What Big Ag doesn’t want you to know about GMOs and glyphosate

For anyone even mildly tuned in to the food movement, Monsanto (now Bayer) and other ag companies have shaped the global industrial food system with GMOs and glyphosate (Roundup). Now they’re using “gene editing” to further shape nature. Behind the marketing slogans of “precision” and rising to the challenge of “feeding the world,” a different story emerges — one of regulatory capture, hidden side effects, and a food supply increasingly engineered in ways most people never see, can’t really taste, but feel distinctly in their health.

• The incalculable risk of releasing engineered organisms into nature with no recall button

In this interview, Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology, explains:

• Why gene-edited foods don’t need to be labeled or safety-tested before hitting the grocery shelves (and that we’re probably eating them now!)

• How gene editing like CRISPR can unleash “surprise side effects”

• Why glyphosate became one of the most widely used and controversial chemicals on earth

• The lawsuits, cover-ups, and regulatory failures surrounding Monsanto, now Bayer, products

This conversation pulls back the curtain on the experimentation on our food supply, and what you can do right now to protect your family’s health and avoid stealth GMOs.

Disclaimer:

*This interview is for educational and documentary purposes. It presents opinions and ongoing scientific debates. It is not medical advice. For health decisions, consult a qualified clinician.*

Related links:

Institute for Responsible Technology: https://responsibletechnology.org

Secret Ingredients film: https://secretingredientsfilm.com

About Collapse Life

Read more at https://www.collapselife.com and join our newsletter.

Support our work: https://buymeacoffee.com/collapselife

Dr. Vladimir Zelenko MD Exposes CV-19 BioWeapon and Health

He also talks about his own alternative cancer journey with the help of Dr Mercola and treatments of SARS-COV2. 

Bruce Lipton - Biology of Belief - London Real

Bruce Lipton - Biology of Belief - London Real: Bruce Lipton, is an American developmental biologist best known for promoting the idea that genes and DNA can be manipulated by a person’s beliefs.

Click on the link to watch the interview. 👍

The Coronavirus Conspiracy: How COVID-19 Will Seize Your Rights

BANNED INTERVIEW ON YOUTUBE.

The Coronavirus Conspiracy: How COVID-19 Will Seize Your Rights: David Icke, is an English writer and public speaker, known since the 1990s as a professional conspiracy theorist, who has authored over 21 books and 10 DVDs

Bruce Lipton - 'The Power Of Consciousness' - Interview by Iain McNay

Myriad Loses Patent to Breast Cancer Genetic Test

By Richard Smallteacher,

CorpWatch Blog

June 13th, 2013

Myriad Genetics has lost its right to be the exclusive U.S. commercial provider of genetic screening tests for breast cancer or ovarian cancer. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which sued the company, claimed that the patent would limit scientific research as well as health care options for women.

Mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes significantly increase the risk of cancer. By discovering the location of the genes, Myriad was able to develop tests to detect the mutations for which it charged over $3,000. No other company was allowed to do research on the genes without permission from Myriad.

In a unanimous decision released today by the U.S. Supreme Court, all nine judges agreed with the ACLU.

“Myriad did not create anything,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the decision. “It is undisputed that Myriad did not create or alter any of the genetic information encoded in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the criteria (for a patent)

The Myriad patent has long been deeply controversial.

“For women as they are trying to make these major life decisions, it is very helpful for them to have a second opinion. By having only a single lab offering that testing, it is impossible really to be able get that second opinion, either in the way the test is performed or in the interpretation of such a result,” says Dr. Wendy Chung, a clinician and a geneticist at Columbia University. “You’re essentially stuck in a situation of a mediocre test.”

The Myriad screening test is also mostly based on results gathered from white women. The patent has limited further research to see if the results are accurate for women of other races, says Kim Irish of Breast Cancer Action who cites the example of Runi Limary, an Asian woman who received ambiguous results when she had genetic testing done. “Runi was told that this “variant of uncertain significance” has been seen in Asian women, and that these ambiguous results seem to come up more for women of color,” says Irish.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit against Myriad, the University of Utah Research Foundation and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in May 2009. A federal judge ruled against Myriad in 2010 but the company won on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

James Watson, one of the two scientists who discovered DNA, filed a friend of the court brief that stated: “(W)e would not want one individual or company to monopolize the legal right to the beneficial information of a human gene—information that should be used for the betterment of the human race as a whole.”

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has long accepted claims that include DNA sequences – an estimated 35,000 such patents have been approved.

However the Obama administration recently began to limit this approach. “The chemical structure of native human genes is a product of nature, and it is no less a product of nature when that structure is ‘isolated’ from its natural environment than are cotton fibers that have been separated from cotton seeds or coal that has been extracted from the earth,” wrote lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice in a legal brief in 2010. "Common sense would suggest that a product of nature is not transformed into a human-made invention merely by isolating it.”

The ACLU welcomed the decision. "Today, the court struck down a major barrier to patient care and medical innovation," said Sandra Park, an ALCU lawyer. "Myriad did not invent the BRCA genes and should not control them. Because of this ruling, patients will have greater access to genetic testing and scientists can engage in research on these genes without fear of being sued."

Source

Court to Hear Challenge to Myriad’s Human Gene Patent

Posted by Pratap Chatterjee on July 19th, 2012

CorpWatch Blog 

Should a private company be allowed to patent isolated human genes? A lawsuit to be heard Friday pits Myriad Genetics of Utah against the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Myriad wants to be the exclusive U.S. commercial provider of genetic screening tests for breast cancer or ovarian cancer but the non-profit says the patent limits scientific research as well as health care options for women.

Myriad Genetics Inc. has filed patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes which allow it to figure out if a woman is at risk of breast cancer or ovarian cancer. The tests cost over $3,000 and no other company is allowed to do research on the genes without permission from Myriad.

“For women as they are trying to make these major life decisions, it is very helpful for them to have a second opinion. By having only a single lab offering that testing, it is impossible really to be able get that second opinion, either in the way the test is performed or in the interpretation of such a result,” says Dr. Wendy Chung, a clinician and a geneticist at Columbia University. “You’re essentially stuck in a situation of a mediocre test.”

The Myriad screening test is also mostly based on results gathered from white women. The patent has limited further research to see if the results are accurate for women of other races, says Kim Irish of Breast Cancer Action who cites the example of Runi Limary, an Asian woman who received ambiguous results when she had genetic testing done. “Runi was told that this “variant of uncertain significance” has been seen in Asian women, and that these ambiguous results seem to come up more for women of color,” says Irish.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit against Myriad, the University of Utah Research Foundation and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in May 2009. A federal judge ruled against Myriad in 2010 but the company won on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This past March, the U.S. Supreme Court told the appeals court to revisit the case after it rejected a similar lawsuit.

(The other case involved Prometheus Laboratories of California which tried to patent a blood test for patients with Crohn's disease which was rejected unanimously by the Supreme Court justices.)

James Watson, one of the two scientists who discovered DNA, has filed a friend of the court brief that states: “(W)e would not want one individual or company to monopolize the legal right to the beneficial information of a human gene—information that should be used for the betterment of the human race as a whole.”

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has long accepted claims that include DNA sequences – an estimated 35,000 such patents have been approved.

However the Obama administration has recently started to limit this approach. “The chemical structure of native human genes is a product of nature, and it is no less a product of nature when that structure is ‘isolated’ from its natural environment than are cotton fibers that have been separated from cotton seeds or coal that has been extracted from the earth,” wrote lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice in a legal brief in 2010. "Common sense would suggest that a product of nature is not transformed into a human-made invention merely by isolating it.”

Myriad may be in for a difficult fight, given the government opinion.

Source