During his recent visit to Kona for the Triathlon, the Dragonfly Ranch was blessed to have Dr. Dwight Lundell deliver a power point speech on Oct. 8. The 30+ people in attendance were spellbound by important facts Dr. Lundell (who has performed over 5000 open-heart surgeries), presented eloquently, with charts to help make the flood of information understandable.
One friend who previously asked me to not bother giving him any more information about diet and nutrition, after the lecture said “WOW!” He suddenly “got it” that he needs to pay attention to taking care of his health. Everyone was appreciative of the fast track information presented so clearly. “Impressive” was the word my 83 year old Hawaiian neighbor (who shares with me his free-range eggs) used to describe the evening.
On the day of his departure from Kona on Oct. 11, Dr. Lundell, (who suggested I call him Dwight) gave an informal talk in Kailua town. This time, he spoke without his power point presentation.
In a very down-home way, Dwight shared his truth from his heart. He explained that he knows that most people don’t want to take pills and certainly not a number of times a day.
But because he knows that certain things are needed by the body to function in the optimal fashion in our stressful times, he formulated a package with 14 important ingredients that can be mixed with water or juice, is palatable, and is taken just one time during the day. Preventing heart problems with anti-inflammatories and antioxidants was his goal. Knowing that the majority of people just want to have something that is simple and effective was what motivated him to create Heart Shot, making it tasty and easy to consume.
Next, he thought about how to get people to know about this product.
Dwight said he realized that no one wants to hear about another new product to take. And certainly, it could be on the shelf at Costco or Longs where many people would see it and not know what it was. Why would they buy it?
BUT…he knows that 3/4 of Americans drink coffee—and love doing it. Finding out about a coffee that is 6 times higher in antioxidants than any other coffee is something most people want to know about. The fact that it is delicious and affordable is makes it even more desirable.
That is when he decided to buy the triple patented proprietary rights to Asantae coffee and wed it to his new product, Heart Shot, and two other fine products, Colorad for weight loss, and Agrisept (made from grapefruit seed extract and a blend of 3 other citrus fruits).
By having the Asantae coffee catch peoples attention, Dwight figured then they might be open to understanding that Heart Shot could very well be a superior product that could improve their health. Those of us who learn about the coffee, in the process become educated about the importance of Heart Shot, Agrisept and Colarad.
After trying them, we soon discover the tremendous results of these products. We then become Dwight’s “assistants” in providing life-saving information to many people who need this information and might otherwise never hear about these products.
People trust their friends to tell the truth. And the truth is, this is good coffee and these are good products. AND the prices are reasonable. AND there is a business opportunity for those of us who like to inform people about how to improve their health. (AND no one needs to do the business if that is not what they want to do.)
Why did Dwight decide to NOT put the product in the big stores but instead go with Multi Level Marketing? It is because he wants us to educate more people and in so doing, spread the word and be rewarded financially. Dwight seriously likes the idea of affiliates being paid for helping people get healthy.
He believes that with the Healthy Roast Coffee being the “hook” that catches people’s attention, we can inspire trust in the other three Asantae products. It is a brilliant plan and it seems to be working. He has certainly convinced me!
I used to tell people to NOT drink that evil “drug” called coffee! I couldn’t drink even organic coffee myself because of how damaging it was to my bladder. I discovered while giving out free samples at the Mango Festival, that I drank numerous cups of it myself and never once needed to use the bathroom. I found that Asantae coffee not only didn’t cause my bladder any problems, it seemed to heal the problem with its powerful antioxidant properties!
Now when I share the Healthy Roast coffee with my guests at the Dragonfly Ranch, people who previously got acid reflux or the “jitters” when they drank other coffee, do not have that reaction with Asantae. Everyone loves the “smooth” taste and especially loves the delicate aftertaste.
I found that for the first time in my life, I like drinking my coffee black. I look forward to my coffee in the morning because it makes me happy—and healthy! I actually drink it throughout the day. Instead of telling people who love to drink coffee that they shouldn’t do it, I now love sharing this “health find” with others.
It also makes me happy to know that Dr. Dwight Lundell is a sincerely genuine, caring person. He said, “After a long career of being an open heart surgeon, I could retire like my buddies, playing a lot of golf and drinking a lot of alcohol.” That isn’t what this well-intended doctor wanted for his years as an active senior who participated in the 2009 Triathlon–winning the 10th spot in his age bracket.
Instead, Dwight decided to expose the medical community for continuing to distribute damaging medication for lowering high cholesterol when 75 percent of all heart attacks victims have normal cholesterol! The truth is, those doctors and pharmaceutical companies are making money on a falsehood!
A very sharp German elder who is well versed on supplements as well as being psychic, told me she circulated Dr. Lundell’s open letter of apology for the medical community regarding the use of unnecessary medication to lower cholesterol. This friend told me that she believes the quality the product he formulated is pure on an energetic level. (Over the years, I have valued her opinion highly.)
Instead of being a part of that medical lie that other doctors continue, Dwight decided to create a company that helps introduce to as many people as possible the product he carefully designed to prevent heart disease.
In his understated, humble way, Dwight said, “MLMs are like marriages. They can be very bad or very good. The way they can be very good is if there is a lot of love. I decided I wanted this company to be based on love and caring from the top down.” In my opinion, that is what makes the Asantae MLM work.
In particular, Dr. Lundell proved to me that he fits the description a “consistent contributor” by Risk Management Professor J. Keith Murnighan:
“The consistent contributor looks for the collective good first and personal good second.” He says that the consistent contributor can drive the actions of others, acting as a catalyst for cooperation, initiating cooperation, leading the way for others to follow suit. Murnighan points out that in a larger group, “if someone consistently acts as a friend, it’s easier for others to act as friends and everyone benefits” in the spirit of trust.
In his very down home, friendly way, Dwight said to those of us attending the small meeting in Kailua, “Like a good marriage, I wanted this company to have a solid foundation of love and caring.”
My experience of having two evenings with Dr. Dwight Lundell proved to me that he is sincere in his altruistic intention to use his expertise to formulate a product that will prevent heart disease. He is wise to have chosen this MLM method of distribution. He is also sincere about wanting to help those who assist him in his mission to save lives.
Stressing the importance of not “selling” people but rather simply introducing them to good-for-you coffee, the new Asantae website will allow for people who simply want to drink good tasting coffee, giving the option of purchasing coffee as a “preferred buyer”—while giving the person who told them about the coffee a commission.
(When the “top” of an MLM company is greedy, the price of the product becomes expensive. Because the Asantae people are wanting these products to get out there internationally, they have kept the prices as low as they can while still allowing affiliates to make a reasonable profit.)
In addition to being convinced of Dwight’s sincerity, I was impressed with his open-minded receptivity to learning and growing. When we ate dinner before his talk at the Dragonfly, I showed him how Redmond Real Salt is better than regular table salt—that it turns on the electrolytes. He was impressed.
I was surprised that Dwight, being the intelligent scientist that he is, was uninformed about the scientific information out about the dangers of GMO. So I loaned him my two Jeffrey Smith books, showing him how Jeffrey fully documented his claims with scientific evidence. After the meeting in Kailua, Dwight returned the books to me. In his soft-spoken way, he said he read the books and thanked me for loaning them to him.
I share these insights with others who are drinking Asantae coffee and thinking about taking the Asantae message out to more people. We are blessed to learn the truth about what creates heart health from this well-informed doctor who cares about people living long healthy lives. I see Asantae affiliates as being his ambassadors of healing, joining this high-minded retired cardiologist-turned author/businessman with a mission.
It is not surprising to me that Dr. Dwight Lundell is called “The Heart Beat of Asantae.”Health | Tags: Genetic engineering, Genetically modified food, Genetically modified organism, heart attacks, open-heart surgery | Comment (0)
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/09/jeff-smith-interview-gmo-week.aspxHealth | Tags: Food safety, Genetic engineering, Genetically modified food, Genetically modified organism, gmo, Health, Monsanto, Organic farming | Comment (0)
Subject: Tell Your Senators: Monsanto can’t feed the world
In a promising move, the G8 — a group of the world’s eight wealthiest nations — has just announced a shift away from providing direct food aid to developing countries and towards helping farmers abroad produce and distribute their own food.
That’s a laudable goal. But the Obama administration along with members of the U.S. Congress are using this singular moment to move their own agenda: propping up U.S. biotechnology companies like Monsanto. They hope to accomplish this by promoting genetically modified seeds and chemical inputs as tools to fight hunger, despite research that shows that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have little impact on crop yield and do not fare well in drought-prone regions that need the most help.
I just took action and signed a petition asking my senators to oppose the Casey-Lugar bill that would push GMOs on the world. I hope you will, too.
Please have a look and take action.
Thanks! MarilynUncategorized | Tags: Agriculture, Biotechnology, Crop yield, Dear Friend, Genetically modified food, Genetically modified organism, Monsanto, United States | Comment (0)
Congressional Bill HR 875 was introduced by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, whose husband Stanley Greenburg works for Monsanto.
The bill is essentially a giant gift package for Monsanto, mandating the criminalization of seed banking, prison terms and confiscatory fines for small farmers and 24 hour GPS tracking of their animals, and of “industrial” standards to independent farms.
The corporations want nothing less than full control of the land, the end of normal animals so they can substitute patented genetically engineered ones, and the end of normal seeds and thus of seed banking by farmers or individuals.
And now Monsanto wants its own employee, Michael Taylor (the man who forced genetically engineered rBGH on the country when the Clintons placed him over “food safety” in the 90’s) back in government, this time to act with massive police power as a “food safety tsar”. HR 875 would give him immense power over what is done on every single farm in the country and massive police state power to wield over farmers.
Rosa DeLauro and Stanley Greenburg have a great deal to account for in attempting to force through a mislabeled “food safety” bill with hidden intent to wipe out farmers and harm everyone.
for links, go to http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/04/02/Monsantos-Dream-Bill–HR-875.aspx
Op Ed News March 9, 2009
Cryptogon March 9, 2009
Campaign for Liberty March 6, 2008
Dr. Mercola”s Comments Dr. Mercola’s Comments:
Although I’m not familiar enough with this bill in its entirety to make any definitive declarations about what it would mean for the future of small organic farms should it pass, I will say this: any law introduced by someone with ties to Monsanto is likely to be grossly tainted by industry bias.
Who Does This Bill Benefit the Most?
And Monsanto in particular – one of the most evil companies on the planet — is a powerful entity that has repeatedly proven its clout. Monsanto has already managed so many reprehensible acts, it boggles the mind. Including:
Leading the world into a new age of potentially hazardous genetic modification of seeds.
Patenting not only their own GMO seeds, but also a huge number of crop seeds, patenting life forms for the first time — without a vote of the people or Congress.
Not allowing farmers to save their seeds to replant the next year – a practice that has been done for generations. Instead, they aggressively seek out and sue farmers they suspect of doing so.
Suing farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable drift of Monsanto’s GE pollen or seed onto their land for patent infringement!
Producing two of the most toxic substances ever known — polychlorinated biphenyls, known as PCBs, and dioxin (Agent Orange).
Perhaps their biggest assault to your food supply already is what’s known as terminator technology. These are seeds that have been genetically modified to “self-destruct.” In other words, the seeds (and the forthcoming crops) are sterile, which means farmers must buy them again each year.
The implications that terminator seeds could have on the world’s food supply are disastrous: the traits from genetically engineered crops can get passed on to other crops. Once the terminator seeds are released into a region, the trait of seed sterility could be passed to other non-genetically-engineered crops, making most or all of the seeds in the region sterile.
If allowed to continue, every farmer in the world could come to rely on Monsanto for their seed supply!
So, would it be safe to say that Monsanto stands to gain from H.R. 875?
Absolutely! With thousands of organic farmers driven out of business, they would be that much closer to dominating the food supply of the world, since organic farms don’t use Monsanto seeds or toxic products.
Based on their history, I believe it’s prudent to question what the future of our small farms will hold, should a bill with such blatant ties to Monsanto be allowed to pass without further scrutiny.
It is quite possible, perhaps even most probable, that the bill entitled H.R. 875: Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 is designed to halt the growing trend of small organic farms – not through a direct, frontal assault on organic farming, but rather by insidiously creating rules and laws that make it extremely difficult, and incredibly expensive, for small farms to comply.
And in this case, the rules and regulations created by this proposed bill are mandatory, not voluntary, meaning they apply equally to a tiny farmer with half a dozen cows as it does to a massive factory farm.
What are the Potential Hazards of HR 875?
The stated purpose of H.R. 875: Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 is:
To establish the Food Safety Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services to protect the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes.
As detailed in the articles above, some of the potential hazards of HR 875 include:
* It includes small farmers who just sell their fruits and vegetables at farmer’s markets
* Anyone engaged in food growing, or “holding food for consumption” in the U.S. would have to register annually, and create and maintain extensive records of the foods they grow and/or store
* The definitions of who this law pertains to are so broad and loosely defined that they could potentially even include your personal backyard fruit or vegetable garden, even if you don’t sell anything but grow them for personal consumption
* It appears it could dictate how all food growers would have to grow their food, including potentially the necessity to use certain pest control measures, for example
* Authorities would have the ability to inspect any food production facility at random to make sure it’s operating in compliance with the food safety law, and again the definition of “food production facility” is so loosely defined it could apply to your personal orchard, vineyard, or vegetable garden, as long as it produces something edible
* After the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and representatives of State departments of agriculture will promulgate regulations to establish “science-based minimum standards for the safe production of food” by food production facilities. Meaning, no one even knows what the food production standards are yet, but whatever they turn out to be will have to be followed
* It is prohibited to: fail to register; refuse to permit access to an inspector; refuse to allow copying of all records; fail to establish or maintain any record required under the law
* Should you fail to comply with any of the rules and regulations, there are both civil and criminal penalties, going as high as $1 million per violation, something that could clearly wipe out any small farmer in a blink of an eye
What Can You Do?
I believe everyone should take the time to look this bill over and decide for yourself — Do you, or do you not believe industry will use every loophole they can find to further their own interests over up-and-coming small, organic family farms?
If you believe this bill warrants further scrutiny before being blindly passed, here are a few ways you can get involved and make your voice heard:
1. Contact your Congressional members at 202-224-3121 and ask them to oppose HR 875 and S 425.
2. Sign the Natural Solutions Foundation’s petition to Amend the Food Safety Modernization Act H.R. 875 [and Substitutes], by adding a “Natural and Family Food and Farming Exclusion Amendment”
3. Find out who sits on your states agriculture and farming committee and contact them with your concerns.
4. Contact your local elected officials and let them know your position on legislation and why.
5. Attend a local Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) meeting, this is a good start to learning about what is going on in farming, as well as getting involved with local and state initiatives .
6. Support the Farmers Legal Defense Fund
Monsanto’s Many Attempts to Destroy All Seeds but Their Own
This Company May Be the Biggest Threat to Your Future Health
How Monsanto Manipulates the System to Poison Your Health
Uncategorized | Tags: Agriculture, Food safety, Genetic engineering, Genetically modified organism, Monsanto, Organic farming, Rosa DeLauro, United States Department of Health and Human Services | Comment (0)
Unintended GMO Health Risks
Genetically modified foods:
YES, you are already eating them.
NO, they are not safe to eat.
Did you know… since 1996 Americans have been eating genetically modified (GM) ingredients in most processed foods.
Did you know… GM plants, such as soybean, corn, cottonseed, and canola have had foreign genes forced into their DNA. And the inserted genes come from species, such as bacteria and viruses, that have never been in the human food supply.
Did you know… genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not safe. They have been linked to thousands of toxic and allergenic reactions, thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals.
Find out what the risks are and start protecting yourself and your family today!
Why isn’t the FDA protecting us?
In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration claimed that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different from conventionally grown foods and therefore were safe to eat. But internal memos made public by a lawsuit reveal that their position was staged by political appointees under orders from the White House to promote GMOs. FDA scientists, on the other hand, warned that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long term safety studies, but were ignored. The FDA does not require any safety evaluations for GMOs. Instead, biotech companies, who have been found guilty of hiding toxic effects of their chemical products, are now in charge of determining whether their GM foods are safe. (The FDA official in charge of creating this policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney and later their vice president.)
Although these biotech companies participate in a voluntary consultation process with the FDA, it is a meaningless exercise. The summaries of the superficial research they submit cannot identify most of the health risks of GMOs.
Genetic modification is radically different from natural breeding
In contrast to the statements of biotech advocates, FDA scientists and others affirm that genetic modification is not just an extension of the conventional breeding techniques that have been used by farmers for millennia. Genetic engineering transfers genes across natural species barriers, using imprecise laboratory techniques that bear no resemblance to natural breeding. Furthermore, the technology is based on outdated concepts of how genes and cells work.
Widespread, unpredictable changes
Gene insertion is done either by shooting genes from a “gene gun” into a plate of cells or by using bacteria to invade the cell with foreign DNA. The altered cell is then cloned into a plant. These processes create massive collateral damage, causing mutations in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout the plant’s DNA. Natural genes can be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their levels of expression.
- The inserted gene is often rearranged;
- It may transfer from the food into our body’s cells or into the DNA of bacteria inside us; and
- The GM protein produced by the gene may have unintended properties or effects.
GM foods on the market
The primary reason companies genetically engineer plants is to make them tolerant to their brand of herbicide. The four major GM plants, soy, corn, canola, and cotton, are designed to survive an otherwise deadly dose of weed killer. These crops have much higher residues of toxic herbicides. About 68% of GM crops are herbicide tolerant.
The second GM trait is a built-in pesticide. A gene from the soil bacterium called Bt (for Bacillus thuringiensis) is inserted into corn and cotton DNA, where it secretes the insect-killing Bt-toxin in every cell. About 19% of GM crops produce their own pesticide. Another 13% produce a pesticide and are herbicide tolerant.
There is also Hawaiian papaya and a small amount of zucchini and yellow crookneck squash, which are engineered to resist a plant virus. Help stop the introduction of GM sugar in late 2008. Send a letter to top companies on our website.
Growing evidence of harm from GMOs
GM soy and allergic reactions
- Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced.
- A human subject showed a skin prick allergic-type reaction to GM soy, but not to natural soy.
- The level of one known soy allergen is as much as 7-times higher in cooked GM soy compared to non-GM soy.
- GM soy also contains an unexpected allergen-type protein not found in natural soy.
Bt corn and cotton linked to allergies
The biotech industry claims that Bt-toxin is harmless to humans and mammals because the natural bacteria version has been used as a spray by farmers for years. In reality, hundreds of people exposed to Bt spray had allergic-type symptoms, and mice fed Bt had powerful immune responses and damaged intestines. Moreover, Bt in GM crops is designed to be more toxic than the natural spray and is thousands of times more concentrated.
GMOs fail allergy tests
No tests can guarantee that a GMO will not cause allergies. Although the World Health Organization recommends a protein screening protocol, the GM soy, corn, and papaya in our food supply fail those tests— because they have properties of known allergens.
GMOs cause immune reactions to non-GM foods
- If proteins “digest” slowly, there is more time for allergic reactions. Because GM soy reduces digestive enzymes in mice, it may slow protein digestion and promote allergies to many foods.
- Mice not only reacted to Bt -toxin, they had immune responses to formerly harmless compounds.
- Similarly, a mouse test indicated that people eating GM peas could develop allergies both to the peas and to a range of other foods. The peas had already passed all the allergy tests normally used to get GMOs on the market. It took this advanced mouse test, which was never used on the GMOs we eat, to discover that the peas could be deadly.
GMOs and liver problems
- Rats fed GM potatoes had smaller, partially atrophied livers.
- The livers of rats fed GM canola were 12-16% heavier.
- GM soy altered mouse liver cells in ways that suggest a toxic insult. The changes reversed after their diet switched to non-GM soy.
GM soy, reproductive problems, and infant mortality
- More than half the offspring of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks.
- Male rats and mice fed GM soy showed changes in their testicles; the mice had altered young sperm cells.
- The DNA of mouse embryos whose parents ate GM soy functioned differently than those whose parents ate non-GM soy.
Many offspring of female rats fed GM soy were considerably smaller,
and more than half died within three weeks (compared to 10% of the
non-GM soy controls).
Bt crops linked to sterility, disease, and death
- When sheep grazed on Bt cotton plants after harvest, within a week 1 in 4 died. Shepherds estimate 10,000 sheep deaths in one region of India.
- Farmers in Europe and Asia say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens, and horses died from eating Bt corn varieties.
- About two dozen US farmers report that Bt corn varieties caused widespread sterility in pigs or cows.
- Filipinos in at least five villages fell sick when a nearby Bt corn variety was pollinating.
The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may be a precursor to cancer. Rats also had damaged organs and immune systems.
Functioning GM genes remain inside you
Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment verified that genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of intestinal bacteria and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us.
- If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics.
- If the gene that creates Bt -toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories.
- Animal studies show that DNA in food can travel into organs throughout the body, even into the fetus.
GM food supplement caused deadly epidemic
In the 1980s, a contaminated brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan killed about 100 Americans and caused sickness and disability in another 5,000-10,000 people. The source of contaminants was almost certainly the genetic engineering process used in its production. The disease took years to find and was almost overlooked. It was only identified because the symptoms were unique, acute, and fast-acting. If all three characteristics were not in place, the deadly GM supplement might never have been identified or removed.
If GM foods on the market are causing common diseases or if their effects appear only after long-term exposure, we may not be able to identify the source of the problem for decades, if at all. There is no monitoring of GMO-related problems and no long-term animal studies. Heavily invested biotech corporations are gambling away the health of our nation for profit.
Help end the genetic engineering of our food supply
When the tipping point of consumer concern about GMOs was achieved in Europe in 1999, within a single week virtually all major food manufacturers committed to remove GM ingredients. The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to reach a similar tipping point in the US before the end of 2009.
Our growing network of manufacturers, retailers, healthcare practitioners, organizations, and the media, is informing consumers of the health risks of GMOs and helping them select healthier non-GMO alternatives.
Go to www.responsibletechnology.org to get involved and learn how to avoid GMOs. Look for our Non-GMO Shopping Guide in summer 2008.
Start buying non-GMO today.
Help us stop the genetic engineering of our food supply.
Donations to the Institute For Responsible Technology are tax-deductible. Your $25 membership includes a free educational gift.
There are three ways to become a member or make a donation:
Institute For Responsible Technology
P.O. Box 469, Fairfield, IA 52556
The health information is from the book Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risk of Genetically Engineered Foods, by Jeffrey M. Smith.
© copyright Institute For Responsible Technology 2008
The Institute is a fully tax deductible project of The Coordinating Council, a 501c(3).
 See www.biointegrity.org
 See Part 2, Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2007
 See for example 233-236, chart of disproved assumptions, in Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2007
 J. R. Latham, et al., “The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation,” The Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006, Article ID 25376: 1-7; see also Allison Wilson, et. al., “Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications,” Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews – Vol. 23, December 2006.
 Srivastava, et al, “Pharmacogenomics of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) and the cystic fibrosis drug CPX using genome microarray analysis,” Mol Med. 5, no. 11(Nov 1999):753–67.
 Latham et al, “The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation, Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006:1-7, article ID 25376, http://www.hindawi.com/journals/JBB/index.html; Draft risk analysis report application A378, Food derived from glyphosate-tolerant sugarbeet line 77 (GTSB77),” ANZFA, March 7, 2001, www.agbios.com/docroot/decdocs/anzfa_gtsb77.pdf; E. Levine et al., “Molecular Characterization of Insect Protected Corn Line MON 810.” Unpublished study submitted to the EPA by Monsanto, EPA MRID No. 436655-01C (1995); Allison Wilson, PhD, Jonathan Latham, PhD, and Ricarda Steinbrecher, PhD, “Genome Scrambling—Myth or Reality? Transformation-Induced Mutations in Transgenic Crop Plants Technical Report—October 2004,” www.econexus.info; C. Collonier, G. Berthier, F. Boyer, M. N. Duplan, S. Fernandez, N. Kebdani, A. Kobilinsky, M. Romanuk, Y. Bertheau, “Characterization of commercial GMO inserts: a source of useful material to study genome fluidity,” Poster presented at ICPMB: International Congress for Plant Molecular Biology (n°VII), Barcelona, 23-28th June 2003. Poster courtesy of Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Président du Conseil Scientifique du CRII-GEN, www.crii-gen.org; also “Transgenic lines proven unstable” by Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS Report, 23 October 2003, www.i-sis.org.uk
 Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2; Chowdhury, et al, “Detection of genetically modified maize DNA fragments in the intestinal contents of pigs fed StarLink CBH351,” Vet Hum Toxicol. 45 , no. 2 (March 2003): 95–6; P. A. Chambers, et al, “The fate of antibiotic resistance marker genes in transgenic plant feed material fed to chickens,” J. Antimic. Chemother. 49 (2000): 161–164; and Paula S. Duggan, et al, “Fate of genetically modified maize DNA in the oral cavity and rumen of sheep,” Br J Nutr. 89, no 2 (Feb.2003): 159–66.
 Mark Townsend, “Why soya is a hidden destroyer,” Daily Express, March 12, 1999.
 Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7).
 A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, “GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks,” Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005.
 Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7).
 M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852; and M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook, Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray (Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30, 1992)
 Vazquez et al, “Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice,” 1897–1912; Vazquez et al, “Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice,” Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 33 (2000): 147–155; and Vazquez et al, “Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant,” Scandanavian Journal of Immunology 49 (1999): 578–584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000b).
 Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed, “Fine Structural Changes in the Ileum of Mice Fed on Endotoxin Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes,” Natural Toxins 6, no. 6 (1998): 219–233.
 See for example “Bt cotton causing allergic reaction in MP; cattle dead,” Bhopal, Nov. 23, 2005, http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=170692&cat=Health;
 Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),” Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005; and M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852; and M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook, Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray (Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30, 1992)
 FAO-WHO, “Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert
Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology,” Jan. 22–25, 2001; http://www.fao.org/es/ESN/food/pdf/allergygm.pdf
 Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,” Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62; G. A. Kleter and A. A. C. M. Peijnenburg, “Screening of transgenic proteins expressed in transgenic food crops for the presence of short amino acid sequences indentical to potential, IgE-binding linear epitopes of allergens,” BMC Structural Biology 2 (2002): 8–19; H. P. J. M. Noteborn, “Assessment of the Stability to Digestion and Bioavailability of the LYS Mutant Cry9C Protein from Bacillus thuringiensis serovar tolworthi,” Unpublished study submitted to the EPA by AgrEvo, EPA MRID No. 447343-05 (1998); and H. P. J. M. Noteborn et al, “Safety Assessment of the Bacillus thuringiensis Insecticidal Crystal Protein CRYIA(b) Expressed in Transgenic Tomatoes,” in Genetically modified foods: safety issues, American Chemical Society Symposium Series 605, eds. K.H. Engel et al., (Washington, DC, 1995): 134–47.
 M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera, E. Manuali, M. B. L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli, “Fine Structural Analyses of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice Fed on GM Soybean,” Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385–388.
 Vazquez et al, “Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant,” Scandanavian Journal of Immunology 49 (1999): 578–584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000b).
 V. E. Prescott, et al, “Transgenic Expression of Bean r-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity,” Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry (2005): 53.
 Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84
 Comments to ANZFA about Applications A346, A362 and A363 from the Food Legislation and Regulation Advisory Group (FLRAG) of the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) on behalf of the PHAA, “Food produced from glyphosate-tolerant canola line GT73,” http://www.iher.org.au/
 M. Malatesta, C. Caporaloni, S. Gavaudan, M. B. Rocchi, S. Serafini, C. Tiberi, G. Gazzanelli, “Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173–180.
 M. Malatesta, C. Tiberi, B. Baldelli, S. Battistelli, E. Manuali, M. Biggiogera, “Reversibility of Hepatocyte Nuclear Modifications in Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” Eur J Histochem, 49 (2005): 237-242.
 I.V. Ermakova, “Diet with the Soya Modified by Gene EPSPS CP4 Leads to Anxiety and Aggression in Rats,” 14th European Congress of Psychiatry. Nice, France, March 4-8, 2006; “Genetically modified soy affects posterity: Results of Russian scientists’ studies,” REGNUM, October 12, 2005; http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html; Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.
 Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
 L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.
 Oliveri et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7–10, 2006.
 I.V. Ermakova, “Diet with the Soya Modified by Gene EPSPS CP4 Leads to Anxiety and Aggression in Rats,” 14th
European Congress of Psychiatry. Nice, France, March 4-8, 2006; “Genetically modified soy affects posterity: Results of Russian scientists’ studies,” REGNUM, October 12, 2005; http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html; Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.
 “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6494
 Mae-Wan Ho, “GM Ban Long Overdue, Dozens Ill & Five Deaths in the Philippines,” ISIS Press Release, June 2, 2006; and Mae-Wan Ho and Sam Burcher, “Cows Ate GM Maize & Died,” ISIS Press Release, January 13, 2004, http://www.isis.org.uk/CAGMMAD.php
 Personal communication with Jerry Rosman and other farmers, 2006; also reported widely in the farm press.
 See for example Mae-Wan Ho, “GM Ban Long Overdue, Dozens Ill & Five Deaths in the Philippines,” ISIS Press Release, June 2, 2006; “Study Result Not Final, Proof Bt Corn Harmful to Farmers,” BusinessWorld, 02 Mar 2004; and “Genetically Modified Crops and Illness Linked,” Manila Bulletin, 04 Mar 2004.
 Arpad Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84; Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad Pusztai, “Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine,” Lancet, 1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4; and Arpad Pusztai, “Facts Behind the GM Pea Controversy: Epigenetics, Transgenic Plants & Risk Assessment,” Proceedings of the Conference, December 1st 2005 (Frankfurtam Main, Germany: Literaturhaus, 2005)
 Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.
 Ricarda A. Steinbrecher and Jonathan R. Latham, “Horizontal gene transfer from GM crops to unrelated organisms,” GM Science Review Meeting of the Royal Society of Edinburgh on “GM Gene Flow: Scale and Consequences for Agriculture and the Environment,” January 27, 2003; Traavik and Heinemann, Genetic Engineering and Omitted Health Research; citing Schubbert, et al, “Ingested foreign (phage M13) DNA survives transiently in the gastrointestinal tract and enters the bloodstream of mice,” Mol Gen Genet. 242, no. 5 (1994): 495–504; Schubbert et al, “Foreign (M13) DNA ingested by mice reaches peripheral leukocytes, spleen, and liver via the intestinal wall mucosa and can be covalently linked to mouse DNA,” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94, no. 3 (1997): 961–6; Schubbert et al, “On the fate of orally ingested foreign DNA in mice: chromosomal association and placental transmission to the fetus,” Mol Gen Genet. 259, no. 6 (1998): 569–76; Hohlweg and Doerfler, “On the fate of plants or other foreign genes upon the uptake in food or after intramuscular injection in mice,” Mol Genet Genomics 265 (2001): 225–233; Palka-Santani, et al., “The gastrointestinal tract as the portal of entry for foreign macromolecules: fate of DNA and proteins,” Mol Gen Genomics 270 (2003): 201–215; Einspanier, et al, “The fate of forage plant DNA in farm animals; a collaborative case-study investigating cattle and chicken fed recombinant plant material,” Eur Food Res Technol 212 (2001): 129–134; Klotz, et al, “Degradation and possible carry over of feed DNA monitored in pigs and poultry,” Eur Food Res Technol 214 (2002): 271–275; Forsman, et al, “Uptake of amplifiable fragments of retrotransposon DNA from the human alimentary tract,” Mol Gen Genomics 270 (2003): 362–368; Chen, et al, “Transfection of mEpo gene to intestinal epithelium in vivo mediated by oral delivery of chitosan-DNA nanoparticles,” World Journal of Gastroenterology 10, no 1(2004): 112–116; Phipps, et al, “Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in rumen fluid, duodenal digesta, milk, blood, and feces of lactating dairy cows,” J Dairy Sci. 86, no. 12(2003): 4070–8.
 William E. Crist, Toxic L-tryptophan: Shedding Light on a Mysterious Epidemic, http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/L-tryptophan/index.cfm; and Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA 2003, chapter 4, Deadly Epidemic
Rep. Mayor, Harry Kim is intending to veto this bill banning GMO on taro and coffee on the Big Island.
Thanks to Richard Daimond and his Kauai Museletter:
Ban on GMO-Taro & Coffee Passed!
Mahalo from the heart! Ban on GMO-Taro & Coffee Passed!
following is a summary: please go to this link to read more:
Mahalo a nui loa !
Lokahi a lanakila. – Through unity comes victory.
Thanks to broad, resounding public support, Bill 361–to ban the growing
of genetically modified taro and coffee on the Big
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY at the Hawaii County Council meeting on Wednesday,
1,000 people wrote on behalf of protecting these important heritage
plants, and over 100 testified in person.
Growers are Heard: We DO NOT WANT GMOs!
Strong-arm Tactics by Biotech Continue.
* You can support our work, learn more, and get involved at:
What this GMO Ban Does
This bill effectively places a ban on the testing, propagation,
cultivation. introduction and release of genetically modified taro and
coffee on the island of Hawaii. The penalty for violating this ban is a
What is a GMO?
GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are patented plant mutants created
by inserting genes from one species into another unrelated species using
virus & bacteria to transfer the genes. For example, forcing wheat genes
into taro, or bacteria genes into corn. Organic food growers have rejected
GMO, and GMO foods cannot be certified as organic. GMO food safety has
never been proven on humans. This experimental technique is crude and
imprecise, unsafe, unnatural and rejected by the governments of most
nations and the majority of the world’s population.
Natural kope & kalo are just fine, thank you.
Together, our good work makes a difference, as has been shown with this
monumental victory on the Island of Hawai’i.
Thank you to all who support and continue to be vigilant in protecting
our aina.Uncategorized | Tags: Agriculture, Coffee, Environment, Food, Genetically modified food, Genetically modified organism, Hawaii, Organic food | Comment (0)