http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies
Excerpts: (partial context)
Horizontal gene transfer from plants to animals
- One concern raised has been the possibility of a horizontal gene transfer from plants used as feed to animals that are used for food, or from plants as used as food, to humans.
- Of particular concern is that the antibiotic resistance gene commonly used as a genetic marker in transgenic crops could be transferred to harmful bacteria, creating superbugsthat are resistant to multiple antibiotics.[137][138]:250 In 2004 a study involving human volunteers was conducted to see if the transgene from modified soy would transfer to the bacteria that naturally lives in the human gut. As of 2012 it is the only human feeding study conducted with genetically modified food. The transgene was only detected in three volunteers, part of seven who had previously had their large intestines removed for medical reasons.
Controversial studies
- In 2007, 2009, and 2011, Gilles-Eric Séralini published re-analysis studies that used data from Monsanto rat-feeding experiments for three modified maize varieties (insect resistant MON 863 and MON 810 and the glyphosate-resistant NK603). He concluded that they had actually caused liver, kidney, and heart damage in the rats.
- In 2012, the Séralini lab published a paper, subsequently retracted by the journal editors,[189][190] which looked at the long-term effects of feeding rats various levels of genetically modified roundup resistance maize, maize spiked with the roundup chemical and a mixture of the two.[191] The paper concluded that rats fed the modified maize had severe health problems, including liver and kidney damage and large tumors.
** So Seralini is pointing out that Modified foods (above) appear to more Health averse than ROUNDUP HERBICIDE...!!! Keep in mind this man is analyzing data from their own studies...! At least I THINK...??
- Published studies have suggested negative impacts from eating genetically modified food. The first such peer-reviewed paper, published in 1999, covered research conducted byArpad Pusztai the previous year. Pusztai had fed rats potatoes transformed with the Galanthus nivalis agglutinin (GNA) gene from the Galanthus (snowdrop) plant, allowing the GNA lectin protein to be synthesised.[161]Lectin is known to be toxic, especially to gut epithelium,[162] and while some companies were considering growing genetically modified crops expressing lectin, GNA was an unlikely candidate.[163] On June 22, 1998, an interview was shown on Granada Television's current affairs programme World in Action, with Pusztai saying that rats that had been fed the potatoes had stunted growth and a repressed immune system.[164] A media frenzy resulted, and Pusztai was suspended from the Rowett Institute; misconduct procedures were used to seize his data and ban him from speaking publicly.
- Many claimed that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the statistical power of the study and that Sprague-Dawley rats were not appropriate for a lifetime study (as opposed to a shorter toxicity study) because these rats have a high tendency to get cancer over their lifespan (one study found that more than 80% of them got cancer under normal conditions)
*** Come on WIKI - You can do better than that.... Just WHERE is that study....???!
But some folks like him..
- A review published in 2009 by Dona and Arvanitoyannis concluded that "results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters".
But.... The powers that BE don't seem to like this man...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair
- Gilles-Eric Séralini is a professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen in France, and is founder and president of the scientific advisory board of the Committee of Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), which is known for being opposed to genetically modified food.[7][8][9] Séralini founded CRIIGEN because he judged that studies on the safety of GMOs are inadequate, and questioned their scientific evaluation.
- In 2004, the GMO Panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recommended the authorisation of MON863.[12] Its report described the data that Monsanto provided, and referenced changes in some blood cell parameters and in kidney weights of rats that were tested.[12] Because of concerns in general but specifically referencing these changes, Greenpeace sued for release of the rat feeding studies that Monsanto had provided. Monsanto fought against the suit in order to protect its trade secrets.[13] In June 2005 a German court ordered the release of the original study.[13][14] With the full study in hand, critics of GM foods, including Séralini, pointed to differences in kidney size and blood composition found in this study, suggesting that the observed differences, as well as the design of the studies, raised questions about the regulatory concept of substantial equivalence.[15]
- In 2010, Séralini sued University of Paris VII Professor Marc Fellous, president of the French Association of Plant Biotechnology, and the Association, for libel, on the grounds that they had unjustly criticized his scientific ability, and on the grounds that they had criticized the science as invalid because it was funded by Greenpeace. The judge ruled that because Séralini was able to show that Fellous and other critics had financial ties to the agricultural biotechnology industry, their charge about the Greenpeace funding was defamatory; the judge refused to rule on the scientific grounds. Fellous was fined 1000 euros and Séralini was awarded a symbolic 1 euro in damages, and court costs.[34]
- A 2011 review by the Séralini lab, which used 19 published animal feeding studies, as well as data from several animal feeding studies submitted for regulatory approval, continued to find that GM food had liver and kidney effects that were sex and dose dependent, and advocated for longer and more elaborate toxicology tests for regulatory approval.[11]
Apparently, THEY don't like him pecking away at their DATA... They are charging back that the LAB RATS used are apparently inclined to have Breast Cancer.. LOL
- King's College London Professor Tom Sanders[42] wrote that since Sprague-Dawley rats are susceptible to mammary tumors when food intake is not restricted, data should have been provided about how much food the rats were fed (as well as the presence of fungus in the feed, another confounder). Sanders also wrote of this study, "The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip."
- The study as reported by Séralini et al. was found to be inadequately designed, analysed and reported...The study as described by Séralini et al. does not allow giving weight to their results and conclusions as published. Conclusions cannot be drawn on the difference in tumour incidence between treatment groups on the basis of the design, the analysis and the results as reported. Taking into consideration Member States’ assessments and the authors’ answer to critics, EFSA finds that the study as reported by Séralini et al. is of insufficient scientific quality for safety assessments.[41]
In November 2013, Elsevier, the publishing company for Food and Chemical Toxicology, the journal that published the 2012 paper, announced that the journal was retracting the paper, after the authors refused to withdraw it.[6][85] The editors of the journal concluded that, after an in-depth look at the raw data of the study, no definitive conclusions can be reached regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in overall mortality or tumor rates, given the known high incidence of tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats and the small sample size. Normal variance could not be excluded as the cause of the results.[6][86] Séralini and his supporters strongly objected to the retraction,[85][87][88] and Séralini himself threatened to sue Food and Chemical Toxicology.[89] In January 2014, an online petition calling for the Séralini study be reinstated was posted by a group of Séralini's supporters from the Bioscience Resource Project.
- In 2007, 2009, and 2011, Gilles-Eric Séralini published re-analysis studies that used data from Monsanto rat-feeding experiments for three modified maize varieties (insect resistant MON 863 and MON 810 and the glyphosate-resistant NK603). He concluded that they had actually caused liver, kidney, and heart damage in the rats.[177][178][179] TheEuropean Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reviewed the data and concluded that the small differences were all within the normal range for control rats.[180] The EFSA review also stated that the statistical methods used were faulty.[181][182][183] The EFSA conclusions were supported by FSANZ,[184][185][186] a panel of toxicologists funded by Monsanto[187]and the French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee (HCB).
Just who are THEY...?
- The Cooperative Wheat Research Production Program, a joint venture by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Mexican Ministry of Agriculture, involved research in genetics, plant breeding, plant pathology, entomology, agronomy, soil science, and cereal technology. The goal of the project was to boost wheat production in Mexico, which at the time was importing a large portion of its grain. Plant pathologist George Harrar recruited and assembled the wheat research team in late 1944. The four other members were soil scientist William Colwell; maize breeder http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Wellhausen&action=edit&redlink=1; potato breeder John Niederhauser; and Norman Borlaug, all from the United States.[20] During the sixteen years Borlaug remained with the project, he bred a series of remarkably successful high-yield, disease-resistant, semi-dwarf wheat.
Wheat is the third most-producedcereal crop.
Borlaug said that his first few years in Mexico were difficult. He lacked trained scientists and equipment. Native farmers were hostile toward the wheat program because of serious crop losses from 1939 to 1941 due to stem rust. "It often appeared to me that I had made a dreadful mistake in accepting the position in Mexico," he wrote in the epilogue to his book, Norman Borlaug on World Hunger.[16] He spent the first 10 years breeding wheat cultivars resistant to disease, including rust. In that time, his group made 6,000 individual crossings of wheat.[21]
SAY WHAAAAAUUUTTTT....?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
- From 1942 to 1944, Borlaug was employed as a microbiologist at DuPont in Wilmington, Delaware. It was planned that he would lead research on industrial and agriculturalbacteriocides, fungicides, and preservatives. However, following the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor, Borlaug tried to enlist in the military, but was rejected under wartime labor regulations; his lab was converted to conduct research for the United States armed forces.
- In 1940, the Avila Camacho administration took office in Mexico. The administration's primary goal for Mexican agriculture was augmenting the nation's industrialization and economic growth. U.S. Vice President-Elect Henry Wallace, who was instrumental in persuading the Rockefeller Foundation to work with the Mexican government in agricultural development, saw Avila Camacho's ambitions as beneficial to U.S. economic and military interests.[18] The Rockefeller Foundation contacted E.C. Stakman and two other leading agronomists. They developed a proposal for a new organization, the Office of Special Studies, as part of the Mexican Government, but directed by the Rockefeller Foundation. It was to be staffed with both Mexican and US scientists, focusing on soil development, maize and wheat production, and plant pathology.
Did HE just say NWO....?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. It is a leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed and of the herbicideglyphosate, which it markets under the Roundup brand.
As of December 2013. the members of the board of directors of Monsanto were:[65]
- Monsanto, Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, Craig Venter and other investors are working behind-the-scenes to bring genetically engineered (GE) algae to market with products that include fuel, animal feed made with manure, human food and vaccines.
- The US government have a stake in this enterprise, too. Obama put a moratorium on drilling for oil on federal land and voted down the Keystone pipeline, in addition to subsidizing the nuclear industry instead of increasing oil reserves.
Obama has advocated replacing 17% of US oil imports with oil made from algae.
Here's some political BS...
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/monsanto-ceo-to-rockefeller-foundation-president-gordon-conway-terminator-technology.aspx
http://www.dailypaul.com/94811/monsanto-the-rockefellers-and-the-rothschilds
http://www.globalresearch.ca/doomsday-seed-vault-in-the-arctic-2/23503
- Genetically engineering a master race?
Now the Svalbard Seed Bank begins to become interesting. But it gets better. ‘The Project’ I referred to is the project of the Rockefeller Foundation and powerful financial interests since the 1920’s to use eugenics, later renamed genetics, to justify creation of a genetically-engineered Master Race. Hitler and the Nazis called it the Ayran Master Race.
- The eugenics of Hitler were financed to a major extent by the same Rockefeller Foundation which today is building a doomsday seed vault to preserve samples of every seed on our planet. Now this is getting really intriguing. The same Rockefeller Foundation created the pseudo-science discipline of molecular biology in their relentless pursuit of reducing human life down to the ‘defining gene sequence’ which, they hoped, could then be modified in order to change human traits at will. Hitler’s eugenics scientists, many of whom were quietly brought to the United States after the War to continue their biological eugenics research, laid much of the groundwork of genetic engineering of various life forms, much of it supported openly until well into the Third Reich by Rockefeller Foundation generous grants.2
http://www.dailypaul.com/94811/monsanto-the-rockefellers-and-the-rothschilds
- The Rockefeller family, who control Monsanto and are at the moment servants of the Rothschild family, are also sponsoring in the Spitzbergen Islands a seed-bank of all existing natural plants so that, when they have eliminated the rest of us unwanted humans by starvation, they will be able to re-populate the planet with natural plants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family
- The Rothschild family /ˈrɒθs.tʃaɪld/,[1] is a family descending from Mayer Amschel Rothschild, a court Jew to the Landgraves of Hesse-Kassel, in the Free City of Frankfurt, who established his banking business in the 1760s.[2] Unlike most previous court Jews, Rothschild managed to bequeath his wealth, and established an international banking family through his five sons.[3]
- Niles' Weekly Register, Volume 49 has the following to say about the Rothschilds influence on international high finance;
-The Rothschilds are the wonders of modern banking ... we see the descendants of Judah, after a persecution of two thousand years, peering above kings, rising higher than emperors, and holding a whole continent in the hollow of their hands. The Rothschilds govern a Christian world. Not a cabinet moves without their advice. They stretch their hand, with equal ease, from Petersburgh to Vienna, from Vienna to Paris, from Paris to London, from London to Washington. Baron Rothschild, the head of the house, is the true king of Judah, the prince of the captivity, the Messiah so long looked for by this extraordinary people. He holds the keys of peace or war, blessing or cursing. ... They are the brokers and counselors of the kings of Europe and of the republican chiefs of America. What more can they desire?"[27]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers'_suicides_in_India
- India is an agrarian country with around 60% of its people depending directly or indirectly upon agriculture. Farmer suicides account for 11.2% of all suicides in India.[1] Activists and scholars have offered a number of conflicting reasons for farmer suicides, such as monsoon failure, high debt burdens, genetically modified crops, government policies, public mental health, personal issues and family problems.[3][4][5]
Did they find out something more?? Is it ALIEIELIIVE...?!???
- In 2011, a review of the evidence regarding the relationship between Bt cotton and farmers' suicides in India was published in the Journal of Development Studies, also by researchers from IFPRI, which found that "Available data show no evidence of a ‘resurgence’ of farmer suicides. Moreover, Bt cotton technology has been very effective overall in India."[49] Matin Qaim finds that Bt cotton is controversial in India, irrespective of the scholarly evidence. Anti-biotech activist groups in India repeat their claim that there is evidence of link between Bt cotton and farmers suicides, a claim that is perpetuated by mass media. This linking of farmers suicide and biotech industry has led to negative opinions in public policy making process.[50]
Excerpts: (partial context)
Horizontal gene transfer from plants to animals
- One concern raised has been the possibility of a horizontal gene transfer from plants used as feed to animals that are used for food, or from plants as used as food, to humans.
- Of particular concern is that the antibiotic resistance gene commonly used as a genetic marker in transgenic crops could be transferred to harmful bacteria, creating superbugsthat are resistant to multiple antibiotics.[137][138]:250 In 2004 a study involving human volunteers was conducted to see if the transgene from modified soy would transfer to the bacteria that naturally lives in the human gut. As of 2012 it is the only human feeding study conducted with genetically modified food. The transgene was only detected in three volunteers, part of seven who had previously had their large intestines removed for medical reasons.
Controversial studies
- In 2007, 2009, and 2011, Gilles-Eric Séralini published re-analysis studies that used data from Monsanto rat-feeding experiments for three modified maize varieties (insect resistant MON 863 and MON 810 and the glyphosate-resistant NK603). He concluded that they had actually caused liver, kidney, and heart damage in the rats.
- In 2012, the Séralini lab published a paper, subsequently retracted by the journal editors,[189][190] which looked at the long-term effects of feeding rats various levels of genetically modified roundup resistance maize, maize spiked with the roundup chemical and a mixture of the two.[191] The paper concluded that rats fed the modified maize had severe health problems, including liver and kidney damage and large tumors.
** So Seralini is pointing out that Modified foods (above) appear to more Health averse than ROUNDUP HERBICIDE...!!! Keep in mind this man is analyzing data from their own studies...! At least I THINK...??
- Published studies have suggested negative impacts from eating genetically modified food. The first such peer-reviewed paper, published in 1999, covered research conducted byArpad Pusztai the previous year. Pusztai had fed rats potatoes transformed with the Galanthus nivalis agglutinin (GNA) gene from the Galanthus (snowdrop) plant, allowing the GNA lectin protein to be synthesised.[161]Lectin is known to be toxic, especially to gut epithelium,[162] and while some companies were considering growing genetically modified crops expressing lectin, GNA was an unlikely candidate.[163] On June 22, 1998, an interview was shown on Granada Television's current affairs programme World in Action, with Pusztai saying that rats that had been fed the potatoes had stunted growth and a repressed immune system.[164] A media frenzy resulted, and Pusztai was suspended from the Rowett Institute; misconduct procedures were used to seize his data and ban him from speaking publicly.
- Many claimed that Séralini's conclusions were impossible to justify given the statistical power of the study and that Sprague-Dawley rats were not appropriate for a lifetime study (as opposed to a shorter toxicity study) because these rats have a high tendency to get cancer over their lifespan (one study found that more than 80% of them got cancer under normal conditions)
*** Come on WIKI - You can do better than that.... Just WHERE is that study....???!
But some folks like him..
- A review published in 2009 by Dona and Arvanitoyannis concluded that "results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters".
But.... The powers that BE don't seem to like this man...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair
- Gilles-Eric Séralini is a professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen in France, and is founder and president of the scientific advisory board of the Committee of Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), which is known for being opposed to genetically modified food.[7][8][9] Séralini founded CRIIGEN because he judged that studies on the safety of GMOs are inadequate, and questioned their scientific evaluation.
- In 2004, the GMO Panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recommended the authorisation of MON863.[12] Its report described the data that Monsanto provided, and referenced changes in some blood cell parameters and in kidney weights of rats that were tested.[12] Because of concerns in general but specifically referencing these changes, Greenpeace sued for release of the rat feeding studies that Monsanto had provided. Monsanto fought against the suit in order to protect its trade secrets.[13] In June 2005 a German court ordered the release of the original study.[13][14] With the full study in hand, critics of GM foods, including Séralini, pointed to differences in kidney size and blood composition found in this study, suggesting that the observed differences, as well as the design of the studies, raised questions about the regulatory concept of substantial equivalence.[15]
- In 2010, Séralini sued University of Paris VII Professor Marc Fellous, president of the French Association of Plant Biotechnology, and the Association, for libel, on the grounds that they had unjustly criticized his scientific ability, and on the grounds that they had criticized the science as invalid because it was funded by Greenpeace. The judge ruled that because Séralini was able to show that Fellous and other critics had financial ties to the agricultural biotechnology industry, their charge about the Greenpeace funding was defamatory; the judge refused to rule on the scientific grounds. Fellous was fined 1000 euros and Séralini was awarded a symbolic 1 euro in damages, and court costs.[34]
- A 2011 review by the Séralini lab, which used 19 published animal feeding studies, as well as data from several animal feeding studies submitted for regulatory approval, continued to find that GM food had liver and kidney effects that were sex and dose dependent, and advocated for longer and more elaborate toxicology tests for regulatory approval.[11]
Apparently, THEY don't like him pecking away at their DATA... They are charging back that the LAB RATS used are apparently inclined to have Breast Cancer.. LOL
- King's College London Professor Tom Sanders[42] wrote that since Sprague-Dawley rats are susceptible to mammary tumors when food intake is not restricted, data should have been provided about how much food the rats were fed (as well as the presence of fungus in the feed, another confounder). Sanders also wrote of this study, "The statistical methods are unconventional ... and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip."
- The study as reported by Séralini et al. was found to be inadequately designed, analysed and reported...The study as described by Séralini et al. does not allow giving weight to their results and conclusions as published. Conclusions cannot be drawn on the difference in tumour incidence between treatment groups on the basis of the design, the analysis and the results as reported. Taking into consideration Member States’ assessments and the authors’ answer to critics, EFSA finds that the study as reported by Séralini et al. is of insufficient scientific quality for safety assessments.[41]
In November 2013, Elsevier, the publishing company for Food and Chemical Toxicology, the journal that published the 2012 paper, announced that the journal was retracting the paper, after the authors refused to withdraw it.[6][85] The editors of the journal concluded that, after an in-depth look at the raw data of the study, no definitive conclusions can be reached regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in overall mortality or tumor rates, given the known high incidence of tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats and the small sample size. Normal variance could not be excluded as the cause of the results.[6][86] Séralini and his supporters strongly objected to the retraction,[85][87][88] and Séralini himself threatened to sue Food and Chemical Toxicology.[89] In January 2014, an online petition calling for the Séralini study be reinstated was posted by a group of Séralini's supporters from the Bioscience Resource Project.
- In 2007, 2009, and 2011, Gilles-Eric Séralini published re-analysis studies that used data from Monsanto rat-feeding experiments for three modified maize varieties (insect resistant MON 863 and MON 810 and the glyphosate-resistant NK603). He concluded that they had actually caused liver, kidney, and heart damage in the rats.[177][178][179] TheEuropean Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reviewed the data and concluded that the small differences were all within the normal range for control rats.[180] The EFSA review also stated that the statistical methods used were faulty.[181][182][183] The EFSA conclusions were supported by FSANZ,[184][185][186] a panel of toxicologists funded by Monsanto[187]and the French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee (HCB).
Just who are THEY...?
- The Cooperative Wheat Research Production Program, a joint venture by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Mexican Ministry of Agriculture, involved research in genetics, plant breeding, plant pathology, entomology, agronomy, soil science, and cereal technology. The goal of the project was to boost wheat production in Mexico, which at the time was importing a large portion of its grain. Plant pathologist George Harrar recruited and assembled the wheat research team in late 1944. The four other members were soil scientist William Colwell; maize breeder http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Wellhausen&action=edit&redlink=1; potato breeder John Niederhauser; and Norman Borlaug, all from the United States.[20] During the sixteen years Borlaug remained with the project, he bred a series of remarkably successful high-yield, disease-resistant, semi-dwarf wheat.
Wheat is the third most-producedcereal crop.
Borlaug said that his first few years in Mexico were difficult. He lacked trained scientists and equipment. Native farmers were hostile toward the wheat program because of serious crop losses from 1939 to 1941 due to stem rust. "It often appeared to me that I had made a dreadful mistake in accepting the position in Mexico," he wrote in the epilogue to his book, Norman Borlaug on World Hunger.[16] He spent the first 10 years breeding wheat cultivars resistant to disease, including rust. In that time, his group made 6,000 individual crossings of wheat.[21]
SAY WHAAAAAUUUTTTT....?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
- From 1942 to 1944, Borlaug was employed as a microbiologist at DuPont in Wilmington, Delaware. It was planned that he would lead research on industrial and agriculturalbacteriocides, fungicides, and preservatives. However, following the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor, Borlaug tried to enlist in the military, but was rejected under wartime labor regulations; his lab was converted to conduct research for the United States armed forces.
- In 1940, the Avila Camacho administration took office in Mexico. The administration's primary goal for Mexican agriculture was augmenting the nation's industrialization and economic growth. U.S. Vice President-Elect Henry Wallace, who was instrumental in persuading the Rockefeller Foundation to work with the Mexican government in agricultural development, saw Avila Camacho's ambitions as beneficial to U.S. economic and military interests.[18] The Rockefeller Foundation contacted E.C. Stakman and two other leading agronomists. They developed a proposal for a new organization, the Office of Special Studies, as part of the Mexican Government, but directed by the Rockefeller Foundation. It was to be staffed with both Mexican and US scientists, focusing on soil development, maize and wheat production, and plant pathology.
Did HE just say NWO....?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. It is a leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed and of the herbicideglyphosate, which it markets under the Roundup brand.
As of December 2013. the members of the board of directors of Monsanto were:[65]
- Gregory H. Boyce, Chairman and CEO of Peabody Energy Corporation
- David L. Chicoine, president of South Dakota State University
- Janice L. Fields, former president of McDonald’s USA, LLC, a subsidiary of McDonald’s Corporation.
- Hugh Grant, president and CEO
- Arthur H. Harper, managing partner of GenNx360 Capital Partners
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_K._Ipsen, corporate vice president of Microsoft Corp.'s Worldwide Public Sector organization.
- Gwendolyn King, president of Podium Prose, a speakers bureau
- C. Steven McMillan, former chairman and CEO of the Sara Lee Corporation
- Jon R. Moeller, chief financial officer of The Procter & Gamble Company.
- William U. Parfet, chief executive officer of MPI Research Inc.
- George H. Poste, chief executive of Health Technology Networks
- Robert J. Stevens, executive chairman of the board of Lockheed Martin Corporation
- Monsanto, Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, Craig Venter and other investors are working behind-the-scenes to bring genetically engineered (GE) algae to market with products that include fuel, animal feed made with manure, human food and vaccines.
- The US government have a stake in this enterprise, too. Obama put a moratorium on drilling for oil on federal land and voted down the Keystone pipeline, in addition to subsidizing the nuclear industry instead of increasing oil reserves.
Obama has advocated replacing 17% of US oil imports with oil made from algae.
Here's some political BS...
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/monsanto-ceo-to-rockefeller-foundation-president-gordon-conway-terminator-technology.aspx
http://www.dailypaul.com/94811/monsanto-the-rockefellers-and-the-rothschilds
http://www.globalresearch.ca/doomsday-seed-vault-in-the-arctic-2/23503
- Genetically engineering a master race?
Now the Svalbard Seed Bank begins to become interesting. But it gets better. ‘The Project’ I referred to is the project of the Rockefeller Foundation and powerful financial interests since the 1920’s to use eugenics, later renamed genetics, to justify creation of a genetically-engineered Master Race. Hitler and the Nazis called it the Ayran Master Race.
- The eugenics of Hitler were financed to a major extent by the same Rockefeller Foundation which today is building a doomsday seed vault to preserve samples of every seed on our planet. Now this is getting really intriguing. The same Rockefeller Foundation created the pseudo-science discipline of molecular biology in their relentless pursuit of reducing human life down to the ‘defining gene sequence’ which, they hoped, could then be modified in order to change human traits at will. Hitler’s eugenics scientists, many of whom were quietly brought to the United States after the War to continue their biological eugenics research, laid much of the groundwork of genetic engineering of various life forms, much of it supported openly until well into the Third Reich by Rockefeller Foundation generous grants.2
http://www.dailypaul.com/94811/monsanto-the-rockefellers-and-the-rothschilds
- The Rockefeller family, who control Monsanto and are at the moment servants of the Rothschild family, are also sponsoring in the Spitzbergen Islands a seed-bank of all existing natural plants so that, when they have eliminated the rest of us unwanted humans by starvation, they will be able to re-populate the planet with natural plants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family
- The Rothschild family /ˈrɒθs.tʃaɪld/,[1] is a family descending from Mayer Amschel Rothschild, a court Jew to the Landgraves of Hesse-Kassel, in the Free City of Frankfurt, who established his banking business in the 1760s.[2] Unlike most previous court Jews, Rothschild managed to bequeath his wealth, and established an international banking family through his five sons.[3]
- Niles' Weekly Register, Volume 49 has the following to say about the Rothschilds influence on international high finance;
-The Rothschilds are the wonders of modern banking ... we see the descendants of Judah, after a persecution of two thousand years, peering above kings, rising higher than emperors, and holding a whole continent in the hollow of their hands. The Rothschilds govern a Christian world. Not a cabinet moves without their advice. They stretch their hand, with equal ease, from Petersburgh to Vienna, from Vienna to Paris, from Paris to London, from London to Washington. Baron Rothschild, the head of the house, is the true king of Judah, the prince of the captivity, the Messiah so long looked for by this extraordinary people. He holds the keys of peace or war, blessing or cursing. ... They are the brokers and counselors of the kings of Europe and of the republican chiefs of America. What more can they desire?"[27]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers'_suicides_in_India
- India is an agrarian country with around 60% of its people depending directly or indirectly upon agriculture. Farmer suicides account for 11.2% of all suicides in India.[1] Activists and scholars have offered a number of conflicting reasons for farmer suicides, such as monsoon failure, high debt burdens, genetically modified crops, government policies, public mental health, personal issues and family problems.[3][4][5]
Did they find out something more?? Is it ALIEIELIIVE...?!???
- In 2011, a review of the evidence regarding the relationship between Bt cotton and farmers' suicides in India was published in the Journal of Development Studies, also by researchers from IFPRI, which found that "Available data show no evidence of a ‘resurgence’ of farmer suicides. Moreover, Bt cotton technology has been very effective overall in India."[49] Matin Qaim finds that Bt cotton is controversial in India, irrespective of the scholarly evidence. Anti-biotech activist groups in India repeat their claim that there is evidence of link between Bt cotton and farmers suicides, a claim that is perpetuated by mass media. This linking of farmers suicide and biotech industry has led to negative opinions in public policy making process.[50]
Last edited:
