Anda di halaman 1dari 3
 
Call Toll Free:
877-985-2695
Argentina—A Poster Child for the HealthHazards of GMO Crops
 April 09, 2013 | 213,071 views |
By Dr. Mercola
Roundup Ready soy is now being cultivated on a massive scale across the globe,along with the exponentially increasing use of the her bicide Roundup. Monsanto's"Roundup Ready" soy beans are genetically modified to survive otherwise lethaldoses of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the company's herbicide Roundup.It's a win-win for Monsanto. But it's a loss for just about everyone else. Not tomention a health hazard for the environment, and the animals and humans that eatthese crops.
Argentina’s Bad Seeds
One of the countries most affected by genetically engineered soy is Argentina,whose population is being sickened by massive spraying of herbicides.Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, is blamed for the dramatic increasein devastating birth defects as well as cancer.In the film
People and Power — Argentina: The Bad Seeds
, film maker GlennEllis investigates the destructive and health-harming trends associated with theburgeoning use of genetically engineered soy.In Cordoba, he speaks to Alternative Nobel Laureate Professor Raul Montenegroabout the problems associated with excessive pesticide use.
“Montenegro, a world-renowned biologist, looked the part of a pioneer, in akhaki shirt and jungle boots. 'I have pesticide in me,' he said, almost assoon as he opened the door. Here we all have pesticide in our bodiesbecause the land is saturated with it. And it is a huge problem. In Argentinabiodiversity is diminishing. Even in national parks, because pesticidesdon’t recognize the limit of the park,”
Ellis writes.More than 18 million hectares in Argentina are covered by genetically engineeredsoy, on which more than 300 million liters of pesticides are sprayed. Studiesstrongly suggest that the glyphosate these crops are doused with can causecancer and birth deformities; both of which are occurring at increasing rates inareas where spraying is done.Sterility and miscarriages are also increasing. Experts warn that in 10 to 15 years,rates of cancer, infertility and endocrine dysfunction could reach catastrophiclevels in Argentina.
Birth Malformation Skyrocketing in Agricultural Centers of Argentina
Ellis also met with Dr. Medardo Vasquez, the neonatal specialist who heads upthe Children’s Hospital in Cordoba. Dr. Vasquez tells him:
“I see new-born infants, many of whom are malformed. I have to tell parentsthat their children are dying because of these agricultural methods. Insome areas in Argentina the primary cause of death for children less thanone year old is malformations.” 
Ellis is also shown a chart of two steeply climbing graphs, rising in tandem witheach other — one representing the increase in soya plantations over the last 15years; the other the rise in birth defects across the province during that same time. In the village of Malvinas Argentinas, which issurrounded by soy plantations, the rate of miscarriage is 100 times the national average, courtesy of glyphosate. Aside from chemical spraying, silos containing genetically engineered crops is another contributing factor. The chemically treatedcrop produces contaminated dust, which is then ventilated outdoors without filtration, where it is carried with the winds andbreathed by the local residents.
1
12345
Most Popular 
Argentina - A Poster Child for the HealthHazards of GMO CropsLeafy Greens Essential for ImmuneRegulation and Tumor ResolutionOral Myofacial Therapy—A BreakthroughTechnique to Treat Symptoms Relating toBreathing Problems, TMJ, Headachesand Other Common AilmentsA River Of Waste: The Hazardous TruthAbout Factory FarmsPhysical Therapy as Good as Surgery for Osteoarthritic Knees and Torn Meniscus
 
Latest GMO NewsThe Rising Food MovementContinues the Fight for ‘Rightto Know’ GMO Labeling
29,979 Views
Viral Gene in GeneticallyEngineered Foods CouldPromote Disease
211,755 Views
 You Might Also LikeStory at-a-glance
 Argentina’s population is being sickened bymassive spraying of herbicides on itsgenetically engineered soya fields. Glyphosate,the main ingredient in Roundup, is blamed for the dramatic increase in devastating birthdefects as well as cancer. Sterility andmiscarriages are also increasing A 2012 nutritional analysis of GMO versus non-GMO corn shows shocking differences innutritional content. Non-GMO corn contains 437times more calcium, 56 times moremagnesium, and 7 times more manganesethan GMO cornGMO corn was also found to contain 13 ppm of glyphosate, compared to zero in non-GMO corn.The EPA standard for glyphosate in Americanwater supplies is 0.7 ppm, and organ damagein animals has occurred at levels as low as 0.1ppmGMO corn contains extremely high levels of formaldehyde—about 200 times the amountfound toxic to animalsUnfortunately, President Obama recentlysigned into law a spending bill that included adevastating provision that puts Monsanto abovethe law. The provision limits the ability of judgesto stop Monsanto and/or farmers from growingor harvesting genetically engineered crops,even if courts find evidence of potential healthrisks
 
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Monsanto still maintains its innocence. In a written statement to Ellis, the company said:
“Roundup® brand agricultural herbicides have a long history of safe use when used according to label directions in morethan 100 countries around the world. Comprehensive toxicological studies have demonstrated that glyphosate, theactive ingredient in Roundup
®
branded agricultural herbicides, does not cause birth defects or reproductive problems.” 
Stunning Report Illustrates Nutritional Deficiencies and Hazards of GMO Corn
In related news, a report given to MomsAcrossAmerica by an employee of De Dell Seed Company (Canada's only non-GMOcorn seed company) offers a stunning picture of the nutritional differences between GMO and non-GMO corn. Clearly, the former is NOT equivalent to the latter, which is the very premise by which genetically engineered crops were approved in the first place.Here are a small sampling of the nutritional differences found in this 2012 nutritional analysis:Calcium: GMO corn = 14 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 6,130 ppm (437 times more)Magnesium: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 113 ppm (56 times more)Manganese: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 14 ppm (7 times more)GMO corn was also found to contain 13 ppm of glyphosate, compared to zero in non-GMO corn. The EPA standard for glyphosate in American water supplies is 0.7 ppm. In Europe, the maximum allowable level in water is 0.2 ppm. Organ damage inanimals has occurred at levels as low as 0.1 ppm... GMO corn was also found to contain extremely high levels of formaldehyde. According to Dr. Huber, at least one study found that 0.97 ppm of ingested formaldehyde was toxic to animals. GMO corncontains a staggering
200 times
 that amount! Perhaps it’s no wonder that animals, when given a choice, avoid geneticallyengineered feed like the plague.
GE Crops are NOT the 'Most Tested' Product in the World
It’s important to realize that genetically engineered (GE) foods have
never 
 been proven safe for human consumption over alifetime, let alone over generations. Monsanto and its advocates claim genetically engineered crops are “the most-tested foodproduct that the world has ever seen.” What they don’t tell you is that:Industry-funded research predictably affects the outcome of the trial. This has been verified by dozens of scientific reviewscomparing funding with the findings of the study. When industry funds the research, it’s virtually guaranteed to be positive.Therefore, independent studies must be done to replicate and thus verify resultsThe longest industry-funded animal feeding study was 90 days, which recent research has confirmed is FAR too short. In theworld’s first independently funded lifetime feeding study, massive health problems set in during and after the 13th month,including organ damage and cancer Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta rarely if ever allow independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citingthe legal protection these seeds have under patent laws. Hence independent research is extremely difficult or nearlyimpossible to conduct. If these scientists get seeds from a farmer, they sue them into oblivion as one of their favorite tacticsis to use the legal system to their advantage. Additionally, virtually all academic agricultural research is controlled byMonsanto as they are the primary supporters of these departments and none will risk losing their funding from themThere is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the GE item in question has been approved, not a single country on earth isactively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health effects
Why Did President Obama Sign Monsanto Protection into Law?
In a move that has stunned and angered many Americans, President Barack Obama recently signed into law a spending bill thatincluded a devastating provision that puts Monsanto above the law. As reported by
Salon Magazine
:
“That bill, the HR 933 continuing resolution, was mainly aimed at averting a government shutdown and ensuring that thefederal government would continue to be able to pay its bills for the next six months. But food and public safety advocates and independent farmers are furious that Obama signed it despite its inclusion of language that they consider to be a gift to Monsanto Company and other firms that produce genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds and crops.The protests come on the heels of a massive petition campaign organized by the advocacy group Food Democracy Now, which gathered the signatures of more than 200,000 people who wanted Obama to veto HR 933 in order to stopSection 735 — the so-called 'Monsanto Protection Act' — from being codified into law. But Obama ignored it, instead choosing to sign a bill that effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of GMO or GE cropsand seeds, no matter what health consequences from the consumption of these products may come to light in the future.” 
The provision, innocently called the “Farmer Assurance Provision,” which opponents have dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act,”limits the ability of judges to stop Monsanto and/or farmers growing their genetically engineered seeds from growing or harvesting those crops, even if courts find evidence of potential health risks. In essence, it strips judges of their constitutionalmandate to protect you and the environment, and permits biotech companies unrivaled freedom to plant untested GE cropsregardless of the risks, and leaves victims — be it farmers or consumers — without legal recourse.
“...those who are angry at Obama for signing the bill are also incensed with Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who is
23
4
 
[+] Comments (140)[+] Sources and References
accused of failing to give the amendment that inserted the language a proper hearing,” Salon
 writes
.“In this hidden backroom deal, Sen. Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of
the Center for Food Safety
, said in a statement. “This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect fromSen. Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.” 
Not surprisingly, Monsanto’s fingerprints are all over this. One of the rider’s biggest supporters, Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)allegedly worked with Monsanto to craft the language in the bill. Blunt recently told Politico:
“What it says is if you plant a crop that is legal to plant when you plant it, you get to harvest it. But it is only a one-year  protection in that bill.” 
While that may lull some back into apathy, you should be aware that a “mere” one-year protection can equate to millions of dollarsworth of profit for Monsanto and other biotech companies. And that’s not even addressing the more disturbing aspect of it, whichis the suspension of constitutional principles in favor of corporate benefit. It’s completely outrageous, and there is no excuse goodenough. It also sets a dangerous precedent that will undoubtedly be misused and abused to the fullest down the line.In the video above, Jon Stewart of The Daily Show addresses, in his usual fashion, the reported "fact" that most Congressmenwere completely unaware of the provision included in the bill they passed--this despite the fact that Senator Jon Tester brought itup on the Senate floor, calling the provisions "giveaways" that have no place in this bill...
Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods
While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. Thefield-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people's initiative 522, "The People's Right to KnowGenetically Engineered Food Act," will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineeredingredients. As stated on LabelitWA.org:
"Calorie and nutritional information were not always required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin labeling wasn't required until 2002. The trans fat content of foods didn't have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange juice is fromfresh oranges or frozen concentrate.Doesn't it make sense that genetically engineered foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering themarket. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The research we have is raising serious questions about the impact to human health and the environment.I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522 will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursueenforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the stateor consumers." 
Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow marginsimply because we didn't have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsantoand other major food companies. Let's not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington andVermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state youlive in.No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the OrganicConsumers Fund.If you live in Washington State, please sign the I-522 petition. You can also volunteer to help gather signatures across thestate.For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Associationon Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.
5

Puaskan Keingintahuan Anda

Segala yang ingin Anda baca.
Kapan pun. Di mana pun. Perangkat apa pun.
Tanpa Komitmen. Batalkan kapan saja.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505