Dr. Laibow and Gen. Stubblebine continue their trip through several African nations, bringing the natural solutions message to opinion leaders and decision makers. Her Internet connection is sporadic, but she sent me this message for her blog, while her connection lasted.
Here is her report:
We met with a direct underling to the Minister of Health in this poor African country who is responsible for all preventive health in that country. She is very excited about the fact that concerted action by Health Conscious Nations (HCNs) can turn Codex Alimentarius (the World Food Code) to the advantage of food consumers, especially in areas like Africa. Codex responsibility is shared by several Ministries.
This is really astonishing and heartening. Here in this developing country they really understand what is going on and believe that a meeting needs to be organized by them to develop a coordinated strategy for the HCNs before the meeting of CAC (the Codex governing body). Recalling that last week in Accra, Ghana, it was the African nations that pushed back against the US – successfully – I have reminded them that the game of GM labeling is FAR from over and they need to attend CCFL (food labeling committee) in full force with an effective strategy in place to win this battle.
Our contact has risked his whole career for this so he is really counting on us to come through for him. She is fantastic.
I do not want to announce publicly which country we are in to prevent the likelihood of extreme pressure by the US and others on this struggling nation but we do want to tell our Netroots it would appear that the Natural Solutions Foundation interventions and connections on the ground here in Africa over the last 3 years are bearing fruit in helping to change the mindset of Codex delegates and therefore the will of the countries in the developing world to take the power back to protect their people.
These countries banded together, for the first time in our knowledge of Codex since 1963, to stand together to counter the chess moves being set up by the US.
Let me repeat that: these countries banded together for the first time, to stand together to counter the Big Agra/Big Pharma agenda last week at the Working Group on Labeling of Foods Derived from Biotech and BioEngineering in Accra, Ghana.We were there for you and so we saw the African nations decide to work together – just as we have been urging them to do for the last 3 years!
Realizing that the seemingly innocuous language used by the US to create a heading that would ordinarily seem quite innocent (“foods are considered safe if they are on the market”), would mean that, in an international trade dispute, say before the WHO, the refusing (or labeling) country could be found to be creating “a barrier to trade†because they were keeping out foods that were already known to be “safe.â€
But GM foods are NOT known to be safe and are on the market in ever increasing numbers. The FDA prevents their labeling in the US and wants to do the same all over the world.
Presuming their safety once on the market might be allowable IF the US actually either established their safety (which it does not) or reviewed the safety characteristics and studies by the companies that own the patent on the food (which it does not). Therefore, just because the food is on the market in the US or elsewhere merely indicates that the FDA is such a broken institution that it has absolutely no will or ability to protect the health of the consumer or the wholesomeness of the food (or drug) supply. It is truly time to divest the FDA!
Africa got it and led the revolt that took the “safety†words out of their proposed heading!
The US Delegate, Barbara Schneeman, PhD, head of the FDA Office of Dietary Supplements, was suave at first. I assume that she assumed that the force of the US position and economic strength would carry the day as it usually does in Codex. When that did not happen, she became more and more strident until, after a dozen repetitions, she wound up petulant, red faced and with what sounded to me and to other observers, like a shaking voice.
Barbara Schneeman is probably a great neighbor and would bring you a bowl of chicken soup (with MSG and aspartame in it) if you were sick. I can hope she loves kids and may even be a very nice grandmother. She is, none the less, through her work as the US Delegate at many Codex meetings, perpetrating huge disasters on the peoples of the world (US included) through her corporate service via her employment at the FDA and her deployment by it to attend numerous Codex meetings. I have yet to hear Barbara, and hence the US, come down on the right side of any issue. I am still waiting.
Nutrients? Treat them as if they were dangerous industrial chemicals and subject them to “risk analysis” to select clinically meaningless doses that cannot be increased above. Now that one is great for Big Pharma. It will help it get much bigger since it eliminates the single greatest economic competitor to the pharmaceutical profit structure: Natural health and supplementation.
Unnatural Hormones: Treat them as if they were benign or even, absurdly, good for us, the animals raised on them and the environment suffering the ill effects of drug-laced excrement in the downstream waterways of industrial factory farms, now spreading to every country in the world for poultry raising in order to deal with ‘Avian Flu’ (of which there were 26 cases among birds, not people) in India. You see, the game is close your eyes to reality, turn around three times and yell out “avian flu” and then kill all the birds that belong to the poor peasant or subsistence farmers. Then you can put all the remaining birds indoors under the roofs of factory poultry farms and grow high tech, low taste, high drug, low safety barely edible birds. (And, speaking of hormones, the FDA is in the process of banning the use of the same hormones created by every woman’s body leaving the field clear for a monopoly of synthetic ones so dangerous that a huge US study on them was halted prematurely because of the increased risk to the women taking the synthetic hormones!)
Codex wants to let the farmers of the world know that their cows need to be treated with Monsanto’s Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), that there is no upper limit to the amount they can use, but not tell them that their cows will become chronically ill and will need expensive and, in many places, unavailable antibiotics and other drugs, that they will not be able to use the milk they take from their animals unless they follow this and so they, like the chicken farmers before them, will be driven off the land and will be forced to gravitate to the slums of the world where abject poverty and hopelessness for themselves and their children await them in place of the independence and pride that they once had.
Overused Antibiotics ? see Hormones. Good for Big Pharma. Disaster for humanity.
Irradiation? All fruit and veggies imported into the US must be irradiated. Perhaps, and I say only “Perhaps” that does indeed kill agricultural pests.
How about all the nutrients it kills (disrupts) too, and the fact that it engenders huge populations of lipid peroxides (rancid and dangerous molecules, causing untold misery through the creation of both acute and chronic diseases and disorders) and those molecular terrorists, ‘free radicals.’ Known for decades as the source of cancer, diabetes, macular degeneration and a host of other serious diseases, this electrical terrorist steals from one neighbor to balance another nearby atom with the electron it just stole from the first. Sounds like the political process…
Irradiation increases free radical populations hugely. Free radicals are a causative agent, as I said above, in many of the world’s deadliest (and expensive) diseases.
But the FDA, although it knows this as well as it knew BEFORE IT APPROVED GARDASIL, the vaccine for girls to “prevent” cervical cancer is active (to the extent that a vaccine can act against any virus effectively) against 4 strains of HPPV which the FDA admits in its own documentation, have little or nothing to do with cervical cancer and that the vaccine actually increases cervical cancer in girls and women who receive it! Repeat: they knew the vaccine causes the cancer they claim it prevents. Dr. Mengele anyone?
Unlike even the FDA, which robs the public to pay the (Pharma/Big Food) piper (if you will allow me a mixed simile) Codex sets no upper limit on the amount of radiation a food can receive in packing, shipping, importation, processing, etc. If a little radiation is “good†a lot must be… better? Like multiple, untested vaccines?
With each go-round of irradiation, the problems in the food, the free radicals and lipid peroxidase, which have no flavor or color you can detect, get worse as the irradiation gets to a higher cumulative dose.
Health Claims? Nah, forget it. Even the provision of information which is accurate and science based cannot be given to the public. The Codex Food Labeling Committee Meeting determined in 2007, with the abundant help from the US, that any communication which gave the consumer information about what he could expect through the taking of foods (or food supplements) was to be banned as “advertising”.
Advertising is just fine when it is used for fluoridated toothpaste (Colgate commercial just seen on TV two hours ago on a French channel in this African Country: “Pour La Monde san dental caries!”, or, in English, “For the world without dental cavities” and for the unnatural Baby Formula and children’s food in Africa but apparently it’s not fine at all when it comes to health groups giving the truth to those who are interested.
No, as I told the health conscious civil servant in this developing country, the war is not over yet. And our side has just begun to fight!
Donations, including signing up for recurring donations:
http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189
Thank you,
Ralph Fucetola JD
for Dr. Laibow
To read Dr. Rima’s blog on Day One of the Ghana Codex Working Group on the Labeling of Foods Obtained from Genetic Modification/Genetic Engineering, go to: http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?p=512
Day Two, January 29, 2008 passed much the same way as Day One. There was a mixture of excruciating (to me) trivia intermingled with decisions that could have life and death impact on the lives of people all over the world.
As a US Citizen, I was not proud of the side that my government, through the person of the FDA’s Barbara Schneeman, consistently took. But I was proud and thrilled by the position that Norway, Japan, Russia, the EU and others consistently took in response when they defended and inserted mention of the rights of consumers to have the information they wanted against the constant pressure of the US and its allies to prevent consumer access to truthful information. (By the way, although I took verbatim notes of the 3 days, my computer will not go on line at this hotel so I do not have access to those notes right now. When I can get that computer back on line, I will post them in their entirety for you to read if you like. Some of you will find the nitty gritty of a Codex meeting fascinating, some will find it laughable. I find it both.)
See Day 1 for details of the new unilateral “background” document the US sought to use to control the event. The Working Group’s thrust was powerful to find a way to make this Background Paper an official Codex document and while other options for forward movement toward consensus would come to the floor, there was no other option presented which had so much traction or forward momentum. The other options kept flopping, as it were, off the table and gasping for air on the floor. Fish out of water.
On the afternoon of the second day, during the lunch break, the EU and other interested countries came up with some proposals to give the background paper a proper “chapeau†(French for “hatâ€) or heading. The US helped to craft a proposal for a chapeau which quickly became two chapeaux. The wording and concepts proposed by the US seemed benign enough: ‘Foods are safe when they come to market and labeling is not a substitute for safety.’ ‘This document was for the use of countries as they developed their own framework for the labeling of GM foods’ and other balsamic-sounding phrases. But if an official Codex document says that foods on the market (like GM “foodsâ€) are safe by the time they get there, then a nation keeping GM foods out because of safety concerns might be creating a barrier to trade in the eyes of the WTO, mightn’t it?
If the document was for use by Codex member countries, might the use of anything not in that document constitute a barrier to trade since this document was the one that they were supposed to be guided by in such regulations? And so on. It all sounded wonderfully friendly but, looked at from the point of view of Codex/WTO trade sanction strategy which could be used to force an end to the mandatory labeling which the US opposes so strongly, it was a very dangerous document, indeed.
Yes, the day ended with the purveyors of half truths and distortions quite satisfied.
Day 3: January 30, 2008 Africa to the Rescue!
By the time the third day dawned, things were different. Norway continued to insist that the background document preamble (the “chapeauâ€) HAD to include the fact that preferences of consumers was a reason for regulatory requirements for labeling (the labels exist to inform consumers… duh). The US continued to reject any mention of the consumer’s needs and preferences and said that they were not relevant (Hmm, if not for the consumer, why have any label… the US position is quite batty).
Norway, in the spirit of conciliation, suggested changing “consumers†to “countries†in the statement that said that their preferences were different in different places. The US objected. But so did Nigeria, one of the authors of the Background Paper. “Noâ€, said the Codex Contact Point of Nigeria, a fine lady who really cares about what she is doing at Codex. “No!†, Mrs. Eschiet repeated. “The issue here is not countries. The mandate of Codex is first to protect the health of consumers and it is consumers, not countries, who should be protected here. Let us change the word back to ‘consumers’ †she said. There was nothing the US could do at that point except to state that they did not support this wording. But the US had an even bigger surprise in store. It was just about time to get out those “queasy stomach” prescriptions that Big Pharma likes to sell by the ton.
Member nations started presenting other Codex texts that the US sponsored “background” paper had left out… fancy that, people who didn’t want to inform the consumers not informing their Codex colleagues! And then the delegates began to suggest that they be included!
They began to introduce principles from CCGP, the Codex Committee on General Principles and from other Codex documents which supported the right of countries to make their own decisions, and of consumers to make theirs through adequate information.
The US delegation appeared to become quite unhappy. Sitting where I was I could see the vigorous head-shakes and the vigorous consultations between members of the Delegation including the people from the Department of Commerce, the biotech and grocery manufacturer’s people and others on the delegation whose identify I did not learn. This is not the usual demeanor of the US delegation, to say the least.
Things got more difficult for the no-right-to-know contingent as the session progressed. It was so encouraging to see people from around the world defending the consumer’s right to know.
The Natural Solutions Foundation has long maintained that concerted effort on the part of the developing nations and those who also do not see multinational corporate interests as their own can change the direction of Codex radically. We have also maintained that if this happened, Codex might become the greatest force for health and well being on the planet that the world has ever seen. If what we saw during this meeting, particularly at the end of it, is any indication of the beginning of a trend, we are right!
At the same time, we believe that, left unchanged as a playground for the greed (and worse) of the corporate interests which the US serves in all of its dealings within Codex, the impact of that organization can be disastrous to the lives and well-being of literally billions of people.
Well, what happened today, on the last day of the deliberations of this Working Group, was a confirmation that the first outcome is, in fact, a real possibility. We have been working with developing countries reminding them that, as a group, they are incredibly powerful. Acting in concert, they can control what happens at Codex and act in their own best interest, not be dragged along to act in the best interest of the developed world and the multinational corporations. That is part of the message we have been delivering at Codex meetings in our conferences with the delegates of the developing countries and on the ground, in their home countries. That is, in fact, one of the biggest reasons that we travel to these places and meet with their decision makers. The other, of course, is to promote their use of the Codex Two Step Process so that they can protect their health and avoid crippling World Trade Organization trade sanctions at the same time.
You see, many of the African states, who understand how dangerous GM foods are and fear their impact on their people and on their land, had met and had come up with absolutely brilliant modifications to the “chapeaux†(background document heading) that the US proposed. By taking out many of the future WTO mine fields (that the no-right-to-know gang had included in the initial draft of the document) while quoting from the Codex texts to get the wording precisely correct, they created a preamble to the document that protected their choices for labeling but cut the cheese from the carefully crafted mouse trap. They left out the provision about safety, leaving open the very real possibility that a food could have been brought to market which turns out not to be safe. Other countries supported them strongly. The US said that if this modification were to be adopted by the Working Group they would not be able to support the document and reiterated this several times.
When the group showed no signs of backing down, Dr. Schneeman had what would be classified, in my professional and personal opinion, as a “hissy fitâ€. She became (literally) red in the face and complained strongly to the chair persons that all the hard work of the past year was wasted in the face of this modification and that she was personally upset. And, indeed, she sounded personally upset. In fact, we overheard one member of the US delegation saying as he walked out for a break that the US was “getting slammedâ€. Dr. Schneeman certainly appeared to be aware that she, her paper, the US position and, by my estimate, its future WTO strategy, were, indeed, getting slammed.
That is not the same thing as the American people getting slammed; in fact, if the Right to Know countries succeed, Americans will be closer to having “truthful and not misleading” food labels regarding such matters as GM status, irradiation and the like. Codes, it seems, can be a double edged sword.
As they provided support for the African position, other countries as well noted relevant Codex texts which the US/Canadian/Nigerian background document did not mention, allude to or acknowledge. Principles for safety and labeling, for Risk Assessment of GM foods and for other strategies to protect the consumer’s health were brought forward to give countries latitude to protect its people and not be assaulted legally via trade sanctions. Africa became stronger and stronger and the US lost, it seemed to me, more and more ground.
At the end, the document’s chapeaux and the document itself were left for further consideration at CCFL this coming April in Ottawa. So the battle continues.
With your continuing financial help (urgently needed, by the way – make your generous tax deductible recurring donation at the link below) we can, indeed, continue to support the emergence of these alliances which can give strength to the push back against the multinational agendas. It happened here. It can happen everywhere in Codex. We need your continued support to be able to attend the Codex food labeling committee in Ottawa, where the battle will continue.
Donate here: http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189
We had the opportunity to speak at significant intensity and length to African delegates and tell them about our International Decade of Nutrition to help them feed themselves and to help them use the Codex Two Step process to make sure that their laws and food supply support health, not profit for the corporations which will exploit them… to death. We passed out our materials, the Codex Book and “Nutricide: the DVD†– the indispensable story of what Codex is, and how it came to be. The updated version contains the special video made specifically to explain the Codex Two Step to Codex delegates. You can find them on our web site, www.healthfreedomusa.org
And some wonderful news, thanks to your support!
The Natural Solutions Foundation was told that it can expect two more official letters of invitation from two more African governments to bring not only the International Decade of Nutrition, our technology and our assistance in producing clean and abundant food to these countries, but to bring our Codex information and strategy as well. We were invited by the host country, Ghana, to the Codex Committee for Africa, CCAfrica, in 2009, a year from now.
As you may recall, we will be in Ghana for a few days and then traveling to another West African country, followed by a middle eastern one and then an East African one for exactly these purposes. We are recording it all for the Codex documentary. You can easily understand that we do not want to advertise our travel plans right now since we do not want the considerable weight of the US’ 5000 lb ‘trade gorilla†to sit on these countries before they have developed their strategy for dealing with that consequence. But there is something that I will share with you. As of today, right here, right now, we do not have enough money to complete the trip. I cannot believe, however, that you will let us down. We need your generous support and we need it now.
Donate here: http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189
• We need it to build health freedom in the US and the rest of the world.
• We need it to reclaim food for you and your brothers and sisters around the world.
• We need it to change Codex into the most potent health force the world has ever seen.
You can be sure, by the way, that as that happens, the multinationals will try to kill it.
So think carefully about how much your health freedom is worth to you. $1 per week? $10 per week? $100 per month? How about a matching grant? All of your donations to the Natural Solutions Foundation are tax deductible since we are a tax exempt 501 ( c ) (3) organization.
Donate here: http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=189
Oh, yes, one other thing: if you donate $100 or more to help fund our Codex/Health Freedom Video, we’ll give you a really nice “Thank you!†in the final version of this made for TV full length documentary! There is a special link on the donation page for that. Our wonderful videographers Mary Beth and Jim are getting some excellent footage and we’ll be able to show you what it is like to be where your heath and freedom are at stake.
Thanks.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Q. How are Autism and Pharmaceutical Profits alike?
A. They both come from vaccinations.
The CDC stated recently that the immune system of a child could tolerate 1000 vaccines. That’s right, 1000 deadly, profit centers. Here’s one way vaccination is done. If you have other stories to tell about vaccinations being forced on you or your children (or grandchildren, parents, etc.), the Natural Solutions Foundation needs to know. Send an email to dr.laibow@gmail.com with “vaccination” in the subject line. Be sure to include your contact information and whether we have your permission to publish the story.
From World Daily News comes the following harrowing story. Although it happened in 2003, it was another one of the early warning shots across the bow of your liberty and your health.
Now all New Jersey Preschoolers must have flu shots, many of which contain mercury. Hepatitis B Vaccine, administered to infants within hours of birth, when they lack a blood brain barrier, is a potent danger because of the mercury, aluminum and viruses, some of which are known or suspected of causing cancer, which lurk within the syringe. Mandatory vaccination is being forced upon us, one life, one arm, one moment of terror at a time. If that is OK with you, please do nothing at all.
If, on the other hand, you do not accept this new “Reign of Terror”, where our immune systems, not our heads, are being destroyed at the whim of the State, then take action. Click here (http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=21835) to tell your State and Federal legislators that your health decisions are yours, and yours alone to make. Let them know that vaccines are unproven, but well advertised, and present a clear and present danger to the recipient. Let them know that it’s your decision whether you are vaccinated, not theirs. What goes into your skin is your decision, not theirs
Then go to www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and sign up for the free, secure Health Freedom eAlerts (http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=187) for up to the minute news and actions you can take to protect and preserve your health and health freedom. Oh, and make sure you ask your entire circle of influence to sign up, too. We are only as powerful as the roar we can raise and that takes voices – lots of voices. It is imperative that we work together to rally those voices or we will all be facing the working ends of many, many syringes.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
Yours in health LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Shot forced on newborn
over parents’ objections
Orwellian nightmare for ‘persecuted’ couple
as armed guards ensure infant’s vaccination
Posted: June 18, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Diana Lynne
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
What was supposed to be a joyous occasion – the birth of their first child – turned out to be an Orwellian nightmare for a young Colorado couple whose newborn was vaccinated for hepatitis B over their religious and philosophical objections, while armed guards stood by to prevent them from intervening.
“It makes me feel like the country I live in is no better than communist China or the old Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, and that’s a very sobering and scary outlook,” the father, who does not want to be named, told WorldNetDaily.
The saga of “Baby M,” as the family calls her to protect her privacy, started with an emergency Caesarean section at St. Mary’s Hospital in in Grand Junction, Colo., on April 2. The couple, who has no medical insurance, had attempted to home birth but wound up rushing to the emergency room after the baby’s position went transverse.
“Baby M” was born without complication. But as the new parents were basking in the afterglow of the birth, a neonatal doctor informed them a vaccination was in order for the baby and pressured the couple to sign a consent form.
“He told me the initial screening test [on the mother] had come back positive for hepatitis B. I told him that was impossible,” said the father. “And he said, ‘Well, I didn’t think it was very likely either so I had them run it again and I’ll probably get those test results back soon. If those test results come back positive again, then I’m going to have to vaccinate the baby.'”
According to the couple’s personal physician, the screening test gives a false-positive 40 to 60 percent of the time.
A call for comment from the neonatal physician was not returned.
After the second test also came back positive, the doctor insisted the couple sign the consent form. Citing text he referenced in a medical guide, he informed the parents that the baby must be vaccinated within 12 hours of birth, if the mother has hepatitis B.
Said the father: “We said that we weren’t going to authorize him to do so because we did not believe she had hepatitis B and that we believe vaccinations would not be good for the baby even if she did, based upon our religious convictions and also medical evidence.”
While not eschewing modern medicine, the couple prefers to avoid it when possible and has a strong conviction against vaccinations.
“We believe in God, and that God has created us in his image. In being created in God’s image, we are given his perfect immune system. We are bestowed with His gift, the immune system. We believe it is sacrilegious and a violation of our sacred religious beliefs to violate what God has given us by showing a lack of faith in God. Immunizations are a lack of faith in God and His protection, the immune system,” the father maintains.
Vaccination danger
The couple had also done extensive research into the potential serious dangers of vaccinations.
WorldNetDaily reported last week that various studies indicate there is epidemiological evidence of a link between neurodevelopmental disorders and mercury exposure from childhood vaccines. Many medical experts suspect vaccines may be behind a growing epidemic of autism in American children. According to data provided by the U.S. Department of Education, most states experienced a doubling of the rate of children diagnosed with full-syndrome autism over the past few years.
“U.S. infants are exposed to mercury levels from their childhood-immunization schedule that far exceed the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] and FDA [Food and Drug Administration]-established maximum permissible levels for the daily oral ingestion of methyl mercury,” wrote Dr. Mark Geier, president of the Genetic Centers of America, in a recently published study in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
According to Geier, the EPA limit is 0.1 micrograms of mercury per kilogram body weight per day.
“It doesn’t take a genius to do the calculations when on their day of birth children are given the hepatitis B vaccine, which is 12.5 micrograms of mercury,” Geier told Insight magazine. “The average newborn weighs between six and seven pounds, so they would be allowed 0.3 micrograms of mercury – but in this one shot they are getting 12.5 micrograms. That’s 39 times more than allowed by law.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12,000 infants are infected with hepatitis B every year by their mother during birth. Infants and children who become infected with hepatitis B are at the highest risk of developing life-long infection, which often leads to death from liver disease and liver cancer. Approximately 25 percent of children who become infected with life-long hepatitis are expected to die of a related disease as adults.
The National Network for Immunization Information, or NNii, a resource for parents recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, or AAP, maintains the vaccine is “safe.”
NNii addresses the risk of mercury in the vaccine in a fact sheet posted on its website. It explains that Thimerosal, a derivative of mercury, has been used in “small amounts” as a preservative in some vaccine and states “there is no evidence that any child has been harmed by exposure to the amounts of Thimerosal in vaccines.”
“In addition, the risk of disease from not immunizing a child is greater than the risk of exposure to low levels of mercury in Thimerosal-containing vaccines,” the fact sheet states, but then adds the U.S. Public Health Service and the AAP recommended reducing or eliminating the use of Thimerosal-containing vaccines “to make safe vaccines even safer.”
NNii states “infants are at high risk for hepatitis B infection if their mothers are infected with the virus” and recommends these infants be given the hepatitis B vaccine “within 12 hours of birth.”
NNii adds that most children who become infected with hepatitis B are born to mothers who are not infected with hepatitis B, and as a result, further recommends all children be vaccinated.
The AAP recommends the first dose of the hepatitis B vaccine be administered to infants born to infected mothers “before they leave the hospital.”
‘Emergency’ hearing
Faced with opposition from the parents over the vaccination of “Baby M,” the doctor called in hospital social service worker Joni Vohs, who reportedly threatened the parents with the loss of custody of their baby if they did not comply with the vaccination schedule.
Next, hospital administrators called in attorneys who persuaded Chief District Court Judge Charles Buss to hold an emergency, after-hours hearing at the hospital on the basis that the baby’s life would be in danger if she was not vaccinated within hours. The family was given 15 minutes’ notice of the hearing and was unable to secure competent legal help in time.
As the father describes it, he went up against a 10-person panel of attorneys, social workers, hospital administrators and the doctor who argued for the immediate vaccination.
The father pleaded for second opinions. He also pleaded for the judge to wait for the results of a more confirmatory test which were scheduled to arrive in 16 hours.
During the four-hour hearing, the father cited the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and Colorado revised statute, which states there are religious, medical and philosophical exemptions to medical treatment.
Rather than share the 19-year-old’s passion for U.S. constitutional history, the lawyers reportedly mocked him.
“When I was reading, the lawyers were whispering back and forth almost laughing at me,” the father told WorldNetDaily. “In retrospect, reminding them of the Constitution hurt me more than it helped.”
The judge ruled the baby should be vaccinated immediately and also ordered her put into protective custody with the Mesa County Department of Human Services, which the parents were told meant social-service agents had the ability to intervene in the medical treatment of the baby at any time and could take physical custody of the baby if deemed necessary to “protect the child’s best interests.”
A call for comment from Buss was referred to judicial administrator Judy Vanderleest. Vanderleest told WorldNetDaily the judge would not comment on the case. She also said the emergency, after-hours hearing held at the hospital was the first such hearing held that she could remember.
Matt Weber, an attorney who represented St. Mary’s Hospital told WorldNetDaily he was “not authorized to speak on behalf of the hospital on this case.”
With armed guards lining the ICU, the first of three ordered vaccinations was administered to the baby. According to the family’s physician, the baby immediately exhibited the typical side effects of the vaccine.
A day later, the third hepatitis B screening on the mom came back negative.
By the time the second shot was due to be administered, the father had succeeded in persuading county social worker Dan Overmeyer the vaccination posed more risk than good for the baby’s health. Overmeyer opted to not administer any more shots and recommended the release of “Baby M” from protective custody.
Overmeyer was unavailable for comment.
While the baby appears to be doing fairly well, the parents fear the damage is already done, and can only wait and wonder when the adverse effects of the vaccine will appear.
“Most of the doctors that I’ve talked to from around the country that know about vaccinations have said that it takes months and sometimes years for things to show up,” the father told WorldNetDaily. “The scary thing is that there are babies that just die out of the blue supposedly for no reason. … There’s a lot of evidence that these SIDS [Sudden Infant Death Syndrome] victims are actually a result of vaccination.”
The Institute of Medicine, a medical research organization that provides health information to the government, released a report last March that concluded all available evidence shows no link between vaccines and unexplained infant deaths.
Religious persecution?
Having recently graduated from college with an associate’s degree in telecommunications engineering, the father has now launched a campaign to alert expecting parents about his family’s ordeal. He posted their story online with a link to an article outlining the research behind the dangers of vaccinations.
“I want [parents] to know that their rights are no longer being upheld by our government,” he said. “If people don’t speak out and voice their disapproval and talk to their congressman and make a big deal out of things like this then we will find ourselves very soon in a sort of police state where we have no individual freedoms and the government tells us what to do, what not to do and basically raises our children for us.”
The website includes a link for readers to make contributions to a legal defense fund. The family hopes to raise sufficient funds to sue the hospital. They feel both the hospital staff and the judge persecuted them for their religious conviction against vaccinations.
“The doctor and hospital thought we would be easy targets as we were young and penniless. They do not like people who try to avoid the system and they don’t like anyone to question whether or not their practices are truly in the best interests of the patient,” the father said. “Our aim in legal action would be to get a precedent that protects families from this ever happening again.”
Kim Williams, the director of marketing at St. Mary’s Hospital declined to discuss the case, citing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which outlines patient-confidentiality rules.
Social worker Joni Vohs adamantly denied the hospital would persecute anyone over their religious beliefs or discriminate against them because of a lack of insurance.
“St. Mary’s is a Catholic hospital. We treat everybody regardless of their ability to pay. It’s a very compassionate and caring place.”
After stressing she was bound by confidentiality rules not to discuss the details, Vohs said the “Baby M” case triggered her recollection of another case in which a 13-year-old girl died a “very slow death” because the family belonged to a church that “believed in prayers over medical treatment” and failed to seek treatment for her until she was almost dead.
“Having worked in child protection for 25 years, to allow a child to suffer or die a horrible death is child abuse,” Vohs told WorldNetDaily.
Colorado legislators passed a law as a result of that case which allows the court to step in and override parents’ religious beliefs in the event of a medical emergency. Vohs said this law was applied to the “Baby M” case.
“The hospital doesn’t do anything on a whim. There’s a lot of steps that need to be taken. There was a legal hearing … and the law was followed,” she said.
She also added that the family’s story posted online “stretches and alters” the truth in the case.
“Baby M’s” father argues there was no emergency and emphasizes that had the staff simply waited the 16 hours for the third, more confirmatory test of the mother’s blood to come back negative, the entire “nightmare” could have been avoided.
The fundamental question here is, “Do you trust your government?”
We are talking here about the same government, if I am not mistaken, that many believe rigged the past two national elections. The same government which passed the Patriot Act hard on the heels of the supposedly unexpected attacks on 9/11 (oddly, though, although we did not know the attacks were coming, despite the fact that the information was in the system, we did know the names and passport numbers of all 19 hijackers by the next morning – that strikes me as remarkable intelligence work!). The same government which passed laws (although they violate the US Constitution, supposedly the source of all legal jurisdiction in the United States) which allow your personal privacy and right to protection from unlawful search and seizure to be nullified at the whim of who-knows-whom. That same government which is waging a war on natural health and the information you need to make natural health choices. The same government which has issued a series of Signing Statements, Executive Orders, Homeland Security Directives and other administrative tools overturning or nullifying important aspect of the Common Law, US laws and the provisions of the US Constitution which were designed to protect you against the over-reaching of a government focused on its own power rather than your rights. Rights, for example, like habeas corpus and legal representation, the right to confront your accusers, the right to examine the evidence against you, the right to determine your own medical choices and a host of others.
That would be the same government which, through regulatory edicts by the FDA, has absolved all drug and vaccine manufacturers of ANY liability for any harm you suffer from them, approved cloned meat and milk despite overwhelming consumer revulsion, established for itself the power to ban the sale of, for example, cherry juice as an “untested drug” because the Michigan Cherry Growers Association wanted you to know about 6 scientific papers showing health benefits from cherry juice (or ban any other substance or object used for any potential health benefit), approve deadly drugs on the say-so of “advisers” with a personal stake in the outcome of their advice, buries negative findings about those drugs and then keeps them on the market.
That government. The one that has reportedly four times now called for a protection for us from terrorism by unleashing a nuclear holocaust on Iran, one of several countries which trades its oil in Euros, not dollars. Another country which has made that mistake is called “Iraq”.
Now that government would like you to believe that they have your very best interests, and all of your rights in hand when, in the event of a pandemic, BEFORE IT GETS AWAY FROM US, you will be able to voluntarily accept vaccination or decline it. As I read the laws, however, that is true but the consequences of NOT accepting vaccination are not trivial. What you would be facing is unlimited incarceration (“quarantine”) until you do agree to be vaccinated – or forever. Who knows? The Shadow (government which was apparently never elected) knows.
I do not have any information conclusively telling me that what I am about to say next is accurate or true, but it seems like a highly reasonable conclusion. There are reportedly more than 800 detention centers staffed but standing empty in the US right now. If the plan is to use these facilities for the quarantine of people who refuse “voluntary” vaccination, then the astonishing capacity of more than 30 million people that these facilities represent in the aggregate makes sense. Otherwise, we are looking at a pretty large capacity for – what? Al Quaida sleeper cells?
Now the US government, responding to the question posed by the ACLU of whether pandemic plans violate our rights would like us to believe that they do not, that the already approved vaccine for a virus which supposedly does not yet exit – pandemic H5N1 Avian Flu – would be offered to us for our approval or rejection WHEN CHILDREN, COLLEGE STUDENTS, HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, ELDERLY RESIDENTS OF NURSING HOMES AND OTHER VULNERABLE POPULATIONS ARE ALREADY BEING FACED WITH FORCED VACCINATION, SOMETIMES AT THE POINT OF A GUN (as in Prince George’s County, Maryland where parents were threatened with jail time and fines, and their kids, some already fully inoculated, were vaccinated at the point of a gun in a state with a vaccination exemption).
By the way, vaccines are not necessarily as labeled and they are certainly not safe. The parents of the children felled by what many believe is a vaccine induced epidemic of autism can tell you that. So can the infertile women in Sub Saharan Africa and Central and South America who received tetanus or other vaccines which also contained a vaccine which produces female sterility tell you that (this sterility vaccine, by the way, is approved for use in the US but has been used by the World Health Organization since at least 1985). Then there are the so called stealth viruses, like SV-40, a cancer causing agent found in polio and many other vaccines. Of course, aluminum, mercury, MSG and a host of other dangerous additives make the brew more dangerous, too.
Trust the government that approved these “Public Health” measures in full knowledge of these dangers? That’s a little more than I can handle.
So read the following report of the ACLU’s encounter with the Department of Health and Human Services and draw your own conclusions about whether the benign reassurances of the HHS are enough for you. Then go to www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and join the Health Freedom eAlert list and become part of the Health Freedom Team if you are not already there. The ONLY way we can protect ourselves and our loved ones from this menace is by become a thunderous roar of opposition – before it is too late.
And if you are already on the eAlert list, the most powerful steps you can take to make a difference are (1) getting your friends, associates and family to join the eAlert and (2) becoming a regular donor… the truth is, neither health nor freedom are free. We need your commitment to stop what is happening before our eyes…
The government’s authority ends at your skin!
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
PS – our DC educational agent, Charlie Frohman was at the ACLU press conference at the National Press Club in DC representing us, and questioning ACLU about its commitment to fighting for our rights. The ACLU assured Charlie that they would continue to press for our rights, even in the event of a pandemic “emergency” – see his comments at:
http://www.commoninterest.info/2008/01/16/aclu-to-protect-against-government-in-pandemic/
Do U.S. pandemic plans threaten rights, ACLU asks
Published on Tuesday, January 15, 2008.
AddThis Social Bookmarking Widget
Source: Reuters
U.S. policy in preparing for a potential bird flu pandemic is veering
dangerously toward a heavy-handed law-enforcement approach, the
American Civil Liberties Union said on Monday.
The group, which advocates for individuals’ legal rights based on the
U.S. Constitution, said federal government pandemic plans were
confusing and could emphasize a police and military approach to
outbreaks of disease, instead of a more sensible public health approach.
“Rather than focusing on well-established measures for protecting the
lives and health of Americans, policymakers have recently embraced an
approach that views public health policy through the prism of national
security and law enforcement,” the ACLU report reads.
But the U.S. Health and Human Services Department (HHS) said the group
had misunderstood the government’s approach and said current plans
already incorporate many of the ACLU’s recommendations.
Infectious disease experts agree that a pandemic of some sort of
influenza is inevitable, and most worries focus on H5N1 avian
influenza. Although it mainly attacks birds, the virus has infected
349 people since 2003 and killed 216 of them.
A few mutations could turn it into a highly infectious disease for
people and could kill millions globally.
Most countries are working to develop plans to deal with the potential
consequences. The U.S. plans are available on Web sites such as
http://pandemicflu.gov.
The ACLU said it was worried that the plan called for military and
police involvement in enforcing a quarantine.
The ACLU experts said they were especially disturbed by an October
executive order from President George W. Bush that directed HHS to
establish a task force to plan for potential catastrophes like a
terrorist attack, pandemic influenza or a natural disaster that would
ensure full use of Department of Defense resources.
The Bush order does not specify what the Department of Defense role
would be, but also mentions military medical research facilities that
have played a role in health for decades.
“Pandemic planning today tends to emphasize mandatory vaccination and
forced treatment,” the ACLU’s Tania Simoncelli told a news conference.
“It also means that sick people are being treated as criminals and
enemies of the state rather than individuals in need of care.”
The ACLU said plans should focus on how to help people stay home
without losing pay, and instead of merely advising citizens to
stockpile food, should provide for ways to help them do so.
HHS spokesman Bill Hall said the government plan stressed community
and individual involvement.
“They have mischaracterized our planning efforts. They are confusing a
containment attempt as our overall pandemic response once the virus
has spread beyond our ability to stop it,” Hall said in a telephone
interview.
“Respecting civil liberties has been an important component of our
pandemic planning.”
He said many of the recommendations ACLU makes, such as voluntary
vaccination and treatment, were in the plan.
Source: http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=5288
In a remarkable letter written on April 6, 2006 to the Helen Clark, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Scientists of the Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics [PSRG] took the bold step of warning the PM and every member of the New Zealand Parliament about the known and unknown dangers of biotech foods. They urged the PM and Parliament to move very cautiously on the approval of any genetically modified foods and cited a wealth or reasons why that caution was necessary.
They also urged that they not rely on US decision making since the US FDA and USDA cannot be relied upon to act responsibly in this issue and detail some of the reasons for that lack of trust questioning, among other things, the competency and accuracy of the US agencies involved with approval of GM foods. They charge, and document both FDA and USDA with very specific deficiencies, including the fact that they ignore their own scientists and approve GM foods as safe when there is no evidence that they are, in fact, safe. US approval, however, is generally taken around the world as strong and often compelling evidence of a food’s safety by the countries around the world which still chose to believe the deadly fiction that the US has the world’s best food supply, safety and security. The EU Food Safety organization takes some heavy hits, too, as it is quoted as saying that it has no idea how to analyze and, whether GM or not.
The report is rather technical in spots so, although it is presented without editing, I have taken the liberty of emphasizing parts of it which I find particularly interesting and relevant. In other words, I have placed all bold face text in that format since it does not appear in bold in the original letter.
Please share this information widely since it directly and compellingly offers information that consumers need to know as they choose their diets for themselves and their families. Please remember that the US FDA prohibits the accurate labeling of genetically modified foods so that consumers will not make the “mistake” of rejecting GM food in the US. It strongly urges the rest of the world to adopt the same potentially deadly standard through Codex and, in fact, the Working Group on Biotech (GM) Foods (Accra, Ghana, January 28-30, 2007) will consider this proposition again (as the same group did in Norway last year). The Natural Solutions Foundation will be there reporting on every development for you.
Support our kind of on-going information for yourself and your circle of influence. Join the Natural Solutions Foundation’s Health Freedom e-Alerts (http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=187). Your information is secure with us. I promise.
Oh, yes, there is something else you can do in this critically important process of reclaiming our food: disseminate widely (with proper attribution so people can find the Natural Solutions Foundation when they go looking for more information) and donate. Your tax exempt donations are the life blood of the Natural Solutions Foundation. Help us keep on helping you to maintain your health freedom!
And eat organic. You will note in the MP’s letter that the changes induced by the GM crops could be reversed over time even in adults. That should give you pause and hope. Organic, real organic, not phony Codex-standard organic, is the answer there.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
Letter to PM on genetically engineered organisms
Thursday, 6 April 2006, 2:56 pm
Press Release: Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0604/S00056.htm
The Right Hon. Helen Clark
Cc to all MPs
Prime Minister
ERMA
Parliament Buildings
FSANZ
WELLINGTON
Media
A letter addressed to Prime Minister Helen Clark
Dear Helen Clark
PSRG calls your attention to 8 April 2006, designated the day to inform people and to demonstrate public concern about genetically engineered organisms (GEOs).
Of particular concern to us are decisions of FSANZ and other regulatory bodies; the decision not to adopt country of origin labeling; the inadequacy of current GEO label ling requirements; the use of genetic engineering technology to produce pharmaceutical and industrial materials; and potential applications to release GEOs into the New Zealand environment.
(For the purposes of this letter, genetic engineering and genetic modification are synonymous.)
1. The effects on human consumers ingesting genetically engineered organisms
We advise you of the following research that raises serious concerns about the risks of consuming GEOs.
1.1. Eating genetically engineered soybeans affected the liver and pancreas of study mice.
In 2005, Italian researchers1 found that genetically engineered (GE) soybeans affected the liver and pancreas in mice. Previously, the researchers had shown that absorption of GE soy by mice induced modifications in the nuclei of their liver cells. It was later shown that reverting the diet of the mice to conventional food caused the observed differences to disappear. It was also found that several of these changes could be “induced in adult organisms in a very short time.”
1.2. Genetically engineered pea research abandoned because of adverse results
Also in 2005, CSIRO2 scientists abandoned a research project after ten years. They found that the genetically engineered peas they had developed caused lung damage in mice.
1.3. The cauliflower mosaic virus acting as a catalyst to provoke gene expression (2006)
ADVERTISEMENT
Dr Terje Traavik, scientific director of the University of Tromso’s Institute of Genetic Ecology in Norway, has demonstrated 3 that an element of the genetic structures used to engineer a plant – the cauliflower mosaic virus (35S CaMV) promoter – can provoke gene expression in cultured human cells. [In other words, this genetic element could promote cancer] Developers of genetically engineered plants have previously claimed that the promoter normally only performs that way with plants.
1.4. Monsanto’s MON 863 genetically engineered corn
In April 2004, a toxicological study released to Le Monde4 reportedly showed that rats fed with MON 863 presented anomalies, including an increase in the white blood cell count, changes in blood sugar, and a reduction in the red blood cell count. The paper claimed that in considering a decision on its release, despite re-examining the file, regulators did not reportedly take another look at Monsanto’s statistical analysis.
An independent study was commissioned from Gilles-Eric Seralini, of the University of Caen, and Dominique Cellier, of the University of Rouen. Dominique Cellier, a biocomputer specialist, is reported to have said that: “Monsanto’s statistical analysis of the differences observed in the rats was very superficial. They isolate the variables instead of using so-called multi-variable analysis methods, which consist of looking at the observed anomalies in a coherent way. If one uses those methods, one observes coherence between the weight, urinary tract, and haematological anomalies in the animals fed GMOs.”
Commenting on evaluating procedures for GEOs, Jean-Michel Wal of the GEO group of the European Authority on Food Security, is cited as saying: “We don’t know how to study a food overall, whether it’s a GMO or not; there’s no norm.”
2. Regulation and safety testing of GEOs
We wish to raise serious concerns about New Zealand’s reliance on the approval process of US government agencies. The companies that develop and promote genetically engineered food crops generally carry out toxicological studies on the effects of consuming them. These studies are meant to then be double checked by food safety authorities, but the criticism is that the experiments are simply not reproduced [by the FDA], even though industry studies often show adverse biological impacts.
2.1. Inadequate and unsatisfactory regulation
The FDA declared genetically engineered foods are substantially equivalent to conventional foods. It ignored the warnings of its own scientists and put in place food rules that assume no unforeseen effects will occur and, therefore, no safety testing is required, for genetically engineered foods. This premise has been well proven to be wrong.
2.1.a. Early in 2000, German scientists discovered that antibiotic resistant marker (ARM) genes from engineered canola were transferring their resistance to the bacteria found in the guts of bees that had consumed pollen from the plants.
2.1.b. Earlier European Union studies had revealed that ARM genes found in genetically engineered foods could transfer into bacteria in the human gut as well as soil bacteria (http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/genemarker.cfm ).
2.2. British Medial Association
Concerns were raised as long ago as 1999 when the British Medical Association called for a global moratorium on genetically engineered crops. The BMA were concerned that ARM genes would cause antibiotic resistance to develop in bacteria by horizontal gene transfer. Such resistance would serve to erode the effectiveness of antibiotics for humankind. Crops are still produced using ARM genes.
2.3. Recommended new safety test method
In 2006, agricultural economist, Dr Charles Benbrook – a former adviser to the Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations – warned of serious concerns over safety in respect of generically engineered foods.5 He claims that these food crops should be re-tested using Australian food safety technology developed by the Australian National University. The failed pea trials were tested using it.
2.4. Instigating safety assessments
As a direct result of the failed pea trails (1.2), Western Australia has instigated an independent, long-term animal feeding trial to collect and assess data on the safety of GE food crops. New Zealand should also take the initiative.
3. Current applications for genetically engineered crops
Recent applications to Food Safety ANZ for the approval of foods derived from genetically engineered alfalfa and corn raise concerns.
a.. Food derived from glyphosate-tolerant Lucerne (Application A575) J101 and J163 for human consumption.
b.. Food derived from Monsanto’s high-lysine corn LY038 (Application A549) genetically engineered to have higher than usual levels of the amino acid, lysine, intended for animal feed.
It is stated that these will be used for animal feed, although some may find its way into human food products. PSRG maintains that the risks that it is intrinsically unwise to allow GE animal feed into the human food chain.
3.1. Transgenes in cows’ milk
In June 2004, a study was released by the Research Centre for Milk and Foodstuffs in Weihenstephan, Bavaria that showed that parts of the gene construct from RoundupReady soybean and from Bt176 maize was found in milk from cows fed these genetically engineered plants. The report says the gene segments may have got into the milk via feed or dust from the feed in the air. No further studies have been made to clarify the exact means by which the DNA fragments got into the milk. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/.)
3.2. Transgenes in the gut bacteria of human volunteers
A study commissioned by the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) and carried out at the University of Newcastle, demonstrated that DNA from a genetically engineered food – in this case soybean in the form of a burger and a milkshake – found its way into the gut bacteria of human volunteers. (See the FSA Report on http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/.)
3.3. The long-term effects of ingesting material from transgenic sources on a daily basis have not been assessed.
4. Adverse effects of genetically engineered crops – MON 8106, 7, 8 Monsanto’s MON 810 corn produces an artificial, truncated version of a Cry toxin derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. This family of toxins has a pathogenic effect on Lepidopteron insects.
4.1. Genetically engineered plants are not equivalent to bio pesticides
A study spanning several years has monitored the quantity of Cry1Ab toxins in DK-440 BTY (MON 810) corn. Cry toxins are compounds that have gained acceptance in pest control (i.e., in bio pesticides such as DIPEL). However, genetically engineered plants are not equivalent to these bio-pesticides from the aspect of environmental analysis and ecotoxicology.
The principal difference with regard to toxin release is related to the extent and duration of exposure: while bio-pesticide applications release a small quantity of the toxin on a single or several occasions, the GE plant produces the toxin protein on a continuous basis, unnecessarily, during its entire vegetation cycle, as long as the gene section(s) added artificially to the plant and responsible for encoding the protein are active.6
4.2. Cry toxin produced in the entire plant during the whole growth period Székács et al6 have confirmed that the Cry toxin is produced in the plant during the whole period of growth. That is, in a dry plant, under moderate temperature, the toxin remains biologically active for several years. Post-harvest the maize stubble contains a significant quantity of Cry toxin. Cry toxin, over-wintering in the stubble, can be detected in plant residues after a period of one year.
4.3. Comparisons between bio pesticides and Bt plants
Székács et al compared the quantity of Cry-toxin proteins produced by the Bt-plant with the doses registered and permitted for their use in bio pesticides, and determined the toxin quantity in DIPEL. They found that MON 810 Bt-corn produces 1500-3000 times more Cry1Ab toxin than the Cry1Ab toxin dose corresponding to a single treatment with DIPEL.
They also found that only part of the toxin from the Bt-plant is decomposed during the growth period. Further, a significant part of the remaining quantity in the stubble enters the soil, where it may affect soil life (animals and micro-organisms).
4.4. Cry pollen and contamination
A study (Marva’s et al)7 carried out over several years looked at the possible effects of the pollen of DK-440 BTY corn grown in Nagykovácsi, Júlia-major, a valley where no maize was grown during the years concerned.
The distance of the intra-specific hybrid formation was examined on white, tassel-free maize and the results showed that pollen transfer could occur at 800 metres.
This poses risks for organically grown maize where zero tolerance is accepted for GE [Genetically Engineered – editor] -hybrids. Seeds developing from a traditional female blossom pollinated with cry gene- containing pollen (i.e., from MON 810), have a high probability (1/3) of acquiring the capability of producing the Cry1Ab toxin.
4.5. The effects on essential insect species
Around fields planted with Bt-corn hybrids, the Bt-pollen settled on weeds, presenting a danger to the hatching caterpillars of protected varieties of butterflies. This means that in the case of extensive Bt-corn cultivation, butterfly species could recede [that is, be damaged or extermated – editor].
A study by Béla Darvas and Éva Lauber8 found that insects developed resistance to the toxin content in Bt-corn leaves. The conclusion is that this will generate a growth in the number of insect populations on which Bacillus thuringiensis products – used almost exclusively in organic farming – will no longer have a suitable effect.
5. Food crops engineered to produce non-food [chemicals and pharmaceuticals -editor] products – the potential contamination of other engineered, conventional and organically grown crops.
In 2004, the US Department of Agriculture oversaw 67,000 acres of biotech field trials, some of which involved producing non-food products in a food crop. Corn is the most utilized food crop for engineered traits because it is easy to work with and produces a lot of grain. The concern is that food plants genetically engineered for non-food products could contaminate plants engineered as food crops and/or conventional crops, and enter the food supply as did StarLink’s Cry9C protein in 2000.
5.1. Report on the US Department of Agriculture as a regulator9
A recent report found that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has failed to properly oversee field trials of genetically engineered crops, including plants engineered to produce chemicals for medical and industrial uses. The report says that the USDA “lacks basic information” on field trial locations and what happens to the crops after harvest. For example, auditors located two harvested pharmaceutical crops in storage, about which the USDA knew nothing nor had it approved.
The two-year safety audit by the United States Office of Inspector General also found that: “Current (USDA) regulations, policies and procedures do not go far enough to ensure the safe introduction of agricultural biotechnology.”
6. Pharmaceutical drugs produced using genetic engineering technology
Some people react differently to proteins that are genetically engineered as against equivalent proteins that are produced naturally. Genetic engineering technology is not as precise or as predictable as chemical drugs because it relies on the intricate workings of complex living cells in the process of manufacture, and even the subtlest of changes in the process can have unpredictable results. Some drugs – e.g. human insulin – are created by engineering the required human gene into bacterial or animal cells.
PSRG [Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics – REL] urges you, Prime Minister, to put safety before industry profit and instigate changes to the NZ system of regulation that will protect New Zealanders.
Signed by the Trustees of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics
Paul G Butler, BSc, MB, ChB, Dip. Obst. (Auckland), FRNZCGP General Practitioner, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND
John R Clearwater, BSc, MSc, PhD
Principal Scientist, Clearwater Research and Consulting, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND
Bernard J Conlon, MB, BCh, BAO, DCH, DRCOG, DGM, MRCGP (UK), FRNZCGP General Practitioner, Trustee PSRG, MURUPARA
Elvira Dommisse, BSc(Hons), PhD
Former Research Scientist, Trustee PSRG, CHRISTCHURCH
Michael E Godfrey, MBBS, FACAM, FACNEM
Director, Bay of Plenty Environmental Health Clinic, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA
Neil Macgregor, BSc, MSc, PhD
Soil Microbiologist, Institute of Natural Resources, Massey University, Trustee PSRG, PALMERSTON NORTH
Peter R Wills, BSc, PhD
Associate Professor, University of Auckland, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND
Robert G Anderson, BSc, PhD
Lecturer retired, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA
Jean Anderson
Businesswoman retired, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA.
Signed on behalf of PSRG
Jean Anderson
Secretary
www.psrg.org.nz.
for the Trustees of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics