Three Approved GMO Crops Linked to Organ Damage, New Study Shows

by Aaron Turpen, citizen journalist

(NaturalNews) Genetically Modified crops (or GM) are genetically modified organisms (GMO) that have been altered to meet a specific profile. They have also been the subject of controversy almost since their introduction two decades ago. A new study pinpoints three variations of GM corn (maize) as being linked to organ damage in mammals.

The three varieties in question are Mon 810, Mon 863, and NK 603. The "Mon" is for, you guessed it, Monsanto and the NK is also a Monsanto product, being engineered for herbicide tolerance. The study was conducted by the Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and the Universities of Caen and Rouen in France.¹

The study used the same data that was used by Monsanto to gain approval in several parts of the world. The data was released publicly in 2005 by European authorities when the three GM strains were approved for human consumption in both the U.S. and Europe.

Gilles-Eric Seralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen and one of the principals in the study, says that the data "clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system."

Each of the three strains produced differing amounts of adverse impact, but the impact on vital organs was universal for all three GM crops.

The study was completed in December 2009 and appears in the International Journal of Biological Sciences¹ (IJBS). It conforms with and substantiates an earlier study done by CRIIGEN in 2007 on Mon 863.² The results of that study were rejected by Monsanto.³

One controversy many point to when criticizing Monsanto's counter-analysis as well as the governmental acceptance of the GM crops is in the way Monsanto's studies were carried out. Traditionally, when testing drug, pesticide, or other human-ingested items' safety, the standard protocol is to use three different mammalian species.

Monsanto used only rats for their studies, but still managed to win GMO approval in at least a dozen countries. Further, the studies were carried out in only 90 day spans, which is not long enough to find most chronic problems.

Other problems with Monsanto's studies should have raised more red flags, but they were ignored by the governmental panels put in charge of making the decision to allow the company's genetically modified crops into wide distribution in their countries.

The new CRIIGEN study concludes that the raw data makes it clear that all three GMO crops have real problems and should be put under "an immediate ban on the import and export of these GMOs." The study also strongly recommends additional long-term, multi-generational animal feeding studies be done on at least three species to provide truly scientific "data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods."

Resources:

1 - de Vendomois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Seralini GE. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. - Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726.

2 - Greenpeace analysis of MON863 CRIIGEN study, 2007.

3 - Rejection of the 2007 study on Monsanto's website.

4 - Information about Genetically Modified foods and GMOs here on NaturalNews.

Stop the Shot: "Swine Flu" Vaccine: Untested, Uninsurable, Unproven

Watch CBS Videos Online





Click here for more info on possible mandatory vaccinations

Historical facts about the dangers (and failures) of vaccines

NaturalNews.com

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

Vaccines are the quackery of modern medicine. Mass vaccination programs not only fail to protect the population from infectious disease, they actually accelerate the spread of disease in many cases.

Many websites have cropped up over the last few years to counter the pro-vaccine propaganda put out by drug companies (who profit from vaccines) and health regulators (who serve the drug companies). One of those sites is www.VaccinationDebate.com , which lists the following historical facts about vaccines:

• In the USA in 1960, two virologists discovered that both polio vaccines were contaminated with the SV 40 virus which causes cancer in animals as well as changes in human cell tissue cultures. Millions of children had been injected with these vaccines. (Med Jnl of Australia 17/3/1973 p555)

• In 1871-2, England, with 98% of the population aged between 2 and 50 vaccinated against smallpox, it experienced its worst ever smallpox outbreak with 45,000 deaths. During the same period in Germany, with a vaccination rate of 96%, there were over 125,000 deaths from smallpox. (http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/020...)
The Hadwen Documents.

• In Germany, compulsory mass vaccination against diphtheria commenced in 1940 and by 1945 diphtheria cases were up from 40,000 to 250,000. (Don't Get Stuck, Hannah Allen)

• In 1967, Ghana was declared measles free by the World Health Organisation after 96% of its population was vaccinated. In 1972, Ghana experienced one of its worst measles outbreaks with its highest ever mortality rate. (Dr H Albonico, MMR Vaccine Campaign in Switzerland, March 1990)

• In 1977, Dr Jonas Salk who developed the first polio vaccine, testified along with other scientists, that mass inoculation against polio was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1961. (Science 4/4/77 "Abstracts" )

• In the UK between 1970 and 1990, over 200,000 cases of whooping cough occurred in fully vaccinated children. (Community Disease Surveillance Centre, UK)

• In the 1970's a tuberculosis vaccine trial in India involving 260,000 people revealed that more cases of TB occurred in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. (The Lancet 12/1/80 p73)

• In 1978, a survey of 30 States in the US revealed that more than half of the children who contracted measles had been adequately vaccinated. (The People's Doctor, Dr R Mendelsohn)

• The February 1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 90% of obstetricians and 66% of pediatricians refused to take the rubella vaccine.

• In 1979, Sweden abandoned the whooping cough vaccine due to its ineffectiveness. Out of 5,140 cases in 1978, it was found that 84% had been vaccinated three times! (BMJ 283:696-697, 1981)

• In the USA, the cost of a single DPT shot had risen from 11 cents in 1982 to $11.40 in 1987. The manufacturers of the vaccine were putting aside $8 per shot to cover legal costs and damages they were paying out to parents of brain damaged children and children who died after vaccination. (The Vine, Issue 7, January 1994, Nambour, Qld)

• In Oman between 1988 and 1989, a polio outbreak occurred amongst thousands of fully vaccinated children. The region with the highest attack rate had the highest vaccine coverage. The region with the lowest attack rate had the lowest vaccine coverage. (The Lancet, 21/9/91)

• In 1990, a UK survey involving 598 doctors revealed that over 50% of them refused to have the Hepatitis B vaccine despite belonging to the high risk group urged to be vaccinated. (British Med Jnl, 27/1/1990)

• In the USA, from July 1990 to November 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration counted a total of 54,072 adverse reactions following vaccination. The FDA admitted that this number represented only 10% of the real total, because most doctors were refusing to report vaccine injuries. In other words, adverse reactions for this period exceeded half a million! (National Vaccine Information Centre, March 2, 1994)

• In 1990, the Journal of the American Medical Association had an article on measles which stated " Although more than 95% of school-aged children in the US are vaccinated against measles, large measles outbreaks continue to occur in schools and most cases in this setting occur among previously vaccinated children." (JAMA, 21/11/90)

• In the New England Journal of Medicine July 1994 issue a study found that over 80% of children under 5 years of age who had contracted whooping cough had been fully vaccinated.

• On November 2nd, 2000, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) announced that its members voted at their 57th annual meeting in St Louis to pass a resolution calling for an end to mandatory childhood vaccines. The resolution passed without a single "no" vote. http://www.wellnesschiro.com/physic...
(Report by Michael Devitt)

Source: http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/we...


Read more at NaturalPedia:

You can also learn a wealth of information about the dangers of vaccines at NaturalPedia.com. Try these pages for more:

Vaccines: http://naturalpedia.com/vaccines.html

Vaccinations: http://naturalpedia.com/vaccination...

Gardasil: http://naturalpedia.com/gardasil.html

HPV: http://naturalpedia.com/HPV.html

The more you learn about vaccines, the more bizarre the pro-vaccine camp begins to look. And if you dig really deep, it becomes apparent their vaccines are based on nothing more than wishful thinking and circular logic (we support vaccines because we support vaccines, etc.).

So what's better than vaccines? Health education. A healthy population with high levels of vitamin D and other essential nutrients needs no vaccines. Maybe that's why they're never told about these things: Big Pharma's vaccine business depends on people remaining nutritionally ignorant. See http://www.naturalnews.com/026843_h... for more details.

Actor Jim Carrey: The Judgment on Vaccines Is In?

by Jim Carrey

Recently, I was amazed to hear a commentary by CNN’s Campbell Brown on the controversial vaccine issue. After a ruling by the ’special vaccine court’ saying the Measles, Mumps, Rubella shot wasn’t found to be responsible for the plaintiffs’ autism, she and others in the media began making assertions that the judgment was in, and vaccines had been proven safe. No one would be more relieved than Jenny and I if that were true.

But with all due respect to Ms. Brown, a ruling against causation in three cases out of more than 5000 hardly proves that other children won’t be adversely affected by the MMR, let alone that all vaccines are safe. This is a huge leap of logic by anyone’s standards. Not everyone gets cancer from smoking, but cigarettes do cause cancer. After 100 years and many rulings in favor of the tobacco companies, we finally figured that out.

The truth is that no one without a vested interest in the profitability of vaccines has studied all 36 of them in depth. There are more than 100 vaccines in development, and no tests for cumulative effect or vaccine interaction of all 36 vaccines in the current schedule have ever been done. If I’m mistaken, I challenge those who are making such grand pronouncements about vaccine safety to produce those studies.

If we are to believe that the ruling of the ‘vaccine court’ in these cases mean that all vaccines are safe, then we must also consider the rulings of that same court in the Hannah Polling and Bailey Banks cases, which ruled vaccines were the cause of autism and therefore assume that all vaccines are unsafe. Clearly both are irresponsible assumptions, and neither option is prudent.

In this growing crisis, we cannot afford to blindly trumpet the agenda of the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) or vaccine makers. Now more than ever, we must resist the urge to close this book before it’s been written. The anecdotal evidence of millions of parents who’ve seen their totally normal kids regress into sickness and mental isolation after a trip to the pediatrician’s office must be seriously considered. The legitimate concern they and many in the scientific community have that environmental toxins, including those found in vaccines, may be causing autism and other disorders (Aspergers, ADD, ADHD), cannot be dissuaded by a show of sympathy and a friendly invitation to look for the ‘real’ cause of autism anywhere but within the lucrative vaccine program.

With vaccines being the fastest growing division of the pharmaceutical industry, isn’t it possible that profits may play a part in the decision-making? That the vaccine program is becoming more of a profit engine than a means of prevention? In a world left reeling from the catastrophic effects of greed, mismanagement and corporate insensitivity, is it so absurd for us to wonder why American children are being given twice as many vaccines on average, compared to the top 30 first world countries?

Paul Offit, the vaccine advocate and profiteer, who helped invent a Rotavirus vaccine is said to have paved the way for his own multi-million dollar windfall while serving on the very council that eventually voted his Rotavirus vaccine onto our children’s schedule. On August 21, 2000 a congressional investigation’s report titled, “Conflicts in Vaccine Policy,” stated:

It has become clear over the course of this investigation that the VRBPAC and the ACIP [the two main advisory boards that determine the vaccine schedule] are dominated by individuals with close working relationships with the vaccine producers. This was never the intent of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires that a diversity of views be represented on advisory committees.

Isn’t that enough to raise questions about the process of choosing the vaccine schedule?

With many states like Minnesota now reporting the number at 1 in 80 children affected with autism, can we afford to trust those who serve two masters or their logic that tells us “one size fits all” when it comes to vaccines? Can we afford to ignore vaccines as a possible cause of these rising numbers when they are one of the fastest growing elements in our children’s environment? With all the doubt that’s left hanging on this topic, how can anyone in the media or medical profession, boldly demand that all parents march out and give their kids 36 of these shots, six at a time in dosage levels equal to that given to a 200 pound man? This is a bias of the most dangerous kind.

I’ve also heard it said that no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism has ever been found. That statement is only true for the CDC, the AAP and the vaccine makers who’ve been ignoring mountains of scientific information and testimony. There’s no evidence of the Lincoln Memorial if you look the other way and refuse to turn around. But if you care to look, it’s really quite impressive. For a sample of vaccine injury evidence go to www.generationrescue.org/lincolnmemorial.html.

We have never argued that people shouldn’t be immunized for the most serious threats including measles and polio, but surely there’s a limit as to how many viruses and toxins can be introduced into the body of a small child. Veterinarians found out years ago that in many cases they were over-immunizing our pets, a syndrome they call Vaccinosis. It overwhelmed the immune system of the animals, causing myriad physical and neurological disorders. Sound familiar? If you can over-immunize a dog, is it so far out to assume that you can over-immunize a child? These forward thinking vets also decided to remove thimerosal from animal vaccines in 1992, and yet this substance, which is 49% mercury, is still in human vaccines. Don’t our children deserve as much consideration as our pets?

I think I’d rather listen to the more sensible voice of Dr. Bernadine Healy, former head of the National Institute of Health, who says:

Listen to the patients and the patients will teach… I think there is an inexcusable issue, and that’s the lack of research that’s been done here… A parent can legitimately question giving a one-day old baby, or a two-day old baby [the] Hepatitis B vaccine that has no risk for it [and] the mother has no risk for it. That’s a heavy-duty vaccine given on day two [of life]. I think those are legitimate questions.

Dr. Healy is also calling for a long overdue study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. Dr. Frank Engly, a researcher and microbiologist who served on the boards of the CDC, FDA and EPA during the 70s and 80s, warned:

The CDC cannot afford to admit thimerosal is toxic because they have been promoting it for several years… If they would have followed through with our 1982 report, vaccines would have been freed of thimerosal and all this autism as they tell me would not have occurred. But as it is, it all occurred.

In all likelihood the truth about vaccines is that they are both good and bad. While ingredients like aluminum, mercury, ether, formaldehyde and anti-freeze may help preserve and enhance vaccines, they can be toxic as well. The assortment of viruses delivered by multiple immunizations may also be a hazard. I agree with the growing number of voices within the medical and scientific community who believe that vaccines, like every other drug, have risks as well as benefits and that for the sake of profit, American children are being given too many, too soon. One thing is certain. We don’t know enough to announce that all vaccines are safe!

If the CDC, the AAP and Ms. Brown insist that our children take twice as many shots as the rest of the western world, we need more independent vaccine research not done by the drug companies selling the vaccines or by organizations under their influence. Studies that cannot be internally suppressed. Answers parents can trust. Perhaps this is what Campbell Brown should be demanding and how the power of the press could better serve the public in the future.

– Jim Carrey

DOCTORS WARN: AVOID GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD

Silver Bulletin e-News Magazine

by Jeffrey M. Smith

On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.”[1] They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”

Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

Pregnant women and babies at great risk

Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become “the experimental animals.”[2]

The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy.[3] The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.[4]

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue.[5] Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.[6] Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA.[7] Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.[8]

Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.[9]

In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.

Food designed to produce toxin

GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt—produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, it is designed to be more toxic,[10] has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.

Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.[11],[12]

The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton.[13] In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India reported, “Victims of itching have increased massively this year . . . related to BT cotton farming.”[14]

GMOs provoke immune reactions

AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation,” including increase in cytokines, which are “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation”—all on the rise in the US.

According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies.”[15] Even Monsanto’s own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn.[16] A November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.[17]

GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties,[18] GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a known soy allergen,[19] and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy.[20] Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

Animals dying in large numbers

In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[21] In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.

In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.[22]

Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.[23]

In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks.[24] Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.[25]

Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of us

The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.[26] This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.

When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.

Warnings by government scientists ignored and denied

Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests.[27] But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice president.

Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases

AAEM states, “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the “potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”[28]

Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”[29]

Dr. Schubert points out, “If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.” If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.

This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood—but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.

If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.[30]

To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their “members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.”

Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets—unless it says organic or “non-GMO.” There is a pocket Non-GMO Shopping Guide, co-produced by the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, which is available as a download, as well as in natural food stores and in many doctors’ offices.

If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food industry will likely respond as they did in Europe—by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, AAEM’s non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.

International bestselling author and independent filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception is the world’s bestselling book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, identifies 65 risks of GMOs and demonstrates how superficial government approvals are not competent to find most of them. He invited the biotech industry to respond in writing with evidence to counter each risk, but correctly predicted that they would refuse, since they don’t have the data to show that their products are safe.www.ResponsibleTechnology.org,
info@responsibletechnology.org





[1] http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace Canada, October 25, 2002.
[3] Irina Ermakova, “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.
[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[5] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[6] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.
[7] 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), September 7–10, 2006.
[8] Alberta Velimirov and Claudia Binter, “Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice,” Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3/2008
[9] Jerry Rosman, personal communication, 2006
[10] See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, “Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea,” Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441–7; and J. Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, “Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae),” Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2–3 (2004): 175–183.
[11] Washington State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,” (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993).
[12] M. Green, 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.[13] Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),” Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005.
[14] Sunday India, October, 26, 2008
[15] October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John
[16] John M. Burns, “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,” December 17, 2002 http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf
[17] Alberto Finamore, et al, “Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice,” J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56 (23), pp 11533–11539, November 14, 2008
[18] See L Zolla, et al, “Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic modifications,” J Proteome Res. 2008 May;7(5):1850-61; Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7); and Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,” Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62.
[19] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, “GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks,” Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005
[20] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7).
[21] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp
[22] Personal communication and visit, January 2009.
[23] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007
[24] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition and Health 16 (2002): 73–84.
[25] Stéphane Foucart, “Controversy Surrounds a GMO,” Le Monde, 14 December 2004; referencing, John M. Burns, “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,” December 17, 2002 http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf
[26] Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.
[27] See memos at http://www.biointegrity.org/
[28] José Domingo, “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants : A Review of the Published Literature,” Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2007, vol. 47, no8, pp. 721-733
[29] Angela Hall, “Suzuki warns against hastily accepting GMOs”, The Leader-Post (Canada), 26 April 2005.
[30] Kathryn Anne Paez, et al, “Rising Out-Of-Pocket Spending For Chronic Conditions: A Ten-Year Trend,” Health Affairs, 28, no. 1 (2009): 15-25

A Listing of the Twenty-One Fabricated Studies by Dr. Scott Reuben

NaturalNews.com

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

The health community is up in arms over the discovery that a highly-respected and influential clinical researcher, Dr. Scott Reuben, fabricated the data used in over twenty pharmaceutical studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals. Read the full NaturalNews report on this topic here: http://www.naturalnews.com/025833.html

These studies promoted the safety and "benefits" of drugs like Bextra (Pfizer), Vioxx (Merck), Lyrica, Celebrex and Effexor. The lead researcher on these studies, Dr. Scott Reuben, was being paid by Pfizer and Merck, so there's a verified financial connection between this clinical researcher and at least two of the drug companies that benefitted from his fabricated findings. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/h...)

Note carefully the names of the medical journals that published Dr. Reuben's fabricated data (see below). These so-called "science journals" claim to be peer-reviewed, which means these studies were approved by multiple scientists who agreed with the findings.

What this scandal reveals is that even peer-reviewed medical journals cannot be trusted to publish truthful, accurate information about pharmaceuticals. In fact, they are just as much a part of the Big Pharma / FDA conspiracy as the pill-pushing researchers who fabricate these studies, in my opinion.

The only honest medical science journal I've found is PLoS Medicine (http://medicine.plosjournals.org). Everything else I've seen is just tabloid medicalized fiction sandwiched in between pages of false advertising.

And conventional doctors, for all their self-proclaimed intelligence and scientific skepticism, were universally hoodwinked by this faked data! Apparently the best way to convince doctors that a drug is safe and effective is to just invent whatever story you want and submit it to a medical journal, which then gladly publishes it.

If you're looking for a career as a fiction writer, the heck with authoring books sold in the "fiction" section of the local bookstore... just write for medical journals and drug companies! Their pay is better and the fiction is even more outrageous!

Speaking of fiction and false advertising, here's a list of studies authored or co-authored by Dr. Scott Reuben who admittedly fabricated at least twenty-one of these studies. Dr. Reuben was recently a faculty member at Tufts Medical School and co-founder of the Orthopedic Anesthesia, Pain and Rehabilitation Society, by the way. You can read more about his fraud in Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id...).

Click here for the medical studies authored/fabricated by Dr. Scott Reuben

Surprise Supreme Court Decision Ends Big Pharma's Pre-Emption Bid for Legal Immunity

NaturalNews.com

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against Wyeth in the Diana Levine case, setting a crucial precedent in the battle against Big Pharma. The ruling ends an important part of the Big Pharma / FDA conspiracy racket that sought to market extremely dangerous (and even deadly) drugs while providing full legal immunity to drug companies, even when those companies actively lied about the safety of their drugs by hiding negative drug studies from the public and the FDA.

The decision has hit Big Pharma hard. The industry, already reeling from layoffs and a loss of innovation, is now facing a wave of lawsuits from potentially hundreds of thousands of people who have been harmed by dangerous prescription medications. The legal path for such lawsuits has now been cleared, and drug companies can no longer claim legal immunity just because they managed to deceive the FDA into declaring their dangerous chemicals were "approved."

The FDA regime

Three Supreme Court Judges disagreed with the decision, siding with the granting of legal immunity to drug companies: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, who called the decision a "frontal assault on the FDA's regulatory regime for drug labeling."

"Regime," of course, is exactly the right word to describe the FDA's campaign of medical tyranny against the American People. That even three Supreme Court Justices would vote to enforce this dangerous, corrupt regulatory regime is more than a bit disturbing. Fortunately for the American People, the opinions of these three did not prevail.

Big Pharma has long conspired with the FDA to approve knowingly dangerous (and deadly) drugs that are then marketed to the public through a process known as "disease mongering," in which drug companies scare up new health conditions in order to convince people they need to be medicated. Practically the entire pharmaceutical industry is based on this unholy alliance between the corrupt FDA (http://www.naturalnews.com/the_fda.html) and a profit-seeking drug industry (http://www.naturalnews.com/big_phar...), and if the Supreme Court had granted Big Pharma immunity on any drug approved by the FDA, it could have unleashed a treacherous era of Big Pharma arrogance and the virtual abandonment of any remaining safety measures by the industry.

With full legal immunity, Big Pharma would have been able to market practically any poison as a "drug," regardless of how many people were killed. Even many of its current drugs are, admittedly, little more than poison. For example, the most popular blood thinning drug sold today -- coumadin -- is literally made out of the same chemical used in rat poison (http://www.naturalnews.com/021434.html). Many psychiatric drugs given to children today are just re-branded amphetamine street drugs like "speed."

To the great benefit of the American People (and the lawyers who represent them against drug companies), the Supreme Court has now nailed the coffin shut on Big Pharma pre-emption. Sadly, this decision still cannot raise from the grave all the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have already been killed by dangerous, FDA-approved prescription medications, but perhaps from this point forward, enough lawsuits can proceed that drug companies will either be put out of business or be forced to calculate the economic cost of killing patients while facing a wave of resulting litigation.

We've won this battle, but Big Pharma's war machine rages on

This is a good day for justice in America, and it's bad day for Big Pharma. The drug industry must now face the financial consequences of the death and destruction it has unleashed upon the American people. It may not be long before even drug companies are begging for bailout money.

This decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a significant victory in the battle over health care in America, but by no means does it resolve the war. Major action still needs to be taken to reign in the monopolistic practices of Big Pharma and the tyrannical regime of the FDA. We must pass new legislation to hold drug company CEOs accountable for deceiving the American public through false television advertisements, and we must demand the return of honest science to FDA decision panels.

To affect these changes, NaturalNews has launched the Health Revolution Petition (www.HealthRevolutionPetition.org). Already signed by nearly 10,000 people, this petition calls for real, revolutionary reform that would end the tyranny and oppression of the FDA while greatly reducing Big Pharma's influence over the media, medical schools, doctors and lawmakers. Read the full petition yourself and then sign it to lend your support to this important grassroots project.

When we reach 100,000 signatures, we will be delivering this petition to every lawmaker in Washington D.C., demonstrating to them the urgent need for real health care reform that replaces the drugs-and-surgery system of "sick care" dominating America today with a more holistic, nutrition-oriented disease prevention approach.

If you believe in natural medicine, honest science and the Hippocratic motto of "first do no harm," then please consider supporting this important petition: www.HealthRevolutionPetition.org

Today we saw a victory for health care justice in America. Tomorrow, with your help, we can create many new victories that restore health freedom and basic human dignity to the American people. Stay tuned to NaturalNews for more stories on this important issue.

FDA Running Extortion Racket: Natural Supplement Companies Threatened with Arrest if They Don't Pay Up

NaturalNews.com

by Mike Adams

NaturalNews has learned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is running a criminal extortion racket designed to drain cash from health supplement companies and shift it into the pockets of top FDA contractors. This organized crime operation has been running for years, and it has operated with impunity because each company targeted by the scam feels isolated and alone, unable to face the astronomical legal bills of going to court and battling the FDA. So one by one, they agree to "settle" with the FDA for crimes they never committed. Part of the settlement, of course, involves the payment of FDA employees or contractors who pocket the money extorted from health companies.

NaturalNews has interviewed executives from three different companies who have been targeted for extortion by U.S. Food and Drug Administration employees. At their request, the names of those companies are being kept confidential until legal action being taken against them is resolved. Interviews have been recorded, with permission, with two of those companies and will be released to the public at a later date. Documents proving this FDA extortion racket are included here.

How the FDA extorts money from nutritional supplement companies

The FDA extortion racket works like this: FDA employees use keyword-scanning software to scan the web pages of natural health product and supplement companies, searching for terms like cancer, cures, treatment, remedies and other "forbidden" words. FDA employees then review the discovered pages to determine if they contain any words that might inform consumers of the health benefits of the nutritional products. FDA employees also look for links that might point web users to scientific articles from peer-reviewed medical journals that further explain the health benefits of specific foods, supplements or nutrients.

When offending words or links are found by the FDA, their extortion team goes into full swing. First, they contact the company and warn them to remove all information and links from their websites. This is the most important step from the FDA's standpoint, because by doing this, they can keep the health-conscious public in a state of nutritional ignorance about the scientifically-supported healing properties of natural supplements. Cherry products, for example, cannot link to scientific articles explaining the simple biological fact that cherries ease inflammation in human beings. Such links are considered "drug claims" by the FDA.

NaturalNews has even learned that companies are now being targeted for simply posting customer testimonials, even when those testimonials make absolutely no health claims. FDA and FTC agents are now threatening the owners of such companies with imprisonment if they do not immediately remove all customer testimonials from their websites and marketing materials.

If the company being targeted for extortion refuses to fully comply with the FDA's requests to remove all educational information from their website, the FDA then escalates the extortion tactics by threatening the company principals with arrest and seizure unless they agree to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to top FDA contractors and sign a "consent decree" where the company "admits" to committing various crimes (see below). This consent decree is a blatant violation of the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, of course, and it violates numerous sections of the Bill of Rights (Amendments #1 and #5, at the very least).

The FDA employees or contractors receiving the extorted money, it is claimed, are being paid to "review web pages" to make sure they don't contain anything that might inform consumers about the scientifically-validated benefits of the health products being sold. FDA extortion agreements specify that FDA employees should be paid the rate of $100 per hour, with no limit on the number of hours they may bill the company for. The extortion agreement also requires companies to pay for all the following:

• $100 per hour for the travel time of FDA employees.
• Hotel rooms for FDA employees.
• Storage fees for all products seized by the FDA.

The same agreement also requires the company to comply with FDA demands by never placing any links or "illegal" information on its website, where "illegal" means anything that offers an accurate description of the health benefits offered by natural health products.

The Consent Decree

Part of the FDA's strategy for oppression and control is to force targeted companies to sign a "consent decree" where they admit to crimes they never committed. NaturalNews obtained a copy of a public court document the FruitFast company was forced to sign due to FDA threats and extortion tactics.

You can view this document yourself at:
http://www.naturalnews.com/investigations/FruitFastConsentDecree.pdf

This document requires the FruitFast company to admit to crimes it did not commit; namely:

"Violating the Act, by introducing or delivering for introduction, or causing to be introduced or delivered for introduction, into interstate commerce articles of drug that are misbranded within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. SS 352(f)(1)."

What "drugs" did the FruitFast company introduce that were "misbranded?" Cherries, it turns out. Cherry juice concentrate was being sold with the accurate statement that it helped eliminate gout (which it does). This, according to the FDA, was enough to magically transform cherry juice into an "unapproved drug" and cause it to be "misbranded."

It also requires targeted companies to contractually agree that they have:

"...removed all claims from Defendants' product labels, labeling, promotional materials, websites owned or controlled by Defendants, and in any other media that cause that product to be a drug and/or contain unapproved or unauthorized health claims within the meaning of the Act; and

(ii) removed, from their product labels, labeling, promotional materials, and websites owned or controlled by Defendants, references to or endorsements of any other website that conveys information about Defendants' products that cause those products to be a drug and/or contain unapproved or unauthorized health claims within the meaning of the Act."

This means, of course, that these companies can no longer even LINK to other websites, including websites of scientific journals that discuss the proven health benefits of such natural products (foods, herbs, etc.)

The truth is now subject to FDA approval

Once a company removes all educational information and links from their website, they are then required to submit to draconian measures of "censorship enforcement" by the FDA. This is fully explained in this section of the FDA's Consent Decree: (bolding added for emphasis)

Within ten (10) calendar days of FDA's request for any labels, labeling, promotional materials, and/or downloaded copies (on CD-Rom) of any internet websites owned or controlled by Defendants or websites referenced by, endorsed, or adopted directly or indirectly by Defendants, Defendants shall submit a copy of the requested materials to FDA at the address specified in paragraph 19.

Within twenty (20) calendar days of entry of this Decree, Defendants shall submit to FDA a certification of compliance, signed by each of the individually-named Defendants in this matter, each Defendant stating that he: (a) has personally reviewed all of Defendants' product labels, labeling, promotional materials, and the internet websites referred to in paragraph 8 above; and (b) personally certifies that the product labels, labeling, promotional materials, and internet websites strictly comply with the requirements of the Act and its regulations and do not include unapproved or unauthorized claims that the products cure, mitigate, treat, prevent and/or reduce the risk of disease. Thereafter, Defendants shall submit certifications of compliance every three (3) months for a period of two (2) years.

Furthermore, the FDA then requires that the company being targeted by the extortion racket hire a person (called the "expert") to enforce all this censorship the company has agreed to.

As you'll note in the language below, this "expert" must be paid $100 an hour, for an unlimited number of hours, to conduct surprise inspections of the company's administrative offices, warehouses and fulfillment centers:

Within fourteen (14) calendar days of entry of this Decree, Defendants shall retain an independent person or persons (the "expert")... who by reason of background, experience, education, and training is qualified to assess Defendants' compliance with the Act, to review the claims Defendants make for all of their products on their product labels, labeling, promotional material, any internet websites owned or controlled by Defendants, including, but not limited to, the websites referred to in paragraph 8 above. At the conclusion of the expert's review, the expert shall prepare a written report analyzing whether Defendants are operating in compliance with the Act and in particular, certify whether Defendants have omitted all claims from their product labels, labeling, promotional materials, websites owned or controlled by Defendants, and in any other media, that make any of their products drugs and/or constitute unapproved or unauthorized health claims within the meaning of the Act. The expert shall also review Defendants' product labels, labeling, promotional materials, and websites owned or controlled by Defendants to determine whether these include any references to or endorsements of any other websites that convey information about Defendants' products that cause those products to be a drug and/or contain unapproved or unauthorized health claims within the meaning of the Act, and certify in the written report whether Defendants have omitted any such references or endorsements. The expert shall submit this report to FDA and Defendants within thirty-five (35) calendar days of the entry of this Decree. If the expert reports any violations of the Act, Defendants shall, within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the report, correct those deviations, unless FDA notifies Defendants that a shorter time period is necessary.

In other words, this section requires the company being targeted to pay the "Expert" huge fees to make sure it doesn't "illegally" link to other websites that might tell the truth about the health products in question.

FDA tyranny unleashed

So what happens if the company slips up and does something illegal like, let's say, posting a clickable link to a science journal that discusses research citing the health benefits of cherries? As you'll see below, there are no limits to the action the FDA can take in retribution, including the seizure of all company assets and the arrest of its principals.

Specifically, the Consent Decree forces company owners to agree to the following:

If, at any time after this Decree has been entered, FDA determines, based on the results of an inspection, the analyses of Defendants' product labels, labeling, promotional materials, websites owned or controlled by Defendants, or websites referenced by, endorsed, or adopted directly or indirectly by Defendants that convey information about Defendants' products, a report prepared by Defendants' expert, or any other information, that additional corrective actions are necessary to achieve compliance with the Act, applicable regulations, or this Decree, FDA may, as and when it deems necessary, direct Defendants, in writing, to take one or more of the actions:

A. Cease manufacturing, processing, packing, labeling, holding, and/or distributing any article(s);

B. Submit additional reports or information to FDA;

C. Recall any article(s) at Defendants' expense; or

D. Take any other reasonable corrective action(s) as FDA, in its discretion, deems necessary to bring Defendants and their products into compliance with the Act, applicable regulations, and this Decree.

Surprise inspections, secret police and non-stop persecution

Just to keep the targeted company in a state of constant fear (which is why I have labeled the FDA a terrorist organization), the FDA forces it to agree to surprise inspections where it must pay FDA "compliance officers" to rummage through their product shelves and paperwork, looking for evidence of non-compliance:

Duly authorized representatives of FDA shall be permitted, without prior notice and as and when FDA deems necessary, to make [surprise] inspections of Defendants' facilities and, without prior notice, take any other measures necessary to monitor and ensure continuing compliance with the terms of this Decree. During such inspections, FDA representatives shall be permitted prompt access to buildings, equipment, in-process and finished materials, containers, labeling and other materials therein; to take photographs and make video recordings; to take samples of Defendants' finished and unfinished materials and products, containers, labels, labeling, and other promotional materials; and to examine and copy all records relating to the receipt, manufacture, processing, packing, labeling, promoting, holding, and distribution of any and all Defendants' products in order to ensure continuing compliance with the terms of this Decree. The inspections shall be permitted upon presentation of a copy of this Decree and appropriate credentials. The inspection authority granted by this Decree is separate from, and in addition to, the authority to conduct inspections under the Act, 21 U.S.C. §374.

And just to make sure the company is further driven into bankruptcy, the FDA requires them to PAY for all these surprise "compliance" investigations! As stated in the Consent Decree:

Defendants shall reimburse FDA for the costs of all FDA inspections, investigations, supervision, reviews, examinations, and analyses specified in this Decree or that FDA deems necessary to evaluate Defendants' compliance with this Decree. The costs of such inspections shall be borne by Defendants at the prevailing rates in effect at the time the costs are incurred. As of the date that this Decree is signed by the parties, these rates are: $78.09 per hour and fraction thereof per representative for inspection work; $93.61 per hour or fraction thereof per representative for analytical or review work; $0.485 per mile for travel expenses by automobile; government rate or the equivalent for travel by air or other means; and the published government per diem rate or the equivalent for the areas in which the inspections are performed per-day, per-representative for subsistence expenses, where necessary. In the event that the standard rates applicable to FDA supervision of court-ordered compliance are modified, these rates shall be increased or decreased without further order of the Court."

Are you getting the picture here? The FDA can simply show up on a "surprise" inspection, bring ten FDA agents, bill the company for thousands of hours, and bankrupt the company while padding its own pockets.

Doesn't this sound a lot like the King's Consent Decree against the American colonies? The FDA's agreement reads amazingly like a document a King might force his subjects to sign as he's taking over their land and gold, imprisoning them in his kingdom.

But it gets better: The FDA also requires the Defendants to reveal all sorts of details about their business operations:

"Within ten (10) calendar days of entry of this Decree, Defendants shall provide FDA a list of all domain names and IP addresses they use to market or describe any product, regardless of whether such sites mention specific products Defendants sell.

Defendants shall notify the District Director, FDA Detroit District Office, in writing at least fifteen (15) calendar days before any change in ownership, character, or name of its business.

If Defendants fail to comply with any of the provisions of this Decree, including any time frame imposed by this Decree, then, on motion of the United States in this proceeding, Defendants Brownwood Acres and/or Cherry Capital shall pay to the United States of America the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000) in liquidated damages per violation per day so long as such violation continues.

Should the United States bring, and prevail in, a contempt action to enforce the terms of this Decree, Defendants shall, in addition to other remedies, reimburse the United States for its attorneys* fees, investigational expenses, expert witness fees, travel expenses incurred by attorneys and witnesses, and administrative court costs relating to such contempt proceedings.

And finally, just to make sure everybody knows who's in charge, here's what the agreement says about final judgment:

All decisions specified in this Decree shall be vested in the discretion of FDA and shall be final.

In other words, the FDA is the King. It is above the law. It answers to no one but itself.

Welcome to the United States of Tyranny, FDA style.

The full text of the FDA's agreement, including the names of the top FDA criminals who signed it, is included at the end of this article.

This brand of tyranny is reserved for health supplement companies

While the FDA gives drug companies a free pass of easy approval for dangerous drugs, this Consent Decree is the kind of treatment it slams down upon health product companies. As you can see from the text in the decree, above, this is a document of outright tyranny and oppression.

Any company signing this document gives the FDA all the tools it needs to drive that company completely out of business. Sadly, dozens of companies have signed this in just the last year. The FDA's reign of terror is working. It's putting health companies out of business and forcing them to censor themselves. It even forces them to remove all web links to information sources like NaturalNews.com or peer-reviewed science journals.

This is all part of the FDA's campaign of health illiteracy -- a war of disinformation being waged against the American people. It is a secret war being fought out of the view of the mainstream media (which refuses to report this story) and far from the scrutiny of the U.S. Dept. of Justice (which doesn't care about the real tyrants running loose in this country).

As I have often stated here on NaturalNews.com, the FDA is an out-of-control, rogue agency engaged in acts of terrorism against the American people. By itself, it is negligent in the deaths of tens of millions of Americans, and it has taken it upon itself to increase the body count by making sure consumers have zero access to honest, truthful, scientifically-validated information about the healing properties of health supplements.

The FDA, by any account, is a much greater threat to the security and safety of the American people than any terrorist group, and if the U.S. really wanted to fight terror and tyranny, it would start by arresting top FDA officials at gunpoint. Those targeted for arrest and prosecution should also include the lawyers and paper pushers involved in this very agreement (see their names on the legal documents at the end of this article).

In my view, these people are the real criminals at work here. They are the masterminds of this campaign of extortion and terror being leveled against health companies by the rogue U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Much like Hitler's top generals, they play an important role in the mass disinformation that's resulting in the needless death of millions of people. By any account, they are all guilty of crimes against humanity and should be arrested and prosecuted as such. We should all be so fortunate to live to the day where we can see these white-collar criminals behind bars, perhaps sharing their jail cells with other war criminals from the Bush Administration.

Sign this or you'll be arrested

What you haven't yet seen in all this is the barrage of threats leveled against companies if they don't sign this Consent Decree! Company executives receive both written and verbal threats from top FDA "enforcement officers" who claim they will "throw you in prison" if you don't sign the agreement.

Every major health trade show hosts an FDA compliance officer (much like a Nazi Gestapo officer) whose job it is to walk the show floor and threaten companies into compliance. This includes shows like Expo West and Expo East, where show organizers also serve as de facto FDA agents themselves, barring the participation of exhibitors who dare to tell the truth about their natural products. This smacks of KGB secret police operations in the former Soviet Union. But secret FDA police are now a reality in the United States of America.

NaturalNews has learned of numerous verbal threats from FDA compliance officers directed at health supplement companies during trade shows, including threats to "put you out of business," "throw you in prison" or "take every last dollar you've ever earned."

FDA compliance officers are the foot soldiers of the agency's war against the truth. They seek out any health claim that might inform consumers about the properties of nutritional supplements, then they work to squash such statements before they become too well known. In essence, they are censorship officers who enforce nutritional illiteracy and prevent knowledge from being shared.

As such, they are acting not merely as secret police on a mission to destroy small American businesses; they are actually agents of disinformation, bent on destroying knowledge and enforcing a system of mandatory ignorance. This is entirely consistent with the FDA's history of ordering the destruction of recipe books that promoted the use of the natural herb stevia, among many other examples of information suppression.

The FDA's campaign of health illiteracy and enforced ignorance

It is the FDA's position that there is no such thing as any food, beverage, supplement or herb that has any health benefit whatsoever. Merely making such a claim instantly qualifies your product as a "new and unapproved drug," according to the FDA.

Officially, the FDA claims all health products are inert and have no properties other than their macronutrients (fiber, carbohydrates, protein, etc.).

There is only one class of substances that have any biological effect on the human body, the FDA claims: Pharmaceuticals. Only those patented, synthetic chemicals are allowed to be described as having benefits to human health.

This convenient position is entirely consistent with the protection of the profits of drug companies. It's no coincidence that the drug companies fund the FDA through "user fees," and most FDA employees are dependent on drug company money... except, of course, those FDA people earning their living by extorting millions of dollars from health product companies.

The upshot of the FDA's campaign against health supplements is that most of the American people remain nutritionally illiterate, oblivious to the scientifically-validated health benefits offered by tens of thousands of different nutrients, plants, supplements and products. To say that zinc speeds healing, or that vitamin D prevents cancer, or that resveratrol lowers high cholesterol is common sense in the scientific community, but it's a crime in the eyes of the FDA.

It's time to stop the FDA's reign of terror over health supplements

It is time to end the FDA's extortion racket, restore Free Speech rights to health supplements, and bring the organized crime kingpins at the FDA to justice.

NaturalNews is organizing a list of companies who wish to help fund legal action against the FDA. We intend to take part in a lawsuit against the FDA that would reign in the FDA's control over nutritional supplements and defend health freedoms for American consumers.

To do this, we need to gather information from those companies who are willing to help fund this legal action, which may cost several hundred thousand dollars. If you represent a company willing to take part in this legal action against the FDA, contact us now at StopTheFDA@naturalnews.com

Simply email us your name and contact phone number. We'll contact you to continue the conversation. Any information sent to us is kept strictly confidential. We will refuse to turn over such information even with a court order.

With enough support from the natural products community, we will take part in the reporting and grassroots organization of this legal action.

We must stop the FDA now

It is the belief of NaturalNews that the FDA is being run as a system of organized crime, using the exact same extortion tactics as the Mob. Through intimidation, censorship and threats of imprisonment, the FDA is right now extorting tens of millions of dollars from the very same health supplement companies you depend on to bring you lifesaving, disease-reversing products.

Even worse, the FDA is getting away with it. Backed by the threat of imprisonment and the ability to conduct armed raids against health product companies (see the history of armed FDA raids against vitamin companies here: http://www.naturalnews.com/021791.html ), the FDA is able to overpower health product companies when they stand alone.

The industry must band together if it hopes to defend itself against this tyranny. A lone villager cannot defend himself against a band of marauders, but an organized and well-defended band of villagers can fight off attackers many times their size. If it wishes to survive, the natural products industry must band together and defend itself against the FDA. It must take back its right to tell the truth about health supplements, and it must forever banish censorship and ignorance from the health products marketplace.

The FDA will not stop its reign of terror, you see, until every health supplement companies is silenced, every company founder is imprisoned and every consumer is enslaved in a state of outright nutritional illiteracy. They will seize products and let them rot in warehouses; they'll recruit armed law enforcement personnel to conduct SWAT-style raids on vitamin shops; they'll extort millions of dollars from health companies and pocket the profits; and they'll do it all while burning taxpayer dollars and claiming they're working to "protect" consumers from natural health products like cherry juice concentrate, which is of course so incredibly dangerous that we need an entire government agency just to make sure we don't find out it might ease arthritis inflammation.

What you can do right now to help halt the FDA's reign of terror

As a consumer, you can use your voice to help stop the FDA from destroying the natural products marketplace. Simply go to www.ReformFDA.org and sign the petition there.

It's sponsored by the American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF), an organization fighting to end the FDA's tyrannical rule over the health of the American people.

Sign that petition and spread the word: NaturalNews and the AAHF are working together to bring back honesty, freedom and free speech to the health supplements industry, and we need your help to get it done.

You can also protest the FDA with your Congressperson or Senator. Contact them and insist that they support efforts to end the reign of FDA tyranny and reestablish Free Speech rights for nutritional supplement companies.

Notably, Rep. Ron Paul has sponsored the Health Freedom Protection Act, which you can read here: http://www.StopFDACensorship.org

Grab your cameras, folks

Finally, NaturalNews urges those in the natural health community to go out and buy video cameras and still cameras and start snapping photos of rogue FDA agents arresting people, seizing products, accepting bribes or other outrageous acts. We cannot simply lie down and let the FDA march in to our company warehouses and seize products. One video can change the world. It's up to you to get that video recorded and get it to us here at NaturalNews. Use our feedback form to contact us: www.NaturalNews.com/feedback.html

We've also opened up an audio tips line, where FDA employees who wish to leak information to NaturalNews can anonymously call us and leave a message: (323) 924-1664

With your help, we will soon start publishing videos and photos showing FDA agents directly engaged in acts of tyranny against health companies. And for those who'd like to earn some extra money snapping photos, we're willing to pay you for photos of FDA "compliance officers" walking trade show floors where they threaten companies in person. Contact us for details if you're a photographer with a long lens who would like to start earning money snapping photos of FDA agents engaged in their dirty work.

It's time to shed light on the real actions of the FDA. We can no longer sit back and allow this criminal organization to operate in secret. But grabbing the public's attention all comes down to getting this on video. This is the YouTube era. If it's not on video, it doesn't exist. But if it's on video, we can likely get it on mainstream news. (I can see it now: the FDA raids a warehouse and handcuffs the screaming, crying business owner. And why? Because their bottle said, "Eases inflammation." The public won't stand for it.)

The FDA, of course, will have its own people doing the same thing to people like me. They're trying to catch us eating at McDonald's or going through the local pharmacy drive-thru. All I can say about that is they'll be waiting a long, long time to see that day!

Please forward this story to everyone you know. We the People must either prevail in this fight for our freedom, or we will all end up illiterate, imprisoned or silenced. The FDA will take away your rights, your speech and your health, and it will laugh all the way to the bank while it steals your hard-earned money. It will break every law, ignore every court order and commit every crime necessary to bring health companies into line... UNLESS we fight back and do our part to end this grave threat to our health, safety and freedoms.

The FDA is the enemy of the People. It is a criminal organization bent on destroying American freedoms and consumer health. It operates with impunity, using its own secret compliance officers, wreaking death and destruction across our nation like a dark plague unleashed. If we hope to ever regain our health, our freedoms and the basic human right to tell the truth about the healing properties of simple foods, then we must bring this agency to justice and prosecute its mob bosses for their many crimes against the People.

It is time to stand up for your health freedoms, or lose them forever. Please join me in this courageous stand against tyranny and oppression.

- Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, editor of NaturalNews.com


Click here for the complete report including The Full Consent Decree of Permanent Injunction

FDA Plots to Mislead Consumers Over Irradiated Foods

NaturalNews.com

by Mike Adams

NaturalNews has learned that the FDA is intentionally plotting to deceive consumers over the labeling of irradiated foods, attempting to eliminate any requirement for informative labeling or replace the word "irradiated" with "pasteurized."

In a feature story published by NaturalNews yesterday, we stated that the FDA does not require foods to be labeled as irradiated. We received a lot of questions from readers about that point, with some stating the FDA does, in fact, require foods to be labeled when irradiated. This is not always correct: Most foods are not required to be labeled as irradiated. This story explains the FDA's food irradiation labeling policy in more detail and reveals the FDA's plot to deceive consumers by misleading them into thinking irradiated foods are NOT irradiated.

Foods that are exempt from irradiation labeling:

According to current FDA regulations, any food used as an ingredient in another food does NOT have to be labeled as irradiated. For example, if you buy coleslaw, and the cabbage in the coleslaw has been irradiated, there is no requirement that the coleslaw carry any labeling indicating it has been irradiated.

However, if raw cabbage is irradiated, then current FDA regulations do require it to carry an irradiation label. This label, however, is a symbol, not text, and many consumers have no idea what the symbol really means -- it actually looks like a "fresh" symbol of some sort. In no way does it clearly indicate the food has been irradiated. This is the FDA's way to "hide" the fact that these foods have been irradiated. (The symbol looks a lot more like leaves under the sun than food being irradiated...)

That same head of cabbage, by the way, if served in a restaurant, requires absolutely no irradiation labeling. All restaurant foods are excused from any irradiation labeling requirement. As stated at the FDA's own website (1):

Irradiation labeling requirements apply only to foods sold in stores. For example, irradiated spices or fresh strawberries should be labeled. When used as ingredients in other foods, however, the label of the other food does not need to describe these ingredients as irradiated. Irradiation labeling also does not apply to restaurant foods.

How the FDA plans to deceive consumers and further hide the fact that foods are being irradiated

As stated above, the FDA does not want consumers to realize their foods are being irradiated. Consumer awareness is considered undesirable by the FDA; an agency that also works hard to censor truthful statements about nutritional supplements and functional foods. Accordingly, the FDA pursues a policy of enforced ignorance of consumers regarding irradiated foods, nutritional supplements, medicinal herbs and all sorts of natural substances. It is currently illegal in the United States to state that cherries help ease arthritis inflammation if you are selling cherries. (http://www.naturalnews.com/019366.html)

On the food irradiation issue, the FDA is now proposing two things that are nothing short of astonishing in their degree of deceit:

FDA proposal #1: Irradiated foods shouldn't be labeled as irradiated unless consumers can visibly tell they're irradiated.

This ridiculous proposal by the FDA suggests that foods shouldn't be labeled as irradiated unless there is some obvious material damage to the foods (like their leaves are wilting). Thus, foods that don't appear to be irradiated should not have to be labeled as irradiated.

Imagine if this same ridiculous logic were used to regulate heavy metals content in foods: If consumers can't SEE the heavy metals, then they should be declared free of heavy metals!

FDA proposal #2: Irradiated foods should be labeled as "pasteurized," not "irradiated."

This FDA proposal is so bizarre that it makes you wonder whether the people working at the FDA are smoking crystal meth. They literally want irradiated foods to be labeled as "pasteurized."

And why? Because the word "pasteurized" sounds a lot more palatable to consumers, of course. Never mind the fact that it's a lie. Irradiated foods are not pasteurized, and pasteurized foods are not irradiated. These two words mean two different things, which is precisely why they each have their own entries in the dictionary. When you look up "irradiated," it does not say, "See pasteurized."

But the FDA is now playing the game of thought police by manipulating the public with screwy word replacement games that bear a strange resemblance to the kind of language used in the novel 1984 by George Orwell. And it is, indeed, an Orwellian kind of mind game that the FDA wants to play with the food supply: After unleashing Weapons of Mass Destruction (radiation) onto the foods, the FDA wants to label them all as simply being "pasteurized," keeping consumers ignorant and uninformed.

How do I know the FDA wants to do this? The agency said so itself in an April 4, 2007 document filed in the Federal Register (Volume 72, Number 64). As published in the document (2):

FDA is also proposing to allow a firm to petition FDA for use of an alternate term to "irradiation'' (other than "pasteurized''). In addition, FDA is proposing to permit a firm to use the term "pasteurized'' in lieu of "irradiated,'' provided it notifies the agency that the irradiation process being used meets the criteria specified for use of the term "pasteurized'' in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) and the agency does not object to the notification.

Did you follow all that mind-warping logic? The FDA is essentially begging a company to petition it to use the term "pasteurized" instead of "irradiated" as long as they both result in the food being killed. Once it receives such a petition, it will approve it, claiming it is meeting "the needs of industry."

The FDA already allows lots of word substitutions in the areas of health and medicine. The phrase "Toxic Poison" has been replaced with "Chemotherapy," for example. "Over-medicated with dangerous psychiatric drugs" has been replaced with the term, "Treatment." And the phrase, "Regulated with life-threatening synthetic chemicals" has been replaced with the word "managed," as in "her diabetes has been managed."

So why not introduce all sorts of other word substitutions that might continue the Orwellian "Ministry of Language" propaganda put forth by the FDA?

I say we substitute the word "medicated" with "treated" and "treated" with "rewarded." That way, when a patient describes what drugs she's on, she can say, "I've been rewarded with ten different prescriptions!"

Better yet, let's replace the word "surgery" with "enhancement." So anybody who undergoes heart bypass surgery, for example, can say they've really just had "Heart bypass enhancement!"

It sounds a lot easier to swallow, doesn't it? And that's what it's all about, folks, when it comes to irradiating the food supply: Making it all sounds a lot less treacherous than it really is. Control the words and you control people's ideas, and if there's one thing the tyrannical FDA is really, really good at, it's controlling words!

What the FDA really wants to accomplish

Let's get down to some blunt truth about the FDA's real genocidal agenda. What the FDA wants here is two things:

1) The destruction of the food supply (genocide)

2) The complete ignorance of the consuming public (nutritional illiteracy)

Genocide and illiteracy. Ignorance and fear. Tyranny, radiation and chemicals... These are the things the FDA truly stands for.

That pretty much sums up the FDA's intent on this whole food irradiation issue. Destroy the food and mislead the People. And then wait for the windfall of profits at Big Pharma as the People degenerate into a mass of diseased, disoriented and desperate health patients. It's business as usual at the FDA.

That's why Dr. James Duke, creator of the world's largest phytochemical database (http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke), had this to say about the FDA's food irradiation policy:

"Perhaps the FDA should call up a billion dollar team to consider irradiating another health hazard - the FDA itself, which is almost as dangerous to our health as the pharmaceutical industry."

Why I call this the unleashing of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"

In my previous article on this issue, I've called this food irradiation agenda a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" against the food supply. A couple of readers questioned me about that. Why, they asked, do I consider food irradiation to be a WMD?

WMDs include weapons that indiscriminately cause damage to people and infrastructure that serves the People. Dumping a radioactive substance into the water supply that serves a major city, for example, would be considered using a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Interestingly, the use of Depleted Uranium by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan is also an example of Weapons of Mass Destruction, making the U.S. guilty of yet more crimes against humanity. (A previous example is the dropping of nuclear weapons on Japan's civilian population in World War II.)

Irradiating the food supply is also an application of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and here's a thought experiment that will clearly demonstrate it:

Suppose you wanted to irradiate your own garden vegetables. The minute you start trying to buy a machine that produces radiation, you would be quickly considered a terrorist and investigated by the FBI. They would visit your home and ask, "Why do you need a radiation machine?" And if you said you needed to irradiate your garden vegetables, they would look at you like you were completely nuts and probably haul you into the local FBI field office for yet more questioning, all while considering you a possible terrorist and likely adding your name to the no-fly list so you could never travel on commercial airlines.

If you don't believe me, try to acquire a high-powered radiation emitting device and see what happens...

So why is it considered bizarre and possibly criminal when an individual buys a radiation machine to irradiate their own foods, but when the FDA pushes the same agenda on a larger scale, they call it "safety?"

Irradiated food isn't altered, claims the FDA

Of course, the FDA says the irradiated food isn't altered by the radiation. This statement is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with a pulse. Why? Because if the radiation doesn't alter anything, then how can it kill e.coli and salmonella?

The whole point of the radiation is to kill living organisms. And it works by causing fatal damage to the tissues and DNA of those microorganisms. So guess what it does to the plants? Since radiation isn't selective, it also irradiates the plant fibers and tissues, causing DNA damage and the destruction of enzymes and phytochemicals.

Amazingly, the FDA claims this does not count as "altering" the food because these changes aren't visible.

If it weren't such a nutritional atrocity, it would be downright hilarious. DNA changes are not visible to the human eye, but they can result in serious health consequences. Just ask anyone born with two Y chromosomes.

Eat up, guinea pigs!

Of course, the radiation pushers will claim that nobody really knows whether irradiating the food kills just 1% of the phytochemicals or 99% (or something in between). And they don't know what the long-term effect is on human health, either. This is exactly my point: The irradiation of fresh produce is a dangerous experiment, and we've all been involuntarily recruited as guinea pigs.

I will be curious to see a serious scientific inquiry into the nutritional damage caused to fresh produce by irradiation. I also find it simply astonishing that this decision by the FDA has been made in the absence of such scientific studies. Much like it does with the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA prefers to poison the people first, and then figure out later just how much damage might have been caused.

I say when you're dealing with the food supply, you should err on the side of caution. We are talking about the health of the nation here. This is not a small matter. It should be treated with extreme caution, skepticism and scientific scrutiny. Instead, it is being addressed with a gung-ho attitude framed in mind games and enforced ignorance.

In other words, rather than figuring out whether food irradiation is actually safe, the FDA would rather simply pretend it is.

Welcome to Make Believe Land, where all your food is now safe and nutritious, courtesy of the FDA!

Sources:

(1) http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-fdb33.html

(2) http://www.foodsafety.gov/~lrd/fr070404.html