more.

What’s even more disturbing is the fact that studies have shown that RoundUp herbicide is over one hundred times more toxic than regulators claim. For example, a new study published in the journal Biomedical Research International shows that Roundup herbicide comprises a chemical cocktail 125 times more toxic than its active ingredient glyphosate studied in isolation. You can read more about that here.

Another thing that is quite clear is the fact that Western media does not really cover the topic of GMOs or herbicides and pesticides and their dangers – or why so many countries around the world are banning them. So thank you for supporting alternative media.

Here are some related CE articles if you are interested:

Scientists Link Autism To These Toxic Chemicals During Fetal Development

Another Groundbreaking Study Emerges Linking Agricultural Pesticides To Autism

Scientists Can Predict Your Pesticide Exposure Based On How Much You Eat

This Is What Happens To Your Body When You Switch To Organic Food

What Parents Need To Know About Monsanto: “By 2025 One In Two Children Will Be Autistic”

Monsanto’s Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects

Groundbreaking Study Links Monsanto’s Glyphosate To Cancer

New Study Links Gmos To Cancer, Liver/Kidney Damage & Severe Hormonal Disruption

Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal And Fetal Blood