New book in Dutch

Eet vet word slank

Eet vet word slank gepubliceerd januari 2013

In dit boek lees je o.a.: * heel veel informatie ter bevordering van je gezondheid; * hoe je door de juiste vetten te eten en te drinken kan afvallen; * hoe de overheid en de voedingsindustrie ons, uit financieel belang, verkeerd voorlichten; * dat je van bewerkte vetten ziek kan worden.

Trick and Treat:
How 'healthy eating' is making us ill
Trick and Treat cover

"A great book that shatters so many of the nutritional fantasies and fads of the last twenty years. Read it and prolong your life."
Clarissa Dickson Wright

Natural Health & Weight Loss cover

"NH&WL may be the best non-technical book on diet ever written"
Joel Kauffman, PhD, Professor Emeritus, University of the Sciences, Philadelphia, PA

Soy Online Service

Is the right kind of testing on GM soy being done?

From the Natural Law Party, UK, Wessex Branch

Please see the ABC News article below.

If this kind of thing is cropping up with research on normal soya which requires no special testing for release onto the market, how come the allegedly thorough testing with GM varieties has not shown any similar adverse effects on animal and human health? This raises the question: "Is the right kind of testing on GM soy being done, or are the testing methods used not suited for picking up health effects?"

The adverse effects from normal soy should be showing up in GM soy as well if GM soy is really "substantially equivalent" to normal soy as claimed by food safety regulators around the world. Because the GM testing appears not be successfully identifying these known problems, this situation would appear to be further evidence that GM soya has only been subject to superficial testing. If so what additional effects created by the genetic modification have also gone undetected?

This situation is especially significant because outstanding questions concerning the safety of normal soy appear to be arising even from within the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) itself. According to the ABC News report below, soy safety questions from recent research have arisen in relation to a number of health problems including breast cancer in women, brain function in men, and developmental abnormalities in children. According to the FDA scientists concerned: "There exists a significant body of animal data that demonstrates goitrogenic and even carcinogenic effects of soy products." And much more....(see their letter to their own employer, the FDA, posted at the end of the first ABC article which includes a full exposition and a long list of published scientific papers). No wonder no Government wants to do proper toxicity testing on GM soy. It could upset the whole soy multi-billion dollar apple cart, both GM and non-GM.

For more information on the lack of safety testing on GM soy see: "Where is the safety testing of GM soya?"

In the light of this evidence is it a true scientific statement to say: "There are no adverse health effects from GM soya"...? Certainly these scientists from the FDA have not been willing to make such a statement in respect of normal soya - in fact they have clearly said something very contrary. It seems apparent that much of the detailed testing which has now been done on normal soy (with negative results) has not been done on GM soy, and that therefore the GM testing is not worth the paper it is written on. To make matters worse it is now legal in the US to label any kind of soy (GM or otherwise) as beneficial for reducing heart disease risk (see ABC story below), but illegal to label it as genetically modified. God Bless America - land of the "fee". The new labelling arrangements follow a petition submitted to the FDA by the American Soybean Association (ASA), whose corporate partners include the following biotechnology/agro-chemical companies - American Cyanamid, Bayer, Dow, Du Pont, Monsanto, Novartis and Zeneca ( ).

According to ASA President Mike Yost: "With this one change we couldn't have asked for a more favorable decision by FDA, one that will benefit U.S. and world consumers as well as U.S. soybean producers." (ASA News Release November 16, 1998 following the initial FDA approval.) By contrast, in submitting its comments to the FDA on the new health-claim labelling arrangements for all soy the American Dietetic Association (ADA) warned: "ADA assumes that both FDA and PTI have looked extensively at the literature regarding potential safety concerns such as allergenic reactions and possible toxicological effects of soy. While we recognize that there is limited research in this area, we urge FDA to consider any safety and toxicological issues prior to finalizing this rule."

In the light of the warnings made by its own scientific experts here are six questions that it would now be interesting for attorneys and barristers to ask the FDA and other government regulators in courts of law around the world:

1) "What is your understanding of the term 'the precautionary principle'?"

2) "Are there any harmful health effects from non-genetically modified soy postulated or demonstrated as a result of experiments published in the scientific literature?"

3) "Have all such experiments on the health effects of non-genetically modified soy also been carried out in relation to genetically modified soy?"

4) "Is genetically modified soy 'substantially equivalent' to non-genetically modified soy?"

5) "If you consider there to be equivalence, does that mean that any scientific findings on the health effects of non-genetically modified soy would also be applicable to genetically modified soy?"

6) "On the basis of your answers to the previous questions, and any other scientific evidence that you are aware of, are you able to confirm that there are no harmful health effects from genetically modified soy?"




I have removed the COMMENT facility, with regret, as I seem to be the only person who cannot leave a comment!