2012 Right to know-Label Gmos

Do you know if the foods you eat are genetically modified (GMOs)? If not, you would if they were labeled! Did you know that they're in about 70% of the processed foods on grocery store shelves, foods like breakfast cereals, soda, tortillas and salad dressings? Have you ever wondered just what a "genetically modified" food is? I did. When I found out, I decided I have a right to know what's in the food products on those shelves so that I can make an informed decision about the food I choose for myself and my family. And then an opportunity presented itself that allowed me to finally do something about it: A grassroots effort for a ballot initiative that, if voted in next November, will require labeling of food products that contain GMOs. If you'd like to know more about or get involved in this issue, the 2012 Right-to-Know, Label GMOs initiative, you can: visit the EG Online community page, and check out the Events section, too visit www.labelgmos.org For me, this movement is about food freedom. How do you feel about this?

Curing of depression and also using to fight alcoholism years ago...

By Dr Andrew Saul Niacin is vitamin B-3, one of the water soluble B-complex vitamins. One of niacin's unique properties is its ability to help you naturally relax and get to sleep more rapidly at night. And it is well established that niacin helps reduce harmful cholesterol levels in the bloodstream. Abram Hoffer, M.D., Ph.D. explains: "Niacin is one of the best substances for elevating high density lipoprotein cholesterol (the "good cholesterol) and so decreases the ratio of the total cholesterol over high density cholesterol." Another niacin feature is its ability to greatly reduce anxiety and depression. Yet another feature of niacin is that it dilates blood vessels and creates a sensation of warmth, called a "niacin flush." This is often accompanied with a blushing of the skin. It is this "flush" or sensation of heat that indicates a temporary saturation of niacin, and that is our topic here. When you flush, you can literally see and feel that you've taken enough niacin. The idea is to initially take just enough niacin to have a slight flush. This means a pinkness about the cheeks, ears, neck, forearms and perhaps elsewhere. A slight niacin flush should end in about ten minutes or so. If you take too much niacin, the flush may be more pronounced and longer lasting. If you flush beet red for half an hour and feel weird, well, you took too much. And large doses of niacin on an empty stomach is certain to cause profound flushing. Dr. Hoffer writes: "With larger initial doses, the flush is more pronounced and lasts longer," says Dr. Hoffer. "But with each additional dose, the intensity of the flush decreases and in most patients becomes a minor nuisance rather than an irritant. Niacin should always be taken immediately after finishing ones meal." I have found that the best way for me to accurately control the flushing sensation is to start with very small amounts of niacin and gradually increase until the first flush is noticed. One method is to start with a mere 25 milligrams (25 mg) three times a day, say with each meal. The next day, try 50 mg at breakfast, 25 mg at lunch and 25 mg at supper. The following day, one might try 50 mg at breakfast, 50 mg at lunch, and 25 mg at supper. And, the next day, 50 mg at each of the three meals. The next day, 75 mg, 50 mg and 50 mg. Then, 75. 75 and 50, and so on. In this way you have increased at the easy rate of only 25 mg per day. One would continue to increase the dosage by 25 mg per day until the flush occurs. It is difficult to predict a saturation level for niacin because each person is different. As a general rule, the more you hold, the more you need. If you flush early, you don't need much niacin. If flushing doesn't happen until a high level, then your body is obviously using the higher amount of the vitamin. Now that you've had your first flush, what next? Since a flush indicates saturation of niacin, it is desirable to continue to repeat the flushing, just very slightly, to continue the saturation. This could be done three or more times a day. To get to sleep sooner at night, niacin can be taken to saturation at bedtime, too. You might be asleep before you even notice the flush. An important point here is that niacin is a vitamin, not a drug. It is not habit forming. Niacin does not require a prescription because it is that safe. It is a nutrient that everyone needs each day. Different people in different circumstances require different amounts of niacin. Says Dr. Hoffer: "A person's "upper limit is that amount which causes nausea, and, if not reduced, vomiting. The dose should never be allowed to remain at this upper limit. The usual dose range is 3,000 to 9,000 milligrams daily divided into three doses, but occasionally some patients may need more. The toxic dose for dogs is about 5,000 milligrams per 2.2 pounds (1 kilogram) body weight. We do not know the toxic dose for humans since niacin has never killed anyone." Inevitable physician skepticism and questions about niacin's proven safety and effectiveness are best answered in Orthomolecular Psychiatry, edited by David Hawkins, M.D. and Linus Pauling, Ph.D. This nearly 700 page textbook is the standard reference for details on niacin therapy. Persons with a history of heavy alcohol use, liver disorders, diabetes, or pregnancy will especially want to have their physician monitor their use of niacin in quantity. Monitoring long-term use of niacin is a good idea for anyone. It consists of having your doctor check your liver function with a simple blood test. Plain and simple niacin may be purchased in tablets at any pharmacy or health food store. Tablets typically are available in 50 mg, 100 mg, or 250 mg dosages. The tablets are usually scored down the middle so you can break them in half easily. You can break the halves in half, too, to get the exact amount you want. If a niacin tablet is taken on an empty stomach, a flush will occur (if it is going to occur at all) within about 20 minutes. If niacin is taken right after a meal, a flush may be delayed. In fact, the flush may occur long enough afterwards that you forgot that you took the niacin! Don't let the flush surprise you. Remember that niacin does that, and you can monitor it easily. If you want a flush right away, you can powder the niacin tablet. This is easily done by crushing it between two spoons. Powdered niacin on an empty stomach can result in a flush within minutes. Sustained release niacin is often advertised as not causing a flush at all. This claim may not be completely true; sometimes the flush is just postponed. It would probably be difficult to determine your saturation level with a sustained- or time-released product. They are also more costly. There is nothing wrong with niacinAMIDE, by the way. That form of vitamin B-3 is frequently found in multiple vitamins and B-complex preparations. Niacinamide does not cause a flush at all. In my opinion, it is less effective in inducing relaxation and calming effects. Niacinamide also does not significantly lower serum cholesterol. This is an important distinction to make when purchasing. It is a good idea to take all the other B-complex vitamins in a separate supplement in addition to the niacin. The B-vitamins, like professional baseball players, work best as a team. Still, the body seems to need proportionally more niacin than the other B vitamins. Even the U.S. Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for niacin is much more than for any other B-vitamin. Many physicians consider the current RDA for niacin of only 20 mg to be way too low for optimum health. While the government continues to discuss this, it is possible to decide for yourself based on the success of doctors that use niacin for their patients every day. TO FLUSH OR NOT TO FLUSH? That is this reader’s question: ”We have learned a great deal from your site and your books and also enjoy them. We have also incorporated some of your suggestions in our lifestyle. My question for you is an attempt to clarify what seems to be a difference of opinion about the niacin flush between you and Dr. Hoffer. He had written ( http://www.doctoryourself.com//hoffer_niacin.html ) that the niacin flush is normal with many people and will diminish or go away as the patient continues to use niacin at his recommended level of 3,000 milligrams per day. You, however, state that the flush is an indication of no niacin deficiency ( http://www.doctoryourself.com/niacin.html ). Who is correct or am I misinterpreting one of you?” Andrew Saul’s Response: This is how I look at it: Generally speaking, people in fairly good health usually choose to increase their doses gradually in order to minimize flushing. If they do increase the dose slowly, what I describe is pretty accurate. For instance, I've been taking niacin for years, in daily but varying doses depending on my stress level or dietary intake. I know by the flush when I've had enough for the moment. It is like turning off the hot water when the tub is full enough for a nice bath. Dr Hoffer is highly experienced with serious psychiatric cases. Such patients have a niacin dependency, not a mere deficiency. Let’s let him speak for himself: Abram Hoffer, MD, writes: “We are both correct. Most people flush at the beginning and gradually get adapted to it unless they stop for a few days and then resume it. A few cannot ever get used to it, and they take the no-flush preparations. But the intensity of the flush is very variable. Generally people who need it the most flush the least. That includes arthritics, schizophrenics, and elderly people with cardiovascular problems. Some schizophrenics do not flush until they get well and then they do. But the presence of the flush or its intensity can not be uniquely used measure the need as there are too many variables such as food in the stomach, whether the drink with it is hot or cold, the kind of food, other medication.” Thank you for following these blogs and I will continue to share new findings .. Please share some of these ideas... Watch some YouTube confessions on the effectiveness of the Gerson Therapy

So why aren't gmos labeled?

February 15, 2011, 9:00 PM Why Aren’t G.M.O. Foods Labeled? By MARK BITTMAN Mark Bittman on food and all things related. TAGS: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, FOOD LABELING, GENETIC MODIFICATION If you want to avoid sugar, aspartame, trans-fats, MSG, or just about anything else, you read the label. If you want to avoid G.M.O.’s — genetically modified organisms — you’re out of luck. They’re not listed. You could, until now, simply buy organic foods, which by law can’t contain more than 5 percent G.M.O.’s. Now, however, even that may not work. In the last three weeks, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved three new kinds of genetically engineered (G.E.) foods: alfalfa (which becomes hay), a type of corn grown to produce ethanol), and  sugar beets. And the approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a super-fast-growing salmon — the first genetically modified animal to be sold in the U.S., but probably not the last — may not be far behind. It’s unlikely that these products’ potential  benefits could possibly outweigh their potential for harm. But even more unbelievable is that the F.D.A.and the U.S.D.A. will not require any of these products, or foods containing them, to be labeled as genetically engineered, because they don’t want to “suggest or imply” that these foods are “different.” (Labels with half-truths about health benefits appear to be O.K., but that’s another story.) They are arguably different, but more important, people are leery of them. Nearly an entire continent — it’s called Europe — is so wary that G.E. crops are barely grown there and there are strict bans on imports (that policy is in danger). Furthermore, most foods containing more than 0.9 percent G.M.O.’s must be labeled. G.E. products may grow faster, require fewer pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides, and reduce stress on land, water and other resources; they may be more profitable to farmers. But many of these claims are in dispute, and advances in conventional agriculture, some as simple as drip irrigation, may achieve these same goals more simply. Certainly conventional agriculture is more affordable for poor farmers, and most of the worlds’ farmers are poor. (The surge in suicides among Indian farmers has been attributed by some, at least in part, to G.E. crops, and it’s entirely possible that what’s needed to feed the world’s hungry is not new technology but a better distribution system and a reduction of waste.) To be fair, two of the biggest fears about G.E. crops and animals — their potential to provoke allergic reactions and the transfer to humans of antibiotic-resistant properties of G.M.O.’s — have not come to pass. (As far as I can tell, though, they remain real dangers.) But there has been cross-breeding of natural crops and species with those that have been genetically engineered, and when ethanol corn cross-pollinates feed corn, the results could degrade the feed corn; when G.E. alfalfa cross-pollinates organic alfalfa, that alfalfa is no longer organic; if a G.E. salmon egg is fertilized by a wild salmon, or a transgenic fish escapes into the wild and breeds with a wild fish … it’s not clear what will happen. This last scenario is impossible, say the creators of the G.E. salmon — a biotech company called AquaBounty — whose interest in approval makes their judgment all but useless. (One Fish and Wildlife Service scientist wrote in material obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, “Maybe they should watch ‘Jurassic Park.’ “) RELATED What Do You Think About G.M.O. Foods? In his blog, Mark Bittman is asking readers what they think of genetically engineered foods. Visit the blog » But the testing process is suspect: the F.D.A. relied on data submitted by AquaBounty (that data is for fish raised in Prince Edward Island, even though the company plans to raise the fish in Panama, which is possibly illegal). Also curious is that the salmon is being categorized as a “new animal drug” which means that the advisory committee in charge of evaluating it is composed mostly of veterinarians and animal scientists, instead of, say, fish ecologists or experts in food safety. Not surprisingly, the biotech industry has spent over half a billion dollars on G.M.O. lobbyists in the last decade, and Michael Taylor, the F.D.A. deputy commissioner for foods, was once vice president for public policy at Monsanto. Numerous groups of consumers, farmers, environmental advocates, scientists, supporters of organic food and now even congressmen — last week, a bill was introduced to ban G.E. salmon — believe that the approval process demonstrated a bias towards the industry. Cross-breeding is guaranteed with alfalfa and likely with corn. (The U.S.D.A. claims to be figuring out ways to avoid this happening, but by then the damage may already be done.) And the organic dairy industry is going to suffer immediate and frightening losses when G.E. alfalfa is widely grown, since many dairy cows eat dried alfalfa (hay), and the contamination of organic alfalfa means the milk of animals fed with that hay can no longer be called organic. Likewise, when feed corn is contaminated by G.E. ethanol corn, the products produced from it won’t be organic. (On the one hand, U.S.D.A. joins the F.D.A. in not seeing G.E. foods as materially different; on the other it limits the amount found in organic foods. Hello? Guys? Could you at least pretend to be consistent?) The subject is unquestionably complex. Few people outside of scientists working in the field — self included — understand much of anything about gene altering. Still, an older ABC poll found that a majority of Americans believe that G.M.O.’s are unsafe, even more say they’re less likely to buy them, and a more recent CBS/NYT poll found a whopping 87 percent — you don’t see a poll number like that too often — wants them labeled. In the long run, genetic engineering may prove to be useful. Or not. The science is adolescent at best; not even its strongest advocates can guarantee that there aren’t hidden dangers. So consumers are understandably cautious, and whether that’s justified or paranoid, it would seem we have a right to know as much as Europeans do. Even more than questionable approvals, it’s the unwillingness to label these products as such — even the G.E. salmon will be sold without distinction — that is demeaning and undemocratic, and the real reason is clear: producers and producer-friendly agencies correctly suspect that consumers will steer clear of G.E. products if they can identify them. Which may make them unprofitable. Where is the free market when we need it? A majority of our food already contains G.M.O.’s, and there’s little reason to think more isn’t on the way. It seems our “regulators” are using us and the environment as guinea pigs, rather than demanding conclusive tests. And without labeling, we have no say in the matter whatsoever. Visit my blog, where you can find out more about my last column, or what I just cooked. You can also join me on Facebook or Twitter. This post has been revised to reflect the following correction: Correction: February 16, 2011 An earlier version of this column omitted the name of the agency responsible for approving the genetically engineered salmon. It is the Food and Drug Administration.

So at day 4 this is how it feels.....

"I only picture an old thanksgiving bowl sitting on a table dazzling with a robust and colorful selection of handpicked fruits only to find as I reach to pick a piece from the basket the fruit is weightless and hard like plastic...." Now I could have grown up on a farm where my father and mother would have taught me the significance of learning to grow a garden. I could have paid attention in science class as a benefactor of surviving on herbs and organic remedies. Yet I grow up on burger king row and microwave intersection in a subdivision called GMO. I decided to pay attention when my health was on a great decline as I battled with an addiction to painkillers. The hardest battle yet to confront me . I don't blame the drugs oh no cause if I had them, I wouldn't worry and I wouldn't feel. As long as I had them. So as I wonder how to survive among the grave mistake, we are allowing to go on. I can't help but make it my dream and goal to get to the very bottom of this and quickly! What are the effects of GMO'S ? Is my health at a state that I must reshape my thinking and eating habits in order to remain alive. Sometimes the answers are stuck right in the middle of some questions. So now I want to know more about this fake food I have been eating all my life and what are the effects it may have on my mental state of mind. I wonder who should be held responsible for allowing GMO'S ( genetically modified organisms )onto the market. I then have to realize noone made me purchase these products to eat. As I understand the fuss and decide what is real and what is fake I uncover more details that lay out an entire industrial assault on our biological and ecological system of life. What is a GMO ? It is an organism of life in plant or animal or even human that is cross hatched with the gene of another life form to produce Predetermined results of life forms or expected reactions to stunt growth, accelerate it. Make a cat hairless? I don't know I'm not a scientist I am a tattooer. One of the best ways to support this is the crap we hear about an option of choosing your baby's hair color or gender. Society has come to accept this lingo as science jibber Not knowing they did just that to our food system .... Yep! I know and if you are not alarmed then I must explain what really is going on. Your body is a big mass of cells that require alot of nutrition to create energy. Just as soil in the ground must have all of its nutrients to be able to sustain a healthy life of seeds and plant life, so to our bodies require the same nutrition to sustain a healthy life. GMO'S are quick industrial or processed food that really look like the real deal and can be disguised enough to even resemble the flavors like when you sprinkle the powders on a roman noodle soup. What man has failed to do over and over is try to play god and create or cheat life. Well at this moment we think we are eating cheap and in good shape we only receive a small portion of nutrients out of the GMO'S and scientists forgot after they made it grow big and pretty and taste juicy and flavorful with textures like a real one ,they left out the most vital compound of all creations when they were designing their fast food restaurant industry. "Nutrients" Our bodies are made of cells that need alot of nutrition to create energy. GMO'S lack in nutrition and is the number one reason we are all sick in America. Just as our bodies need all these nutrients to sustain a healthy life So does the soil and all the big corporations that buy up all the land to produce and mass market their fake thanksgiving ornaments of food and sell them knowing they lack all the nutrients, takes it's toll on the soil as they muscle for rank to last the longest on the shelf and save billions and pass on the loss to us in the form of health problems from heart attack ,strokes , cancer and many other deadly diseases. It's why the pharmaceutical company is bigger than the nba nfl and hockey combined then multiplied by 1000!!!! It is a bio ecological assault on mankind and I don't even know how to plant and grow a garden of sustainable foods. Hell I don't even know how to cook using fruits , veggies and minimal meat. So this is my journey to test the truths of what's been said and already in the 4th day to say no to GMO'S and I am happy and not depressed, I am completely free from the bondage of industrial medicine and foods. Join me in this exciting and real transformation Saying no to GMO'S And saying yes to Local grown certified organic If you have land grow all organic no seeds from the companies who claim they are safe or treated with hormones . Don't listen nor trust anything otherwise UNTIL the legislature vote that all tampering of genetic life organisms, for the purpose of altering the appearance or behavior be stopped and ban it from the USA . Stand up for your self and your health and don't allow this to go on another day! Drive past the jack in th crack or Wendy's and just picture in that bowl of fruits and vegetables made of plastic as ornaments, fake food a garage sale of fake taste alike foods that kill silently inside us. On this page share your stories as well as your stories and lets use our evolution and technology to save our very own lives. If you are reading this far into this then you have an idea how big this really is and I thank you only if you spread this to all corners of the earth.... Boycott this company! http://www.monsanto.com/produc ts/pages/default.aspx "i

Why would the president OBAMA promise to do this in AMERICA if its not a concern.?

While on the campaign trail in 2007, Barack Obama promised to label GMO foods if elected. Now's the time! Today, an estimated 80% of processed foods contain GMOs. Tell President Obama you agree that the U.S. needs GMO labeling "because Americans should know what they're buying".

For the past 20 years, Americans have been denied the right to know what's in their food. Help make this the Change We Can Believe In: action.fooddemocracynow.org/​sign/​label_gmos_now/

This movie made aware what was wrong with eating GMOS.

After watching this it challenged me to see for myself and it seems that pandoras box has been opened.
If you are any least interested or curious I highly suggest you MAKE time to see this documentary.

FREE!!!FULL MOVIE HERE

What is a GMO?Learn about them now!

SayNoToGMOs.org - Get started! from April Macaraeg on Vimeo.

GMOs are used in biological and medical research, production of pharmaceutical drugs, experimental medicine (e.g. gene therapy), and agriculture (e.g. golden rice). The term "genetically modified organism" does not always imply, but can include, targeted insertions of genes from one species into another. For example, a gene from a jellyfish, encoding a fluorescent protein called GFP, can be physically linked and thus co-expressed with mammalian genes to identify the location of the protein encoded by the GFP-tagged gene in the mammalian cell. Such methods are useful tools for biologists in many areas of research, including those who study the mechanisms of human and other diseases or fundamental biological processes in eukaryotic or prokaryotic cells.

To date the most controversial but also the most widely adopted application of GMO technology is patent-protected food crops which are resistant to commercial herbicides or are able to produce pesticidal proteins from within the plant, or stacked trait seeds, which do both. The largest share of the GMO crops planted globally are owned by the US firm Monsanto.[12] In 2007, Monsanto's trait technologies were planted on 246 million acres (1,000,000 km2) throughout the world, a growth of 13 percent from 2006. However, patents on the first Monsanto products to enter the marketplace will begin to expire in 2014, democratizing Monsanto products. In addition, a 2007 report from the European Joint Research Commission predicts that by 2015, more than 40 per cent of new GM plants entering the global marketplace will have been developed in Asia.[13]

In the corn market, Monsanto's triple-stack corn—which combines Roundup Ready 2 weed control technology with YieldGard Corn Borer and YieldGard Rootworm insect control—is the market leader in the United States. U.S. corn farmers planted more than 32 million acres (130,000 km2) of triple-stack corn in 2008,[14] and it is estimated the product could be planted on 56 million acres (230,000 km2) in 2014–2015. In the cotton market, Bollgard II with Roundup Ready Flex was planted on approximately 5 million acres (20,000 km2) of U.S. cotton in 2008.[15]

According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), in 2010 approximately 15 million farmers grew biotech crops in 29 countries. Over 90% of the farmers were resource-poor in developing countries.[16] 6.5 million farmers in China and 6.3 million small farmers in India grew biotech crops (mostly Bacillus thuringiensis cotton). The Philippines, South Africa (biotech cotton, maize and soybeans often grown by subsistence women farmers) and another twelve developing countries also grew biotech crops in 2009.[17] 10 million more small and resource-poor farmers may have been secondary beneficiaries of Bt cotton in China.

The global commercial value of biotech crops grown in 2008 was estimated to be US$130 billion.[17]

In the United States, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports on the total area of GMO varieties planted.[18] According to National Agricultural Statistics Service, the states published in these tables represent 81–86 percent of all corn planted area, 88–90 percent of all soybean planted area, and 81–93 percent of all upland cotton planted area (depending on the year).

USDA does not collect data for global area. Estimates are produced by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) and can be found in the report, "Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2007".[19]

Transgenic animals are also becoming useful commercially. On February 6, 2009 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first human biological drug produced from such an animal, a goat. The drug, ATryn, is an anticoagulant which reduces the probability of blood clots during surgery or childbirth. It is extracted from the goat's milk.[20]
[edit]
Detection

Testing on GMOs in food and feed is routinely done by molecular techniques like DNA microarrays or qPCR. The test can be based on screening elements (like p35S, tNos, pat, or bar) or event-specific markers for the official GMOs (like Mon810, Bt11, or GT73). The array-based method combines multiplex PCR and array technology to screen samples for different potential GMOs,[21] combining different approaches (screening elements, plant-specific markers, and event-specific markers). The qPCR is used to detect specific GMO events by usage of specific primers for screening elements or event-specific markers.

To avoid any kind of false positive or false negative testing outcome, comprehensive controls for every step of the process is mandatory. A CaMV check is important to avoid false positive outcomes based on virus contamination of the sample.
[edit]
Transgenic microbes

Bacteria were the first organisms to be modified in the laboratory, due to their simple genetics.[22] These organisms are now used for several purposes, and are particularly important in producing large amounts of pure human proteins for use in medicine.[23]

Genetically modified bacteria are used to produce the protein insulin to treat diabetes.[24] Similar bacteria have been used to produce clotting factors to treat haemophilia,[25] and human growth hormone to treat various forms of dwarfism.[26][27]
[edit]
Transgenic animals

Some chimeras, like the blotched mouse shown, are created through genetic modification techniques like gene targeting.

Transgenic animals are used as experimental models to perform phenotypic and for testing in biomedical research.[28]

Genetically Modified (Genetically Engineered) animals are becoming more vital to the discovery and development of cures and treatments for many serious diseases. By altering the DNA or transferring DNA to an animal, we can develop certain proteins that may be used in medical treatment. Stable expressions of human proteins have been developed in many animals, including sheep, pigs, and rats.

Some examples are: Human-alpha-1-antitrypsin,[29] which has been developed in sheep and is used in treating humans with this deficency and transgenic pigs with human-histo-compatibility have been studied in the hopes that the organs will be suitable for transplant with less chances of rejection. Transgenic livestock have been used as bioreactors since the 1990s. Many medicines, including insulin and many immunizations are developed in transgenic animals.[30] In March 2011, the bioactive recombinant Human Lysozyme was expressed in the milk of cloned transgenic cattle. This field is growing rapidly and new pharming uses are being discovered and developed. The extent that trangenic animals will be useful in the medical field as well as other fields is very promising based on results thus far.[31]
[edit]
Fruit flies

In biological research, transgenic fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) are model organisms used to study the effects of genetic changes on development.[32] Fruit flies are often preferred over other animals due to their short life cycle, low maintenance requirements, and relatively simple genome compared to many vertebrates.
[edit]
Mosquitoes

In 2010, scientists created "malaria-resistant mosquitoes" in the laboratory.[33][34][35] The World Health Organisation estimated that Malaria killed almost one million people in 2008.[36] Genetically modified male mosquitoes containing a lethal gene have been developed in order to combat the spread of Dengue fever.[37] Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, the single most important carrier of dengue fever, were reduced by 80% in a 2010 trial of these GM mosquitoes in the Cayman Islands.[38] Between 50 - 100 million people are affected by Dengue fever every year and 40,000 people die from it.[39]
[edit]
Bollworms

A strain of Pectinophora gossypiella (Pink bollworm) has been developed that contains a fluorescent marker in their DNA. This allows researchers to monitor bollworms that have been sterilized by radiation and released in order to reduce bollworm infestation.[40][39]
[edit]
Mammals

Genetically modified mammals are an important category of genetically modified organisms. Transgenic mice are often used to study cellular and tissue-specific responses to disease.

In 1999, scientists at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada created the genetically engineered Enviropig. The Enviropig excretes from 30 to 70.7% less phosphorus in manure depending upon the age and diet.[41] In February 2010, Environment Canada determined that Enviropigs are in compliance with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and can be produced outside of the research context in controlled facilities where they are segregated from other animals.[42]

In 2009, scientists in Japan announced that they had successfully transferred a gene into a primate species (marmosets) and produced a stable line of breeding transgenic primates for the first time.[43][44] Their first research target for these marmosets was Parkinson's disease, but they were also considering Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and Huntington's disease.[45]

In 2011, scientists in China released news that they have introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk. Aside from milk production, the researchers claim these transgenic cows to be identical to regular cows.[46]
[edit]
Cnidarians

Cnidarians such as Hydra and the sea anemone Nematostella vectensis have become attractive model organisms to study the evolution of immunity and certain developmental processes. An important technical breakthrough was the development of procedures for generation of stably transgenic hydras and sea anemones by embryo microinjection.[47]
[edit]
Fish

Genetically modified fish have promoters driving an over-production of "all fish" growth hormone. This resulted in dramatic growth enhancement in several species, including salmonids,[48] carps[49] and tilapias.[50]
[edit]
Gene therapy

Gene therapy,[51] uses genetically modified viruses to deliver genes that can cure disease into human cells. Although gene therapy is still relatively new, it has had some successes. It has been used to treat genetic disorders such as severe combined immunodeficiency,[52] and treatments are being developed for a range of other currently incurable diseases, such as cystic fibrosis,[53] sickle cell anemia,[54] Parkinson's disease[55][56] and muscular dystrophy.[57] Current gene therapy technology only targets the non-reproductive cells meaning that any changes introduced by the treatment can not be transmitted to the next generation. Gene therapy targeting the reproductive cells—so-called "Germ line Gene Therapy"—is very controversial and is unlikely to be developed in the near future.
[edit]
Transgenic plants

Kenyans examining insect-resistant transgenic Bt corn

Transgenic plants have been engineered to possess several desirable traits, such as resistance to pests, herbicides, or harsh environmental conditions, improved product shelf life, and increased nutritional value. Since the first commercial cultivation of genetically modified plants in 1996, they have been modified to be tolerant to the herbicides glufosinate and glyphosate, to be resistant to virus damage as in Ringspot virus-resistant GM papaya, grown in Hawaii, and to produce the Bt toxin, an insecticide that is non-toxic to mammals.[58]

Most GM crops grown today have been modified with "input traits", which provide benefits mainly to farmers. The GM oilseed crops on the market today offer improved oil profiles for processing or healthier edible oils.[59] The GM crops in development offer a wider array of environmental and consumer benefits such as nutritional enhancement, drought and stress tolerance. GM plants are being developed by both private companies and public research institutions such as CIMMYT, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre.[60] Other examples include a genetically modified sweet potato, enhanced with protein and other nutrients, while golden rice, developed by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), has been discussed as a possible cure for Vitamin A deficiency.[61] Scientists at the University of York developed a weed (Arabidopsis thaliana) which contained genes from bacteria that can clean up TNT and RDX explosive contaminants from the soil and it was hoped that this weed would eliminate this pollution.[62] 16 million hectares in the USA (1.5% of the total surface) are estimated to be contaminated with TNT and RDX. However the weed Arabidopsis thaliana was not tough enough to withstand the environment on military test grounds and research is continuing with the University of Washington to develop a tougher native grass.[63]

The coexistence of GM plants with conventional and organic crops has raised significant concern in many European countries. Due to relatively high demand from European consumers for the freedom of choice between GM and non-GM foods, EU regulations require measures to avoid mixing of foods and feed produced from GM crops and conventional or organic crops. European research programs such as Co-Extra, Transcontainer, and SIGMEA are investigating appropriate tools and rules. At the field level, biological containment methods include isolation distance and pollen barriers. Such measures are generally not used in North America because they are very costly and there are no safety-related reasons to employ them.[64]
[edit]
Cisgenic plants

Cisgenesis, sometimes also called Intragenesis, is a product designation for a category of genetically engineered plants. A variety of classification schemes have been proposed,[65] that order genetically modified organisms based on the nature of introduced genotypical changes rather than the process of genetic engineering.

While some genetically modified plants are developed by the introduction of a gene originating from distant, sexually incompatible species into the host genome, cisgenic plants contain genes which have been isolated either directly from the host species or from sexually compatible species. The new genes are introduced using recombinant DNA methods and gene transfer. Some scientists hope that the approval process of cisgenic plants might be simpler than that of proper transgenics,[66] but it remains to be seen.[67]
[edit]
Regulation
Main article: Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms

The USA is the largest commercial grower of genetically modified crops in the world.[17] For a genetically modified organism to be approved for release it is assessed by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) agency within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The USDA evaluated the plants potential to become weeds, the FDA reviewed plants that could enter or alter the food supply and the EPA regulated the genetically modified plants with pesticide properties. Most developed genetically modified plants are reviewed by at least two of the agencies, with many subject to all three.[68][69] Final approval can still be denied by individual counties within each state. In 2004, Mendocino County, California became the first and only county to impose a ban on the "Propagation, Cultivation, Raising, and Growing of Genetically Modified Organisms", the measure passing with a 57% majority.[70]

The European Union (EU) has possibly the most stringent GMO regulations in the world.[71] All GMOs, along with irradiated food, are considered "new food" and subject to extensive, case-by-case, science based food evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The EFSA reports to the European Commission who then draft a proposal which if accepted will be adopted by the EC or passed on to the Council of Agricultural Ministers.[71] There is also a safeguard clause that Member States can invoke to restrict or prohibit the use and/or sale of a GMO within their territory if they have a justifiable reasons to consider that the approved GMO constitutes a risk to human health or the environment.[72] In February 2008 the French government used the safeguard clause to ban the cultivation of MON810 after Senator Jean-François Le Grand, chairman of a committee set up to evaluate biotechnology, said there were "serious doubts" about the safety of the product.[73] In April 2009 German Federal Minister Ilse Aigner announced an immediate halt to cultivation and marketing of MON810 maize under the safeguard clause.[74]

Currently (2010) the only GMO food crop with approval for cultivation in Europe is the GM maize MON810, which gained approval in 1998. On 2 March 2010 a second GMO, a potato called Amflora, was approved for cultivation for industrial applications in the EU by the European Commission[75] and was grown in Germany, Sweden and the Czech Republic that year.[76] Co-existence of GM and non-GM crops is regulated by the use of buffer zones and isolation distances between the GM and non-GM crops.[77][77] The regulations concerning the import and sale of GMOs for human and animal consumption grown outside the EU involve providing freedom of choice to the farmers and consumers.[78] Twice GMOs unapproved by the EC have arrived in the EU and been forced to return to their port of origin.[71] The first was in 2006 when a shipment of rice from America containing an experimental GMO variety (LLRice601) not meant for commercialisation arrived at Rotterdam. The second in 2009 when trace amounts of a GMO maize approved in the US were found in a "non-GM" soy flour cargo.[71]

Genetic engineering in Australia is overseen by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), a Commonwealth Government Authority within the Department of Health and Ageing. The OGTR reports directly to Parliament through a Ministerial Council on Gene Technology and has legislative powers.[79][80] The OGTR decides on license applications for the release of all genetically modified organisms and Food Standards Australia New Zealand regulates any GM food. Individual state governments are able to assess the impact of release on markets and trade and apply further legislation to control approved genetically modified products.[81] In 2007 the New South Wales government extended a blanket moratorium on GM food crops until 2011, but approved GM Canola for commercial cultivation in 2008.[82] GM canola is grown in Western Australia,[83] while South Australia and Tasmania have extended their moratoriums on all genetically modified crops.[82]

Health Canada, under the Food and Drugs Act, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency[84] are responsible for evaluating the safety and nutritional value of genetically modified foods.[85] The committee that reviewed the regulations in 2003 was accused by environmental and citizen groups of not representing the full spectrum of public interests and for being too closely aligned to industry groups.[86] In central and South America Mexico, Honduras, Costa Rico, Colombia, Bolivia, Paraguay, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil all grow GM crops. In Argentina the National Agricultural Biotechnology Advisory Committee (environmental impact), the National Service of Health and Agrifood Quality (food safety) and the National Agribusiness Direction (effect on trade) assess GM products for release, with the final decision made by the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Fishery and Food.[87] In Brazil the National Biosafety Technical Commission is responsible for assessing environmental and food safety and prepares guidelines for transport, importation and field experiments involving GM products. The Council of Ministers evaluates the commercial and economical issues with release.[87] Mexico's senate passed a law allowing planting and selling of genetically modified cotton and soybean in Mexicoin 2005[88] and in 2009 the government enacted statutory provisions for the regulation of genetically modified maize[89] Mexico is the center of diversity for maize and concerns have been raised about the impact genetically modified maize could have on local strains.[90][91]

GM crops in China go through three phases of field trials (pilot field testing, environmental release testing, and preproduction testing) before they are submitted to the Office of Agricultural Genetic Engineering Biosafety Administration (OAGEBA) for assessment.[92] Producers must apply to OAGEBA at each stage of the field tests. The Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology developed the first biosafety regulations for GM products in 1993 and they were updated in 2001.[93] Most of the National Biosafety Committee are involved in biotechnology leading to criticisms that they do not represent a wide enough range of public concerns.[92] India regulators cleared the Bt brinjal, a genetically modified eggplant, for commercialisation in October 2009. Following opposition from some scientists, farmers and environmental groups a moratorium was imposed on its release in February 2010.[94][95] The only other Asian country to currently grow GM crops is the Phillipenes.[96]

In 2010, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) proposed a policy where new GM crops would be scientifically assessed by COMESA. If it was demeed safe for the environmental and human health permission would be granted for the crop to be grown in all 19 member countries, although the final decision would be left to each individual country.[97] In 2010 South Africa was the major grower of genetically modified crops in Africa, with smaller areas planted in Burkina Faso and Egypt.[98] Burkina Faso has established a National Biosafety Agency that regulates GM products with advice from various governmental and non-governmental advisory committees.[99] Kenya passed laws in 2011 which allowed the production and importation of GM crops.[100] The Zambian government rejected a consignment of GMO maize supplied by donors during a famine in 2002 on the basis of the Cartagena Protocol. [101][102]

One of the key issues concerning regulators is whether GM products should be labeled. Labeling can be mandatory up to a threshold GM content level (which varies between countries) or voluntary. A study investigating voluntary labeling in South Africa found that 31% of products labeled as GMO-free had a GM content above 1.0%.[103] In Canada and the USA labeling of GM food is voluntary,[104] while in Europe it all food (including processed food) or feed which contains greater than 0.9% of approved GMOs must be labelled.[71]
Click Here for GMO DESCRIPTIONS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism

http://www.saynotogmos.org/10reasons_need.pdf