Gucciardi: "The largest managed healthcare provider in the United States is now publicly speaking out against GMOs."

Gucciardi: 'The Kaiser Permanente company discussed the numerous dangers of GMOs.' (photo: unknown)

Top US Healthcare Giant: GMOs Are Devastating Health

By Anthony Gucciardi, NaturalSociety

28 November 12

ust days after a leading genetically modified organism (GMO) researcher spoke out against GMOs and how many pro-GMO 'scientists' are in bed with Monsanto or carry their own GMO patents, the largest managed healthcare provider in the United States is now publicly speaking out against GMOs. In a recent newsletter, the Kaiser Permanente company discussed the numerous dangers of GMOs in a recent newsletter and how to avoid them.

Explaining how GM ingredients have been linked to tumors and organ damage in rats in the only lifelong rat study available, the newsletter highlighted how the only real long- term research indicates that GMOs are a serious health danger. The newsletter, which you can view here, states:

"Despite what the biotech industry might say, there is little research on the long-term effects of GMOs on human health. Independent research has found several varieties of GMO corn caused organ damage in rats. Other studies have found that GMOs may lead to an inability in animals to reproduce."

Top Health Giant Says Buy Organic for Proper Health

The newsletter then goes on to tell readers how they can avoid GMOs in their food through buying high quality organic and looking for other non-GMO indicators. It is important to remember the organic labeling meanings when shopping organic, however, which this newsletter unfortunately does not address. Make sure you know which 'level' of organic you are consuming:

Products labeled '100% organic' - These items are made with 100% organic ingredients and are the highest quality organic products you can purchase. No GMOs are allowed.
Labeled 'organic' - These products are to contain at least 95% organic ingredients overall. Still no GMOs are allowed.
'Made with 'organic ingredients' - This is the lowest form of organic content. This label is only required to contain 70% organic ingredients, meaning that the remaining 30% can be conventional. The conventional items, however, are not allowed to contain GMOs. These products don't qualify for the USDA seal, whereas the previous two do.

You can also look for the 'Non-GMO Verified' logo on food items to be sure that they are GMO free.

But why does a major corporation care that you are eating GMOs? Well the fact of the matter is that the research (and common sense - eating pesticide factories mixed with the DNA of viruses isn't going to end well) indicates GMOs are causing problematic health conditions across the board. Of course the issue lies in the fact that GMOs are not immediately considered as a cause and actually influence disease through a series of complications that are not easy to trace. But as the only lifelong study has showed us, 50% of male and 70% of female rats died prematurely when consuming GMOs.

And the bottom line is that this is costing Kaiser Permanente. If members of the healthcare juggernaut were to switch to high quality organic foods free of GMOs, pesticides, mercury-containing high-fructose corn syrup, and artificial sweeteners, then Kaiser would be dishing out millions upon millions less for healthcare costs.

More and more organizations and individuals alike are speaking out against GMOs and the effects of GMO consumption as the evidence becomes more and more clear on a daily basis. Perhaps next time Monsanto tries to push a new outlandish creation into the food supply they will be met with crushing opposition thanks to a global increase in awareness.

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

+118 # tswhiskers 2012-11-28 12:09

I suspect that Monsanto will refuse to destroy its GMO science. They probably have billions invested in their GMO seeds. I wonder how farming will recover from GMO crops since these crops have invaded non-GMO crops for some time and Monsanto to its shame has even gone to court to sue non-GMO farmers for copyright infringement. I can only hope that the USDA and the FDA will now sanction the labelling of GMO's and in time make them illegal as a health hazard. I heard a while back that Indian farmers were working to save their seeds from GMO taint. Have we had the sense to do the same?

+14 # freedoverseas 2012-11-29 15:08

Hopefully, the trend of counter-suing Monsanto will beat them on their own turf. The more discouraging news is that they (try to) buy all seed producers, so there would be nothing left but gmo seeds.
The Norwegian government did collect all known seeds though, see Svalbard Spitsbergen seed vault here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/jun/19/food.environment

+103 # Barbara K 2012-11-28 12:29

I've been a victim for nearly 3 years now. I can tell you that it can make you very ill, like having the stomach flu all day every day for nearly 3 years. I cannot eat anything with wheat in it because of the poisons put on the wheat and the seed itself. I am not allergic to wheat, was tested, it is what they put on the wheat that makes me so ill. I wish something could be done to stop them from poisoning us. If it kills bugs, it will kill people. I wonder what they don't get about that. They can find another way to grow crops that won't make us ill and shorten our life span. What they are doing is a crime, and the greedy chemical industry should be stopped NOW. It costs Medicare, Medicaid, the Insurance Companies, and us a lot of money.

+54 # wantrealdemocracy 2012-11-28 13:49

The money? The hell with the money. You can't buy good health.

+30 # Barbara K 2012-11-28 16:09

Wantrealdemocra cy: I think you misunderstand what I said. I'm talking about how much money it costs us who are made ill by the actions of these people.
I'm not talking about buying good health, I'm talking about trying to get well again. Hope that makes sense.

+12 # CL38 2012-11-28 18:11

This is a must see free movie at www.thrivemovement.com about how everything that's happening is tied together and very intentional.

+20 # Doggone 2012-11-28 20:13

As far as I know the wheat in this country is not GMO. I belong to the bread baker's guild of America and this issue comes up frequently. I've seen a food activist speaking of having successfully turned Monsanto away from the wheat in this country. Now that doesn't mean that conventionally farmed wheat using pesticides is a good thing, it certainly isn't and there are other problems besides pesticides, there's the fertilizers too which can be animal by-products even, (not talking manure here). Eating organic is the only thing that will protect you from the hidden agenda of the food industry and Monsanto et al.

I was terribly disappointed by the failure of Prop 37 this election in CA. Monsanto poured mega bucks into defeating it. It would have forced the food industry to label all foods that contained GMO.

+2 # Duster 2012-11-28 21:45

I voted for 37, but it was badly written and the reasoning behind some of the proposed legislation was too involved for a voter to understand without serious research. The counter campaign drew on that and the proponents were so complacent they lost.

+7 # Douglas Jack 2012-11-29 10:21

Duster, Are you just becoming aware about the issue of corporate money advantage & government control? Proponents weren't complacent, just simply out financed 45 million$ GMO to 5 million$ Right-to-know. It takes millions of dollars to be effectively heard in media. There was tremendous resistance even getting the issue on the California ballot which involved decades of unpaid work. The amazing selfless work on behalf of thousands of life-conscious natural-scienti sts to get the 'right-to-know' issue on the ballot represents a huge unpaid national debt. Complacent consumers who don't question what they are buying or what the consequences to themselves or to the world as well as corporations willing to do anything for the money have put all of humanity & all of life in jeopardy. This life-denying economy creates complexities "too involved for a voter to understand." The problem is 'artificial-sci ence' which contrary to the premise of science itself, references only to itself rather than the physical properties & relationships as does 'natural-scienc e'. We all know we have systematic problems, but blaming those who are contributing to solutions. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/home/9-undoing-false-science

+27 # Regina 2012-11-28 22:30

I voted for 37 because we have the right to know what's in our food, harmless or harmful. Even if there's no harm, there's no excuse for keeping the public in the dark. I resent the condescending attitude stating that what we don't know won't hurt us. I conclude that efforts to keep us uninformed are ipso facto tied to harm -- or there would be no need for a cover-up.

+1 # Duster 2012-11-28 21:41

Quoting Barbara K:

...If it kills bugs, it will kill people. ...

While I can sympathize, the above assertion is so profoundly wrong, it is dangerous. Toxins are produced throughout the natural world - by plants, by animals, by fungi and bacteria. Not all of them are toxic to all other life forms. Some biological compounds are absolutely necessary to your health but will kill you outright in over large does. Vitamin A is an example. Nearly your entire environment is the same. Some is necessary and too much is deadly. Copper, selenium and zinc, all natural elements are also critical to good health and also seriously toxic. Water in parts of the San Joaquin Valley in California is so heavily laced with selenium that parents are warned not to let their children drink it. It is not there due to agriculture. If it is not wheat that causes the trouble, then try 100% organic wheat. No pesticides at all, and none used on the land where the crop was grown for several years.

+10 # Barbara K 2012-11-29 07:18

Duster: I do hope you realize that I'm referring to the bug poisons sprayed on our food and not to natural occurrences, that is the point of my post: What they are putting on our food is making us ill.

+5 # Douglas Jack 2012-11-29 11:25

Duster, Only part of toxicity is dose related. Depending on the design of each chemical produced in the natural world, toxicity can vary from parts per thousand to parts per billion (one drop in an Olympic-size swimming pool). The natural world is one of integrated design across complementary species. Selenium levels in the San Joaquim valley are more related to the destruction of the First Nation 3-Dimensional polyculture orchards (White-oak etc) which held the same quantities of selenium in one million times the biomass than 2-D 'agriculture' (Latin 'field'). Ecological history forms species/nutrien t interactions & chemical tolerance relationships formed over thousands of years. Design isn't haphazard in the natural world. Once a toxic exposure to a particularly susceptible person has occurred, given multiple chemical & energy (eg electro-magneti c fields or radiation) exposures simultaneously, then the body may not regain its equilibrium. About 20% of today's population has sensitivities, reactions, allergies, asthmas & illness-inducin g to life-threatenin g intolerances etc. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/structure/6-holistic-science

0 # Sybil 2012-12-03 06:14

Duster ~ Perhaps the reason San Joaquin Valley is so heavily laced with selenium is that "they" are spraying the bajeezus out of us. The so called "geo-engineerin g" is out of control and killing us all. And for those of you who continue to believe those lines in the sky are simply contrails, well - much love to you. Our skies have changed dramatically over the last 18 months - leaving us with a persistent milky-hazed sky. Research Chemtrails and aluminum, strontium, selenium increases in our water and soil. Stop the chemtrail spraying.

0 # Sybil 2012-12-03 06:04

Barbara K ~ I've been recovering for almost 3 years as well. It's tough, but we can do it. Luckily, we figured out that our food was poisoning us and all we can do is spread the word to others. No longer will I allow them to poison me or the ones I love. You know in your heart what's right for your body - not the government - and you're finding health, Barbara. Blessings to all.

-56 # happycamper690 2012-11-28 12:41

I know I am going to get a lot of negative reaction to this, but I really must protest. I am as liberal and pro-environment as anyone I know, but I am also a scientist with over 40 years of research experience in related fields and I am totally not associated with any GMO companies. I am in no one's pocket.

"Science", the journal of the Americal Association for the Advancement of Science (an organization about as unbiased as any in the US) reports in the 26 Oct 2012 issue that "most scientists argue that concerns about GMOs are unfounded. Genetic modification using recombinant DNA is a technique that does not alter food in any meaningful way."

The evils of Monsanto are an entirely different matter. I think it is better to not condemn GMOs categorically, but rather focus on particular issues such as seed and pesticide monopolies.

+85 # Firefox11 2012-11-28 13:10

HC690 If there is no problem with GMOs, which I do not believe, then why has the rest of the world required GMO food to be labeled?

+12 # priond49 2012-11-28 19:20

Quoting Firefox11:

HC690 If there is no problem with GMOs, which I do not believe, then why has the rest of the world required GMO food to be labeled?

Consumers have the inalienable right to choose food items according to country of origin and production specificities, among them organic vs. non-organic or hormon-treated vs. non-hormon-trea ted.

+46 # Street Level 2012-11-28 14:04

Well Happy, you're right, I disagree with you. I'll go back to my standing argument that despite what any scientist may say, I doubt there is a single one who would eat food I sprayed weed killer on.
The fact that this stuff survives should be proof enough. I've met a lot of people like Barbara K and have people in my family that have food allergies and reactions like nothing I remember years ago.
My neighbors teen is one such kid, raised on soy formula and ate those secret GM spuds McDonald's served up for 5 years. Here her mom avoided the burgers and nuggets thinking she was doing the kid a favor! Rashes, ear infections, eczema and foods that she can't even let touch her skin without a case of hives. Only years later is the connection made to leaky gut and other problems.
But I totally agree with you on Monsanto's evil business practices.

+1 # Sybil 2012-12-03 06:28

Street level,

Yes, yes! Even twenty years ago, very few people in their 80's were getting sick - now it's every age. And the doctors say, "Oh, you're at that age now!" Or, the ever so popular, "It's genetic!" It's not age-related when you're 35 and IT'S NOT GENETIC - cause food allergies, autism, alzheimer, etc. are NOT IN YOUR GENES. It's called poisoning - plain and simple. The brainwashing is so widespread, but those of us who know the truth will continue to share - this was not happening 10, 20, 30 years ago.

+35 # tomr 2012-11-28 14:21

The methods chosen to declare GMOs "safe" are the methods designed to get negative results whenever possible - epidemiological studies. Let's just do a little scenario to illustrate...

If I invented a thing called a "gun", which had never been seen before, and, under controlled conditions (of course) shot twenty people in the gut, and 10 of them died, there would be "no conclusive evidence" that shooting someone with a gun kills them.

This type of study is also patently inappropriate for something that causes long-term effects, especially if the study is done early on. If an epidemiological study had been done on cigarettes ten years after they were introduced, there would have been "no conclusive results."

Most scientists have only a poor, barely functional understanding of statistics, and they just accept what they are told is the standard of evidence. A few have stood up to say otherwise, but the money is always behind the status quo, which is, "Make money now, ask questions later."

+9 # dovelane1 2012-11-28 23:32

Ironically, but probably not coincidentally, this appears to be another case of "Shoot first, aim later." Why am I not surprised.

Given Monsantos background in chemicals that cause death and destruction (agent orange, for instance,) I am not surprised with their involvement in this area of "ingenuity."

I read in another article on this site that the richer 1% are building large bunkers to isolate themselves from the consequences of the coming climate change problems.

It would not surprise me at all if Monsanto's true intent was to decrease the population by a few million or more. After all, what's a few million here or there when the world population is 7 billion or so. As long as the money keeps rolling in, why should they care?

If you want to change their behavior, their pocketbook needs to take a beating. Hard to do with as much money as they have at their command. At some point in time, we, the people, need to learn what they are selling, and stop buying it. And that's hard to do when what they sell ends up in so many other products.

+36 # Smiley 2012-11-28 14:58

I have no clue how "most scientists" can come to the conclusion "that concerns about GMOs are unfounded" without doing any research or study at all. Recombining DNA is a sloppy procedure, usually fatal. When you do get what you're looking for you don't know what else came with it. And when you're dealing with the "roundup ready" crops you have to factor in the effect of the herbicide on the plants and the soil (it's a chelator and locks up minerals making the crops nutrient deficient).We need LONG TERM INDEPENDENT studies done FIRST.

+28 # dusty 2012-11-28 15:09

I care to differ a bit with hc690 when he writes that "most scientists argue that concerns about GMOs are unfounded. Genetic modification using recombinant DNA is a technique that does not alter food in any meaningful way." This is a quote from Science, I am a subscriber and have it in front of me as I type and while the quote is taken from the Science article it doesn't ask the question of how many of the scientists were involved, if they have patents and are making money off GMOs or if they work for GMO companies. There also is no citation of any survey of "Most Scientists" that tells how many most is of population of scientists, who conducted the survey and who paid for it and so forth. More, it seems as though plant biologists and people in genetic engineering may be taking care of their incomes and may not be objective. It is interesting that this article came just before the election and was used by opponents to discredit Prop 37.

+8 # Douglas Jack 2012-11-28 19:19

Dusty, You rightly identify issues of scientist objectivity considering economic dependencies. 'Principle-of-P recaution' puts the onus upon companies & researchers wishing to infest food supplies with DNA GMO alternations which have no previous ecological-hist ory to establish such long term studies safely without exposing the biosphere to potential DNA contamination. Monsanto has not followed the Precautionary-P rinciple, relying upon short-term less-than single generational studies. As a result Monsanto-Dow studies give no indication of carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic CMT effects over time & across generations. Gilles-Eric Seralini's study: 'Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant
genetically modiﬁed maize' only accepted & released in August 2012 just before the California vote in France are the first to make peer-reviewed CMT over significant time periods & across generations. Anyone with doubts should be reading this: http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf-

+2 # Douglas Jack 2012-11-28 19:57

hc690, Science isn't a thing in itself but a process of determining truth through forming of hypothesis through noted observation, impartial testing of key assumptions, double-blind testing in a system of peer-reviewed studies repeated many times, making longitudinal studies over time-periods adequate to establish ecological history under diverse environments & employing the Precautionary principle which puts the burden of proof upon the instigators to prove the innocence & efficacy of their invention. Please read the key study by Gilles-Eric Seralini et al 'Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant
genetically modiﬁed maize'. This report, a first longitudinal study of its kind on GMO's was only accepted & released in August 2012 just before the California vote. Monsanto-Dow studies give no indication of carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic CMT effects over time & across generations. Seralini et al study is the first to make peer-reviewed CMT over significant time periods & across generations. Anyone with doubts should be reading this: After we can review its methods & conclusions point-by-point as science is meant to be. http://research.sustainablefoodtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf

-3 # Duster 2012-11-28 21:50

Sex uses recombinant DNA. GMOs have new genes inserted to provide new characteristics and patentability. You would never for example breed a maize plant that carried the natural ability to generate an insecticide found in another plant in any reasonable amount of time. However, that said, bacteria do this all the time. They scavenge DNA from other bacteria, from free-floating bits, from viruses and test it. In that sense, we're all GMOs (search on virus genes in human DNA if you doubt).

You're right about where the focus should be.

+7 # futhark 2012-11-28 23:35

Even if GMOs turn out to be safe to consume, all people have a right to protest the introduction of patented self-limiting single generation crops that require farmers and gardeners to buy new seed from the patent holder every crop cycle rather than saving seed from the previous one. This issue and the development of herbicide-resis tant cultivars are sufficient in my opinion to justify the anti-GMO movement.

+3 # X Dane 2012-11-29 19:42

happycamper690.

I respect that you are a scientist and that you are not worried about GMOs, but,,,,,,The foods should be labeled so we can CHOSE.

Proposition 37 was not well written and didn't really make sense. Nevertheless I voted for it because it is a beginning and it can and SHOULD be improved. But I want to know.

+58 # PABLO DIABLO 2012-11-28 12:50

Boycott the companies supporting GMOs.

+66 # tomr 2012-11-28 13:17

Where the hell was this before the California election where prop 37, calling for labeling of GMOs, went down in flames? Holy too little, too late, Batman! Well, hopefully it's not too late to influence Obama to make this a national issue. This is THE thing to talk to your neighbors, family. and friends about. I'll say one thing about liberals and conservatives alike: they want to feed their families safe food. Get out there and campaign for real food. The national debt isn't going to kill us, taxes aren't going to kill us, Saddam Hussein wouldn't have killed us, but poison food will, whether slowly or quickly. This is the most important issue facing America today. Do something about it!

+22 # Street Level 2012-11-28 14:15

That was my reaction when Kaiser came out. We could have used this a month ago!
The US is representing us in the International Codex next month in Germany which could take corporate food on this planet to a whole new level. http://www.anh-usa.org/why-you-should-care-about-codex-separating-fact-from-fiction/
Between the Codex and TPP...it doesn't look good.

+15 # EternalTruth 2012-11-28 15:42

My thoughts exactly! Where was Kaiser and their health concerns a month ago? They could have easily kicked in a few million for the cause and turned the whole thing around if they actually gave damn.

+8 # michelle 2012-11-28 18:14

At the very least Kaiser could have appeared in a commercial for prop 37.

+8 # citizen vox 2012-11-28 13:27

Please provide complete reference to the Kaiser statement so that the reader can evaluate the statement for herself.
Thank you.
citizen vox

+8 # beautyseer 2012-11-28 14:39

Guess you didn't notice, but this link to the report was in the story above:
http://cdn.naturalsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/kaiser-permanente-gmo-newsletter.jpg

+10 # cafetomo 2012-11-28 14:00

The truth comes out, now that the giants of health care and food production are fighting over where to shift the cost. Whichever one claims expenses to have increased, it will be more that profits have failed to. Precedent has costs shoved off onto spiraling healthcare premiums, as Medicare is left to twist in the wind. Like it ain't already. We Californians voted in our own ignorance, and should presently be feeling perfectly tumescent with it.

+14 # Pickwicky 2012-11-28 14:43

Some of us didn't vote "in our own ignorance." The word about GMO's was available to all. Too many voters trash propositions that will cost them a few dollars. Very stupid voters, that is.

+8 # Vermont Grandma 2012-11-28 14:30

Citizen Vox here is a link to a website which provides a screenshot of the Kaiser Permanente newsletter page and below that the text in the Kaiser Permanente newsletter. http://gibiru.com/index.php/uncensored-news/78-news/25456-kaiser-permanente-comes-out-against-gmo

Too bad this wasn't brought out in the week before the California election. Might have seen a different result then...

-33 # ericlipps 2012-11-28 14:46

Just in case anyone's failed to notice, people aren't rats. Before flying off the handle on this issue, we need a lot more research in creatures (monkeys, apes) more closely related to humans. I suspect Kaiser Permanente is covering its butt politically rather than responding to genuine human health issues.

In the meantime, of course, folks who wish to avoid GMO-"tainted" foods can do so.

+22 # jlg 2012-11-28 15:45

That was the whole point of demanding GM labeling, Ericlipps - so that shoppers could make a choice when given the information!

+3 # priond49 2012-11-28 19:27

Yes, we need more research. But I oppose speciesism and experimentation with sentient beings (Peter Singer). Science should learn to experiment with tissue cultures.

+20 # dusty 2012-11-28 15:16

I spent some time working on the several proposition campaigns up for a vote in the just concluded California election. When people asked me about Prop 37 I told them that I honestly don't know about the pluses or minuses of GMOs but that I believe that we have a right to know if GMOs are in products that we might buy so we can make an informed decision. Forthe opponents to say, "If people are informed then they might not buy a product because of GMOs." is to deny people the right to information. Informed voters making decisions is the bedrock strength of democracy --- secrecy and promoted self interest of corporations is not.

+15 # Brewsir 2012-11-28 15:30

Trusting Monsanto on food is like looking to Marlboro for health advice on cigarettes. All the evidence is not in but the avoidance of genetically modified products seem to be the thing to do. We know a whole lot more about antibiotics in our meat and milk and are making changes. Warnings have been issuedd over he years an were ignored. I will avoid GMO foods and encourage this awareness in younger people.

+13 # kimwhomes 2012-11-28 15:36

It is unbelievable to me that Kaiser Permanente, which is based in California, is only NOW coming out against GMO's after the 2 year struggle to pass Prop #37 failed at the voting booth. Where have they been? Reviewing the study that came out last summer? Reviewing their health records since the introduction of GMO's in 1996?

Sleeping giant? How about asleep-at-the-w heel giant - two different things!

If you, or anyone you know, knows anyone in Washington State, PLEASE PASS THIS ON to them. They are in the petition signature gathering stages of getting a Label GMO's prop on their November 2013 ballot.....WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING!?!?!?!?!

-8 # mendobruce 2012-11-28 15:44

This entire article is flawed. They "quote" a Kaiser Permenante newsletter but don't give an author or publication date. The "study" they cite regarding rats and GMO's fails to note the rats were ALSO FED ROUNDUP!!!! (read the link they gave). I am against GMO's but I hate to see "innuendo" and false information used by either side.

-6 # sschlmr@gmail.com 2012-11-28 16:16

I have a problem when someone says all GMOs are bad. Are all potatoes bad? Well, sometimes some are but rarely. I am particularly distressed that the article states "50% of male and 70% of female rats died prematurely when consuming GMOs" with no indication of what the GMO product was. In the absence of more information, the article is basically without value.

+13 # Smiley 2012-11-28 17:42

I read the study. The rats were fed Roundup ready corn. It was a study done in France. It was the ONLY long term study done. Monsanto's studies were only 3 months and they were allowed to do all their own.

+13 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2012-11-28 16:41

I live in California. Time for another "people's referendum."

-5 # dusty 2012-11-28 16:45

mendobruce: I assume since you are so qualified to speak about Kaiser Permanente that you are a member and get your health care at Kaiser, as I do. I expect to get my latest KP newsletter soon and then we can check that. I can't remember if Roundup is also a Monsanto product or not but why were the mice given Roundup, to prevent crop worms.

+19 # 9kguy 2012-11-28 20:43

dusty and mendobruce, here's the deal: Monsanto makes Roundup and also a GMO called "Roundup Resistant Corn". When Roundup is sprayed on Roundup Resistant Corn fields it kills everything except the corn. The Roundup is absorbed by all the vegetation however, so the mice in the study (and possibly you) are eating Roundup. It stays in the soil, so you can't rotate crops. Nutrients in the soil are depleted, and chemical fertilizers are used extensively. This system does nothing to help the planet or the people on it -- it simply enables large-scale corporate farming and huge profits for Monsanto. As an organic gardener for over 30 years I assure you that there are effective and sustainable ways to farm that don't require poisons and chemical fertilizers. 'Organic' isn't anything new or mysterious -- it's the way the Earth works. Monsanto is doing serious damage to our ecosystem.

+6 # dovelane1 2012-11-28 23:40

Couple hundred thumbs up for this post.

The Organic Consumers Association sends out a weekly newsletter dealing with issues like Monsanto and other organic problems and solutions. It's a free letter. Very informative on the issues.

+11 # river turtle 2012-11-28 17:22

Let's not forget in this discussion all the folks who truly can not afford to purchase organic foods. Get the legislation passed to stop the use of pesticides and GMOs. Europe is setting the bar for us to follow again.

+3 # Vermont Grandma 2012-11-29 10:36

Having spent some time in Germany this past decade, that's why I buy tomato paste and pasta from Europe. We can vote with our dollars. Just purchased 48 cans of Italian tomato paste (for spaghetti sauce) from the local supermarket chain, on sale, 59 cents a can.

+19 # barryg 2012-11-28 18:41

Well I am also a scientist and for sure one should not trust scientists just because they are the current priests of the dominant church. Scientists are smart but just as driven by emotion and greed as non scientists.

The first test showing problems with GMo potatoes was in the early 90's. The lead scientist, highly regarded Dr. Putzai, published the results showing serious problems with the digestive systems of rats feed the potatoes. He was fired and turned into a pariah.

Every study performed by labs that do not have a financial interest in GMO's shows serious problems. That's just the effect on consumers of GMO's. How about the destruction of farmers because of higher costs and lower yields; the development of super bugs; the spreading of GMO genes to non GMO crops and wild plants; the effect on bees and other pollinators and much more.

+6 # dovelane1 2012-11-28 23:43

Bunch more thumbs up for this one too.

+6 # pernsey 2012-11-28 20:03

The thing about all of this that just irritates the snot out of me is IT'S ABOUT THE MONEY. Not about people or health, but the almighty buck. To me this is sickening, so basically they are saying poisoning people is ok as long as we can make a profit, but when we cant make a profit thats when they put a stop to it...really?

Honestly you have to take charge of your own health, go natural, do your research. I just read about a natural supplement called graviola, it kills cancer cells 10,000 times faster then chemo, and it only attacks cancer cells not healthy ones. Do you know why its not being given by doctors to cancer patients? The reason is because pharmaceutical companies cant patent a natural cure, they have to make a synthetic that they can manufacture in order to get a patent. You can purchase graviola relatively inexpensively and it kills cancer cells. They did a 7 year study and then killed it because they couldnt synthetically make it and chose not to make the results of their test public. So this could have saved thousands of lives, but because they cant make money you wont hear about it. Scientists, drug companies, and doctors are paid to tell you that chemical treatments are better then natural. They arent, if your doctor says theirs no cure for something, just consider their maybe a cure just not one that hes paid by drug companies to tell you about.

Eat organic, and do research on natural cures dont just take a so called professionals word for it.

+5 # dovelane1 2012-11-28 23:46

Pernsey - I wonder if Reader Supported News has a line on someone who could write an article about graviola. This site and others like it, (AlterNet, NationofChange, and so on) seem like the places where this information needs to come from.

Corporate media probably wouldn't work.

+2 # pernsey 2012-11-29 06:45

Quoting dovelane1:

Pernsey - I wonder if Reader Supported News has a line on someone who could write an article about graviola. This site and others like it, (AlterNet, NationofChange, and so on) seem like the places where this information needs to come from.

Corporate media probably wouldn't work.

http://www.amazonbioenergetics.com/reports-graviola-hsi.htm

dovelane here is some information about graviola...take from it what you will. I would definitely look into graviola to work in conjunction with mainstream cancer treatments. Doctors are not paid to promote natural cures, they are paid to promote synthetic ones. I try to pass along this information to everyone I can, you never know who knows someone that has cancer and could benefit from this hidden research. I wish I knew more about these natural treatments in the mid 90's when my mom was diagnosed with cancer. Its a horrible thing to go through or watch a family member go through, if this can give life to someone else or a family member back, then I feel its my duty to share what I have found out and researched. I do believe in God and I believe the cures He made are so much better then the synthetic chemical laiden cures that the drug companies make. Natural cures actually promote health in your major organs where as synthetics usually cause damage to them.

+6 # pernsey 2012-11-29 08:33

For Monsanto and the drug companies its all about the money. They may disguise it under the guise of health, but make no mistake...with them...its always only about the money!

Drug companies are for profit, not for health. Some things they promote help, some hurt more then they help, but as long as doctors will promote the stuff and people will take it thinking it will make them better the drug companies will be raking it in.

I dont know how some of the leaders of these companies can sleep at night knowing they could be helping people and choosing not to reveal it, for the sake of money. We all need money to live, I get that, but when money becomes more important then human life, let me put it another way...more important then a grandmother, grandfather, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, sisters or brothers life it becomes disgusting.

Please stop blindly trusting...chec k into things for yourself. I found the fruit of a cactus (prickly pear juice) replaced high blood pressure meds, diabetes meds, and arthritis meds. Please do your homework people the chemical laiden cures they peddle are actually slowly killing our major organs. I also got off of Ibprofin because the prickly pear juice has anti inflamatory properties also. Eat 100% organic and do some research on natural cures, your body will thank you. Im still fighting my way towards health in some areas, but I got a lot of my life back by taking natural cures without any side effects.

+2 # Vermont Grandma 2012-11-29 10:39

How did you come upon the idea of the juice of prickly pear cactus as a treatment for these meds? And what is your source? Having recently finished The Shaman's Apprentice, it is clear that there are so many natural "remedies" unknown to us North American westerners...

+5 # pernsey 2012-11-29 12:14

Quoting Vermont Grandma:

How did you come upon the idea of the juice of prickly pear cactus as a treatment for these meds? And what is your source? Having recently finished The Shaman's Apprentice, it is clear that there are so many natural "remedies" unknown to us North American westerners...

I know because my doctor wanted me on all those meds but I decided to go natural, this juice brought my body back to normal and I dont need the other meds. I feel great and I can walk again, my arthritis had me almost crippled. So I guess that makes me my source. I absolutely dont recommend the prickly pear juice while your on your meds because it can make your blood pressure go down to low. Im not a doctor or a health care professional, but I am someone who looks for alternatives to mainstream medications that can prove to be not good for you in the long run. I was supposed to be on high blood pressure meds, diabetes special diet I was finding impossible to stay on, and I would be in a wheelchair right now had I kept popping IBprofin as an antiinflammator y, which I know isnt good for my organs and didnt really help. Please do your own research, dont just take my word for it. My goal is to make people look things up for themselves. You may find theres things out there that you never knew about that might be better then the prescribed meds. Im just hoping people wake up that there may be an alternative to chemical meds.

+4 # pernsey 2012-11-29 12:22

Vermont Grandma, do some google searches on Prickly pear and graviola, they are things you can buy relatively inexpensively and without any side effects. I implore anyone please check it out for yourselves and if you are currently on meds to make sure you talk to your doctor first, before taking natural herbs or juices. Natural cures are strong and effective make sure your being wise about it.

+6 # pernsey 2012-11-29 12:28

Vermont Grandma, Im sorry I wrote the last few notes hurredly, I saw a nopalea commercial and decided to do some research I needed to get off of Ibprofin. As I did some research I realized you can buy stronger nopal juice for less money then the brand I saw the commercial on TV for. The more I googled nopal and prickly pear the more I realized this was the answer I was looking for. Within 2 weeks I was walking almost normally as my arthritis wasnt bothering much anymore, and I started resuming my life. I started to drop a few pounds and I realized my blood sugar and pressure was going down too. It did for me, everything it said it would do. I wish you well and please if you see extrodinary cures in your shamans Apprentice book, please do share! I would love to hear about different natural cures as Im sure many in here would also.

+2 # Cassandra2012 2012-11-30 11:38

Check out the natural anti-inflammato ry (topical only) analgesic, Emu oil... from Australia also.
But I see the main problem of 'modern' Western medicine is that it primarily attempts to treat symptoms rather than doing sufficient research on CAUSES. This is particularly evident in the case of Osteo-arthritis . Tons of pain killers (especially NSaids ), but still no idea how to stop the progress of this --presumably auto-immune-- disease which is so prevalent. (Maybe no money in it for the drug companies?)

+2 # X Dane 2012-11-29 20:28

Hi Pernsey.
That sounds very interesting, where can you get this graviola. I have a good friend, who has cancer. I would very much like to help her.

The Prickly pear juice you told me about, sure is great and has helped me very much.
Thank you friend.

+1 # pernsey 2012-11-30 05:38

Quoting X Dane:

Hi Pernsey.
That sounds very interesting, where can you get this graviola. I have a good friend, who has cancer. I would very much like to help her.

The Prickly pear juice you told me about, sure is great and has helped me very much.
Thank you friend.

X Dane I am so happy the prickly pear has worked for you also. The graviola you can get online at swanson vitamins or puritan pride. Graviola is also known as soursop, they do sell soursop juice in Amazon. I am taking the graviola currently as a preventative measure, and I pray it also helps your friend X Dane.

0 # X Dane 2012-11-30 16:42

pernsey.

Thank you for the information. I was reading up on Graviola some of the sites. They mentioned some of the side effects. How much do you take, and have you felt any problems?

I am thinking about using it too, because as you advance in years....(sound s much better than as you get older?) your chances of getting cancer may increase.

+1 # RnR 2012-11-29 03:49

And how about some hari-kari from the government agencies that enabled this? chirp...chirp.. .chirp...chirp. ..

+3 # davideovinchi 2012-11-29 04:31

Beware the Science/Medical Complex.
Beware the Medical/Pharma Complex.
Beware the Pharma/ Insurance Complex.
Beware the Insurance/Milit ary Complex.
Beware the Military / Science Complex.
Beware the Democrat/ Republican Complex.

+2 # futhark 2012-11-29 07:23

Add the Surveillance State Apparatus.

+2 # davideovinchi 2012-11-29 08:21

Quoting futhark:

Add the Surveillance State Apparatus.

They're pretty busy now that the Gorgon Stare 9 camera apparatus incorporated into our military drones requires 2000 analysts per day to process the video gathered by same.

+5 # Big Jake 2012-11-29 07:40

To my knowledge, we just do not know the short term or long term affects of consuming meat, milk or eggs that are produced by feeding GMO grain. We do know that certain chemical families have far reaching health consequences. We do know that it is nealy impossible to find any non-Roundup Ready corn or soybeans. We do know that Monsanto and others have spent incredible sums of money rigging the system in their favor. We do know that the same players are actively engaged in taking over the entire production apparatus outside of the U.S. in places like India.
The challenge in this area may be more significant than any nuclear or global warming threat. It is the consequence of letting corporate American take over. The public or national interest is not present. Only self interest.

+5 # davideovinchi 2012-11-29 08:14

We also know that the function of GMO crops which act as their own pesticides do so with a splicing that enable the crops to attack the intestines of the bugs which they ward off- (or kill), AND, that that very same action takes place in the intestines of we who may be foolish enough not to rid our diets of these frankenfoods.
We also know the same happens to dogs and cats - any pet who is feed GMO's cobbled into foods to act as pesticides. GI issues not only begin, they proliferate and self sustain.
Agricultural/Me dical Complex.
We also know Monsanto is funding soooooo many university studies that they can can any Academic who schpreckens contrarionista to the Frankenburgerme ister food chain gang.

+5 # Marinette 2012-11-29 08:35

The point us this: we have a right to know if our food has GMO ingredients, so that we can choose to not be part of this great experiment we are currently part of. Prop 37 did not ban GMOs; it simply required labeling.
Or, another way to put an end to all this is to legislate that organisms are not patentable, and make it retroactive. Agribusiness would instantly lose interest in this endeavor.

+2 # aitengri 2012-11-29 10:45

Why are only some people capable of understanding such matters as the GMO danger, or at least of questioning "authority"? The prop 37 defeat in California, although a close vote, still tells us that the public is composed of many bimbos, stupids, people who haven't the foggiest idea about analysis, as in getting and understanding information. This is what the public schools have wrought, regardless of their funding shortfall. Shut up, sit still, and wait for the bell before you go to the bathroom.

+5 # hoodwinkednomore 2012-11-29 16:24

ericlipps: I am never going to be in support of more testing on our primate cousins. GMOs make Monsanto and others so many multimillions.. .of course they will pay 'scientists' to support the myths of safety that line their pockets and overseas bank accts. Toxicology needs to be a required course in 9th grade. Then again in 12th, jsut before graduation. It is a start. As for these mad GMOs, get them out of our food supply!! What about the thousands and thousands and thousands of kids suddenly on the 'spectrum?'

0 # Joana Rojas 2012-11-30 01:21

I have a lactose and wheat sensitivity - have had the wheat sensitivity since birth - non-celiac - but I've noticed that my wheat sensitivity has been growing worse in the last few years also. I'm also now more sensitive to other foods, such as celery. All 3 foods give me intense gut problems, such as diarrhea, bloating, and gas. I'm really wondering how much the GMOs have to do with especially the wheat, as wheat is in so many things.

0 # mendobob 2012-11-30 16:47

Joana Rojas: As stated in an earlier post: Wheat does not contain GMOs. GMOs can be found in: Alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton, papaya, soy, sugar beets, zucchini, and yellow summer squash. Wheat has been heavily "hybridized" over the last several decades to increase yield and lots of folks are becoming allergic to the new breed. Hybridized is not changing the DNA of the seed as is done with GMOs.

+2 # Anarchist 23 2012-11-30 16:57

In the early years of the 20th Century, Upton sinclair's book 'the Jungle' written about conditions of meat processing in the chicago stockyards turned many people's stomachs and led to rules about sanitary processing of food. It is time the Nation looked again at what is going on in the food industry (food should not be combined with 'industry' IMHO) and made some new rules. Burpee did 'genetic modification' of plants-he just did it the natural way by selective hybridization. GMO by Monsanto blends things from different organisms that are never found combined in nature.I buy organic and grow a garden-very small-and sprout for greens. so far my health is fairly good.

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.