Soy Controversy and The Effects of Soy Consumption

Soy Controversy and The Effects of Soy Consumption: "The perception that soy is a 'health food' is a very common one. This is highly unfortunate, for a number of reasons which I'll discuss here.

How Soy Became Known as a "Health Food"

But first, let's review a bit of the history behind soy that created this misperception in the public's mind.

Years ago, tropical oils, such as palm and coconut oil, were commonly used in American food production. However, these are obviously not grown in the US. With the exception of Hawaii, our climate isn't tropical enough.

Spurred on by financial incentives, the industry devised a plan to shift the market from tropical oils to something more "home grown." As a result, a movement was created to demonize and vilify tropical oils in order to replace them with domestically grown oils such as corn and, primarily, soy.

For the most part, they've been very successful in their campaign to paint soy in a healthy light. So, the information I have to share with you may disappoint and challenge many of you, especially vegetarians, because vegetarians and vegans use soy as one of their primary sources of protein.

But I'm here to tell you that after studying this issue very carefully, I'm convinced that unless the soy you're consuming is fermented, you're putting your health at risk.

Fermented Soy is the Only Type of Soy with Health Benefits

There's only one type of soy that can be construed as a health food, and that is fermented soy.

Examples of health-promoting fermented soy foods include:

• Natto
• Miso
• Tempeh

Natto is actually a phenomenal food. It's a fermented soy product that can be a bit challenging to locate, but you can usually find it in Asian food stores. It's very high in vitamin K2, which is a phenomenal vitamin, much like vitamin D.

Together, vitamin K2 and vitamin D provide a large number of significant health benefits, such as improving bone density and reducing your risk of heart disease and cancer, just to name a few.

Natto has probably the highest concentration of vitamin K2 out of any food.

Miso and tempeh do not contain vitamin K2 but they are also fermented forms of soy that are excellent sources of health-promoting natural probiotics.

The fermentation process is what makes the soy a healthy addition to your diet, as it breaks down the goitrogens, isoflavones and other harmful elements in the soy.

It's important to realize that tofu is NOT a fermented soy product, and should not be consumed if you want to avoid the health problems associated with non-fermented soy.

It is also important to understand that while fermented soy is healthier for you, it is not wise to consume it in large quantities because it is still loaded with phytoestrogens, like isoflavones, which can cause detrimental feminizing effects.

What's So Bad About Unfermented Soy?

One of the primary reasons for avoiding soy products is because the vast majority of soy grown in the US is genetically modified (GM) soy. The GM variety planted in 91 percent of US soy acres is Roundup Ready—engineered to survive being doused with otherwise lethal amounts of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

Monsanto produces both the Roundup Ready soy seeds and the herbicide Roundup.

The logic -- if you can call it that after all factors are considered -- behind GM crops such as soy is that you can decrease the cost of production by killing off everything except the actual soy plant.

Unfortunately, consumers pay a hefty price in terms of health instead.

Are You Willing to Risk Eradicating Your Future Family Lineage?

Some of the more recent research shows that many of the health problems do not even occur in those who consume these GM foods. Some of the most devastating harm may occur in the second and third generations!

I recently interviewed GMO expert Jeffrey Smith about the latest findings by Russian scientists, who discovered that GM soy effectively sterilized the third generation of hamsters...

One group of hamsters was fed a normal diet without any soy whatsoever, a second group was fed non-GMO soy, a third ate GM soy, and a fourth group ate an even higher amount of GM soy than the third.

Using the same GM soy produced in the US, the hamsters and their offspring were fed their respective diets over a period of two years, during which time the researchers evaluated three generations of hamsters.

Shockingly, the second-generation of GM soy-fed hamsters had a five-fold higher infant mortality rate, compared to the 5 percent normal death rate that was happening in the controls.

Worse yet, nearly all of the third generation hamsters were sterile! Only one single third-generation female hamster gave birth to 16 pups, and of those, one fifth died.

Another bizarre side effect found in the GM soy-fed groups was an unusually high prevalence of an otherwise extremely rare phenomenon – hair growing inside the animals' mouths. (You can see the images here.)

These are just a couple of concerns. There are certainly many others, and I've written extensively about the health hazards of GM foods. If you're new to this topic and want more information, my article Everything you MUST KNOW About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods is a good place to start.

You can also find lots of additional information about GMOs on the site www.ResponsibleTechnology.org, created by Jeffrey Smith. We're working with Jeffrey, who is one of the leaders of the movement to restrict the use of GM foods in the United States, as they have done in Europe, primarily through consumer awareness and action to motivate industry changes, because there is NO government regulation against it.

Your involvement is vital in this respect. And avoiding soy products, including soy derivatives found in most processed foods, is part of it.

But soy is not the only GM food to beware of.

The easiest way to avoid ending up with any type of GM food in your shopping cart is to do some pre-planning using this free non-GMO shopping guide. There's also a free iPhone application available in the iTunes store, which you can find by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

ResponsibleTechnology.org also offers additional guides you can hand out to friends, health care practitioners, and decision makers within your community, along with free online videos, podcasts, and articles that you can repost and republish.

Why All Organic Soy is NOT the Answer Either

All of that said, even if you were fortunate enough to find organic soy, there are still several other significant concerns with unfermented soy that make it far from attractive from a health standpoint.

Soy contains a number of problematic components that can wreak havoc with your health, such as:

• Goitrogens – Goitrogens, found in all unfermented soy whether it's organic or not, are substances that block the synthesis of thyroid hormones and interfere with iodine metabolism, thereby interfering with your thyroid function.
  
  

  One common source of soy is soy milk. Many consume it as an alternative to milk or one of their primary beverages. Soy milk is a significant contributor to thyroid dysfunction or hypothyroidism in women in the US.

  So if you're a woman struggling with low thyroid function and you're consuming soy milk, that's a giant clue you need to stop drinking it immediately.

• Isoflavones: genistein and daidzein – Isoflavones are a type of phytoestrogen, which is a plant compound resembling human estrogen, which is why some recommend using soy therapeutically to treat symptoms of menopause. I believe the evidence is highly controversial and doubt it works.
  
  

  Typically, most of us are exposed to too much estrogen compounds and have a lower testosterone level than ideal, so it really is important to limit exposure to feminizing phytoestrogens.

  Even more importantly, there's evidence it may disturb endocrine function, cause infertility, and promote breast cancer, which is definitely a significant concern.

  Drinking two glasses of soy milk daily for just one month provides enough of these compounds to alter your menstrual cycle. Although the FDA regulates estrogen-containing products, no warnings exist on soy.

• Phytic acid -- Phytates (phytic acid) bind to metal ions, preventing the absorption of certain minerals, including calcium, magnesium, iron, and zinc -- all of which are co-factors for optimal biochemistry in your body. This is particularly problematic for vegetarians, because eating meat reduces the mineral-blocking effects of these phytates.
  
  

  Sometimes it can be beneficial, especially in postmenopausal women and in most adult men because we tend to have levels of iron that are too high which can be a very potent oxidant and cause biological stress.However, phytic acid does not necessarily selectively inhibit just iron absorption; it inhibits all minerals. This is very important to remember, as many already suffer from mineral deficiencies from inadequate diets.

  The soybean has one of the highest phytate levels of any grain or legume, and the phytates in soy are highly resistant to normal phytate-reducing techniques such as long, slow cooking. Only a long period of fermentation will significantly reduce the phytate content of soybeans.

• Natural toxins known as "anti-nutrients" -- Soy also contains other anti-nutritional factors such as saponins, soyatoxin, protease inhibitors, and oxalates. Some of these factors interfere with the enzymes you need to digest protein. While a small amount of anti-nutrients would not likely cause a problem, the amount of soy that many Americans are now eating is extremely high.
• Hemagglutinin -- Hemagglutinin is a clot-promoting substance that causes your red blood cells to clump together. These clumped cells are unable to properly absorb and distribute oxygen to your tissues.

Soy to Avoid

As I mentioned, tofu is not fermented soy so it should be avoided.

Other examples of common soy products to avoid include soy protein and isolated soy protein powder, which you'll find in many protein bars and protein drinks.

Isolated soy protein powder is actually not a naturally produced substance. Production takes place in industrial factories where a slurry of soy beans is first mixed with an alkaline solution to remove fiber, then precipitated and separated using an acid wash and, finally, neutralized in an alkaline solution.

Acid washing in aluminum tanks leaches high levels of aluminum into the final product.

The resultant curds are spray- dried at high temperatures to produce a high-protein powder. MSG, a well-known excitotoxin that can cause neurological damage, is frequently added as well.

Another common form of soy you're likely exposed to is soy oil, which brings us back to where we started.

Ninety-five percent of the foods Americans spend their money on are processed foods, many of which contain soy oil.

Soy oil is extremely high in omega-6, which is highly susceptible to oxidative damage. And although you do need omega-6, soy oil is a terrible source as it is highly processed and refined, which severely damages it.

Consuming a diet high in processed foods, which by default is high in soy oil, is a primary contributor to the severe imbalance most people have in their omega-3 to omega-6 ratio, which in turn contributes to creating disease.

Other harmful soy products I've not already mentioned include:

• Soy cheese
• Soy ice cream
• Soy yogurt
• Soy "meat" (meatless products made of TVP)
• Soy lecithin

Infant Soy Formula – Perhaps the Most Dangerous Soy Products of All

But perhaps one of the most harmful types of soy products that you need to be extremely cautious of is soy infant formula.

I strongly recommend every single mother to breastfeed for a minimum of six months, preferably longer. There is absolutely no question that breastfeeding is the most healthful option for both you and your baby. Conventional physicians and the American Academy of Pediatrics also recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life.

Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, many women choose not to breastfeed their child, leaving them with few alternatives.

Most opt for conventional formula, which has its own health risks, courtesy of inadequate nutrition (there are at least 400 nutrients in breast milk that are not found in formula), combined with excessive fructose and toxic contaminants.

But many children are allergic to conventional formula, and these parents can easily be convinced that soy formula is the solution.

Sadly, soy formula is FAR worse than conventional formula, in large part due to its excessive levels of phytoestrogens. The estrogens in soy can irreversibly harm your baby's sexual development and reproductive health. Infants fed soy formula receive a level of estrogen equivalent to five birth control pills every day!

Infants fed soy formula have up to 20,000 times the amount of estrogen in circulation as those fed conventional formulas!

In addition, soy formula has up to 80 times higher manganese than is found in human breast milk, which can lead to brain damage in infants, and altered behaviors in adolescence.

So please, do not ever feed your baby soy formula, and warn others who are pregnant or who you know are considering using formula over breastfeeding.

The next best alternative to breast milk is to make a healthy homemade infant formula. There may be others, but here is one recipe for homemade formula created by the Weston Price Foundation, which I believe is sound.

Educate Yourself about the Health Effects of Soy

I encourage you to continue reviewing the evidence against soy if you're still skeptical.

There are also some great books on this topic that document this information in clear detail and provide countless references that you can validate for yourself. One of these books, which I recommend very highly, is The Whole Soy Story by Dr. Kaayla Daniel.

There's a lot of information out there, and I understand the challenge of trying to explore these health issues. Many times motivations must be taken into account in order to sift through the information and get to the heart of the matter.

In the case of soy, as I mentioned, a primary motivation appears to have been promoting the sale of domestic soy in the US, as this increases profits, as opposed to benefitting your health…

The purpose of this site is to gather this varied information, present it to you, and offer you the starting point to do your own independent research. Because once you have the information, you have the power to take control of your own health.

Related Links:

The Truth About Soy: What the Latest Research Says

Why This Type of Soy is Better

Why Soy Is NOT the Health Food You Think it Is

GM Foods - More Dangerous for Children than Adults

GM Foods - More Dangerous for Children than Adults:
Posted By Dr. Mercola | October 07 2010 | 4,370 views
Excerpted from Jeffrey M. Smith’s Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods

“Swapping genes between organisms can produce unknown toxic effects and allergies that are most likely to affect children.”

--Vyvyan Howard, expert in infant toxico-pathology at Liverpool University Hospital, United Kingdom

Changes in nutrition have a greater impact on the structure and functioning of young, fast-growing bodies. More of the food is converted to build organs and tissues, whereas adults convert more to energy and store this as fat.

The UK Royal Society said that genetic modification “could lead to unpredicted harmful changes in the nutritional state of foods” and recommended that potential health effects of GM foods be rigorously researched before being fed to pregnant or breast-feeding women and babies.”

Epidemiologist Eric Brunner said that “small changes to the nutritional content might have effects on infant bowel function.”

Children are More Susceptible to Problems

Children are three to four times more prone to allergies than adults and “are at highest risk of death from food allergy.”

Infants below 2 years old have the highest incidence of reactions, especially to new allergens encountered in the diet. Even tiny amounts of allergens can sometimes cause reactions. One reason for this sensitivity, according to the EPA, is that:

“An immature gut or permeable mucosal epithelium is more likely to allow a higher degree of macromolecular transport and access to the immune system than the intact barrier of a normal mature gut ... The immune system must also be of sufficient maturity ... Both systems appear to be functioning optimally by age three to five.”

According to the Royal Society of Canada, “The potentially widespread use of GM food products as food additives and staple foods, including use in baby foods, may lead to earlier introduction of these novel proteins to susceptible infants either directly or via the presence of the maternally ingested proteins in breast milk.

The UK Royal Society suggested that “post-marketing surveillance should be part of the overall safety strategy for allergies, especially of high-risk groups such as infants,” but acknowledged that it is not clear “whether such monitoring is feasible for GM food.”

Children can react to much smaller doses of toxins than adults. Exposure to hormones or endocrine disruptors may also severely affect normal development. And children who are prone to infections may be severely impacted if antibiotics lose their effectiveness due to antibiotic-resistant genes in GM food and the overuse of antibiotics in rbGH-treated cows.

Children Have a High Exposure to GMOs

Children consume a large amount of products that may be genetically engineered. They eat a higher percentage of corn in their diet compared to adults, and allergic children often rely on corn as a source of protein.

Mothers using cornstarch as a talc substitute on their children’s skin might also expose them via inhalation. Infants are sometimes reared on soy infant formula. The Royal Society wrote:

“Infant formulas, in particular, are “consumed as a single food over extended periods of time by those who are especially vulnerable” and “should be investigated most rigorously.”

Among the potential side effects are changes in soy’s natural estrogen mimickers, which may influence sexual development.

Children consume a disproportionately large amount of milk. In the United States and elsewhere, dairy products may come from cows treated with the genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH).

The milk contains increased amounts of hormones and antibiotics and an altered nutritional content. According to a discussion paper on the public health implications of rbGH, published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, an “infant would be exposed to a dose of IGF-1, which was 12.5 times the recommended minimum.”

Samuel Epstein, chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and an expert on the health effects of rbGH, says that risks of high exposure to IGF-1 are “of particular concern ... to infants and children in view of their high susceptibility to cancer-causing products and chemicals.” He also suggests that regular exposure might promote “premature growth stimulation in infants, gynecomastia [development of abnormally large breasts on males] in young children.”

Safety Assessments Ignore Children

An FAO/WHO task force on GM food said that “Attention should be paid to the particular physiological characteristics and metabolic requirements of specific population subgroups, such as infants [and] children.”

In practice, GM safety assessments ignore them.

In fact, industry-funded studies often use mature animals instead of the more sensitive young ones, in order to mask results. Biologist David Schubert warns:

“Since children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems, if the GM food is given to them without proper testing, they will be the experimental animals. If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.”

To learn more about the health dangers of GMOs, and what you can do to help end the genetic engineering of our food supply, visit www.ResponsibleTechnology.org.

To learn how to choose healthier non-GMO brands, visit www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.

About the Author

International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey Smith is the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified (GM) foods.

His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on the topic. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, provides overwhelming evidence that GMOs are unsafe and should never have been introduced.

Mr. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, whose Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to create the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs, forcing them out of our food supply.

October is Non-GMO Month, and together we CAN get GMOs banned from the US. Europe was able to do it over a decade ago without any government assistance. All they did was educate the consumers and that was enough pressure on the food industry to drop their ploys.

If we band together as an effective army we will be able to do this. Please understand that the VAST majority of people in the US do not want them so this is an EASY battle to win. All we have to do is a bit of organizational work.

So let me tell you how we are going to achieve the removal of GMOs in the US.

Together, we can make a difference. Together, we can reach the tipping point and push GMOs out of our food supply.

Together, we can protect the health of future generations and help accelerate the progress toward more sustainable agriculture.

The Tipping Point is Near -- The Time to Join is NOW!

How many Americans do we need to convince to avoid eating genetically modified foods to achieve the same victory in the US?

We believe it’s only about FIVE PERCENT of US shoppers!

So, changing the shopping habits of about 5.6 million households may be sufficient to eliminate GMOs in the US.

That is our goal!

We already have these numbers on our side. About 28 million Americans buy organic on a regular basis. Eighty-seven million Americans think GMOs are seriously unsafe. A hundred and fifty-nine million Americans, the majority, say they would avoid GMOs if labeled!

Unfortunately, no labeling is required, making your commitment to avoid GM foods all that more complicated. But that’s where we come in.

How You Can Help Others to Avoid GMO Foods

Most people want to avoid GMO foods but it is virtually impossible to do so since the government prevents GMO labeling.

However, Jeffery Smith has compiled a resource for you to avoid the government block of information. It is the free Non-GMO Shopping Guide. We realize that with the challenging economy it is very difficult for many to donate money to help this cause, so we are merely asking for your time and connections with your family and friends.

You can really help is by making this message go viral. So if you are convinced that GMO foods should not be in the US please send this information to everyone you know; post it on Facebook and Twitter…

You can also print out Non-GMO Shopping Guide, and give it to your friends and family. If you feel more ambitious print a few hundred or even thousand and bring it to the grocery stores in your area, talk to the owner or manager and get permission to post them in their store.

Who Will You Share this Information With?

You can help nurture this consumer mind-set by bringing information to your local natural food store owner, so that she can share it will all of her customers as well. IRT has created a complete Retailer Campaign Kit for this purpose.

You can also share information with your child’s school, your health care providers, and food manufacturers. The IRT has created information kits for all of them, available here:

• Health care provider kit
• Parents and Schools educational material
• Manufacturers information kit

Please remember to share this with your friends and family, but do so lovingly. You don’t want to make yourself a pest and risk your relationship with them. This is a MUCH easier sell then getting them to stop smoking or eat less sugar since most everyone doesn’t want GMOs anyway and it doesn’t involve giving anything up.

You may also want to share this information with your church or religious leaders. As Jeffrey says,

“There are certain religious groups that think the genetic engineering process itself violates God’s laws. So ‘GMO’ for them really means, ‘God Move Over’ and not ‘Genetically Modified Organism.’”

Must-See Movies to Share!

The IRT has created a film called Hidden Dangers in Kid's Meals, which is a powerful way for parents to get an initiation into the health dangers. It’s only 28 minutes long, which is ideal for local access TV.

You can simply bring the film to your local access TV station, and sometimes they’ll play it 10, 20, or even 30 times because they’re always looking for material and are open to support from the community.

There’s also a video called Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!, which exposes the dangers of GM bovine growth hormones. Any parent still feeding their child milk from cows injected with rBGH needs to see this film! They’ll never make the same mistake again…

Another powerful video you can share with your friends and family is Jeffrey’s Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods lecture.

Your Action Plan

I’ve already mentioned a number of different ways for you to get actively involved during Non-GMO Month. To recap, and add a few more suggestions, here is a list of Action Item for you to pick and choose from:

1. Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content.
2. Download the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure and keep it with you whenever you shop, or download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
   
   

   You can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure in bulk and give it to your family and friends.

3. Urge food manufacturers to join the Non-GMO Project and become Non-GMO Project Verified. This is currently the only way for manufacturers to get around the fact that there’s no GM-labeling system.
4. Urge your local food retailers to join the Non-GMO Project's Supporting Retailer Program.
5. If your budget allows support this urgent mission by generously donating to the Institute of Responsible Technology.
6. Bring the film Hidden Dangers in Kid's Meals to your local access TV station, or perhaps your child’s school, along with some educational material specifically designed for teachers and educators.
7. Share Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!, and Jeffrey’s lecture, Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods with everyone you know. Post them to your Facebook page, or email the links to your network of friends and family.
8. Join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.

Together, We Control the Future of Our Food

Please join us in this important campaign. Do as much or as little as you can. Maybe you can’t make a donation to IRT, but you can distribute 20 Non-GMO shopping guides to your closest family and friends.

Together, we can make a difference. Together, we can reach the tipping point and push GMOs out of our food supply.

Together, we can protect the health of future generations and help accelerate the progress toward more sustainable agriculture in the United States.

Let’s do it!

Related Links:

Warning: This Common Food Causes Devastating Offspring Defects in New Research Study

Engineered Poison Lurking in Your Everyday Food?

10 Reasons to Avoid Genetically Modified Foods

How Corporations Own the US Congress « Speak Truth 2 Power

How Corporations Own the US Congress

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21052

by Shamus Cooke

With the November elections quickly approaching, the majority of Americans will be thinking one thing: “Who cares?” This apathy isn’t due to ignorance, as some accuse. Rather, working people’s disinterest in the two party system implies intelligence: millions of people understand that both the Democrats and Republicans will not represent their interests in Congress.

This begs the question: Whom does the two party system work for? The answer was recently given by the mainstream The New York Times, who gave the nation an insiders peek on how corporations “lobby” (buy) congressmen. The article explains how giant corporations — from Wall-mart to weapons manufacturers — are planning on shifting their hiring practices for lobbyists, from Democratic to Republican ex-congressmen in preparation for the Republicans gaining seats in the upcoming November elections:

“Lobbyists, political consultants and recruiters all say that the going rate for Republicans — particularly current and former House staff members — has risen significantly in just the last few weeks, with salaries beginning at $300,000 and going as high as $1million for private sector [corporate lobbyist] positions.” (September 9, 2010)

Congressmen who have recently retired make the perfect lobbyists: they still have good friends in Congress, with many of these friends owing them political favors; they have connections to foreign Presidents and Kings; and they also have celebrity status that gives good PR to the corporations.

Often, these congressmen have done favors for the corporation that is now hiring them, meaning, that the corporations are rewarding the congressmen for services rendered while in office, offering them million dollar lobbyist jobs (or seats on the corporate board of directors) that requires little to no work.

The same New York Times article revealed that the pay for 13,000 lobbyists [!] currently bribing Congress is a combined $3.5 billion. It was also explained how some lobbying firms keep an equal amount of Democrats and Republicans on hand, so they can be prepared for any eventuality in the elections.

This phenomenon is more than a little un-democratic: when millions of people vote for a candidate, the outcomes are quickly manipulated and controlled before the election even happens.

Interestingly, the corporate-directed Wall Street Journal wrote a similar article in 2008, as the Democrats had begun to dominate politics in Washington:

“Washington’s $3 billion lobbying industry has begun shedding Republican staffers [politicians], snapping up Democratic operatives [politicians] and entire firms, a shift that started even before Tuesday’s ballots were counted and Democrat Barack Obama captured the presidency.” (November 5, 2008)

This article was appropriately titled “Lobbyists Put Democrats Out Front as Winds Shift.”

The corporate money flows from party to party, so that the same goals are achieved: higher profits for corporations. The sums thrown at these politicians are mind boggling: the Associated Press reported that the corporate-orientated Chamber of Commerce spent “… nearly $190 million since Barack Obama became president in January 2009.” (August 21, 2010)

These numbers explain the “deeper” differences between Democrats and Republicans — money. Each party is a machine that vies for power because this power carries with it vast sums of corporate money. The longer a party is in office and the more connections it makes, the more its net worth to corporations, the more that these rewards can be spread to the different layers of the party. There is indeed a real-life, nasty fight between the Republican and Democratic Parties to dominate this corporate money.

One “interest group” that ex-Congressmen don’t work for is labor unions. Unions spend millions of dollars to help get Democrats elected, and millions more is spent trying to get their ear while they’re in office.

But unions cannot out-spend the banks; and they can’t offer millionaire retirement packages to retired Senators. The corporate retirement plans of Congressmen prove where their minds are while in office, and whose interests are being looked after.

Unions cannot continue to pretend that the Democrats are their “friends.” Labor has very little to show for this dysfunctional, decades-long friendship: union membership continues to shrivel as do jobs, wages and benefits for workers – a losing strategy if ever there was one.

A “lesser of two evils” approach to politics equals evil politicians for labor, no matter who wins. In fact, the lesser-evil Democrats have become increasingly evil over the years, to the point where the party as a whole is more Conservative than the Nixon-era Republicans.

The point has been reached where — in various states — Democratic governors are being endorsed by unions after promising to attack the wages and benefits of public workers!

To get out of this vicious, dead-end cycle, unions could unite their strength to form coalitions that promote independent labor candidates: 100 percent funded by labor to govern 100 percent in the interest of working people. All other roads lead back to the corporate lobbyists.

Dr. Mercola and Alkaline Water: Natural Health Information

Dr. Mercola and Alkaline Water: Natural Health Information:
Natural Health Newsletter

Date: 10/04/2010 Posted By: Jon Barron

Subscribe to Newsletter ShareThis

Dr. Mercola and Alkaline Water

On September 11th, Dr. Joseph Mercola published an article on alkaline water titled: If You Fall for This "Water Fad" - You Could Do Some Major Damage. Amazingly, Dr. Mercola's newsletter generated hundreds of emails to the Baseline of Health Foundation virtually overnight -- all from people who were confused by his newsletter and were looking for clarity.

Let me begin by stating unequivocally that I am a fan of Dr. Mercola and frequently recommend his newsletter. Also, I normally don't "take on" the other alternative health newsletters since we're all fighting the same fight...although on occasion from a slightly different vantage point. But this particular article deviates sharply from my point of view on several key points. And since the topic it addresses is so fundamental and so important to health and has already generated hundreds of queries, I need to address it.

Effectively, Dr Mercola's position on alkaline water and water ionizers can be summed up in the following statement from his newsletter, "It is my impression that the scientific justification for these water systems is absent and these consumers have merely fallen under the spell of a skilled marketer who selectively misused pseudoscientific information, and twisted it around to scare them into buying their product."

That's a very strong statement, and it certainly calls into question the motives and ethics of a number of "non marketers" who believe in the value of water ionizers and drinking alkaline water, people who do not collect any money for supporting their use. Is it fair to brand them all as pseudoscientific spell binders? I don't think so, and it's one of the key reasons I felt the need to write this newsletter. In fact, in some ways, Dr. Mercola's concerns are surprising, and his objections actually un-Dr-Mercola-ish. Also, it should be noted that in the end our recommendations concerning alkaline water don't differ that much at first glance. However, when it comes to the effect of pH on health, little differences matter hugely. With that in mind, let's take a look at Dr. Mercola's concerns about alkaline water one at a time to see how he arrived at his conclusion as stated above and to see how those concerns stand up.

Dr. Mercola explains the theory

According to Dr. Mercola, "the theory behind alkaline water [at least according to the marketers] is, in a nutshell, that alkaline (ionized) water is a powerful antioxidant with surplus electrons that can "mop up" the dangerous free radicals you have coursing through your veins. Marketers claim alkaline water can correct excess acidity in your tissues, which can then prevent or reverse cancer, arthritis, and other degenerative diseases."

As stated, Dr. Mercola's summary is mostly true, but does leave out a couple of "game changing" points. First, how alkaline is the water we're talking about? We'll return to that later, but for now, just keep in mind that too much of anything can be bad for you -- even healthy things. Drink too much water of any kind after intense exercise and you might suffer from "water intoxication," which in rare circumstances can actually be fatal. Too much vitamin D or A are toxic. Likewise, selenium, zinc, and iron are all essential at low levels but are highly toxic at high levels. Again, too much of anything can be bad for you. So what does this mean in regard to alkaline water? It means that while a certain amount of alkalinity in water may be beneficial, too much alkalinity can be toxic. The key, of course, is knowing what that point is and how long you can drink water at any given pH.

Second, Dr. Mercola talks about the "claims" of marketers. However, if you base objections around the claims of marketers, you can throw out virtually any health alternative. For example, Dr. Mercola sells açaí on his site. But a quick search on the net shows that marketers claim that the "benefits of Açaí are enormous. The antioxidant qualities mean that it fights cancer, slows down aging, and helps with cardiac functioning and blood circulation. This is helpful for those suffering from any kind of inflammation or arthritis." In addition to being illegal because they amount to medical claims, these claims sound a lot like the claims for alkaline water that so concern Dr. Mercola.

But just because marketers make outrageous claims for açaí, doesn't negate the actual benefits the berry extract provides, which is why Dr. Mercola sells it. And likewise, just because marketers make silly claims for alkaline water doesn't mean that it doesn't have real benefits, and therefore, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the alkaline bath water so to speak.

Dr. Mercola goes on to say, "In truth, there are very, very few legitimate scientific studies about the effects of alkaline water on human health."

But can't the same thing be said for the açaí extract that Dr. Mercola sells? In fact, there are almost no studies supporting the claims of açaí enthusiasts -- legitimate or otherwise. In fact, Dr. Mercola acknowledges as much when he says, "Preliminary studies from the University of Florida show açaí's promise as a food that can boost your health and slow the signs of aging -- and is being studied for its potential to reverse chronic health issues." Think about that for a moment. All that Dr. Mercola can offer in support of açaí is one single "preliminary" study. In his article on alkaline water, Dr. Mercola says, "Most of the circulating information is distributed by clever marketers, with very little scientific validity to back up their claims." In the end, the question we must ask is: why hold açaí and alkaline water to different standards -- other than the fact that Dr. Mercola sells one and not the other? (Incidentally, if you read or listen to Dr. Mercola's article on acai, you might want to check out my article on antioxidants afterwards, My Dog's Better than Your Dog.)

That said, there is "in truth" far more scientific evidence in support of alkaline water than Dr. Mercola indicates. Yes, most of it involves animal studies, but there are over two dozen of them, which beats açaí hands down. And even the Mayo clinic acknowledges the potential of alkaline water to slow bone loss. Here are just a handful.

1. Selective stimulation of the growth of anaerobic microflora in the human intestinal tract by electrolyzed reducing water
2. Acid-base balance and hydration status following consumption of mineral-based
   alkaline bottled water
3. Enhanced induction of mitochondrial damage and apoptosis in human leukemia HL-60 cells due to electrolyzed-reduced water and glutathione
4. Protective mechanism of reduced water against alloxan-induced pancreatic beta-cell damage: Scavenging effect against reactive oxygen species
5. Inhibitory effect of electrolyzed reduced water on tumor angiogenesis
6. Anti-diabetic effect of alkaline-reduced water on OLETF rats

Another objection to alkaline water that Dr. Mercola has is that "most water ionizers and alkalizers are being marketed by multi-level marketing (MLM) companies with less than stellar ethics" and through which you pay inflated prices.

And yes, some MLM companies are guilty of both things. But MLM companies also pioneer valid health concepts that the mainstream is not yet ready to accept, and because of that, they often take a number of arrows for the rest of us. As the old saying goes, "Pioneers are the ones with the arrows in their backs." For example, the Shaklee Corporation began marketing the first "natural" vitamin supplements in the early 1900's before the concept of vitamins of any kind was really understood. MLM companies also led the way on environmentally safe cleaners and the green super foods. Both spirulina and blue green algae were introduced en masse through MLM companies. Again, you don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

In his article, Dr. Mercola says, "The concept of the acidity or alkalinity of your body - or of water - is based on the pH scale. So it's necessary to have a basic understanding of what pH is… PH is simply a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions… the lower [a liquid's] pH, the more free hydrogen ions it has" and the more acid it is.

And that is absolutely correct, if you summarize the concept "simply." But in fact, there's another way of looking at pH that opens up one of the major benefits of alkaline water to our understanding. Hydrogen ions tie up oxygen. That means that the more acid a liquid is, the less available the oxygen in it.

Every cell in our body requires oxygen for life and to maintain optimum health. Combine that with what we know about hydrogen ions, and we see that the more acid the blood (the lower its pH), the less oxygen is available for use by the cells. Without going into a discussion of the chemistry involved, just understand that it's the same mechanism involved when acid rain "kills" a lake. The fish literally suffocate to death because the acid in the lake "binds up" all of the available oxygen. It's not that the oxygen has gone anywhere; it's just no longer available. Conversely, if you raise the pH of the lake (make it more alkaline), oxygen is now available and the lake comes back to life. Incidentally, it's worth noting that cancer is related to an acid environment (lack of oxygen) -- the higher the pH (the more oxygen present in the cells of the body), the harder it is for cancer to thrive.

Understanding this is important for two reasons: (1) it reveals one of the primary benefits of alkaline water -- more "available" oxygen in the system and (2) it explains why alkaline water helps fight cancer, which we'll talk more about later.

Dr. Mercola's recommendations

"So, what are the recommendations for optimal drinking water pH? The WHO has published a nearly-600 page document called ‘Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality.' In this voluminous tome, you would expect to find everything you'd ever want to know about your drinking water, right? Well, everything EXCEPT a pH recommendation - there are no health-based guidelines for pH! They state that pH usually has "no direct impact on consumers." …Most likely the optimal pH of the water you were designed to drink is somewhere between 6.5 and 7.5."

Is Dr. Mercola really basing his recommendation for water pH on the World Health Organization Guidelines? I did not realize that he was such a fan of the WHO. Based on his articles such as The FORBIDDEN Truth About WHO's 2009 ‘Pandemic' and Tamiflu: Kids Increasingly Immune to Its Effects and WHO Advisor Secretly Pads Pockets with Big Pharma Money, he seems to be consistently discounting the WHO as a reliable arbiter of health advice and, in fact, frequently counters their advice with recommendations of his own. For example, Dr. Mercola directly contradicts WHO's recommendation to get vaccinated for Swine flu. I have no problem with that. In fact, that was good advice and matched my recommendation on Swine flu vaccinations. So why now is the WHO such a reliable authority when it comes to drinking alkaline water? What makes them such a reliable authority on this issue -- other than that they agree with Dr. Mercola?

Dr. Mercola spends a section of his report talking about the optimal pH for plants and fish and how that might relate to humans. "Although the research is clear that alkaline water has detrimental effects on plants and animals, there are not many studies with humans…An ecological study in the Netherlands found that an influx of alkaline water led to the demise of a native plant called Stratiotes aloides L… If you are a gardener, you can view a helpful illustration of the environmental effects of pH in your own garden. If your pH is low, your hydrangea produces pink flowers, but if your pH is high, you'll get blue flowers."

In these statements, Dr. Mercola implies that all life does better in a slightly acidic environment, but this is far from the truth. First of all, for that to be true, you would have to ignore all of the studies I cited earlier that demonstrate the benefits of alkaline water for animals. And then, of course, you have to ignore the ocean, the mother of all life, which has an average pH of about 8.1. Unfortunately, one of the problems associated with increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is that it is combining with the ocean water to form carbonic acid, which is steadily lowering the pH of the world's oceans, with potentially catastrophic effects to a wide variety of ocean life (e.g., coral reefs and shellfish). The bottom line is that if you're going to look to nature to make a point about optimal pH, then you have to look at all nature to get a balanced picture.

And when you're talking about human pH, the one number that stands out over all others, because it is so critical -- a change of a couple of tenths of a point in either direction could be fatal -- is blood. The ideal pH for blood sits at about 7.4, slightly alkaline -- not acidic.

"There has been a great deal of debate about battling cancer by making your body alkaline. This has become a focus of interest as cancer rates have skyrocketed (along with many other chronic, debilitating diseases), while our bodies have become more acidic from our processed-food diets. The scientific research about the benefits of alkalinity is by no means conclusive…There are some scientific studies that really argue against alkalinity, at least with respect to preventing or treating cancer.

"Consider the research by Robert Gilles, who has studied tumor formation and acidity. According to Gilles, tumors, by their very nature, make themselves acidic - even in an alkaline cellular structure. In other words, they make their own acidity.

"Scientists who are in the process of developing prototypes for potential new anticancer agents that selectively kill tumor cells by interfering with the regulation of intracellular pH, have found that alkaline treatments do NOT have the desired effect - but strongly acidic treatments do.

"Talk about fighting fire with fire - they are fighting acid-loving cancer cells with acid!

"LESS alkalinity inside a cancer cell seems to be what you want, not more.

"So, all of those ionizer salesmen promising alkaline water will lower your cancer risk are completely clueless when it comes to what the scientific research actually shows."

Well, the above section from Dr. Mercola's article is certainly shocking, and speaks strongly against the use of alkaline water when it comes to cancer -- or not. First of all, Dr. Gilles, cited by Dr. Mercola, actually comes to a quite different conclusion than Dr. Mercola seems to imply. To quote from the same study Dr. Mercola cites:

"Because the intracellular pH of cells in tumors remains neutral-to-alkaline, acidity of the interstitial space will increase resistance to many chemotherapies, based on a reduced partitioning of weakly basic chemotherapeutic drugs into the relatively alkaline cells…A large acid-outside pH gradient can exert a protective effect upon the [cancer] cell from weak-base drugs such as anthracyclines and vinca alkaloids, which have pKa values of 7.5 to 9.5. Recently, it has been shown that reversal of the tumor pH gradient with bicarbonate can improve the therapeutic efficacy of doxorubicin (pKa =7.6), which is one of the most widely prescribed antineoplastic agents used in the treatment of breast cancer."

In other words, Dr. Gilles is saying the introduction of alkalinity into a cancerous environment is beneficial, not harmful. And in fact, the use of alkaline pH to fight cancer has a long history:

• Dr. James Howenstine, MD
• The high pH therapy for cancer tests on mice and humans

To be fair, Dr. Mercola mentioned the existence of such studies supporting the use of alkalinizing treatments for cancer, but dismisses them as inconclusive and deems them unworthy of even referencing. On the other hand, once you remove the Gilles study from Dr. Mercola's arguments, since it actually contradicts his conclusions, you're left with one single study cited by Dr. Mercola on which to base the astonishing conclusion: "LESS alkalinity inside a cancer cell seems to be what you want, not more." Someday, that statement may indeed turn out to be true, but not today -- not even close.

Dr. Mercola then makes an even more astonishing reference to support his argument that acidity is good for fighting cancer and alkalinity is bad. He states, "Even more interesting is a 2005 study by the National Cancer Institute, which revisits the use of vitamin C (ascorbic acid) to treat cancer. They found that, in pharmacologic doses administered intravenously, ascorbic acid successfully killed cancer cells without harming normal cells. This is yet another example of cancer cells being vulnerable to acidity, as opposed to alkalinity."

To put it simply, the above statement does not make logical sense.. If we were to take Dr. Mercola's argument at face value, that the natural health benefits of ascorbic acid are merely the result of its acidity, not its unique molecular structure, then Linus Pauling would be all wrong, as would virtually everyone in the alternative health field. We could theoretically pop any acid pills such HCL digestive pills and receive all the same anticancer benefits of vitamin C. In fact, taken to its "illogical" conclusion, we might determine that acid reflux disease prevents cancer since it dumps more acid into the system, and that, of course, is nonsense. But even beyond that, it also should be noted that implying that ascorbic acid increases the body's acidity level flies in the face everything published concerning the connection of diet to body pH. As anyone who studies the pH issues associated with diet knows, ascorbic-acid, citrus-based fruits are known to actually alkalinize the body, not acidify it -- which totally turns Dr. Mercola's argument on this particular point upside down.

Dr. Mercola then concludes this section on alkalinity and cancer by stating, "The bottom line is that alkaline water isn't cancer's magic bullet."

That may or may not be true, but nothing presented by Dr. Mercola so far comes close to proving the point. In fact, once you strip away the failed arguments and references, all you are left with is a personal opinion expressed by Dr. Mercola, with no facts or studies that actually support it.

Balance is Key

Dr. Mercola then says, "As is true with many things, in the end it's a matter of balance. Water that is too acidic or too alkaline can be detrimental to human health and lead to nutritional disequilibrium. This was demonstrated in a Swedish well water study, which found both pH extremes to be problematic. Your body simply was not designed to drink highly alkaline water all the time. So I believe it's best to be VERY careful when it comes to something as foundational as the water you drink on a daily basis. If you get it wrong, you could really cause yourself some major damage."

On this point, we are in total agreement. When it comes to health, extremes are bad. Or to paraphrase Paramahansa Yogananda, "Too much of a good thing is bad. No matter how healthy a thing is, if you overindulge in it, disease will result instead of health."

"It makes sense that you are designed to drink water that occurs naturally, which excludes alkaline water with pH levels of 8 and above."

I don't disagree with the essence of Dr. Mercola's thought here -- with one big caveat. If you're eating well and living cleanly, then yes, you want to drink water with a naturally occurring pH only slightly above neutral. However, if you are eating the typical Western diet, high in meat, grains, sodas, and sugars that acidify the body, then you have a different problem. Your pH balance is now so far out of normal that you must go beyond normal in the other direction to counter it. My recommendation for daily drinking water pH is about 7.5 to 8 -- depending on how acid forming your diet is. Long term consumption of higher pH water should be reserved for special circumstances.

At this point, Dr. Mercola introduces a perplexing argument, "And if you drink alkaline water all the time, you're going to raise the alkalinity of your stomach, which will buffer your stomach's acidity and impair your ability to digest food as low stomach acid is one of the most common causes of ulcers. This can open the door for parasites in your small intestine, and your protein digestion may suffer. It also means you'll get less minerals and nutrients over time - in fact, some of these health effects can already be seen in hard-core alkaline water drinkers."

First of all, let's be clear here. Stomach acid has a pH of about 0.8-1.0. That means that any water you drink, whatever its acidity level, is going to dilute your stomach acid and interfere with digestion if you drink it with your meals, which is why I constantly admonish people not to drink more than 4 ounces of liquid with your meals. The bottom line, then, is that if you're drinking water with your meals, any difference in pH is virtually irrelevant -- digestion will suffer. If you're drinking water between meals, then it has no effect on digestion as it passes through the stomach quickly and on into the small intestine, where an alkaline environment is preferred. Keep in mind, your pancreas pours sodium bicarbonate into your duodenum to convert the acidic "slurry" coming from your stomach into an alkaline "slurry" with a pH of about 8.0. Which brings up the question, why did Dr. Mercola only talk about the acidic pH of the stomach when discussing digestion and not the alkaline pH of the intestinal tract?

Dr. Mercola, now moves on to a new point, "Alkalinity is also potentially a problem because it is antibacterial, so it could potentially disrupt the balance of your body's beneficial bacteria."

Again, the pH of a healthy intestinal tract is slightly alkaline, not acidic, so I'm not sure which beneficial bacteria he's talking about that would benefit from an acid environment. But more to the point, acidity kills bacteria. That's the reason your urine is slightly acidic, not alkaline -- to kill any E. coli that might make their way into your urinary tract. This is one of the reasons cranberry juice is effective in treating urinary tract infections -- it acidifies your urine. That means that contrary to what Dr. Mercola says, raising the pH of your urine doesn't kill bacteria in your urinary tract, it allows them to thrive. Actually, a point that Dr. Mercola could have made is that if you make yourself too alkaline, to the point where your urine is no longer acidic (something a number of people who are "into" drinking alkaline water actually try and do), you are more likely to have urinary tract infections. Amusingly, even though the fact that acidity (not alkalinity) kills unwanted bacteria in your urinary tract contradicts his statement immediately above, it actually speaks in support of Dr. Mercola's ultimate position -- that drinking too much high alkaline water can be detrimental to your health. However, it takes excessive consumption of extremely alkaline water to change the pH of your urine.

Living Water

Dr. Mercola now begins to make clear his position on what represents the ideal pH for drinking water, "What you want is pure water - water that is clean, balanced, and healthful, neither too alkaline nor too acidic. Ideally, the pH of your water should be close to 7, which is neutral.

"Somewhere between 6 to 8 is likely fine."

This actually represents quite a spread. Keep in mind that the pH scale is logarithmic. That means that each 1-unit change in pH represents a ten-fold change in hydrogen ion concentration. In other words, 6.0 water is one hundred times more acidic than 8.0 water. Fortunately, Dr. Mercola subsequently provides a more specific recommendation.

"And some of the most healthful waters in the world - that emerging from mountain springs - are actually acidic in the range of 6.5. and would absolutely be my preference if it were readily available."

Well, here we have a definitive statement from Dr. Mercola on the optimum pH for drinking water, and as it turns out, it's nowhere near as open ended as the 6.0 to 8.0 range he mentioned previously. It's very specific and slightly acidic. Unfortunately, the context within which it's provided is highly misleading. Yes, some mountain springs are slightly acidic, depending on the minerals naturally occurring in them. But the most famous mountain waters in the world, waters renowned for their healing properties, are highly alkaline. I'm referring to the waters coming down from the Himalayas, and specifically to the waters of the Hunza valley, which have a pH that runs between 9 and 11.

Conclusion

At this point, I'm no longer quoting Dr. Mercola.

As I said at the beginning of this newsletter, I'm a fan of Dr. Mercola. And, for the most part, we share many of the same opinions. Even in areas where we disagree, such as in terms of what constitutes a healthy diet, the disagreement is less than it first appears. Although Dr. Mercola believes in the virtues of meat and dairy more than I do, we are at least in agreement as to what form they should take if you eat them.

• Organic
• Grass fed
• Raw for dairy
• Etc.

But on this particular issue, alkaline water, his article totally missed the mark and contains a number of inaccuracies. Eventually, his ultimate position, that slightly acidic water is preferable to any form of alkaline water when it comes to drinking, may one day be proven true. But not today.

Therefore based on a preponderance of the evidence as it exists today, I would recommend drinking slightly alkaline water (7.5-8.0) on a daily basis, and reserve higher alkaline water for special occasions. Now, when compared to Dr. Mercola's preferred pH of 6.5, it appears to be a rather insignificant difference -- one point on the pH scale, centered around neutral at 7.0. But appearances can be deceiving. The pH scale is logarithmic. In fact, technically, pH is the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration. That means that for each 1-unit change in pH, the hydrogen ion concentration changes ten-fold. In other words, 6.5 water is ten times more acidic than 7.5 water -- and 100 times more acidic than 8.5 water.

The bottom line is that although the difference between our recommendations may at first appear small, they are, in fact, not. I believe that the evidence strongly supports drinking water on a daily basis that is upwards of 50 times more alkaline than Dr. Mercola recommends -- with higher levels reserved for special occasions. As to how you get that water, that's up to you. Water ionizers, although expensive, certainly do the trick.

In conclusion, I am still a fan of Dr. Mercola and still recommend his website to my readers. But as for this particular article, I believe that Dr. Mercola missed the mark; it simply does not rise to his usual high standards. I am sure he will do better next time. In any case, I encourage you to read his article, If You Fall for This "Water Fad" - You Could Do Some Major Damage, yourself and make your own assessment.

More Problems with Genetically Modified Foods

More Problems with Genetically Modified Foods: "This Supermarket 'Health Food' Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks
Posted By Dr. Mercola | October 04 2010 | 55,243 views

By Jeffrey Smith

Arpad Pusztai

Biologist Arpad Pusztai had more than 300 articles and 12 books to his credit and was the world’s top expert in his field.

But when he accidentally discovered that genetically modified (GM) foods are dangerous, he became the biotech industry’s bad-boy poster child, setting an example for other scientists thinking about blowing the whistle.

In the early 1990s, Dr. Pusztai was awarded a $3 million grant by the UK government to design the system for safety testing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). His team included more than 20 scientists working at three facilities, including the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, the top nutritional research lab in the UK, and his employer for the previous 35 years.

The results of Pusztai’s work were supposed to become the required testing protocols for all of Europe. But when he fed supposedly harmless GM potatoes to rats, things didn’t go as planned.

Within just 10 days, the animals developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers, and testicles, partially atrophied livers, and damaged immune systems. Moreover, the cause was almost certainly side effects from the process of genetic engineering itself. In other words, the GM foods on the market, which are created from the same process, might have similar affects on humans.

With permission from his director, Pusztai was interviewed on TV and expressed his concerns about GM foods. He became a hero at his institute -- for two days.

Then came the phone calls from the pro-GMO prime minister’s office to the institute’s director. The next morning, Pusztai was fired. He was silenced with threats of a lawsuit, his team was dismantled, and the protocols never implemented. His Institute, the biotech industry, and the UK government, together launched a smear campaign to destroy Pusztai’s reputation.

Eventually, an invitation to speak before Parliament lifted his gag order and his research was published in the prestigious Lancet. No similar in-depth studies have yet tested the GM foods eaten every day by Americans.

Irina Ermakova

Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist at the Russian National Academy of Sciences, was shocked to discover that more than half of the baby rats in her experiment died within three weeks. She had fed the mothers GM soy flour purchased at a supermarket. The babies from mothers fed natural non-GMO soy, however, only suffered a 10% death rate. She repeated her experiment three times with similar results.

Dr. Ermakova reported her preliminary findings at a conference in October 2005, asking the scientific community to replicate her study. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Her boss told her to stop doing anymore GM food research. Samples were stolen from her lab, and a paper was even set fire on her desk. One of her colleagues tried to comfort her by saying, “Maybe the GM soy will solve the overpopulation problem.”

Of the mostly spurious criticisms leveled at Ermakova, one was significant enough to raise doubts about the cause of the deaths. She did not conduct a biochemical analysis of the feed. Without it, we don’t know if some rogue toxin had contaminated the soy flour. But more recent events suggest that whatever caused the high infant mortality was not unique to her one bag of GM flour.

In November 2005, the supplier of rat food to the laboratory where Ermakova worked began using GM soy in the formulation. All the rats were now eating it. After two months, Ermakova asked other scientists about the infant mortality rate in their experiments. It had skyrocketed to over 55 percent.

It’s been four years since these findings were reported. No one has yet repeated Ermakova’s study, even though it would cost just a few thousand dollars.

Andrés Carrasco

Embryologist Andrés Carrasco told a leading Buenos Aires newspaper about the results of his research into Roundup, the herbicide sold in conjunction with Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready crops.

Dr. Carrasco, who works in Argentina’s Ministry of Science, said his studies of amphibians suggest that the herbicide could cause defects in the brain, intestines, and hearts of fetuses. Moreover, the amount of Roundup used on GM soy fields was as much as 1,500 times greater than that which created the defects.

Tragically, his research had been inspired by the experience of desperate peasant and indigenous communities who were suffering from exposure to toxic herbicides used on the GM soy fields throughout Argentina.

According to an article in Grain, the biotech industry “mounted an unprecedented attack on Carrasco, ridiculing his research and even issuing personal threats.” In addition, four men arrived unannounced at his laboratory and were extremely aggressive, attempting to interrogate Carrasco and obtain details of his study. “It was a violent, disproportionate, dirty reaction,” he said. “I hadn’t even discovered anything new, only confirmed conclusions that others had reached.”

Argentina’s Association of Environmental Lawyers filed a petition calling for a ban on Roundup, and the Ministry of Defense banned GM soy from its fields.

Judy Carman

Epidemiologist Judy Carman used to investigate outbreaks of disease for a state government in Australia. She knows that health problems associated with GM foods might be impossible to track or take decades to discover. Moreover, the superficial, short-term animal feeding studies usually do not evaluate “biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver function, and kidney function” and are too short to test for cancer or reproductive or child health.

Dr. Carman has critiqued the GMO approval process on behalf of the Public Health Association of Australia and speaks openly about her concerns. As a result, she is repeatedly attacked. Pro-GM scientists threatened disciplinary action through her Vice-Chancellor, and circulated a defamatory letter to government and university officials.

Carman was awarded a grant by the Western Australia government to conduct some of the few long-term animal feeding studies on GMOs. Apparently concerned about what she might find, GMO advocates wrote letters to the government demanding that the grant be withdrawn. One scientist tried to convince the Western Australia Agriculture minister that sufficient safety research had been conducted and he should therefore cancel the grant.

As his evidence, however, he presented a report summarizing only 60 GMO animal feeding studies -- an infinitesimal amount of research to justify exposing the entire population to GM foods.

A closer investigation, however, revealed that most of the 60 were not safety studies at all. They were production studies, measuring, for example, the animals’ carcass weight. Only 9 contained data applicable to human health. And 6 of the 9 showed adverse effects in animals that ate GM feed!

Furthermore, there were several other studies with adverse findings that were mysteriously missing from the compilation. Carman points out that the report “does not support claims that GM crops are safe to eat. On the contrary, it provides evidence that GM crops may be harmful to health.”

When the Western Government refused to withdraw the grant, opponents successfully interfered with Carman’s relationship with the university where she was to do the research.

Terje Traavik

Prominent virologist Terje Traavik presented preliminary data at a February 2004 meeting at the UN Biosafety Protocol Conference, showing that:

1. Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield developed serious symptoms while the corn was pollinating;
2. Genetic material inserted into GM crops transferred to rat organs after a single meal; and
3. Key safety assumptions about genetically engineered viruses were overturned, calling into question the safety of using these viruses in vaccines.

The biotech industry mercilessly attacked Dr. Traavik. Their excuse? -- he presented unpublished work. But presenting preliminary data at professional conferences is a long tradition in science, something that the biotech industry itself relied on in 1999 to try to counter the evidence that butterflies were endangered by GM corn.

Ironically, three years after attacking Traavik, the same biotech proponents sharply criticized a peer-reviewed publication for not citing unpublished data that had been presented at a conference. The paper shows how the runoff of GM Bt corn into streams can kill the “caddis fly,” which may seriously upset marine ecosystems. The study set off a storm of attacks against its author, ecologist Emma Rosi-Marshall, which Nature described in a September 2009 article as a “hail of abuse.”

Companies Prevent Studies on Their GM Crops

When Ohio State University plant ecologist Allison Snow discovered problematic side effects in GM sunflowers, Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Dow AgroSciences blocked further research by withholding GM seeds and genes.

After Marc Lappé and Britt Bailey found significant reductions in cancer-fighting isoflavones in Monsanto’s GM soybeans, the seed seller, Hartz, told them they could no longer provide samples.

Research by a plant geneticist at a leading US university was also thwarted when two companies refused him GM corn. In fact, almost no independent studies are conducted that might find problems. According to a scathing opinion piece in an August 2009 Scientific American,

“Agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers ... Only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal.”

A group of 24 corn insect scientists protested this restriction in a letter submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. They warned that the inability to access GM seeds from biotech companies means there can be no truly independent research on the critical questions. The scientists, of course, withheld their identities for fear of reprisals from the companies.

Restricted access is not limited to the US. When a Japanese scientist wanted to conduct animal feeding studies on the GM soybeans under review in Japan, both the government and the bean’s maker DuPont refused to give him any samples. Hungarian Professor Bela Darvas discovered that Monsanto’s GM corn hurt endangered species in his country. Monsanto immediately shut off his supplies.

Dr. Darvas later gave a speech on his preliminary findings and discovered that a false and incriminating report about his research was circulating. He traced it to a Monsanto public relations employee, who claimed it mysteriously appeared on her desk -- so she faxed it out.

GMO Contamination: Don’t Ask and Definitely Don’t Tell

In 2005, a scientist had gathered seed samples from all over Turkey to evaluate the extent of contamination by GM varieties. According to the Turkish Daily News, just before her testing was complete, she was reassigned to another department and access to her lab was denied.

The unexpected transfer may have saved this Turkish scientist from an even worse fate, had she discovered and reported contamination.

Ask Ignacio Chapela, a microbial ecologist from UC Berkeley. In 2001, he discovered that the indigenous corn varieties in Mexico -- the source of the world’s genetic diversity for corn—had become contaminated through cross pollination with GM varieties.

The government had a ban against GM corn to prevent just this possibility, but apparently US corn imported for food had been planted nonetheless.

Dr. Chapela submitted the finding to Nature, and as a courtesy that he later regretted, informed the Mexican government about the pending publication. He was called in to meet with a furious Director of the Commission of Biosafety and GMOs. Chapela’s confirmation of contamination would hinder introduction of GM corn. Therefore the government’s top biotech man demanded that he withdraw his article. According to Chapela, the official intimidated and threatened him, even implying, “We know where your children go to school.”

When a traumatized Chapela still did not back down, the Underminister for Agriculture later sent him a fax claiming that because of his scientific paper, Chapela would be held personally responsible for all damages caused to agriculture and to the economy in general.

The day Chapela’s paper was published, Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek began posting messages to a biotechnology listserve called AgBioWorld, distributed to more than 3,000 scientists. They falsely claimed that Chapela was biased, that his paper had not been peer-reviewed, that Chapela was “first and foremost an activist,” and his research was published in collusion with environmentalists. Soon, hundreds of other messages appeared, repeating or embellishing the accusations. The listserve launched a petition and besieged Nature with a worldwide campaign demanding retraction.

UC Berkeley also received letters from all over the world trying to convince them not to grant Chapela tenure. He had overwhelming support by his college and department, but the international biotech lobby was too much. Chapela’s tenure was denied. After he filed a lawsuit, the university eventually reversed its decision.

When investigators later analyzed the email characteristics sent by agitators Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek, the two turned out not to be the average citizens they claimed. According to the Guardian, both were fabricated names used by a public relations firm that worked for Monsanto. Some of Smetacek’s emails also had the internet protocol address of gatekeeper2.monsanto.com -- the server owned by Monsanto.

Science and Debate is Silenced

The attacks on scientists have taken its toll. According to Dr. Chapela, there is a de facto ban on scientists “asking certain questions and finding certain results.” He says, “It’s very hard for us to publish in this field. People are scared.” He told Nature that young people “are not going into this field precisely because they are discouraged by what they see.”

New Zealand Parliament member Sue Kedgley told a Royal Commission in 2001: “Personally I have been contacted by telephone and e-mail by a number of scientists who have serious concerns about aspects of the research that is taking place ... and the increasingly close ties that are developing between science and commerce, but who are convinced that if they express these fears publicly ... or even if they asked the awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out of their institution.”

University of Minnesota biologist Phil Regal testified before the same Commission, “I think the people who boost genetic engineering are going to have to do a mea culpa and ask for forgiveness, like the Pope did on the inquisition.” Sue Kedgley has a different idea. She recommends we “set up human clinical trials using volunteers of genetically engineered scientists and their families, because I think they are so convinced of the safety of the products that they are creating and I’m sure they would very readily volunteer to become part of a human clinical trial.”

To learn more about the health dangers of GMOs, and what you can do to help end the genetic engineering of our food supply, visit www.ResponsibleTechnology.org.

To learn how to choose healthier non-GMO brands, visit www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.

About the Author

International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey Smith is the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified (GM) foods. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on the topic. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, provides overwhelming evidence that GMOs are unsafe and should never have been introduced.

Mr. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, whose Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to create the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs, forcing them out of our food supply.

Sources:

Chickens Not Fooled by GM Crops

Could Monsanto Be Responsible for One Indian Farmer's Death Every Thirty Minutes?

Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

Together we CAN get GMOs banned from the US. Europe was able to do it over a decade ago without any government assistance. All they did was educate the consumers, and that was enough pressure on the food industry to drop their ploys.

If we band together as an effective army we will be able to do this. Please understand that the VAST majority of people in the US do not want GM foods, so this is an EASY battle to win. All we have to do is a bit of organizational work.

So let me tell you how we are going to achieve the removal of GMOs in the US.

October is Non-GMO Month, and you’ll receive a lot of important information about genetically engineered foods this week.

The Tipping Point is Near - The Time to Join is NOW!

How many Americans do we need to convince to avoid eating genetically modified foods to achieve the same victory in the US?

We believe it’s only about FIVE PERCENT of US shoppers!

So, changing the shopping habits of about 5.6 million households may be sufficient to eliminate GMOs in the US.

That is our goal!

We already have these numbers on our side. About 28 million Americans buy organic on a regular basis. Eighty-seven million Americans think GMOs are seriously unsafe. A hundred and fifty nine million Americans, the majority, say they would avoid GMOs if labeled!

Unfortunately, no labeling is required, making your commitment to avoid GM foods all that more complicated. But that’s where we come in.

How You Can Help Others to Avoid GMO Foods

Most people want to avoid GMO foods but it is virtually impossible to do so, since the government prevents GMO labeling.

However, Jeffery Smith has compiled a resource for you to avoid the government block of information. It is the free Non-GMO Shopping Guide. We realize that with the challenging economy it is very difficult for many to donate money to help this cause, so we are merely asking for your time and connections with your family and friends.

You can really help by making this message go viral. So if you are convinced that GMO foods should not be in the US, please send this information to everyone you know; post it on Facebook and Twitter…

You can also print out the Non-GMO Shopping Guide and give it to your friends and family.

If you feel more ambitious you can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure in bulk, and bring them to the grocery stores in your area. Talk to the owner or manager and get permission to post them in their store.

Who Will You Share this Information With?

You can help nurture this consumer mindset by bringing information to your local natural food store owner, so that she can share it will all of her customers as well. IRT has created a complete Retailer Campaign Kit for this purpose.

You can also share information with your child’s school, your health care providers, and food manufacturers. The IRT has created information kits for all of them, available here:

• Heath care provider kit
• Parents and Schools educational material
• Manufacturers information kit

Please remember to share this with your friends and family, but do so lovingly. You don’t want to make yourself a pest and risk your relationship with them. But believe me, this is a MUCH easier sell than getting them to stop smoking or eating less sugar since most do not want GMOs anyway, and it doesn’t involve giving anything up.

You may even want to share this information with your church or religious leaders. As Jeffrey says,

“There are certain religious groups that think the genetic engineering process itself violates God’s laws. So ‘GMO’ for them really means, ‘God Move Over’ and not ‘Genetically Modified Organism.’”

Must-See Movies to Share!

The IRT has created a film called Hidden Dangers in Kid’s Meals, which is a powerful way for parents to get an initiation into the health dangers. It’s only 28 minutes long, which is ideal for local access TV.

You can simply bring the film to your local access TV station, and sometimes they’ll play it 10, 20, or even 30 times because they’re always looking for material and are open to support from the community.

There’s also a video called Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!, which exposes the dangers of GM bovine growth hormones. Any parent still feeding their child milk from cows injected with rBGH needs to see this film! They’ll never make the same mistake again…

Another powerful video you can share with your friends and family is Jeffrey’s Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods lecture.

Your Action Plan

I’ve already mentioned a number of different ways for you to get actively involved during Non-GMO Month. To recap, and add a few more suggestions, here is a list of Action Item for you to pick and choose from:

1. Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Remember to look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content.
2. Download the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure and keep it with you whenever you shop, or download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
   
   

   You can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure in bulk and give it to your family and friends.

3. Urge food manufacturers to join the Non-GMO Project and become Non-GMO Project Verified. This is currently the only way for manufacturers to get around the fact that there’s no GM-labeling system.
4. Urge your local food retailers to join the Non-GMO Project’s Supporting Retailer Program.
5. If your budget allows support this urgent mission by generously donating to the Institute of Responsible Technology.
6. Bring the film Hidden Dangers in Kid’s Meals to your local access TV station, or perhaps your child’s school, along with some educational material specifically designed for teachers and educators. <
7. Share Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!, and Jeffrey’s lecture, Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods with everyone you know. Post them to your Facebook page, or email the links to your network of friends and family.
8. Join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.

Together, We Control the Future of Our Food

Please join us in this important campaign. Do as much or as little as you can. Maybe you can’t make a donation to IRT, but you can distribute 20 Non-GMO shopping guides to your closest family and friends.

Together, we can make a difference. Together, we can reach the tipping point and push GMOs out of our food supply.

Together, we can protect the health of future generations and help accelerate the progress toward more sustainable agriculture in the United States.

Let’s do it!