{"id":80020,"date":"2023-02-18T16:30:10","date_gmt":"2023-02-19T00:30:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/?p=80020"},"modified":"2023-02-18T06:23:17","modified_gmt":"2023-02-18T14:23:17","slug":"mexico-wants-to-block-gmo-corn-and-glycophosphates-usda-unhappy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/prophecy\/mexico-wants-to-block-gmo-corn-and-glycophosphates-usda-unhappy\/","title":{"rendered":"Mexico wants to block GMO-corn and glycophosphates, USDA unhappy"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

COGwriter<\/a><\/p>\n

There are tensions between the governments of Mexico and the USA related to genetically-modified corn:<\/p>\n

Environmental groups … accused the Biden administration of putting the profits of big agribusiness over public health and critical pollinators by attempting to obstruct the Mexican government’s ongoing push to ban genetically engineered corn.<\/p>\n

“The U.S.’s shameful efforts to strong-arm Mexico into accepting GE corn it has rejected is nothing short of 21st-century imperialism,\u201d Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the U.S.-based Center for Biological Diversity. “Our government is working tirelessly to pad the multibillion-dollar profits of domestic agribusiness corporations by pushing GE corn, even though our glyphosate-drenched GE cornfields are playing an outsized role in driving catastrophic declines in vital pollinator populations.”<\/p>\n

The group’s statement came after Mexico issued a new decree<\/a> earlier this week that scraps<\/a> the country’s original January 2024 deadline to halt imports of GMO corn for livestock feed and industrial use, a move widely seen as a concession to the U.S., which has been pressuring<\/a> its southern neighbor to drop the ban since Mexican President Andr\u00e9s Manuel L\u00f3pez Obrador (AMLO) first announced it<\/a> in 2020.<\/p>\n

But Mexico\u2014the largest destination for U.S. corn exports\u2014reiterated its intention to prohibit GE corn for human consumption by 2024 in its latest decree. Mexico is also aiming to ban imports and use of glyphosate, a cancer-linked chemical<\/a> that is often sprayed on genetically engineered corn.<\/p>\n

The new decree instructs Mexican authorities to “revoke and refrain from granting permits for the release into the environment in Mexico of genetically modified corn seeds.”<\/p>\n

Mexican officials have repeatedly argued<\/a> that GE corn and the associated use of glyphosate pose threats to human health and pollinators, as well as domestic production.<\/p>\n

“We have to put the right to life, the right to health, the right to a healthy environment ahead of economic and business [interests],” V\u00edctor Su\u00e1rez Carrera, Mexico’s undersecretary of food and competitiveness, told<\/a> Reuters<\/em> in 2021. 02\/15\/23 https:\/\/www.commondreams.org\/news\/mexico-gmo-corn-ban<\/a><\/p>\n

Viridiana L\u00e1zaro, food and agriculture campaigner at Greenpeace Mexico, said<\/a> Tuesday that \u201cthe ban of GE corn is the first step to transform Mexico\u2019s agriculture system from one industrialized, based on pesticides, and dependent on transnational corporations to an agro-ecological system that offers solutions to soil fertility, local pest problems, allows crop diversification and protects biodiversity<\/a> and health of farmers<\/a> and consumers.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cTo carry out the gradual substitution of genetically modified corn for animal feed and industrial corn for human consumption, as is stated in the new decree, is a broad challenge and, in order to ensure that it does not remain only on paper, public policies aimed at the agroecological transition must be issued in order to achieve it,\u201d L\u00e1zaro continued. \u201cAlso, we must ensure that glyphosate and GE corn do not improperly end up in dough and tortillas, which studies have demonstrated has happened before.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe United States has refused to respect Mexico\u2019s choice, instead working tirelessly to bully the country into accepting GE corn in order to protect the short-term profits of U.S. agribusiness giants.\u201d<\/p>\n

The U.S. government claims that Mexico\u2019s plans, which have also drawn fierce opposition from industry lobbying groups<\/a>, would run afoul of provisions in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and harm American farmers. The Biden administration has threatened to take legal action<\/a> under the USMCA if Mexico doesn\u2019t reverse course.<\/p>\n

The USMCA entered into force in 2020 and replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement, under which U.S. corn flooded<\/a> the Mexican market.<\/p>\n

In a statement<\/a> on Tuesday, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said he is \u201cdisappointed\u201d that Mexico is still pushing ahead with its proposed ban on genetically modified corn. An estimated 90%<\/a> of U.S. corn production is genetically modified.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe U.S. believes in and adheres to a science-based, rules-based trading system and remains committed to preventing disruptions to bilateral agricultural trade and economic harm to U.S. and Mexican producers,\u201d Vilsack added. \u201cWe are carefully reviewing the details of the new decree and intend to work with [the United States Trade Representative] to ensure our science-based, rules-based commitment remains firm.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As one with a Ph.D. in nutrition science, I agree with Mexico on this. The “science” related to GMOs and glyphosates\u00a0 points to dangers. Notice something from Wikipedia:<\/p>\n

Technical grade glyphosate is a white powder which, according to FAO<\/a> specification, should contain not less than 95% glyphosate. Formaldehyde<\/a>, classified as a known human carcinogen, [38]<\/a><\/sup> [39]<\/a><\/sup> and N<\/i>-nitrosoglyphosate<\/a>, have been identified as toxicologically relevant impurities.[40]<\/a><\/sup> The FAO specification limits the formaldehyde concentration to a maximum of 1.3 g\/kg glyphosate. N<\/i>-Nitrosoglyphosate, “belonging to a group of impurities of particular concern as they can be activated to genotoxic carcinogens”,[41]<\/a><\/sup> should not exceed 1 ppm.[40]<\/a><\/sup> (Glyphosate. Wikipedia, accessed 02\/18\/23)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

GMO corn is without a doubt a threat to native species–which is something Mexico has brought up. Furthermore, the poor who plant native seeds cannot afford to pay for GMO seeds nor the associated herbicide that needs to go with it (Roundup, basically the first commercial glyphosate product, was the original herbicide for GMO-corn).<\/p>\n

Mexico has a point, whereas the USA has greed. But the Biden-Harris Administration looks to be threatening Mexico for trying to protect itself.<\/p>\n

Let me add that the USA has never proven that GMOs are safe, and there have been reports over the years about GMO corn impacting farmers with non-GMO corn.<\/p>\n

Notice the following:<\/p>\n

Are GMOs safe?<\/strong>
\nMost developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe. In more than 60 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs. In the U.S., the government has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale. Increasingly, Americans are taking matters into their own hands and choosing to opt out of the GMO experiment…<\/p>\n

In the U.S., GMOs are in as much as 80% of conventional processed food. Click here for a current list of GMO risk crops<\/a>.<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.nongmoproject.org\/learn-more\/<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

GMOs were developed to increase profits. Politicians receive money from many profit-oriented corporations, and this tends to blind them to listen to opposing views.<\/p>\n

The World Health Organization has concerns about GMOs:<\/p>\n

What are the potential dangers of GMOs?<\/p>\n

according to WHO, the three main issues of concern for human health that are being debated are:<\/p>\n

(i). The potentials to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity);<\/p>\n

(ii). Gene transfer (Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract, especially if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health); and<\/p>\n

(iii). Outcrossing (the migration of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as \u201coutcrossing\u201d), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. Cases have been reported where GM crops approved for animal feed or industrial use were detected at low levels in the products intended for human consumption).<\/p>\n

Should you switch to organic food? That is a personal decision. … For many people in this day and age, it is simply impossible \u2013 too expensive, too time-consuming, too problematic \u2013 to make sure that they eat only foods that are verifiably safe in every respect. 01\/09\/19 https:\/\/www.vanguardngr.com\/2019\/01\/are-genetically-modified-foodsgmos-safe\/<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The above source seems to be implying that GMO foods are not verifiably safe in every respect. As a published scientist, I agree.<\/p>\n

Now, related to glyphosates, here is something I posted here a while back:<\/p>\n

\n

Eat at your own risk: Almost all grains in US contaminated with glyphosate herbicide<\/h2>\n

May 22, 2021<\/p>\n

Is eating grains healthy? You might think that as long as you stick to whole grains, you have nothing to worry about from a health standpoint, but the sad truth is that America\u2019s wheat supply is\u00a0extensively contaminated by glyphosate<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Although there is no GMO wheat grown in the U.S. right now \u2013 at least, not deliberately, \u2026 \u2013 most of the country\u2019s wheat is nevertheless contaminated with toxic glyphosate. This is largely because the herbicide is habitually sprayed on wheat crops in a process known as desiccation.<\/p>\n

When farmers spray glyphosate, often in the form of the commercial herbicide Roundup, on their wheat, it allows them to harvest it at a time that is convenient for them, such as ahead of the first snowfall in their area. \u2026<\/p>\n

Bayer AG<\/a>, who bought Roundup maker Monsanto, recently agreed to a $2 billion deal to resolve future legal claims against the glyphosate product brought about by individuals suffering from non-Hodgkin\u2019s lymphoma, a type of cancer that has been linked to the herbicide. They had previously reached a broader $9.6 billion settlement to resolve most of the more than 100,000 lawsuits already filed over the deadly chemical in America. \u2026<\/p>\n

When the company Health Tradition found residues of glyphosate while testing their organic grains in 2014, they decided to test all of their foods for glyphosate. They discovered that nearly all of the wheat that is grown in the northern part of the U.S. is contaminated, even wheat that is USDA certified as not sprayed with glyphosate. That\u2019s because the chemical is virtually everywhere these days; it\u2019s in our air, rainwater, groundwater and soil.<\/p>\n

The National Agricultural Statistics Service reports that 12.4 million pounds of glyphosate were applied to different varieties of wheat grown throughout the U.S. in 2017. This included 58 percent of the nation\u2019s acreage of durum wheat, which is typically used for making pasta. \u2026<\/p>\n

Testing carried out by the Environmental Working Group, meanwhile, revealed that glyphosate was found in every wheat-based food tested, including different types of pasta and cereal. Tests by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency reached a similar finding, with glyphosate contamination reported by the body in 80 to 90 percent of the popular wheat-based products tested, which included crackers, pizza and pasta. Oats don\u2019t fare much better; EWG found glyphosate in more than 95 percent of the oat-based foods they tested. Glyphosate is also commonly used as a desiccant on oat crops, so that finding should come as no surprise. \u2026<\/p>\n

From digestion issues to cancer links, there are lots of compelling reasons to be careful when it comes to the sources of the wheat products you buy, whether it\u2019s flour and pasta or crackers and cereal. Organic wheat is always a safer bet than conventional varieties, but keep in mind that\u00a0glyphosate residues<\/a> have even been found in organic varieties. https:\/\/www.dcclothesline.com\/2021\/05\/22\/eat-at-your-own-risk-almost-all-grains-in-us-contaminated-with-glyphosate-herbicide\/<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yes, organic is better.<\/p>\n

The State of California took steps years ago to identify a key ingredient in its Roundup herbicide as a cancer-causing agent:<\/p>\n

June 27, 2017<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n
\n

Glyphosate, an herbicide and the active ingredient in Monsanto Co\u2019s popular Roundup weed killer, will be added to California\u2019s list of chemicals known to cause cancer effective July 7, the state\u2019s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) said on Monday.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Monsanto vowed to continue its legal fight against the designation, required under a state law known as Proposition 65, and called the decision \u201cunwarranted on the basis of science and the law.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The listing is the latest legal setback for the seeds and chemicals company, which has faced increasing litigation over glyphosate since the World Health Organization\u2019s International Agency for Research on Cancer said that it is \u201cprobably carcinogenic\u201d in a controversial ruling in 2015.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Dicamba, a weed killer designed for use with Monsanto\u2019s next generation of biotech crops, is under scrutiny in Arkansas after the state\u2019s plant board voted last week to ban the chemical. \u2026<\/p>\n

\n

Environmental groups cheered OEHHA\u2019s move to list the chemical.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cCalifornia\u2019s decision makes it the national leader in protecting people from cancer-causing pesticides,\u201d said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. http:\/\/www.huffingtonpost.com\/entry\/california-glyphosate-cancer-causing-chemical-list_us_5951ed4ae4b05c37bb78fc20?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Also in 2017, it was reported that Monsanto misled related to cancer-related matters:<\/p>\n

\n

Monsanto Colluded With EPA, Was Unable To Prove Roundup Does Not Cause Cancer, Unsealed Court Docs Reveal<\/h2>\n

March 15, 2017<\/p>\n

Roundup Ready is Monsanto\u2019s blockbuster weedkiller, credited with transforming U.S. agriculture, with a majority of farm production now using genetically modified seeds resistant to the chemical.<\/p>\n

For years the company has assured farmers that their weed killing product was absolutely safe to use. As proof, Monsanto touted the approval of the chemical by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).<\/p>\n

That said, newly unsealed court documents released earlier today seemingly reveal a startling effort on the part of both Monsanto and the EPA to work in concert to kill and\/or discredit independent, albeit inconvenient, cancer research conducted by the World Health Organization\u2019s International Agency for Research on Cancer<\/strong> (IARC)\u2026<\/p>\n

Donna Farmer, Monsanto\u2019s lead toxicologist, even admitted in her deposition that she \u201ccannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer\u201d because \u201c[w]e [Monsanto] have not done the carcinogenicity studies with Roundup.\u201d \u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n

Finally, when all else fails, you call in those \u201cspecial favors\u201d in Washington D.C. that you\u2019ve paid handsomely for over the years.<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s where Jess Rowland<\/strong>, the EPA\u2019s Deputy Division Director for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Agency\u2019s Cancer Assessment Review Committee, comes in to assure you that he\u2019s fully exploiting his role as the \u201cchair of the CARC\u201d to kill any potentially damaging research\u2026\u201dif I can kill this I should get a medal.\u201d \u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n

All of which begs the question of whether the D.C. swamp is just too large to be drained. http:\/\/www.zerohedge.com\/news\/2017-03-14\/court-docs-prove-monsanto-collusion-epa-kill-cancer-study-admits-cant-say-roundup-do<\/a><\/p>\n

March 15, 2017<\/p>\n

Employees of Monsanto<\/a> ghostwrote scientific reports that U.S. regulators relied on to determine that a chemical in its Roundup weed killer does not cause cancer, farmers and others suing the company claimed in court filings.<\/p>\n

The documents, which were made public on Tuesday, are part of a mass litigation in federal court in San Francisco claiming Monsanto failed to warn that exposure to Roundup could cause non-Hodgkin\u2019s lymphoma, a type of cancer.<\/p>\n

The company has denied that the product causes cancer.<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs claim that Monsanto\u2019s toxicology manager ghostwrote parts of a scientific report in 2013 that was published under the names of several academic scientists, and his boss ghostwrote parts of another in 2000.<\/p>\n

Both reports were used by the EPA to determine that glyphosate, a chemical in Roundup, was safe, they said. They cited an email from a Monsanto executive proposing to ghostwrite parts of the 2013 report, saying, \u201cwe would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing\u201d while researchers \u201cwould just edit & sign their names so to speak.\u201d<\/p>\n

In an email, a Monsanto (mon, -0.33%)<\/a> spokeswoman denied that Monsanto scientists ghostwrote the 2000 report but did not directly address the 2013 report. She said the ghostwriting allegations were based on \u201ccherry-picking\u201d one email out of 10 million pages of documents.<\/p>\n

Another filing focused on Jess Rowland, a former deputy director at the Environmental Protection Agency who chaired a committee on cancer risk and who plaintiffs say worked with Monsanto to suppress studies of glyphosate. The filing includes an email from a Monsanto employee recounting how Rowland told him he \u201cshould get a medal\u201d if he could \u201ckill\u201d a study of glyphosate at the Department of Health and Human Services, a separate federal agency. http:\/\/fortune.com\/2017\/03\/15\/monsanto-ghostwrote-scientific-reports-roundup\/<\/a><\/p>\n

The Environmental Protection Agency<\/a> official who was in charge of evaluating the cancer risk of Monsanto Co.<\/a>\u2019s Roundup allegedly bragged to a company executive that he deserved a medal if he could kill another agency\u2019s investigation into the herbicide\u2019s key chemical.<\/p>\n

The boast was made during an April 2015 phone conversation, according to farmers and others who say they\u2019ve been sickened by the weed killer. After leaving his job as a manager in the EPA\u2019s pesticide division last year, Jess Rowland has become a central figure in more than 20 lawsuits in the U.S. accusing the company of failing to warn consumers and regulators of the risk that its glyphosate-based herbicide can cause non-Hodgkin\u2019s lymphoma.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf I can kill this I should get a medal,\u201d Rowland told a Monsanto regulatory affairs manager who recounted the conversation in an email to his colleagues, according to a court filing made public Tuesday. The company was seeking Rowland\u2019s help stopping an investigation of glyphosate by a separate office, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, that is part of the U.S. Health and Human Service Department, according to the filing.<\/p>\n

A federal judge overseeing the glyphosate litigation in San Francisco said last month he\u2019s inclined to order Rowland to submit to questioning by lawyers for the plaintiffs, who contend he had a \u201chighly suspicious\u201d relationship with Monsanto. Rowland oversaw a committee that found insufficient evidence to conclude glyphosate causes cancer and quit last year shortly after his report was leaked to the press. https:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/news\/articles\/2017-03-14\/monsanto-accused-of-ghost-writing-papers-on-roundup-cancer-risk<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As regular readers of this page are aware, I have long opposed GMOs and the special protections given to Monsanto.<\/p>\n

Mexico is right to be concerned.<\/p>\n

There are more concerns than non-Hodgkin\u2019s lymphoma.<\/p>\n

There have long been people who realized that RoundUp is considered a major factor in the decline of bee populations. Notice the following:<\/p>\n

The world\u2019s most popular pesticide probably killed England\u2019s wild bees<\/strong><\/p>\n

August 17\/18, 2016<\/p>\n

Since around 2002, farmers in the English countryside have been using neonic insecticides to protect their abundant oilseed crops spanning 8.2 million hectares. Now, scientists are linking the chemicals, also called neonicotinoids, to the death of half of the wild bee population in the country, according to a new study published in Nature Communications<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Many bee species forage on the bright yellow oilseed crops that grow in the UK. The seeds for these crops are coated with neonicotinoids upon planting. Then, the chemical systematically expresses itself in all cells of the growing plant. Bees that feed on the plant ingest the chemical through the pollen or nectar.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Researchers studied 62 species of wild bees across England from 1994 to 2011. Over the last nine years, the decline in population size was three times worse among species that regularly fed on oilseed plants compared to others that forage on different floral resources, the study found. Five species showed declines of 20% or more, with the worst-hit species experiencing a 30% drop in its population.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In Europe, 9.2% of the continent\u2019s almost 2,000 bee species<\/a> are facing extinction, according to one assessment. But until now, it\u2019s been hard to quantify how seriously chemicals have impacted bees. \u201cPesticides and beekeeping have been butting heads for 50-plus years,\u201d David R. Tarpy, a professor at North Carolina State University\u2019s department of entomology, told Quartz<\/a>.\u201c[Pesticides are] clearly part of the equation, but we don\u2019t know the relative magnitude.\u201d http:\/\/qz.com\/760688\/bee-colony-collapse-due-to-neonicotinoids-the-worlds-most-popular-pesticide\/<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The above news report did not name it, but \u201cRoundUp\u201d by Monsanto is one of the most widely used neonicotinoids, though it is mainly an herbicide. Notice also the following:<\/p>\n

The EPA reports that \u201cpesticide poisoning\u201d is a likely cause of bee colony collapse as pesticides and herbicides like Roundup, as well as others known as systemic neonicotinoid insecticides, weaken the bees\u2019 immune system. https:\/\/www.credomobilize.com\/petitions\/tell-home-depot-and-lowe-s-to-stop-carrying-roundup-and-similar-pesticides<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I have written about bees before (see UN reports on massive declines in bee and buttefly populations<\/a> and Bees seem to get addicted to pesticide that may be devastating their population<\/a>). The precise cause can be debated, but it appears that pesticides and items related to genetically-modified crops are factors (RoundUp is used with several GMO crops). Bees are needed to improve the pollination of many foods and losses of bees can affect the food supply. Some day, real hunger will come to the USA (cf. Ezekiel 5: 5:16).<\/p>\n

As far as \u2018draining the swamp\u2019 goes, various ones have indicated that the reason the bee problem has not been properly addressed is that politicians did not want to upset Monsanto.<\/p>\n

Years ago, the USA government had basically protected Monsanto from negative affects of its GMO projects (see H.R. 933 includes pro-GMO provision that some call \u2018Monsanto Protection Act\u2019<\/a> and Thousands worldwide march against Monsanto<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The Bible warns:<\/p>\n

10 For the love of money<\/span> is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (1 Timothy 6:10)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And that is what is happening in the chemical, GMO, and laboratory food world to a major degree. Financial and other forms of greed are driving much of this.<\/p>\n

THE FACT IS THAT THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE PRO-GMO FORCES CAN HAVE ENOUGH DATA TO PROVE WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS NOT DANGEROUS. At minimum, in order to get the kind of data to truly demonstrate safety, studies involving at least a million humans over a period of a couple of centuries would need to be done\u2013and this has never happened. The pro-GMO forces act like they are wise and have facts on their side, but the facts remain that what they are doing is dangerous and when it comes to using human genes, also immoral. They have not, and cannot, test for all possible complications associated with what they are doing.<\/p>\n

The Bible warns:<\/p>\n

\n
20<\/span> For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, <\/span>21<\/span> because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. <\/span>22<\/span> Professing to be wise, they became fools<\/strong>, (Romans 1:20-22)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This whole GMO and human editing experiment has had negative consequences and will have more in the future.<\/p>\n

Some have claimed that rats fed GMO corn developed tumors and organ damage:<\/p>\n

Rats fed a lifetime diet of Monsanto\u2019s genetically engineered corn or exposed to the company\u2019s popular Roundup herbicide developed tumors and suffered severe organ damage, according to a French study\u2026The study<\/a> links varying levels of both the Roundup herbicide and the transgenes in Monsanto\u2019s patented NK603 corn to mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage.<\/p>\n

The rats were either fed the NK603 corn alone, corn treated with agricultural levels of Roundup, or given water treated with Roundup at low levels commonly found in contaminated drinking water and used in agriculture in the United States. In each group, there were two to three more deaths among female rats compared to control groups, and the rats on the Monsanto diet tended to die more quickly. (Ludwig M. French Study Finds Tumors and Organ Damage in Rats Fed Monsanto Corn. September 19, 2012. http:\/\/truth-out.org\/news\/item\/11639-french-study-finds-tumors-and-organ-damage-in-rats-fed-monsanto-corn<\/a> viewed 06\/05\/13)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In humans, who are not as ‘controlled’ as rats in a clinical trial, the results are not as obvious. Plus, it tends to take time.<\/p>\n

Consider that the Bible warns:<\/p>\n

11 Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.<\/span> (Ecclesiastes 8:11)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The reality is that groups like the US Food and Drug Administration have approved all kinds of foods that they claimed were safe–but did not realize were unsafe for decades.<\/p>\n

Consider the case of hydrogenated fats. Probably, the first commercial hydrogenated trans-fatty acid product was Crisco<\/em> shortening, which was introduced in 1911. The scientist who developed the first partially hydrogenated fats, Paul Sabatier, won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry jointly with fellow Frenchman Victor Grignard in 1912. The US and other world governments promoted these ‘food’ products. But, finally in 2013, the FDA warned about them (see FDA finally rules that hydrogenated trans-fatty acids are not safe<\/a>). It took over a century.<\/p>\n

As a scientist, let me state that the main tests are for acute reactions and causing cancer in animals. They rarely check for much more and cannot possibly test for every possible consequence.<\/p>\n

In the last (20th) century, I started to get published for my positions against genetically modified foods (Thiel R. Labeling of genetically modified foods should be a fundamental consumer right. HealthKeepers, 2000; 2 (3):16-19; Thiel R. ANMA\u2019s official position on genetically modified foods. ANMA Monitor, 1999;3(4)5-8). And since then, more and more information has come to light suggesting dangers to the environment and health related to GMOs.<\/p>\n

As regular readers of this COGwriter Church of God News page are aware, I have long warned that likely crop failures associated with GMO grains are putting the USA and its Anglo-allies at extreme risk of being destroyed.<\/p>\n

Most Americans do not like to accept this, but it is nonetheless true.<\/p>\n

That being said, the European Union also has issues with GMOs and importing USA GMO crops. This has been a sticking point in trade negotiations between the USA and EU for years.<\/p>\n

Now as the Mexican position gets closer to the European one, perhaps this may further push Mexico and Europe closer together?<\/p>\n

The GMO repulsion of Mexico and the EU has put a wedge between them and the USA and may be another factor to bring them closer together.<\/p>\n

That said, in addition to GMO plants, we now have engineered “lab meat” and other experiments entering the food supply.<\/p>\n

The Continuing<\/em> Church of God<\/a> (CCOG) has put together three videos on our Bible News Prophecy<\/a> YouTube channel.<\/p>\n

Here is the first:<\/p>\n

\n
\n