According to an article shared by Mr. M.D. with us here, there is a new study linking steady GMO consumption, and the pesticide Roundup, with genetic damage to livers and kidneys:
This one says it all:
The new study is foreboding:
Published in the Environmental Health Journal,the new study suggests that even super low levels of Roundup exposure are deadly.
The study results showed that exposure to low-dose glyphosate concentrations, in an established laboratory animal toxicity model system, can result in liver and kidney damage, with potential significant health implications for people as well as our pets and wildlife populations.
The new study finds that even glyphosate (the main ingredient in Round-Up’s crop resistant formula) which is found in our water, can cause this damage alone–the study used a far lower level of glyphosate than is found in our drinking water, in fact America has the highest levels of glyphosate in our water than most of the world. Many say the run off of Roundup which is sprayed along highways and can run into our ground water, hence our levels are higher than other countries that do not utilize the chemical as much as Americans. (It also is the grim reaper of monarch butterflies–81% decline in monarchs when it is sprayed in their habitats).
And they're paying for it in Argentina:
Dr. Michael Antoniou, and his team from King’s College London, did the “follow-up” study to Dr. Seralini’s two year study on rats exposed to Roundup. Although the new study by Antoniou was attacked and ad-hoc articles written to suppress by the biotech industry, like the Genetic Literacy Project, the study has real results by real Scientists from a reputable College.
With both Seralini and Antoniou’s work we now have more evidence that Roundup causes damage to the liver and kidneys. Despite this, and the numerous other findings, such as the recent news from Argentinathat children are suffering from genetic damage at heavily sprayed GM soy sites in the country, there has been no international move to heavily examine Roundup, and hold Monsanto accountable for its poisoning of the people. (Boldface emphasis added)
This much is predictable: when a corrupt company like Mon(ster)santo/IG Farbensanto (or whatever you wish to call that hideous corporation) gets its hands on the food supply and lines the pockets of America's bottomless supply of stupid and very corrupt politicians(see the current roster of Dummycrook and Republithug presidential candidates, or just look at Congress), then there's bound to be long term trouble and repercussions.
Not the least of these, I suggest, is that when you buy off science itself, or actively seek to corrupt the scientific process itself by suppressing findings contrary to your own limited studies (designed only to reassure the corrupt politicians), that there will be a foreign and domestic policy backlash; you cannot keep poisoning people - or getting said corrupt politicians to pass laws prohibitting you from growing a little garden - or poisoning people's kids and afflicting them with liver disease, autism, or kidney disease, without there being a backlash. The article mentions Argentina, but we've all heard of the problems in India as well, and increasingly, this or that country in Europe is revolting against the easy breezy assurances of pro-GMO corporate science.
Now all this brings me to my high octane speculation of the day. Lately I've been watching - as regular readers here know - the messages and signals coming out of the United Kingdom, which in its quiet way is signaling, with growing frequency and intensity, its dissatisfaction with America's calcified oligarchy. (Andf they, unlike us, did not have to do a major university study like Princeton's to conclude that America is not a republic, it's an oligarchy). Recall that op-ed piece just a couple of month's ago in Britain's Economist magazine; the "calcified" oligarchy isn't my observation; it's theirs. Then there was the BBC's highly suggestive message-sending Worricker Trilogy. But if you've been watching the GMO issue, it's been going on in Great Britian, though with predictably less fanfare than in North America. And every now and then, a prestigious British research institution or university - like King's College, London (part of the University of London) - publishes a paper questioning GMO claims and safety. Indeed, this has been going on in Britain for some time: recall only the episode recounted by F. William Engdahl in his Seeds of Destruction that it took a personal phone call from President Clinton to Prime Minister Blair to get a certain study of GMO safety suppressed. (Yes, the GMO corruption goes that far folks.)
But nonetheless, such studies continue to be done in the UK, and every now and then we get to hear about them.
And with them, I wonder whether or not there are other messages being sent in the emerging world of GMO geopolitics, this time, not from New Delhi or Moscow or Buenos Aires, but from London. If so, you can't blame them, for it only means that besides exporting war, America's other major export in the past few decades has been poisonous foods. If the drones don't get you, Mon(ster)santo will. And if so, then, if the scientific studies are any indicator in the UK, there is growing quiet opposition to the corruption of science, and the food supply. Prediction? We'll really know the game is afoot when other agribusiness giants seek publicly to distance themselves from Mon(ster)santo specifically. Recall only that recent rejection by Syngenta of Mon(ster)santo's takeover offer on the implied grounds that it(Syngenta) was dealing in good faith... followed by...well, silence... And in that silence, you could read the implication. And why was Mon(ster)santo seeking to do that? Well, one reason, you'll recall, is that they wanted to move their corporate headquarters from St. Louis to London. And perhaps this King's College study gives a bit of a glimmer as to why.
In the meantime, I very much doubt you'll see IG Farbensanto's products on the menu at the Palace.
See you on the flip side...