โThe US government and leading scientific institutions have systematically misrepresented the facts about GMO.โ
The famous zoologistย Jane Goodall, who worked with monkeys in their native habitat at the Gombe Stream Reserve at Lake Tanganyika in the 1970’s, is joining a prominent activist lawyer, Steven Druker, to reveal the mockery of truth Big Biotech and the US government have made over genetically modified foods.
Steven Druker has written a book detailing it all titled “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth” which features Dame Jane Goodall, who has called it one of the most important books in the last 50 years.
The book is being published at an opportune time, when the EU Parliament is working on the decision thatย states can ban GMOs. Based on evidence that Druker and Goodall provide in the book, they should ban the cultivation of genetically modified seeds from Poland to Greece; the UK, to France.
Druker researched Biotechโs commercialization for over 15 years in order to write the book, and has a history of forcing the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to divulge its files on GM food in a lawsuit started in 1992. He based his suit on the fact that:
- The FDA has hidden many of its own findings about toxicity of GM crops.
- Violated federal food safety laws by giving a rubber stamp to โfoodโ items that should have had to prove certain standards through rigorous testing.
- The public unwittingly ate foods they did not know were dangerous due to their failure to regulate.
Read: 57 Million Americans Warn UK ofย GMO Dangers
Drucker aptly points out that if the FDA had heeded its own โexpertโ advice and publicly acknowledged their warnings that GM foods were riskier than conventional counterparts, biotech never would have had enough traction to launch a worldwide campaign.
His book also talks about the well-placed scientists (paid shills) who work at leading, โrespectableโ institutions such as the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the UKโs Royal Society that have simply supported the biotech agendaย whileย never truly evaluating the risks associated with genetically modified crops. Because of this, most of the public has been shammed. They arenโt aware of the dangers in eating GM foods.
One of the best examples Druker provides of the failure of biotechnology concerns the food supplement for an essential amino acid, L-tryptophan. Biotechโs first ingestible version of this amino acid actually caused thousands of deaths and permanently disabled many people.
Even the FDAโs own task force has seen ample evidence in both laboratory animals and in vivo trials to conclude that GM products should never have been allowed to go on the market. Now we have a world that is suffering from reproductive failure, liver disturbances, intestinal abnormalities, compromised immune systems, and an even greater incidence of obesity.
Even cautionary advice from eminent researchers from the Royal Society of Canada and the Public Health Association of Australia have been ignored.
Druker says:
โContrary to the assertions of its proponents, the massive enterprise to reconfigure the genetic core of the worldโs food supply is not based on sound science but on the systematic subversion of science โ and it would collapse if subjected to an open airing of the facts.โ
Read: 64 Established Scientists Reveal Corporate Fraud over GMO Study
Drucker and Goodall intend to confront the Royal Society to recount the facts, apologize for the misleading statements that it and several of its prominent members have issued, and take earnest steps to set the record straight.
Goodall states in the bookโs forward:
ย โI shall urge everyone I know who cares about life on earth, and the future of their children, and childrenโs children, to read it. It will go a long way toward dispelling the confusion and delusion that has been created regarding the genetic engineering process and the foods it produces. . . . Steven Druker is a hero. He deserves at least a Nobel Prize.โ
We are under chemical and biological warfare. Everything is giving us cancer and other diseases BY DESIGN to reduce population by 90% in three generations. Whenever people say, “Oh, I got my kids vaccinated and they turned out fine!” I say, “Maybe they lost 20 or more I.Q. points and you’ll never know the difference, but even if they are completely fine, what happens when they grow up and have children and their children have horrific diseases? People need to wake up and realize that everything alive is under attack from a death cult of eugenicists and suicidal nihilists that rules the world.
You nailed it! You’ll get this.
http://www.deagel.com/country/United-States-of-America_c0001.aspx
Brother, I’ve seen it before. I heard about it months and months ago from Steve Quayle, a gallant knight and a watcher on the wall. God bless you.
I should of known you got it and didn’t need to get it. I know by your astute comment your at least 60 points over Forrest Gump.
You ever get that “I’m Custer” feeling?
We’ve got another raw milk battle up north again. Your smart, read my comment. You’ll figure it out.
Marshall beat me to the punch. GMO is weapon system. Nothing more, nothing less. There’s a reason why they try treat this with utmost secrecy.
Yes a weapon against hunger and malnutrition, and misinformation like yours is a weapon of the devil.
Roberts example, explain why almond in this controlled country have reduced protein content. Explain why imported nut have higher nutrient content. When your lies are exposed we will be better off. You are a paid GMO hack, fess up !
First of all, I have never hid the fact that I am self employed supplying local farmers with fertilizer, chemicals, seed and animal feed. If you wish to continue to believe anything else then so be it, as you only show your ignorance. As for your nut question I simply have no idea, no idea as if you are telling the truth as to imported nuts have higher nutrition or not. Unlike you, I will take you at your word for now, but I know nothing of almonds and don’t even like them. Would much rather have cashews, walnuts, pistachios, or even Brazil nuts pecans aren’t bad either, but as far as production is concerned I’m only familiar with crops grown in the Midwest. The one thing I do know is we are talking gmos and almonds aren’t gmos, so I really don’t know what point you are trying to make anyway.
A plant without all of the poisons that you sell sprayed on them is a healthier plant, pesticides and fertilizers are destroying our soil. Independent studies already show that in the SHORT TERM GMO crops will out produce non GMO’s, but at a lower nutritional value and higher concentration of poisons, but in the LONG TERM say 10 years out, traditional crops out produce the GMO’s, without destroying the soil, without creating super weeds, and most importantly, without all of the poisons. If God did not put it in the food, then it doesn’t belong in the food. Remember what happened in Michigan in the 70’s, Fertilizer gets fed to livestock, people eat and drink the meat and milk from the livestock, and thousands of people end up with life long health issues, you can keep your fertilizers, and GMO crops, I’ll grow my own.
First of all, we are almost twenty years into gmos and they are still out producing non gmos. Secondly, non gmos actually have more chemicals applied to them to make up for the traits they are missing. It is true that less fertilizer is usually applied to non gmos, that’s because a farmer knows yields will be less and won’t spend the extra money. Now if you wish to say organic crops have less sprayed on them than gmos, I will agree with you. However, nutritionally, they are a three the same. As far as what happened in Michigan I have no idea what you are talking about, so if you wish to provide details I will listen. However, as far as feeding fertilizer to livestock, most beef and dairy do consume nitrogen in the for of urea. They are able to convert it into a cheap source of protein. Phosphoric acid is also used in a lot of feeds and as a liquid fertilizer, but also in products like coke.
Hey GMObot, Yes your were right. and I was so wrong. Another mystery time study proves your point.
Genetically modified soybean oil only slightly healthier than regular soybean oil
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-03/tes-gms030415.php
So the extra $40 an acre pays off for you I guess.
HAIL SATAN!!
But they used the Sprague Dawly rat. It’s proven the Mongolian gerbil would be best for gut tests. So explain to me again BooBookins, you guys use them it’s legit, any one else it’s bunk.
Queations??
You deal with food and never thought about why it’s 1/2 the nutritional value as it was 100 years ago?
Well GMO Roberts, it’s this simple. Healthy soil equals healthy food, healthy food equals healthy people. I’ll bet I have a million times the micro organisms in a cubic foot of soil than any of your customers. I have a really high population of Mycorrhizal fungi in my soil. I can guaranty any one you sell fungicide, or has stacked traits, I’d be surprised if there would be any. There really is an interesting symbiotic relationship between plant and fungus, and yes they really do communicate. When the root ball is at least 50+% bigger than GMO, it will absorb more minerals. Then throw in a healthy population of worms and crawlers, insects (most are beneficial), you’ve created a smorgasborg for the birds. Since that would include seed and bug eaters, that helps keep the weeds and bugs in check. And that’s where the raptors come in. I had this Cooper Hawk I thought I was going to get him to land on my hand. They do an excellent job of keeping the rabbits, mice, voles, squirrels, and even the much feared Mongolian Gerbils out of my yard.
On the other hand, sterile soil is just that sterile. Hard, lifeless, toxic. If minerals chelate with the glyphosate, they wont be taken up in the roots. But there are things that can recolonize places like that. And that my friend, is why they are adapting to your products. Did you ever take biology?? The web of life? The biome? Law of nature??
LOL you just can’t get away from the gerbils can you? Unfortunately all your crap adds up to a pile of really smelly manure. Again without the need minerals plant don’t produce deficient food, the plant dies. You do provide plenty of entertain though, I will forward some of your comments to my customers as the love a good laugh.
Well Trobo, Guess you don;t know anything other than chemical and seed modified to love them. The last 20 years I’ve seen frogs, salamanders, bees and butterflies disappear. When amphibians disappear, it tells me somethings wrong with the water. When pollinators disappear, tells me something is wrong with the pollen. When I go bird hunting, and see a pond without cattails, or milkweed, the bottom of the pond is covered with a 1/4 inch or more of this pinkish stuff, devoid of life except maybe some moldy scum, somethings askew. When boys develop breasts, and 5 or 6 year old girls develop breast twice, something very wrong with several glands. About 20 years ago we had moose reopen for hunting. The most productive area there isn’t even a one. That would be in sugar beet country along the Red River. In MN and WS the deer have CWD, so says the media. They wont talk about it anymore, and from what I hear from hunters and biologist, the area is massive. Weird genetic mutations are rampant nation wide. Even larger mammals like deer and elk are going through sex changes. As a kid, during the fall migration the birds would block out the sky. Today, a few here and there. When massive fields of spinach, lettuce, etc are contaminated with E-coli, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. Some is using waste from an aspartame manufacturer. Just keep on doing what the government says. Don’t think for yourself. Obey. Be the preprogrammed broken record parrot. Chemical farming didn’t take off til after WWII. Otherwise man has been organically raising food til then, but then it had to be differentiated. Not that were not screwed already, but something needs to radically change back to the old ways. Just keep kicking the can down the road. Come up with new solutions to problems created by you industry. Were on a rapidly going into the 6th extinction. Drink up shriner.
You had bettered hope beyond your wildest dreams that they don’t ever get rid of gmos. You have blamed them for everything under the sun and you would be totally lost if they were to leave. However, I’m sure you would find a new cause for to whine about and to justify everything that YOU think is wrong in the world.
Pesticides and antibiotics will be replaced by better weapons however- and that will remove companies like Monsanto from the equation, which will be to everyone’s benefit.
How’s the weather ther in fantasyland?
It’s not fantasyland! I thought I mentioned this to you a few months ago but I guess I didn’t. New GMO crops are being developed that do not require any pesticides at all. And the replacement for antibiotics (which I dont support their use on farm animals) is right around the corner in the form of drugs that use the immune system to fight off microbes. It’s a relief with the rate that these organisms develop immunity to actually fight off the infections from the inside.
I agree with you to a point on the antibiotics. They are necessary on a farm, but just like in humans they do get overused. It is that excessive use that I think has caused trouble. There are several new antibiotics being developed, I believe that agriculture should be allowed to continue with the older drugs (since they don’t always work anymore on humans), and the newer ones should be saved for people, and only when actually needed.
I’m going to share the new immune boosters being developed, I think you’ll be fascinated, as it gets around the problem of the pests developing immunity to the drugs.
I’m going to send you some of the articles I’ve saved on antibiotics, including the new drugs being developed.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/130501_superbugs
If the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, and the National Academy of Sciences have their way, we may be able to avoid that fate, at least for certain antibiotics. These groups have all signed on to support new legislation that would prevent widespread use of certain antibiotics on livestock, helping to protect the effectiveness of these drugs in humans.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/…
Antibiotic resistant bacteria at the meat counter
May 2013
The pork chops you buy in the supermarket neatly packaged in plastic and styrofoam may look completely sterile, but are, in fact, likely to be contaminated with disease-causing bacteria โ and not with just any old bugs, but with hard-to-treat, antibiotic resistant strains. In a recently published study, researchers with the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System bought meat from a wide sampling of chain grocery stores across the country and analyzed the bacteria on the meat. Resistant microbes were found in 81% of ground turkey samples, 69% of pork chops, 55% of ground beef samples, and 39% of chicken parts. Of course, thoroughly cooking the meat will kill the germs, but if the meat is undercooked or contaminates other food with its bacteria โ perhaps via a shared cutting board โ the result could be an infection that canโt be cured with common medications. Such infections are a serious health concern โ a strain of antibiotic resistant staph was recently estimated to cause nearly 20,000 deaths per year in the U.S. โ and the problem seems to be getting worse. An evolutionary perspective helps us understand how antibiotic resistance arises in the first place and why the prevalence of resistant bugs in livestock has health professionals and scientists worried.
Whereโs the evolution?
It should be no surprise that antibiotic resistant bacteria are the products of evolution via natural selection: as bacteria reproduce, small, random errors (i.e., mutations) occur as their DNA is copied. Just by chance, some of those mutations may help their bearers survive and reproduce better and so will increase in frequency in the bacterial population. Other mutations may be detrimental and will be weeded out of the population. Still others may have no impact at all to the bacteriumโs fitness (i.e., neutral mutations) and will change in frequency through genetic drift. When antibiotics flood the environment of the bacteria, individuals that happen to carry random mutations that allow them to survive and reproduce despite the drug will be favored. Eventually, the entire lineage of bacteria may carry genes that confer antibiotic resistance.
This process seems to be inevitable. If a bacterial lineage is consistently exposed to a particular antibiotic, it will eventually evolve resistance to that drug, and this will occur in the soil, in livestock, in the human body โ wherever bacteria are exposed to antibiotics. This same basic process is responsible for the evolution of advantageous traits in familiar organisms, like a hawkโs keen eyesight or a polar bearโs insulating fur. However, bacteria have a leg up on birds and bears when it comes to evolution. Most species rely on mutations somewhere in their historical lineage for their genetic variation โ that is, an improved ability to spot prey will evolve in a lineage of hawks only if mutations conferring keener sight occurred somewhere in the hawk lineage and were then passed down to the generation of hawks experiencing natural selection. Bacteria, on the other hand, get their genetic variation both from their ancestral lineage and through a process known as horizontal transfer.
In horizontal transfer, organisms share genetic material with one another directly, as opposed to passing genetic material only to their offspring. In this way, genes from distantly related lineages of bacteria can wind up in the same individual. A gene version that first arose in Escherichia coli could easily be passed on to Salmonella.
Horizontal transfer represents a special danger when it comes to the evolution of resistance because, through gene sharing, antibiotic resistance genes that evolve and become common in one lineage of bacteria that is exposed to a particular antibiotic can be passed to distantly related bacterial lineages. In other words, a bacterial lineage can evolve resistance to a particular antibiotic even if its ancestors never carried a mutation that conferred resistance to that drug. With all this genetic variation being shared, antibiotic resistant bacterial strains can evolve quickly. Furthermore, different antibiotics often have similar modes of action (e.g., amoxicillin and methicillin both work by preventing bacteria from forming cell walls), so resistance to one drug often means partial resistance to a host of other medications. To make matters even worse, bacteria often transfer multiple genes for resistance to different antibiotics on the same piece of DNA. Since the genes are physically attached to one another, selecting for one of those resistance genes lets the others hitchhike to high frequency. So exposing a bacterial population to say, streptomycin, may also unintentionally favor the evolution of a strain that resists many other antibiotics as well โ making for a particularly hard-to-cure infection.
Bacteria have many characteristics that allow them to evolve resistance to whatever antibiotics we throw their way โ short generation times, high mutation rates, and horizontal transfer โ and current agricultural practices (in particular, the heavy use of antibiotics in livestock) seem destined to speed this process even further. In the U.S., around 80% of antibiotics are destined for farm animals, not for treating human disease. The majority of those
Here is some more:
Research by the European Union claims pesticides used on
fruits, vegetables and cereals harms fetuses and young
children. Since pesticides attack the brains of insects, experts
insist they’re also “very likely” to damage human brains.
Dramatic deficits in brain function are seen in rural children with long-term exposure to pesticides compared with children not similarly exposed. Contamination has been documented in many studies from populations around the world, with breastmilk containing concentrations of lindane, heptachlor, benzene hexachloride, aldrin and endrin all above limits established by the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization.
According to pediatrician Philip Landrigan of Mount Sinai Medical Center, we should have “very important concerns about the toxic effects of pesticides on children’s nervous systems.” Bernard Weiss of the Department of Environmental Medicine at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry stated, “It doesn’t seem a surprise that you would see an effect, knowing what we know about pesticides and the elevated vulnerability of the developing brain.”
According to Dr. Maryse Bouchard, “Pesticides act on a set of brain chemicals closely related to those involved in ADHD.”
Children face higher risks from pesticides than adults and need greater protection against these chemicals, particularly in developing countries, according to a joint report published by FAO, the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Children who were exposed to organophosphate pesticides while still in their mother’s womb were more likely to develop attention disorders years later, according to researchers at the University of California, Berkeley’s School of Public Health.
Findings published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) examine the influence of prenatal organophosphate exposure on the later development of attention problems. The researchers found that prenatal levels of organophosphate metabolites were significantly linked to attention problems at age five, with the effects apparently stronger among boys. The organophosphate family of chemicals damages the nervous system (which includes the brain), so scientists are particularly concerned about children’s exposure because their bodies are still developing. Chlorpyrifos is one of the many insecticides in this chemical family.
Different researchers at Harvard University have also associated greater exposure to organophosphate pesticides in school-aged children with higher rates of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms.
“These studies provide a growing body of evidence that organophosphate pesticide exposure can impact human neurodevelopment, particularly among children,” said the study’s principal investigator, Brenda Eskenazi, UC Berkeley professor of epidemiology and of maternal and child health. “We were especially interested in prenatal exposure because that is the period when a baby’s nervous system is developing the most.”
President Obama’s Cancer Panel recommends consumers choose food grown without chemical fertilizers or pesticides, antibiotics and growth hormones to decrease exposure to environmental chemicals that can increase the risk of cancer.
The journal Pediatrics published a study that concludes that children exposed to organophosphate pesticides at levels common among America’s children are more likely to develop attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a disorder becoming more and more common in today’s children. Researchers at Emory University [1] have found that switching children to an organic diet provides a “dramatic and immediate protective effect” against exposures to two organophosphate pesticides that are commonly used in U.S. agricultural production โ malathion and chlorpyrifos. The results were published in the September 2005 issue of the scientific journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
“Immediately after substituting organic food items for the children’s normal diets, the concentration of the organophosphorus pesticides found in their bodies decreased substantially to non-detectable levels until the conventional diets were re-introduced,” says Dr. Lu, an assistant professor in the department of environmental and occupational health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University.
Twenty-three elementary-school-age children participated in a 15-day study that was divided into three parts. First the children ate their usual diet of conventionally-grown food for three days. Then they were switched to organically-grown substitutes for five days. For the final seven days, they were switched back to conventional food. The organic substitutes were mainly fruits, vegetables, juices and grain products (such as wheat) because these foods are often contaminated with organophosphates. Urine samples were collected twice a day for each child. Researchers tested the urine for signs of pesticides.
In the case of two organophosphate insecticides โ malathion and chlorpyrifos โ the results were startling. Signs of these two chemicals were found in the urine in the first part of the study. Almost immediately after the children switched to an organic diet, these chemicals could not be detected. The chemicals showed up again when the children switched back to their normal diet.
A new UC Berkeley study finds a linkbetween prenatal exposure to pesticides and attention problems at age 5.
Pesticides are widely used for many purposes, including home, garden, commercial, and agricultural pest control. Thus, the potential for some degree of exposure to these chemicals is great. In general, pesticides can enter the body through the lungs, the mouth, and the skin. Of course, each class of pesticide will differ somewhat in the specific way it is absorbed. Recent studies have shown that young children may be at particularly increased risk of pesticide exposure for several reasons:
Furthermore, different antibiotics often have similar modes of action (e.g., amoxicillin and methicillin both work by preventing bacteria from forming cell walls), so resistance to one drug often means partial resistance to a host of other medications. To make matters even worse, bacteria often transfer multiple genes for resistance to different antibiotics on the same piece of DNA. Since the genes are physically attached to one another, selecting for one of those resistance genes lets the others hitchhike to high frequency. So exposing a bacterial population to say, streptomycin, may also unintentionally favor the evolution of a strain that resists many other antibiotics as well โ making for a particularly hard-to-cure infection.
Just found the other article for you:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/11/06/beyond-antibiotics-a-new-weapon-against-superbugs-shows-promise/
antibiotics alternatives that a new type of treatment had been effective at curing five out of six patients whose skin had been infected with MRSA or methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus โ one of the scariest bugs around because it appears to shrug off even the most powerful antibiotics available. The initial trial was small and limited to those with eczema, contact dermatitis and other skin infections but the company said it is beginning clinical trials for other types of infections.
Antibiotics work by getting inside bacteria, but in recent years many bacteria that cause common illnesses such as tuberculosis or salmonella have mutated to have thicker membranes that stop the medicine from getting inside.
The new drug โ which the company has dubbed Staphefket โ works from the outside by latching on to the outer cell wall of bacteria. It uses an enzyme known as endolysins to degrade the wall and thereby kill the bacteria. Scientists theorize that bacteria will be less able to evolve to protect themselves against this type of attack because endolysins tend to evolve with their hosts. They are also believed to have another advantage over antibiotics: They can be targeted to only kill specific types of bacteria while antibiotics tend to kill a whole spectrum of them โ both good and bad for the body.
Micreos said in May that it had tested the drug against 36 strains of bacteria, eight of them MRSA.
The Presidentโs Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in September issued a long-awaited report on the matter warning that antibiotic resistance threatens to undue all the progress weโve made in the past century in terms of controlling infectious diseases.
Greenpeace, etc- really need to get with the program. It’s good to have debates and discussions- it allows technology to move forward and to address legitimate concerns people have- but staying with the same old arguments shows a lack of understanding of how technology progresses to address the concerns. I fee the same way when I promote nuclear energy.
btw one more article you might want to read- although I know that obesity is a stronger correlator to early onset of puberty than hormones in food are.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-pirello/is-the-early-onset-of-pub_b_677424.html
Dr. Stanley Korneman, an endocrinologist at the University of California, Los Angeles says that environmental exposure to estrogens in plastics, chemicals and foods has been going up and that estrogens stimulate breast development. And he says that could be the link to early onset of puberty. Makes sense.
What is really going on here? I can just imagine that the smoky back rooms in Washington where meat, dairy and poultry lobbyists make their dirty little deals and hide the real facts about what is in our food are in hyper-drive. The information in this study, if people connect the dots, could blow up in their faces, and who could afford that? Not the politicians on both sides of the aisle and certainly not their clients, those pirates who peddle hormone, antibiotic and steroid-laced food to our children. And we wonder why little girls look like very big girls far before their time.
The solution to this problem is easy and obvious. Our children are being destroyed in the name of profit by big industry and factory farms who feed their animals steroids, growth hormones and antibiotics to make them fatter, faster. More and more yield of meat from an animal means more and more profit, and if we need to sacrifice a generation of children along the way, so be it. And these are not just the rantings of some liberal, tree-hugging vegan. According to Cornell University, hormones โreduce the waiting time and the amount of feed eaten by an animal before slaughter in meat industries.โ And that means bigger profitโฆ faster.
While the childhood obesity problem is linked to the overconsumption of processed food, drive-through, dinner in a bucket and the sheer volume of sugar and other junk our kids are eating, we must also look at the role growth hormones play in the size of our kids and the age they reach puberty.
Wake up, people. If hormones can make an animal fat, what do you think will happen to us? We have always had access to junk food, but never in human history have we been the subjects of such an intense ingestion of chemicals and hormones. Dr. Andrew Weil states that more than two-thirds of the cattle raised in the U.S. are given hormones, usually testosterone and estrogen to boost growth. According to Cornell, there are actually six hormones commonly used in meat and dairy production: estradiol and progesterone (natural female sex hormones); testosterone (natural male sex hormone); zeranol, trenbolone acetate and melengesterol (synthetic growth promoters that make animals grow faster). Not used on poultry or pigs, (but only because they donโt promote meaningful growth in these animals), the FDA also allows the use of rbGH, another growth hormone, to promote more milk production in dairy cows.
And hereโs where it gets really creepy. There is no monitoring of the female and male hormones, according to Cornell, because they are naturally produced by the animals so in theory, they canโt really tell what hormones were produced and which were administered, so why have limits? But they set tolerance levels for the synthetic hormones. I feel safer; how about you?
And finally, according to Cornell, the declining age in pubertyโs link to hormones in meat and dairy has been of concern to experts for some time now because of the possible links to breast cancer.
What is it going to take for us to demand accountability from the people who produce our food and those government agencies that supposedly protect the health of the public? When will we pull our heads out of the sand and see the reality we face?
Cheap, commercially produced meat may be affordable, but the cost is far too high. Now hang on. I am not going all vegan on you. But this study is a reality check for us, to be sure. Early onset of puberty is no joke. Our girls are at greater risk of breast cancer, obesity and other life-threatening conditions. And while the environment and plastics may contribute to this problem, as may the overall abundance of food, the reality is that the growth hormones, steroids and antibiotics in our meat and dairy are the major players in this tragedy.
Dr. Biro suggests that families eat more produce (yaโ think?) and more family meals together as a way to begin to solve this very real crisis, along with regular physical activity. There is also the option of choosing certified, grass-fed organic meat and dairy as a way to avoid the ingestion of hormones, which also supports a sustainable way to produce healthy animal products for us to consume. And you get to support small family ranches that, along with family farms, are the backbone of this countryโs food supply.
Good ideas all, but we also have to look at other options and invest in the health of our children before we lose an entire generation because we just want cheap, fast food. There are alternatives to meat and dairy that can nourish our families and children healthfully and affordably โฆ and leave a lighter footprint on the planet in the process. A well-balanced, plant-based diet can provide all the nutrients our children need to thrive and to live in healthy, normal bodies. Yes, itโs more work and maybe even a bit more money, but these are our children โ our future.
This kind of blog gets peopleโs noses out of joint. From cattle farmers to burger lovers who say they prefer a juicy steak to tofu, all the rationalizations come out. Ranchers need to make money to survive. People want what they want โฆ and they want meat! But in the end, the truth cannot be denied.
We live in a culture of profit-seeking leeches that are only too happy to sell us compromised foods and line their pockets with the profits gained from pillaging our health. When are we going to stop them? All we need to do is say no. Vote with your dollar; demand better quality. Remember that they want your money. They do not care about the health of our young girls. Itโs up to us. A collective voice demanding accountability and better food is the only way to reverse the trends that threaten to swallow and entire generation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
The pediatricianโs first reaction to then second-grader Kayla Hayeโs budding breastsโa sign of the childโs premature pubertyโwas to consider placing her on therapeutic hormones.
โA 7-year-old on hormone medication? Well thatโs not gonna happen,โ said Adriane McDonald-Haye, Kaylaโs mom, recalling her response to that suggestion eight years ago. โJust the idea of putting my child on hormones triggered all kinds of concerns.โ
So the Brooklyn, N.Y. mother took a different course of action, scouring the web and probing other parents on the topic. Ultimately, she was persuaded by claimsโincluding from some physiciansโthat consumption of hormone-laden meat and poultry was linked to early-onset puberty, which is on the rise in general and more prevalent among black children.
โI changed Kaylaโs diet to one that is as organic as possible,โ McDonald-Haye said. โI actually have a pack of organic chicken wings in my fridge right now. We cheat every so often, eating fast food. But, overall, I try to stay as natural as possible.โ
McDonald-Haye is aware of the continuing debate over the effects of hormone-infused meat and dairy products on growing bodies. Nevertheless, she credits her better-safe-than-sorry dietary overhaul with delaying Kaylaโs first period, which she got when she was 10. Thatโs roughly 2.5 years ahead of the national average.
http://pediatrics.aappublicati…
http://journals.cambridge.org/…
http://thegrio.com/2013/02/12/…
The case study of the girl who was underweight mentioned ongrio.com (read the full story on the link, it covers multiple pages), not only proved that the cause of her early onset of puberty at the tender age of 7 wasnโt weight related, but her mother refused hormone regulation drugs and instead changed her little girlโs diet and her daughterโs breast growth ceased.
http://thegrio.com/2013/02/12/…
Tropez-Sims oversaw Meharryโs participation in a national study, published by Pediatrics last November, of more than 4,000 boys, showing that they too are entering puberty earlier. As a physician and researcher, she agrees with most scientists that more study is needed on why increasingly younger children are growing breasts, pubic hair and so forth, and whether hormone-infused foods play a role.
Absent any rock-solid answers on that front, researchers have explored other causes. Some studies, including one in the February 2008 issue of Pediatrics, have suggested that obesity is a driver of early onset puberty. But that doesnโt explain what transpired with Kayla, who was a reed-thin second-grader. Now 15 and a liturgical dancer at her familyโs church, she stands at 5โ 6โ and weighs a lean 120 pounds.
โIn the 19th Century, the age of menarche was 15,โ Tropez-Sims said. โToday, we may be looking at environmental chemicals, steroids and so on that are causing puberty to begin in progressively younger kids. And it seems reasonable to ask this question: If theyโre feeding pigs and cows and chickens growth hormones and other chemicals to make them plumper, bigger, is that also making our kids plumper, making them mature faster? โฆ Thereโs not been enough science to fully link hormones in the meat, but some of us are extrapolating that thatโs just what may be happening.โ
Tracking children who eat no hormone-laden foods against those whose diets are full of them would provide the most conclusive proof of whatโs going on, she said. But such a study has never been conducted. And doing one raises ethical concerns, given what some consider the potential risks faced by children in the latter group, Tropez-Sims added.
from an MD website (which proves my point about multiple causes)
http://avivaromm.com/preventin…
The 3 biggest contributors to early puberty are:
1. Obesity: About 20% or more of US kids are now obese. This rate has tripled in the past 30 years, and this trend corresponds to earlier puberty.
2. Exposure to environmental toxins that act as estrogen in the body: Many substances used in flame retardant fabrics, cosmetics, plastics, pesticides, detergents and other common household and industrial products can mimic the effect of estrogen in our bodies. The CDC has linked a solvent used in some mothballs and solid blocks of toilet bowl deodorizers and air fresheners to earlier menstruation โ they also found it in the bodies of nearly all the people tested in the U.S.! It doesnโt take much exposure to cause health effects, which may include increased risk of early puberty, diabetes, and cancer. These environmental chemicals accumulate over time and because they accumulate and are stored in fat cells, may be even more of a problem for overweight girls.
3. Stress: Stress can wreak havoc on the endocrine system. And most of us suffer from stress starting at any earlier age than ever. Inadequate sleep, school pressures, stress at home, peer pressure and bullying are just a few of the major stressors to which our girls are regularly exposed. Stress can also make us fatter; more fat means more estrogen and this can lead to earlier puberty.
While government, food companies, and industry also need to tackle these issues on a global scale, the factors leading to early puberty and endocrine disruption in our daughters can be prevented or mitigated through the diet and lifestyle choices we make and teach them.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/suspected-hormone-changing-chemical-found-in-air-near-factories/
Suspected Hormone-Changing Chemical Found in Air Near Factories
As concerns mount over peopleโs exposure to the plasticizer bisphenol A in everyday products, itโs also contaminating the air near facilities that make it
By Brian Bienkowski and Environmental Health News | October 14, 2014
In the United States, chemical manufacturing accounted for 54 percent of the BPA air emissions, while metal manufacturing and metal fabricating accounted for 21 and 20 percent, respectively.
Credit: Eric Schmuttenmaer via flickrAs concerns mount over peopleโs exposure to the plasticizer bisphenol A in everyday products, itโs also contaminating the air near manufacturing plants: U.S. companies emitted about 26 tons of the hormone-disrupting compound in 2013.
Although research is sparse, experts warn that airborne BPA could be a potentially dangerous route of exposure for some people. Of the 72 factories reporting BPA emissions, the largest sources are in Ohio, Indiana and Texas, according to the Environmental Protection Agencyโs Toxics Release Inventory.
why is your profile private oh that’s right you are a cointelpro shill.
No my profile is private because I had groupies stalking me. A typical tactic when people are trying to tell the truth.
you telling the truth ya if anyone on here is stupid enough to believe that I have ocean front property in Iowa for sale. lol lol
So would you support open source GMO over corporate giants like Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, etc? I think the big problem is these companies with horrible environmental records and being accomplices in America’s War Machine being in the industry. If they were removed from the equation then people would be much more open.
Are you holding things against these companies forever? The people that were running them then are long gone. Today there records speaks of raising food for the world.
I’m also really aghast at their business practices today. I like other companies like ADM much more. I think you yourself told me earlier that you buy from other companies. The biotech field is a lot more than a few giant companies, and it’s good to keep the field open to more players! More players=more progress!
Yes I buy from other companies than Monsanto, I prefer Dow and basf, myself. Adm is a decent company, we do sell there feed. However, they do not offer crop protection products.
I like BASF also and occasionally also use Dow and DuPont products. The competition is great, it helps keep prices down.
I agree competition is a good thing.
People you need to pay attention. The gobbberment is dumbing you down so you will be the slaves they need to control the whole F88Kuing planet. SOROS, ADELSON look at where they have stashed all that money have stolen from you and are now using it too enslave you even further. They almost have complete control!!
your right but it is way deeper it’s the Rothchilds/illuminati that are in control. government is just their puppets.
http://www.illuminatiagenda.com/the-illuminati-agenda/
As eugenicists, how can we kill most of the people without it appearing that we are? I know. We can poison the people, poison their water and poison their food. Permanently making those sources poison.
The issue then becomes, how can we come out of this in the end unharmed ourselves? I got it. Storing heirloom seeds in secret, chilled and protected bunkers, with which to repopulate the planet after the cleansing.
Thanks, sci-fi writers. Without you we wouldn’t have a direction.
Signed,
The Eugenicists
You can never convince a person of something if their income depends on not believing it, hence GMO Robert. If you want to know the real reason GMOs were created, read SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION by F William Engdahl. The goal of the Genetic Engineers is to patent and therfore control all food. Kissinger said, control the food and you control the people. The plan is to ultimately use food or rather the lack of food as a weapon. Obey or you won’t get any food. Don’t believe me, read the book. The best thing you can do for yourself and the planet is to grow your own food. Start now, before Monsanto buys up all the sources of seeds of real foods.
Anti-GM sentiment, though, is not the only reason it has failed to
benefit the poorest nations. From the commercial side, major crop
development companies use genetic engineering primarily to improve large
cash crops with the most potential for profits, such as corn, cotton, soy, and wheat with. Little investment is put into crops, such as cassava, sorghum, millet, etc.
which are more relevant for cultivation in poor nations. The economic
incentive to develop the sort of GM crops that would help small poor
farmers in third world nations is small since the financial returns
would be modest. Of course, anti-GM sentiment does nothing to ameliorate
this bias.
After the quake in Haiti there was that one spot the Haitians wouldn’t wouldn’t let the USAID ship land. They all thought they were there to kill them. There were a few other countries, but they knew USAID was an Al-CIA-duh front.
“His book also talks about the well-placed scientists (paid shills) who work at leading, โrespectableโ institutions such as the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the UKโs Royal Society that have simply supported the biotech agenda while never truly evaluating the risks associated with genetically modified crops.”
LMAO! Sounds just like me.
You who!! Boobiekins. Come and tell me what an idiot this guy is! You know he’s talking about you. I think he wants you to spend a week with the bonobo’s. Glad to see Jane coming in for the big win. God I loved her primate documentaries!!
From wiki
One of cartoonist Gary Larson’s more famous cartoons shows two chimpanzees grooming. One finds a blonde human hair on the other and inquires, “Conducting a little more ‘research’ with that Jane Goodall tramp?” Goodall herself was in Africa at the time, and the Jane Goodall Institute thought this was in bad taste, and had their lawyers draft a letter to Larson and his distribution syndicate, in which they described the cartoon as an “atrocity.”
They were stymied by Goodall herself when she returned and saw the cartoon, as she stated that she found the cartoon amusing.[55]
Since then, all profits from sales of a shirt featuring this cartoon go to the Jane Goodall Institute.
Ever wonder why China, Russia, and about 60 other countries require labeling of GMO, but America does not? Every wonder why the FDA has placed their stamp of approval on a product that causes tumors, cancer, and infertility in lab animals? Every question why GMOโs are allowed on the shelves when they have been known to lead to the development of tumors and cancer in humans? Every wonder why birthrates have been at a steady decline for the past 12 years?
The answer is simple, those seeking control have been implementing their devious schemes on the populace starting with mass sterilization and depopulation through GMOs.
While research continues to demonstrate consuming GMOs leads to the mutation of cells in the human body, our elite further the production of the product. The only answer, they want us dead!