It’s The Chemicals

In The Environment

Jeff Prager

Not Feeling Well?

Why Are We Sick?Why Are Heart Disease, Diabetes and Cancer On the Rise In America?

The answer to this question is something rarely discussed, if ever, in the mainstream. A toxic framework has risen from modern day society, and millions are being plugged into a chemical grid that’s altering their lives forever. For the few that are privy to it, it’s escapable – barely.

If it tastes sweet spit it out, it might be a compound known as DEG (diethyl glycol) – a deadly ingredient commonly found in cough syrup and toothpaste. So deadly, it single handedly gave rise to the FDA in 1938. But stopping it from infiltrating our stores has proven difficult. The New York Times recently showed that “Over the years, the poison has been loaded into all varieties of medicine.”

DEG tastes like maple syrup. Eating it is a non-event. But over time, kidney failure en-sues. In large doses, breathing becomes exceedingly difficult and paralysis sets in.

It’s used more commonly than you’d care to imagine because it’s a cheap replacement to glycerin, which alters viscosity among consumer products. If used, it’s listed in the ingredient list. Look for it as: 3-Oxa-1,5-pentanediol, Bis(2-hydroxyethyl)ether, 2,2-Oxydiethanol, Diglycol, Dihydroxydiethyl ether; 2,2-Dihydroxyethyl ether, Ethylene diglycol, 2,2-Oxybisethanol, 2-(2-Hydroxyethoxy)ethanol.

Believe it or not, “vitamins” can be poisonous too. No matter how much fanatical fervor is used to shove ‘em down your throat, some pose a real threat to longevity. You can slather on sun block – or any other of the 700 skin care products in the USA – loaded with “vitamin A” to learn this the hard way. Or heed the warning from the Environ-mental Working Group (EWG), which highlighted a 21% faster rate of cancer growth among animals exposed to the highly touted “vitamin.”

Vitamin A could be called a genetic grenade. Spanning six feet in length, our genetic map, DNA, is stuffed into the center of each and every cell. The ingenious packaging system is courtesy of “chromosomes.” It accommodates the huge genetic strand cour-tesy of a slinky effect, a tightly wound coil. And when chromosomes become damaged by the vitamin, huge portions of DNA are mutated and disabled. Skin cells that are casualties of the attack may become cancerous.

In addition to medicines and vitamins, water has been taken over by the chemical grid. Every time a waiter attempts to place cold water in front of my family, I cringe know-ing that the grid is floating invisibly inside. Oblivious, millions are shortening their lifespan by not understanding the vast importance of drinking only purified, chemical free water.

Three days without water and you’re dead. It makes up 75% of your body and 85% of our brain matter. It’s the most precious substance to life. Without adequate amounts

of it you grow sick, fast. And that’s the problem. Very few people are receiving healthy amounts of clean water, as millions are swallowing fluoride tainted tap water.

Fluoride debates are rampant online. But there’s very little room for argument in bio-chemistry. Consuming the biological foreigner can leave thirst quenchers “brain sick” – leading to significant emotional and mental duress as well as severe impairment, causing poor focus and weak memory, even Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. This is partly due to its ability to chaperone aluminum – also found in tap water – from the stomach into regions of the brain where mental transmission can be plugged permanently by the noxious metal.

Water isn’t the only thing exposing you to fluoride. Many people ingest it daily – about 1,000 ppm – from their toothpaste.

Other fluoride risks were known as early as 1977 when scientists found it increased rates of bone cancer among those communities sucking down fluoridated water. Over time, we’ve learned why. Once it sets into the gut, 50% is absorbed by bone. Acting as a “molecular slicer,” it attacks chromosomes, causing them to split apart, and grow wild-ly as cancer cells.

While people of today are living longer thanks to emergency medicine, we aren’t liv-ing better. Life in the chemical grid has forced millions to live half-heartily, riddled with disease. The Science and Environmental Health Network have shown that one in four children in North America will develop cancer by the time they’re 15 years old. In 1950, 25% of adults were diagnosed with cancer. By 1997 that number jumped to 40%.

The grid is growing. There are more than 70,000 man-made chemicals in existence. And the industry expands at rate of 3.5% each year, doubling in size every 20 years. And ironically, the bigger the health claim surrounding products, the bigger the risk it seems. No longer can we blindly rub on lotions, slap on makeup, chug water, brush our teeth or shove food into our mouth based on pretty packaging, taste or even health claims. In an uncertain chemical world, getting off the chemical grid requires knowl-edge and vigilance, like never before.

What’s more, the VERY SAME companies that produce ALL of these poisonous chemi-cals are the VERY SAME companies that manufacture the various pharmaceutical drugs and treatments to make us, supposedly, better. This racket is better then war, better then mining gold, better then owning a bank. Imagine, they make the chemicals that make us sick and they make the chemicals that they treat us with. When I first discovered this I found it simply unbelievable. Many of you may already hold the opin-ion that there’s no profit in health. It’s true. The more sicker we are, the higher the US Gross Domestic Product rises. There’s more profit in illness. Period.

The huge transnational companies that produce toxic chemicals found in pesticides, herbicides and industrial and household products profit not only

from the sale of these products, but also from the symptoms and chronic illnesses that they can trigger.

The vast majority of chemicals found in pesticides and other products, undergo little or no testing for chronic, low level exposures

and for chronic health effects.

The same chemical companies that produce toxic chemicals also produce prescription drugs, veterinary medicines, a wide array of medical products

and imaging technologies. They hold cancer treatment and medical device patents, and produce a staggering

assortment of over-the-counter palliatives.

Families with toxin induced illnesses often spend large sums for drugs and medical treatment throughout their lives.

They are full-time chemical customers.

This circle of profit is not conspiracy theory, but an easily provable fact.

This book contains the web sites for the largest chemical and pharmaceutical companies in the world.

This way you can see quickly and clearly that these companies profit from all sides of the picture. They are,

One And The Same.

The same companies that make the chemicals also make the drugs they treat us with!

Aventis was launched in December 1999 through the merger of Hoechst AG of Germany and Rhône-Poulenc SA of France.

Main Home Page for Aventis – click on “Our Activities” at leftto read more.

http://en.sanofi-aventis.com/home.asp

Aventis is the wonderful company that brought us Star Link genetically modified corn.

Aventis “crop sciences” include herbicides, fungicides, pesticides and genetically engineered food. They were sold to Bayer

in 2002.

Aventis Pharma is the pharmaceutical division:

http://en.sanofi-aventis.com/our_activities/prescription-medicines/prescription-medicines.asp

Monsanto is owned by Pharmacia. The Pharmacia Corporation was created through the merger

of Pharmacia Upjohn with Monsanto Company and its G.D. Searle unit. Pharmacia employs 59,000 people worldwide and has research,

manufacturing and administrative sales operations in more than 60 countries. In 2002

Pfizer bought Pharmacia.

Monsanto:http://www.monsanto.com

Pharmacia (Sold to Pfizer):http://www.pharmacia.com/About/Ind

This company makes everything. They manufacture paints, lacquers,polymers, cosmetics, coolants and solvents. And they also manufacture

well over 100 different pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients. They also make

fungicides, herbicides, pesticidesand vitamins.

Click on “Products & Industries” at the top and then click on“Product Groups” under “Refine Your Search” at mid-page.

http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/en/

Everyone’s heard of Merck. They’re the company that makes pharmaceutical drugs.

Did you know that Merck also makes pesticides?

Did you know they make chemicals for coatings, cosmetics, printing and plastics? Did you know they make liquid crystal materials?

How about analytical reagents?

Merck Pharmaceuticalshttp://www.merck.com

Merck Research Company; Applications to Register Pesticide:http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1996/July/Day-10/pr-796.html

Merck produces chemicals and precursors for pesticides and other neurotoxins.

Merck Chemicals for Industrial Applications:http://www.merck.de/en/chemicals/chemicals/merck-chemicalContent/Wrqb.

s1OfYMAAAEfEPN0fzyE.html

“Everything we do is based on a clear strategy... “

Dow Chemical produces both toxic chemicals and pharmaceuticals. The list of products is on the left:

http://www.dow.com/products_services/index.html

Dow Pharmaceuticals:http://www.dowpharm.com

Dow’s pesticide products include the organophosphate pesticide Dursban (a/k/a Chlorpyrifos/a/k/a RAID a/k/a Lorsban

and is found in about 800 other pesticide products)

Dursban was to be phased out and banned from indoor, yard and garden use because of what it does to the developing brain.

According to the government, a recent (1999) Minnesota study found the bug killer at detectable levels in over 90 percent of school children examined.

EPA was going to allow Dursban to “continue to be sold until current stocks run out” but Dow has been scrambling to get this delayed,

and has been conducting short term clinical trials by feeding Dursban pills to healthy teenagers in an attempt

to get it back on the market:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020422/poisons.html

Dupont Chemical recently sold a pharmaceutical division to Bristol Myers Squibb.

Dupont makes pesticides and much more:http://www2.dupont.com/DuPont_Home/en_US/index.html

They also make pharmaceuticals:http://www2.dupont.com/Teflon_Industrial/en_US/uses_apps/pharmaceutical/

index.html

And:http://www.drugs.com/imprints/percocet-dupont-4116.html

Do you take Bayer aspirin? Did you know that Bayer also makes other drugs, pesticides and chemicals?

When you get to the Bayer site from the following URL below examine the products – from industrial chemicals and

“crop protection” products to pharmaceuticals.

Put your cursor over “Products” at the top and scroll down to “A through Z”http://www.bayer.com/en/Homepage.aspx

Bayer pharmaceuticals:http://www.pharma.bayer.com

It is interesting to note that the Bayer corporation was originally the I.G. Farben Company with deep ties to the Nazis during the 1920s and 30s. I.G.

Farben produced Zyklon-B gas which was used in the Nazi death camps. Other big chem/pharm manufacturers became owners of pieces of I.G. Farben during

the lengthy process of dissolving its assets after decades of lawsuits and pressures from international organizations for alleged I.G.Farben

Nazi crimes. Here is a quote from the BBC:

“Most of the company’s assets were confiscated after World War II and were transferred to four big German corporations: Bayer, Hoechst, Agfa and BASF.”

See the BBC article:http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1549000/1549092.stm

Many of these huge transnationals have merged with each other. For example, CibaGeigy, Sandoz and other

multinational chemical/pharmaceutical companies merged to become Novartis.

Then Novartis Agribusiness merged with Zeneca (Astra-Zeneca) Agrochemicals to form Syngenta:

http://www2.syngenta.com/en/index.html

And:http://www2.syngenta.com/en/products_brands/researchanddevelopment.html

Standard and Poor’s Stock Exchange profile on Novartis:http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/

?assetID=1245186424014

Novartis pharmaceuticals, seeds, genetic engineering:http://www.novartis.com

Novartis owns Syngenta – produces pesticides, herbicides, etc:http://www.syngenta-us.com

Novartis AG – incredible list of products, relationships and subsidiaries:http://www.transnationale.org/fiches/70.htm

Then there is Astra Zeneca that sold off part of its agrochemical business to Novartis.

International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers’ Unions:

http://www.icem.org/en/4-Chemicals-Pharmaceuticals

AMVAC makes the insecticide NALED a/k/a DIBROM, and nineteen other products. AMVAC Chemical Company is owned by

American Vanguard Corporation, which makes herbicides and pesticides.

A major portion of its revenues comes from selling its specialty chemicals to the pharmaceutical industry. It is also in the business of “environmental

remediation” and “toxic waste management.”

Like other chem/pharm companies, American Vanguard profits from pollution that they help make, and then get paid to clean up.

They make products with names like Fortress, Ambush, Avenge, Blocker, Deadline, Discipline, Impact and Wisdom. Check it out:

http://www.amvac-chemical.com/labels.html

AMVAC’s brother subsidiaries include, GemChem, Inc. and Environmental Mediation, Inc.

AMVAC’s brother GemChem: “... is committed to exceeding industry standards as a national chemical distributor. In addition to representing AMVAC as its

domestic sales force, GemChem also sells into the cosmetic, nutritional and pharmaceutical markets.”

AMVAC’s brother Environmental Mediation, Inc. provides clients with: “complex investigative and remedial activities. With... core expertise in the areas of

hazardous waste, air toxics, and water quality...”

Environmental Mediation, Inc. offers its clients expertise in:

Issue AnalysisStrategic Planning

Government RelationsRegulatory Strategy

Environmental ConsultingPublic Affairs

American Home Products pharmaceuticals and veterinary medicines has subsidiaries galore, including American Cyanimid among others.

American Cyanimid produced many chemical products including pesticides and pharmaceutical chemicals

and was acquired by BASF.

http://www2.basf.us/corporate/news2000/newsamericancyanamid.html

AHP later changed its name to WYETH, a major holding company.Wyeth is now part of Pfizer:

http://www.pfizer.com/welcome/

And this just shows the cycle of profit in all of its glory when you see the Chemical Business Research website.

Examine: “Cancer Opportunities in the New Millennium” under SRI Licensing:

http://www.sri.com/biosciences/licensing/

Or Intellectual Property Opportunites:http://www.sri.com/rd/hot.html

Or Drug Discovery:http://www.sri.com/focus_areas/health.html

Did you know that thousands of toxic chemicals are impregnated into products that we come in intimate contact with every day that have woefully

inadequate testing? Synthetic chemicals are found in clothing, furniture, bedding, paper, food storage containers, building materials, pillow feathers,

pillow covers, inks, mattresses, food, cosmetics, carbonless paper, fragrances, and tampons. A wide variety of fat soluble pesticides

are even impregnated into animal feed. fat soluble means it stores in fat.

One of the reasons this is done is to cut down on flies in the barnyard. The fecal matter becomes so toxic that it ends up killing the flies!

So the questions is – does the animal fat cause us to get dosed with low levels of this stuff? See the EPA web site:

http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/pestaction.htm#5.2.6

Most of the public is completely unaware of how pervasive toxic chemicals are in our homes and offices. If it were just one or two of the chemicals the

effects might be tolerable. But that is not the case at all because the relentless cumulative and synergistic effects of these chemicals is causing great harm to human, animal and environmental health.

When we, our children and our animals suffer symptoms or become ill, have trouble with our reproductive systems – we spend many thousands of dollars on

medical imaging, tests, treatments, operations, hospitals and drugs...

a circle of profit that has no equal in the corporate world. Again this year the chemical/pharmaceutical industry was declared the most profitable industry in the world.

What a business plan!

Although these numbers should be interpreted with caution because states may vary with respect to criteria

or issuing advisories, some states do not have active fish advisory programs, and some states do not actively monitor for chlordane

in fish tissue, the data do indicate that Level 1 pesticide contamination of waterways occurs in many states, and that at least some populations and geographical

areas may be at potential risk due to Level 1 pesticide exposure is right here.

Source: USEPA, 1999b. December 1998 Update to the National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories. Access: http://www.epa.gov/ost/fish

1 Number represents the total number of waterbodies under advisory; some waterbodies have multiple advisories (e.g., various fish and wildlife species, various restricted populations, various waterbody segments, various chemical substances). For information updates on advisory numbers, as they are released by states and tribes, see the internet website

2 Total number of fish and wildlife advisories in the U.S. as of December 1998 was 2,506 (total number of waterbodies)

3 Statewide advisory (New York) included in counts

Fish &Wildlife Advisories 1999 • New York State

Contamination of Fish and Wildlife with Pesticides

Genetically Modified Foods • Modifying YOU!Some Not So Wonderful Truths About GM Food

I’d like to address genetically Modified foods since I suspect as the years ahead unfold we’ll see many more of them and it’s unlikely, since no labeling is required in this country, that we’ll even know we’re eating them. Consuming organic foods will be critical to our long-term health, especially if you’re raising children.

We here in the United States are the Guinea Pigs. Yes, that’s right. They’re test-ing these Frankenfoods on us. The long term effects are as yet unknown but leave it to the chemical companies and in 50 years they will be fully understood the consequences and the civilian population of the US will be sick and dying.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been linked to thousands of toxic or allergic-type reactions, thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals. Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study shows adverse or unexplained effects.

Rhetoric from the United States government since the early 1990s proclaims that GM foods are no different from their natural counterparts that have existed for centuries. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has labeled them “Gen-erally Recognized as Safe,” or GRAS. This status allows a product to be commercialized without any additional testing. According to US law, to be considered GRAS the substance must be the subject of a substantial amount of peer-reviewed published studies (or equivalent) and there must be overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that the product is safe. GM foods have neither. Nonetheless, in a precedent-setting move in 1992 that some experts contend was illegal, the FDA declared that GM crops are GRAS as long as their producers say they are. Thus, the FDA does not require any safety evaluations or labeling of GMOs. A company can even introduce a GM food to the market without telling the agency.

Such a lenient approach was largely the result of the influence of large agricul-tural corporations According to Henry Miller, who had a leading role in biotech-nology issues at the FDA from 1979 to 1994, “In this area, the US government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do.” The Ag biotech company with the greatest influence was clearly Monsanto. According to the New York Times, “What Monsanto wished for from Washington, Monsanto and, by extension, the biotechnology industry got... When

the company abruptly decided that it needed to throw off the regulations and speed its foods to market, the White House quickly ushered through an unusu-ally generous policy of self-policing.” This policy was heralded by Vice President Dan Quayle on May 26, 1992. He chaired the Council on Competitiveness, which had identified GM crops as an industry that could boost US exports. To take advantage, Quayle announced “reforms” to “speed up and simplify the process of bringing” GM products to market without “being hampered by unnecessary regulation.” Three days later, the FDA policy on non-regulation was unveiled. The person who oversaw its development was the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Michael Taylor, whose position had been created especially for him in 1991. Prior to that, Taylor was an outside attorney for both Monsanto and the Food Biotechnology Council. After working at the FDA, he became Monsanto’s vice president. The Obama administration has put Talyor back into the FDA as the US Food Safety Czar.

There are several reasons why GM plants present unique dangers. The first is that the process of genetic engineering itself creates unpredicted alterations, ir-respective of which gene is transferred. The gene insertion process, for example,

is accomplished by either shooting genes from a “gene gun” into a plate of cells, or using bacte-ria to infect the cell with foreign DNA. Both cre-ate mutations in and around the insertion site and elsewhere. The “transformed” cell is then cloned into a plant through a process called tissue culture, which results in additional hun-

dreds or thousands of mutations throughout the plants’ genome. In the end, the GM plant’s DNA can be a staggering 2-4% different from its natural parent. Na-tive genes can be mutated, deleted, or permanently turned on or off. In addition, the insertion process causes holistic and not-well-understood changes among large numbers of native genes. One study revealed that up to 5% of the natural genes altered their levels of protein expression as a result of a single insertion.

The Royal Society of Canada acknowledged that “the default prediction” for GM crops would include “a range of collateral changes in expression of other genes, changes in the pattern of proteins produced and/or changes in metabolic ac-tivities.” Although the FDA scientists evaluating GMOs in 1992 were unaware of the extent to which GM DNA is damaged or changed, they too described the potential consequences. They reported, “The possibility of unexpected, acciden-

We Are The Guinea Pigs!

tal changes in genetically engineered plants” might produce “unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants.” GM crops, they said, might have “increased levels of known naturally occurring toxins,” and the “appearance of new, not previously identified” toxins. The same mechanism can also produce allergens, carcinogens, or substances that inhibit assimilation of nutrients.

FDA scientists were also quite concerned about the possibility of inserted genes spontaneously transferring into the DNA of bacteria inside our digestive tract. They were particularly alarmed at the possibility of antibiotic resistant marker (ARM) genes transferring. ARM genes are employed during gene insertion to help scientists identify which cells successfully integrated the foreign gene. These ARM genes, however, remain in the cell and are cloned into the DNA of all the GM plants produced from that cell. One FDA report wrote in all capital let-ters that ARM genes would be “A SERIOUS HEALTH HAZARD,” due to the possi-bility that they might transfer to bacteria and create super diseases, untreatable with antibiotics.

Although the biotech industry confidently asserted that gene transfer from GM foods was not possible, the only human feeding study on GM foods later proved that it does take place. The genetic material in soybeans that make them herbi-cide tolerant transferred into the DNA of human gut bacteria and continued to function. That means that long after we stop eating a GM crop, its foreign GM proteins may be produced inside our intestines. It is also possible that the for-eign genes might end up inside our own DNA, within the cells of our own organs and tissues.

GM Diet Shows Toxic Reactions In The Digestive Tract

The very first crop submitted to the FDA’s voluntary consultation process, the FlavrSavr tomato, showed evidence of toxins. Out of 20 female rats fed the GM tomato, 7 developed stomach lesions. The director of FDA’s Office of Spe-cial Research Skills wrote that the tomatoes did not demonstrate a “reasonable certainty of no harm,” which is their normal standard of safety. The Additives Evaluation Branch agreed that “unresolved questions still remain.” The political appointees, however, did not require that the tomato be withdrawn.

According to Arpad Pusztai, PhD, one of the world’s leading experts in GM food safety assessments, the type of stomach lesions linked to the tomatoes “could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who use aspi-rin to prevent [blood clots].” Dr. Pusztai believes that the digestive tract, which is the first and largest point of contact with foods, can reveal various reactions to toxins and should be the first target of GM food risk assessment. He was alarmed, however, to discover that studies on the FlavrSavr never looked passed

the stomach to the intestines. Other studies that did look found problems.

Mice fed potatoes engineered to produce the Bt-toxin developed abnormal and damaged cells, as well as proliferative cell growth in the lower part of their small intestines (ileum). Rats fed potatoes engineered to produce a different type of insecticide (GNA lectin from the snowdrop plant) also showed proliferative cell growth in both the stomach and intestinal walls (see photos below). Although the guts of rats fed GM peas were not examined for cell growth, the intestines were mysteriously heavier; possibly as a result of such growth. Cell proliferation can be a precursor to cancer and is of special concern.

Rats fed GM Potatoes showed proliferative cell growth in the stomach and intestines

Calgene had submitted data on two lines of GM tomatoes, both using the same in-serted gene. They voluntarily elected to market only the variety that was not as-sociated with the lesions. This was not required by the FDA, which did not block approvals on the lesion associated variety. The FlavrSavr tomato has since been taken off the market. After the FlavrSavr, no other biotech company has submit-ted such detailed data to the FDA.

The state of the liver, a main detoxifier for the body,is another indicator of toxins

• Rats fed the GNA lectin potatoes described above had smaller and partially atrophied livers.

• Rats fed Monsanto’s Mon 863 corn, engineered to produce Bt-toxin, had liver lesions and other indications of toxicity.

• Rabbits fed GM soy showed altered enzyme production in their livers as well as higher metabolic activity.

• The livers of rats fed Roundup Ready canola were 12%–16% heavier, possibly due to liver disease or inflammation.

• Microscopic analysis of the livers of mice fed Roundup Ready soybeans revealed altered gene expression and structural and functional changes (see photos right). Many of these changes reversed after the mice diet was switched to non-GM soy, indicating that GM soy was the culprit. The findings, according to molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, PhD, “are not random and must reflect some ‘insult’ on the liver by the GM soy.” Antoniou, who does human gene therapy research in King’s College London, said that although the long-term consequences of the GM-soy diet are not known, it “could lead to liver damage and consequently general toxemia.”

• Rats fed Roundup Ready soybeans also showed structural changes

The liver cells from soy-fed mice showed anomalies

Liver cell Nuclei

Liver cell Nucleoli

The Livers of soy-fed rats showed unique changes

GM fed animals had higher death rates and organ damage In the FlavrSavr tomato study, a note in the appendix indicated that 7 of 40 rats died within two weeks and were replaced. In another study, chickens fed the herbicide tolerant “Liberty Link” corn died at twice the rate of those fed natural corn. But in these two industry-funded studies, the deaths were dismissed with-out adequate explanation or follow-up. In addition, the cells in the pancreas of mice fed Roundup Ready soy had profound changes and produced significantly less digestive enzymes; in rats fed a GM potato, the pancreas was enlarged. In various analyses of kidneys, GM-fed animals showed lesions, toxicity, altered en-zyme production or inflammation. Enzyme production in the hearts of mice was altered by GM soy. And GM potatoes caused slower growth in the brain of rats. A team of independent scientists re-analyzed the raw data in three Monsanto 90-day rat feeding studies and saw signs of toxicity in the liver and kidneys, as well as effects in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen, and blood.

Reproductive failures and infant mortality The testicles of both mice and rats fed Roundup Ready soybeans showed dramat-ic changes. In rats, the organs were dark blue instead of pink. In mice, young sperm cells were altered. Embryos of GM soy-fed mice also showed temporary changes in their DNA function, compared to those whose parents were fed non-GM soy.

Control GM Soy

The testicles of rats fed Roundup Ready soybeans were dark blue instead of pink and the structure of the cells were significantly altered.

Control GM Soy-Fed

An Austrian government study showed that mice fed GM corn (Bt and Roundup Ready) had fewer babies and smaller babies. More dramatic results were discov-ered by a leading scientist at the Russian National Academy of sciences. Female rats were fed GM soy, starting two weeks before they were mated.

• Over a series of three experiments, 51.6 percent of the offspring from the GM-fed group died within the first three weeks, compared to 10 percent from the non-GM soy group, and 8.1 percent for non-soy controls.

• “High pup mortality was characteristic of every litter from mothers fed the GM soy flour.”

• The average size and weight of the GM-fed offspring was quite a bit smaller (see photo on next page).

• In a preliminary study, the GM-fed offspring were unable to conceive.

After the three feeding trials, the supplier of rat food used at the Russian labo-ratory began using GM soy in their formulation. Since all the rats housed at the facility were now eating GM soy, no non-GM fed controls were available for sub-sequent GM feeding trials; follow-up studies were canceled. After two months on the GM soy diet, however, the infant mortality rate of rats throughout the facil-ity had skyrocketed to 55.3 percent (99 of 179).

The 20 day-old smaller rat, born of a mother fed GM soy, is quite a bit smaller then the 19 day-old rat from the control group.

The FDAs FAKE Safety Assessments Toxic GM Foods Could Have Been Approved Submissions to the US Food and Drug Administraion (FDA) may be worse than in other countries, since the agency doesn’t actually require any data. Their policy says that biotech companies can determine if their own foods are safe. Anything submitted is voluntary and, according to former Environmental Pro-tection Agency scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman, PhD, “often lack[s] sufficient detail, such as necessary statistical analyses needed for an adequate safety eval-uation.”

Using Freedom of Information Requests, Dr. Gurian-Sherman analyzed more than a fourth of the data summaries (14 of 53) of GM crops reviewed by the FDA. He says, “The FDA consultation process does not allow the agency to re-quire submission of data, misses obvious errors in company-submitted data sum-maries, provides insufficient testing guidance, and does not require sufficiently detailed data to enable the FDA to assure that GM crops are safe to eat.” Similar-ly, a Friends of the Earth review of company and FDA documents concluded: “If industry chooses to submit faulty, unpublishable studies, it does so without consequence. If it should respond to an agency request with deficient data, it does so without reprimand or follow-up... If a company finds it disadvantageous to characterize its product, then its properties remain uncertain or unknown. If a corporation chooses to ignore scientifically sound testing standards then faulty tests are conducted instead, and the results are considered legitimate. In the area of genetically engineered food regulation, the ‘competent’ agencies rarely if ever (know how to) conduct independent research to verify or supplement in-dustry findings.”

At the end of the consultation, the FDA doesn’t actually approve the crops. Rath-er, they issue a letter that includes a statement such as the following:

“Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that corn products derived from this new variety are not materially different in composition, safety, and other relevant parameters from corn currently on the market, and that the genetically modified corn does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA... As you are aware, it is Monsanto’s responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are safe, wholesome and in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements.”

Two GM foods whose commercialization was stopped because of negative test results give a chilling example of what may be getting through. Rats fed GM po-tatoes had potentially precancerous cell growth in the stomach and intestines, less developed brains, livers, and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, and dam-aged immune systems. GM peas provoked an inflammatory response in mice, suggesting that the peas might trigger a deadly anaphylactic shock in allergic humans. Both of these dangerous crops, however, could easily have been ap-proved. The problems were only discovered because the researchers used ad-vanced tests that were never applied to GM crops already on the market. Both would have passed the normal tests that companies typically use to get their products approved. Ironically, when Monsanto was asked to comment on the pea study, their spokesperson said it demonstrated that the regulatory system works. He failed to disclose that none of his company’s GM crops had been put through such rigorous tests.

Since GM foods are not properly tested be-fore they enter the market, consumers are the guinea pigs. But this doesn’t even qualify as an experiment. There are no controls and no monitoring. Given the mounting evidence of serious harm, it is likely that GM foods are contributing to the deterioration of health in the United States, Canada, and other coun-tries where it is consumed. But without post- marketing surveillance, the chances of trac-ing health problems to GM food are low. The incidence of a disease would have to in-crease dramatically before it was noticed, meaning that millions may have to get sick before it is investigated. Tracking the impact of GM foods is even more difficult in North America, where the foods are not labeled. Regulators at Health Canada announced in 2002 that they would monitor Canadians for health problems from eating GM foods. A spokesperson said, “I think it’s just prudent and what the public expects, that we will keep a careful eye on the health of Canadi-ans.” But according to CBC TV news, Health Canada “abandoned that research less than a year later saying it was ‘too difficult to put an effective surveillance system in place.’” The news anchor added, “So at this point, there is little research into the health effects of genetically modified food. So will we ever know for sure if it’s safe?”

Will we ever know?

The very same people that make the drugs to treat your illnessesmake the chemicals that permeate the environment that make you sick

By convincing us that disease is related ONLY to lifestyle, i.e. Diet and Exercise these companies have divested themselves of responsibility for the horrors they cause.

It’s the Chemicals In The Environment...

Even Worse...

If you’re eating ANY products with corn or soy additives you are eating genetically modified organisms and risk the health effects, or ill-health effects described in this eMagazine.

Baking Powder has corn starch added to it.

Dextrin and Maltodextrin found in sauces, dressings and ice cream have corn starch in them.

Mono- and Di-glycerides are often made with corn products.

Vegetable ANYTHING because vegetable oil, vegetable broth, vegetable protein, vegetable shortening, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, and veg-etable mono- and di-glycerides are all made with corn products added.

Xanthan Gum found in salad dressings, mayonnaise, Fast Food milk-shakes, ice cream and cream cheese has corn products added to it.

CORN products are in EVERYTHING and most are made from GM corn.

If you aren’t eating a 100% organic dietyou’re eating poisons

The above photograph shows a baby with sores caused by agrochemicals spraying in a GM soy-producing region of Paraguay. ( source: GM WATCH )

We pay them to make us sickAnd we pay them to treat us for illness

This is the Racket

We’re Consumers, not humans.

WelcomeTo

The Matrix