Showing posts with label adn. Show all posts

20 April 2013

Genetically Modified Corn contains practically no nutrients but is loaded with Chemical Poisons

A breakthrough report on the nutritional density of genetically-modified (GM) corn crops demolishes all existing claims that GMOs are "substantially equivalent" to non-GMOs. Entitled 2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn, the paper reveals not only that GMO corn is greatly lacking in vitamins and minerals compared to non-GMO corn, but also that it is highly toxic and filled with deadly crop chemicals like glyphosate (Roundup).

The owners of the blog 'MomsAcrossAmerica.com' say the report was shared with them by De Dell Seed Company, Canada's only non-GMO corn seed supplier, which obtained it from a Minnesota-based agricultural company called ProfitPro. Overall, the paper found that non-GMO corn is 20 times richer in nutrition, energy and protein compared to GMO corn.

Concerning energy content, as measured in terms of ERGS, non-GMO corn was found in tests to give off 3,400 times more energy per gram, per second compared to GMO corn, an astounding variance. And as far as its overall percentage of organic matter is concerned, non-GMO corn was determined to have nearly twice as much of this vital component compared to GMO corn.

Non-GMO corn contains substantially more potassium, magnesium, calcium, sulfur and manganese

The field comparison also evaluated individual nutrient deviations, which revealed some shocking facts. Potassium, which is necessary for energy production and proper cellular function, is barely even present in GMO corn, having clocked in at 0.7 parts per million (ppm). In non-GMO corn, however, potassium levels were more than 13 times higher, testing at 9.2 ppm.

The disparity was even worse for magnesium, which tested at a mere 0.2 ppm in GMO corn. In non-GMO corn, however, magnesium levels were found to be 46 times higher than in non-GMO corn. Similar variances were observed for calcium, sulfur and manganese as well, with the contents of each being 12.4, 14, and seven times higher, respectively.

On the other hand, non-GMO corn was found to be free of chlorides, formaldehyde, glyphosate, and other harmful chemicals, while in GMO corn they were identified in dangerously high levels. According to an analysis of the report by MomsAcrossAmerica.com, GMO corn contains about 19 times more glyphosate than is permitted as a maximum in drinking water by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and 130 times more glyphosate than has been found in tests to cause organ damage in animals.

Similarly, GMO corn contains dangerously high levels of formaldehyde, according to the report. A previous study conducted by Dr. Don Huber on GMOs revealed that .97 ppm of formaldehyde is toxic if ingested by animals. As it turns out, GMO corn contains 200 times more formaldehyde than this maximum safety threshold.

Monsanto engaged in massive fraud with claims that GMOs are 'substantially equivalent' to non-GMOs

These shock findings are at great odds with the claims continually being made by agri-genocide giant Monsanto. On its corporate website, Monsanto claims that approved genetically-modified (GM) crops are "substantially equivalent" to non-GMOs, meaning they are not nutritionally different from non-GMO crops. But as this study shows, these claims are patently false, and indicate that Monsanto is engaged in a global agricultural scam based on complete lies.

"Glyphosate is a strong organic phosphate chelator that immobilizes positively charged minerals such as manganese, cobalt, iron, zinc, copper, etc. that are essential for normal physiological functions in soils, plants and animals," explains Dr. Huber about how GMO crop chemicals literally destroy the nutrient content of GMO crops.

To learn more about how to avoid GMOs in the food supply, visit:
http://www.westonaprice.org/modern-foods/how-to-avoid-gmos

Sources for this article include:

www.gmwatch.org

www.naturalnews.com

www.momsacrossamerica.com

http://worldtruth.tv

19 April 2013

Supreme Court to decide if human Genes can be Patented

The US Supreme Court is about to hear arguments in a case challenging patents on breast and ovarian cancer genes. If the court upholds the company’s right to patent human genes, the course of US medical research could forever be altered.

The case involves the Utah biotech firm Myriad Genetics, which for years has been facing a lawsuit for placing patents on human genes and restricting cancer patients’ treatment options.

The molecular diagnostic company, which is based in Salt Lake City, holds a number of patents on genes related to breast cancer and ovarian cancer, two of which US District Court Judge Robert W. Sweet ruled invalid in 2010, the decision that Myriad appealed. The genes in question, BRCA1 an BRCA2, often appear in cancer patients, sometimes before the cancer has even developed. With methods to diagnose these genes patented by Myriad Genetics, patients are unable to go to any other doctors for a second opinion before seeking treatment.

“Myriad is gate-keeping who can do what research on these genes and they are uniquely aggressive in how they control a patent,” Karuna Jagger, executive director of Breast Cancer Action, told The Guardian. As a result of Myriad’s gene-ownership, other doctors and researchers are unable to develop alternate tests or treatment options, thereby giving cancer patients very few options.

Women with the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes have no other options aside from taking the Myriad test, which is expensive and not always covered by insurance. Breast cancer survivors are expected to speak before the Supreme Court next week, where they will talk about the costs of the $3,000 tests that their health insurances did not cover.

“The Supreme Court has the opportunity to right this wrong, to correct a problem that could free up human genomics to develop new diagnostic tests,” Jagger said.

A coalition of cancer survivors, scientists, cancer patients, medical associations and support groups have expressed their outrage at the biotech firm for patenting parts of the human body, which they say are “products of nature” and should not be financially exploited. The group claims that the patents violate the First Amendment by restricting the free exchange of ideas on human body parts.

Runi Limary, a 36-year-old breast cancer survivor, told USA TODAY that one of the patented genes showed up in her body when she was 28. Suspecting ovarian cancer, she debated having her ovaries removed, but couldn’t get a second opinion because Myriad held a patent on the mutated gene that she developed.

“It’s so frustrating,” she said. “I’m really trying to buy time until I’m 40.”

Limary has not yet had her ovaries removed, since doing so would diminish her ability to have children. She claims that if Myriad didn’t have a patent on the mutated gene, she could seek better treatment options and medical advice.

In its defense, Myriad argues that without the ability to have such patents, which financially sustain the industry, research and development would dry up. But patent-opponents claim that the resulting competition would cause medical bills to go down in price and lead to greater scientific discoveries.

“It’s about the future of personalized medicine for every single human being on this planet, and actually animals too,” Ellen Matloff, director of cancer genetic counseling at Yale School of Medicine, told USA TODAY.

Currently, about 20 percent of the 4,000 genes found in the human body are already covered by a patent, including some linked to colon cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. Some patents are owned by research institutions that try to prevent large corporations from using them for profit.

The Supreme Court ruling on Myriad’s patents could affect the entire medical industry. The court will ultimately decide whether or not human genes can be ‘owned’ by corporations, which continues to encourage a race towards discovering them, while also limiting research after their discovery.

“You have to ask, how is it possible that my doctor cannot look at my DNA without being concerned about patent infringement?” Christopher Mason, assistant professor at Weill Medical College, told The Guardian.

But in order to strike down Myriad’s patents, the Supreme Court would likely have to rule against a law that has already allowed about a thousand human genes to become patented – a landmark decision that would overhaul the US medical research system.

Source:

http://worldtruth.tv/