Yahudi Kuasai Ekonomi Indonesia?
“Hai orang-orang yang beriman,
Sesungguhnya orang-orang yang musyrik itu najis, maka janganlah mereka
mendekati Masjidilharam sesudah tahun ini. Dan jika kamu khawatir
menjadi miskin, maka Allah nanti akan memberimu kekayaan kepadamu dari
karuniaNya, jika Dia menghendaki. Sesungguhnya Allah Maha Mengetahui
lagi Maha Bijaksana.” [At Taubah 28]
Saat itu perekonomian kota Mekkah
dipegang oleh orang2 kafir. Namun Allah memerintahkan Nabi agar mengusir
orang2 kafir dari Mekkah.. Ummat Islam takut bahwa perekonomian
terganggu dan mereka jadi miskin. Karena itu turun ayat tsb.
Saat ekonomi dikuasai orang kafir, mereka
justru memiskinkan kita. Segala kekayaan alam kita dirampas sehingga
meski negeri kita kaya, tapi rakyat kita miskin. Inginkah kita terus
seperti itu?
Arab Saudi, Iran, Qatar, Kuwait, Malaysia yang lebih independen dari Indonesia kenyataannya lebih makmur daripada Indonesia.
Sebetulnya dominasi Yahudi AS di Indonesia sudah sangat kental.
Cuma umat Islam saja banyak yang tidak sadar atau tidak tahu.
Dari link2 di bawah, ternyata perusahaan2
migas asing seperti Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Conoco, Amoco, BP, Arco, dsb
merupakan pecahan dari Standard Oil yang dimiliki oleh Rockefeller.
Rockefeller ini ditengarai sebagai Yahudi dan pemikirannya sejalan
dengan Zionis. Perusahaan2 “Yahudi AS” (jika berita link di bawah benar)
menguasai 90% migas di Indonesia.
Freeport di mana mantan Menlu AS Henry
Kissinger menguras emas, perak, dan tembaga Papua mendapatkan puluhan
trilyun (dan mungkin sebetulnya ratusan trilyun) per tahun dari kekayaan
alam Indonesia. Hebatnya sekali, untuk mendapat 10% saham perusahaan
tsb Indonesia harus bayar mahal. Padahal mereka mendapatkan tanah
milyaran meter per segi berikut emas, tembaga, perak secara “Gratis”
dari Indonesia.
Negara-negara lain seperti Malaysia, Arab
Saudi, Qatar, Kuwait, Venezuela, Iran, Norwegia, dsb cukup waras untuk
menguasai kekayaan alam mereka lewat BUMNnya sehingga rakyat mereka
makmur sejahtera.
Pimpinan pertama IMF Camille Gutt, seorang Yahudi. Begitu pula dengan pimpinan IMF sekarang (2010), Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
Pimpinan pertama Bank Dunia Eugene Meyer dan juga kebanyakan pimpinan WB serta yang sekarang (Robert P Zoellick) adalah Yahudi.
Pimpinan pertama Bank Dunia Eugene Meyer dan juga kebanyakan pimpinan WB serta yang sekarang (Robert P Zoellick) adalah Yahudi.
Dengan menguasai hak mencetak kertas jadi uang, mereka paksa dunia menjual BUMN2 dan kekayaan alam yang dikelola untuk mereka kuasai melalui program PRIVATISASI. Hendaknya ummat Islam serta tokoh-tokoh Islam menyadari hal ini. Jika tidak, kekayaan alam dan ekonomi ummat Islam berpindah dari ummat Islam ke tangan Zionis Yahudi.
Perusahaan rokok Phillips Morris
(pemegang rokok Marlboro dan Sampoerna) juga mengeruk ratusan trilyun
rupiah dari rakyat Indonesia.
Freeport Mc Moran juga ternyata satu
perusahaan Yahudi yang mengeruk emas, perak, dan tembaga di Papua. Henry
Kissinger, mantan Menlu AS, yang merupakan salah satu Direkturnya.
Diperkirakan dari gunung Grassberg saja, Freeport bisa mendapatkan US$
50 milyar (Rp 500 trilyun!). Perusahaan pertambangan lainnya adalah Rio
Tinto, BHP Billiton, dsb.
Dari link di bawah saya lihat ummat
Kristen ada yang menyadari bahwa Yahudi dengan kekuatan bisnisnya
menghancurkan perusahaan2 Kristen.
Ada pun John J McCloy dan Robert McNamara meski bukan Yahudi namun sangat dekat dengan Zionis Yahudi. Bahkan McNamara-lah yang menjerumuskan AS ke dalam perang Vietnam. Beberapa dari Presiden Bank Dunia tersebut terlibat aktif di bidang politik. Paul Wolfowitz sebagai contoh adalah zionis Yahudi ekstrim yang menjerumuskan AS ke dalam perang Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank_Group
President Bank Dunia:
* Eugene Meyer (June 1946–December 1946) – Yahudi
* John J. McCloy (March 1947–June 1949)
* Eugene R. Black, Sr. (1949–1963) – Yahudi
* George D. Woods (January 1963–March 1968) – Yahudi
* Robert McNamara (April 1968–June 1981)
* Alden W. Clausen (July 1981–June 1986) – Yahudi
* Barber Conable (July 1986–August 1991) – Yahudi
* Lewis T. Preston (September 1991–May 1995) – Yahudi
* James Wolfensohn (May 1995–June 2005) – Yahudi
* Paul Wolfowitz (1 June 2005–June 2007) – Yahudi
* Robert Zoellick (1 July 2007–Present) – Yahudi
Bahkan ternyata pimpinan pertama IMF, Camille Gutt, ternyata seorang Yahudi. Begitu pula dengan Managing Director IMF yang sekarang (2010), Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
Ternyata keluarga Rothschild menguasai
Bank Sentral Inggris sementara Bank Sentral AS, Federal Reserve Bank,
dikuasai oleh keluarga Rothschild dan Rockefeller. Dengan menguasai Bank
Sentral Inggris dan AS, mereka menguasai uang dunia.
Bahkan Bank Sentral Indonesia, BI,
sekarang diswastanisasi sehingga lepas dari pemerintah berdaulat hasil
pilihan rakyat. BI “bekerjasama” dengan lembaga keuangan dunia seperti
IMF dan World Bank yang jelas-jelas dikuasai Yahudi.
Jadi pemerintah
pilihan rakyat sudah tidak berdaulat lagi terhadap BI, sementara Yahudi
melalui IMF dan World Bank serta Perbankan dan Sekuritas yang mereka
miliki justru punya pengaruh terhadap BI.
Dari tulisan di bawah, kaum Yahudi dari
keluarga Rostchild mengenalkan Fiat Money pada tahun 1971. Uang kertas
yang tidak didukung cadangan emas/perak. Sebelumnya, uang AS selalu
diback-up dengan emas/perak (credit money) sehingga nilainya jelas.
Dengan dihapusnya dukungan emas, maka
nilai Dollar AS tergantung pada “Pelaku Pasar Uang.” Nilai uang
berubah-rubah setiap hari. Agar nilai uang kertas “stabil” para
pemerintah melalui Bank Sentral mengeluarkan bunga seperti “Fed’s rate”
atau SBI misalnya 7,5% per tahun. Jadi seandainya kaum Yahudi tersebut
mengumpulkan uang Rp 1000 trilyun melalui Bank atau Sekuritas yang
mereka miliki, maka mereka dapat Rp 75 trilyun dari hasil bunga/riba
tersebut.
Krisis Moneter di tahun 1998 yang
menyebabkan nilai rupiah jatuh dari Rp 2.400/1 US$ ke Rp 16.700/1 US$
hanya dalam beberapa bulan oleh spekulan valas Yahudi dengan George
Soros menunjukkan pengaruh kuat kaum Yahudi di Indonesia. Bahkan saat
ini George Soros bertemu dengan Wapres Boediono yang dulu menjabat
sebagai Direktur BI di era Soeharto. Jatuhnya mata uang Malaysia,
Singapura, Thailand, Filipina, dan Korsel menunjukkan bahwa di negara
tersebut juga dipengaruhi kekuatan Yahudi Soros cs. Perubahan kebijakan
nilai tukar dari fixed rate (rupiah dipatok tetap terhadap dollar)
menjadi floating rate menjadi peluang bagi Soros cs untuk berspekulasi
dengan valas. Nilai rupiah jadi berubah-rubah setiap hari tergantung
nilai yang diberikan oleh Soros cs.
Pasar Saham/Bursa Saham juga memungkinkan
orang-orang Yahudi yang bergerak di bidang Sekuritas / investment
manager untuk membeli saham-saham BUMN yang diprivatisasi.
Mungkin ada yang berkata ini Teori Konspirasi/Paranoid. Tapi beberapa link seperti Wikipedia, menurut saya cukup valid.
Jika anda mencintai Islam, mohon sebarkan informasi ini ke yang lain atau dimuat di blog anda.
Standard Oil
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Founded | 1870 |
| Headquarters | Cleveland, Ohio (1870-1885) New York City, New York (1885-1911)[2] |
| John D. Rockefeller, Founder & Chairman | |
| Industry | Oil and Gas |
| Products | Fuels, Lubricants, Petrochemicals |
| Employees | 60,000 (1909) [5] |
Standard Oil was a predominant American integrated oil producing, transporting, refining, and marketing company. Established in 1870 as an Ohio corporation, it was the largest oil refiner in the world[3] and operated as a major company trust and was one of the world’s first and largest multinational corporations until it was broken up by the United States Supreme Court in 1911. John D. Rockefeller
was a founder, chairman and major shareholder, and the company made him
a billionaire and eventually the richest man in modern history.
Standard Oil began as an Ohio partnership formed by the well-known industrialist John D. Rockefeller, his brother William Rockefeller, Henry Flagler, chemist Samuel Andrews, silent partner Stephen V. Harkness, and Oliver Burr Jennings,
who had married the sister of William Rockefeller’s wife. In 1870
Rockefeller incorporated Standard Oil in Ohio. Of the initial 10,000
shares, John D. Rockefeller received 2,667; William Rockefeller,
Flagler, and Andrews received 1,333 each; Harkness received 1,334;
Jennings received 1,000; and the firm of Rockefeller, Andrews & Flagler received 1,000.[4] Using highly effective tactics, later widely criticized, it absorbed or destroyed most of its competition in Cleveland in less than two months in 1872 and later throughout the northeastern United States.
From 1882 to 1906, Standard paid out $548,436,000 in dividends at 65.4% payout ratio.
By 1890, Standard Oil controlled 88% of the refined oil flows in the United States. The state of Ohio
successfully sued Standard, compelling the dissolution of the trust in
1892. But Standard only separated off Standard Oil of Ohio and kept
control of it.
In 1904, Standard controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales. Most of its output was kerosene, of which 55% was exported around the world.
In 1909, the US Department of Justice sued Standard under federal anti-trust law, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, for sustaining a monopoly and restraining interstate commerce by:[13]
On May 15, 1911, the US Supreme Court upheld the lower court judgment and declared the Standard Oil group to be an “unreasonable” monopoly under the Sherman Antitrust Act. It ordered Standard to break up into 34 independent companies with different boards of directors.[17]
Standard’s president, John Rockefeller,
had long since retired from any management role. But, as he owned a
quarter of the shares of the resultant companies, and those share values
mostly doubled, he emerged from the dissolution as the richest man in
the world.[18]
Successor companies
The successor companies from Standard
Oil’s breakup form the core of today’s US oil industry. (Several of
these companies were considered among the Seven Sisters who dominated the industry worldwide for much of the twentieth century.) They include:
- Standard Oil of New Jersey (SONJ) – or Esso (S.O.) – renamed Exxon, now part of ExxonMobil. Standard Trust companies Carter Oil, Imperial Oil (Canada), and Standard of Louisiana were kept as part of Standard Oil of New Jersey after the breakup.
- Standard Oil of New York – or Socony, merged with Vacuum – renamed Mobil, now part of ExxonMobil.
- Standard Oil of California – or Socal – renamed Chevron, became ChevronTexaco, but returned to Chevron.
- Standard Oil of Indiana – or Stanolind, renamed Amoco (American Oil Co.) – now part of BP.
- Standard’s Atlantic and the independent company Richfield merged to form Atlantic Richfield or ARCO, now part of BP. Atlantic operations were spun off and bought by Sunoco.
- Standard Oil of Kentucky – or Kyso was acquired by Standard Oil of California – currently Chevron.
- Continental Oil Company – or Conoco now part of ConocoPhillips.
- Standard Oil of Ohio – or Sohio, acquired by BP in 1987.
- The Ohio Oil Company – or The Ohio, and marketed gasoline under the Marathon name. The company is now known as Marathon Oil Company, and was often a rival with the in-state Standard spinoff, Sohio.
The Rockefeller Liberal Connection
In many ways, the Rockefeller Family
works step-by-step with the Jewish Zionist and Soviet conspiracies. John
D. Rockefeller was a monopolist who followed in the way of many Jews
whose control of industries, especially banking, demonstrated the manner
in which power, once achieved, might be forever wielded “from the top,”
high above the citizens of the world’s nations.
Was Rockefeller a Jew?
Yes. The Rockelfeller family in America
passed themselves off as Christians, but ancestrally in Europe they were
originally a Jewish family. Many European Jews came to America, Canada,
and Britiain and changed to non-Jewish names or claimed to be
Christians to avoid “anti-Semitism.” But they are biologically Jewish
nonetheless.
There could be some Jewish ancestry
somewhere in almost anyone’s family tree, but the Rockefellers’ family
lineage can be traced back to the French Huguenots who emigrated to
Germany in the 1600s.
Is Rockefeller’s mother Jewish?
yes she is
Jewish Rockefellers talk about giving
By Rachel Pomerance · November 30, 1999
Paul Growald, left, and Eileen Rockefeller Growald in Moose, Wyoming, in the spring of 2003. (Courtesy of Paul Growald)
Bilderberg Group – A Jewish Who’s Who!
By Brother Nathanael Kapner, Copyright 2008-2009
_____________________________
SECRECY ENSHROUDS THE JEWISH-RUN Bilderberg Group. (See Their Secret Operation In Chantilly VA Here & Here). One of the Bilderberg’s deceptions is to invite insignificant leaders in the academic & scientific realms as a “decoy.”
For instance, in the current Bilderberg
Meeting taking place June 5-8 2008 at the Westfields Marriott Hotel in
Chantilly VA, attendees such as Fouad Ajami, Director of Middle East Studies at John Hopkins University, & Martha Farrah, Director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at University of Pennsylvania, serve as “window dressing.”
Here Are The Real Players Attending & They Are Jewish Bankers:
1. Ben Shalom Bernanke: Chairman of the privately held US Federal Reserve Bank.
2. James Wolfensohn:
International Jewish financier. Chairman of Wolfensohn & Company
Investments. A former World Bank President, this Jew has more than 140
employees and offices in London, Tokyo and Moscow. Wolfensohn also has a banking partnership with Fuji Bank of Japan and Jacob Rothschild of Britain.
3. Robert Zoellick: Chairman of the US World Bank Group a covert subsidiary of the Rothschild run International Monetary Fund.
4. Josef Ackermann: Chairman of the Executive Committee of Deutsche Bank AG of Zurich Switzerland. Ackermann is a Rothschild partner in white collar crime.
5. Kenneth Jacobs: Deputy Chairman Head of Lazard Bank North America.
Lazard Bank, a Rothschild associate bank, operates in 39 cities
throughout North America, Europe, Australia, Asia, and South America.
6. David Rockefeller: Owner
of Chase Manhattan Bank. Former Chairman of the Council on Foreign
Relations & Founder of the Trilateral Commission. Though not a Jew, Rockefeller is a Rothschild stooge.
How The Rothschild Dynasty Operates
SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK of the Jewish Rothschild Dynasty.
But I, Brother Nathanael Kapner, a former Jew, am intent on bursting
the “Rothschild-bubble.” I am doing this because I perceive that the
Rothschilds, (they are Jews), are the leaders, (they are secretive), in
destroying Christian civilization throughout the world.
Here Is A List Of The Prominent Family Members Of The Jewish Rothschild Dynasty & Their Principal Functions:
1. Jacob Rothschild: Born in 1936 in England. After gaining prominence in the family bank, NM Rothschild and Sons in London, he established in 1988, the Rothschild Investment Trust, now known as RIT Capital Partners Here which holds controlling investment interest in Royal Dutch Shell Oil.
~ Jacob Rothschild is the Chairman of Yad Hanadiv Here, a Zionist Charity of the Rothschilds’, which gave to Israel the Knesset & the Israeli Supreme Court.
2. Nathaniel Rothschild: Born in 1971 in England. He is Jacob Rothschild’s son & heir apparent. He began his career in 1994 at the Rothschilds’ Jewish sister bank, Lazard Brothers in London.
~ Currently, Nathaniel Rothschild is an executive (what else would he be?) with Gleacher Partners,
a New York-based mergers and acquisitions (M&A) advisory firm
founded by Eric Gleacher, former head of M&A at another Jewish
sister bank of the Rothschilds,’ Lehman Brothers.
~ It should be noted that both Lazard Brothers & Lehman Brothers hold shares along with the principal share holder, NM Rothschild & Son, in the privately-held Jewish bank known as the Federal Reserve System of America Here.
3. Evelyn Rothschild: Born in 1931 in France. He began his career as Director of the Paris-based De Rothschild Freres Bank. Between 1976 & 1982 he became Chairman of NM Rothschild & Sons in England & Rothschild Bank in Zurich. He is also honorary director of De Beers Consolidated Mines & IBM United Kingdom Holdings Limited.
~ Evelyn Rothschild is a man of many propaganda-hats. He has served in Directorships of the internationally renown, The Economist, and newspapers owned by Lord Beaverbrook, which included the London Evening Standard & the Daily Express. He has also served as Director of Lord Black’s Daily Telegraph.
4. David René Rothschild: Born in 1942 in NYC. He is currently the Senior Partner of Rothschild & Cie Banque of Franc Here. He took over the Chairmanship of NM Rothschild & Sons of London upon the “retirement” of Evelyn Rothschild in 2003.
5. Benjamin Rothschild: Born in 1963 in France. He succeeded his father, Edmound de Rothschild, as Chairman of the LCF Rothschild Group in France Here. The LCF Rothschild Group, centered in Paris with a branch in Tel Aviv, has a global network Here of financial institutions with assets over €100 billion.
Seven Sisters (oil companies)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Seven Sisters of the petroleum industry is a term coined by an Italian entrepreneur, Enrico Mattei,[1]
that refers to seven oil companies that formed the “Consortium for
Iran” and dominated mid 20th century oil production, refining, and
distribution.
The Seven Sisters were the following companies:
- Standard Oil of New Jersey (Esso), which merged with Mobil to form ExxonMobil.
- Royal Dutch Shell (Dutch 60% / British 40%). Merged in 2005.
- Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) (British). This later became Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), then British Petroleum, and then BP Amoco following a merger with Amoco (which in turn was formerly Standard Oil of Indiana). It is now known solely by the initials BP.
- Standard Oil Co. of New York (“Socony”). This later became Mobil, which merged with Exxon to form ExxonMobil.
- Standard Oil of California (“Socal”). This became Chevron, then, upon merging with Texaco, ChevronTexaco. It has since dropped the ‘Texaco’ suffix, returning to Chevron.
- Gulf Oil. In 1985, most of Gulf became part of Chevron, with smaller parts becoming part of BP and Cumberland Farms, in what was, at that time, the largest merger in world history. A network of stations in the northeastern United States still bears this name.
- Texaco. Merged with Chevron in 2001. The merged company was known for a time as ChevronTexaco, but in 2005, changed its name back to Chevron. Texaco remains a Chevron brand name.
As of 2005, the surviving companies are ExxonMobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP, now members of the “supermajors” group.
International Banks & Jews Who Founded Them
Gerald Krefetz, A New York City Jewish Person
Author of “Jews and Money: The Myths and the Reality.”
Modernbanking… startedin the nineteenth century with the rise of the Houseof Rothschild.
They were not the only important Jewish bankersin Europe: indeed, a
surprising number of continental banks werefounded by Jews. The old
Court Jew had primarily raised moneyfor local rulers to cover his
expenses, his personal diplomacy,and his extravagances. The new bankers
floated state loans tofinance emerging industries and railroads.
Rothschild Banker/Brothers–Rothschild,Warburg, Oppenheim, Speyer
While the five Rothschild brothers had
banks in Frankfort,London, Paris, Vienna, and Naples, Bleichroder in
Berlin, Warburgin Hamburg, Oppenheim in Cologne, and Speyer in Frankfort
wereoperating their own banking houses. Individual Jews founded
banksfrom London (Hambros) to Bombay (Sassoons) to St. Petersburg
(Guenzburg),and a number of points in between.
Besides these personal or private banks roughly equivalent tomerchant banks or investment banks today Jews helped to establisha number of important joint stock banks or commercial banks: theDeutsche Bank and the Dresdner Bank, two of Germany’s big three,Credit Mobilier, Banque de Paris et des PaysBaa, Banca CommercialeItaliana, Credito Italiano, Creditan-stalt-Bankverein, and Banquede Bruxelles, among others.
Besides these personal or private banks roughly equivalent tomerchant banks or investment banks today Jews helped to establisha number of important joint stock banks or commercial banks: theDeutsche Bank and the Dresdner Bank, two of Germany’s big three,Credit Mobilier, Banque de Paris et des PaysBaa, Banca CommercialeItaliana, Credito Italiano, Creditan-stalt-Bankverein, and Banquede Bruxelles, among others.
Early US Centralized Paper Money BankConspiracies…
There were a few Jewish bankers in the
United States: HaymSalomon of revolutionary fame and Isaac Moses who,
with AlexanderHamilton, was one of the founders of the Bank of New York
in 1784.It was not until the Jewish-German immigration of the 1840s
thatthe presence of Jewish bankers was felt in America. Some of
theestablished German banks sent representatives, but for the mostpart,
the German-Jewish bankers rose from the ranks only afterthey arrived.
Between 1840 and 1880, a dozen first-rate bankinghouses were started:
Bache; August Belmont; Goldman, Sachs; J.W.Seligman; Kuhn, Loeb;
Ladenburg, Thalmann; Lazard Freres; LehmanBrothers; Speyer; and
Wertheim. Influential, conservative in life-style,but unorthodox in
financial matters, and inbred (like the Rothschilds,their children
married each other), Jewish bankers projected animage of concentrated
power because they often acted in concert,collaborating on financial
deals.
The Jew as ‘Alien Financier’
The rise of Jewish bankers reinforced
this image. Previously,the Jewish moneylender was a single character
presumed born withcertain “racial” traits. His activities were every
Jew’sactivities. With the development of systematic anti-Semitism
inEurope, and the rise of xenophobic nationalism, the wealthy Jewwas
seen as an alien financier, in collaboration with Jews abroad.The
collection of Jewish bankers and banks in both Europe andAmerica
convinced many people that Jews were out to dominate andcontrol the
world.
Fake Money Schemes
Jewish Invention of Fiat Money
Gerald Krefetz, A New York City Jewish Person
Author of “Jews and Money: The Myths and the Reality.”
They [Jews] had developed the idea of
fiat money and were amongthe first to use negotiable instruments of
credit. At the heightof nationalistic resurgence in the nineteenth
century, the Rothschildswere developing international syndicates, a form
of internationalbanking. “Jews and Money: The Myths and the Reality,”Gerald Krefetz, Ticknor & Fields, New Haven and New York,1982, p. 12.
Jewish Investment Banking Schemes
In twentieth century America, Jewish
businessmen were developinginvestment banking expertise to finance
consumer-oriented businessesdepartment stores, Alaskan fisheries,
movies, theatres, coppermining and smelting, airlines, and clothing
factories. “Jewsand Money: The Myths and the Reality,” Gerald Krefetz, Ticknor& Fields, New Haven and New York, 1982, p. 12.
Jewish Conglomerate Trick (1960)
Taking Over Old, Non-Jewish Companies
Using Other People’s Money to Do It
Worthless Junk Bond Money Buys & Kills Companies
Gerald Krefetz, A New York City Jewish Person
Author of “Jews and Money: The Myths and the Reality.”
In the 1960s, Jews were again in the
forefront in creatinga new business form – the conglomerate, a
multi-purpose holdingcompany whose disparate profit centers were
purportedly synergistic- greater than the sum of its component parts. It
was not a Jewishinvention – that honor probably belongs to Royal Little
of Textronbut Lehman Brothers, Lazard Freres, LoebRhoades, and Goldman Sachs
were forceful in sellingthe new notion. Besides the self-interest of
these investmentbanking houses (the major interest in conglomerates was
only partiallydue to new products, market penetration, increased
revenues, balancesheet growth, and rising price-earnings ratios),
mergers and acquisitionsgenerated volumes of new corporate issues that
Wall Street underwrote,sold, and traded. And a number of Jewish businessmen were quick to see the potentialof the new financial form. Prudent
and conservativemoney managers were skeptical of the conglomerate: it
had a strikingresemblance to earlier over-blown, credit-created
pyramids, whichhad appeared earlier and milked unsuspecting investors
beforecollapsing. Business history was littered with square cannon
balls,rotten tulip bulbs and burned-out matches from Ponzi-like
operatorsof the John Laws and Ivor Kreugers. “Jews and Money: TheMyths and the Reality,” Gerald Krefetz, Ticknor & Fields,New Haven and New York, 1982, p. 12.
DestroyingChristian Companies
Besides the investors in conglomerate
shares and debentures,the people who had the most to lose were the staid
managementsof victim companies. For the most part, the takeover
candidateswere old industrial companies with secure if unexciting
markets,substantial assets, little debt, underutilized capital, high
dividends,diverse ownership, and no immediate growth prospects. In
brief,they were old-line, quasi-somnambulant corporations. “Jewsand Money: The Myths and the Reality,” Gerald Krefetz, Ticknor& Fields, New Haven and New York, 1982, p. 12.
Jews Attacking Establishment Companies
The conglomerate era of the sixties, abetted by a high-flyingstock
market and a prolonged boom, was really a none-too-subtleattack on
establishment corporations. Though the accounting wasdevious and the
newly issued paper of dubious value, the conglomerateposed a substantial
threat to the corporate status quo. By thelate sixties, stalwarts of
American industry and finance suchas Chemical Bank, Goodrich, Great
American Insurance, Jones andLaughlin, and Pan American were under the
gun. And naturally,in the spirit of free enterprise, they ran to the
government forprotection. “Jews and Money: The Myths and the Reality,”Gerald Krefetz, Ticknor & Fields, New Haven and New York,1982, p. 12.
TheJews Who Destroyed Christian Old-Line Companies
James Ling of Ling-Temco-Vaught, Roy Ash
of Litton, and RoyLittle of Textron were joined by Ben Heineman of
Northwest Industries,Howard Newman of Philadelphia and Reading, Saul
Steinberg of Leasco,Charles Bludhorn of Gulf & Western, 4ishulam
Riklis of RapidAmerican, Laurence Tisch of Loews – each practicing the
“highestform of creative capitalism.” These Jewish
conglomerate-builders,from the flamboyant the conservative, spearheaded
the attack.Aided by clever investment bankers, a permissive Democratic
president,and a credulous public, they shook up old managements,
createdanomalous corporations and provided Wall Street with a stringof
dazzling investment vehicles. Just about every one was a starof the
go-go years, and just about every one suffered grievouslywhen reality in
form of recession and a strict Republican administrationreturned -in
the seventies. “Jews and Money: The Mythsand the Reality,” Gerald Krefetz, Ticknor & Fields, NewHaven and New York, 1982, p. 12.
Economic Control
Saculina Carcini is an
extraordinary creature, a barnacle that degenerates practically into a
plant. It starts life as a free-swimming larva that invades a crab then
changes into a microscopic slug, which plunges into the crab’s underside
and sprouts “roots” that draw in nutrients from the crab’s blood.
The crab’s immune system cannot fight off Sacculina.
but continues living with the parasite filling its entire body and
begins to change into a new sort of creature. One that exists to serve
the parasite. Externally it appears the same, but internally it is
merely a puppet controlled by the intruder.
America and Britain, (plus most other
countries) are in the same position as the crab. Externally they appear
to be in charge of their actions whilst internally they are in the hands
of malevolent and manipulative strangers.
Previous pages on this site have
highlighted the Financial and Media Control of International Jewry. What
follows is a rundown – of a necessity brief – of their control in other
sections of human activities:
A quote from The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David Landes sets the scene:
“In 1836…After centuries of more or less
profitable activity, a network of private banks was in place,
collectively rich and capable of financing medium and long-term
investments in industry… These groups typically hung on religious and
cultural affinities: The Huguenot-Calvinist, Sephardic-Jewish,
German-Jewish, Greek-Orthodox commercial “families” knew their own kind,
whom to trust and whom to worry about, whom to ask and whom to work
with.
…Thus the Paris Rothschilds financed
French railways and French and Belgian coal mines and forges; the
Vienna branch of the bank promoted railways and invested in ironworks
and coal mines in Habsburg territory.”
In 1858 the founder of Reuter’s,Baron Paul Julius von Reuter, or to give him his original name Israel Beer Josaphat,
obtained in Persia concessions to build railways, establish a bank and
to collect customs dues for twenty years. He gained exclusive rights for
seventy years to operate mines, tramways and water works, to build
irrigation canals and fell timber as well as an option to found
utilities, post offices and other enterprises. Lord Curzon called it
“the most complete and extraordinary surrender of the entire industrial
resources of a kingdom into foreign hands.”
Extracts from The Dearborn Independent – 17.12 1921, on the encroachment of the Jews in the American Liquor Industry.
…”the bulk of the organized bootlegging ..in this country is in the hands of the Jews…”
“…the liquor business of the world has
been in the hands of the Jews. In the United states the liquor business
was almost exclusively in the hands of Jews for 25 years previous to
Prohibition…”
“…As middlemen they control the wine product of California. … The Jews have a grip on the cigar trade…”
“It was also true in Russia, Poland,
Rumania. The Jewish Encyclopedia states that:’The establishment of the
government liquor monopoly (in Russia in 1896) deprived thousands of
Jewish families of a livelihood.’ They controlled the liquor traffic,
the vodka business, which undermined Russia….”
The above was written more than eighty
years ago. And now? How many of the big cartels are Jewish owned? The
list below is simply a sample, given merely as an indication of the
seriousness of the situation.
Louis Dreyfus:
Headquarters: Paris, France.
No. 1 French grain exporter.
No. 3 World grain exporter
No 4 US grain exporter.
No. 5 Argentine grain exporter
No. 1 world grain exporter to Russia.
Louis Dreyfus has a bank which in the 1970s rose to the fifth largest private bank in France.
Bunge and Born:
Headquarters: Sao Paulo, Brazil.
No. 1 US dry corn miller (18% of the market)
No. 1 Brazilian grain exporter.
No. 2 U.S. soybean products exporter.
No. 3 US grain exporter.
No. 3 U.S. soybean processor.
No. 7 Argentine grain exporter.
The extent of the Bunge and Born domination of the Argentine economy
was revealed in 1974 when the Montoneros terrorists kidnapped the heirs
to the firm. It was revealed that Bunge and Borne not only dominated
Argentina’s agriculture, but also that Bunge companies produced 40% of
Argentina’s paint, one-third of its tin cans and 20 percent of its
textiles.
Argentine President Juan Peron attempted
to suppress the power of Bunge and Born and other grain cartel
companies. He moved to have the government buy the grain from the
Argentine farmer and export it. In 1955 Peron was deposed and the system
he had set up was disbanded. When Peron was returned to power in 1973,
he established a National Grain Board for the same purpose, fiercely
opposed by the grain cartel companies. He died in 1974 to be succeeded
by his wife, Evita, who was overthrown in 1976, and control of grain and
meat exports was once again returned to the private grain companies.
Monsanto:
Chief Executive Robert Shapiro.
Major UK investors in Monsanto Rothschilds.
Monsanto are rated as one of the “bad”
companies, guilty of many human rights’ and environmental violations,
notably for GE foods and their products, “Agent Orange”. “Dioxin” and
Roundup”.
Nestle:
Headquarters: Switzerland
No. 1 World food company.
No. 1 World trader in dry milk powder.
No. 1 World trader in condensed milk.
No. 1 seller of chocolate and confectionary products.
No. l seller of mineral water.
No. 3 U. S. coffee firm.
Nestle has 400 manufacturing facilities on five continents.
Nestle chairman: Helmut Maucher.
Nestle owns 50.1% of Israeli food maker Osem Investments.
In 1998, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe on behalf
of Nestle, received the Jubilee Award by the Israeli Prime Minister
Netanyahu, in recognition of their investments and trade relationships.
Unilever: (originally Lever Brothers).
No. 1 world producer of ice cream.
No. 1 world producer of margarine.
One of the top five world exporters of dry milk powder.
No. 1 European tea seller.
No 2 and No.3 world producer of soaps and detergents.
One of the top five world crushers of palm oil and palm kernel.
One of world’s largest producers of olive oil.
Largest stockholder Viscount Leverhume.
Philip Morris:
In 1847 Philip Morris
opened a London tobacco store and by 1854 was making his own cigarettes.
In 1985 Philip Morris bought General Foods and in 1988 acquired Kraft
Foods.
No. 2 world food company.
No. 1 U.S. food company.
No. 1 world processed cheese seller.
No. 1 world cigarette producer.
No. 3 world confectionery business.
Key personnel: Rupert Murdoch, Richard Parsons of Time Warner,which is partially owned by the Bronfman family reputedly a major force in the world’s illegal narcotic trade and Stephen Wolf senior adviser of Lazard Freres investment bank.
Philip Morris is one of the largest
smugglers of illegal cigarettes, both for sale and as barter for other
illegal goods. It has been cited repeatedly in the Italian press as one
of the world’s largest marijuana dealers.
Control of Minerals
The modern world has a voracious appetite
for minerals. This requirement has seen the rape of South America,
where her mineral riches have been, and still are, a Pandora’s gift.
Mining is one of the most damaging and dangerous industries producing numerous negative environmental impacts.
This danger increases when, as now, mining exploitation is in the hands of a few companies whose agenda is questionable.
De Beers:
Diamonds:
Eighty per cent of the world’s diamond market is controlled by De Beers, who in their turn are controlled by the Oppenheimer family.
The value of diamonds is regulated by the
supply of “rough” allowed on to the market, and not because diamonds
are rare. Almost all commerce in diamonds is in the hands of Jews.
This dates back a long time. Until the
early part of the eighteenth century, the world’s supply of diamonds
came from India and the Jews, with feelers in all the markets of Europe
and through connections in the Ottoman Empire, were the conduit through
which much of the gems passed. Interestingly enough the rising Indian
trade in diamonds is offering a threat to the De Beers’ monopoly.
In 1998 De Beers were accused of
colluding in the war in Angola and trading in “war diamonds”. A booklet
entitled “A Rough Trade” was produced by the organisation Global Witness
and caused De Beers, caught on the back foot, to announce the closure
of its office in Angola.
Anglo American:
Also controlled by the Oppenheimer family,
Anglo American is ranked as one of the largest mining corporations in
the world along with BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, and Alcoa.
Gold:
Mines in South Africa, Argentina,
Australia, Brazil, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Namibia, Tanzania, Peru,
Colombia and Alaska. Its investment in Trans-Siberian Gold provides
opportunities for further growth in Russia and has recently acquired
Ashanti, the world’s second largest gold mining company in terms of
production.
Iron:
Controlling interest in Kumba, one of the world’s leading iron ore producers.
Platinium:
Anglo Platinum supplies forty per cent of
the world supply. Plus a joint venture for platinium group metals in
China’s Sichuan Province.
Base Metals:
Copper: Namibia
Zinc: Skorpion mine operated by Anglo Base metals in Namibia.
Acquisition of Minera Sur Andes, the Collahuasi Rosario Project in Chile and Codemin in Brazil.
Coal:
Anglo Coal and BHP Billiton proposed expansion of coal in South Africa.
Possible coking coal mine in Queensland, Existing operation in Moura in Queensland.
BHP Billiton:
Another mining giant with world wide
interests, covering Iron Ore, Coal, Copper, Oil and Gas, Diamonds,
Silver, Lead, Zinc, Aluminium and Alumina, Chrome and Manganese.
One of the major shareholders is Chase Nominees i.e. Rockefellers.
Freeport-McMoRan Copper and Gold Inc.
This Company is one of the world’s
largest and lowest cost copper and gold producers from its Grasberg mine
in Irian Jaya. It was listed in 1996 as one of the ten worst
corporations and has been focused for decades by labour, indigenous and
human rights as well as environmental groups. The Grasberg concession’s
worth is estimated at $50 billion.
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FTX) has other
business interests besides copper and gold mining. These include a joint
venture partnership in IMC-Agrico Co. This is one of the largest
fertilizer producers in the world. FTX also produces phosphate-based
animal feed ingredients through IMC-Agrico. In addition FTX is the
largest producer of Frasch sulphur worldwide.
A noteworthy member of the Freeport Board of Directors is the former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, the
company’s main lobbyist for dealings with Indonesia. Dr. Kissinger has
had strong connections in Indonesia since his meeting with President
Suharto prior to the invasion of East Timor, reportedly to provide full
American support. Kissinger’s firm receives a yearly retainer fee of
$200,000 from Freeport and has been a director of the parent Company
Freeport McMoran Inc. since the late 1980s.
ExxonMobil:
Petroleum:
Petrol is the principal combustible of the modern age.
In 2003 ExxonMobil topped all companies for profits and the City Group tailed only Exxon.
ExxonMobil is the combination of the
Rockefellers’ Standard Oil of New Jersey and Standard Oil of NY, Chevron
is the old Standard Oil of California. Citi group is the old First
National City Bank, now dominated by the Rockefellers. Chase is the
historic flagship of Rockefeller finance.
ExxonMobil is labelled as one of the
“bad” companies for environmental and Human Rights violations and
Standard Oil’s reputation in South America does not read well.
Although the Rockefellers do not appear
to be Jewish in origin, they do have Jewish connections. In some
quarters it has been suggested that they are a front for the workings of
the Rothschilds.
Certainly Laurance Rockefeller and Rothschild were the founding members of the Bilderberg Society whose agenda is world domination.
The founder of the Rockefeller family,
William Avery Rockefeller, was a travelling salesman, who fled from a
number of indictments for horse stealing, eventually disappearing and
re-emerging as Dr. Willian Levingston and was interred in an unmarked
grave under that name.
John Rockefeller, William’s son. was a
war profiteer during the American Civil War, who acquired a near
monopoly of the petroleum industry in the United States. and founded
Standard Oil.
The family appear to be great
philantrophists, but a glance at what they fund is interesting.
Education (a useful method of indoctrination), churches (with a world
religion agenda) and numerous supposedly “green” groups.
Is there not an anomaly here? ExxonMobil,
the source of their wealth, is a company (as was Standard Oil) guilty
of numerous anti-environmental misdemeanours. How does this accord with
their role as protectors of the environment?
Could it be that all this apparent
generosity is merely a means of retaining control of those societies who
may become a hindrance to their aims? After all “he who pays the piper
calls the tune”.
World Bank:
According to Reuters’ report on the 11th October 2004, the World Bank Director: Paul Wolfowitz (ex
US Deputy Defence Secretary and architect of the Iraq war) intends to
increase its investment in mining projects in developing countries by
50%. The bank already has a high-profile oil project in Chad. The bank’s
financing of mining projects has previously been made by its private
sector arm, the International Finance Corporation.
The recent “cancellation” of debts of
certain Third World countries, notably Bolivia, Mali, Guyana – which are
mineral rich, is no philantrophic action intended to better the lot of
the indigenous population. Whoever heard of money lenders cancelling a
debt?
The decision taken at the recent G8
meeting in Scotland to cancel Africa’s debts has nothing to do with the
rich countries helping the poor. Rather it means that the International
Monetary Fund is merely employing the same tactics that placed a
stranglehold on South America: offering financial aid in return for
allowing monopolistic companies, who require cheap labour, a foothold in
the economy to the detriment of local industries. Whilst the money
“donated” never reaches the lower fringes of society but merely goes as
sweeteners to keep a new malleable elite in power.
This dangerous control of resources by people whose agendas are suspect bodes ill for humanity and the environment.
Perhaps the 19th century Cree Indian prophecy is the most apt comment:
“Only after the last tree has been cut
down, the last river poisoned and the last fish caught, will you find
that money cannot be eaten.”
But by then, of course, it will be too late.
Daftar Perusahaan Terkaya versi Forbes 500:
1. Exxon Mobil, pendapatan $390.3 billion/tahun, gaji CEO, Rex W. Tillerson, $4.12M/tahun
3. Shell, pendapatan $355.8 billion/tahun, gaji CEO, Jeroen van der Veer, €7,509,244
4. British Petroleum, pendapatan $292 billion/tahun, gaji CEO, Tony Hayward, $4.73M
6. Total S.A., pendapatan $217.6
7. Chevron Corp., pendapatan 214.1 billion/tahun, gaji CEO, David J. O’Reilly, $7.82M
10. ConocoPhillips, pendapatan $187.4 billion/tahun, gaji CEO, James Mulva, $6.88M
Total dari perusahaan itu saja (10
perusahaan teratas versi Forbes 500) yang juga beroperasi di Indonesia
mengelola kekayaan alam kita, itu US$ 1.655 milyar atau sekitar 17 ribu
trilyun/tahun. Di antaranya berasal dari kekayaan alam Indonesia. Jumlah
itu 17 kali lipat dari APBN Indonesia tahun 2009 yang hanya mencapai Rp
1.037 Trilyun.
BUMN yang Menguntungkan Negaranya:
Norway’s economy is a mixed one of public
and private enterprises. Although the economy is based on free-market
principles, the government exercises considerable supervision and
control. The state owns railroads and most of the public utilities, and
state-owned enterprises largely control the vital oil and natural gas
sectors.
Microsoft ® Encarta
About PETRONAS
PETRONAS, the acronym
for Petroliam Nasional Berhad, was incorporated on 17 August 1974 under
the Companies Act 1965. It is wholly-owned by the Malaysian government
and is vested with the entire ownership and control of the petroleum
resources in Malaysia through the Petroleum Development Act 1974.
Over the years, PETRONAS has grown to
become a fully-integrated oil and gas corporation and is ranked among
FORTUNE Global 500’s largest corporations in the world. PETRONAS has
four subsidiaries listed on the Bursa Malaysia and has ventured globally
into more than 32 countries worldwide in its aspiration to be a leading
oil and gas multinational of choice.
1973 Saudi Arabia’s Government acquires a 25 percent participation interest in Aramco.
1975 Master Gas System project is launched.
1980 Saudi Government acquires 100 percent participation interest in Aramco, purchasing almost all of the company’s assets.
| China National Petroleum Corporation |
| China National Petroleum Corporation was established on September 17, 1988 on the basis of the Ministry of Petroleum Industry, mainly in charge of oil and gas upstream operations. It is a state oil company endowed with certain governmental administrative functions. http://www.cnpc.com.cn/en/aboutcnpc/companyprofile/history/default.htm |
Berikut tulisan dari Ensiklopedi MS Encarta:
Saudi Arabia
The latter development, along with Saudi
Arabia’s 1974 takeover of controlling interest in the huge oil company
Aramco, greatly increased government revenue, thus providing funds for
another massive economic development plan.
Did Monsanto Kill This GMO Study?
Posted by Health Wire - Saturday, December 14th, 2013
http://www.myhealthwire.com/news/diet-nutrition/652
Post courtesy of JonBarron.org:
[ Note: GMO Study Retracted. http://www.jonbarron.org/alternative-cancer/gmo-study-is-retracted
You've got to wonder when a
major medical journal retracts a peer-reviewed study one year after
publication, claiming, in essence: "Oops! Our bad. We didn't mean to
publish that research because it wasn't conclusive enough." How do you
explain the fact that one day a panel of experts finds a study suitable for
publication, then a year later reverses itself? Even without knowing the
content of the study, you might suspect that somehow, politics are involved.
The study in question
appeared in the September, 2012, edition of Food
and Chemical Toxicology, published by Elsevier. It found that rats
fed pesticide-resistant GMO corn developed by Monsanto developed breast tumors
or liver disease at an alarming rate. Last week, however, Elsevier announced it
was retracting the article not because of fraud, misrepresentation, or
inaccurate data, but because, "Ultimately, the results presented (while
not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of
publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology."1
The press, naturally, has
focused on the retraction, ignoring the fact that nobody says the original
study was incorrect. And the study did indeed expose some startling facts. The
research, led by Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini of Caen
University in France,
involved 200 rats divided into groups of 10. Some of the rats got fed GMO corn
that was bred to be herbicide-resistant by the Monsanto Company. That corn was
sprayed with Round-Up, which is also a Monsanto product and definitely not a
part of a balanced diet.
Meanwhile, the control rats ate non-GMO, corn-based diets.
In spite of Monsanto's
claims that Round-Up is "not a carcinogen" and that it "has very
low acute toxicity," the female rats fed the genetically modified corn
developed breast tumors and died at more than three times the rate of the
female rats on normal diets, alarming those who work on preventing cancer.2 The males eating the GMO corn did not develop
tumors, but they did contract
liver disease and died at almost twice the rate of the rats eating regular
corn. Published photos of the cancer-ridden rats showed huge tumors, some so
large they interfered with organ function.
As soon as the study got
published, a hailstorm of vocal critics raised a fuss, deluging the journal
with outrage, saying the sample size was too small and the type of rat used had
a tendency to get tumors anyway, so it didn't count. There were even
allegations of fraud.3 The journal responded by supposedly conducting,
a "more in-depth analysis" which in the end "showed that no
definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size… in regards
to overall mortality or tumor incidence."
In fact, Jon Barron himself eviscerated the study shortly after it
was published, concluding, "There is much to dislike about Roundup and GMO
corn, but it is not found in the French study. And coming to absolute
conclusions based on one badly done, agenda driven, rat study is not only bad
science; it's bad health.
But that's not the issue
we're confronting today in the face of the study's retraction. It wasn't
retracted for its flaws. It was retracted because it was deemed
"inconclusive." But as anyone who follows medical news knows, many
small, published studies fail to reach definitive conclusions, and yet they
remain in print. So often we see studies ending with the words "more
research will be needed" or "these results are preliminary." Why
do those studies escape objection, while this one received such a hostile
reception?
Certainly, Dr. Seralini
thinks there's something unsavory going on, and he has threatened to sue
Elsevier. He notes, for one thing, that the objection about the type of rats
used should be viewed in light of the fact that Monsanto used the same type of rats in its own study that led
to European approval of the corn.4 In fact, that type of rat is the most commonly
used in industry feeding studies.5
According to a letter sent
to the Independent Science News and
signed by well over 100 distinguished scientists from every continent around
the globe, including Dr. David Shubert of the Salk Institute, Jack Heinemann of
the University of Canterbury, and Jonathan
Latham of The Bioscience Resource Project, the retraction
represents the latest in a "history of attacks [by Monsanto] on
risk-finding studies [involving Monsanto products]."6 The letter cites, among other examples, a 2001
campaign to discredit a paper published by Ignacio Chapela of UC Berkeley on
GMO corn contamination in Mexico.
That campaign, the paper says, was spearheaded by a public relations firm
specializing in viral marketing that Monsanto often hires.
The paper also points out
that while risk-finding studies that find detrimental effects associated with
GMO food often are discredited because of "an inadequate experimental
design… the same issues of experimental design and analysis raised about this
(Seralini) risk-finding study were not of concern to critics when the studies
did not identify
risk." In other words, what's good for the goose--in this case
Seralini--should be good for the gander (Monsanto).
It's interesting to note
that the retraction closely follows the appointment of a new associate editor
to Food and Chemical Toxicology.7 And guess where that new editor used to work?
That's right! Richard E. Goodman comes to Elsevier right from Monsanto and
still is an affiliate of the GMO industry-funded group, the International Life
Sciences Institute. It's also interesting to note that since Goodman's
appointment, another study that associated GMO corn with harmful effects also
was retracted. That study, from Brazilian researcher Dr. B. P. Mezzomo,
immediately found another publisher in The
Journal of Hematology and Thrombosis Disorders.
Most likely, as Jon Barron
pointed out, Dr. Seralini's study really was flawed. Perhaps most of Dr.
Seralini's contemporaries who criticized study sincerely dispute the results.
Even so, it's difficult not to raise an eyebrow about the circumstances of its
retraction--not to mention the fact that the studies published in support of
GMO foods use the same lab rats and are even more flawed. As the Independent Science News points
out, "When those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt
around inconvenient results, or when governments exploit political opportunities
by picking and choosing from scientific evidence, they jeopardize public
confidence in scientific methods and institutions, and also put their own
citizenry at risk."
- 1. Jaslow, Ryan. "Journal retracts genetically modified corn study that found tumor risk in rats." 29 November 2013. CBS News. 29 November 2013. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/journal-retracts-genetically-modified-corn-tumor-rats-study
- 2. Backgrounder: Summary of Human Risk Assessment and Safety Evaluation on Glyphosphate and Round-Up Herbicide." May 2005. Monsanto Imagine. 29 November 2013.
- http://www.monsanto.com/products/Documents/glyphosate-background-materials/gly_human_risk.pdf
- 3. "Elsevier Announces Article Retraction from Journal Food and Chemical Toxicology." 28 November 2013. The Wall Street Journal. 29 November 2013. http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20131128-907680.html?dsk=y
- 4. Pollack, Andrew. "Paper Tying Rat Tumors to Herbicide is Retracted." 28 November 2013. The New York Times. 29 November 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/health/paper-tying-rat-cancer-to-herbicide-is-retracted.html?_r=0
- 5. "Seralini and Science: An Open Letter."2 October 2012. Independent Science News. 29 November 2013. http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup
- 6. "Seralini and Science: an Open Letter."
- 7. Robinson, Claire. "Journal retraction of Seralini study is illegal, unscientific, and unethical." 27 November 2013. GM Watch. 30 November 2013. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15184-journal-retraction-of-seralini-study-is-illicit-unscientific-and-unethical
GMO Study Retracted
You've
got to wonder when a major medical journal retracts a peer-reviewed
study one year after publication, claiming, in essence: "Oops! Our bad.
We didn't mean to publish that research because it wasn't conclusive
enough." How do you explain the fact that one day a panel of experts
finds a study suitable for publication, then a year later reverses
itself? Even without knowing the content of the study, you might suspect
that somehow, politics are involved.
The study in question appeared in the September, 2012, edition of Food and Chemical Toxicology, published by Elsevier. It found that rats fed pesticide-resistant GMO corn developed by Monsanto developed breast tumors or liver disease at an alarming rate. Last week, however, Elsevier announced it was retracting the article not because of fraud, misrepresentation, or inaccurate data, but because, "Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology."1
The press, naturally, has focused on the retraction, ignoring the fact that nobody says the original study was incorrect. And the study did indeed expose some startling facts. The research, led by Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini of Caen University in France, involved 200 rats divided into groups of 10. Some of the rats got fed GMO corn that was bred to be herbicide-resistant by the Monsanto Company. That corn was sprayed with Round-Up, which is also a Monsanto product and definitely not a part of a balanced diet. Meanwhile, the control rats ate non-GMO, corn-based diets.
In spite of Monsanto's claims that Round-Up is "not a carcinogen" and that it "has very low acute toxicity," the female rats fed the genetically modified corn developed breast tumors and died at more than three times the rate of the female rats on normal diets, alarming those who work on preventing cancer.2 The males eating the GMO corn did not develop tumors, but they did contract liver disease and died at almost twice the rate of the rats eating regular corn. Published photos of the cancer-ridden rats showed huge tumors, some so large they interfered with organ function.
As soon as the study got published, a hailstorm of vocal critics raised a fuss, deluging the journal with outrage, saying the sample size was too small and the type of rat used had a tendency to get tumors anyway, so it didn't count. There were even allegations of fraud.3 The journal responded by supposedly conducting, a "more in-depth analysis" which in the end "showed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size… in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence."
In fact, Jon Barron himself eviscerated the study shortly after it was published, concluding, "There is much to dislike about Roundup and GMO corn, but it is not found in the French study. And coming to absolute conclusions based on one badly done, agenda driven, rat study is not only bad science; it's bad health.
But that's not the issue we're confronting today in the face of the study's retraction. It wasn't retracted for its flaws. It was retracted because it was deemed "inconclusive." But as anyone who follows medical news knows, many small, published studies fail to reach definitive conclusions, and yet they remain in print. So often we see studies ending with the words "more research will be needed" or "these results are preliminary." Why do those studies escape objection, while this one received such a hostile reception?
Certainly, Dr. Seralini thinks there's something unsavory going on, and he has threatened to sue Elsevier. He notes, for one thing, that the objection about the type of rats used should be viewed in light of the fact that Monsanto used the same type of rats in its own study that led to European approval of the corn.4 In fact, that type of rat is the most commonly used in industry feeding studies.5
According to a letter sent to the Independent Science News and signed by well over 100 distinguished scientists from every continent around the globe, including Dr. David Shubert of the Salk Institute, Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, and Jonathan Latham of The Bioscience Resource Project, the retraction represents the latest in a "history of attacks [by Monsanto] on risk-finding studies [involving Monsanto products]."6 The letter cites, among other examples, a 2001 campaign to discredit a paper published by Ignacio Chapela of UC Berkeley on GMO corn contamination in Mexico. That campaign, the paper says, was spearheaded by a public relations firm specializing in viral marketing that Monsanto often hires.
The paper also points out that while risk-finding studies that find detrimental effects associated with GMO food often are discredited because of "an inadequate experimental design… the same issues of experimental design and analysis raised about this (Seralini) risk-finding study were not of concern to critics when the studies did not identify risk." In other words, what's good for the goose--in this case Seralini--should be good for the gander (Monsanto).
It's interesting to note that the retraction closely follows the appointment of a new associate editor to Food and Chemical Toxicology.7 And guess where that new editor used to work? That's right! Richard E. Goodman comes to Elsevier right from Monsanto and still is an affiliate of the GMO industry-funded group, the International Life Sciences Institute. It's also interesting to note that since Goodman's appointment, another study that associated GMO corn with harmful effects also was retracted. That study, from Brazilian researcher Dr. B. P. Mezzomo, immediately found another publisher in The Journal of Hematology and Thrombosis Disorders.
Most likely, as Jon Barron pointed out, Dr. Seralini's study really was flawed. Perhaps most of Dr. Seralini's contemporaries who criticized study sincerely dispute the results. Even so, it's difficult not to raise an eyebrow about the circumstances of its retraction--not to mention the fact that the studies published in support of GMO foods use the same lab rats and are even more flawed. As the Independent Science News points out, "When those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient results, or when governments exploit political opportunities by picking and choosing from scientific evidence, they jeopardize public confidence in scientific methods and institutions, and also put their own citizenry at risk."
The study in question appeared in the September, 2012, edition of Food and Chemical Toxicology, published by Elsevier. It found that rats fed pesticide-resistant GMO corn developed by Monsanto developed breast tumors or liver disease at an alarming rate. Last week, however, Elsevier announced it was retracting the article not because of fraud, misrepresentation, or inaccurate data, but because, "Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology."1
The press, naturally, has focused on the retraction, ignoring the fact that nobody says the original study was incorrect. And the study did indeed expose some startling facts. The research, led by Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini of Caen University in France, involved 200 rats divided into groups of 10. Some of the rats got fed GMO corn that was bred to be herbicide-resistant by the Monsanto Company. That corn was sprayed with Round-Up, which is also a Monsanto product and definitely not a part of a balanced diet. Meanwhile, the control rats ate non-GMO, corn-based diets.
In spite of Monsanto's claims that Round-Up is "not a carcinogen" and that it "has very low acute toxicity," the female rats fed the genetically modified corn developed breast tumors and died at more than three times the rate of the female rats on normal diets, alarming those who work on preventing cancer.2 The males eating the GMO corn did not develop tumors, but they did contract liver disease and died at almost twice the rate of the rats eating regular corn. Published photos of the cancer-ridden rats showed huge tumors, some so large they interfered with organ function.
As soon as the study got published, a hailstorm of vocal critics raised a fuss, deluging the journal with outrage, saying the sample size was too small and the type of rat used had a tendency to get tumors anyway, so it didn't count. There were even allegations of fraud.3 The journal responded by supposedly conducting, a "more in-depth analysis" which in the end "showed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size… in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence."
In fact, Jon Barron himself eviscerated the study shortly after it was published, concluding, "There is much to dislike about Roundup and GMO corn, but it is not found in the French study. And coming to absolute conclusions based on one badly done, agenda driven, rat study is not only bad science; it's bad health.
But that's not the issue we're confronting today in the face of the study's retraction. It wasn't retracted for its flaws. It was retracted because it was deemed "inconclusive." But as anyone who follows medical news knows, many small, published studies fail to reach definitive conclusions, and yet they remain in print. So often we see studies ending with the words "more research will be needed" or "these results are preliminary." Why do those studies escape objection, while this one received such a hostile reception?
Certainly, Dr. Seralini thinks there's something unsavory going on, and he has threatened to sue Elsevier. He notes, for one thing, that the objection about the type of rats used should be viewed in light of the fact that Monsanto used the same type of rats in its own study that led to European approval of the corn.4 In fact, that type of rat is the most commonly used in industry feeding studies.5
According to a letter sent to the Independent Science News and signed by well over 100 distinguished scientists from every continent around the globe, including Dr. David Shubert of the Salk Institute, Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, and Jonathan Latham of The Bioscience Resource Project, the retraction represents the latest in a "history of attacks [by Monsanto] on risk-finding studies [involving Monsanto products]."6 The letter cites, among other examples, a 2001 campaign to discredit a paper published by Ignacio Chapela of UC Berkeley on GMO corn contamination in Mexico. That campaign, the paper says, was spearheaded by a public relations firm specializing in viral marketing that Monsanto often hires.
The paper also points out that while risk-finding studies that find detrimental effects associated with GMO food often are discredited because of "an inadequate experimental design… the same issues of experimental design and analysis raised about this (Seralini) risk-finding study were not of concern to critics when the studies did not identify risk." In other words, what's good for the goose--in this case Seralini--should be good for the gander (Monsanto).
It's interesting to note that the retraction closely follows the appointment of a new associate editor to Food and Chemical Toxicology.7 And guess where that new editor used to work? That's right! Richard E. Goodman comes to Elsevier right from Monsanto and still is an affiliate of the GMO industry-funded group, the International Life Sciences Institute. It's also interesting to note that since Goodman's appointment, another study that associated GMO corn with harmful effects also was retracted. That study, from Brazilian researcher Dr. B. P. Mezzomo, immediately found another publisher in The Journal of Hematology and Thrombosis Disorders.
Most likely, as Jon Barron pointed out, Dr. Seralini's study really was flawed. Perhaps most of Dr. Seralini's contemporaries who criticized study sincerely dispute the results. Even so, it's difficult not to raise an eyebrow about the circumstances of its retraction--not to mention the fact that the studies published in support of GMO foods use the same lab rats and are even more flawed. As the Independent Science News points out, "When those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient results, or when governments exploit political opportunities by picking and choosing from scientific evidence, they jeopardize public confidence in scientific methods and institutions, and also put their own citizenry at risk."
- 1. Jaslow, Ryan. "Journal retracts genetically modified corn study that found tumor risk in rats." 29 November 2013. CBS News. 29 November 2013. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/journal-retracts-genetically-modified-corn-tumor-rats-study
- 2. Backgrounder: Summary of Human Risk Assessment and Safety Evaluation on Glyphosphate and Round-Up Herbicide." May 2005. Monsanto Imagine. 29 November 2013. http://www.monsanto.com/products/Documents/glyphosate-background-materials/gly_human_risk.pdf
- 3. "Elsevier Announces Article Retraction from Journal Food and Chemical Toxicology." 28 November 2013. The Wall Street Journal. 29 November 2013. http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20131128-907680.html?dsk=y
- 4. Pollack, Andrew. "Paper Tying Rat Tumors to Herbicide is Retracted." 28 November 2013. The New York Times. 29 November 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/health/paper-tying-rat-cancer-to-herbicide-is-retracted.html?_r=0
- 5. "Seralini and Science: An Open Letter."2 October 2012. Independent Science News. 29 November 2013. http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup
- 6. "Seralini and Science: an Open Letter."
- 7. Robinson, Claire. "Journal retraction of Seralini study is illegal, unscientific, and unethical." 27 November 2013. GM Watch. 30 November 2013. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15184-journal-retraction-of-seralini-study-is-illicit-unscientific-and-unethical
GMO Study Retracted
You've
got to wonder when a major medical journal retracts a peer-reviewed
study one year after publication, claiming, in essence: "Oops! Our bad.
We didn't mean to publish that research because it wasn't conclusive
enough." How do you explain the fact that one day a panel of experts
finds a study suitable for publication, then a year later reverses
itself? Even without knowing the content of the study, you might suspect
that somehow, politics are involved.
The study in question appeared in the September, 2012, edition of Food and Chemical Toxicology, published by Elsevier. It found that rats fed pesticide-resistant GMO corn developed by Monsanto developed breast tumors or liver disease at an alarming rate. Last week, however, Elsevier announced it was retracting the article not because of fraud, misrepresentation, or inaccurate data, but because, "Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology."1
The press, naturally, has focused on the retraction, ignoring the fact that nobody says the original study was incorrect. And the study did indeed expose some startling facts. The research, led by Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini of Caen University in France, involved 200 rats divided into groups of 10. Some of the rats got fed GMO corn that was bred to be herbicide-resistant by the Monsanto Company. That corn was sprayed with Round-Up, which is also a Monsanto product and definitely not a part of a balanced diet. Meanwhile, the control rats ate non-GMO, corn-based diets.
In spite of Monsanto's claims that Round-Up is "not a carcinogen" and that it "has very low acute toxicity," the female rats fed the genetically modified corn developed breast tumors and died at more than three times the rate of the female rats on normal diets, alarming those who work on preventing cancer.2 The males eating the GMO corn did not develop tumors, but they did contract liver disease and died at almost twice the rate of the rats eating regular corn. Published photos of the cancer-ridden rats showed huge tumors, some so large they interfered with organ function.
As soon as the study got published, a hailstorm of vocal critics raised a fuss, deluging the journal with outrage, saying the sample size was too small and the type of rat used had a tendency to get tumors anyway, so it didn't count. There were even allegations of fraud.3 The journal responded by supposedly conducting, a "more in-depth analysis" which in the end "showed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size… in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence."
In fact, Jon Barron himself eviscerated the study shortly after it was published, concluding, "There is much to dislike about Roundup and GMO corn, but it is not found in the French study. And coming to absolute conclusions based on one badly done, agenda driven, rat study is not only bad science; it's bad health.
But that's not the issue we're confronting today in the face of the study's retraction. It wasn't retracted for its flaws. It was retracted because it was deemed "inconclusive." But as anyone who follows medical news knows, many small, published studies fail to reach definitive conclusions, and yet they remain in print. So often we see studies ending with the words "more research will be needed" or "these results are preliminary." Why do those studies escape objection, while this one received such a hostile reception?
Certainly, Dr. Seralini thinks there's something unsavory going on, and he has threatened to sue Elsevier. He notes, for one thing, that the objection about the type of rats used should be viewed in light of the fact that Monsanto used the same type of rats in its own study that led to European approval of the corn.4 In fact, that type of rat is the most commonly used in industry feeding studies.5
According to a letter sent to the Independent Science News and signed by well over 100 distinguished scientists from every continent around the globe, including Dr. David Shubert of the Salk Institute, Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, and Jonathan Latham of The Bioscience Resource Project, the retraction represents the latest in a "history of attacks [by Monsanto] on risk-finding studies [involving Monsanto products]."6 The letter cites, among other examples, a 2001 campaign to discredit a paper published by Ignacio Chapela of UC Berkeley on GMO corn contamination in Mexico. That campaign, the paper says, was spearheaded by a public relations firm specializing in viral marketing that Monsanto often hires.
The paper also points out that while risk-finding studies that find detrimental effects associated with GMO food often are discredited because of "an inadequate experimental design… the same issues of experimental design and analysis raised about this (Seralini) risk-finding study were not of concern to critics when the studies did not identify risk." In other words, what's good for the goose--in this case Seralini--should be good for the gander (Monsanto).
It's interesting to note that the retraction closely follows the appointment of a new associate editor to Food and Chemical Toxicology.7 And guess where that new editor used to work? That's right! Richard E. Goodman comes to Elsevier right from Monsanto and still is an affiliate of the GMO industry-funded group, the International Life Sciences Institute. It's also interesting to note that since Goodman's appointment, another study that associated GMO corn with harmful effects also was retracted. That study, from Brazilian researcher Dr. B. P. Mezzomo, immediately found another publisher in The Journal of Hematology and Thrombosis Disorders.
Most likely, as Jon Barron pointed out, Dr. Seralini's study really was flawed. Perhaps most of Dr. Seralini's contemporaries who criticized study sincerely dispute the results. Even so, it's difficult not to raise an eyebrow about the circumstances of its retraction--not to mention the fact that the studies published in support of GMO foods use the same lab rats and are even more flawed. As the Independent Science News points out, "When those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient results, or when governments exploit political opportunities by picking and choosing from scientific evidence, they jeopardize public confidence in scientific methods and institutions, and also put their own citizenry at risk."
The study in question appeared in the September, 2012, edition of Food and Chemical Toxicology, published by Elsevier. It found that rats fed pesticide-resistant GMO corn developed by Monsanto developed breast tumors or liver disease at an alarming rate. Last week, however, Elsevier announced it was retracting the article not because of fraud, misrepresentation, or inaccurate data, but because, "Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology."1
The press, naturally, has focused on the retraction, ignoring the fact that nobody says the original study was incorrect. And the study did indeed expose some startling facts. The research, led by Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini of Caen University in France, involved 200 rats divided into groups of 10. Some of the rats got fed GMO corn that was bred to be herbicide-resistant by the Monsanto Company. That corn was sprayed with Round-Up, which is also a Monsanto product and definitely not a part of a balanced diet. Meanwhile, the control rats ate non-GMO, corn-based diets.
In spite of Monsanto's claims that Round-Up is "not a carcinogen" and that it "has very low acute toxicity," the female rats fed the genetically modified corn developed breast tumors and died at more than three times the rate of the female rats on normal diets, alarming those who work on preventing cancer.2 The males eating the GMO corn did not develop tumors, but they did contract liver disease and died at almost twice the rate of the rats eating regular corn. Published photos of the cancer-ridden rats showed huge tumors, some so large they interfered with organ function.
As soon as the study got published, a hailstorm of vocal critics raised a fuss, deluging the journal with outrage, saying the sample size was too small and the type of rat used had a tendency to get tumors anyway, so it didn't count. There were even allegations of fraud.3 The journal responded by supposedly conducting, a "more in-depth analysis" which in the end "showed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size… in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence."
In fact, Jon Barron himself eviscerated the study shortly after it was published, concluding, "There is much to dislike about Roundup and GMO corn, but it is not found in the French study. And coming to absolute conclusions based on one badly done, agenda driven, rat study is not only bad science; it's bad health.
But that's not the issue we're confronting today in the face of the study's retraction. It wasn't retracted for its flaws. It was retracted because it was deemed "inconclusive." But as anyone who follows medical news knows, many small, published studies fail to reach definitive conclusions, and yet they remain in print. So often we see studies ending with the words "more research will be needed" or "these results are preliminary." Why do those studies escape objection, while this one received such a hostile reception?
Certainly, Dr. Seralini thinks there's something unsavory going on, and he has threatened to sue Elsevier. He notes, for one thing, that the objection about the type of rats used should be viewed in light of the fact that Monsanto used the same type of rats in its own study that led to European approval of the corn.4 In fact, that type of rat is the most commonly used in industry feeding studies.5
According to a letter sent to the Independent Science News and signed by well over 100 distinguished scientists from every continent around the globe, including Dr. David Shubert of the Salk Institute, Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, and Jonathan Latham of The Bioscience Resource Project, the retraction represents the latest in a "history of attacks [by Monsanto] on risk-finding studies [involving Monsanto products]."6 The letter cites, among other examples, a 2001 campaign to discredit a paper published by Ignacio Chapela of UC Berkeley on GMO corn contamination in Mexico. That campaign, the paper says, was spearheaded by a public relations firm specializing in viral marketing that Monsanto often hires.
The paper also points out that while risk-finding studies that find detrimental effects associated with GMO food often are discredited because of "an inadequate experimental design… the same issues of experimental design and analysis raised about this (Seralini) risk-finding study were not of concern to critics when the studies did not identify risk." In other words, what's good for the goose--in this case Seralini--should be good for the gander (Monsanto).
It's interesting to note that the retraction closely follows the appointment of a new associate editor to Food and Chemical Toxicology.7 And guess where that new editor used to work? That's right! Richard E. Goodman comes to Elsevier right from Monsanto and still is an affiliate of the GMO industry-funded group, the International Life Sciences Institute. It's also interesting to note that since Goodman's appointment, another study that associated GMO corn with harmful effects also was retracted. That study, from Brazilian researcher Dr. B. P. Mezzomo, immediately found another publisher in The Journal of Hematology and Thrombosis Disorders.
Most likely, as Jon Barron pointed out, Dr. Seralini's study really was flawed. Perhaps most of Dr. Seralini's contemporaries who criticized study sincerely dispute the results. Even so, it's difficult not to raise an eyebrow about the circumstances of its retraction--not to mention the fact that the studies published in support of GMO foods use the same lab rats and are even more flawed. As the Independent Science News points out, "When those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient results, or when governments exploit political opportunities by picking and choosing from scientific evidence, they jeopardize public confidence in scientific methods and institutions, and also put their own citizenry at risk."
- 1. Jaslow, Ryan. "Journal retracts genetically modified corn study that found tumor risk in rats." 29 November 2013. CBS News. 29 November 2013. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/journal-retracts-genetically-modified-corn-tumor-rats-study
- 2. Backgrounder: Summary of Human Risk Assessment and Safety Evaluation on Glyphosphate and Round-Up Herbicide." May 2005. Monsanto Imagine. 29 November 2013. http://www.monsanto.com/products/Documents/glyphosate-background-materials/gly_human_risk.pdf
- 3. "Elsevier Announces Article Retraction from Journal Food and Chemical Toxicology." 28 November 2013. The Wall Street Journal. 29 November 2013. http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20131128-907680.html?dsk=y
- 4. Pollack, Andrew. "Paper Tying Rat Tumors to Herbicide is Retracted." 28 November 2013. The New York Times. 29 November 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/health/paper-tying-rat-cancer-to-herbicide-is-retracted.html?_r=0
- 5. "Seralini and Science: An Open Letter."2 October 2012. Independent Science News. 29 November 2013. http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup
- 6. "Seralini and Science: an Open Letter."
- 7. Robinson, Claire. "Journal retraction of Seralini study is illegal, unscientific, and unethical." 27 November 2013. GM Watch. 30 November 2013. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15184-journal-retraction-of-seralini-study-is-illicit-unscientific-and-unethical
GMO Study Retracted
You've
got to wonder when a major medical journal retracts a peer-reviewed
study one year after publication, claiming, in essence: "Oops! Our bad.
We didn't mean to publish that research because it wasn't conclusive
enough." How do you explain the fact that one day a panel of experts
finds a study suitable for publication, then a year later reverses
itself? Even without knowing the content of the study, you might suspect
that somehow, politics are involved.
The study in question appeared in the September, 2012, edition of Food and Chemical Toxicology, published by Elsevier. It found that rats fed pesticide-resistant GMO corn developed by Monsanto developed breast tumors or liver disease at an alarming rate. Last week, however, Elsevier announced it was retracting the article not because of fraud, misrepresentation, or inaccurate data, but because, "Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology."1
The press, naturally, has focused on the retraction, ignoring the fact that nobody says the original study was incorrect. And the study did indeed expose some startling facts. The research, led by Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini of Caen University in France, involved 200 rats divided into groups of 10. Some of the rats got fed GMO corn that was bred to be herbicide-resistant by the Monsanto Company. That corn was sprayed with Round-Up, which is also a Monsanto product and definitely not a part of a balanced diet. Meanwhile, the control rats ate non-GMO, corn-based diets.
In spite of Monsanto's claims that Round-Up is "not a carcinogen" and that it "has very low acute toxicity," the female rats fed the genetically modified corn developed breast tumors and died at more than three times the rate of the female rats on normal diets, alarming those who work on preventing cancer.2 The males eating the GMO corn did not develop tumors, but they did contract liver disease and died at almost twice the rate of the rats eating regular corn. Published photos of the cancer-ridden rats showed huge tumors, some so large they interfered with organ function.
As soon as the study got published, a hailstorm of vocal critics raised a fuss, deluging the journal with outrage, saying the sample size was too small and the type of rat used had a tendency to get tumors anyway, so it didn't count. There were even allegations of fraud.3 The journal responded by supposedly conducting, a "more in-depth analysis" which in the end "showed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size… in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence."
In fact, Jon Barron himself eviscerated the study shortly after it was published, concluding, "There is much to dislike about Roundup and GMO corn, but it is not found in the French study. And coming to absolute conclusions based on one badly done, agenda driven, rat study is not only bad science; it's bad health.
But that's not the issue we're confronting today in the face of the study's retraction. It wasn't retracted for its flaws. It was retracted because it was deemed "inconclusive." But as anyone who follows medical news knows, many small, published studies fail to reach definitive conclusions, and yet they remain in print. So often we see studies ending with the words "more research will be needed" or "these results are preliminary." Why do those studies escape objection, while this one received such a hostile reception?
Certainly, Dr. Seralini thinks there's something unsavory going on, and he has threatened to sue Elsevier. He notes, for one thing, that the objection about the type of rats used should be viewed in light of the fact that Monsanto used the same type of rats in its own study that led to European approval of the corn.4 In fact, that type of rat is the most commonly used in industry feeding studies.5
According to a letter sent to the Independent Science News and signed by well over 100 distinguished scientists from every continent around the globe, including Dr. David Shubert of the Salk Institute, Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, and Jonathan Latham of The Bioscience Resource Project, the retraction represents the latest in a "history of attacks [by Monsanto] on risk-finding studies [involving Monsanto products]."6 The letter cites, among other examples, a 2001 campaign to discredit a paper published by Ignacio Chapela of UC Berkeley on GMO corn contamination in Mexico. That campaign, the paper says, was spearheaded by a public relations firm specializing in viral marketing that Monsanto often hires.
The paper also points out that while risk-finding studies that find detrimental effects associated with GMO food often are discredited because of "an inadequate experimental design… the same issues of experimental design and analysis raised about this (Seralini) risk-finding study were not of concern to critics when the studies did not identify risk." In other words, what's good for the goose--in this case Seralini--should be good for the gander (Monsanto).
It's interesting to note that the retraction closely follows the appointment of a new associate editor to Food and Chemical Toxicology.7 And guess where that new editor used to work? That's right! Richard E. Goodman comes to Elsevier right from Monsanto and still is an affiliate of the GMO industry-funded group, the International Life Sciences Institute. It's also interesting to note that since Goodman's appointment, another study that associated GMO corn with harmful effects also was retracted. That study, from Brazilian researcher Dr. B. P. Mezzomo, immediately found another publisher in The Journal of Hematology and Thrombosis Disorders.
Most likely, as Jon Barron pointed out, Dr. Seralini's study really was flawed. Perhaps most of Dr. Seralini's contemporaries who criticized study sincerely dispute the results. Even so, it's difficult not to raise an eyebrow about the circumstances of its retraction--not to mention the fact that the studies published in support of GMO foods use the same lab rats and are even more flawed. As the Independent Science News points out, "When those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient results, or when governments exploit political opportunities by picking and choosing from scientific evidence, they jeopardize public confidence in scientific methods and institutions, and also put their own citizenry at risk."
The study in question appeared in the September, 2012, edition of Food and Chemical Toxicology, published by Elsevier. It found that rats fed pesticide-resistant GMO corn developed by Monsanto developed breast tumors or liver disease at an alarming rate. Last week, however, Elsevier announced it was retracting the article not because of fraud, misrepresentation, or inaccurate data, but because, "Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology."1
The press, naturally, has focused on the retraction, ignoring the fact that nobody says the original study was incorrect. And the study did indeed expose some startling facts. The research, led by Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini of Caen University in France, involved 200 rats divided into groups of 10. Some of the rats got fed GMO corn that was bred to be herbicide-resistant by the Monsanto Company. That corn was sprayed with Round-Up, which is also a Monsanto product and definitely not a part of a balanced diet. Meanwhile, the control rats ate non-GMO, corn-based diets.
In spite of Monsanto's claims that Round-Up is "not a carcinogen" and that it "has very low acute toxicity," the female rats fed the genetically modified corn developed breast tumors and died at more than three times the rate of the female rats on normal diets, alarming those who work on preventing cancer.2 The males eating the GMO corn did not develop tumors, but they did contract liver disease and died at almost twice the rate of the rats eating regular corn. Published photos of the cancer-ridden rats showed huge tumors, some so large they interfered with organ function.
As soon as the study got published, a hailstorm of vocal critics raised a fuss, deluging the journal with outrage, saying the sample size was too small and the type of rat used had a tendency to get tumors anyway, so it didn't count. There were even allegations of fraud.3 The journal responded by supposedly conducting, a "more in-depth analysis" which in the end "showed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size… in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence."
In fact, Jon Barron himself eviscerated the study shortly after it was published, concluding, "There is much to dislike about Roundup and GMO corn, but it is not found in the French study. And coming to absolute conclusions based on one badly done, agenda driven, rat study is not only bad science; it's bad health.
But that's not the issue we're confronting today in the face of the study's retraction. It wasn't retracted for its flaws. It was retracted because it was deemed "inconclusive." But as anyone who follows medical news knows, many small, published studies fail to reach definitive conclusions, and yet they remain in print. So often we see studies ending with the words "more research will be needed" or "these results are preliminary." Why do those studies escape objection, while this one received such a hostile reception?
Certainly, Dr. Seralini thinks there's something unsavory going on, and he has threatened to sue Elsevier. He notes, for one thing, that the objection about the type of rats used should be viewed in light of the fact that Monsanto used the same type of rats in its own study that led to European approval of the corn.4 In fact, that type of rat is the most commonly used in industry feeding studies.5
According to a letter sent to the Independent Science News and signed by well over 100 distinguished scientists from every continent around the globe, including Dr. David Shubert of the Salk Institute, Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, and Jonathan Latham of The Bioscience Resource Project, the retraction represents the latest in a "history of attacks [by Monsanto] on risk-finding studies [involving Monsanto products]."6 The letter cites, among other examples, a 2001 campaign to discredit a paper published by Ignacio Chapela of UC Berkeley on GMO corn contamination in Mexico. That campaign, the paper says, was spearheaded by a public relations firm specializing in viral marketing that Monsanto often hires.
The paper also points out that while risk-finding studies that find detrimental effects associated with GMO food often are discredited because of "an inadequate experimental design… the same issues of experimental design and analysis raised about this (Seralini) risk-finding study were not of concern to critics when the studies did not identify risk." In other words, what's good for the goose--in this case Seralini--should be good for the gander (Monsanto).
It's interesting to note that the retraction closely follows the appointment of a new associate editor to Food and Chemical Toxicology.7 And guess where that new editor used to work? That's right! Richard E. Goodman comes to Elsevier right from Monsanto and still is an affiliate of the GMO industry-funded group, the International Life Sciences Institute. It's also interesting to note that since Goodman's appointment, another study that associated GMO corn with harmful effects also was retracted. That study, from Brazilian researcher Dr. B. P. Mezzomo, immediately found another publisher in The Journal of Hematology and Thrombosis Disorders.
Most likely, as Jon Barron pointed out, Dr. Seralini's study really was flawed. Perhaps most of Dr. Seralini's contemporaries who criticized study sincerely dispute the results. Even so, it's difficult not to raise an eyebrow about the circumstances of its retraction--not to mention the fact that the studies published in support of GMO foods use the same lab rats and are even more flawed. As the Independent Science News points out, "When those with a vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient results, or when governments exploit political opportunities by picking and choosing from scientific evidence, they jeopardize public confidence in scientific methods and institutions, and also put their own citizenry at risk."
- 1. Jaslow, Ryan. "Journal retracts genetically modified corn study that found tumor risk in rats." 29 November 2013. CBS News. 29 November 2013. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/journal-retracts-genetically-modified-corn-tumor-rats-study
- 2. Backgrounder: Summary of Human Risk Assessment and Safety Evaluation on Glyphosphate and Round-Up Herbicide." May 2005. Monsanto Imagine. 29 November 2013. http://www.monsanto.com/products/Documents/glyphosate-background-materials/gly_human_risk.pdf
- 3. "Elsevier Announces Article Retraction from Journal Food and Chemical Toxicology." 28 November 2013. The Wall Street Journal. 29 November 2013. http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20131128-907680.html?dsk=y
- 4. Pollack, Andrew. "Paper Tying Rat Tumors to Herbicide is Retracted." 28 November 2013. The New York Times. 29 November 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/health/paper-tying-rat-cancer-to-herbicide-is-retracted.html?_r=0
- 5. "Seralini and Science: An Open Letter."2 October 2012. Independent Science News. 29 November 2013. http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup
- 6. "Seralini and Science: an Open Letter."
- 7. Robinson, Claire. "Journal retraction of Seralini study is illegal, unscientific, and unethical." 27 November 2013. GM Watch. 30 November 2013. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15184-journal-retraction-of-seralini-study-is-illicit-unscientific-and-unethical
You've got to wonder when a major medical
journal retracts a peer-reviewed study one year after publication,
claiming, in essence: "Oops! Our bad. We didn't mean to publish that
research because it wasn't conclusive enough." How do you explain the
fact that one day a panel of experts finds a study suitable for
publication, then a year later reverses itself? Even without knowing the
content of the study, you might suspect that somehow, politics are
involved.
The study in question appeared in the September, 2012, edition of Food and Chemical Toxicology, published
by Elsevier. It found that rats fed pesticide-resistant GMO corn
developed by Monsanto developed breast tumors or liver disease at an
alarming rate. Last week, however, Elsevier announced it was retracting
the article not because of fraud, misrepresentation, or inaccurate data,
but because, "Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect)
are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of
publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology."1
The press, naturally, has focused on the
retraction, ignoring the fact that nobody says the original study was
incorrect. And the study did indeed expose some startling facts. The
research, led by Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini of Caen University in France,
involved 200 rats divided into groups of 10. Some of the rats got fed
GMO corn that was bred to be herbicide-resistant by the Monsanto
Company. That corn was sprayed with Round-Up, which is also a Monsanto
product and definitely not a part of a balanced diet. Meanwhile, the control rats ate non-GMO, corn-based diets.
In
spite of Monsanto's claims that Round-Up is "not a carcinogen" and that
it "has very low acute toxicity," the female rats fed the genetically
modified corn developed breast tumors and died at more than three times
the rate of the female rats on normal diets, alarming those who work on preventing cancer.2 The males eating the GMO corn did not develop tumors, but they did contract
liver disease and died at almost twice the rate of the rats eating
regular corn. Published photos of the cancer-ridden rats showed huge
tumors, some so large they interfered with organ function.
As
soon as the study got published, a hailstorm of vocal critics raised a
fuss, deluging the journal with outrage, saying the sample size was too
small and the type of rat used had a tendency to get tumors anyway, so
it didn't count. There were even allegations of fraud.3 The
journal responded by supposedly conducting, a "more in-depth analysis"
which in the end "showed that no definitive conclusions can be reached
with this small sample size… in regards to overall mortality or tumor
incidence."
In fact, Jon Barron himself eviscerated the study shortly
after it was published, concluding, "There is much to dislike about
Roundup and GMO corn, but it is not found in the French study. And
coming to absolute conclusions based on one badly done, agenda driven,
rat study is not only bad science; it's bad health.
But that's not the issue we're
confronting today in the face of the study's retraction. It wasn't
retracted for its flaws. It was retracted because it was deemed
"inconclusive." But as anyone who follows medical news knows, many
small, published studies fail to reach definitive conclusions, and yet
they remain in print. So often we see studies ending with the words
"more research will be needed" or "these results are preliminary." Why
do those studies escape objection, while this one received such a
hostile reception?
Certainly, Dr. Seralini thinks there's something unsavory going on, and
he has threatened to sue Elsevier. He notes, for one thing, that the
objection about the type of rats used should be viewed in light of the
fact that Monsanto used the same type of rats in its own study that led to European approval of the corn.4 In fact, that type of rat is the most commonly used in industry feeding studies.5
According to a letter sent to the Independent Science News and
signed by well over 100 distinguished scientists from every continent
around the globe, including Dr. David Shubert of the Salk Institute,
Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, and Jonathan Latham of The Bioscience Resource Project, the
retraction represents the latest in a "history of attacks [by Monsanto]
on risk-finding studies [involving Monsanto products]."6 The
letter cites, among other examples, a 2001 campaign to discredit a
paper published by Ignacio Chapela of UC Berkeley on GMO corn
contamination in Mexico. That campaign, the paper says, was spearheaded
by a public relations firm specializing in viral marketing that Monsanto
often hires.
The paper also points out that while
risk-finding studies that find detrimental effects associated with GMO
food often are discredited because of "an inadequate experimental
design… the same issues of experimental design and analysis raised about
this (Seralini) risk-finding study were not of concern to critics when
the studies did not identify risk." In other words, what's good for the goose--in this case Seralini--should be good for the gander (Monsanto).
It's interesting to note that the retraction closely follows the appointment of a new associate editor to Food and Chemical Toxicology.7 And guess where that new editor used to work? That's right!
Richard E. Goodman comes to Elsevier
right from Monsanto and still is an affiliate of the GMO industry-funded
group, the International Life Sciences Institute. It's also interesting
to note that since Goodman's appointment, another study that associated
GMO corn with harmful effects also was retracted. That study, from
Brazilian researcher Dr. B. P. Mezzomo, immediately found another
publisher in The Journal of Hematology and Thrombosis Disorders.
Most likely, as Jon Barron pointed out,
Dr. Seralini's study really was flawed. Perhaps most of Dr. Seralini's
contemporaries who criticized study sincerely dispute the results. Even
so, it's difficult not to raise an eyebrow about the circumstances of
its retraction--not to mention the fact that the studies published in
support of GMO foods use the same lab rats and are even more flawed. As
the Independent Science News points out, "When those with a
vested interest attempt to sow unreasonable doubt around inconvenient
results, or when governments exploit political opportunities by picking
and choosing from scientific evidence, they jeopardize public confidence
in scientific methods and institutions, and also put their own
citizenry at risk."
*Post courtesy of Jon Barron.org.
Founder and Director of the Baseline of Health® Foundation, Jon
Barron has been at the forefront of much of the pioneering work in the
study of nutrition and anti-aging for the last 45 years. He is editor
and publisher of the Baseline of Health® Newsletter and the Barron
Report, which are both read by thousands of doctors, health experts,
government health ministers, and nutrition consumers in over 100
countries. For more information, visit http://www.jonbarron.org.
SOURCES:
-
1.Jaslow, Ryan. "Journal retracts genetically modified corn study that found tumor risk in rats." 29 November 2013. CBS News. 29 November 2013. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/journal-retracts-genetically-modified-corn-tumor-rats-study
-
2.Backgrounder: Summary of Human Risk Assessment and Safety Evaluation on Glyphosphate and Round-Up Herbicide." May 2005. Monsanto Imagine. 29 November 2013. http://www.monsanto.com/products/Documents/glyphosate-background-materials/gly_human_risk.pdf
-
3."Elsevier Announces Article Retraction from Journal Food and Chemical Toxicology." 28 November 2013. The Wall Street Journal. 29 November 2013. http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20131128-907680.html?dsk=y
-
4.Pollack, Andrew. "Paper Tying Rat Tumors to Herbicide is Retracted." 28 November 2013. The New York Times. 29 November 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/health/paper-tying-rat-cancer-to-herbicide-is-retracted.html?_r=0
-
5."Seralini and Science: An Open Letter."2 October 2012. Independent Science News. 29 November 2013. http://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/seralini-and-science-nk603-rat-study-roundup
-
6."Seralini and Science: an Open Letter."
-
7.Robinson, Claire. "Journal retraction of Seralini study is illegal, unscientific, and unethical." 27 November 2013. GM Watch. 30 November 2013. http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15184-journal-retraction-of-seralini-study-is-illicit-unscientific-and-unethicalThe Seralini paper that Monsanto objects to is still available at various places, such as the one below, but as a precaution I have taken my own copy.
http://research.sustainablefoodtru st.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2012/09/Final-Paper.pdf
It is true that the research had flaws. Although the animal groups fed the GMO-feed were large (around 90 over various dose rates etc.,), the control group contained only 10 rats. Rats just like humans get tumours as they age. The Seralini paper suggests that the age of onset of these tumours was very much reduced by feeding them GMO feed. However, there was no double-blind provision, where the people diagnosing the tumours would have had no knowledge of whether or not a rat was in a control group. And because the control group that was not fed GMO was so small, it needed only 1 odd rat to be genetically disposed to early tumours, to ensure that the results were meaningless. But that is only a 1 in 10 chance.
So the results were NEARLY statistically significant. A prudent, honest approach would be for Monsanto to run its own tests, with double-blinding and with a large enough control group, and with independent inspection.
Given their hostile attitude, I am now going organic, in order to avoid GMO-feed.
They are wanting to feed 7 billion people either with GMO food directly, or from animals raised on GMO-feed. They ought to be able to afford a few million dollars for full-scale tests over the complete lifetime of the experimental animals.Reply · 2 · Like · Follow Post · 19 hours agoMonsanto Pours Millions into GMO-Labeling Fight
Posted by Health Wire - Tuesday, October 1st, 2013http://www.myhealthwire.com/news/food/593
We’re now only weeks away from the next big GMO-labeling vote in the United States; this time in Washington State, where citizens will cast their votes for the people's initiative 522, "The People's Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act," on November 5.
Initiative 522 will require seeds, raw agricultural commodities, and processed foods to be labeled if they’re produced using genetic engineering.1
As in last year’s California Proposition 37 GMO labeling campaign, the opposition from industry is fierce, with millions of dollars being poured into the anti-labeling campaign.
According to the Public Disclosure Commission,2 the “NO on 522” campaign has already raised more than $11 million—nearly four times the amount raised by the pro-labeling camp. Monsanto leads the charge, having donated close to $4.8 million to the anti-labeling campaign.
I want to remind you that the success of this ballot initiative is dependent on public donations, and we’re up against industry giants with very deep pockets, so please, help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for GMO labeling in other states by making a donation to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) today.
The Two Faces of Monsanto
According to Robb Fraley, executive vice president and chief technology officer of Monsanto, the company backs efforts to prevent GMO labeling in Washington State “for the same reasons we opposed the California initiative.” He recently told Politico:3
“The reason people are funding campaigns for mandatory labeling is because they basically want to get rid of biotech, and they want biotech to suffer the same view as salt or sugar on the label, and the science doesn’t support it.”
Curiously enough, Monsanto is more than willing to “support” GMO labeling once they run out of options. Here’s a Monsanto ad from the UK, letting British consumers know how much the company supports the mandatory labeling of their goods—even urging Britons to seek such labels out—ostensibly because Monsanto believes “you should be aware of all the facts before making a decision.”
What’s the difference between British shoppers and American shoppers? Why does Monsanto support one nation’s right to know but not another? It’s time to put an end to this hypocritical charade and label foods in the US, as has been done in 64 other countries4 across the globe already!
GMA Sued for “Money Laundering” in Anti-GMO Labeling Scheme
In addition to Monsanto’s $4.8 million donation to the No on 522 campaign, Dupont has kicked in $3.4 million,5 and The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) $2.2 million. UPDATE: The Grocery Manufacturers Association has just kicked in another $5 million recently! The Grocery Manufacturers Association has now contributed over $7 million against I-522! Curiously absent from any list of donors are the big spenders from last year’s No on Prop 37 campaign. The reason for this is not likely to be due to a change of heart on these companies’ behalf. Rather we may be looking at yet another level of shifty maneuvering.
Aren’t these companies willing to tell you the truth about anything?Food democracy Now! recently notified subscribers that the Washington State group Moms for Labeling has sued6 the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), claiming the trade association is “laundering money" from their members to “illegally” hide the donors identities.7
GMA members include popular food and beverage giants like Pepsi, Coke, Kraft, Kellogg's and General Mills. Last year, many of them faced boycotts and bad publicity once people realized the brands had spent large sums of money to keep them in the dark about genetically engineered ingredients. So this year, many of the same companies are simply trying to circumvent having to reveal their position on this issue.
Last year’s labeling campaign also made many Americans aware of the fact that some of their beloved and trusted natural/organic brands are actually owned by the very same junk food corporations that fought against GMO labeling in California. This too caused outrage, and for good reason. Essentially, you have brands that proclaim to be all natural and/or organic taking a stand against your right to know what’s in your food. It doesn’t get any more hypocritical than that. As reported by the featured article:8
“[S]tate election rules requires political committees to reveal their own donors so that voters can tell who's behind political contributions from generic-sounding groups, such as the GMA, that are helping fund initiatives.
Recent polls show that 64-66 percent of likely voters in Washington State strongly support GMO labeling, which puts further pressure on companies who’d rather not disclose such ingredients. The following graphic reveals which brands support labeling, and which ones hide behind the trade lobby group, GMA, which is funding the NO on 522 campaign in its own name rather than the companies’ whose donations are being used. Essentially, that means any company maintaining membership with the GMA becomes suspect in this regard.
The GMA is the lobbying group for the food industry, but that doesn't necessarily make them a "political committee." To be considered a political committee by the state, an organization has to specifically solicit money to influence an election or exist primarily to influence an election. But the GMA is already a membership group whose primary purpose isn't I-522.
However, in its complaint,9 the pro-522 activists contend, through whistleblower sources, that the GMA specifically appealed to members to contribute to the No campaign. The complaint states: "The Grocery Manufacturers Association has made a special appeal to its members in the form of a voluntary special assessment, to fund the No on 522 Campaign." According to state rules, if that's true, that would make the GMA a political committee.”
You CAN Make a Difference
More than 25,000 people petitioned Dr. Andrew Weil to withdraw his company, Weil Lifestyle, from the GMA for this reason. He listened, and withdrew his membership. The Organic Consumers Association is currently petitioning Aurora Organic to take a clear stand and withdraw its membership from the Grocery Manufacturers Association10 as well.
Will GMO Soil Microbes Herald Another Agricultural Disaster?
I’ve written extensively about the health hazards and environmental harm caused by glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup. The New York Times11 also recently addressed the issue:
“Because glyphosate moves into the soil from the plant, it seems to affect the rhizosphere, the ecology around the root zone, which in turn can affect plant health,” said Robert Kremer, a scientist at the United States Agriculture Department, who has studied the impact of glyphosate on soybeans for more than a decade and has warned of the herbicide’s impact on soil health.
Incredibly, the article actually hints at the possibility of engineering soil microbes to “make up” for the detrimental effects of Roundup! Earlier this year, Monsanto purchased “select assets” of Agradis,12 a “sustainable agricultural solutions” company founded by J. Craig Venter, a scientist who sequenced the human genome to develop various microbes and “agricultural biologicals.” Monsanto also acquired a collection of Venter’s microbes. According to Monsanto’s chief technology officer Robert Fraley, “the foray into microbes... is to improve yield and address some of the issues raised about glyphosate.” What the future might hold if they actually go so far as to tinker with genetically engineered soil microbes is anyone’s guess. But I’m betting it won’t be good...
Like the human microbiome, the plants’ roots systems rely on a complex system of bacteria, fungi and minerals in the soil. The combination, in the right balance, helps protect the crops from diseases and improves photosynthesis.
In some studies, scientists have found that a big selling point for the pesticide — that it binds tightly to minerals in the soil, like calcium, boron and manganese, thus preventing runoff — also means it competes with plants for those nutrients. Other research indicates that glyphosate can alter the mix of bacteria and fungi that interact with plant root systems, making them more susceptible to parasites and pathogens.”
Join Us in Your Right to Know by Getting GMOs Labeled!
While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. In the past few weeks, Connecticut and Maine have passed GMO-labeling bills, and 20 other states have pending legislation to label genetically engineered foods. So, now is the time to put the pedal to the metal and get labeling across the country—something 64 other countries already have.
I hope you will join us in this effort.
The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people's initiative 522, "The People's Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act," will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. Please help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for GMO labeling in other states by making a donation to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).
Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn't have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let's not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can.
- No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
- Sign up to learn more about how you can get involved by visiting Yeson522.com!
- For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
- Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.
- 1 Yeson522.com
- 2 Public Disclosure Commission, Cash Contributions for: NO ON 522
- 3 Politico September 11, 2013
- 4 Justlabelit.org
- 5 Politico September 11, 2013
- 6 Complaint, Moms for Labeling vs No on 522 and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (PDF)
- 7 Seattlenet.com September 19, 2013
- 8 Seattlenet.com September 19, 2013
- 9 Complaint, Moms for Labeling vs No on 522 and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (PDF)
- 10 Organic Consumers Association, Petition: Aurora Organic: Stop Supporting the GMA’s Campaign to Kill GMO Labeling!
- 11 New York Times September 19, 2013
- 12 Themotleyfool.com January 30, 2013
The Top 20 GMO Foods to Avoid
Posted by Health Wire - Friday, August 2nd, 2013
http://www.myhealthwire.com/news/diet-nutrition/540
In the very short time since GMO foods were first introduced, they have tainted ecosystems, created financial strains for farmers, and introduced unnatural elements into the local, national, and global food supply.
GMOs pose a danger to all of us and the evidence is irrefutable. Environmentally, they have created superweeds that destroy farmland, and they have eliminated some organisms from ecosystems, leading to new superbugs to fill the void. Much talk also centers around the health considerations. Unfortunately, researchers who attempt to test the alleged safety of these GMOs – and have found them decidedly unsafe! – get shouted down by the rank-and-file industry yes men who are intent on protecting the empire. Despite this, the research has shown a dramatically higher risk of health problems from eating GMOs and research shown that toxic DNA from these plants may survive digestion. It’s even been found in the blood of pregnant women and their fetuses! [1]
Unfortunately, until the laws change and ban these destructive products, the best protection is to avoid them. The following list outlines the 20 top GMO foods and ingredients you absolutely must avoid to keep GMOs out of the diet.
1. Aspartame
According to the EPA, aspartame is a chemical that causes neurotoxicity. Keep in mind that that’s the United States Environmental Protection Agency — a government agency. Regardless, the FDA continues to rubber stamp its use.
Aspartame is made from aspartate, methanol and phenylaline. Once ingested, the body breaks aspartame down into these constituent parts. Most notably, methanol is converted into formaldehyde. The US Department of Labor considers formaldehyde a toxic and hazardous substance that should not be ingested.
Recent research has demonstrated highly carcinogenic affects from aspartame consumption. [2] Additional research could not dismiss aspartame’s role in leukemia and non-Hodgkins lymphomas. [3] Entire books have been written about the dangers of aspartame.
In the quest for healthy living, this toxic, lab-created chemical tops any list of foods and ingredients to avoid!
2. CornThe agribusiness cartels have assured us for years of their products safety and the mainstream media have smiled and winked right alongside them. However, now, even MSN is now reporting that GMO corn may be toxic.[4] Several studies have shown regular dietary consumption of Bt-corn (maize), the GMO version of corn, leads to serious health problems and negatively effects the kidney and liver (the dietary detoxifying organs), as well as in the heart, adrenal glands, and spleen. [5] [6]
Eating organic corn may be one way to eliminate exposure to this dangerous GMO. As you will see below, corn appears in many more forms, making avoidance an exercise in awareness.
3. Sugar Beets
Of the nearly 130 million metric tons of sugar produced globally every year, sugar beets constitute nearly 35% of that sugar (the remaining amount coming from sugar cane). [7]These sugar beets are used to produce sucrose. [8]
Unfortunately, they struggle to survive competition from weeds. So a glyphosate (Roundup) version was created. [9] That way farmers could dump Roundup on the fields of sugar beets to kill off the weeds without killing the sugar beets. Great idea — in addition to the glyphosate DNA, the plants are repeatedly coated with toxic chemicals during their growing cycle.
The best way to avoid sugar beets is to avoid products with sucrose (sugar), or any product that doesn’t specify sweeteners like organic agave or raw honey.
4. HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup)
First, HFCS is made from corn, which is likely to be a GMO strain. It then goes through a process that converts corn into corn starch…which then is converted into corn syrup in a process involving bacterial enzymes and fungus. Finally, another bacterial enzyme is added to the process to produce fructose. This is not a natural process and does not yield a natural product.
Mercury has been found in HFCS as a result of the manufacturing process. [10] Does HFCS lead to health problems? Possibly, researchers from Princeton and Oxford have linked HFCS to weight gain and Type II diabetes. [11] [12]
To summarize, HFCS starts as a GMO, contains mercury, and has been linked to weight gain and Type II diabetes. Just avoid it.
5. Soy (lecithin)
Soy beans are perhaps one of the most prevalent GMO products in fields today. Soy has been associated with a wide range of health problems and GMO soy has been linked to pancreatic problems. [13]
Soy lecithin isn’t even a choice soybean product, it’s a waste product from the processing of crude soy oil. It typically contains solvents and pesticides. Researchers have also found soy lecithin to contain allergens that have wide ranging health impacts. [14]
As a rule, avoid soy unless it is organic and fermented (such as in miso or natto). And make sure to avoid anything containing soy lecithin, the soy product constructed from the sludgy glop created during the creation of soy oil.
6. Corn Starch
Corn starch is a highly processed corn product made from corn – genetically modified (GM) corn. It offers no nutritional value and carries all the dangers associated with GMO foods. It is used as an additive in many products and as a processed food, it creates digestive problems. The problems with corn starch have been known about since the 1970s. With the introduction of GMO corn, the problems have only increased.
7. Tomatoes
When tested, genetically modified tomatoes have been found to have less antioxidant activity than their natural counterparts. [15] As is the case with GMOs, the genetic modifications result in overall reduced nutritional value.
8. Sausage
Most sausage contains corn syrup or corn syrup solids, in addition to the other preservatives. That’s right, the hot dog or Italian sausage you enjoy – even just once in a while – likely contains a GMO. If you choose to eat sausage of any type, avoid the pre-packaged kind. Your best bet is to purchase from a local butcher who specializes in locally grown, organic, free-range meats.
9. Ice Cream
This delicious summer-time treat typically features a range of HFCS, corn syrup and corn starch, plus rGBH. Unless the brand you buy is organic or home-made from organic ingredients, each spoonful of ice cream likely contains plenty of genetically-modified DNA and bovine growth hormones.
10. Non-organic and Synthetic Vitamins
Many vitamins, including top children’s vitamins, use ‘vegetable’ products as a base for the vitamin. Many of these ‘vegetables’ come from corn and soy products; many also contain aspartame and hydrogenate oils. Look for vitamins that are specifically organic or non-GMO.
11. Infant Formula
Milk that contains rGBH and genetically modified soy consitute the foundation for most infant formulas, unless they specifically state they are organic. Research has found that infant diets including formulas that contain these GMOs contribute to chronic, long-term health conditions. [16]
12. Beef
Beef feed may contain GMO alfalfa, corn and soy. When cows eat GMOs, they get into their system and become part of the meat. If you’re going to eat beef, only consume organic, grass-fed beef.
13. Milk
Why let nature do things naturally when Monsanto’s recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rGBH) can be injected right cows to increase milk output. Never mind that hormones associated with rBGH have been found present in milk distributed for human consumption. Or that studies have also found milk from cows injected with rGBH contain reduced amounts of healthy fatty acids. [17] Or that these cows are more likely to have mastitis, an utter infection that can lead to blood and pus in the milk. Yuck.
You can buy organic milk or goat milk and avoid bovine growth hormones. However, to keep all bovine growth hormones out of the diet, you also need to watch out for foods that contain milk products, as these may come from hormone-injected cows.
14. Alfalfa
Although GMO alfalfa planting had been halted, as of this year, GM alfalfa returns to the fields. [18] Alfalfa is the backbone of the dairy industry, both organic farmers and industry groups. So dairy, beef, and alfalfa will all be affected. As an insect pollinated plant, cross pollination of GMO plants and non-GMO plants will likely result.
15. Vegetable Oil
Vegetable Oil typically comes from corn, soybean, cotton, or canola oils. All of these crops have been genetically modified to withstand being doused by Roundup. Unless the vegetable oil states it is organic, assume it may contain some degree GMOs.
16. Canola Oil
Canola oil gets its own category due to its prevalent use. Aside from questions about an oil made from a plant toxic to human consumption, the rapeseed has been genetically altered. As of 2009, 90% of Canada’s rapeseed crop was ‘herbicide-tolerant’. [19] When it comes to cooking oils, the best option is to find products specifically designated non-GMO.
17. Margarine and Shortening
These are another form of vegetable oil and contain all the GMO problems the vegetable oils contain. To avoid GMOs from margarine, organic butter may be an option.
18. Hawaiian Papaya
This type of genetically modified papaya primarily affects those living on the west coast. Its GMO attribute is that its a virus-resistant plant specific to Hawaii and the areas that import papaya from Hawaii. This plant contains DNA from the Ringspot virus, as do individuals who choose to eat it.
19. Squash
Many squash varieties have been genetically modified to fight off the diseases that can affect them. When it comes to squash, buy organic.
20. Flax
GMO flax has been grown (illegally, for what it’s worth) in Canada. The extent of Canadian contamination has not yet been determined. Reports also indicate that the GM flax has been exported around the world where contamination has occurred. [20] Because of the environmental catastrophe of this rogue GM strain, identify the source of the flax used before you buy. Flax from Canada may be infected, as well as from many areas of the EU.
A Final Thought…
When it comes to avoiding GMOs, the best answer is to search for foods that have been labeled as non-GMO. If unsure, ask at the store or contact the manufacturer of the product. If you find out it may contain GMOs, let them know they’ve lost your business. Once GMOs become a marketing liability, then the industry itself will reject GMOs.
Have you stopped consuming GMOs or detoxed yourself from them? Please leave a comment and share your experience with us!
*Post courtesy of Dr. Edward Group, the founder and CEO of Global Healing Center. He has studied natural healing methods for over 20 years and leads up the research and development team, assuming a hands-on approach in producing new and advanced degenerative disease products and information
References:
- Aris A, Leblanc S. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reprod Toxicol. 2011 May;31(4):528-33. doi: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.02.004. Epub 2011 Feb 18.
- Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Degli Esposti D, Lambertini L, Tibaldi E, Rigano A. First experimental demonstration of the multipotential carcinogenic effects of aspartame administered in the feed to Sprague-Dawley rats. Environ Health Perspect. 2006 Mar;114(3):379-85.
- Schernhammer ES, Bertrand KA, Birmann BM, Sampson L, Willett WC, Feskanich D.Consumption of artificial sweetener- and sugar-containing soda and risk of lymphoma and leukemia in men and women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Dec;96(6):1419-28. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.111.030833. Epub 2012 Oct 24.
- MSN. Leaked study finds GMO corn may not be that safe after all. (last accessed 2013-07-24)
- Séralini GE, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Nov;50(11):4221-31. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005. Epub 2012 Sep 19.
- de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health. Int J Biol Sci. 2009 Dec 10;5(7):706-26.
- Robert M. Harveson. History of Sugarbeet Production and Use.Production and pest management news and information for Nebraska. (last accessed 2013-07-24)
- A.W. Cattanach A.G. Dexter, and E.S. Oplinger. Sugarbeets. Alternative Field Crops Manual. (last accessed 2013-07-24)
- Esther E. McGinnis, Mary H. Meyer and Alan G. Smith. Sweet and Sour: A Scientific and Legal Look at Herbicide-Tolerant Sugar Beet. Published online before print June 2010, doi: http:/?/?dx.?doi.?org/?10.?1105/?tpc.?110.?077198 The Plant Cell June 2010 vol. 22 no. 6 1653-1657.
- Dufault R, LeBlanc B, Schnoll R, Cornett C, Schweitzer L, Wallinga D, Hightower J, Patrick L, Lukiw WJ. Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: measured concentrations in food product sugar. Environ Health. 2009 Jan 26;8:2. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-8-2.
- Hilary Parker. A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain. News at Princeton. March 22, 2010. (last accessed 2013-07-24)
- University of Oxford. Research indicates risks of consuming high fructose corn syrup.(last accessed 2013-07-24)
- Magaña-Gómez JA, Cervantes GL, Yepiz-Plascencia G, de la Barca AM. Pancreatic response of rats fed genetically modified soybean. J Appl Toxicol. 2008 Mar;28(2):217-26.
- Gu X, Beardslee T, Zeece M, Sarath G, Markwell J. Identification of IgE-binding proteins in soy lecithin. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2001 Nov;126(3):218-25.
- Venneria E, Fanasca S, Monastra G, Finotti E, Ambra R, Azzini E, Durazzo A, Foddai MS, Maiani G. Assessment of the nutritional values of genetically modified wheat, corn, and tomato crops. J Agric Food Chem. 2008 Oct 8;56(19):9206-14. doi: 10.1021/jf8010992. Epub 2008 Sep 10.
- Aifric O’Sullivan, Xuan He, Elizabeth M. S. McNiven, Neill W. Haggarty, Bo Lönnerdal, and Carolyn M. Slupsky. Early Diet Impacts Infant Rhesus Gut Microbiome, Immunity, and Metabolism. J. Proteome Res., 2013, 12 (6), pp 2833–2845 DOI: 10.1021/pr4001702.
- O’Donnell AM, Spatny KP, Vicini JL, Bauman DE. Survey of the fatty acid composition of retail milk differing in label claims based on production management practices. J Dairy Sci. 2010 May;93(5):1918-25. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2799.
- Rosenblatt, Joel. Monsanto Alfalfa Can’t Be Limited as Plant Pest, Court Says. (last accessed 2013-07-24)
- Beckie, Hugh et al (Autumn 2011) GM Canola: The Canadian Experience. Farm Policy Journal, Volume 8 Number 8, Autumn Quarter 2011. Retrieved 20 August 2012.
- GMO Contamination Register. FP967 (‘Triffid’) flax has been gown illegally in Canada and exported around the globe. (last accessed 2013-07-24)
GMOs Are Ravaging Your Health
http://www.myhealthwire.com/news/diet-nutrition/54-
Posted by Adam English - Thursday, August 16th, 2012
Are genetically modified (GM) foods making you fatter while damaging your organs? A new study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences suggests that the answer is an overwhelming 'yes.'The study found that mice who were fed GM corn had an increase in overall body weight of about 3.7%. An 11% increase in liver weight was also observed. Approximately one-third, 33%, of their diet consisted of GM corn from Monsanto.An increase in liver weight is indicative of degrading liver function. If your body cannot filter your blood supply and metabolize fat as it should, overall health degrades and losing weight is more difficult.Increases in glucose and triglyceride levels in the blood caused by the GM corn diet, liver function disruptions, and increased weight is indicative of a pre-diabetic profile.This is not the first study to find strong evidence of organ damage. Gilles-Eric Séralini of the Commission for Biotechnology Reevaluation stated in the previous study's introduction:“For the first time in the world, we’ve proven that GMO are neither sufficiently healthy nor proper to be commercialized… Each time, for all three GMOs, the kidneys and liver, which are the main organs that react to a chemical food poisoning, had problems.”The study specifically cited Bt toxins used in biopesticides and Monsanto's Round-Up as the causes of damage.Séralini’s team also assessed the effects of Roundup alone on human kidney cells. The dose that killed half of the kidney cells was 200 times below normal agricultural use.Without pursuing expensive dietary restrictions, the dangerous grains are hard to avoid. At least 86% of all corn, 93% of canola, and 95% of sugar beets are genetically modified. Even then, the chemicals may affect you even if you purposely avoid them.A late 2010 study showed that 41% of groundwater samples in Catalonia, Spain contained Round-Up residue even though the chemicals are supposed to rapidly break down in the soil after application.Medical researchers from the Sherbrooke Hospital in Quebec found the Bt toxin in the bloodstream of 55 out of 69 pregnant and non-pregnant women they tested. Of the fetal blood samples from the expectant mothers, 80% contained the toxin as well. None of the subjects had ever come in direct contact with the chemical.Doctors state in their report:“Given the widespread use of GM foods in the local daily diet (soybeans, corn, potatoes), it is conceivable that the majority of the population is exposed through their daily diet … trace amounts of the [Bt] toxin were detected in the gastrointestinal contents of livestock fed on GM corn … there may be a high risk of exposure through consumption of contaminated meat.”
GMOs Are Ravaging Your Health
Posted by Adam English - Thursday, August 16th, 2012Are genetically modified (GM) foods making you fatter while damaging your organs? A new study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences suggests that the answer is an overwhelming 'yes.'The study found that mice who were fed GM corn had an increase in overall body weight of about 3.7%. An 11% increase in liver weight was also observed. Approximately one-third, 33%, of their diet consisted of GM corn from Monsanto.An increase in liver weight is indicative of degrading liver function. If your body cannot filter your blood supply and metabolize fat as it should, overall health degrades and losing weight is more difficult.Increases in glucose and triglyceride levels in the blood caused by the GM corn diet, liver function disruptions, and increased weight is indicative of a pre-diabetic profile.This is not the first study to find strong evidence of organ damage. Gilles-Eric Séralini of the Commission for Biotechnology Reevaluation stated in the previous study's introduction:“For the first time in the world, we’ve proven that GMO are neither sufficiently healthy nor proper to be commercialized… Each time, for all three GMOs, the kidneys and liver, which are the main organs that react to a chemical food poisoning, had problems.”The study specifically cited Bt toxins used in biopesticides and Monsanto's Round-Up as the causes of damage.Séralini’s team also assessed the effects of Roundup alone on human kidney cells. The dose that killed half of the kidney cells was 200 times below normal agricultural use.Without pursuing expensive dietary restrictions, the dangerous grains are hard to avoid. At least 86% of all corn, 93% of canola, and 95% of sugar beets are genetically modified. Even then, the chemicals may affect you even if you purposely avoid them.A late 2010 study showed that 41% of groundwater samples in Catalonia, Spain contained Round-Up residue even though the chemicals are supposed to rapidly break down in the soil after application.Medical researchers from the Sherbrooke Hospital in Quebec found the Bt toxin in the bloodstream of 55 out of 69 pregnant and non-pregnant women they tested. Of the fetal blood samples from the expectant mothers, 80% contained the toxin as well. None of the subjects had ever come in direct contact with the chemical.Doctors state in their report:“Given the widespread use of GM foods in the local daily diet (soybeans, corn, potatoes), it is conceivable that the majority of the population is exposed through their daily diet … trace amounts of the [Bt] toxin were detected in the gastrointestinal contents of livestock fed on GM corn … there may be a high risk of exposure through consumption of contaminated meat.”
masalah nuklir, finansial keuangan negara, tata negara, politik internasional, perselisihan mazhab, persatuan umat islam, nasionalisme, pembangunan bangsa, the best of seoclerk.com
BalasHapussdr suvarna... terimakasih atas responnya.. Sesungguhnya sy ini awam... dan sekedar ingin berbagi dalam mengkritisi dan informasi...yg dmk banyak...dan seringnya mendapat kendala.. selain mencari referensi dan sumber2 juga fasilitas yang ada serta waktu sangatlah terbatas...
Hapusseyogianya ada team yang bisa mendiskusikan.. dan membuat alur dan pilihan yg teragendakan...
semwa tdk mudah.. sesuai kondisi..
semoga ada manfaat.. bagi awam...khususnya... n tentu akan berbeda... bagi yg memiliki jabatan-dan orang2 pintar... selalu ada dalih untuk diperdebatkan.. tetapi hasil akhir yg menerima beban tetaplah rakyat awam... sebab para ceo-top pimpinan-para eksekutif-legislatif-yudikatif-dan aparat2 dll smw sudah ada jatah yang tersedia.. dan dibagi-bagi..sesuai kadar yg telah ditetapkan..?? Namun kewarasan bukan saja milik orang2 kaya dan pejabat tinggi yang selalu memiliki fasilitas2 yang mapan.. tetapi juga ada pada masyarakat semesta.. dalam pemikiran2 yg waras.. walaupun tanpa fasilitas2...yg relatif baik...
apabila anda ada ide dan pendapat yang bisa disampaikan untuk tujuan2..yang lbh baik.. semoga tidak ada keberatan untuk berbagi... semoga niyat dan maksud baik diberi kemudahan dan sampai kepada sasaran...lbh nyata.. Terima kasih atas respon yg baik.. wassalam...
I am waiting for your next post biochemical products manufacturers.blogspot.com
BalasHapusAgen Judi Online
BalasHapusAgen Judi
Agen Judi Terpercaya
Agen Bola
Bandar Judi
Bandar Bola
Agen SBOBET
Agen Casino
Agen Poker
Agen IBCBET
Agen Asia77
Agen Bola Tangkas
Prediksi Skor
Prediksi Pertandingan REP IRLANDIA VS JERMAN 9 Oktober 2015
$$$ GENUINE LOAN WITH LOW INTEREST RATE APPLY $$$
BalasHapusDo you need finance to start up your own business or expand your business, Do you need funds to pay off your debt? We give out loan to interested individuals and company's who are seeking loan with good faith. Are you seriously in need of an urgent loan contact us.
Email: shadiraaliuloancompany1@gmail.com
Phone No: +919873186890.