Your immune system is constantly on a seek-and-destroy mission status – on the lookout for foreign invaders, naturally occurring cell defects and mutant cells.
The immune system has a vast capacity to remember bad guys and deploy tactics that worked in the past to annihilate the enemy.
Some of the fastest growing cells in the human body are immune cells.
Over 80 percent of the body’s immunity is built in the intestinal tract by the friendly bacteria balance that resides there.
The intestinal flora starts building in an infant while in the womb but doesn’t really take off until after eight days of age. Starting with the colostrum milk, the gut begins to populate with more bacteria while the infant’s immune system starts an inventory of good and bad cells in the body.
This inventory is a life-long process and the immune system never forgets an invader.
Where the problem begins
The absolute worst thing to do to any infant is to give them an antibiotic.
Antibiotics indiscriminately kill bacteria, both good and bad.
One round of antibiotics will permanently change the baby’s immune system, and because a majority of neuro-chemicals are also made in the gut, the baby’s neurology is also altered.The antibiotics that have been touted as the savior of mankind from disease are costing us in cancer and degenerative, chronic diseases.
Once the very first antibiotic is administered to the infant or child, the bacteria in the gut is wiped out and the immune system is permanently altered in its ability to manufacture appropriate immune cells. Fungus in the gut is now unopposed and begins to proliferate unchecked by the friendly bacteria. After fungus sets up strongholds then parasites move in to share the bounty of food and minerals meant to feed the body. This is the first step for chronic disease and cancer.
The same process happens when an adult takes even one round of antibiotics. Everything changes permanently and takes years of targeted nutrition and probiotic therapies to recover a semblance of normalcy in the body systems.
The role of heavy metals
Over 80 percent of heavy metals are removed from the body via the friendly bacteria in the gut. Certain bad bacteria and fungus actually prefer to retain and move heavy metals into the body and transport these metals to different tissues and organs to weaken them for future invasion. Fungus is a clean-up organism that feeds on compromised tissues. Eventually a bad fungus will invade healthy tissues as it gains strength and your body weakens.
The cancer double-whammy
Once the bad bacteria balance occurs and the fungus sets up shop, the intestinal wall becomes leaky, allowing partially digested foods, bacterium and allergens to cross into the blood. Now the already weakened immune system has double-duty to perform trying to clean up the gut while tracking down these new threats to the body. To think this all started with a well-meaning but seriously wrong pediatrician and misinformed parents.
Cancer is a disease of inflammation.
The gut compromises and leakage of particles into the blood causes inflammation throughout the body. Chronically inflamed organs become targets of heavy metals, viruses, bacterium and fungus. But the damage doesn’t stop there as the highly processed foods we eat cross the now compromised gut barrier; causing pancreas stress and trouble. Chronic stress weakens organs to make them more susceptible to disease and cancer.
Where it ends
It ends with you making informed decisions before submitting to any medical treatment, including taking antibiotics.
You are the one who gleans the benefits or suffers the consequences – not the doctor who collects your co-pay up front and makes you sign “informed consent” papers before treatment.
Here are a pair of images from Curiosity’s left rear hazcam and left front hazcam, respectively.
We weren’t expecting any front hazcam images this early, and we also weren’t expecting such high resolution images, so this is really really amazing, and here at JPL people are going nuts. Oh, and they’re also handing out Mars bars.
As soon as we’re done being nuts and scarfing candy, we’ll get settled in for the press conference, which should be full of good news! We’ll likely have an update for you before midnight.
The official landing time, for those of you keeping track, was 10:32PM. And at least from here, it looked like everything went almost flawlessly.
Ruling families and the wealthy elite have long dreamed of immortality to preserve their ability to rule for all of eternity, with heads of dynasties historically offering abundant prizes and gifts to those with secrets to everlasting life on Earth.
One prominent Russian scientist now says that such an achievement will be possible for the wealthy elite by roughly 2045 through a concept deeply studied and publicized by researchers like Steve Quayle and Stan Deyo.
Often criticized as ‘conspiracy theory’ or bizarre science fiction back when analysts were blowing the whistle over this ‘privileged’ technology, the process involves generating fully functional holographic human avatars and transporting one’s ‘consciousness’ into an artificial brain.
While the overall ‘immortality’ process is intended to be completed by 2045, the scientist states on his website that the act of transplanting a human brain into an artificial body will be available in as little as seven years.
The rest of the project would extend all the way to 2045, ran by a ‘team of the world’s leading scientists’ working on the initiative.
On the website of Dmitry Itskov, the scientist behind the idea, the 31-year-old asks for contributions from the world’s wealthiest members of society in order to accelerate his plan.
These wealthy contributors will then be rewarded with the use of this technology upon completion, allowing them to ‘live’ in an artificial brain and body throughout the course of history.
On the website is also an image which outlines the projected process of completion, with the holographic body avatars actually available by 2015:
Following the creation of a remotely controlled robotic copy of one’s body in 2015, 2020 then brings a body in which a human brain can be transplanted after death.
In 2030, human personality is set to be transferred directly to the ‘borg’ brain and implanted. In 2040-2045, the plan is set to complete with a full-fledged hologram-like avatar in which the artificial brain and body will ‘store’ the consciousness of the subject.
In a more detailed description, Dmitry Itskov explains on his website how these new borg-like bodies feature a ‘artificial brain linked to a robot’ complete with a consciousness link to an internet-esque system. Once again, this was spoken of verbatim more than three decades ago by analysts like Steve Quayle and Stan Deyo.
This phase of the plan includes the emergence of android ‘avatar’ bodies controlled with a ‘brain-computer’ chip interface (likely of RFID nature). This chip would be systematically established to issue ‘orders’ to the artificial body and eventually interlink with the artificial brain.
This time frame involves the linking of the human brain and robot with an ‘autonomous life-support system’, giving way to a new field of transhumanistic developments and further turning the human body into a bio-electronic ‘avatar’.
In this near-final stage, human consciousness is to be transplanted onto an artificial carrier or ‘brain’ creating ‘cybernetic immortality’. Artificial intelligence will emerge with robots likely taking the role of all military, police, and others. These robots will have their own form of artificial ‘consciousness’.
The artificial brain turns into something that has no substance, linking into an ‘internet’ of sorts in which the ‘global consciousness’ network is established. Humanity is set to “become a new species” and forfeit any form of physical materialization.
The H3N8 strain was discovered after the death of 162 New England seals
The virus could target a protein found in human lungs causing immune system to go into overdrive and attack itself
This would leave lungs vulnerable to pneumonia and bacterial infectionSeal flu could pose a new threat to human health, scientists have warned.
A new flu virus identified in American harbour seals has the potential to pass to other mammals, including humans, say experts.
The H3N8 strain was discovered after the death of 162 New England harbour seals last year.
Post-mortem examinations of five of the animals showed they were killed by a flu infection.
New threat: Flu killed more than 100 harbour seals in New England recently
The strain is closely related to one that has been circulating in North American birds since 2002. But unlike the bird strain, it has adapted to living in mammals.
It has also evolved mutations known to ease transmission and cause more severe symptoms.Specifically, the virus has the ability to target proteins known as cytokines found in human lungs.
This could cause the immune system to go into overdrive and attack itself, causing tissue damage.
Dr Anne Moscona, from Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City, who led the researchers, said: ‘There is a concern that we have a new mammalian-transmissible virus to which humans haven’t been exposed yet. It’s a combination we haven’t seen in disease before.’
The warning is published in the online journal of the American Society for Microbiology, mBio.
One cause for concern was the fact that few scientists had considered the possibility of a bird flu virus infecting seals, said the researchers. It highlighted the fact that pandemic influenza can appear in unexpected ways.
‘Flu could emerge from anywhere and our readiness has to be much better than we previously realised,’ said Dr Moscona.
‘We need to be very nimble in our ability to identify and understand the potential risks posed by new viruses emerging from unexpected sources.
‘It’s important to realise that viruses can emerge through routes that we haven’t considered. We need to be alert to those risks and ready to act on them.’
As of January 2012, the World Health Organization has confirmed there have been 583 cases of H5N1 (avian flu) in humans leading to 344 deaths. There have been no human cases in the UK however the strain was found in a flock of turkeys in Suffolk in 2007 and in wild swans in Dorset in 2008.
For about two years now, Food Nation Radio Network has been covering the issues that affect our food supply. During the course of our research, investigations and interviews for the show, we came across a particularly disturbing piece of information in the genetically modified food puzzle. It’s the possible relationship between agrobacterium, genetic engineering and Morgellons Disease.
Agrobacterium is a bacteria that causes tumors in plants through a transfer of DNA.
It is used for genetic engineering of corn, soybeans, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa and other foodstuffs. Some studies have shown agrobacterium can also affect the DNA of humans.
A study done on Morgellons Disease patients by Vitaly Citovsky, a professor of molecular and cell biology at Stony Brook University in New York (SUNY) found all patients tested positive for the presence of agrobacterium, while the healthy control patients did not.
Morgellons is a disease one would think would be in a science fiction novel. It is characterized by lesions on patients and fibers containing minerals growing underneath the skin.
For many years, nearly the entire medical community (including the CDC) maintained it was a psychiatric condition, with patients causing their own lesions and other symptoms. As of January, 2012 the CDC appears to maintain that stance, although researchers and respected scientists in Oklahoma, New York, Toronto and other parts of the world are taking this possible epidemic seriously.
Some notable individuals claim to suffer from Morgellons, including musician, Joni Mitchell and former baseball player Billy Koch. It is possible this is an infectious disease, due to the presence of it in entire families and it is found more among nurses and teachers who come into contact with a number of people on a daily basis. Morgellons is reported more in California, Florida and Texas than anywhere else, although it is found throughout the world.
Here is our recent interview with accomplished genetic researcher, Professor Joe Cummins, Professor Emeritus at the University of Western Ontario on the possible Morgellons Disease/GMO connection FNRN Highlight – Prof Joe Cummins on Morgellons .
Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the developed world, and yet we are still in the dark ages when it comes to treating and understanding it.
The colossal failure of conventional cancer treatments reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what cancer – the “enemy” – actually is. For one, chemotherapy and radiotherapy are both intrinsically carcinogenic treatments. The only justification for their use, in fact, is that they are highly effective at damaging the DNA within cells – with the hope that the cancer cells will be more susceptible to being harmed than the healthy ones (sadly, not always true).
The reality, however, is that the “collateral damage” from treatment is inevitable; it is not a matter of “if,” but to what degree the damaging side effects will occur. As in real modern warfare, the decision to strike is often based on deciding how much collateral damage to “civilian” populations is deemed acceptable. This is not unlike the fixation in toxicological risk assessments for drugs, environmental pollutants, food additives, etc., where determining “an acceptable level of harm” (a rather horrible oxymoron) to the exposed population is the first order of business.
Chemo Agent Classified by the WHO as Carcinogenic
The DNA-damaging, or genotoxic effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, according to the prevailing wisdom, are the #1 cause of cancer initiation and promotion. This is known as the “Mutational Theory” of cancer, and has been the dominant explanation for half a century. Therefore it is absolutely disconcerting that the standard of care in cancer treatment today is still the use of genotoxic agents versus substances that are able to selectively harm the “bad” cells, leaving the “good” ones intact; which is also known as “selective cytotoxicty,” and is a property characteristic of natural anti-cancer compounds and whole plant extracts. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the case of fruit-derived compounds, such as graviola, where research indicates that fruit extract may be up to 10,000 times more effective at killing certain cancer cells versus adriamycin (not so affectionately named the “red devil” for its lethal side effects) and is highly selective in which cells it kills.
Take the cancer drug tamoxifen, for example. It is classified by the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society as a human carcinogen, and has been documented to cause over two dozen health-destroying side effects, and yet it is still being used as a first line treatment for certain types of breast cancer. Does that really make sense? Even if tamoxifen was effective (which increasingly it is not), does it really matter if it “cures” breast cancer only to cause endometrial or liver cancer (which is often far more deadly than breast cancer) as a direct result of the treatment? Tamoxifen and chemotherapy resistance is increasingly a problem. In the same way that certain pathogenic bacteria become resistant to antibiotics – even becoming stronger after being challenged with them – drug resistance and multi-drug resistance to chemoagents is the canary in the coal mine, indicating the entire paradigm, hinged as it is on patented, highly toxic chemicals, is rearing to collapse.
Radiation Therapy Known To Cause Cancer & Enhance Malignancy
Similarly, radiotherapy is known to induce secondary cancers, along with a wide range of serious adverse effects. A woman whose breast is irradiated is more likely to develop lung cancer, for instance. But its effects may actually be far worse on the primary cancer it is being used to treat…
When a breast tumor is exposed to radiation, the cells within that tumor are not uniform, but have great heterogeneity. Some of the cells are fast-replicating, whereas some are slow-replicating and benign. Some cells are older, technically senescent, and by their very existence are keeping neighboring cells within the tumor and with greater potential for malignancy from breaking out into invasive growth. There are also cancer stem cells, which are technically slower-replicating and therefore less likely to be destroyed by chemotherapy or radiotherapy, and yet which are responsible for re-seeding and fueling the growth of the tumor itself with a theoretical limitless resupply of daughter cells.
Radiotherapy has been shown to increase the survival and self-renewing capacity of these breast cancer initiating cells by up to 30-fold, which means that while a radiation treatment may initially regress a tumor’s volume/mass, it may actually be selecting out the more radiation-resistant and aggressive subpopulation of tumor cells which ultimately lead to higher malignancy.
This promotion of self-initiating cancer cells is also true for chemotherapy, of course. Incidentally, the low-dose radiation used to diagnose breast cancers in x-ray mammography is likely causing far more cancers in women over time than it is said to prevent.
If you read the actual peer-reviewed medical literature on the subject you may be surprised to find that the low-dose ionizing radiation is actually far more carcinogenic (3-4 fold higher) than the high-dose radiation it is often compared to in radiation risk assessments. In fact, one of the most well known breast cancer associated genes, namely, BRCA1/BRCA2, confers greater susceptibility to radiation induced breast cancer in those who have it. In other words, staying away from medical radiation, diagnostic or therapeutic, may be essential to avoid the cancer it is being used to both “prevent” and “treat.”
Why Conventional Treatment Fails & Will Continue To Do So
The failure of chemotherapy can work in the same way. When you expose a diverse population of breast tumor cells to a highly toxic agent, a normal response is to become damaged to the point of dying. But cancer may not be a strict random mutation process, but an ancient survival program unmasked; that is, the cancer cell may be drawing from a far more ancient evolutionary and genetic “tool kit” which enables it to survive far harsher cellular environments, e.g. chemical exposure, low oxygen, higher availability of glucose/fructose, acidic pH, etc. and therefore the addition of highly toxic chemotherapy-type chemicals will selectively kill the weaker, and technically healthier (more benign) cells within a breast tumor, while creating the very conditions within which the malignant and more chemoresistant cancer cells may thrive. Multidrug-resistance genes and proteins are involved. When attacked by a chemical (xenobiotic) the cancer cell may “regress” and activate the genetic equipment that enables it to efficiently push out (efflux) the chemoagent being used, surviving, while its neighboring weaker (though technically more normal and healthier) cells die off.
Can you see, then, how radiotherapy and chemotherapy may be responsible for driving a cancer into greater malignancy, at the very moment that it is harming the rest of the body, compromising the immune system (damage to the bone marrow and direct harm to the immune cells)? The incurability of pancreatic cancer vis-à-vis chemotherapy and radiation, therefore, may reflect how the standard treatments themselves are driving the patient into premature death. When the average pancreatic cancer patient (using most chemo and radiation protocols) lives no more than 6 months, do we say that the cancer killed them, or the treatments?
Standard operating procedures is to write off the patients death as being “caused” by an “exceptionally aggressive” form of cancer, rather than to admit that the very treatments may have transformed a relatively slow growing tumor into a rapidly proliferating and invasive one. Think of it this way: if you were being blasted with chemicals and radiation, and you were seeing your neighbors dropping like flies, would you relocate? Can you, therefore, blame a subpopulation of tumor cells, having survived chemotherapy and radiotherapy while it’s neighboring cells did not, moving to another tissue – say, bone, or brain – in order to survive? Cancer, after all, is something our body does (and likely to survive) and not something that happens to it, as if the genes in our body just went off one day like a cancer time-bomb, fatalistically predetermined by the less than perfect genes we inherited from our predecessors.
Given the likelihood that the conventional cancer industry is often not only failing to improve the quality and length of the lives of those who it treats, but quite the opposite, reducing the quality and length of their lives, the time has come to look for safe, effective, affordable, inexpensive and accessible alternatives to patented chemicals and ionizing radiation in the prevention and treatment of cancer. And the solution may be as close to us as our kitchen spice racks:
The Case For Turmeric
While US law presently forbids the medicinal use of natural substances, turmeric has been used in ancient Indian medicine for thousands of years, and curcumin, which gives the spice its golden hue, is one of the most extensively studied natural compounds of all time, with 4,588 references to studies performed on it on the National Library of Medicine’s bibliographic database known as Medline [as of 2.25.2012]. Yet, despite having been shown to have therapeutic value in more than 500 diseases in animal and test tube studies, it still has not been the subject of extensive human clinical trials. As a public service GreenMedInfo.com has indexed curcumin’s anti-cancer properties in more than 50 cancers, with the top 10 most compelling cancers applications in cancer prevention and treatment listed below:
As one can see by the density of research referenced above, curcumin holds great promise. First, it has an exceedingly high margin of safety relative to conventional drugs. As an example, the dose at which it will acutely kill 50% of the animals given it is 2,000 mg/kg, whereas it only takes 115 mg/kg of 5-fluorouracil (conventional chemo agent) to produce the same effects. What is even more amazing is that it has been repeatedly demonstrated to possess both chemoprotective and chemosensitizing properties, which means that it will both enhance the positive cancer-killing effects of conventional chemotherapy, while at the same time protect healthy cells which may be susceptible to being harmed by chemotherapy. GreenMedInfo.com contains 57 studies on its chemosensitizing properties and 70 on its chemoprotective properties for reference. As if this wasn’t impressive enough, it also has profound radioprotective and radiosensitizing properties. Radioprotective substances protect the healthy cells in the body from being damaged by radiotherapy, and radiosensitizing substances help the radiation kill the cancer cells, making them “more sensitive” to the radiation treatments. GreenMedInfo contains 15 studies on curcumin’s radiosensitizing properties and 23 studies on its radioprotective properties.
Given this growing and compelling body of research, should not curcumin be considered for use in cancer treatment? And if not as a first-line treatment, then at the very least as an adjuvant in integrative cancer care?
(Colin Lecher) No matter how fast pharmaceutical companies can churn out drugs to prevent or cure illnesses, health insurance doesn’t cover the cost of hiring a person to follow you around and remind you to take your meds.
So the FDA has approved a pill that can do it on its own by monitoring your insides and relaying the information back to a healthcare provider.
The pills, made by Proteus Digital Health, have sand-particle-sized silicon chips with small amounts of magnesium and copper on them. After they’re swallowed, they generate voltage as they make contact with digestive juices.
That signals a patch on the person’s skin, which then relays a message to a mobile phone given to a healthcare provider.
It’s only been approved for use with placebos right now, but the company is hoping to get it approved for use with other drugs (which would be where it would get the most use).
Even if there’s a slight whiff of dystopia about a pill that tracks your actions, it does help with a major problem. Patients aren’t the best at taking their pills, especially those suffering from chronic illnesses, so it’s one step of many toward a future where they don’t have to.
The infrared element of NASA’s Great Observatory series, the Spitzer Space Telescope, has discovered a new planet that is the nearest world to our own solar system found thus far, just 33 light-years away.
This artist’s concept shows what astronomers believe is an alien world just two-thirds the size of Earth — one of the smallest on record. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Officially dubbed UCF-1.01, the planet is two-thirds the size of Earth and resides so close to its star that it orbits ever 1.4 days. The surface likely reaches temperatures of more than 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
The discovering team believes the world has no atmosphere and its landscape may be volcanic or molten.
“We have found strong evidence for a very small, very hot and very close-by planet with the help of the Spitzer Space Telescope,” said Kevin Stevenson, a recent Ph.D. graduate from the University of Central Florida.
The hot new planet candidate was found unexpectedly in Spitzer observations. Stevenson and his colleagues were studying the Neptune-sized exoplanet GJ 436b, already known to exist around the red-dwarf star GJ 436.
In the Spitzer data, the astronomers noticed slight dips in the amount of infrared light streaming from the star, separate from the dips caused by GJ 436b.
A review of Spitzer archival data showed the dips were periodic, suggesting a second planet might be blocking out a small fraction of the star’s light.
This technique, used by a number of observatories including NASA’s Kepler space telescope, relies on transits to detect exoplanets.
The duration of a transit and the small decrease in the amount of light registered reveals basic properties of an exoplanet, such as its size and distance from its star. In UCF-1.01′s case, its diameter would be approximately 5,200 miles, or two-thirds that of Earth.
UCF-1.01 would revolve quite tightly around GJ 436, at about seven times the distance of the Earth from the Moon, with its “year” lasting only a day-and-a-half in Earth days. Given this proximity to its star, the world would orbit far closer than the planet Mercury is to our Sun.
If the roasted, diminutive planet candidate ever had an atmosphere, it almost surely has evaporated. UCF-1.01 might therefore resemble a cratered, mostly geologically dead world like Mercury.
In addition to UCF-1.01, Stevenson and his colleagues noticed hints of a third planet, dubbed UCF-1.02, orbiting GJ 436. Spitzer has observed evidence of the two new planets several times each. However, even the most sensitive instruments are unable to measure exoplanet masses as small as UCF-1.01 and UCF-1.02, which are perhaps only one-third the mass of the Earth.
Because knowing the mass is required for confirming a discovery, the paper authors are cautiously calling both bodies exoplanet candidates for now.
Of the approximately 1,800 stars identified by Kepler as candidates for having planetary systems, just three are verified to contain sub-Earth-sized exoplanets. Of these, only one exoplanet is thought to be smaller than the Spitzer candidates, with a radius similar to Mars, or 57 percent that of Earth.
“I hope future observations will confirm these exciting results, which show Spitzer may be able to discover exoplanets as small as Mars,” said Michael Werner, Spitzer Project Scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “Even after almost nine years in space, Spitzer’s observations continue to take us in new and important scientific directions.”
WASHINGTON — The federal government announced Tuesday that baby bottles and sippy cups can no longer contain the chemical bisphenol-A, or BPA.
The U.S. chemical industry’s chief association, the American Chemistry Council, had asked the Food and Drug Administration to phase out rules allowing BPA in those products in October, after determining that all manufacturers of bottles and sippy cups had already abandoned the chemical due to safety concerns.
It is illegal for companies to use substances not covered by FDA rules.
“Consumers can be confident that these products do not contain BPA,” FDA spokesman Allen Curtis said in a statement, adding that the agency’s action was based on the bottle industry’s phase out of the chemical.
“The agency continues to support the safety of BPA for use in products that hold food.”
The chemical industry’s request may help curb years of negative publicity from consumer groups and head off tougher laws that would ban BPA from other types of packaging because of health worries.
Legislation introduced by some members of Congress would ban BPA nationwide in all canned food, water bottles and food containers. Chemical makers maintain that the plastic-hardening chemical is safe for all food and drink uses.
BPA is found in hundreds of plastic items from water bottles to CDs to dental sealants.
Some researchers say ingesting the chemical can interfere with development of the reproductive and nervous systems in babies and young children.
They point to dozens of studies showing such an effect from BPA in rodents and other animals.
But the FDA has repeatedly stated that those findings cannot be applied to humans.
The federal government is currently spending $30 million on its own studies assessing the chemical’s health effects on humans.
About 90 percent of Americans have traces of BPA in their urine, mainly because the chemical leaches out of food and beverage packaging.
The vast majority of canned goods in the U.S. are sealed with resin that contains BPA to prevent contamination and spoiling.
Canned food manufacturers have used the chemicals since the 1950s. The practice is approved by the FDA.
About 80 percent of processed foods in stores today contain ingredients created through complex laboratory methods, resulting in foods that would never be found in nature.
While it might seem that such a widespread shift in the food system would have been properly tested for safety, here’s the shocking truth: Although a cornerstone of the American food supply for only about 15 years, genetically modified foods, also called GMOs, have never undergone vigorous independent testing to assess their potential impact on human health.
In fact, some early data suggests they are making us sick: GMOs have been linked to skyrocketing allergy rates, accelerated aging, digestive diseases, and organ damage.
Pesticides used in conjunction with GMO seeds are systemic and used in such high amounts that the harmful chemicals actually wind up inside of the food.
Considering the potential health effects of GMOs in the food supply, the American Medical Association (AMA)—the nation’s leading physicians’ group—last week called for mandatory GMO safety assessments before GMO-containing foods are put in grocery stores.
The AMA passed the resolution at its annual meeting in Chicago, pushing for an expedited look into the potential allergens in GMO food.
The physicians also took on another hot GMO topic—mandatory labeling on food packaging. Currently, food manufacturers don’t have to disclose GMO ingredients, making it hard for many consumers to avoid them.
(GMOs are, however, banned in organic foods.)
More than 90 percent of Americans and numerous health organizations, including the American Public Health Association, American Nurses Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, and the British Medical Association, support mandatory labeling.
While the AMA did not pass a labeling resolution, 19 physicians signed a statement supporting labeling.
“In the face of scientific uncertainty, labeling is a common risk management tool and one that could help track any potential adverse health effects,” the signed statement said. “Our support of labeling also takes into consideration the fact that consumers want to know whether there are genetically engineered ingredients in their food, and they have a right to know. We stand with the 90 percent of Americans who want mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.”
This November, a historic vote in California could set the tone for labeling genetically engineered foods. If the Right to Know Ballot initiative passes, all foods containing GMO ingredients that are sold in the Golden Gate State would be required to disclose GMOs on the label.
If you want to avoid GMOs before labeling and safety testing goes into effect, check the labels for organic certification or buy foods verified by the Non-GMO Project.
If you can’t find organic options and want to keep GMOs out of your diet, avoid processed foods.
Many contain corn- and soy-derived ingredients, and in America, more than 90 percent of those crops are grown using genetically engineered seeds.