David Suzuki speaks out against genetically modified food
Canada’s foremost environmental conscience says GM food is bad science.
David Suzuki speaks out against genetically modified food
Canada’s foremost environmental conscience says GM food is bad science.
Wednesday, June 19th 2013
Now that the mainstream media is catching on to the public sentiment against GMO food, or at least against unlabeled GMO food, to the tune of millions of Americans who made it a point to drag themselves out of their homes to protest Monsanto last month (as well as at least 40 additional countries), inevitably the indictment will be made: “the anti-GMO movement is “unscientific.”" Is that really so?
What we do know is that the unintended consequences of the recombinant DNA process employed to create genetically engineering organisms are beyond the ability of present-day science to comprehend. This is largely due to the post-Human Genome Project revelation that the holy grail of molecular biology, the overly-simplified ‘one gene > one trait’ model, is absolutely false.
Only recently, for instance, a previously unidentified viral gene fragment was discovered to be present in most of the GM crops commercialized to date; a finding which calls into question the safety of 54 commercialized crops already commercialized and being used in both food and feed. There could be hundreds of viral-gene altered proteins within these foods, whose complex interactions with DNA and toxicity have never been characterized.
Which statement therefore is more unscientific?
1) GMO food safety cannot be proven
2) GMO food harms cannot be proven
The scientific and logical answer would be that both GMO food safety and harms cannot be sufficiently proven; for reasons that include the fundamentally unethical nature of a human clinical trial that could result in poisoning the test subjects.
But, the weight of evidence actually indicates that statement #2 is the more unscientific one, as there is a growing body of scientific research produced by independent scientists indicating that GMO food harms can be clearly demonstrated, and through a simple process of extending feeding studies beyond the 90-day cut-off mark established by biotech corporations with a vested interest in hiding chronic adverse health effects. [see the latest long-term feeding study]
In other words, a failure of science to positively identify a problem does not mean that a problem does not exist. To err on the side of caution, is no less scientific than to err on the side of reckless abandon. When we fail to exercise the precautionary principle in our risk assessments, we are basically saying that GM foods are innocent until proven guilty. Juxtapose that to the burden of proof applied to nutritional or dietary supplements, which despite billions of doses taken in the US each year, have never been found to take anyone’s life. These are increasingly defined as guilty unless proven innocent through multi-million dollar clinical trials.
The problem, of course, is that the burden of proving safety or toxicity falls on the exposed populations (Suzuki’s “guinea pigs), which only after many years of chronic exposure reveal the harms in their diseases, and then only vaguely in hard-to-prove post-marketing surveillance and epidemiological associations and linkages.
So, with this in mind, let’s bring up one dimension of the toxicity of GM foods and agriculture that cannot be thrown out as ‘unscientific,’ because it is clearly proven to be a health problem in the peer-reviewed and published literature: Roundup herbicide.
First, GreenMedInfo.com would like to announce that we are providing a free PDF download of all the research we have accumulated on the dangers of the glyphosate-based herbicide formulations, the most well-known being Monsanto’s patented glyphosate-based formulation known as Roundup. This document contains over 100 study abstracts from the National Library of Medicine (NLM) linking these herbicides to over 40 adverse health effects. Each study in the document is hyperlinked back to the original citation location on the NLM’s bibliographic citation database MEDLINE. Download the document for free here: Glyphosate formulation research.
As the research in this document will clearly show (and the related open access research page on our website which also contains all the abstract) Roundup’s main ingredient glyphosate is now a ubiquitous poison, found in virtually all water, air and rainfall samples tested. It contaminates the groundwater, the source of most of our natural drinking water, and the soil to the point where it has suppressed and destroyed the microbial biodiversity in certain regions of the world, including probiotic organisms of major food importance. Moreover, it has been found to exhibit toxicity and carcinogenicity in cell studies at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than found in agricultural applications (within the parts per trillion range). When you calculate that several hundred millions of pounds are produced and used globally each year, this chemical is producing a health and environmental nightmare that is running completely out of control, with the future outlook looking even grimmer. With the discovery of glyphosate-resistant weeds and insects, companies like Dow and Monsanto are planning on ‘stacking’ herbicide resistance GM traits, and producing plants that are resistant to a multitude of highly toxic agrichemicals, including the Agent Orange ingredient 2,4-D, guaranteeing the ratcheting up of a chemical arms race against the biosphere (and ourselves).
Another fundamental point that many miss with GM food safety is that not only is genetically engineered no longer food (food, by definition, are organisms that we have co-evolved with and consumed for hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions of years), but in the case of the Bt gene-containing commercial crops are actually classified by the EPA as biopesticides.
But it gets worse. Roundup-ready foods have been engineered to survive the application of glyphosate-based herbicide poisoning. The toxic compounds in herbicides like Roundup, which include toxicity-amplifying surfactants like polyethoxylated tallow amine, end up in the tissue of the plants that we consume, or that our animals consume, bioaccumulating and amplifying their toxicity when we consume them as food. One major metabolite of glyphosate called Aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), which accumulates in the plant tissues of all Roundup Ready GM plants, is itself highly toxic, but which has not fallen under stringent regulatory oversight. Essentially, if you eat GM food, it is not just the transgenes and the unintended toxic proteins they produce that are the problem. Rather, the ‘food’ is guaranteed to contain residues of highly toxic chemicals.
While it can be argued that it is ‘unscientific’ to claim the transgenes and their proteins in GMO food cause harm, it is foolish to argue that the continual exposure to known biocides like Roundup residues in our food is safe. Those who make this argument are the ones who lack the guidance of good science, or use the term ‘science’ as a political weapon against those who would seek out and express the truth.
Next time the invective “Unscientific!” comes up in a discussion about GMO food safety, arm yourself with the research that already exists proving GM food is harmful to animal, human and environmental health. And please help us share this article and the PDF far and wide.
June 4, 2013
In a landmark act, Connecticut has become the first state to require the labeling of genetically modified (gmo) foods.
As the Hartford Courant reports, the bill entails a sort of trigger in order for it to take effect:
For the legislation to take effect four states — including those bordering Connecticut — must pass a similar bill. In addition, any combination of northeastern states (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania or New Jersey), with an aggregate population of at least 20 million people, must approve labeling legislation.
Immediately after the vote, cheers could be heard outside the Hall of the House from advocates who had been pushing the labeling requirement.
The Center for Food Safety (CFS) said the trigger “unnecessarily puts on hold what consumers and lawmakers have already validated as important legislation,” but still welcomed the passage of the legislation as a victory in the food movement, and hoped Connecticut’s action would prove a catalyst for other states to enact similar measures.
“The hurdles in the Connecticut bill, if surmounted, would mean a critical mass in the marketplace that would emulate the impacts that would have materialized if California had passed its ballot initiative,” said Kastel.
Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now!, cheered the bill’s passage as a victory of people power over corporate agriculture, saying, “The grassroots have won in Connecticut for a key victory over Monsanto and the biotech lobby.”
“It was inspiring to watch Connecticut legislators supporting GMO labeling stand strong in the face of the biotech industry’s effort to kill the bill,” said Murpy.
“Numerous other states in the Northeast and around the country are actively considering pending GE food labeling bills. Connecticut’s leadership provides momentum and an incentive for these other states to move forward,” Rebecca Spector, who works on state GMO labeling legislative efforts at CFS, said in a statement. “Other states should now pass GE labeling laws, providing millions of U.S. consumers with the basic right to know how their food is produced.”
The legislation now heads to Gov. Malloy, who is expected to sign it.
March 21, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
In yet another blow to GMOs, several major U.S. food retailers have signed on to the “Campaign for GE-Free Seafood” found at http://www.foe.org/gefreeseafood
These retailers include Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, Aldi and many more. It’s the latest private sector blow to the deceptive biotech industry. Consumers overwhelming reject GMOs even if the FDA conspires with biotechnology companies to try to shove genetically engineered food down their throats. Activist organizations like Natural News, the Organic Consumers Association and the Institute for Responsible Technology have helped organize constant grassroots pressure on food retailers to either label GMOs or reject them outright.
“A coalition of consumer, health, food safety and fishing groups today launched the Campaign for Genetically Engineered (GE)-Free Seafood by announcing that several major grocery retailers representing more than 2,000 stores across the United States have already committed not to sell genetically engineered seafood if it is allowed onto the market,” reads the press release announcement. It continues:
The FDA has stated it will likely not label genetically engineered salmon, providing consumers no way of knowing if the fish they are feeding their families is genetically engineered. At least 35 other species of genetically engineered fish are currently under development, and the FDA’s decision on this genetically engineered salmon application will set a precedent for other genetically engineered fish and animals (including cows, chickens and pigs) to enter the global food market.
What’s interesting about this announcement is that the mainstream media is largely refusing to link to the FOE.org website for fear of readers learning more about the “Friends of the Earth” organization and its GE-Free Seafood petition.
The mainstream media, I can tell you firsthand, has engaged in a longstanding conspiracy to attack GMO labeling, deny the presence of GMOs in food and spread quack science propaganda that favors the biotech industry. But they are losing this battle over GMOs and losing their audiences at the same time. The New York Times, in particular, is an absolute disgrace when it comes to reporting to truth about GMOs, and it’s no surprise the NYT seems constantly on the verge of bankruptcy while being known as the “toilet paper of record.”
Note, too, that the FDA seems determined to hide GMO ingredients in foods as a strategy to make sure consumers have no clue what they’re buying and eating. This campaign of intentional consumer ignorance and disinformation echoes the key underlying philosophy of the FDA and the biotech industry: LIE TO EVERYONE. Hide GMOs. Confuse, deny, obfuscate and disorient. Pollute the ecosystem, poison the fields, falsify the science and rake in the profits. That’s the mantra of the biotech industry.
Thankfully, they’re not getting away with it. This is the second significant announcement by Whole Foods on the issue of GMOs. Just two weeks ago, the retailer announced mandatory GMO labeling across all its stores by 2018.
Whole Foods has no doubt realized that coming down on the wrong side of history with respect to GM food is nothing short of corporate suicide. Trader Joe’s had better wise up as well, because here at Natural News, we pledge that by 2018 or possibly sooner, we will publicly expose the GMOs sold by Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s and other retailers unless they are actively and authentically moving toward labeling and / or eliminating all GMOs from their stores. We support Whole Foods’ effort to label all GMOs by 2018, but if this turns out to be some sort of PR stunt that isn’t followed through in terms of real action, the grassroots activist community will hold them accountable.
There will be transparency on this issue whether the retailers like it or not. Any retailer still selling GMOs by 2018 will be publicly shamed, ridiculed and boycotted by the informed masses of foodies and health-conscious consumers. Sure, all those who pledge GMO labeling say they have chosen to “do the right thing” because they’re all such angels, right? But those of us in the trenches of the info war on the issue of GMOs know the raw, brutal truth of the matter: unless large retailers are pressured into honoring their commitments on GMOs, they may conveniently forget them. My experience with these matters, which is considerable, says that only through the application of grassroots pressure and the constant threat of public humiliation will these retailers make good on their promises to reject or label GMOs.
That’s the ugly but authentic truth of how these things really work behind the scenes. So keep the pressure on, folks, and these retailers will sooner or later be forced to reject GMOs entirely. A victory against Monsanto (i.e. a victory for the future of life on our planet) is within reach. Keep applying pressure and be prepared to continue your activism for as many years as it takes to put Monsanto permanently out of business.
With thanks to http://msamba.wordpress.com
Sat, Feb 9th, 2013
ETC Group researcher
Translated and edited by: Sylvia Lahoma Ponce de Leon
1,500 colonies of honeybees, from a community in Hopelchen, Campeche, died this February 6 from the fumigation of Monsanto’s GMO’s in a nearby area.
This has directly impacted more than 50 impoverished families, who recently suffered a poor corn crop due to drought. The community was relying on their sale of organic honey to compensate for the lack of maize. The current honey left by the bees is also lost due to the contamination of pesticides and transgenic pollen.
Alvaro Mena, a mayan farmer from Hopelchen and member of the Network in Defense of Maize, estimated losses at nearly 10 million pesos and is the equivalent of one year’s worth of corn and honey production for the community.
Fumigation has intensified where GM crops have been planted in Mexico. GMO’s are known to be resistant to pesticides and are planted in large monocultures, applying huge amounts of Roundup. It is no accident says Mena: it is the toxic onslaught that comes with GM crops and the threat of allowing millions of acres of GM Maize to be planted….
**Related Scientific Study: http://independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/regulators-discover-a-hidden-viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/
25 June, 2012, 05:11
Reuters / Victor Ruiz
A growing number of rootworms are now able to devour genetically modified corn specifically designed by Monsanto to kill those same pests. A new study shows that while the biotech giant may triumph in Congress, it will never be able to outsmart nature.
Western corn rootworms have been able to harmlessly consume the genetically modified maize, a research paper published in the latest issue of the journal GM Crops & Food reveals. A 2010 sample of the rootworm population had an elevenfold survival rate on the genetically modified corn compared to a control population. That’s eight times more than the year before, when the resistant population was first identified.
Experts are also noting that this year’s resistant rootworm populations are maturing earlier than expected. In fact, the time the bug’s larvae hatched was the earliest in decades.
“The Western corn rootworm ‘season’ is underway at a pace earlier than I have experienced since I began studying this versatile insect as a graduate student in the late 1970s,” entomologist Mike Gray wrote in The Bulletin, a periodical issued by the University of Chicago’s Department of Crop Studies.
Studies in other states have also revealed that the rootworm population is becoming increasingly resistant to genetically modified corn. Last year, Iowa State University researcher Aaron Gassmann noted that a number of farmers reported discovering, much to their dismay, that a large number of rootworms survived after the consumption of their GM crops. Gassmann branded these pests “superbugs.”
Farmers and food companies have increasingly been dependent on GM crops, and many have abandoned crop rotation, a practice that has been used to stave off pest infestations for centuries. Some have even gone as far as to ignore federal regulation, which require the GM corn plantations be accompanied by a small “refuge” of non-GM maize.
The recent findings have potentially devastating ramifications for both farmers and consumers. Genetic maize plantation would easily come under attack from the swelling number of “superbugs,” resulting in dwindling harvest numbers for farmers. Ultimately, consumers will pay the price not only for corn, an essential product whose derivatives are used in a plethora of products ranging from yogurts to baby powder, but for other crops sold in the market. Rising corn prices would mean that more farmers would plant corn, despite the risks, and the yield for other crops would drop. That would drive prices for virtually all food items up, hitting hard on a population already smitten by ongoing economic difficulties.
Monsanto launched its anti-rootworm GM corm in 2003. The Cry3Bb1 protein, derived from the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt.) bacterium, was inserted into the corn’s genetic code. The embedded protein was supposed to be fatal to all rootworms.
The recent findings came days after Monsanto, along with other biotech companies, got a major boost from a congressional panel, which okayed the manufacture of GM crops despite pending legal challenges. Many of the lawsuits that Monsanto faces include assessments that its crops are unsafe for human consumption and affect the health of unborn children.
Monsanto has also been an active plaintiff itself. Its primary targets include entities that seek to label GM foods, and small farmers, whom the biotech behemoth accuses of using genetically modified crops patented by Monsanto.
April 6, 2012
Genetically modified food is in a store near you today. In fact, it’s been there for years. You may not know it, but in all the fracas over genetically modified food, one point is often left out: You’ve been eating it for a long time and no one has told you. This infographic from Nature’s Path–which makes organic cereals, bars, and waffles that contain no GMO ingredients, they’d like you to know–shows where you’re getting your genetically modified treats, and why no one has told you:
Many crops are genetically modified so frequently, it’s nearly impossible to find non-GMO versions. These modifications usually involve either a seed manufacturer making their seeds genetically resistant to a certain type of weed-killer (that the seed company also conveniently sells–synergy!) or to make plants resistant to certain pests naturally.
You may not know that you’re eating these crops–despite the fact that they appear in 80% of all packaged food sold in the country–because the U.S. is one of the few places in the developed world that doesn’t require food producers to disclose whether or not their ingredients have any modifications.
If something is labeled “organic” by the USDA, that means it has no GMO crops. The Non-GMO Project is also working on a system for labeling products that aren’t genetically enhanced. To be fair, there isn’t any science that proves that GMO crops are at all bad for consumption; there also aren’t any that confirm that they’re safe. For now, we’re in the dark. And more and more GMO products–like Monsanto’s sneaky, unlabeled sweet corn, the first direct-to-consumer GMO food–are coming to market every day. The full infographic is here:
April 5, 2012
Following the anti-Monsanto activism launched by nations like France and Hungary, Poland has announced that it will launch a complete ban on growing Monsanto’s genetically modified strain MON810. The announcement, made by Agriculture Minister Marek Sawicki, sets yet another international standard against Monsanto’s genetically modified creations. In addition to being linked to a plethora health ailments, Sawicki says that the pollen originating from this GM strain may actually be devastating the already dwindling bee population.
“The decree is in the works. It introduces a complete ban on the MON810 strain of maize in Poland,” Sawicki stated to the press
Similar opposition to Monsanto occurred on March 9th, when 7 European countries blocked a proposal by the Danish EU presidency which would permit the cultivation of genetically modified plants on the entire continent. It was France, who in February, lead the charge against GMOs by asking the European Commission to suspend authorization to Monsanto’s genetically modified corn. What’s more, the country settled a landmark case in favor of the people over Monsanto, finding the biotech giant guilty of chemical poisoning.
In a ruling given by a court in Lyon (southeast France), grain grower Paul Francois stated that Monsanto failed to provide proper warnings on the Lasso weedkiller product label which resulted in neurological problems such as memory loss and headaches. The court ordered an expert opinion to determine the sum of the damages, and to verify the link between Lasso and the reported illnesses. The result was a guilty charge, paving the way for further legal action on behalf of injured farmers.
Since 1996, the agricultural branch of the French social security system has gathered about 200 alerts per year regarding sickness related to pesticides. However only 47 cases were even recognized in the past 10 years.
Nations are continually taking a stand against Monsanto, with nations like Hungary destroying 1000 acres of GM maize and India slamming Monsanto with ‘biopiracy‘ charges.
The world’s most hated corporation is at it again, this time in Vermont.
Despite overwhelming public support and support from a clear majority of Vermont’s Agriculture Committee, Vermont legislators are dragging their feet on a proposed GMO labeling bill. Why? Because Monsanto has threatened to sue the state if the bill passes.
The popular legislative bill requiring mandatory labels on genetically engineered food (H-722) is languishing in the Vermont House Agriculture Committee, with only four weeks left until the legislature adjourns for the year. Despite thousands of emails and calls from constituents who overwhelmingly support mandatory labeling, despite the fact that a majority (6 to 5) of Agriculture Committee members support passage of the measure, Vermont legislators are holding up the labeling bill and refusing to take a vote.
Instead, they’re calling for more public hearings on April 12, in the apparent hope that they can run out the clock until the legislative session ends in early May.
What happened to the formerly staunch legislative champions of Vermont’s “right to know” bill? They lost their nerve and abandoned their principles after Monsanto representative recently threatened a public official that the biotech giant would sue Vermont if they dared to pass the bill. Several legislators have rather unconvincingly argued that the Vermont public has a “low appetite” for any bills, even very popular bills like this one, that might end up in court. Others expressed concern about Vermont being the first state to pass a mandatory GMO labeling bill and then having to “go it alone” against Monsanto in court.
What it really comes down to this: Elected officials are abandoning the public interest and public will in the face of corporate intimidation.
Monsanto has used lawsuits or threats of lawsuits for 20 years to force unlabeled genetically engineered foods on the public, and to intimidate farmers into buying their genetically engineered seeds and hormones. When Vermont became the first state in the nation in 1994 to require mandatory labels on milk and dairy products derived from cows injected with the controversial genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone, Monsanto’s minions sued in Federal Court and won on a judge’s decision that dairy corporations have the first amendment “right” to remain silent on whether or not they are injecting their cows with rBGH – even though rBGH has been linked to severe health damage in cows and increased cancer risk for humans, and is banned in much of the industrialized world, including Europe and Canada.
Monsanto wields tremendous influence in Washington, DC and most state capitals. The company’s stranglehold over politicians and regulatory officials is what has prompted activists in California to bypass the legislature and collect 850,000 signatures to place a citizens’ Initiative on the ballot in November 2012. The 2012 California Right to Know Act will force mandatory labeling of GMOs and to ban the routine practice of labeling GMO-tainted food as “natural.”
All of Monsanto’s fear mongering and intimidation tactics were blatantly on display in the House Agriculture Committee hearings March 15-16.
During the hearings the Vermont legislature was deluged with calls, letters, and e-mails urging passage of a GMO labeling bill – more than on any other bill since the fight over Civil Unions in 1999-2000. The legislature heard from pro-labeling witnesses such as Dr. Michael Hansen, an expert on genetic engineering from the Consumers Union, who shredded industry claims that GMO’s are safe and that consumers don’t need to know if their food is contaminated with them.
CONTINUE WITH STORY—>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
April 2, 2012
Obviously there is no room for GMOs in truly healthy food products, which is why it is truly vital that you understand the nature of GMOs and how they are oftentimes hidden in commercial food products. It may very well shock you to know just how prevalent GMOs are within the food supply. It’s truly amazing that modified products continue to go unlabeled despite being linked to organ damage — among a barrage of other conditions — in a prominent review of 19 studies.
In fact, nearly 93-95% of US soybeans are genetically modified in order to resist powerful weed-killers that were found to be killing the actual soybeans as well as the weeds. Following current trends, genetically modified food products will makeup the majority of the future food supply if a change is not made. For now, that change has been shot down by the FDA — the very organization tasked to defend public health. Just recently, the agency deleted around 1 million signatures from the GMO labeling campaign ‘Just Label It.’
This move means that consumers will continue to stay in the dark about whether or not what they’re eating is compromised of genetically modified ingredients. And it’s not just corn and soybeans, other commonly modified food staples include:
Statistics show how GMO crops and ingredients have skyrocketed in even the past few years. Here are statistics as of 2009-2010:
Genetically modified soybeans currently make up for 93-95% of the US soybean supply.
Genetically modified corn currently makes up for 86% of the US corn supply.
Genetically modified cotton currently makes up for 93% of the US cotton supply.
Genetically modified canola currently makes up for 93% of the soybean supply.
Genetically modified Hawaiin papaya currently makes up for 93% of the Hawaiian papaya supply.
When viewing these statistics, it is easy to see how many consumers are being tricked into consuming genetically modified foods. Amazingly, in a poll conducted by ABC, more than 93% of Americans feel that products containing GMOs should be labeled – meanwhile, these individuals are actually unknowingly consuming GMOs on a daily basis. What it comes down to is that as long as the threat is not visible, many consumers will simply purchase commercial products without thinking about the consequences. This is exactly why Monsanto and others have been squelching attempts to label products that contain GMOs.
This post is an excerpt from the ‘Genetically Modified Foods: How to Avoid & Identify’ section in my new book on natural health, The New Health Paradigm.
March 26, 2012
If you ask the average person to list some “healthy” foods, they may detail a variety of fruits and vegetables, or perhaps assorted whole grain products. Some individuals may even add dairy products to the list. The truth of the matter is that, given the nature of our modern society, this kind of thinking is no longer valid. Thanks to the negative bi-product of scientific advancements, you simply cannot judge the health properties of a given food product based on your preconceived notion of the food being ‘healthy’.
Traditionally healthy food items such as conventional vegetables, prominently pushed as the healthy choice in grocery stores and conventional wisdom alike, now contain dirty secrets that render them completely unhealthy.
A number of invisible threats to your health that are lurking incognito in the food supply include:
Even if you are familiar with all of these nutritional dirty bombs, there is a significant chance that you are still being tricked into consuming them through deceptive labeling and the selective omission of ingredients. The food industry can be extremely slimy when it comes to telling you the truth. The truth of the matter is that many major brand names will do almost anything in order to conceal the truth behind health-destroying ingredients that lurk inside your favorite products.
The old notion of ‘healthy’ has been thrown out the window thanks to these hazardous substances and fillers. With this, comes the emergence of a new health spectrum — a new health paradigm. It is for this very need that I have written my new book, The New Health Paradigm, which cuts through the mountains of information on health to reveal how you can actually avoid and fight these ubiquitous additives. Beyond that, I extract the most potent information from my thousands of articles on natural healing, and even pull in information from the leading experts in the alternative health field.
Furthermore, I’ve even included a comprehensive GMO-free shopping guide in addition to a toxic additives list with your e-book, so that you have all of the tools necessary to quickly reference these guides when choosing the best high quality foods for you and your family.
For a limited time, I am offering my new book at a severely discounted price to you in order to get the information out to the public. You can pre-purchase the book right now for $7.97, marked down from the original list price of $19.97 — that’s less than a single takeout meal, or even a fast food meal. It’s time to transform your health and your life. If you’re not happy with the book, I am also offering a 30-day 100% money-back guarantee. There is zero risk with your purchase, and if you don’t find the natural health transformation to be vital in reaching optimum health than you can simply return it for a complete refund.
I encourage you to begin your natural health transformation today and rid your life of toxic additives that may very well be destroying the health of you and your family. Don’t put this aside, it’s time for you and your loved ones to experience the benefits.
March 24, 2012
It is no secret that the average American diet is in completely in the slumps. Consuming packaged foods, fast food, artificially enhanced products, and especially low quality cheap food is the norm, but is it any wonder that being overweight while also falling victim to a host of illnesses is also the norm. Being raised in this era of poor health makes it difficult to know what is truly healthy and unhealthy. Food has drastically changed since decades ago, and so parents often aren’t aware of the severe decline in food quality. Fast food in particular is one of the primary reasons for the drastic health decline seen today.
If you haven’t already, take a couple of hours to watch the documentaries Super Size Me or Fast Food Nation. After watching these films, you can see first hand how fast food causes severe damage to your body – even if you don’t consume it for every meal of every day like in one of the films. Fast food is nothing but a concoction of harmful and health-damaging chemicals which can easily be understood if you were to think for a moment how any restaurant could offer a double cheeseburger for only $1.
Most recently it was uncovered that these $1 cheeseburgers, along with the rest of McDonald’s’ beef and chicken, were actually harnessing ‘pink slime’ scrap meat covered with ammonium hydroxide. Not only does this fake meat provide no nutritional value at all, but it is chemically contaminated from ammonia, the toxic cleaning agent found under the sink. The meat is actually fat trimmings and connective tissue that are separated from the bone – scrap meat that is not fit for human consumption. The ammonia treatment is in response to the danger of contamination from salmonella or E. coli, but the scrap meats themselves are more likely to contain pathogens. Despite the chemical treatment, the meat is still in the line of fire for contamination.
Additionally, McDonald’s McNuggets contain 7 different ingredients making up the ‘meat’, many of which contain sub-ingredients. Instead of using real meat, the ingredient list utilizes sodium phosphate, safflower oil, wheat starch, dextrose, and autolyzed yeast extract – a particularly dangerous substance very similar to the toxic MSG. Along side with these ingredients comes the use of dimethylpolysiloxane, a silicon substance used as an anti-foaming agent and often found in breast implants and silly putty.
Of course the use of these ingredients is not limited only to McDonald’s. In fact, all of the fast food restaurants are guilty of using them. The worst part? They are aware of the destructive nature behind these ingredients, but truly couldn’t care any less. The truth behind such a statement can be exemplified by Taco Bell’s attempt to create a drive-thru diet where individuals would supposed to lose weight by eating fast food. It was only a few years ago when Taco Bell announced the “Drive-Thru Diet”, where they showcased their foods low in fat. But what they don’t tell you is that even if their food has 9 grams of fat, it is still made up of numerous ingredients contributing to the global health decline.
While the reasons for the influx of fast food consumption are many, one primary one is the usage of psychological advertising. Being one of the most powerful tools to reach both the conscious and subconscious, advertising plays a huge role in how society is ran today, and that includes which foods we eat. What’s more, children are much more influenced by what they see and hear, and research proves it. A study conduced late in 2011 showed that 71 percent of children will choose junk food like french fries over apple slices when given coupons for each of them. The number dropped only to 55 percent when parents encouraged children to choose the apple slices. But the desired reach does not stop at direct advertising and influence.
A new children’s educational book has recently been launched by the Council for Biotechnology Information, educating young children on the ‘numerous benefits’ of genetically modified food. Of course genetically modified food has time and time again been shown to cause human and environmental harm, but still the attempt to brainwash young children is carelessly made. The advertising for such food is also heavily tied in with fast food, as virtually all fast food is constructed with genetically modified food and ingredients.
By Rady Ananda
On March 15, over 1,500 beekeepers and their allies marched thru the streets of Warsaw, depositing thousands of dead bees on the steps of the Ministry of Agriculture, in protest of genetically modified foods and their requisite pesticides which are killing bees, moths and other agriculturally-beneficial insects around the globe.
GM crops and the pesticides used with them have led to a host of problems (itemized here), including the development of new pathogens. One is associated with spontaneous abortion in cattle and another is responsible for massive methane foaming on manure lagoons which explode, killing thousands of animals in the US since 2001.
The Polish Beekeepers Association organized the protest, joining forces with International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside (ICPPC) and the Coalition for a GMO Free Poland. Targeting Monsanto’s MON810 GM corn in particular, they also called for a complete ban on all GM crops and harmful pesticides.
In 2008, the Polish Parliament banned GM feed, including both the planting and importing of GM crops. “Despite this progressive step,” reports Food Travels, “the European Commission has refused to accept regional bans on GMOs, keeping Polish farmers, producers, and activists on the offensive.”
Regardless, says the ICPPC, “None of the nine European Union countries that have already prohibited MON 810 did so by asking the permission of the EU.”
Beekeepers dressed in their traditional working uniforms and ran their hive smoke guns as they marched. Some wore yellow jackets with the misattributed quote of Albert Einstein warning that if bees were to die, humanity would soon suffer the same fate. Though he did not say it, it’s true. Most food crops rely on bees for pollination.
Others wore a variety of original costumes, sported signs and banners and carried bee-like objects to draw attention to the plight of these all-important pollinators. More pictures at Stop GMO Festival.
The ICPPC is asking Polish residents to write Minister of Agriculture Marek Sawicki, demanding that he implement an immediate moratorium on GM crops, without waiting for EU approval:
tel.: 0048 226231510; fax: 0048 226231788
The Organic Consumers Assn. collected info about other actions around the planet during the Shut Down Monsanto Days of Action last week, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Italy, Greece, Romania and, of course, the US.
Over the past 15 years or so, a collection of five giant biotech corporations — Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow and DuPont — have bought up more than 200 other companies, allowing them to dominate access to seeds.
The takeover has been so dramatic that it is becoming difficult for farmers to find alternatives. As a result, in the U.S., 90 percent of soybeans are genetically-modified, and many conventional farmers have trouble obtaining non-genetically modified seeds.
According to The Ecologist:
“… [O]ne solution to restricting their control would be through banning the practice of granting patents on seeds, plants and genes. A patent gives a company exclusive rights to sell and develop a new invention. In the case of patents on plants and genes it grants them temporary monopolies and bans farmers from saving seeds”.
At this point, a mere FIVE companies – biotechnology companies at that — own the vast majority of all worldwide seeds. The enormous ramifications of this should be fairly obvious.
Genetically modified (GM) seeds, particularly corn and soy, have already taken over in many areas of the world, effectively eliminating the use of conventional and “heirloom” seeds, and along with them, the ancient, sustainable farming practices that produces healthful food.
For example, in the US, as of 2009 genetically modified (GM) soybeans accounted for 91 percent of the soybean market. Eighty-five percent of all corn grown was GM, as well as 88 percent of all cotton.
Many pro-GM crop fanatics argue that genetically engineered (GM) crops are superior in a number of ways, but evidence to the contrary is all around us…
The illustration below, provided by The Ecologist, shows how five biotech giants have gobbled up seed companies, large and small alike, across the world, with Monsanto clearly leading the pack.
Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds and has won at least 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company.
This is not surprising, considering they invest over $2 million a day on research and development!
But Monsanto is not only patenting their own GMO seeds. They have also succeeded in slapping patents on a large number of common crop seeds, in essence patenting life forms for the first time — without a single vote of the people or Congress.
By doing this, Monsanto has become the sole owner of many of the very seeds necessary to support the world’s food supply … an incredibly powerful position that no for-profit company should ever hold.
The other heavyweights are Syngenta, Bayer, Dow, and DuPont.
Combined, they have acquired more than 200 seed companies in the past 15 years. And together, they not only threaten the continuation of sustainable, renewable farming practices, their monopoly over the food supply threatens the health of every single person on the planet.
Farmers are now increasingly forced to use GM seeds simply because there are so few alternative sources of seeds remaining. The effect of this is that we’re losing renewable agriculture – the age-old practice of saving and replanting seeds from one harvest to the next.
As mentioned in The Ecologist, one solution to this growing problem would be to make patenting seeds, plants, and genes illegal. As it stands now, each GM seed is patented and sold under exclusive rights. Therefore, farmers must purchase the GM seeds anew each year, because saving seeds is considered to be patent infringement. Anyone who does save GM seeds must pay a license fee to actually re-sow them.
This, of course, results in higher prices and reduced product options.
Add in the increased need for pesticides and herbicides that GM crops require and the ever rising cost of these products, and what you end up with is a far more expensive crop that has the potential to not only fail more frequently than conventional crops, but that can also be extremely harmful to the animals and humans who eat them.
(For more information about the health hazards involved, please see What You Must Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods.)
Talk about a lose-lose-lose situation.
Two years ago, 400 scientists from around the world created a report that shows how seed and plant patents are increasing, as opposed to reducing, costs as promised. For example, between 1996, when GE seeds were introduced to the market, and 2007, the price for soy and corn seeds doubled.
But the price farmers pay for using GM seeds do not end there.
Heartbreaking proof of the devastating effect of this agricultural change can be seen in the skyrocketing suicide rate in India, where rising debt combined with frequent GM crop failures bring farmers to the brink of despair on a daily basis.
Africa has also been negatively impacted by GM crops.
SeattleGlobalJustice.org recently reported that “in 2009, Monsanto’s genetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80 percent crop failure.”
GM crops were brought to market with the promise of higher yields, lower costs, and reduced pesticide use. None of them have turned out to be true…
On the contrary, GM soya has decreased yields by up to 20 percent compared with non-GM soya, for example, and up to 100 percent failures of Bt cotton have been recorded in India.
In the US, studies by scientists from the USDA and the University of Georgia has shown that growing GM cotton can result in a drop in income by up to 40 percent.
As for pesticide use, USDA data shows that GM crops has increased pesticide use by 50 million pounds from 1996 to 2003 in the U.S., and the use of glyphosate went up more than 15-fold between 1994 and 2005, along with increases in other herbicides to cope with rising glyphosate resistant superweeds.
These Roundup tolerant superweeds and Bt resistant pests render the two major GM crop traits completely useless…
Not only that, we now have confirmed transgene contamination in the wild.
Although Monsanto and others denied this possibility, this was long ago predicted and precisely what one would expect.
Scientists have recently confirmed that the genome (whether plant, animal or human) is NOT constant and static, which is the scientific base for genetic engineering of plants and animals. Instead, geneticists have discovered that the genome is remarkably dynamic and changeable, constantly ‘conversing’ and adapting to the environment.
In reality, GM crops are a scientific experiment based on flawed assumptions, and anything is possible – and I can strongly guarantee you, it isn’t good, and it won’t get any better.
The report, ‘Future of seeds and food‘, published last year by the international coalition of No Patents on Seeds, calls out for an end to patenting seeds, plants, and animals, and the need to stop the food monopoly created by Big Biotech. And I agree, little could be more important at this point in time.
There are already clear indications that unless the GM seed monopoly is put to an end, our whole ENTIRE food supply will become contaminated, putting everyone’s health at risk.
Many conventional and organic livestock farmers alike are now being forced to use GM feed, simply because there are no other options available!
Not only do we have the problems that have been previously discussed over the years with GM crops but there are some new elements to the equation. For now even those that are convinced of the dangers of GMO crops and want to avoid using them simply are unable to in some cases.
I recently received a personal letter from one such farmer, who runs a small ecological farm in Ohio. Even though she is dedicated to organic farming, she is now finding herself in the unthinkable predicament of being forced to buy Monsanto GM corn feed for her pigs and chickens.
Here is her story:
In spite of what you have likely heard, a large shift to organic agriculture — which by definition is non-GM — could protect and improve both the environment and animal- and human health.
It could even be the solution to world hunger. According to a Danish study presented to the U.N. in 2007, recent models of an organically grown, global food supply shows that a more environmentally friendly approach to agriculture is in fact capable of producing enough food for the world’s current population.
What prevents many farmers from making the move to organic is that crop yields could initially drop as much as 50 percent in the very beginning, before evening out over time. However, that problem may be mitigated somewhat, because farmers wouldn’t need to dole out precious money for toxic pesticides, the price of which have risen as much as 75 percent already.
Unfortunately, while we’re waiting for the leaders of the world to catch up and realize the dire straits we’re in as a species, we’re running out of time. As evidenced by Cappello’s story above, our ability to produce organic foods is under constant attack.
So, please, do not wait for some unspecified time in the future.
Instead, do what you can NOW to promote local organic food producers no matter where you live by taking advantage of local sources of organic foods as often as you can.
In addition, please take every measure you can to avoid as many GM foods as you possibly can. Here’s a list of tips to help you do just that:
- Reduce or eliminate processed foods. Some 75 percent of processed foods contain GM ingredients.
- Read produce and food labels. When looking at a product label, if any ingredients such as corn flour and meal, dextrin, starch, soy sauce, margarine, and tofu (to name a few) are listed, there’s a good chance it has come from GM corn or soy, unless it’s listed as organic.
- Buy organic produce. Buying organic is currently the best way to ensure that your food has not been genetically modified.
- Download and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, and share it with your friends and family
Avoid purchasing Monsanto-made pesticides and herbicides for your home
December 15, 2011
It seems that the good bacteria found in your gut may actually be destroyed with every bite of certain food that you eat. While antibiotics typically hold first prize in depleting the body’s gut flora levels, there may be a new culprit looking to take the spotlight which you may know as genetically modified food.
Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Crops Leading to Decreased Gut Flora
A formula seems to have been made to not only ruin the agricultural system, but also compromise the health of millions of people worldwide. With the invent of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready crops, resistant superweeds are taking over farmland and public health is being attacked. These genetically engineered crops are created to withstand large amounts of Monsanto’s top-selling herbicide, Roundup. As it turns out, glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is actually leaving behind its residue on Roundup Ready crops, causing further potential concern for public health.
According to Dr. Don Huber, an expert in certain science fields relating to genetically modified foods, the amount of good bacteria in the gut decreases with the consumption of GMO foods. But this outcome is actually due to the residual glyphosate in animal feed and food. Dr. Huber states that glyphosate residues in genetically engineered plants are responsible for a significant reduction in mineral content, causing people to be highly susceptible to pathogens. Although studies have previously found that the beneficial bacteria in animals is destroyed thanks to glyphosate, a stronger connection will need to be made regarding human health for this kind of information to stick.
Poor Gut Flora Means Poor Health
As awareness grows, more and more people are realizing that poor gut flora often means poor health. Without the proper ratio of good bacteria to bad bacteria, overall health suffers and you could be left feeling depressed. In fact, poor gut health has been directly tied to mental illness, which may explain the influx of people being diagnosed with a mental illness. Not only that, but obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome have all been tied to poor gut health.
Recent food terror warnings hide reality
The latest warning coming from British intelligence that al-Qaeda and other political organizations could contaminate the food supply is part of a continuing plot line that hides the obvious: our food already has been poisoned under the auspices of oversight agencies who have been complicit in the very real threats to the public food supply. The following toxins offered into the marketplace by corporate-government collusion have contributed to far more sickness and death than E. coli or salad bar terrorists ever will . . . unless of course the terrorists have bioengineered a superbug, or it has escaped from a bioweapons lab like the one at Fort Detrick, Maryland.
Pesticides: Aside from the fact that pesticides have been linked to lower IQ in children, thus altering the future potential of human society, DDT and the cocktail of other pollutants and synthetic chemicals now include those used in GM food production (Bt), such as glyphosate. Even more alarming is that pollutants that have been banned for decades are still present in 100% of pregnant women, while those from GM food appear in 80% of unborn fetuses. The presentation below offers additional analysis of the health effects, particularly on the immune system:
Fluoride: Sodium fluoride (silicofluoride), is an industrial-grade hazardous waste material made during the production of fertilizer. Its past history includes patented use as rat poison and insecticide. Dr. Paul Connett is leading the fight against mandatory water fluoridation. People are finally waking up to the hazards and are now demanding that governments remove this deadly poison. Let’s keep in mind that it was put there with full knowledge of its toxicity and has led to massive negative health effects. Dr. Connett explains all in a must-see, one-hour interview:
Mercury: In both organic and inorganic form, mercury wreaks havoc with the nervous system — especially the developing nervous system of a fetus. It penetrates all living cells of the human body, and has been documented most as increasing the risk for autism. This calls into question mercury’s use in dental fillings, vaccines, and just about anything containing high fructose corn syrup — a near staple in the American diet . . . including baby food. It has also been known for years that mercury fumes from CFL compact fluorescent tube light bulbs pose a serious threat which goes far beyond eyestrain, migraines, and depression, but still they have been pushed under the green agenda and are set to be completely phased in by 2014. We offer the following video of truth-telling comic relief from 2007 to illustrate the absurdity of such legislation, with a more serious presentation available HERE:
GMO: Monsanto owns nearly 90% of staple GMO crops such as corn, soy, and cotton. Monsanto started as a chemical company that brought the world poisons like Agent Orange and Roundup. Independent studies of “frankenfood” have shown a link to organ failure; a Russian study has concluded near-total sterility in GMO-soy-fed hamsters by the third generation; and other animal studies have shown potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers, and testicles, partially atrophied livers, and damaged immune systems, according to a comprehensive article by Jeffrey M. Smith that also highlights the process of intimidation that even well-regarded scientists have been subjected to when publishing their research. Perhaps a recent mainstream article theorizing that a massive 64% increase in bowel cancer among young people is attributable to “heavy drinking and obesity” should be redirected toward the rise in the prevalence of GMO. Here is Jeffrey M. Smith interviewed about the GMO threat:
Bisphenol-A: The FDA failed to warn the public about this chemical found in plastic packaging including baby food containers, baby bottles, and pacifiers. Animal research has shown many adverse health effects such as damage to the reproductive system, immune system, and neurological development, as it mimics sex hormones. In humans this seems to be leading to early puberty, reduced sperm count, and prostate cancer. The two-part episode below offers key details about the history and dangers of Bisphenol-A that the FDA continues to officially allow despite finally acknowledging its dangers, even as other countries ban it and many companies have proactively removed its use:
Aspartame: Among the many dangerous food additives that plague the modern-day plate, Aspartame is one of the most widespread and toxic. Aspartame is a neurotoxin that interacts with natural organisms, as well as synthetic medications, producing a wide range of proven disorders and syndromes as outlined in the following must-see, full-length documentary, Sweet Misery, showing how a neurotoxin became part of the food supply with FDA approval:
The list above is merely the tip of the iceberg that doesn’t even include corporate/military poisoning of the planet through environmental disasters like Fukushima, the BP oil disaster, geo-engineering, or the ongoing use of depleted uranium. As the food terror news is guaranteed to be used to cast a wider net of potential shadowy terrorist groups and lone nuts in order to usher in total food control, we would do well to remember the millions who already have died from corporate-government malfeasance . . . and from exactly where the provable death sentence has been issued. Terrorists have been striking the food system for decades now. They’re just not the cave-dwellers we’ve been conditioned to fear.
While the long term health consequences of consuming genetically modified foods are not yet know, scientists do know one thing. Consuming genetically modifying plant DNA leads to the development of “GMO” microorganisms, which reproduce continuously inside the human body. And as the Alliance for Natural Health reports, the implications could be deadly. It’s time to tell the USDA we won’t stand for more GMOs!
GE organisms actually become part of the bacteria in our digestive tracts and reproduce continuously inside us. But the USDA now wants to to remove all controls from GE corn and cotton! A new Action Alert.
There are no human clinical trials of genetically engineered foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that genetic material inserted into GE soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. Even after we stop eating GE foods, we may still have the GE proteins produced continuously inside us.
As the Institute for Responsible Technology has noted, the genetic engineering process creates massive collateral damage, causing mutations in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout the plant’s DNA. Natural genes can be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their behavior. Even the inserted gene can be damaged or rearranged, and may create proteins that can trigger allergies or promote disease.
The idea of having genetically engineered genes permanently living inside our guts has staggering implications:
And we’ve seen cross-species transfer of DNA happen before. A significant percentage of human DNA is actually viral DNA that became part of us over 40 million years ago. There is concern that virally transmitted DNA may cause mutations and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and mood disorders. GE organisms may exacerbate this phenomenon.
Genetically engineered food genes transferring to our own genes could lead to problems like leaky gut syndrome:
Allergies have already skyrocketed in the US, and with the introduction of GE soy in the UK, soy related allergies rose to 50%. Yet federal agencies turn a blind eye to the dangers of genetic engineering.
In 1989 there was a tragic outbreak of eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS), an incredibly painful disease. The outbreak was traced to consumption of l-tryptophan supplements produced by a Japanese company using genetically engineered bacteria. The bacteria are used to increase yields, but they increase impurities during the fermentation process—possibly leading to a level of contaminants that caused the EMS.
To this day, the government has refused to address the issue of purity standards for GE-manufactured products. Instead, federal agencies and biotech companies claimed that contaminants linked to the EMS tragedy were caused by changes in the company’s manufacturing process — despite the fact that the company was precisely following the purity standards enforced by government rules.
The EMS was rare and had a fast enough onset that the case histories of the patients could be linked to this supplement, and it was also acute enough that doctors took notice. There is a very clear causal link between EMS and these genetically engineered organisms.
The effects of other genetically modified products may not be as obvious so quickly, but can be even more devastating; as we have reported previously, GMOs are causing terrible genetic changes in mammal offspring. Scientists are seeing birth defects, high infant mortality rates, and sterility in hamsters, rats, and livestock fed GMO soy and corn, and some hamster pups even begin growing hair inside their mouths.
The late George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Medicine or Physiology in 1967 and Higgins Professor of Biology at Harvard University, was one of the first scientists to speak out about the potential dangers of genetic engineering:
Recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering] faces our society with problems unprecedented, not only in the history of science, but of life on the Earth….Now whole new proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism or their neighbors….For going ahead in this direction may not only be unwise but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics.
The USDA has released two Environmental Assessment reports, one for Monsanto’s corn genetically engineered to be drought-tolerant, and the other for Syngenta Biotechnology’s cotton genetically engineered to be pest-resistant. USDA believes the cotton is “unlikely to pose a plant pest risk”; for the corn, the agency is considering either keeping the corn under regulation, or assigning it nonregulated status (banning it altogether is off the table). The comment period for both EAs is open until July 11.
Please take action today! Tell the USDA that the corn and cotton must not be deregulated — that without strict controls, GE crops will encroach on non-GE crops, contaminating them, including organic crops — which will, of course, render them non-organic.
The GE corn is especially dangerous because it is for human consumption. As noted above, GE genes from foods can affect the bacteria from our digestive system, and can lead to allergies, disease and even sterility.
GMOs are causing terrible genetic changes in mammal offspring. Scientists are seeing birth defects, high infant mortality rates, and sterility in hamsters, rats, and livestock fed GMO soy and corn, and some hamster pups even begin growing hair inside their mouths.
02 Apr 2011
The scientists have successfully introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk.
Human milk contains high quantities of key nutrients that can help to boost the immune system of babies and reduce the risk of infections.
The scientists behind the research believe milk from herds of genetically modified cows could provide an alternative to human breast milk and formula milk for babies, which is often criticised as being an inferior substitute.
They hope genetically modified dairy products from herds of similar cows could be sold in supermarkets. The research has the backing of a major biotechnology company.
The work is likely to inflame opposition to GM foods. Critics of the technology and animal welfare groups reacted angrily to the research, questioning the safety of milk from genetically modified animals and its effect on the cattle’s health.
But Professor Ning Li, the scientist who led the research and director of the State Key Laboratories for AgroBiotechnology at the China Agricultural University insisted that the GM milk would be as safe to drink as milk from ordinary dairy cows.
He said: “The milk tastes stronger than normal milk.
“We aim to commercialize some research in this area in coming three years. For the “human-like milk”, 10 years or maybe more time will be required to finally pour this enhanced milk into the consumer’s cup.”
China is now leading the way in research on genetically modified food and the rules on the technology are more relaxed than those in place in Europe.
The researchers used cloning technology to introduce human genes into the DNA of Holstein dairy cows before the genetically modified embryos were implanted into surrogate cows.
Writing in the scientific peer-reviewed journal Public Library of Science One, the researchers said they were able to create cows that produced milk containing a human protein called lysozyme,
Lysozyme is an antimicrobial protein naturally found in large quantities in human breast milk. It helps to protect infants from bacterial infections during their early days of life.
They created cows that produce another protein from human milk called lactoferrin, which helps to boost the numbers of immune cells in babies. A third human milk protein called alpha-lactalbumin was also produced by the cows.
The scientists also revealed at an exhibition at the China Agricultural University that they have boosted milk fat content by around 20 per cent and have also changed the levels of milk solids, making it closer to the composition of human milk as well as having the same immune-boosting properties.
Professor Li and his colleagues, who have been working with the Beijing GenProtein Biotechnology Company, said their work has shown it was possible to “humanise” cows milk.
In all, the scientists said they have produced a herd of around 300 cows that are able to produce human-like milk.
The transgenic animals are physically identical to ordinary cows.
Writing in the journal, Professor Li said: “Our study describes transgenic cattle whose milk offers the similar nutritional benefits as human milk.
“The modified bovine milk is a possible substitute for human milk. It fulfilled the conception of humanising the bovine milk.”
Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, he added the “human-like milk” would provide “much higher nutritional content”. He said they had managed to produce three generations of GM cows but for commercial production there would need to be large numbers of cows produced.
He said: “Human milk contains the ‘just right’ proportions of protein, carbohydrates, fats, minerals, and vitamins for an infant’s optimal growth and development.
“As our daily food, the cow’s milk provided us the basic source of nutrition. But the digestion and absorption problems made it not the perfect food for human being.”
The researchers also insist having antimicrobial proteins in the cows milk can also be good for the animals by helping to reduce infections of their udders.
Genetically modified food has become a highly controversial subject and currently they can only be sold in the UK and Europe if they have passed extensive safety testing.
The consumer response to GM food has also been highly negative, resulting in many supermarkets seeking to source products that are GM free.
Campaigners claim GM technology poses a threat to the environment as genes from modified plants can get into wild plant populations and weeds, while they also believe there are doubts about the safety of such foods.
Scientists insist genetically modified foods are unlikely to pose a threat to food safety and in the United States consumers have been eating genetically modified foods for more decades.
However, during two experiments by the Chinese researchers, which resulted in 42 transgenic calves being born, just 26 of the animals survived after ten died shortly after birth, most with gastrointestinal disease, and a further six died within six months of birth.
Researchers accept that the cloning technology used in genetic modification can affect the development and survival of cloned animals, although the reason why is not well understood.
A spokesman for the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals said the organisation was “extremely concerned” about how the GM cows had been produced.
She said: “Offspring of cloned animals often suffer health and welfare problems, so this would be a grave concern.
“Why do we need this milk – what is it giving us that we haven’t already got.”
Helen Wallace, director of biotechnology monitoring group GeneWatch UK, said: “We have major concerns about this research to genetically modify cows with human genes.
“There are major welfare issues with genetically modified animals as you get high numbers of still births.
“There is a question about whether milk from these cows is going to be safe from humans and it is really hard to tell that unless you do large clinical trials like you would a drug, so there will be uncertainty about whether it could be harmful to some people.
“Ethically there are issues about mass producing animals in this way.”
Professor Keith Campbell, a biologist at the University of Nottingham works with transgenic animals, said: “Genetically modified animals and plants are not going to be harmful unless you deliberately put in a gene that is going to be poisonous. Why would anyone do that in a food?
“Genetically modified food, if done correctly, can provide huge benefit for consumers in terms of producing better products.”