Austrian Government Study Confirms Genetically Modified (GM) Crops Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety

IssueTalk Communications
Media Contact: NJ Jaeger
Email: njarchive@cox.net
Phone: +1-310-377-0915


Austrian Government Study Confirms Genetically Modified (GM) Crops
Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety

Advocates Call for Immediate Ban of All GM Foods and GM Crops

IMMEDIATE RELEASE (November 13, 2008)

(Los Angeles, CA.) - A long-term feeding study commissioned by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, managed by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth, and carried out by Veterinary University Vienna, confirms genetically modified (GM) corn seriously affects reproductive health in mice. Non-GMO advocates, who have warned about this infertility link along with other health risks, now seek an immediate ban of all GM foods and GM crops to protect the health of humankind and the fertility of women around the world.

Feeding mice with genetically modified corn developed by the US-based Monsanto Corporation led to lower fertility and body weight, according to the study conducted by the University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna. Lead author of the study Professor Zentek said, there was a direct link between the decrease in fertility and the GM diet, and that mice fed with non-GE corn reproduced more efficiently.

In the study, Austrian scientists performed several long-term feeding trials over 20 weeks with laboratory mice fed a diet containing 33% of a GM variety (NK 603 x MON 810), or a closely related non-GE variety used in many countries. Statistically significant litter size and pup weight decreases were found in the third and fourth litters in the GM-fed mice, compared to the control group.

The corn is genetically modified with genes that produce a pesticidal toxin, as well as genes that allow it to survive applications of Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup.

A book by author Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette, distributed to members of congress last year, documents 65 serious health risks of GM products, including similar fertility problems with GM soy and GM corn: Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce. Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells. The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning. Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties. Additionally, over the last two months, investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products.

The principle GM crops are soy, corn, cottonseed and canola. GM sugar from sugar beets will also be introduced before year’s end.

Mr. Smith, who is also the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology says, “GM foods are likely responsible for several negative health trends in the US. The government must impose an immediate ban on these dangerous crops.” He says, “Consumers don’t need to wait for governmental action. They can download a free Non-GMO Shopping Guide at www.HealthierEating.org.”

Monsanto press offices in the UK and USA were unable to provide a comment on the findings for journalists yesterday.

The Institute for Responsible Technology’s Campaign for Healthier Eating in America mobilizes citizens, organizations, businesses, and the media, to achieve the tipping point of consumer rejection of genetically modified foods.

The Institute educates people about the documented health risks of GMOs and provides them with healthier non-GMO product choices.

The Institute also informs policy makers and the public around the world about the impacts of GMOs on health, environment, the economy, and agriculture, and the problems associated with current research, regulation, corporate practices, and reporting.

###

Institute For Responsible Technology
Media Contact: NJ Jaeger
Expert Contact: Jeffrey M. Smith
Email: njmail@cox.net
Phone: +1-310-377-0915

Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety
Corporate Communication: Univ.-Doz. Ingrid Kiefer
Tel: +43 50 555-25000; E-Mail: ingrid.kiefer@ages.at

Links

Austrian Study: http://www.ages.at/ueber-uns/presse/pressemeldungen/klarstellung-zu-neuen-er
Institute for Responsible Technology: http://responsibletechnology.org
Non-GMO Shopping Guide: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/DocumentFiles/144.pdf
Genetic Roulette: http://www.geneticroulette.com

--

This is all about two things:

1. PROFIT: The scientists involved may have had lofty goals in regards to ensuring a new source of food for the world, but their efforts have been bastardized to make way for profits.

2. CONTROL OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND OUR FOOD SUPPLY: If you'll do some minor research, you'll find that the GM foods genetically alter the natural genetics of naturally-grown foods. Many farmers have lost their farms due to cross-pollenization, where any traces of the genes in the farmers' crops cause the courts to rule in the corporation's favor. Of course, I would posit that this was designed by the corporations. Do a search for Monsanto + crimes - you'll find a number of links detailing the issues expressed by myself and by the article above.

The farmers in South America and in Mexico actively shun the GM foods - they are effectively half the price of the naturally-grown foods, but people (except for the tragically poor) will not purchase them.

I think that says a lot.

Kucinich introduces comprehensive regulatory framework for GMOs

Kucinich introduces comprehensive regulatory framework for GMOs (repost courtesy of BOBBY ELECTRIC(ANTI-NWO-HIPHOP))

Kucinich.us

September 10, 2008

Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced three bills designed to protect consumers, defend farmers’ rights, and increase food safety. The bills collectively create a comprehensive framework to regulate GMOs:

• H.R. 6636, The Genetically Engineered Food Right To Know Act, would require mandatory labeling of all foods that contain or are produced with GM material..

• H.R. 6635, The Genetically Engineered Safety Act, would require that GE foods follow a food safety review process to prevent contamination of food supplies by pharmaceutical and industrialcrops. This Act would also require that the FDA screen all GE foods to ensure they are safe forhuman consumption.


• H.R. 6637, The Genetically Engineered Farmer Protection Act, places liability from the impacts of GM crops on the biotechnology companies that created the GMOs, and protects farmers from lawsuits by biotechnology companies..

Source: September 2008 The Organic & Non-GMO Report

www.Kucinich.us
********************************************************************************
..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5207412505897358694&ei=4WLISKm6N5e2qAO12Jm3Ag&q=GMO+POISON+&hl=en

MONSANTO vs. Shmeiser or Stealing America...One Farm at a Time

Monsanto vs Schmeiser - The Classic David vs Goliath Struggle.....

Percy Schmeiser has been fighting the evil corporation Monsanto for over 9 years.

Once again, we have an instance of cross-pollinization, whereupon Monsanto deems YOUR crops THEIRS, by dint of having DNA from their plants mixed in with regular, non-GM/GE crops from local farmers' farms. They have succeeded in appropriating said crops from farmers, using their impressive legal teams to deal decisive victories against individuals whose only crime was letting nature take its course.

Not Percy Schmeiser.

I believe that there is a way to determine that his plants are NOT derived from MONSANTO-maligned seeds; rather, if he would be willing to have his crops examined, a pattern of cross-pollinization could be established. Please refer to my earlier posting [MONSANTO Must Go!] and watch the movie within the posting. As a scientist, it was clear to me that the DNA manipulators have no control whatsoever of where the changes in their GM/GE plants' DNA will occur. MONSANTO plants grow directly from their seeds should exhibit different characteristics than cross-pollinated plants. With this information, Percy Schmeiser should be able to establish the true business model of MONSANTO, which in my opinion, is to REPLACE ALL NATURAL CROPS WITH THEIR OWN, AND ASSUME CONTROL OF THE MOST ESSENTIAL RESOURCE ON THE PLANET - OUR FOOD.

Update: It looks as if MONSANTO is trying to "Orwellize" this story - go to this link and see the video that they removed from the internet.

Also, Greenpeace has been covering the story.

Another important fact to consider: GM/GE seeds do not produce the same crop yield as naturally-occurring crops.

MONSANTO must go!!!

First, please check out this page - HEYOKA Magazine.

Next...take about two hours sometime, and WATCH THIS FILM.

The World According to MONSANTO


If you are as disgusted with GM foods as I am, please contact your congresspersons and tell them that you want these "foods" LABELED.

If the companies balk at labeling them, they're not welcome in our stores.

Please follow this link and read the comments.

Also...read this - please join the fight and end GM foods BEFORE THEY END US.

Here's some more - this is serious.

Science 26 November 1999:
Vol. 286. no. 5445, p. 1663
DOI: 10.1126/science.286.5445.1663

Prev | Table of Contents | Next
News Focus
FOOD FIGHT:
Monarch Press Release Raises Eyebrows
Dan Ferber*

ROSEMONT, ILLINOIS--The 1-day conference, held here on 2 November, was not yet over, and researchers were still heatedly debating whether corn that had been genetically modified to make Bt, a protein toxic to insects, harms monarch butterflies. Yet a headline that day in the hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, seemed to give the meeting's conclusion: "Monarch Butterfly So Far Not Imperiled." Similar stories appeared in the Los Angeles Times and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. How could the newspapers have known the upshot of the conference before the researchers themselves did?

In fact, they didn't. The stories illustrate how eager interest groups are to spin even preliminary and debated results in the continuing war of words over the risks and benefits of genetically modified (GM) crops.

The conference, which was sponsored by an industry group called the Agricultural Biotechnology Stewardship Working Group (ABSWG) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), was the outgrowth of research reported last May showing that monarchs fed Bt pollen in the lab often died. In the wake of the uproar the report caused, the ABSWG and the USDA funded new studies to see whether the butterflies are at risk in the field. The conference brought the researchers together so they could present their early results (see main text).

But the day before the conference began, the ABSWG had held a conference call between reporters and a small group of researchers whose results mostly seemed to show that the butterfly was safe. The ABSWG also issued a press release on the morning of the conference--before most of the researchers had presented their results--stating that the conference would "dispel doubts raised last spring about the safety of the monarch population."

The ABSWG's actions did not sit well with many meeting participants, including some whose results supported the industry claims. The press release "took me totally by surprise. I thought it was premature," says one such researcher, entomologist Galen Dively of the University of Maryland, College Park. And insect ecologist Orley Taylor of the University of Kansas, Lawrence, director of the conservation group Monarch Watch, describes what the ABSWG did as a "manipulation." Taylor, who remains to be convinced that Bt pollen is safe for monarchs, adds, "This steals the possibility of having a fair and deliberate discussion ... by dictating what the interpretation of the meeting should be before it was held."

ABSWG spokesperson Val Giddings responds: "I think that's nonsense. ... This was about as open and untrammeled a meeting as you could have hoped for." Entomologist Richard Hellmich of Iowa State University in Ames agrees: "The intention of the meeting was to talk about science, and that really didn't disrupt the discussion."

Giddings also defends the accuracy of the press release, saying that the majority of the researchers concluded that the potential harm to the monarch was minimal. "It was virtually, although not completely, a consensus view," Giddings says. But at the close of the conference, most researchers said more work was needed to show the true effect of Bt corn on the butterfly. "It was inappropriate to conclude there's no impact on the monarch butterfly," Taylor says. "That was not a fair conclusion of any of the commentary we heard."