It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
“Harmful Chemicals May Reprogram Gene Response to Estrogen”
"This study is telling us that an environmental reprogramming of a normal response, combined with an inherited gene defect, work together to promote cancer,"
“If this model is correct, it will help doctors to determine which individuals are more likely to develop cancers of the uterus, breast and prostate."
"We are just beginning to realize that exposures received decades earlier, during critical developmental stages, may be much more important in determining who develops cancer as an adult."
"Among U.S. residents, 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women will develop cancer at some point in their lifetimes.“
Do you understand that ?
The USG is acknowledging that 41.5% of US will be treated for some form of Cancer while many more will just die from it without seeking treatment or having a physician point out the obvious!!
New Research Shows Air Pollution Can Reduce Children's Lung Function
Children who live in polluted communities are five times more likely to have clinically low lung function-less than 80 percent of the lung function expected for their age. New data from the Children's Health Study suggests that pollutants from vehicle emissions and fossil fuels hinder lung development and limit breathing capacity for a lifetime.
"This is the longest study ever conducted on air pollution and children's health," "It shows that current levels of air pollution have adverse effects on lung development in children between the ages of 10 and 18."
"Lung development in teenagers determines they’re breathing capacity and health for the rest of their lives,"
"The potential long-term effects of reduced lung function are alarming. It's second only to smoking as a risk factor for mortality. As lung function decreases, the risk of respiratory disease and heart attacks increases."
"EPA carries out a significant portion of its mission through the Operating Program, which includes its core responsibilities for regulatory development, enforcement, research, and program grants to states."
"The program guarantees results, by eliminating costly regulation, litigation, inspection, and enforcement actions. As a result, industry compliance has been nearly 100 percent."
January 23, *1996*, Washington, DC - The Cancer Prevention The study summarizes evidence that rBGH increases levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) in milk. IGF-1 is a powerful stimulator and regulator of cell-growth and division in humans and cows. The study concludes that increased IGF-1 levels are risk factors for breast and colon cancer.
“rBGH poses an even greater risk to human health than ever considered," warned Epstein M.D., Professor University of Illinois School of Public Health and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, author of the new report. "The FDA and Monsanto have a lot to answer for. Given the cancer risks, and other health concerns, why is rBGH milk still on the market?"
" Monsanto 's claims that rBGH is perfectly safe have been proven dead wrong today. This study further validates the health concerns of millions of consumers about this controversial product," said Michael Colby, Executive Director of Food and Water. "Only Monsanto is benefiting from this drug.
"The entire nation is currently being subjected to a large-scale adulteration of an age-old dietary staple by a poorly characterized and unlabeled biotechnology product, which is very different than natural milk."
A highly condensed summary of an IGF- 1 Monsanto short term test in mature rats was released by FDA (Juskevich & Guyer, 1990). The agency alleges that this study confirms IGF- 1's "lack of oral activity." At the outset it should be noted that the Monsanto test was contracted out to Hazelton Laboratories, which has a two-decade history of misrepresentation of scientific data. (Epstein, 1978).
The FDA has failed to investigate the effects of long-term feeding of IGF- 1 and rBGH-milk on growth, or on more sensitive sub-cellular effects, in infant rats or infants of any other species.
Who should we notify about this?
In a 1989 letter the FDA was warned that the effects of IGF-1 "could include premature growth stimulation in infants, [breast enlargement] in young children and breast cancer in adult females." "Further studies will be required to determine whether the ingestion of higher than normal concentrations of bovine insulin-like growth factor is safe for children, adolescents and adults." (AMA, 1991 ! ). Instead of further study, the FDA allowed for uncontrolled, unlabeled sales of treated milk to unwitting consumers.
Given the potential health impacts of consumption of MILK and other dairy products derived from rBGH treated cows, all such products at a minimum be labeled so that consumers are aware of what they are purchasing and consuming. More prudently the FDA approval of rBGH should be withdrawn until the agency performs adequate long term testing on the impacts of increased levels of IGF- 1 in milk and other dairy products derived from rBGH treated cows.
These practices are so frequent as to preclude dismissal as exceptional aberrations and, in many instances, arguably rise to the level of criminality.
Mothers' Exposure to Air Pollutants Linked to Chromosome Damage in Babies
"This is the first study to show that environmental exposures to specific combustion pollutants during pregnancy can result in chromosomal abnormalities in fetal tissues," said Kenneth Olden, Ph.D., the "These findings may lead to new approaches for the prevention of certain cancers."
"This evidence that air pollutants can alter chromosomes in utero is troubling since other studies have validated this type of genetic alteration as a biomarker of cancer risk,"
Agricultural Pesticide Use May Be Associated With Increased Risk of Prostate Cancer
Exposure to certain agricultural pesticides may be associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer among pesticide applicators, according to a large study looking at the causes of cancer and other diseases in the farming community.
"Associations between pesticide use and prostate cancer risk among the farm population have been seen in previous studies; farming is the most consistent occupational risk factor for prostate cancer,"
The jury in Gadsden, Ala., a town 20 miles from Anniston, yesterday held Monsanto and its corporate successors liable on all six counts it considered: negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass and outrage. Under Alabama law, the rare claim of outrage typically requires conduct "so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society."
Monsanto, the leading global producer of genetically engineered seeds and crops, has been found guilty of bribing government officials in Indonesia.
The Justice Department has fined Monsanto $1.5 million for bribing the Indonesian Ministry of Environment to allow the company to ignore required environmental impact studies before proceeding to plant genetically modified crops.
The only people who would pay to RAPE someone else’s land, are the people who have been allowed to RAPE their own land for free!
Meanwhile, in the U.S., bribery seems hardly necessary for the Gene Giant, given that the Bush administration and regulatory agencies are stacked with former Monsanto employees and pro-biotech bureaucrats. Monsanto strengthened its grip on U.S. policymaking last week when one of its former lobbyists, Martha Scott, was appointed as Staff Director of the Senate Agriculture Committee.
"USDA secretary Ann Veneman is a former director of Calgene (swallowed by Monsanto and now part of Pharmacia),
Rufus Yerxa, Monsanto's chief counsel, has been appointed as the US deputy to the WTO.
Linda J. Fisher... Vice President of Government and Public Affairs for Monsanto Corporation, has been nominated for the second-ranking job at the Environmental Protection Agency. Fisher, who worked as Assistant Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pollution Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances for 10 years before
Michael A. Friedman, M.D. former acting commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Department of Health and Human Services . now senior vice-president for clinical affairs at G. D. Searle & Co., a pharmaceutical division of Monsanto Corporation
Linda J. Fisher . former Assistant Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pollution Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, now Vice President of Government and Public Affairs for Monsanto Corporation.
Carol Tucker Foreman. former Monsanto lobbyist was appointed by to serve as U.S. "Consumer Advocate" on U.S. Biotech Consultative Forum Delegation.
Marcia Hale . . . former assistant to the President of the United States and director for intergovernmental affairs, now Director of International Government Affairs for Monsanto Corporations.
Prior to being the Supreme Court Judge who put GW Bush in office, Clarence Thomas was Monsanto's lawyer.
Michael (Mickey) Kantor. former United States Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce for the United States, has been made a member of the board of directors of Monsanto Corporation,
Josh King . former director of production for White House events, now director of global communication in the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.
Margaret Miller . former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto, working on rBGH safety studies until 1989. now Deputy Director of Human Food Safety and Consultative Services,
Michael Taylor . former legal advisor to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Bureau of Medical Devices and Bureau of Foods, another Monsanto employee-turned FDA official.
William D. Ruckelshaus. . . former chief administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency, now (and for the last 12 years) a member of the board of directors of Monsanto
Lasts but certainly NOT least, our wonderful Secretary of Defense !!
The Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) was on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals.
Rumbling Rumsfeld Defends the Nation from 'evildoers', while ,
In 1985 Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in Nutra Sweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame's clouded past, including a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it "might induce brain tumors." The FDA had actually banned the drug based on this finding, only to have Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (currently the Secretary of Defense) vow to "call in his markers," to get it approved.
Winning the war on cancer means preventing cancer. Yet cancer is a multi-billion dollar business. Isn’t preventing cancer bad for business? It is for the pharmaceutical and mammography businesses. These industries have intricate ties to U. S. policy makers, directing research funds to insure their continued profits in cancer diagnosis/treatment. It’s time for reform.
We are all losing.
In another rule, FDA has failed to require an adequate battery of safety tests. Even with the most rigorous testing, long-term effects will not be known for years and perhaps generations. Without segregation and labeling FDA cannot perform the responsibilities delegated to it by Food and Drug law.
The FDA says it is now in a listening mode. If its ears are truly opened, then its conscience should have been touched. What is at stake is the safety of the nation's and ultimately the world's food supply.
What is troubling is that the government tries to deny that any genetically engineered food has caused harm. It is just running away from reality.
Labeling and long-term safety testing are only two steps in that process and we should not go another day without them. It is unfair, unsafe and unwise. As the evidence continues to come out, it is no longer rhetorical to ask what the industry is trying to hide by not labeling these foods, and why the insurance companies will not touch bioengineered food.
As mentioned on the earlier panel, rBGH has been rejected in every major industrialized nation. In fact, a recent report by Health Canada indicates that the FDA misreported the findings of Monsanto's ninety-day rat feeding study. Even the heavily corporate-influenced Kodak's alimentary commission has refused to certify the safety of rBGH despite heavy pressure from the United States.
Yet, we are forced to eat and drink products from cows injected with rBGH in secret because of prohibitive labeling requirements written for the FDA by a Monsanto employee.
There are several actions that need to be taken that are out of the FDA's hands, including ratification of the conventional and biological diversity for which it is shameful that the United States has not signed.
The greatest controversy in FDA history was the approval process for Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. We shouldn't be here today. We should not be in this room, and I shouldn't be here because in 1994 Congress had a Bill that was going to require mandatory labeling of all foods that were influenced by genetic engineering.
When Monsanto made their genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, they noticed that laboratory animals were getting cancer, and they noticed that cows were getting mastitis, ulcers on their udders; they were putting more pus and bacteria into the milk. In 1958 Robert Delaney, a Congressman from New York, put in a Delaney Amendment. It was named after him. The Delaney Amendment stated that if a food additive caused cancer it was not to be approved -- pretty good law, right?
Well, Monsanto got their attorney, Michael Taylor from the firm of King and Spaulding -- by the way, when they started in 1979 they groomed their attorney now in the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, the same law firm -- Monsanto's attorney, Michael Taylor wrote and minimized the Delaney Amendment, an interpretation of the Delaney Amendment which became the new protocol, the new standard operating procedure at FDA. They minimized cancer. Michael Taylor was hired by the Food and Drug Administration and became the second most powerful man there, Monsanto's attorney. He wrote the standard operating procedures. In other words, we see cancer; ignore it.
Margaret Miller, Susan Sechen, Monsanto's scientists, were hired by the FDA to review Monsanto's own research. Margaret Miller knew cows were getting mastitis. The first week at the FDA, December 3, 1989, she was given broad power -- and here is an effect of genetic engineering nobody has considered -- she knew cows were getting sick from the genetically engineered hormone; she changed the amount of antibiotics that farmers could have in their milk. She increased it by 100 times.
Jerome Moore's paper said “if there is a middle of the chain protein change there could be Alzheimer's, or sickle cell anemia, or diabetes. Monsanto, four months after the hormone was approved, one of their scientists, Bernard Violand, published, in the July 3, 1994 issue of the journal Protein Science evidence that Monsanto made a mistake. Oops! Monsanto created a freak amino acid!
It seems to me that we are embarking on a dangerous path from which we cannot return and this government is making a grave error in judgment by not exercising more prudence.
Given the history of repeated assurances by the government and corporations and a long list of technologies such as pesticides, antibiotics or RbGH that were all declared safe based on research and then to find out, a few years later, that crucial evidence was not evaluated properly or even suppressed and now are shown to be unsafe.
I have come to have little or no confidence in the government's ability to exercise sound judgment in these matters on its own. The bottom line is that we don't need genetic engineering. This path primarily benefits those who are reaping the profits. - Mafia DRUG dealers!
I do not appreciate being treated as a guinea pig. I believe genetic engineering violates nature and I am deeply concerned that we have no way of cleaning up any unintended environmental catastrophes.
Would it be 'legal' or acceptable to the moderators of this forum if one person or a portion of the membership at ATS chose do dig into the background of MONSANTO employees, such as posting their personal information including their addresses, where the spouses work, and where their children attend school?
Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
What kind of sick twisted mind brought on this question? You want to know where their children go to school? What would you do with that information? I don't usually get personal, but you need to get some help.
I find this comment quite disturbing! Where their spouses work and where their children go to school? Again, why would you want that information?
Originally posted by Submersible
Would it be 'legal' or acceptable to the moderators of this forum if one person or a portion of the membership at ATS chose do dig into the background of MONSANTO employees, such as posting their personal information including their addresses, where the spouses work, and where their children attend school?
2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.
5) Personal Responsibilities: At all times, you remain solely responsible for anything found within your posts and agree to indemnify and hold AboveTopSecret.com LLP, harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of any material you submit, post to or transmit through the message board, your use of the message board, your connection to the message board, your violation of these terms and conditions , or your violation of the rights of another.
Originally posted by titian
Can you say eco-terrorism?
Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
Would it be 'legal' or acceptable to the moderators of this forum if one person or a portion of the membership at ATS chose do dig into the background of MONSANTO employees, such as posting their personal information including their addresses, where the spouses work, and where their children attend school?
What kind of sick twisted mind brought on this question? You want to know where their children go to school? What would you do with that information? I don't usually get personal, but you need to get some help.
I find this comment quite disturbing! Where their spouses work and where their children go to school? Again, why would you want that information?
Originally posted by Submersible
Did any of you notice that this thread is about an experiment being conducted on the entire American population?
...If I could prove that they are not willing to expose themselves to the same chemicals they are forcing into our food system against our will, it might serve as an example 'proper' enough for the rest of this Nation to ACCEPT that we are being attacked !
Originally posted by Submersible
Got PUS ?
This information is not propaganda, these are the FACTS !
We don't have to 'overthrow the government', all we have to do is expose their soft underbelly.
Originally posted by Submersible
Do you really think I am an eco-terrorist DTOM?
Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Originally posted by titian
Can you say eco-terrorism?
I am certain ATS does not wish to participate in any way, shape or form in eco-terrorism.
Originally posted by Submersible
I'm sure if it were not handled properly, that I could get in trouble for tracking down these people and their diets, but should I?
You may be wondering... how does this happen? and which one of our 'protection agencies' are supposed to stop this from happening?
Sadly, the answer is that none of them are supposed to prevent it and it is the responsibility of NONE of our gov. agencies to limit the amounts of synthetic poisoning we are being exposed to.
Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
My suggestion to you is, if you are so troubled by it, move. Seriously. Because it is only going to get worse!