The following processed foods tested positive for being genetically modified (September 1999). These tests were not "safety tests;" they were only to establish the presence of unlabeled genetically modified ingredients.
Frito-Lay Fritos Corn Chips
Bravos Tortilla Chips
Kellogg's Corn Flakes
General Mills Total Corn Flakes Cereal
Post Blueberry Morning Cereal
Heinz 2 Baby Food
Enfamil ProSobee Soy Formula
Similac Isomil Soy Formula
Nestle Carnation Alsoy Infant Formula
Quaker Chewy Granola Bars
Nabisco Snackwell's Granola Bars
Ball Park Franks
Duncan Hines Cake Mix
Quick Loaf Bread Mix
Ultra Slim Fast
Quaker Yellow Corn Meal
Light Life Gimme Lean
Aunt Jemima Pancake Mix
Alpo Dry Pet Food
Boca Burger Chef Max's Favorite
Morning Star Farms Better'n Burgers
Green Giant Harvest Burgers (now called Morningstar Farms)
McDonald's McVeggie Burgers
Ovaltine Malt Powdered Beverage Mix
Betty Crocker Bac-O's Bacon Flavor Bits
Old El Paso Taco Shells
Jiffy Corn Muffin Mix
Additionally, the following whole foods have been genetically engineered and approved for commercial sales. No labeling or long term safety tests were required.
According to the New York Times, about one half of all soybeans and a third of all corn planted in 1999 were genetically modified.
Canola Oil (rapeseed oil)
Chicory, red hearted (Radicchio)
(Source) Union of Concerned Scientists
What Can You Do?
Make a list of these GM foods and take it with you to the grocery store when you go shopping. Make copies for other family members to use.
Buy certified organic foods whenever possible.
Support the movement demanding long-term independent safety testing and labeling of genetically engineered foods.
Get informed about GM foods on the Internet. You will find hundreds of GM food articles and documented information.
Here are a few places to begin:
Turning Point Project http://www.turnpoint.org/geneng.html
Mothers for Natural Law http://www.safe-food.org/
Natural Food commission http://www.NaturalLaw.org.nz/genetics/default.htm
Genetically Engineered Food - A Serious Health Risk http://www.netlink.de/gen/fagan.html
ill keep diggin see if i can find more
could someone post the vid where the guy seperates the iron from cereal with a magnet
thanx , im off to wallyworld to buy some genetically inhanced supper ill get some more info posted afta supper
Monsanto's Genetically Modified Milk Ruled Unsafe by The United Nations
CHICAGO, Aug. 18 /PRNewswire/ — The following was released today by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Professor of Environmental Medicine, University of Illinois School of Public Health, Chicago:
The Codex Alimentarius Commission, the U.N. Food Safety Agency representing 101 nations worldwide, has ruled unanimously in favor of the 1993 European moratorium on Monsanto's genetically engineered hormonal milk (rBGH). This unexpected ruling, revealingly greeted by the U.S. press with deafeningsilence, is a powerful blow against U.S. global trade policies which are strongly influenced by powerful multi-national corporations, such as Monsanto.The Codex Commission ruling has also forced the U.S. to abandon its threats to challenge the European moratorium before the World Trade Organization later this year. As importantly, the ruling represents the first large scale defeat of genetically modified foods on unarguable scientific grounds, apart from ethical and ideological concerns.
Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the sale of unlabeled rBGH milk in February 1994, the U.S. has exerted considerable pressure on Mexico and other trading partners to approve rBGH in efforts to increase pressure on Europe through the World Trade Organization. In this, they have been strongly supported by reports from the Food and Agriculture/World Health Organization's (FAO/WHO) Joint Expert Committees on Food Additives (JECFA), including its latest September 1998 report, which unequivocally absolved rBGH from any adverse veterinary and public health effects. However, these JECFA committees, besides others such as those claiming the safety of meat from cattle treated with sex hormones, operate under conditions of non-transparency and conflicts of interest, and are predominantly staffed by unelected and unaccountable U.S. and Canadian regulatory officials and industry consultants with no expertise in public health, preventive medicine and carcinogenesis. The 1998 JECFA report on rBGH was then submitted to the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods, chaired by FDA's Director for Veterinary Medicine Dr. Stephen Sundloff who also played a prominent role in the 1998 JECFA Committee. The Codex Committee promptly rubber stamped JECFA's seal of approval for rBGH with the confident expectation that this would be subsequently endorsed by the parent Codex Commission. However, the best laid plans of Monsanto and the FDA were aborted by an unexpected turn of events.
Bowing to growing pressure in 1998 by Canadian advocacy groups, "dissident" government scientists and the Senate Agriculture Committee. Health Canada convened expert committees on veterinary and human safety under the auspices of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, respectively. Based on conclusions on the adverse veterinary effects of rBGH, particularly an increased incidence of mastitis, lameness and reproductive problems, Health Canada reluctantly broke ranks with the U.S. in January 1999, and issued a formal "notice of non- compliance", disapproving future sales of rBGH.
Meanwhile, the European Commission had commissioned two independent committees of internationally recognized experts to undertake a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on both the veterinary and public health effects of rBGH. The veterinary committee fully confirmed and extended the Canadian warnings and conclusions. The public health committee confirmed earlier reports of excess levels of the naturally occurring Insulin-like-Growth Factor One (IGF-1), including its highly potent variants, in rBGH milk and concluded that these posed major risks of cancer, particularly of the breast and prostate, besides promoting the growth and invasiveness of cancer cells by inhibiting their programmed self-destruction (apoptosis). Faced with this latest well documented scientific evidence from both Canada and Europe, the U.S. bowed to the inevitable and failed to challenge the Codex ruling in support of the European moratorium.
It is now 15 years since Monsanto embarked on a series of large scale veterinary trials on rBGH all over the U.S., and sold milk from these trials to an uninformed and unsuspecting public with the full approval of the FDA. Since then, Monsanto and the FDA, strongly supported by a network of indentured university academics, aggressive lobbying by the National Dairy Council and its well organized "hit squads" targeting rBGH opponents, and an overwhelmingly uncritical media, have ignored or trivialized substantial scientific evidence on the hazards of rBGH milk, including a series of publications over the last decade in the International Journal of Health Services, the most prestigious international public health publication. Also ignored by the media have been charges in 1981 by Congressman John Conyers (then Chairman of the House Committee on Government Operations), on the basis of a leaked confidential Monsanto study revealing serious pathology in cows injected with rBGH, that "Monsanto and the FDA have chosen to suppress and manipulate animal health test data in efforts to approve commercial use of rBGH".
These considerations reinforce growing concerns on the extreme unreliability of Monsanto and other biotech industry claims of the safety of genetically modified soy and other foods, especially in the absence of comprehensive testing by independent scientific experts, who should be funded by industry and not consumers.
Source: Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Contact: Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, Chicago, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, 312-996-2297 Web site: http://www.preventcancer.com
4 examples of genetically modified crops
Pesticide resistant rape plants
Scientists have transferred a gene to the rape plant which enables the plant to resist a certain pesticide. When the farmer sprays his genetically modified rape crop with pesticides, he or she can destroy most of the pests without killing the rape plants.
* The farmer can grow a larger crop because it is easier to fight pests.
* In some cases the farmer can use a more environmentally friendly crop spray.
* The farmer can also protect the environment by using less crop spray.
* Genes from the genetically modified rape crop could be transferred to the pests. The pests then become resistant to the crop spray and the crop spraying becomes useless.
* Rape plants can pollinate weeds - for example navew which is found in rape fields. When rape plants pollinate the navew their genes are transferred. The navew then acquires pesticide resistance.
Corn, soya beans and sugar cane have also been genetically modified by scientists so they are able to tolerate crop spray.
Insecticide sweet corn
Scientists have genetically modified sweet corn so that it produces a poison which kills harmful insects. This means the farmer no longer needs to fight insects with insecticides. The genetically modified corn is called Bt-corn, because the insect-killing gene in the plant comes from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis.
* The farmer no longer has to use insecticide to kill insects, so the surrounding environment is no longer exposed to large amounts of harmful insecticide.
* The farmer no longer needs to walk around with a drum of toxic spray wearing a mask and protective clothing.
* This type of genetically modified corn will poison the insects over a longer period than the farmer who would spray the crops once or twice. In this way the insects can become accustomed (or resistant) to the poison. If that happens both crop spraying and the use of genetically modified Bt-corn become ineffective.
* A variety of insects are at risk of being killed. It might be predatory insects that eat the harmful ones or, perhaps attractive insects such as butterflies. In the USA, where Bt-corn is used a great deal there is much debate over the harmful effects of Bt-corn on the beautiful Monarch butterfly.
Cotton and potatoes are other examples of plants that scientists have , genetically modified to produce insecticide.
Golden rice is genetically modified rice that now contains a large amount of A-vitamins. Or more correctly, the rice contains the element beta-carotene which is converted in the body into Vitamin-A. So when you eat golden rice, you get more vitamin A.
Beta-carotene gives carrots their orange colour and is the reason why genetically modified rice is golden. For the golden rice to make beta-carotene three new genes are implanted: two from daffodils and the third from a bacterium.
* The rice can be considered a particular advantage to poor people in underdeveloped countries. They eat only an extremely limited diet lacking in the essential bodily vitamins. The consequences of this restricted diet causes many people to die or become blind. This is particularly true in areas of Asia, where most of the population live on rice from morning to evening.
* Critics fear that poor people in underdeveloped countries are becoming too dependent on the rich western world. Usually, it is the large private companies in the West that have the means to develop genetically modified plants. By making the plants sterile these large companies can prevent farmers from growing plant-seed for the following year - forcing them to buy new rice from the companies.
* Some opposers of genetic modification see the "golden rice" as a method of making genetic engineering more widely accepted. Opponents fear that companies will go on to develop other genetically modified plants from which they can make a profit. A situation could develop where the large companies own the rights to all the good crops.
Long-lasting, genetically modified tomatoes came on to the market in 1994 and were the first genetically modified food available to consumers. The genetically modified tomato produces less of the substance that causes tomatoes to rot, so remains firm and fresh for a long time.
* Because the GM tomatoes can remain fresh longer they can be allowed to ripen in the sun before picking - resulting in a better tasting tomato.
* GM tomatoes can tolerate a lengthier transport time. This means that market gardens can avoid picking tomatoes while they are green in order that they will tolerate the transport.
* The producers also have the advantage that all the tomatoes can be harvested simultaneously.
* Scientists today can genetically modify tomatoes without inserting genes for antibiotic resistance. However the first genetically modified tomatoes contained genes that made them resistant to antibiotics. Doctors and vets use antibiotics to fight infections. These genes spread to animals and people, doctors would have difficulties fighting infectious diseases.
Strawberries, pineapples, sweet peppers and bananas have all been genetically modified by scientists to remain fresh for longer.
muchtyman wrote:Hey dank , Obviously a very clued up Guy . Any idea where this Crap is gonna be planted in the UK 2010 ?
i couldnt find to much but to me it looks like its already happening or happened ill keep checking?
onversion, GMO crops - UK Soil Association Organic Standards 2005
Padel, Susanne and Lowman, Steve (2005) Conversion, GMO crops - UK Soil Association Organic Standards 2005. [Organic rules - Differences between other regulations/standards and EEC No 2092/91]
Full text not available from this repository.
A 5-year period is required from the harvest of any previous genetically modified crop before the land where it was grown may become fully organic. Soil Association Organic Standards. Paragraph 3.6.17.
Soil Association Standards contain a restriction not included in EU Regulation 2092/91. Soil Association standards require a 5-year period from the harvest of any previous genetically modified crop before the land where it was grown may become fully organic. EU Regulation has no similar requirement.
Soil Association standards aim to minimise the risks of contaminating organic crops with genetically modified plant material by requiring an extended period for conversion of land after cultivation of genetically modified crops. Genetically modified organisms are prohibited from use in organic farming because of the unpredictable nature of the technology, and the risks to health and the environment.
Annex I. Principles of organic production and processing > Care of environment - not in EC Reg > Contamination with pesticides/GMO
Annex I. Principles of organic production and processing > A.Plant and plant products > Conversion - Annex I A1
Item type: Organic rules - Differences between other regulations/standards and EEC No 2092/91
Subjects: Pollution risks/non permitted inputs > GMO
Country/Standard: Europe > UK > Soil Association Organic Standards
Principles: Principle of care
ID Code: 206
Deposited By: Unnamed user with username N/A
Deposited On: 20 Nov 2005
Last Modified: 24 Nov 2008 08:19
- Related topics
- Last post
- Calling on the FDA to label genetically engineered foods!
by mikemess » Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:39 pm
- 0 Replies
- 574 Views
- Last post by mikemess
Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:39 pm
- Calling on the FDA to label genetically engineered foods!
- Kagan: OK to ban books, foods, speech - videos - Proof!!
by Illuminated » Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:46 pm
- 0 Replies
- 213 Views
- Last post by Illuminated
Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:46 pm
- Kagan: OK to ban books, foods, speech - videos - Proof!!