As the dog days of summer visit your area, it’s difficult to ignore the sizzling temperature in your indoor space. No one likes to be hot and sweaty, so it’s natural for homeowners to turn up their AC and let the cool air circulate through the home. While using your AC to maintain your indoor temperature will undoubtedly make you feel comfortable, the solution becomes less attractive when you receive your electric bill at the end of the month. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Americans spend approximately $40 billion annually on air conditioning, which translates to the stunning figure of over 183 billion kilowatt-hours. However, keeping your home comfortable doesn’t need to cost you a bundle. Try these tricks to slash back your energy costs this summer while staying cool and happy.
1) Operate Your Thermostat Strategically
The first way to lower your utility bill is by keeping the difference between the indoor and outdoor temperatures minimal. Program your thermostat in such a way to reflect your daily routine so that it automatically turns off when you are gone. U.S. News & World Report has found just doing these two things can reduce your annual cooling bill by 30%.
2) Plant Tall Trees around the House
Reduce direct contact of solar heat with your roof by improving plantings around your home. Because most of the heat is transferred through the roof, you want to plant leafy, 15 to 20 feet trees to shade your home. If the shade also covers your air conditioner, your AC’s efficiency can be boosted up by approximately 10%, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
3) Quick, Easy Cooking
Cooking takes up heat and energy which can dramatically warm up your house. Turning on the oven heats up the rest of the house and forces your air conditioner to go into overdrive. Instead of using the oven or making a big fancy meal, consider using your outdoor grill. If you still need to make something indoors, a toaster oven or the stovetop are better alternatives because they give off less heat than the oven.
4) Keep Your Cool Air Concentrated
It takes much more energy to cool down the entire house than it does to cool a specific area. During the peak heat, try to restrict your activity to certain areas in the house. Close the doors and the vents of any unused rooms to enjoy a cool indoor space without overworking your AC.
5) Dress up Your Windows
Stop the sun rays from penetrating your windows by using awnings, drapes, and other shades. Additionally, solar screens, or mesh-like window screens can intercept up to 70 percent of solar energy. Keep your windows tightly shut to prevent heat infiltration and cool air loss.
6) Use the Fans
Use your ceiling fans to circulate the cool air around the house. According to CheatSheet.com, “Fans use a lot less electricity than an air conditioner. If you strategically place your fans in your house, it can keep cool air circulating in the house, preventing your home from getting too warm.”
Five Easy Home Improvements To Make Your Home Green And Healthy
In an ongoing effort to “go green” and “save the planet,” people are looking for easy, affordable home improvement projects to make their homes greener, healthier, and sustainable.
Home Insulation
Before starting on any project to ensure energy efficiency, it’s wise to get started with an energy audit first. A professional inspection by a company or even one’s utility company will give homeowners a starting point to know where they are leaking valuable energy–and dollars. Starting prices for energy audits can free upward to $300.
Experts agree that approximately 50 percent of the homes in the United States have inadequate insulation, if at all. Why is this important? Simply put, a well-insulated home, whether in a room, an attic area, or a room above a garage, can prevent the transference of heat and help reduce a home’s energy needs.
It may help maintain some warmth during the winter and keep a room or section cooler during the summer. That being said, a thorough insulation job for ceilings, attic, and walls should be effective all year round.
Other energy-guzzling culprits are older windows and doors that have cracks in the frames. By simply filling the cracks, one’s interior temperature remains stable and is more affordable than replacing windows and having to possibly buy new frames.
Water Saving Improvements
The are various methods a homeowner can use to save on water consumption: tankless water heaters, energy-efficient toilets, water reducing filters throughout the home, and even recycling water from sinks, baths, and showers to water gardens and lawns.
While all the rage in many areas, tankless water heaters do cut water heating bills by up to 30 percent. However, this may not be the best route to go as the sudden surge in power that an energy on demand appliance generates may off-set any savings.
According to the EPA, a family of four saves roughly 20,000 gallons of water on an annual basis by simply replacing standard shower heads and faucet heads to low-flow faucets. Low-flow fixtures guarantee reduced water bills without sacrificing personal hygiene.
Much the same can be said for replacing your standard toilet with energy-saving one; however, there is an ongoing debate as to the effectiveness of said models to flush down waste with the first rush of water. Many times, a second flush is required.
Installing an HVAC System For Air Purification
There is nothing like using air conditioning for both air cooling and keeping the air pure and recycled. There are some expenses involved, such as checking air ducts for leaks that waste roughly 20 percent of the air traveling through them, making your system work harder.
Semi-annual maintenance routines will have to be scheduled; however, manufacturers and utility companies offer rebates on new installations that help make your purchase of equipment more affordable.
Programmable thermostats can save you up to 5-15 percent a year by simply setting them to a cooler temperature at night and setting a higher temperature during the day. That being said, if you set and reset a thermostat manually, there is no need to buy a digital thermostat that typically runs from $75 to $250.
Smarter Flooring
With some people subject to allergy problems and respiratory illnesses, a hard flooring such as linoleum, and not vinyl, may be the way to go. According to environmental experts, vinyl flooring is made from dioxin and phthalates that can be major causes of health issues; however, authentic linoleum is constituted from linseed oil and is a better option to vinyl covering.
Cork, bamboo, and recycled wood are other eco-friendly alternatives that are healthier choices than carpet.
Window Replacements
Besides providing your home with light, warmth and ventilation, windows have a great effect on your home’s energy efficiency. By replacing your old windows with energy efficient ones, you can significantly reduce energy consumption and lower your energy bills.
If your budget is tight, applying a reflective window film is a more affordable way to reduce energy costs. The film helps block heat gain by cutting sun glare and allowing rays to bounce off the window. Effectiveness depends on window size, orientation, climate, and insulation.
Home improvement and hardware stores carry DIY kits to help homeowners make the change without replacing the existing windows.
Conclusion
While not being totally free of expenses, by simply implementing the above-mentioned measures in one’s home, you can begin to quickly enjoy savings and a healthy, greener lifestyle. Not only this, but a possible return on investment(ROI) may be generated if you later sell your home.
Scientists Against GMOs – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
Biotechnology has long tried to paint the critics of genetic engineering as anti-science. A great effort has been made to convince the public that the majority of world’s scientists support genetic engineering. In reality, GMOs are heavily criticized in the scientific community. Here are the professional opinions of only a few of the thousands of scientists who are both critical and skeptical of GMOs.
There are three things that can’t be long hidden: the sun, the moon and the truth.” – Buddha
Vandana Shiva, Ph.D
Vandana Shiva was educated as physicist at the University of Punjab. Afterwards she went on to earn a Ph.D. from the University of Western Ontario Canada. Her field of study was known as “Hidden Variables and Non-locality in Quantum Theory”. Her work later evolved into inter-disciplinary research in science, technology, and environmental policy. Dr. Shiva is a courageous and tireless activist, author, scientific advisor, and mother. Forbes Magazine named Dr. Shiva as one of the Seven Most Powerful Women in the World.
Science is derived from the word scire — “to know”. Each of us should know what we are eating, how it was produced and what impact it will have on our health.
The knowledge we need for growing food is the knowledge of biodiversity and living seed, of living soil and the soil food web, of interaction between different species in the agro-ecosystem and of different seasons. Farmers have been the experts in these fields, as have ecological scientists who study the evolution of micro-organisms, plants and animals, the ecological web and the soil food web.
In industrial agriculture, the knowledge of living systems is totally missing, since industrial agriculture was externally driven by using war chemicals as inputs. Soil was defined as an empty container for holding synthetic fertilizers and plants were defined as machines running on external inputs. This meant substituting the ecological functions and services that nature and farmers can provide through renewal of soil fertility, pest and weed control, and seed improvement. But it also implied ignorance of the destruction of the functions by the toxic chemicals applied to agriculture.
This complex knowledge of interacting, self-organizing, self-maintaining, self-renewing and self-evolving systems that farmers have had is now being confirmed through the latest in ecology. At the agricultural systems level, agro-ecology, not the mechanistic and blind paradigm of industrial agriculture is the truly scientific approach to food production.
…Because living systems are not machines, they are a self-organized complexity, knowledge of a small, fragmented part in isolation of its relationships with the rest of the system translates into not knowing.
This epistemic violence is now being combined with the violence of corporate interests to viciously attack all scientific traditions, including those that have evolved from within Western science and transcended the mechanistic worldview.
It is actually becoming anti-science.
…The rhetoric for taking over food systems and seed supply is always based on “improved seed”. But what is not mentioned is that industrial seeds are only “improved” in the context of higher dependence on chemicals, and more control by corporations.
The latest in the anti-scientific discourse of industrial agriculture is about reducing everything to genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
“Intelligence” is based on the Latin word inter legere which means “to choose”. From the slime mould and bacteria, to plants and animals, including humans, intelligence is the choice we make in order to respond to changing contexts. Life is a cognitive system with communication constantly taking place in a network on non-separable patterns of relationship. Living beings innovate all the time to deal with environmental challenges that face them.
…Humans as a species are falling behind slime mold and bacteria to make an intelligent response to the environmental threats we face. And our intelligence is being thwarted by the false construction of the living Earth as dead matter, to be exploited limitlessly for human control, domination and greed.
The US Centre for Disease Control data shows that on current trends one in two children in the US will be autistic in a few decades. It is not an intelligent species that destroys its own future because of a distorted and manipulated definition of science.
As Einstein had observed, “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I’m not sure about the universe.”
Thierry Vrain, Ph.D
Dr. Vrain was formerly the Head of Biotechnology at Agriculture Canada’s Summerland Research Station. It was his job to address concerns regarding the safety of GMOs. He did his job faithfully for many years, assuring the public and other scientists of the safety of GMOs. Now, years after his retirement, he has reversed his position.
In the last 10 years I have changed my position. I started paying attention to the flow of published studies coming from Europe, some from prestigious labs and published in prestigious scientific journals, that questioned the impact and safety of engineered food.
I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat.
…The Bt corn and soya plants that are now everywhere in our environment are registered as insecticides. But are these insecticidal plants regulated and have their proteins been tested for safety? Not by the federal departments in charge of food safety, not in Canada and not in the U.S.
Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene – one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong.
Richard Strohman, Ph.D.
Dr. Richard Campbell Strohman, was a professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley. He was an avid critic of the idea that genes determine destiny. Dr. Strohman died July 4, 2009.
When you insert a single gene into a plant or an animal, the technology will work. You will be able to move that gene from organism A to organism B. You will be able to know that the transfer was successful. You will be able to know that the gene is being expressed, and even that the function of the gene is being expressed. So you’ll get the desired characteristic. But you will also get other effects that you couldn’t have predicted from your original assumptions. You will have also produced changes in the cell or the organism as a whole that are unpredictable. And that’s what the science is having to deal with.
…Genes exist in networks, interactive networks, which have a logic of their own. The technology point of view does not deal with these networks. It simply addresses genes in isolation. But genes do not exist in isolation.
…We’re in a crisis position where we know the weakness of the genetic concept, but we don’t know how to incorporate it into a new, more complete understanding. Monsanto knows this. DuPont knows this. Novartis knows this. They all know what I know. But they don’t want to look at it because it’s too complicated and it’s going to cost too much to figure out. The number of questions, the number of possibilities for what happens to a cell, to the whole organism when you insert a foreign gene, are almost incalculable. And the time it would take to assess the infinite possibilities that arise is beyond the capabilities of computers. But that’s what you get when you’re dealing with living systems.
Gilles-Eric Seralini, Ph.D.
Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini is a biologist at the University of Caen. He was the first scientist to do a long- term, GMO, chronic toxicity study. His study was originally published in Food and Chemical Toxicology. After the study was retracted, it was later republished in Environmental Sciences Europe.
Agricultural GMOs are loaded with pesticides. Three-quarters of all GMOs contain large amounts of Roundup, the main pesticide in the world, designed to kill weeds. These plants have been genetically modified for this, such as Roundup-tolerant soybean and corn. The GM provides in this case the possibility to apply Roundup, whenever and as much as you want, because the plant will tolerate it. If one gives such a large dose of pesticides to a normal plant, it dies. GMOs facilitate intensive farming methods.
Agricultural GMOs do not exist independently of pesticides. We do not know enough. Three-quarters of them absorb pesticides, and the last quarter, like Bt corn, produce their own insecticide. There is already a toxicity due to pesticides within these GMOs, which is new in our diet. Before GMOs, we have never eaten such high levels of Roundup residues. Same for insecticides. Yes, GMOs are especially dangerous because they contain pesticides, but not only because of that. Our team also found toxic effects of GMOs without pesticides.
Our team is the most-published in the world on the impact of GMOs and pesticides on health. We have done studies on human cells and on rats, both short- and long-term (two years). Regarding studies in rats, we were the first ones to study so many parameters (tens of thousands for blood and urine) and for so long. These rats consumed regularly GMOs with pesticides, and at the same doses, GMOs without pesticides. The aim was to find out where any toxicity came from. We were the only ones in the world to do this, as companies and health agencies had never ordered tests lasting longer than three months. But the study was retracted with great violence by the journal which published it after a former employee of Monsanto was introduced onto the editorial board of the journal. He is the former head of GMO toxicology dossiers at Monsanto.
…GMOs contain pesticides that go into the food chain and accumulate. On the other hand, they make animals seriously ill, and to eat sick animals is very harmful for health. They may be more susceptible to infections and diseases. Eating them should be banned. Pesticides accumulate in the food chain and in the animal’s fat, at higher levels than in the treated plants [themselves]. Before, the debate focused on the possible dangers of GMO DNA getting into the food chain. This is not the problem. Nobody had shown that these animals [that eat GMOs] were sick. We showed that. Due to the nature of industrial production and the short lifespan [of livestock animals], we do not see it. And they are not differentiated from others.
Dr. Seneff is a senior research scientist, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT. Dr. Swanson is a business owner, consultant (Optics), and author. Dr. Chopra was formerly with Health Canada (Senior Scientific Advisor, Microbiology) and is also an author. Dr. Balatinecz is an emeritus professor (Forestry), at the University of Toronto. The following are quotes from the collective group and quoted material from an opinion paper they wrote.
We are experiencing an autism epidemic in the US and the mainstream media won’t touch it. There is much hand-wringing over the latest numbers, but any suggestion of environmental toxins is considered off-limits.
The following opinion piece, written by four scientists (myself included), was submitted to the Toronto Star on April 9, but they refused to publish it because it is “too controversial.” It was then submitted to the New York Times on April 11, but they have not responded at all. It seems there is a media blackout on this topic.
What sort of world are we living in where our children are at risk and we refuse to even look at all possible solutions because they are “too controversial”? How did the chemical and drug industries come to wield such totalitarian power that the press won’t dare to expose them? We are a nation in grave danger. The press and the government refuse to confront the issue for fear of antagonizing the corporations whose bottom line trumps all.
…the US Centers for Disease Control released a new report stating that the prevalence of autism is now one in 68, up 30% since the reported estimate of one in 88 two years ago. (Our current rate of autism in the U.S. is 1 in 50) The rate was one in 10,000 in 1970.
…The recent dramatic increase in the rates of autism cannot be explained on the basis of genetics alone, so there must also be significant environmental contributions.
One of us (Dr. Stephanie Seneff) has considerable direct research experience concerning autism and its probable environmental causes. About seven years ago she became very alarmed by the strong evidence of an increase in autism rates in the US and, in collaboration with Mr. Anthony Samsel and Dr. Nancy Swanson, she decided to systematically investigate possible links with environmental toxins. Dr. Swanson has shown extremely strong correlations between glyphosate usage on corn and soy crops in the US and the increasing incidence of autism, along with obesity, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, senile dementia and others. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but when statistically significant correlation coefficients of over 0.95 are calculated for a list of diseases that can be directly linked to glyphosate, via its known biological effects, it would be foolish not to consider causation as the most plausible explanation of the correlations.
It is noteworthy that the rapid increase in autism rates coincides with the introduction of industrial agricultural practices such as the widespread use of herbicides (like glyphosate-containing Roundup), and pesticides, as well as genetically modified (GMO) crops (initially corn, soy and canola). GMO crops are engineered to resist glyphosate so that the herbicide will only kill the weeds and not the crop species. As a consequence, GMO foods are laced with glyphosate residues, a contaminant for which they are not required to be tested as products in our food chain. Sadly, the general public does not know this. What makes this even worse is that GMO foods are not required to be labeled by law in our two countries. Furthermore, it has become common practice to spray grain, dried pea & bean and sugar cane crops with glyphosate as a pre-harvest desiccant. What makes glyphosate especially dangerous is that it is generally viewed as being nearly harmless to humans and is therefore handled carelessly. Its effects work cumulatively and insidiously over time to erode health.
…The original approval process of glyphosate as a “safe herbicide” was based on misdirected and inadequate science & safety testing by the FDA. Corporate political lobbying was also part of the mix. The voice of an independent and diligent media has been conspicuously absent. Now, 25 years later, we are all paying the price for those misdeeds. Likely victims are the millions of innocent autistic children.
Autism symptoms also include: disrupted gut bacteria and inflammatory bowel disorder; defective aromatase (CYP) enzyme; high serum nitrate and ammonia; impaired immune function; chronic low-grade inflammation in the brain and deficiencies in sulfate, methionine, seratonin, melatonin, zinc and iron. Compare these to some negative biological effects of glyphosate. Glyphosate kills beneficial gut bacteria, thereby depleting aromatic amino acids. This leads to reduced serotonin availability. Serotonin deficiency is linked not only to autism, but also to obesity, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and violent behavior, all of which are increasing in frequency today in step with increased glyphosate usage. Glyphosate chelates (traps) zinc, manganese, iron, cobalt, and molybdenum, which leads directly to a deficiency in these essential nutrients and widespread health consequences. Glyphosate also disrupts important enzymes in the liver leading to an inability to detoxify other toxins as well as an inability to activate vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency is now widespread in North America.
… we believe that the biggest environmental factors linked to autism are the following: glyphosate (by far #1), mercury (in vaccines and dental fillings) and aluminum (in vaccines, antacids, antiperspirants, drugs and sunscreen). Mercury and aluminum act synergistically with glyphosate; e.g., the number of adverse events reported for vaccines in the US CDC VAERS database has risen over the past decade in step with the increased use of glyphosate.
David Suzuki, Ph.D.
David Suzuki, is the co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation, an environmentalist, scientist and broadcaster who is most well known for his radio and television programs that explain the complexities of the natural sciences in a compelling, easily understood way.
Dr. Suzuki is an award winning scientist – a geneticist and a recognized world leader in sustainable ecology. He is the recipient of UNESCO’s Kalinga Prize for Science, the United Nations Environment Program Medal, UNEPs Global 500, and the 2009 Right Livelihood Award. He is now a professor emeritus at UBC.
By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment.
The FDA has said that genetically modified organisms are not much different from regular food, so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this, geneticists follow the inheritance of genes. What biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism and move it horizontally into a totally unrelated species. Now, David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot and exchange genes. What biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other without regard to the biological constraints. It’s very, very bad science. We assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically, applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion.
In a different interview he said:
I believe that until the science is mature—that is, until we can take a completely specified sequence of DNA, insert it at exactly a specified sequence in a recipient and predict completely its behavior—the science is not ready to be applied. When we can do that, we won’t be able to publish, because we publish papers when we get results that we didn’t expect. Last time I looked, the papers and journals in biotech were exploding. To me, it indicates we must not know a helluva lot. In any revolutionary area, most of our current ideas are wrong. That’s how science proceeds—by invalidating, altering and discarding our current ideas. What we believed in 1961 when I graduated with a Ph.D. in genetics seems ludicrous today, and so will today’s ideas in 20 years.
Jane Goodall, Ph.D.
Before Jane Goodall’s work, our definition of mankind was “man the toolmaker.” Dr. Goodall has made many important scientific discoveries. She proved that chimpanzees use tools, that they eat meat, and that they have a complex social system. She earned her Ph.D. in ethology from Oxford University.
I well remember how horrified I felt when I learned that scientists had succeeded in reconfiguring the genetics of plants and animals.
The first genetically engineered (GE) plants were created in the 1980s, but I did not hear about them until the 1990s when they were first commercialized.
It seemed a shocking corruption of the life forms of the planet, and it was not surprising that many people were as appalled as I was – and that these altered organisms became known as ‘Frankenfoods’.
In fact, there were good science-based reasons to mistrust the new foods; yet GE crops have spread throughout North America and several other parts of the world. How has this come about?
As part of the process, they portrayed the various concerns as merely the ignorant opinions of misinformed individuals – and derided them as not only unscientific, but anti-science.
Engineering ‘concensus’ – where none exists
They then set to work to convince the public and government officials, through the dissemination of false information, that there was an overwhelming expert consensus, based on solid evidence, that the new foods were safe.
…the advocates of genetic engineering have steadfastly maintained that the crops created by this radical technology are essentially similar to those from which they have been derived, that the process is splendidly exact, and that GE foods, therefore, are if anything safer than their traditionally bred ‘parents’
In fact, there’s significant dissimilarity, the process is far from exact, and the risks are greater, especially the risk of creating unexpected toxins that are difficult to detect.
And what of the role of the media? How have the American public been so largely kept in the dark about the realities of GE foods – to the extent that until quite recently, a vast majority of the populace did not even know they were regularly consuming them?
But it seems to me that it is not those who point to the problems of the venture who are anti-science: it is quite the other way around.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Ph.D.
Mae-Wan Ho earned her degree in Biology in and her Ph.D. in Biochemistry in the 1960s from Hong Kong University. Early in her academic career she won a competitive fellowship of the U.S. National Genetics Foundation. Afterwards, she became a senior research fellow in Queen Elizabeth College in the United Kingdom. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho then became a lecturer in Genetics in 1976 and then a reader in Biology in 1985 in the London Open University. Dr. Ho retired in June 2000 and remains a Visiting Reader in Biology at the Open University and is a visiting biophysics professor in Catania University, Sicily. Today, Dr. Ho’s work includes close to 300 publications and 47 experimental works.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho is a highly-consulted scientist, one of the most influential figures in the scientific community. She has been ardently opposed to the use of genetically modified organisms. In 1999, she founded ISIS, which stands for the Institute of Science in Society in London.
If there is one thing that distinguishes the Third World from the industrialized countries, it is that they take science a lot more seriously than we do in the GM debate.
I was researcher and university lecturer of genetics throughout the mid-1970s to the early 1980s when new discoveries on the fluid genome made headlines every week. Researchers back then were building a new paradigm, dispelling once and for all the notion that a gene is constant and independent of context. The thought that a gene could be patented as an invention probably never crossed their mind. And if it did, they would have dismissed it as a joke.
…The paradigm change that should have occurred, did not. On the contrary, the scientific establishment remained strongly wedded to genetic determinism, which has misguided genetic engineering, making even the most unethical applications appear compelling, such as ‘therapeutic’ human cloning, for one [2]. Bioethics became a contradiction in terms as rampant commercialization of science took hold.
For the past seven years, I have had to follow developments in genetic engineering science much more carefully and extensively than many of the practitioners, only to find that all my fears concerning the problems and dangers of genetic engineering are being confirmed.
…The basic tools of genetic engineering are bacteria, viruses and other genetic parasites that cause diseases and spread drug and antibiotic resistance. All that fall into the hands of genetic engineers are exploited. Genes from dangerous agents, including antibiotic resistance genes, are profusely mixed and matched, or recombined. As every geneticist should know, recombination of genetic material is one of the main routes to creating new strains of bacteria and viruses, some of which may be pathogens. (The other route is mutation.) Moreover, the predominant orientation of genetic engineering in the past two decades has been to design artificial GM constructs and vectors that cross species barriers and invade genomes, both of which will enhance horizontal gene transfer and further increase the chance for recombination.
Instead of tightening the guidelines, our regulators have relaxed them.
My colleague, Prof. Joe Cummins has summarized more up-to-date literature showing that all GM crops may be unstable.
…The US Department of Agriculture has approved field release of GM pink bollworms this summer, made with a mobile genetic element, piggyBac, already known to jump many species. The element was first discovered in cell cultures of the cabbage looper, where it caused high mutations of the baculovirus infecting the cells, by jumping into the viral genome. In experiments in silkworms, researchers already found evidence that the inserts were unstable, and had a tendency to move again from one generation to the next.
These artificial transposons are already aggressive genome invaders, and putting them into insects is to give them wings, as well as sharp mouthparts for efficient delivery to all plants and animals… The predictable result is rampant horizontal gene transfer and recombination across species barriers. The unpredictable unknown is what kinds of new deadly viruses might be generated, and how many new cases of insertion mutagenesis and carcinogenesis they may bring.
…We must abandon GM crops and all other attempts to genetic engineer plants, animals and human beings with a technology that is widely acknowledged to be unreliable, uncontrollable and unpredictable.
Even the corporations are coming around to the view that “Food biotech is dead”. One by one, Aventis, Monsanto and Syngenta have announced they will concentrate on genomics and marker assisted conventional breeding. Though meanwhile, they are still forcing the world, especially the Third World, to accept GM crops.
But the whole world is in revolt.
…Organic and sustainable agricultural practices and technologies are succeeding, documented in study after study, despite the appalling lack of research funding compared to the hundreds millions that have gone into biotech. At least 3% of the arable land, some 28.9m hectares in Africa, Asia and Latin America are already farmed sustainably, with impressive gains in crop yield as well as social, economic and health benefits. Organic farming is also working well in the United States and Europe, with yields matching and even surpassing agrochemical agriculture. Organic farms are good for wildlife, supporting many more species of plants, songbirds butterflies spiders, earthworms. We need organic farming for the world to feed itself and for the planet to regenerate and thrive.
Sustainable agriculture is also important for alleviating, if not reversing global warming. A new report shows that sustainable agriculture can contribute significantly, not only to reducing consumption of fossil fuel, but increasing sequestration of carbon in the soil.
The new genetics is radically ecological, organic and holistic. That is why genetic engineering, at least in its current form, can never succeed. It is based on misconceptions that organisms are machines, and on a denial of the complexity and flexibility of the organic whole.
The challenge for western scientists is to develop a holistic science to help revitalize all kinds of non-corporate sustainable agriculture and holistic medicine that can truly bring food security and health to the world.
David Schubert, Ph.D.
Dr. Schubert, a biochemist, is a professor and the head of the Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute. Much of his research has been in studying hormones and other substances that affect the survival and function of brain cells.
Given the fact that genetically modified plants are going to make proteins in different amounts and perhaps totally new proteins than their parental species, what are the potential outcomes? A worst case scenario could be that an introduced bacterial toxin is modified to make it toxic to humans. Direct toxicity may be rapidly detected once the product enters the marketplace, but carcinogenic activity or toxicity caused by interaction with other foods would take decades to detect, if ever. The same outcomes would be predicted for the production of toxins or carcinogens via indirect changes in gene expression.
Finally, if the above problems are real, what can be done to address these concerns? The issue of secondary modification could be addressed by continual monitoring of the introduced gene product by mass spectroscopy. The problem is that some secondary modifications, like phosphorylation or sulfation can be lost during purification. However, the best, and to me the only reasonable solution, is to require all genetically engineered plant products for human consumption be tested for toxicity and carcinogenicity before they are marketed. These safety criteria are required for many chemicals and all drugs, and the magnitude of harm caused by a widely consumed toxic food would be much greater than that of any single drug.
Patrick Brown, Ph.D.
Dr. Brown is a professor in The Department of Plant Sciences, College of Agriculture and Environmental Science at the University of California. Dr. Brown is an agronomist who earned his Ph.D. from Cornell University.
This issue requires immediate and thoughtful attention from plant scientists. We must recognize that our knowledge of the processes that regulate gene incorporation and expression are in their infancy and that our capacity to manipulate the plant genome is crude. Given this current lack of understanding it is certainly possible that the current regulatory safeguards are inadequate and may not be offering sufficient protection against inadvertent creation of health and ecological problems.
Since the public education and research system is based upon a foundation of public trust, it is essential that we recognize and admit the unknowns associated with molecular biology and act with caution and integrity.
Agriculture plays a crucial a role in the clockwork of our global economy. Isn’t that reason enough for us to ensure its sustainability? Many would question the feasibility of going organic to feed the seven billion or so mouths in the world, but the fact that this is entirely possible is unfortunately not commonly known. As with every change, this shift in approach from chemical-intensive agricultural practice to organic farming will take time and patience.
For those who still doubt, the great news is that the road to going organic will naturally reap long-term environmental and financial benefits. Aren’t these what we hope to achieve – creating a better world for the future generations?
Health Benefits
With crops being treated heavily with chemicals like growth enhancers or pesticides, it is all but expected that these substances will find their ways into our bodies, albeit in small quantities each time. As consumers, the idea of how a negligible amount of artificial compound causing health problems may seem like a far-fetched thought.
However, the truth of the matter is that while we don’t find ourselves rushing to the hospital after consuming these produce smothered in chemicals, the long-term effects on our health are very real. With studies proving the carcinogenic properties of some pesticides and herbicides used in our food, it is now perhaps understandable why people are beginning to adopt an organic diet.
According to the World Health Organization, studies have shown that exposure to pesticides on a daily basis can increase the risk of health complications like lowered immunity, development of hormone-related disorders and cancer.
Going organic does not only benefit us, the consumers, but the producers, too. The people who toil and make a living from agriculture will find themselves going back to the basics and relying on what nature has to offer. The lack of chemicals employed in organic farming will without a doubt see farmers facing considerably fewer health hazards.
Environmental Benefits
The news of how GMO agriculture and chemical pesticides are killing nature’s little pollination helpers, the bees, isn’t new. Agriculture watchdogs sounded the alarm years ago when bee colonies began vanishing in the United States around the turn of the century, about the time when new insecticides were introduced into the market. The tip in the balance of our ecosystem can trigger a ripple effect, causing environmental consequences on a global scale – some of which we are already experiencing.
In order for sustainable agriculture to be possible, it is beyond vital that we maintain healthy and fertile soil. However, with the constant application of chemicals to the land, how does one expect the earth below to be toxin free? Albeit crops may be susceptible to pests and ever-changing weather, organic farming certainly ensures the “cleanliness” of the ground.
Economic Benefits
Despite being the alternative farming method, the organic farming industry is well worth over £1 billion a year. Imagine how much that figure will jump by when it becomes the only way to go?
With GMO agriculture, everything right down to the seeds requires a costly initial investment. Needless to say, equipment used for releasing the chemical pesticides also cost money. As a result, even before a crop can be harvested and sold for profits, a farmer needs to come up that large sum of money to get things going. Imagine the devastation a small farm located in a developing nation experiences when crops don’t grow.
One of the many unfortunate consequences of GMO farming is it being the cause of countless suicides when crops fail in third world countries.
Consider organic farming. What is actually involved in this method that would require massive investments? Not much, really. While it is always more costly to go the alternative route, it is undeniable that when organic farming becomes a common practice, cost of resources and products will surely decrease.
Why Not Organic Farming Then?
Having said all these, the truth is that organic farming is not in a popularity race of becoming the more well-liked option for those in the industry. Instead, it has to be the only method of farming as we move forward. In order for our natural environment to sustain us, it is imperative that we ensure that it is toxic free and healthy, for the sake of our future and the generations to come.
Phosphorus, a Natural Resource That Could Be Sustainable
We consume a lot of resources. Gasoline, coal, water, phosphorus, oil, and rare minerals are the six most used natural resources. We consume them on a daily basis. Our usage of these resources is completely unsustainable, so unsustainable scientists believe we will run out of the building blocks of life within the next 100 years. Many countries will be facing drastic water shortages as well as major gas and oil shortages.
Phosphorus is a resource with a sustainable solution. It is one of the major additives in synthetic/chemical fertilizers such as Miracle-Gro used to fertilize fruit and vegetable. In this sense, our use of phosphorus to keep the world’s food supply alive is beneficial, but the way that we mine phosphorus is completely unsustainable.
Phosphorus is contained within rocks and is currently accessed by blowing them up. Think about how crazy that is! We blow up rocks to get phosphorus, and to top that off, there are only three countries in the world with rocks that contain phosphorus – the United States, China, and Morocco.
We are destroying mountain ranges like the Appalachians. Yes, we are blowing up mountain ranges to get phosphorus. Then the phosphorus is added to a synthetic fertilizer in such high concentrations that often ends up burning the plants it was supposed to nourish, defeating the purpose of using it in the first place.
Another damaging effect of chemical fertilizers (all of which have phosphorus in them) is that they kill the beneficial life in our soil. While phosphorus is a valuable nutrient for plant growth, currently accepted practices will eventually render the soil infertile.
Thankfully there is a better way and this solution is completely sustainable. The solution comes from two crops that are already being grown for animal feed all over the world: organic alfalfa and organic soybeans.
Organic alfalfa and organic soybeans are phosphorus rich cover crops. Cover crops are used as part of a successful organic management system as they are grown solely with the intention of being tilled under (rather than harvested) in the late fall/early spring (depending on winter weather patterns).
Cover crops break down and contribute nutrients naturally found within them back into the soil. Cover cropping is a full circle solution. You plant the crops you are intending to grow for the year, these crops take resources from the soil to support their growth, and then you plant cover crops at the end of the growing season to return those spent resources to the soil.
Cover cropping with your own organic alfalfa or organic soybean (or purchasing an organic alfalfa meal or organic soybean meal powder) is the perfect solution to create a sustainable phosphorus source. There are many other sustainable ways to get beneficial nutrients to your plants. Honestly, who wants to blow up rocks and destroy the natural beauty of our planet to gain access to nutrients like phosphorus when we can plant our own sources and can keep the natural beauty of this planet intact.
What Do Natural, Organic, and Non-GMO Actually Mean?
Food package labels don’t always mean what we think they mean. What is natural or all natural? Is organic 100% organic? What about GMO-free?
The All Natural and Natural Label
The terms “all natural” and “natural” are misleading. A Consumer Reports survey found that the average consumer thinks these terms mean the food does not have artificial ingredients, GMOs, or pesticides, and that artificial materials weren’t used during the processing of the food. Currently, the terms “all natural” and “natural” are not regulated in the United States except for rarely enforced rules within the meat and poultry industries.
To be labeled natural, meat and poultry is supposed to be minimally processed and not have any artificial ingredients; however, the term artificial is not clearly defined and the regulations are not well enforced by the USDA.
Outside of meat and poultry, there are no formal regulations for the use of the terms “all natural” and “natural”. The FDA does have informal guidelines. Products labeled as natural should not contain anything artificial or synthetic, but again, there is no definition of what qualifies as artificial or synthetic. This means that just about anything goes, when it comes to “all natural.” The question to ask is not, “What does all natural mean? ” but rather, “What doesn’t all natural mean?”
Is “Organic” Food Really Organic?
When you think of “organic”, many people think it means 100% organic, pesticide free, all natural, and better than conventional. This is not correct. Organic today means a number of different things, depending on the situation, and many, if not most, items that carry the USDA Organic seal are not 100% organic.
Over the years, big agricultural and food companies have slowly degraded the term organic. By buying up smaller organic companies and lobbying the USDA, they have managed to chip away at the definition of organic foods. As the Cornucopia Institute pointed out, “In 1995 there were 81 independent organic processing companies in the United States. A decade later, Big Food has gobbled up all but 15 of them.”
Buyouts and mergers of food companies usually do not result in a label change. Conscientious consumers who want to avoid supporting big food companies end up giving their money to them anyway, unless they do some serious research to find out who owns the company. Just looking at the labels on the boxes is not enough.
Origins of the Organic Label
In 1990, Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act. This law regulated the organic food industry and established standards for what could be considered organic. One positive of the act was the establishment of the National Organic Standards Board. This board was to have fifteen members elected from different parts of the organic foods industry including four organic farmers or growers, three environmentalists or conservationists, three consumer or public interest advocates, two handlers or processors, one retailer, one scientist from a related field (toxicology, ecology, or biochemistry), and one USDA accredited certifying agent. The make-up of the board was supposed to help avoid governmental bureaucratic appointees.
Organic Labeling With Packaged Foods
Packaged foods that carry the USDA Organic seal are certified by the USDA to have at least 95% organic ingredients in them. Any ingredient listed specifically as organic is certified organic. Another category of organic is “made with organic ingredients.” Any packaged food that lists “made with organic” for specific ingredients must have at least 70% organic ingredients. No genetically modified ingredients are allowed in these products or ones with the USDA organic seal. Organic ingredients are to be made without synthetic fertilizers, ionizing radiation, or sewage sludge. The goal for organic production is to use the most natural, environmentally friendly methods as possible. This is not always done in practice.
What Does Organic Mean These Days?
Organic does not mean pesticide free or chemical free. To be certified organic, a farmer must allow a previously non-organic field to be used without synthetic chemicals, pesticides, or GMOs for at least three years. Naturally based pesticides are used regularly. (A list of exempted chemicals is available on the USDA website). Though the USDA claims that these chemicals do not affect or alter the foods we eat, the fact remains that they are in many of our organic foods without our knowledge.
The list of approved pesticides and chemicals has grown over the years. With recent changes at the National Organic Standards Board, it is getting easier and easier for growers and producers to use more chemicals and pesticides in the production of organic foods. For example, Driscoll’s organic strawberries are not really organically produced.
Methyl bromide has been banned from agricultural use, with a few exceptions, due to its association with a rise in prostate cancer in farm workers. Yet, it is one of many chemicals approved for use in organic production by the National Organic Standards Board.
Since strawberries are extremely vulnerable to pests, methyl bromide is used as a soil fumigant to sterilize the soil before they are planted. While technically it’s not sprayed directly on the fruit, it can still be detected in the strawberries that are grown in the sterilized soil.
What Chemicals Are Allowed In USDA Organic Certification
Currently, the USDA has the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances that lays out which chemicals, pesticides, and other synthetic materials are or are not allowed in organic farming and production. In order for a company or farmer to use a synthetic ingredient in the production of organic foods, they have to petition the National Organic Standards Board for an exemption under what is called the Sunset Provision. This exemption would automatically run out after five years unless renewed by a two-thirds majority vote of the Board. This has changed. The rules now state that the exemptions are automatically renewed after five years unless there is a vote to remove the exemption.
These exemptions were initially granted to give an organic food producer time to find a natural alternative to conventional synthetic methods. They were never meant to become a permanent solution. Ever since big food companies have been quietly buying up the smaller organic companies, they have been trying to relax the standards for organics as well. This latest turn of events with the exemption process is another step towards making the organic standards meaningless.
The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances is rather extensive and covers synthetic and non-synthetic materials. Some of these materials have restricted uses that are intended to keep them from contaminating crops though this doesn’t always work in practice. For example, a USDA survey of pesticide use found that 20% of organically grown lettuce had pesticide residue on it.
A major type of pesticide found was spinosad, a pesticide sold by Dow Chemicals. This pesticide comes from a bacteria found in soil. Spinosad, along with pyrethin (which comes from chrysanthemums) and azadirachtin (which comes from the Asian neem tree) are classified as slightly toxic by the EPA. These ingredients are allowed because they come from natural sources. Other restricted ingredients are limited to cleaning irrigation systems or equipment. Acceptable synthetic chemicals for use in the production of organic foods are listed below:
Alcohols
Ethanol
Isopropanol
Calcium hypochlorite
Chlorine dioxide
Sodium hypochlorite
Copper sulfate
Hydrogen peroxide
Ozone gas
Peracetic acid
Soap-based algicide/demossers
Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate
Newspapers or other recycled papers, without glossy or colored inks
Plastic mulch and covers (petroleum-based other than polyvinyl (PVC))
Biodegradable biobased mulch film
Ammonium carbonate
Aqueous potassium silicate
Boric acid
Copper sulfate
Elemental Sulfur
Lime sulfure- including calcium polysulfide
Oils, horticultural-narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils
Soaps, insecticidal
Sticky traps/barriers
Sucrose octanoate esters
Aqueous potassium silicate
Coppers, fixed – includes copper hydroxide, copper oxide, copper oxychloride
Hydrated lime
Hydrogen peroxide
Lime sulfur
Hydrated lime
Lime sulfur
Peracetic acid
Potassium bicarbonate
Streptomycin, for fire blight control in apples and pears only until October 21, 2014
Tetracycline, for fire blight control in apples and pears only until October 21, 2014
Aquatic plant extracts
Humic acids
Lignin sulfonate
Magnesium sulfate
Micronutrients, excepting those made from nitrates or chlorides
Soluble boron products
Sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt
Liquid fish products- can be pH adjusted with sulfuric, citric or phosphoric acid
Vitamins B1, C, and E
Sulfurous acid
Ethylene gas
Lignin sulfonate
Sodium silicate
Inerts of Minimal Concern from EPA List 4
Inerts of unknown toxicity- from EPA List 3
Hydrogen chloride
Do Companies Try To Get Away With Stuff?
As the organic industry slowly shrinks, the main players try to get away with more and more. Companies are petitioning to add more synthetic chemicals to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances every year. Since the format of getting chemicals on the list has changed, it’s harder to get rid of them once they’re approved. Slowly but surely, companies are doing whatever they can to cut corners and get away with whatever they can in pursuit of profits.
A major lawsuit was filed in New York earlier this year against Abbott Laboratories. The recent lawsuit against the manufacturer of Similac Advanced Organic Formula accuses the company of using 26 ingredients in their baby formula, including GM ingredients, that are not allowed in organic foods.
Labels for the Cosmetic Industry
The organic and natural cosmetics industry is not regulated under the USDA Organic Program. As a result, there exists very little regulation and oversight. Some voluntary certification programs have been created, but these are not compulsory. The problem with these voluntary certifications is that the standards vary with each and they’re not regulated by the government like the USDA organic program. Some states, such as California, have implemented laws regulating the organic cosmetic industry.
Under the 2003 California Organic Product Act, any cosmetic sold in California that is promoted as organic must contain at least 70% organically produced ingredients. Consumers have the right to sue cosmetic companies under this Act. As of 2011, 34 cosmetic companies had been sued for false advertising.
Other Organic, Natural, Non GMO Labels
Because of the costs and burdens that are part of the process of pursuing official USDA organic certification, many farmers pursue other options. Alternative certifications are growing in popularity, especially among smaller farmers. Some of the more popular ones include the following:
Certified Naturally Grown
Food Alliance Certified
The Farmer’s Pledge
Certified Humane
Animal Welfare Approved
OWN Association- Organic, Wildcrafted, and Natural
Ecocert
Natrue
Certified Naturally Grown, Food Alliance Certified, and Farmer’s Pledge are grass-roots organizations that are direct alternatives to the USDA organic certification yet show that their products are free of pesticides and synthetic materials.
Nearly 500 farmers from 47 states are members of Certified Naturally Grown, a non-profit, alternative, organic certification program. This group strives to preserve high standards for organic farmers while removing the financial and logistical barriers small farmers can face with USDA certification.
Wildcrafted
Wildcrafted plants are uncultivated plants gathered from their natural habitat. Care is taken to ensure sustainability, to take no more than the plant can give, to scatter a plant’s seeds, etc. Wildcrafted is superior to organic if picked where there is no runoff from polluted water or contamination from exhaust. Unlike organic produce, wildcrafted produce is never sprayed—with anything. Wildcrafted foods are pure—as nature intended.
Kosher
Kosher is a certification that ensures foods follow Jewish dietary guidelines. Though opinions may vary among rabbis about what counts as kosher or a kosher environment, a handful of nationally and internationally recognized kosher certifying agencies exist.
Generally, kosher means that both the food and the preparation methods meet certain standards. Kosher certification has nothing to do with whether or not a food is organically grown or is genetically modified. Simply put, kosher certification means the food and its preparation methods followed Jewish dietary laws and nothing more.
Non- GMO
The Non-GMO Project is a program to label products that do not contain genetically modified ingredients. They are the only independent verification organization in North America and their symbol has become well known to those people who choose to avoid GMOs.
The Non-GMO Project uses the European Union measurement to determine if a product qualifies as non-GMO under program standards. If a product is found to contain 0.9% or less of genetically modified ingredients, then it is certified as non-GMO.
Conclusion
The various labels, while giving consumers some amount of assurance as to the quality of the product they purchase, are confusing. The only way to truly know the quality of the food you consume is to get to know your food growers at local farmers markets, or better yet, to grow your own food.
Think about it. We all live downstream. Everything we dump down the sink, or flush down the toilet enters our water supply. When you fill that cup from the tap, how many pharmaceuticals do you think are in the water?
Medications are manufactured and sold as over the counter drugs, prescription drugs, and drugs developed for use only within a medical setting (such as vaccines, anesthesia, and drugs used for medical tests). Last year, 4,002,661,750 prescriptions were filled in the United States. Yes, that’s more than 4 billion, 2 million prescriptions. And these were just the prescriptions. Approximately 2.9 billion trips were made to the pharmacy or other retail store to buy over the counter drugs. So all in all, Americans purchased close to 7 billion drugs last year, not counting the medications used in hospitals and clinics.
In households, medications accumulate. In the typical medicine cabinet you will find a combination of drugs:
Medications currently prescribed and taken on a daily or on an as needed basis.
Medications purchased over-the-counter to be used if/when needed.
Prescriptions partially used due to patient non-compliance or a change in prescription.
And all too often – a full collection of outdated medications!
Prescription and over-the-counter medications are dangerous. If they are not kept under lock and key, the risk of medications being taken by others is great. Small children mimic their parents. Pre-teens and teens experiment. And children of the household are not the only possible culprits. Their friends will surely check out your medicine cabinet, if given the chance. In fact, it isn’t that uncommon for adult visitors to steal a few pills here and there.
Obviously, it is best to dispose of unused and expired drugs, but all too often they are flushed down the toilet. Even if we didn’t dispose of them improperly, drugs would end up in our water. Whatever drugs we take are excreted in urine and feces. This is true for both humans and animals. Now that conventional factory farming has become the standard, these over-crowded, inhumane meat and dairy factories are filled with animals that are injected and fed hormones to speed up growth and fed antibiotics to survive their abysmal, unhealthy conditions. The waste runoff goes into groundwater and contaminates nearby creeks and rivers.
In addition, many medications come in the form of creams and salves. These are also washed down the drain along with all of the chemicals contained in our personal care products, our cleaning supplies, soaps, and laundry detergents.
All chemicals in the water are beginning to be a problem. Though all sorts of pharmaceuticals are found in our water (antibiotics, hormones, psychiatric drugs, heart medications, and more), the experts say the levels are not yet high enough to affect us, but they are high enough to affect aquatic life. This is a problem in itself and also a sure sign that the levels are rising and will soon become a health concern.
Some pharmaceutical companies allow nursing homes and hospitals to return meds. But what are we supposed to do?
You can check with your county government or city government to ask if they have a medication disposal program in place. They may have an ongoing program or like our county, have a bi-annual medication disposal day. While a twice a year program does help keep meds out of the water, it does little to keep excess medications out of the home.
Check with you pharmacy to see what programs they may have in place. Walgreens and CVS both sell envelopes for $3.99 to ship non-controlled substances to a disposal facility where the unopened envelope is incinerated. And although they say they do not open the envelopes, you are not supposed to send in controlled substances.
Some argue that the cost, the lack of availability, and the emissions from incinerating medications make throwing meds away a better option. They suggest emptying pills and mixing them with nasty garbage to discourage anyone from picking through garbage to retrieve pills.
It’s too bad the obscenely rich pharmaceutical companies are not required by law to take back unused and expired medications for disposal for free. But with their track record of deceit and corruption, they would probably just repackage them for resell.
If you’ve decided to clean up your act and dispose of all your unneeded medications please do not flush them. Either find a program of throw them away.
If you want to get off of pharmaceuticals and leave the conventional medical model behind, true health starts with a nutrient dense, whole food, plant-based diet consisting of 80% fresh, raw, organic produce, more vegetables than fruits. Include healthy fats; they are essential. If you choose to eat meat, choose only organic meats to avoid antibiotics, hormones, and meat from animals that were fed GMO feed and raised in inhumane conditions. Avoid all artificial flavors, colors, and preservatives. Avoid processed sugar, MSG, artificial sweeteners, and all genetically modified foods. Eliminate cow dairy and gluten as well if you suffer from any kind of auto-immune disease or chronic condition.
Vandana Shiva, Ph.D
Richard Strohman, Ph.D.
Gilles-Eric Seralini, Ph.D.
David Suzuki, Ph.D.
Jane Goodall, Ph.D.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Ph.D.
David Schubert, Ph.D.
Patrick Brown, Ph.D.