New Global Water Contaminant Found: Organ-Penetrating Plastic Nanoparticles

SPUTNIK–A new environmental study, performed by State University of New York and the University of Minnesota, says there are microscopic fibers of plastic in our water systems and we ingest them with every sip. Yuck.

According to a report by the Sacramento Bee, the researchers examined 159 water samples from many nations across five continents, and found that 83 percent of the samples contained plastic fibers. In the US, 94 percent of samples were found to contain the nasty fibers.

The US samples were reportedly taken from several important locations, including the US Congressional buildings in Washington, DC; Trump Tower in New York; and ironically, the Environmental Protection Agency’s headquarters, also in Washington.

Scientists claim that these plastic fibers may also contain toxic chemicals that are released into your system as they are digested. The smallest particles, deemed “nanoparticles,” would also be able to penetrate your body’s cells and cause internal damage, the scientists claim.

“If the fibers are there, it is possible that the nanoparticles are there too that we can’t measure,” Anne Marie Mahon, from the Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology, told the Guardian. “Once they are in the nanometer range they can really penetrate a cell and that means they can penetrate organs, and that would be worrying.”

As to where these particles are coming from, scientists can’t really tell. One possible explanation says the fibers come from synthetic materials in our clothes, as washing machines reportedly flush about 700,000 fibers into the environment, according to one study by Plymouth University in the United Kingdom.

This is the first global water tap survey ever performed, so the scientists emphasize there is still a lot of research to be done on the topic.

“The results of this study serve as an initial glimpse at the consequences of human plastic use [and] disposal rather than a comprehensive assessment of global plastic contamination,” says Mary Kosuth, one of the University of Minnesota researchers. “These results call for further testing within and between regions.”

Breakfast cereal found contaminated with gender-bender chemical that tells your brain to make you fat

RHONDA JOHANSSON–A landmark study conducted by researchers at the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center found that sugary cereals cause more harm than initially perceived. Almost all people are aware that these breakfast staples contribute to the growing obesity epidemic due to their high sugar content; yet scientists are now tracing a link between cereals and early puberty. Butylhydroxytoleuene, an additive used to prolong shelf-life, is also an endocrine disruptor. The chemical can disrupt normal hormone production and incite unnatural changes in children. Unfortunately, this synthetic antioxidant is a favorite among food manufacturers for its uses in preservation. Popular cereal brands, such as Cheerios, Lucky Charms, and Cookie Crisps use butylhydroxytoleuene (listed as E321) as one of the main ingredients.

General Mills, the manufacturer behind these brands, has since pulled the additive from its production after health groups said E321 increased a person’s risk of liver damage as well as some forms of cancer. Even so, other food brands still use the chemical compound in their production line. Some brands use a similar synthetic additive, called E320. Supposedly, this is a “healthier” alternative and used in such products as Kelloggs Special K bars and Weight Watchers Double Chocolate Cereal Bar. There is no evidence (yet) which associates E320 with any adverse health risk but people should still take note that these are entirely artificial compounds they are ingesting.

The body is not meant to synthesize chemicals that could be used as an industrial cleaner. Moreover, these additives can, realistically, damage hormones and distort the brain-gut connection. This not only prompts obesity but contributes to unwanted disturbances in the body.

Butylhydroxytoleune was compared to three other chemicals used in breakfast cereals. Researchers found that butylhydroxytoleune had the strongest detrimental effects, causing the authors to call the additive a “gender-bending chemical.” Butylhydroxytoleune was also found to integrally damage the mitochondria, which are the cellular structures that are used to convert food and oxygen into energy and support the body’s metabolism.

Following the law while still being sneaky

Breakfast cereal brands are required by health regulatory groups to list the ingredients in all of their products. For the most part, food manufacturers follow these guidelines diligently but take advantage of the average consumer’s laziness to check these labels. Even if the consumer did check the labels, a lot of the ingredients listed are meaningless to the layman. For example, no one would really understand what E321 or E320 means unless they’re aware of the dangers that come with them. (Related: Popular breakfast cereals found to contain low levels of toxic heavy metals; Natural News Labs publishes results.)

Additionally, brands are encouraged by the Department of Health to color code additives so that they’re easier to spot. These are endorsed recommendations that are not strictly enforced. As such, most food manufacturers opt out of following the suggestion. These brands are still — technically — following the law even if they are being sneaky about it.

This is a reason why many nonprofit organizations have made it their mission to educate the public about the dangers of processed sugar, as well as detecting hidden dangers in popular food brands.

The takeaway here is information. The conclusion that “sugar makes you fat” may come across as obvious but sometimes people need to discuss the elephant in the room. While breakfast is an important part of a person’s day, ignorantly consuming cereals (even those touted as “healthy”) can lead to poor health. Parents, in particular, should be more cautious in what they feed their children.

America’s Drinking Problem Is Much Worse This Century

Americans are drinking more than they used to, a troubling trend with potentially dire implications for the country’s future health-care costs.

The number of adults who binge drink at least once a week could be as high as 30 million, greater than the population of every state save California, according to a study published on Wednesday in JAMA Psychiatry. A similar number reported alcohol abuse or dependency.

Between the genders, women showed the larger increase in alcohol abuse, according to the report.

“This should be a big wake-up call,” said David Jernigan, director of the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who wasn’t involved with the research. “Alcohol is our number one drug problem, and it’s not just a problem among kids.”

While underage drinking has declined in recent years, adult consumption increased across all demographics. The jump was also especially large for older Americans, minorities and people with lower levels of education and income.

The rise is “startling,” said Bridget Grant, a researcher at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and lead author of the paper. “We haven’t seen these increases for three or four decades.”

The share of adults who reported any alcohol use, high-risk drinking or alcohol dependence or abuse increased significantly between when surveys were conducted in 2001-02 and in follow-up surveys during 2012-2013. Researchers personally interviewed tens of thousands of people with similar questions, offering a robust, nationally representative look at how American drinking habits have evolved in the 21st century.

About 12.6 percent of adults reported risky drinking during the previous year in 2012-13, compared with 9.7 percent in 2001-02. Behavior was considered high-risk if people surpassed the government’s guidelines for excessive alcohol intake, set at four drinks in one day for women and five drinks for men, at least once a week.

That 3 percentage point increase may not seem like a huge jump, but given an adult U.S. population of about 250 million, it represents roughly 7 million more people binge drinking at least once a week.

SCIENCE FOR SALE: Shocking emails reveal editor of food science journal was secretly on Monsanto’s payroll at $400 per hour

MIKE ADAMS–The following bombshell story appears on GM Watch and was published on August 2, 2017. It appears on the same day that the New York Times published another bombshell story revealing Forbes.com to be a propaganda rag for Monsanto. What’s abundantly clear in all this is how Monsanto’s web of criminality, lies and deceit is rapidly unraveling, and the evil corporation is facing billions of dollars in damages from multiple lawsuits across the country.

Read this article from GM Watch and learn just how devious and criminal Monsanto has become. It is truly the most evil corporation on the planet, and it bankrolls evil, corrupt people like Bruce Chassy, Jon Entine and A. Wallace Hayes. Every effort to retract science papers that exposed the toxicity of GMOs and glyphosate, we now know, was orchestrated by Monsanto through a network of bribery and fraud that even ensnared the editors of science journals. No corporation has corrupted science more than Monsanto, and it is very telling that science propagandists like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye have joined the efforts of Monsanto to lie to the world and suppress scientific truth in order to protect the profits of the world’s most evil (and dangerous) corporation.

Here’s the full story from GM Watch. Also see this page of court discovery documents, listed on USRTK.org.

Uncovered: Monsanto campaign to get Séralini study retracted

Documents released in US cancer litigation show Monsanto’s desperate attempts to suppress a study that showed adverse effects of Roundup herbicide – and that the editor of the journal that retracted the study had a contractual relationship with the company. Claire Robinson reports

Internal Monsanto documents released by attorneys leading US cancer litigation show that the company launched a concerted campaign to force the retraction of a study that revealed toxic effects of Roundup. The documents also show that the editor of the journal that first published the study entered into a contract with Monsanto in the period shortly before the retraction campaign began.

The study, led by Prof GE Séralini, showed that very low doses of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide had toxic effects on rats over a long-term period, including serious liver and kidney damage. Additional observations of increased tumour rates in treated rats would need to be confirmed in a larger-scale carcinogenicity study.

The newly released documents show that throughout the retraction campaign, Monsanto tried to cover its tracks to hide its involvement. Instead Monsanto scientist David Saltmiras admitted to orchestrating a “third party expert” campaign in which scientists who were apparently independent of Monsanto would bombard the editor-in-chief of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), A. Wallace Hayes, with letters demanding that he retract the study.

Use of “third party experts” is a classic public relations tactic perfected by the tobacco industry. It consists of putting industry-friendly messages into the mouths of supposedly “independent” experts, since no one would believe industry attempts to defend its own products. Back in 2012, GMWatch founder Jonathan Matthews exposed the industry links of the supposedly independent scientists who lobbied the journal editor to retract the Séralini paper. Now we have first-hand proof of Monsanto’s direct involvement.

In one document, Saltmiras reviews his own achievements within the company, boasting that he “Successfully facilitated numerous third party expert letters to the editor which were subsequently published, reflecting the numerous significant deficiencies, poor study design, biased reporting and selective statistics employed by Séralini. In addition, coauthored the Monsanto letter to the editor with [Monsanto employees] Dan Goldstein and Bruce Hammond.”

Saltmiras further writes of how “Throughout the late 2012 Séralini rat cancer publication and media campaign, I leveraged my relationship [with] the Editor i[n] Chief of the publishing journal… and was the single point of contact between Monsanto and the Journal.”

Another Monsanto employee, Eric Sachs, writes in an email about his efforts to galvanize scientists in the letter-writing campaign. Sachs refers to Bruce Chassy, a scientist who runs the pro-GMO Academics Review website. Sachs writes: “I talked to Bruce Chassy and he will send his letter to Wally Hayes directly and notify other scientists that have sent letters to do the same. He understands the urgency… I remain adamant that Monsanto must not be put in the position of providing the critical analysis that leads the editors to retract the paper.”

In response to Monsanto’s request, Chassy urged Hayes to retract the Séralini paper: “My intent was to urge you to roll back the clock, retract the paper, and restart the review process.”

Chassy was also the first signatory of a petition demanding the retraction of the Séralini study and the co-author of a Forbes article accusing Séralini of fraud. In neither document does Chassy declare any link with Monsanto. But in 2016 he was exposed as having taken over $57,000 over less than two years from Monsanto to travel, write and speak about GMOs.

Sachs is keen to ensure that Monsanto is not publicly seen as attempting to get the paper retracted, even though that is precisely what it is doing. Sachs writes to Monsanto scientist William Heydens: “There is a difference between defending science and participating in a formal process to retract a publication that challenges the safety of our products. We should not provide ammunition for Séralini, GM critics and the media to charge that Monsanto used its might to get this paper retracted. The information that we provided clearly establishes the deficiencies in the study as reported and makes a strong case that the paper should not have passed peer review.”

Another example of Monsanto trying to cover up its involvement in the retraction campaign emerges from email correspondence between Monsanto employees Daniel Goldstein and Eric Sachs. Goldstein states: “I was uncomfortable even letting shareholders know we are aware of this LTE [GMW: probably “Letter to the Editor”]…. It implies we had something to do with it – otherwise how do we have knowledge of it? I could add ‘Aware of multiple letters to editor including one signed by 25 scientists from 14 countries’ if you both think this is OK.” Sachs responds: “We are ‘connected’ but did not write the letter or encourage anyone to sign it.”

A. Wallace Hayes was paid by Monsanto

The most shocking revelation of the disclosed documents is that the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology, A. Wallace Hayes, entered into a consulting agreement with Monsanto in the period just before Hayes’s involvement in the retraction of the Séralini study. Clearly Hayes had a conflict of interest between his role as a consultant for Monsanto and his role as editor for a journal that retracted a study determining that glyphosate has toxic effects. The study was published on 19 September 2012; the consulting agreement between Hayes and Monsanto was dated 21 August 2012 and Hayes is contracted to provide his services beginning 7 September 2012.

The documents also reveal that Monsanto paid Hayes $400 per hour for his services and that in return Hayes was expected to “Assist in establishment of an expert network of toxicologists, epidemiologists, and other scientists in South America and participate on the initial meeting held within the region. Preparation and delivery of a seminar addressing relevant regional issues pertaining to glyphosate toxicology is a key deliverable for the inaugural meeting in 2013.”

Hayes should have recused himself from any involvement with the Séralini study from the time he signed this agreement. But he kept quiet. He went on to oversee a second “review” of the study by unnamed persons whose conflicts of interest, if any, were not declared – resulting in his decision to retract the study for the unprecedented reason that some of the results were “inconclusive”.

Hayes told the New York Times’s Danny Hakim in an interview that he had not been under contract with Monsanto at the time of the retraction and was paid only after he left the journal. He added that “Monsanto played no role whatsoever in the decision that was made to retract.” But since it took the journal over a year to retract the study after the months-long second review, which Hayes oversaw, it’s clear that he had an undisclosed conflict of interest from the time he entered into the contract with Monsanto and during the review process. He appears to be misleading the New York Times.

The timing of the contract also begs the question as to whether Monsanto knew the publication of the study was coming. If so, they may have been happy to initiate such a relationship with Hayes at just that time.

A Monsanto internal email confirms the company’s intimate relationship with Hayes. Saltmiras writes about the recently published Séralini study: “Wally Hayes, now FCT Editor in Chief for Vision and Strategy, sent me a courtesy email early this morning. Hopefully the two of us will have a follow up discussion soon to touch on whether FCT Vision and Strategy were front and center for this one passing through the peer review process.”

In other email correspondence between various Monsanto personnel, Daniel Goldstein writes the following with respect to the Séralini study: “Retraction – Both Dan Jenkins (US Government affairs) and Harvey Glick made a strong case for withdrawal of the paper if at all possible, both on the same basis – that publication will elevate the status of the paper, bring other papers in the journal into question, and allow Séralini much more freedom to operate. All of us are aware that the ultimate decision is up to the editor and the journal management, and that we may not have an opportunity for withdrawal in any event, but I felt it was worth reinforcing this request.”

Monsanto got its way, though the paper was subsequently republished by another journal with higher principles – and, presumably, with an editorial board that wasn’t under contract with Monsanto.

Why Monsanto had to kill the Séralini study

It’s obvious that it was in Monsanto’s interests to kill the Séralini study. The immediate reason was that it reported harmful effects from low doses of Roundup and a GM maize engineered to tolerate it. But the wider reason that emerges from the documents is that to admit that the study had any validity whatsoever would be to open the doors for regulators and others to demand other long-term studies on GM crops and their associated pesticides.

A related danger for Monsanto, pointed out by Goldstein, is that “a third party may procure funding to verify Séralini’s claims, either through a government agency or the anti-GMO/antl-pesticide financiers”.

The documents show that Monsanto held a number of international teleconferences to discuss how to pre-empt such hugely threatening developments.

Summing up the points from the teleconferences, Daniel Goldstein writes that “unfortunately”, three “potential issues regarding long term studies have now come up and will need some consideration and probably a white paper of some type (either internal or external)”. These are potential demands for
•    2 year rat/long-term cancer (and possibly reproductive toxicity) on GM crops
•    2 year/chronic studies on pesticide formulations, in addition to the studies on the active ingredient alone that are currently demanded by regulators, and
•    2 year rat/chronic studies of pesticide formulations on the GM crop.

In reply to the first point, Goldstein writes that the Séralini study “found nothing other than the usual variation in SD [Sprague-Dawley] rats, and as such there is no reason to question the recent EFSA guidance that such studies were not needed for substantially equivalent crops”. GMWatch readers will not be surprised to see Monsanto gaining support from EFSA in its opposition to carrying out long-term studies on GMOs.

In answer to the second point, Goldstein reiterates that the Séralini study “actually finds nothing – so there is no need to draw any conclusions from it – but the theoretical issue has been placed on the table. We need to be prepared with a well considered response.”

In answer to the third point, Goldstein ignores the radical nature of genetic engineering and argues pragmatically, if not scientifically, “This approach would suggest that the same issue arises for conventional crops and that every individual formulation would need a chronic study over every crop (at a minimum) and probably every variety of crop (since we know they have more genetic variation than GM vs conventional congener) and raises the possibility of an almost limitless number of tests.” But he adds, “We also need a coherent argument for this issue.”

EU regulators side with Monsanto

To the public’s detriment, some regulatory bodies have backed Monsanto rather than the public interest and have backed off the notion that long-term studies should be required for GM crops. In fact, the EU is considering doing away with even the short 90-day animal feeding studies currently required under European GMO legislation. This will be based in part on the results of the EU-funded GRACE animal feeding project, which has come under fire for the industry links of some of the scientists involved and for its alleged manipulation of findings of adverse effects on rats fed Monsanto’s GM MON810 maize.

Apology required

A. Wallace Hayes is no longer the editor-in-chief of FCT but is named as an “emeritus editor”. Likewise, Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto employee who was parachuted onto the journal’s editorial board shortly after the publication of the Séralini study, is no longer at the journal.

But although they are sidelined or gone, their legacy lives on in the form of a gap in the history of the journal where Séralini’s paper belongs.

Now that Monsanto’s involvement in the retraction of the Séralini paper is out in the open, FCT and Hayes should do the decent thing and issue a formal apology to Prof Séralini and his team. FCT cannot and should not reinstate the paper, because it is now published by another journal. But it needs to draw a line under this shameful episode, admit that it handled it badly, and declare its support for scientific independence and objectivity.

Read the full entry at GMwatch.org

After Vatican staff caught in gay orgy, the Pope says GMOs are approved by the Catholic Church

MIKE ADAMS–To state it bluntly, Pope Francis is not merely a freedom-hating communist and traitor to the sacred blessing of liberty, he’s actually part of the Satanic takeover of the Catholic Church that has now led the organization down the path of self-destruction.

Not only was the staff of a key Vatican advisor recently caught hosting a gay sex orgy, but now the Church says foods made from genetically engineered seeds that are “owned” by the world’s most evil corporation (Monsanto) are perfectly okay to use in holy church events.

This is only accelerating the demise of the Catholic Church, of course, as people see it abandoning God and cozying up to evil, domineering corporations that seek to place Man higher than God when it comes to seeds and food crops. Aside from the philosophical arguments about seeds and Mother Nature, Monsanto is also the single most evil corporation in the world, running some of the sleaziest “dark ops” negative P.R. operations the world has ever seen, lying, deceiving and smearing clean food advocates in order to dominate the world’s food supply at all costs.

None of this appears to bother the modern day Vatican, where upcoming events might as well include mass sex orgies, organized sexual abuse of choir boys and all-you-can-eat GMO sperm cracker buffets. Is this really what the Catholic Church has come to? Sadly, it seems so.

Pedophilia and GMOs seem to go hand in hand these days — because they’re both EVIL — and now it all appears to have the blessing of the Pope himself!

Microbeads ban: Government to outlaw microplastics in cosmetic products

The Government is to go ahead with a ban on “rinse-off” plastic microbeads in cosmetics and personal care products following a public consultation, it has announced.

The proposal comes amid increasing evidence that tiny plastic particles are damaging marine life and could even pose a serious risk to human health.

Exfoliating scrubs, shower gels and toothpaste are among the products to be affected.

The cosmetics industry resisted calls for “leave-on” products like make-up and sunscreen to be included in the ban, saying they would have to reformulate up to 90 per cent of their products, which would be “difficult” and “expensive”.

The Government, which will introduce the necessary legislation later this year, said an expert committee would consider whether other products should be included in the ban, which would be enforced by warnings and fines.

Greenpeace UK hailed the move as “the strongest ban on microbeads in the world to date”. The Marine Conservation Society also welcomed the announcement, but said microbeads should be banned from any product that was likely to end up being flushed “down the drain”.

The news came as Michael Gove, the Environment Secretary, promised further action to reduce the amount of plastic waste getting into the sea, saying it was “putting marine wildlife under serious threat”.

In a summary of responses to the consultation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), officials said that “based on this evidence the overall objective of our proposals remains to ban the use of rinse-off plastic microbeads in cosmetics and personal care products where there is clear and robust evidence of harm to the marine environment”.