"Scientist Who Discovered GMOs Cause Tumors in Rats Wins Landmark Defamation Lawsuit in Paris"

Was French Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini correct when he discovered that scientific feeding experiments past 90 days with GMO food and rats can cause serious health problems including tumors?

The answer to that question has been debated ever since the initial publication of his study, culminating in a republication of the study in another peer-reviewed journal that wasn’t nearly as well covered as the initial retraction was by the mainstream media.
read m0re:

http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/scientist-who-discov…/

"Biosafety and the 'Seralini affair' - scientific and regulatory reform are essential"

The forced retraction of a study that identified serious harm to rats fed on GMO maize and Monsanto's 'Roundup' reveals a deep and systemic corruption of science and regulation, writes Gilles-Eric Séralini. Urgent and far reaching reforms must now take place.

"Censorship on research into the risks of a technology so critically entwined with global food safety undermines the value and the credibility of science.

There is an ongoing debate on the potential health risks of the consumption of genetically modified (GM) plants containing high levels of pesticide residues.

Currently, no regulatory authority requests mandatory chronic animal feeding studies to be performed for edible GMOs and formulated pesticides. This fact is at the origin of most of the controversies. Only studies consisting of 90-day rat feeding trials have been conducted by manufacturers for GMOs.

Statistical differences in the biochemistry of treated rats versus controls may represent the initial signs of long-term pathologies, possibly explained at least in part by pesticide residues in the GM feed." read more:

http://www.theecologist.org/…/biosafety_and_the_seralini_af…

"The Case"

Seralini’s team wins defamation and forgery court cases on GMO and pesticide research

On 25 November 2015, the High Court of Paris indicted Marc Fellous, former chairman of France’s Biomolecular Engineering Commission, for “forgery” and “the use of forgery”, in a libel trial that he lost to Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini. The Biomolecular Engineering Commission has authorised many GM crops for consumption.

The details of the case have not yet been publicly released but a source close to the case told GMWatch that Fellous had used or copied the signature of a scientist without his agreement to argue that Séralini and his co-researchers were wrong in their reassessment of Monsanto studies.

The Séralini team’s re-assessment reported finding signs of toxicity in the raw data from Monsanto’s own rat feeding studies with GM maize.

The sentence against Fellous has not yet been passed and is expected in June 2016.

Defamation case

The latest ruling marks a second court victory for Séralini’s team.

In September 2012, an article written by Jean-Claude Jaillette in Marianne magazine said that “researchers around the world” had voiced “harsh words” about the research of Séralini and his team on the toxic effects of a GMO and Roundup over a long term period – research that was supported by the independent organisation CRIIGEN. The journalist wrote of a “scientific fraud in which the methodology served to reinforce pre-determined results”.

Séralini, his team, and CRIIGEN challenged this allegation in a defamation lawsuit. They were assisted by the notaries Bernard Dartevelle and Cindy Gay.

On 6 November 2015, after a criminal investigation lasting three years, the 17th Criminal Chamber of the High Court of Paris passed sentence. Marianne magazine and its journalist were fined for public defamation of a public official and public defamation of the researchers and of CRIIGEN, which is chaired by Dr Joel Spiroux de Vendômois.

The trial demonstrated that the original author of the fraud accusation, prior to Marianne, was the American lobbyist Henry I. Miller in Forbes magazine.

Miller had previously lobbied to discredit research linking tobacco to cancer and heart disease on behalf of the tobacco industry. Since then he has tried to do the same in support of GMOs and pesticides, through defamation.

The long-term toxicity study by Séralini’s team was republished after the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted it under pressure from lobbyists. Séralini’s team has just published a summary of the toxic effects of Roundup below regulatory thresholds. read m0re:

http://www.gmoseralini.org/seralinis-team-wins-defamation-…/

To get the research paper in question:

go to:
http://sci-hub.io/

and enter:

10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5
in the search engine

the man behind the paper has his own website:

http://www.gmoseralini.org/en/

check it out!

Gilles-Éric Séralini (born 23 August 1960) is a French molecular biologist, political advisor and activist on genetically modified organisms and foods. He is of Algerian-French origin. Séralini has been a professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen since 1991, and is president and chairman of the board of CRIIGEN

Bill Gates’ Human Experimentation with GM Bananas in Africa Condemned by Scientists

At least 124 food and outreach organizations, as well as 26 individual scientists, have signed onto a letter sent to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation protesting ongoing human trials of genetically modified (GM), beta-carotene-enriched bananas intended for Africa.

The GM bananas, which never underwent animal trials, are currently being administered to 12 students attending Iowa State University (ISU), presumably without full disclosure as to the many unknown risks involved.

According to the letter, the trials are taking place under the guidance of Dr. Wendy White, an associate professor of food science and human nutrition. Funding for the trials came from a grant issued by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

“We, the undersigned, representing diverse constituencies from across Africa and the world, working towards food sovereignty, are strongly opposed to the human feeding trials taking place at the Iowa State University involving the so called genetically modified (GM) ‘super banana,’” reads the letter.

Gates Foundation funded creation of GM “Matooke” bananas in Australia

Prior to landing in Iowa, the transgenic bananas were spawned at the Queensland University of Technology in Australia, also with funding from the Gates Foundation. The goal all along has been to eventually force these “frankenfruits” on Uganda and other countries in East Africa.

But there is still no evidence that the GM Matooke bananas are safe. Most independent research to date suggests that GMOs can induce allergies, trigger autoimmune disorders and even cause cancer, especially after many years of consumption.

“Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996,” explains the Institute for Responsible Technology.

“The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise.”

GM bananas unnaturally produce added substances for human consumption

Another major concern with the Gates Foundation’s GM bananas is that they are a functional food designed for complete human consumption. They are substantially different from GM corn and soy, for instance, which contain modified traits and aren’t consumed directly.

“Unlike current GM crops in commercial production where agronomic traits have been altered, scientists have spliced genes into the GM banana to produce substances for humans to digest (extra beta carotene),” explains the letter.

“The GM banana is a whole different ballgame, raising serious concerns about the risks to African communities who would be expected to consume it. Production of vitamin A in the body is complex and not fully understood.”

GM bananas aren’t safe and weren’t created to help Africans

If addressing vitamin A deficiency is really Bill Gates’ concern in all this, then he would be actively encouraging Africans to consume a more diverse array of foods already native to their country that are rich in vitamin A, including sweet potatoes and other natural varieties of carotene-rich bananas.

Instead, he is pushing for an untested banana with altered vitamin A levels to be forced on rural Africans who already have access to all the naturally vitamin A-rich foods they could possibly want. The real goal may have to do with Gates’ other admitted agenda to greatly reduce the world’s population.

“Great strides have been made in the Philippines, another target country for vitamin enhanced GM crops, through government programs that supply supplements and improve access to vitamin A rich foods, to overcome Vitamin A deficiencies,” adds the letter.

“Ironically, the promotion of a GM food staple high in Vitamin A, risks perpetuating monolithic diets, the very causes of Vitamin A deficiency in the first place.”

The full letter is available here:
AFSAfrica.org.

Sources:

http://afsafrica.org

http://www.gmwatch.org

http://www.hs.iastate.edu

http://www.responsibletechnology.org

http://www.globalresearch.ca/bill-gates-human-experimentation-with-gm-bananas-in-africa-condemned-by-scientists/5420607

The Food Industry-- Your every day poison delivery source

Pick Your Poisoned Food

Is it possible to eat food that is not poisoned today?
If you buy 98% of the items in a grocery store they are processed foods with all kinds of preservatives and other chemicals added.

Even if you buy food labeled organic, there's a possibility that a percentage of the food is problematic.

Buy produce and most likely it is saturated in insecticides or weed killers, especially the GMO food brought to us by Monsanto and friends. The whole idea of GMO is to breed plants that are not killed when sprayed with insecticides and weed killers.

Well, you could find a local organic farm and join its CSA (community supported agriculture) but you can't be sure that the groundwater isn't polluted from local fracking. Frackers don't have to say what's in the fluids they pump into the ground-- fluids which pollute the local aquifer.

You can be pretty sure that if you are buying food packaged by any of the big food companies that it's been processed, and even if it isn't, there's a really good chance the company has donated to GMO labeling campaigns. I'm using the Buycott app on my phone so I can scan products to make sure I'm not giving business to the Koch brothers or companies that have funded anti GMO campaigns.

If you go to a restaurant you can be almost certain that the food is not organic, that it's loaded with chemical preservatives, or worse, poisons from pesticides and weed killers.

A huge percentage of foods and drinks use corn syrup to sweeten them. Almost all corn is GMO. GMO food is made so it tolerates more pesticides and weed killers. Sweeteners are used to addict us to foods.

How about farmed fish? They are given a lot more antibiotics and other drugs and you do not want to know what's in their feed. Ok. I'll tell you. Dried pig blood, chicken parts--- feathers, claws, beaks-- and I guarantee you those are not from organic, range fed animals. They're from animals that have been given all kinds of drugs. If you're going to eat fish, buy wild caught, but don't forget the mercury that they accumulate. 

So what's the answer? Grow your own or buy only organic whenever you can. Get to know the ten or twelve dirtiest foods-- the ones with the most chemicals on them. Keep the list with you:

Apples, celery, peaches, strawberries, blueberries, nectarines, sweet bell peppers, kale, spinach, cherries, grapes, potatoes.

Tell your grocery store, your produce store and any restaurants you frequent that you want organic produce and free range meats-- if you have to eat meat at all. Talk to the manager. Ask them if there's anything on the menu that is made from organic or free range. Tell them you'll pay more for it. Pay more for it. Ask them to buy local and provide locally grown food while you're at it.

Start re-framing the way you see food. See it as a delivery system for poison and toxins. Look at fancy, pretty packaging by big food companies as packaging for poison. Think about manufacturers of processed foods as purveyors of poisons partnering with the pharmaceutical industry and medical industry prepping you for hospitalization.

When you go to the restaurant, unless you're going to one you know is organic, realize that you're going to be eating food laced with insecticides and weed killers.

The problem is it is so hard to avoid eating these poisoned foods it is more a matter of avoiding as much as you can. It's a bit depressing and makes food more expensive. But the other side of the story is medical. We are all seeing much higher rates of cancer, heart disease and diabetes and other diseases. It's no accident or fluke. We are being systematically poisoned. Knowlingly selling food with poison on it should be a crime. And vendors and restaurants should all know whether or not there is poison on food. There should be inexpensive tests that consumers can buy that checks to see the amount of poison on any food. Every big food supplier should be required to test every batch of food and prove that it is poison-free.

And let's not forget polluters who make it hard to find water and soil that are safe to grow food in.

The people of the world are being systematically poisoned by industries that are un or in-adequately regulated. Wealthy people buy organic food and eat at restaurants where the food is organic. They hire chefs to cook for them. This is another aspect of the wealth divide. And the poisons in our food are killing us, and probably contributing to even more diseases that cancer, heart disease and diabetes.

So, stop buying crap. Avoid 95% of the aisles in the grocery store. Avoid the dirtiest produce.

Stop going to restaurants that serve poisoned produce and meat and meals loaded with GMO grown contents. Tell the restaurant management that you only want organic food. Check out how Chipotle Restaurant chain approaches labeling their food. They actually have an ingredients statement. Every restaurant should have something like this. It should be a law that the do.

Cut out products with corn syrup or other forms of processed sugars. They're all addicting and you don't need them

Start by looking at the ingredients of everything you buy and if you can't say them or don't know what they are, don't buy them. Don't eat them. Pat yourself on the back when you skip an aisle at the supermarket. Skip the whole damned supermarket.

Probably most important, prepare your food at home. Yes it takes more time. It's worth it. You'll save money, be healthier and live longer.

And tell your local, corporate-owned legislators that food safety, GMO labeling and the environment are very important to you.

If you've gotten this far you may be feeling that it's almost impossible to eat safe poison-free food. Changing to a diet that is as free from poisons as possible is difficult in today's world. The best thing to do is to start somewhere. Find out where they sell the organic products at your local grocery store. Try to ask the manager-- so they know you want organic. Try to avoid the dirtiest foods on the above list. And don't forget about beverages-- OJ, beer, apple juice, soda-- they're just as bad or worse.

Whole Foods, Trader Joes and Aldi offer organic foods. Check them out. Ask about GMO contents since there are no regulations to label food as GMO. They are far from perfect but at least offer some products that are better. Still, be cautious at those stores too.

Want to stay on top of GMO and organic food issues. Check out organicconsumers.org

Become an activist consumer of food. Tell your grocery story and produce store you want MORE organic and better labeling. Tell the management of every restaurant you go to that you want organic and non-GMO. Businesses listen to consumers. But you have to speak up.

Please share what you are doing.

Source: http://www.sott.net/article/279434-The-Food-Industry-Your-every-day-poison-delivery-source

Genetically Modified Foods Unsafe? GM Foods and Allergies

Genetically modified (GM) foods are inherently unsafe, and current safety assessments are not competent to protect us from or even identify most dangers. Overwhelming evidence to support this conclusion is now compiled in the book Genetic Roulette: The documented health risks of genetically engineered foods, which presents an abundance of adverse findings and theoretical risks associated with GM foods.1

The book documents lab animals with damage to virtually every system studied; thousands of sick, sterile, or dead livestock; and people around the world who have traced toxic or allergic reactions to eating GM products, breathing GM pollen, or touching GM crops at harvest. It also exposes many incorrect assumptions that were used to support GM approvals. This article, excerpted from my book, summarizes some of the findings related to allergic and immune responses.

GM Soy and Allergies

Soy allergies jumped 50% in the U.K. just after GM soy was introduced.2 If GM soy was the cause, it may be due to several things. The GM protein that makes Roundup Ready Soy resistant to the herbicide does not have a history of safe use in humans and may be an allergen. In fact, sections of its amino acid sequence are identical to known allergens.3

A portion of the transgene from ingested GM soybeans, along with the promoter that switches it on, transfers into human gut bacteria during ingestion.4 The fact that the transformed bacteria survives applications of Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, suggests that the transgene continues to produce the Roundup Ready protein. If true, then long after people stop eating GM soy they may be constantly exposed to its potentially allergenic protein, which is being created within their gut. (This protein may be made more allergenic due to misfolding, attached molecular chains, or rearrangement of unstable transgenes, but there is insufficient data to support or rule out these possibilities.1)

Studies suggest that the GM transformation process may have increased natural allergens in soybeans. The level of one known allergen, trypsin inhibitor, was 27% higher in raw GM soy varieties. More worrisome, it was as much as sevenfold higher in cooked GM soy compared to cooked non-GM soy.5 Not only is this higher amount potentially harmful, the finding also suggests that the trypsin inhibitor in GM soy might be more heat stable and, therefore, even more allergenic than the natural variety.6

It is also possible that changes in GM soy DNA may produce new allergens. Although there has never been an exhaustive analysis of the proteins or natural products in GM soy, unpredicted changes in the DNA were discovered. A mutated section of soy DNA was found near the transgene, which may contribute to some unpredicted effects. Moreover, between this scrambled DNA and the transgene is an extra transgene fragment, not discovered until years after soy was on the market.7 The RNA produced is completely unexpected. It combines material from all three sections: the full-length transgene, the transgene fragment, and the mutated DNA sequence. This RNA is then further processed into four different variations,8 which might lead to the production of some unknown allergen.

Another study verified that GM soybeans contain an IgE-binding allergenic protein not found in nonGM soy controls, and that one of eight subjects who showed a skin-prick allergic reaction to GM soy had no reaction to nonGM soy.9 Although the sample size is small, the implication that certain people react only to GM soy is huge.

The increased residue of Roundup herbicide in GM soy might contribute to increased allergies.10 In fact, the symptoms identified in the U.K. soy allergy study are among those related to glyphosate exposure. The allergy study identified irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, chronic fatigue, headaches, lethargy, and skin complaints including acne and eczema.2

Symptoms of glyphosate exposure include nausea, headaches, lethargy, skin rashes, and burning or itchy skin.11 It is also possible that glyphosate’s breakdown product, AMPA, which accumulates in GM soybeans,12,13 might contribute to allergies.

Finally, mice fed GM soy had reduced levels of pancreatic enzymes.14,15 When protein-digesting enzymes are suppressed, proteins may last longer in the gut, allowing more time for an allergic reaction to take place. Any reduction in protein digestion could therefore promote allergic reactions to a wide range of proteins, not just to the GM soy.

Bt Toxin Triggers Immune Response

Bt toxin is consistently associated with immune and allergic-type responses. Although the unpredicted consequences of the GM transformation process might also contribute to allergic reactions from Bt crops, evidence suggests that the Bt toxin itself is a major factor. The Bt proteins found in most currently registered Bt-corn varieties would not pass the allergy test protocol described in the 2001 FAO/WHO report,16 because they have amino acid sections identical with known allergens17 and are too stable in simulated digestive solutions.18,19

Furthermore, immune responses are triggered by both the natural Bt toxin in spray form and Bt crops. The concentration of Bt toxin in crops, however, can be thousands of times higher than in sprays;20 and changes in its protein structure make the crop version more likely to provoke reactions in humans.21,22

Additional evidence:

• When populations were exposed to Bt spray, hundreds complained of allergic reactions; exposed farm workers also exhibited antibody responses.23–27

• Indian farm workers exposed to Bt cotton developed moderate or severe allergic reactions.28

• Bt toxin fed to mice induced a significant immune response and an increased reactivity to other substances.29-31

• Male rats fed MON 863 Bt corn had a significant increase in three types of blood cells related to the immune system: basophils, lymphocytes, and total white cell counts.32

• Thousands of consumers complained to food manufacturers about possible reactions to StarLink corn,33 and an expert panel determined that its Bt protein had a “medium likelihood” of being a human allergen.34

The consistency between the reactions related to Bt sprays and those reported by Bt-cotton workers is astounding. The Bt spray was associated with sneezing, runny nose, watery eyes, skin inflammation and irritation, rashes, itching and burning, swelling, red skin and eyes, exacerbations of asthma, facial swelling, and fever. Some people required hospitalization.23,24 Bt-cotton workers in India reported sneezing, runny nose, watery eyes, skin eruptions, itching and burning, red skin and eyes, facial swelling, and fever. Some people required hospitalization.28 The two lists are nearly identical—only “exacerbations of asthma” was on the spray list and not the other.

Asthma and breathing difficulties were reported by Filipinos who inhaled Bt-corn pollen.35 They also described swollen faces, flu-like symptoms, fever, and sneezing. Some individuals in both India and the Philippines also reported long-term effects after exposure. The list of symptoms in the Philippines, however, did contain items not reported by the other two groups. These included coughs, headache, stomachache, dizziness, diarrhea, vomiting, weakness, and numbness.36

Toxicity and Reproductive Problems

In addition, there is substantial evidence of toxicity and reproductive effects associated with GM foods. Sheep that grazed on Bt-cotton plants in India, for example, exhibited nasal discharge, reddish and erosive mouth lesions, cough, bloat, diarrhea, and occasional red-colored urine. Shepherds report that 25% of their herds died within 5–7 days. Post mortems on some of the estimated 10,000 dead sheep in the region indicated toxic reactions.37 Rats fed Bt corn showed toxicity in their livers and kidneys.38 And farmers link Bt corn with deaths among cows,39 water buffalo, horses, and chickens,36 as well as sterility in thousands of pigs or cows.1 Animal feeding studies with Roundup Ready soy indicated toxic livers,40 altered sperm cells,41 significant changes in embryo development,42 and a fivefold increase in infant mortality, among others.43

Our understanding of DNA has progressed rapidly since genetic engineering was applied to food crops, and many key safety assumptions have been proven wrong. Perhaps some day scientists will be able to safely and predictably alter food crops for the benefit of mankind and the environment.

Until then, it is not responsible to risk the health of the entire population with this infant science or to release these crops into the ecosystem where they may self-propagate for generations. An immediate ban of GM foods and crops is more than justified.

Notes

1. Smith, J.M. Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods (Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA, 2007).

2. Townsend, M. Why soya is a hidden destroyer. Daily Express, Mar 12, 1999.

3. Kleter, G.A. & Peijnenburg, A.A.C.M. Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences identical to potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens. BMC Struct. Biol. 2 (2002): 8–19.

4. Netherwood et al. Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Nature Biotech. 22 (2004): 2.

5. Padgette, S.R. et al. The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans. J. of Nutrition 126, no. 4 (1996).

6. Pusztai, A. & Bardocz, S. GMO in animal nutrition:

potential benefits and risks. Ch. 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals (Elsevier, 2005).

7. Windels, P. et al. Characterisation of the roundup ready soybean insert. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 213 (2001): 107–112.

8. Rang, A. et al. Detection of RNA variants transcribed from the transgene in roundup ready soybean. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 220 (2005): 438–443.

9. Yum, H. et al. Genetically modified and wild soybeans: an immunologic comparison. Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–Jun 2005): 210–216.

10. Benbrook, C. Genetically engineered crops and pesticide use in the United States: The First Nine Years. October 2004.

11. Cox, C. Herbicide fact sheet: glyphosate. J. of Pest. Reform 24, no. 4 (Winter 2004).

12. Duke, S.O. et al. Isoflavone, Glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid levels in seeds of glyphosate-treated, glyphosateresistant soybean. J. Agric. Food Chem. 51 (2003): 340–344.

13. Sandermann, H. Plant biotechnology: ecological case studies on herbicide resistance. Trends in Plant Sci. 11, no. 7 (Jul 2006): 324–328.

14. Malatesta, M. et al. Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modified

soybean. J. of Anat. 201, no. 5 (Nov 2002): 409.

15. Malatesta, M. et al. Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on GM soybean.

Eur. J. Histochem. 47 (2003): 385–388.

16. FAO/WHO. “Evaluation of allergenicity of genetically modified foods.” (FAO/WHO, Jan 22–25, 2001).

17. Gendel. The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods. Advan. in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998): 45–62.

18. Noteborn, H.P.J.M. Assessment of the stability to digestion and bioavailability of the LYS mutant Cry9C protein from Bacillus thuringiensis serovar tolworthi. Unpublished study to EPA (AgrEvo, EPA MRID No. 447343-05, 1998).

19. Engel, K. et al. Genetically modified foods: safety

issues. American Chemical Society Symposium Series 605 (Washington DC, 1995): 134–47.

20. Mendelsohn, M. et al. Are Bt crops safe? Nature Biotech. 21, no. 9 (2003): 1003–1009.

21. Dutton, A. et al. Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea. Ecol. Entomology 27 (2002): 441–7.

22. Romeis, J., Dutton, A., & Bigler, F. Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). J. of Insect Phys. 50, no. 2–3 (2004): 175–183.

23. Washington State Dept. of Health. “Report of health

surveillance activities: asian gypsy moth control program (Washington State Dept. of Health, Olympia, WA, 1993).

24. Green, M. et al. Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: an epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985–86. Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7 (1990): 848–852.

25. Noble, M.A., Riben, P.D., & Cook, G.J. Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray (Ministry of Forests, Vancouver, B.C., Sept 30, 1992).

26. Swadener, C. Bacillus thuringiensis. J. of Pest. Reform 14, no. 3 (Fall 1994).

27. Samples, J.R. & Buettner, H. Ocular infection caused by a biological insecticide. J. Infectious Dis. 148, no. 3 (1983): 614.

28. Gupta, A. et al. “Impact of Bt cotton on farmers’ health (in Barwani and Dhar district of Madhya Pradesh)”

(Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005).

29. Vazquez et al. Intragastric and Intraperitoneal Administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice. Life Sci. 64, no. 21 (1999): 1897–1912.

30. Vazquez et al. Characterization of the mucosal and

systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice. Brazilian J. of Med. and Biol. Research 33 (2000): 147–155.

31. Vazquez et al. Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant. Scandanavian J. of Immunology 49 (1999): 578–584.

32. Burns, J.M. 13-week dietary subchronic comparison study with MON 863 corn in rats preceded by a 1-week baseline food consumption determination with PMI certified rodent diet #5002. (Monsanto Co. report, Dec 17, 2002).

33. Freese, B. The StarLink affair. Submission by Friends of the Earth to the FIFRA scientific advisory panel considering assessment of additional scientific information concerning StarLink corn (Jul 17–19, 2001).

34. Assessment of additional scientific information concerning StarLink corn (FIFRA scientific advisory panel report, No. 2001–09, Jul 2001).

35. Smith, J.M. Bt-maize (corn) during pollination, may

trigger disease in people living near the cornfield (Press release, Feb 2004).

36. Ho, M. GM ban long overdue, dozens ill & five deaths in the Philippines (ISIS press release, Jun 2, 2006).

37. Mortality in sheep flocks after grazing on Bt cotton fields—Warangal district (Andhra Pradesh report of the preliminary assessment, Apr 2006).

38. Seralini, G., Cellier, D., & Spiroux de Vendomois, J. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. J. archives of Env. Contam. and Toxicology (Springer, New York).

39. Strodthoff, H. & Then, C. Is GM maize responsible for deaths of cows in Hesse? Greenpeace e.V. 22745

(Greenpeace, Hamburg, Germany, Dec 2003).

40. Malatesta, M. et al. Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct. Funct. 27 (2002): 173–180.

41. Vecchio, L. et al. Ultrastructural analysis of testes

from mice fed on genetically modified soybean.

Eur. J. of Histochem. 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.

42. Oliveri et al. Temporary depression of transcription in mouse pre-implantion embryos from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. (48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore, Italy, Sept 7–10, 2006).

43. Ermakova, I. Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies. Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.

Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/genetically-modified-foods-unsafe-evidence-that-links-gm-foods-to-allergic-responses-mounts/7277

Big owner of Monsanto shares: Does Bill Gates want population control?

"The world today has 6.9 billion people and that's headed up to about 9 billion. If we do a really great job, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent." ~ Bill Gates (video here) 

Bill Gates believes the density of the population in poor areas is too big, and with his depopulation plans he can 'solve' that problem. Consider his huge buyout of Monsanto stock - he owns millions of shares of Monsanto and Cargill stock, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation keep scooping it up. He owns more than $23 million worth, or 500,000 Monsanto shares. 

Seattle-based Agra-Watch, part of the Community Alliance for Global Justice, has said:

"Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well being of small farmers around the world... [This] casts serious doubt on the foundation's heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa."

It also casts serious doubt on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and its true interests in supporting the 'poor' populations they so proudly claim they are trying to 'help. 

'Gates also funds programs that blast men's reproductive organs with radiation so that they can no longer produce progeny, and covert nanotechnology that delivers dangerous vaccines. The Gates Foundation is also teaming up with the British government in raising $4 billion to fund their birth control agenda worldwide by 2020. 

You can hear Melinda Gates talk about pushing birth control in a TED talk, even. She acts as if people should have choice about birth control but they have focused on poor areas in countries like Africa, where they also happen to push their genetically modified food agenda. Melinda Gates even says, "some people worry that the promotion of birth control is to control population." 

Kwame Fosu, policy director for the Rebecca Project for Human Rights, says Mrs. Gates' claims are "disingenuous" because the women she claims to be helping are not being informed about the dangers involved. [The Foundation pushes Depro Provero, made by Pfizer, and also the contraceptive called the most dangerous by the US FDA.]

"No African woman would agree to being injected if she had full knowledge of the contraceptives' dangerous side effects," Kwame Fosu told C-FAM, the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute. "In fact," claimed Fosu, "in countries where women are educated on the harmful complications, Depo Provera use is negligible."

Why concentrate on birth control in developing nations? Because then you can control them through controlling their populations. Add this to rampant political maneuvering to try to get the remaining people hooked on GMOs, and you have a docile, sick, dependant country, living only on your pharmaceuticals and fake-food. 

Fast Company reports that the Gates Foundation has invested $11.9 million in research towards a Virus-Resistant Cassava (GMO) strain for Africa, and a recent Wikileaks cables revealed that the Department of State has virtually become an agency for promoting the private interests of the Monsanto Corporation, which Bill is heavily invested in. Connect the dots. Just connect the dots.

Source: http://www.sott.net/article/279362-Big-owner-of-Monsanto-shares-Does-Bill-Gates-want-population-control