Consider this: many commercial dog foods list corn at or near the top of their ingredient lists.
by Rady Ananda
Global Research, January 3, 2010 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16747
In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto’s GM maize.
All three varieties of GM corn, Mon 810, Mon 863 and NK 603, were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities. Made public by European authorities in 2005, Monsanto’s confidential raw data of its 2002 feeding trials on rats that these researchers analyzed is the same data, ironically, that was used to approve them in different parts of the world.
The Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and Universities of Caen and Rouen studied Monsanto’s 90-day feeding trials data of insecticide producing Mon 810, Mon 863 and Roundup® herbicide absorbing NK 603 varieties of GM maize.
The data “clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system,” reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.
Although different levels of adverse impact on vital organs were noticed between the three GMOs, the 2009 research shows specific effects associated with consumption of each GMO, differentiated by sex and dose.
Their December 2009 study appears in the International Journal of Biological Sciences(IJBS). This latest study conforms with a 2007 analysis by CRIIGEN on Mon 863, published inEnvironmental Contamination and Toxicology, using the same data.
Monsanto rejected the 2007 conclusions, stating:
“The analyses conducted by these authors are not consistent with what has been traditionally accepted for use by regulatory toxicologists for analysis of rat toxicology data.”
[Also see Doull J, Gaylor D, Greim HA, et al. “Report of an expert panel on the reanalysis by Séralini et al. (2007) of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863).” Food Chem Toxicol. 2007; 45:2073-2085.]
Séralini explained that their study goes beyond Monsanto’s analysis by exploring the sex-differentiated health effects on mammals, which Doull, et al. ignored:
“Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data.” [communication to author]
Other problems with Monsanto’s conclusions
When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol is to use three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.
Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests “lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases,” wrote Seralini, et al. in their Doull rebuttal. [See “How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals.” IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]
Further, Monsanto’s analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, “In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic non-GM equivalent.”
The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.
They have called for “an immediate ban on the import and cultivation of these GMOs and strongly recommend additional long-term (up to two years) and multi-generational animal feeding studies on at least three species to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods.”
Human health, of course, is of primary import to us, but ecological effects are also in play. Ninety-nine percent of GMO crops either tolerate or produce insecticide. This may be the reason we seebee colony collapse disorder and massive butterfly deaths. If GMOs are wiping out Earth’s pollinators, they are far more disastrous than the threat they pose to humans and other mammals.
Rady Ananda began blogging in 2004. Her work has appeared in several online and print publications, including three books on election fraud. Most of her career was spent working for lawyers in research, investigations and as a paralegal. She spent seven years as an editor, two of them as a web editor for a site with 20,000 members. In December 2003, she graduated from The Ohio State University’s School of Agriculture with a B.S. in Natural Resources
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Dogs are more than just flesh and blood. Their emotions and life energy are similar to ours. When we connect on a deeper level, we find ourselves faced by highly evolved beings who are here to help and support us in our own growth and expansion.
The Spiritual Canine invites visitors to explore this deep connection further. We also encourage your to join the related Yahoo! Group.
See you there!
PRESS RELEASE
15 December 2009
UK animal welfare, behaviour, training and veterinary organisations1 are warning of the possible dangers of using techniques for training dogs that can cause pain and fear, such as some of those seen used by Cesar Millan, who has announced a UK tour next year.
The organisations have joined forces to voice their serious concerns about techniques which pose welfare problems for dogs and significant risk to owners who may copy them. These concerns are shared, and the statement supported, by similar organisations around the world2 and in continental Europe3.
Aversive training techniques, which have been seen to be used by Cesar Millan, are based on the principle of applying an unpleasant stimulus to inhibit behaviour. This kind of training technique can include the use of prong collars, electric shock collars, restricting dogs′ air supply using nooses/leads or pinning them to the ground, which can cause pain and distress. The use of such techniques may compromise the welfare of dogs and may worsen the behavioural problems they aim to address, potentially placing owners at considerable risk. A number of scientific studies have found an association between the use of aversive training techniques and the occurrence of undesired behaviours in dogs.
The organisations believe that the use of such training techniques is not only unacceptable from a welfare perspective, but that this type of approach is not necessary for the modification of dog behaviour. Dog trainers all over the UK use reward-based methods to train dogs very effectively. Where dogs have behaviours which owners find unacceptable, such as aggression or destruction, qualified behaviourists achieve long term changes in behaviour through the use of established and validated techniques of behaviour modification without subjecting dogs to training techniques which may cause pain or distress.
We urge dog owners to carefully consider the help they choose to train their dogs or tackle behavioural problems. Anyone can call themselves a behaviour expert, but we believe that only those with a combination of appropriate qualifications, up to date knowledge as well as skills and experience should be treating dogs, and should only do so in a way which does not put the welfare of the dogs at risk.
Further information on:
* the misconceptions which underlie the use of aversive training techniques * the development of behaviour in dogs * the problems associated with the use of aversive training techniques * finding a suitable trainer or behaviourist
can be found at: www.dogwelfarecampaign.org
1 Dogs Trust, The Blue Cross, Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), The Blue Dog, Wood Green Animal Shelters, World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), The Kennel Club, Raystede Centre for Animal Welfare, Canine Partners, UK , Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour (ASAB) Accreditation Ltd, Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors (APBC), Association of Pet Dog Trainers, UK (APDT, UK), UK Registry of Canine Behaviours (UKRCB), Companion Animal Behaviour Therapy Study Group (CABTSG), British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA) and British Veterinary Association (BVA). 2 Australian Veterinary Association (AVA), Australian Veterinary Behaviour Interest Group (AVBIG), American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) and The Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers, Inc. (CCPDT)(USA). 3 European Society of Clinical Veterinary Ethology (ESCVE), European College of Veterinary Behavioural Medicine – Companion Animals (ECVBM-CA), the Flemish Veterinary Working Group on Ethology (VDWE) and Norwegian Association for Pet Behaviour (NAPB) Norsk Atferdsgruppe for Selskapsdyr (NAS).
More information about organisations supporting this press statement can be found at www.dogwelfarecampaign.org
-ends-
I am extraordinarily pleased to announce that Shiny Paw by Therapeutic Pet Solutions is now in partnership with epi4dogs and 10% of every product sold will go to EPI Genetic Research.
The product line includes: Shampoos, Conditioners, Detanglers, Skin Refresheners, Bug Repellents, Ear Cleaners and Flushes, Anti Itch Healing Sprays.
Please go to: http://www.shinypaw.com/ Or go to: http://www.epi4dogs.com/products.htm (check it out and read Dr. Clark’s experience with Shiny Paw)
The entire product line is 100% organic made with all natural plant extracts, vitamins and oils. The formulas have been tested and proven effective against bacteria, fungi, yeasts and many other ailments and conditions that affect dogs, cats and other animals. These products have been especially helpful with those dogs that tend itch, bite or scratch a lot. Their coats/hair will feel and look wonderful afterwards.
Now just might be the perfect time to order something, like the Eucalyptus, Chamomile & Aloe Vera shampoo for only $10 (like I did) to get your dog ready for when family and friends stop by during the holidays!
And please feel free to cross post this message with others that have pets that you know might be interested in quality products ….and in supporting EPI Research!
Happy Holiday to everyone!
Olesia Kennedy
http://www.epi4dogs.com/
This post is provided as a public service. No material connection exists between brigittesdogs.com and shiny Paws.
Please Cross Post.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:11 PM Everyone should read this! Everyone! Don’t sign any petition on the so-called “Happy Act” which is supposed to provide a tax break for dog breeders until you read this.
http://www.thedogplace.org/PROJECTS/Federal/09112-Happy-Act_Witouski-0911.asp
FROM THE DOGPRESS…
November 2009 / TheDogPlace.org – It is of our opinion that this bill does exactly what it was intended to do. To draw in unsuspecting breeders who believe they are getting a “break” and it is being done exactly in the style to which we who work legislation are accustomed to seeing, or should be accustomed to seeing, by now.
Those who believe this is a ‘good thing’ should stop and reconsider how bills are amended as they make their way through Congress. Although some feel it worthy of support as currently written, consideration needs to be given regarding the amendments that HSUS could/would add that most likely will end up not benefiting breeders at all, rather, it could/would be more detrimental to your rights to own animals in the end. This is not an unfamiliar tactic in politics, as many of you more experienced in the legislative arena are aware – gain the support of the opposition with some “feel good” legislation, amend, amend, amend – and then advise Congress that it was “what everybody wanted.” If you sign on to it in the beginning, you have no defense – you signed up to support it and your signature on any petition will be proof positive.
BREEDERS OPPOSE NATIONAL “HAPPY ACT” HR3501 Everybody should be aware by now that the HSUS is looking at taxes that are not being collected from breeders, as evidenced in the not so long ago Indiana confiscation in which back taxes surpassed $130,000. No better way could possibly exist in tracking hobby breeders than to claim they were avoiding paying income taxes on their dogs. In order to claim tax deductions, you must first claim a profit, and in doing so, hobby breeders will no longer be considered as such and would then fall under other more stringent regulations, possibly causing the hobbyist to be reconsidered as a “business.” In addition, there are many rural and urban areas that are not zoned for “business” and many hobby breeders will then be in the target scope and in jeopardy of losing their animals because of “zoning regulations and restrictions” in those particular areas that are not zoned for business. Professional, licensed breeders already deduct expenses. Hobbyists, by signing any petitions, would be voluntarily setting themselves up to lose their hobbyist status and would then be required to prove all expenses for their animals once they are considered as “professional breeders.” While you, as a hobbyist, may gain on one level, you will surely lose on several others once your status is changed.
As “Happy” as this bill may sound, there are far too many unanswered questions when reading in between the lines and while this bill, as is currently written, appears to only entail “health care for animals”, can you possibly conceive in your own mind that HSUS or any other anti animal group will leave it as is when it gives them the perfect opportunity to add to it as it makes its way through the legislation process?
Additionally, allowing (up to) a $3500 deduction also increases the potential of a dog’s value. Animal rights attorneys are constantly testing the courts in this currently gray area for purposes of malpractice and emotional damages. Permitting tax deductions for dogs is one more step up the “they are family and should be in an elevated property status” ladder.
We fully realize that the “Happy Act”, HR3501, is a “feel good” piece of nationwide legislation to unsuspecting supporters but we also realize that this bill has the potential of putting animals on the same level as humans and sets a very dangerous precedent in equating animals with the seniors, the elderly and children, who currently are permitted to have deductions taken by their caregivers. This bill creates the perfect backdrop for “guardianship.”
As such, the Monthly National Legislation Report, and the organizations listed below, oppose this bill and asks that you take the time to consider all possible ramifications prior to making any decision other than opposition.
Currently, the following organizations have joined the MNLR in opposing HR3501:
SAOVA MOFED Nevada Animal Owners & Sportsmen – Voting Alliance SC Animal Owners & Sportsmen Voting Coalition SC Federation of Dog Clubs
*Note: If your organization would like to join the Opposed list, please drop an email to 4winds@viawest. net or dropfred13@aol. com
Read the bill here: HR3501 — The Happy Act – Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (“HAPPY”) Act http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3501:
For Immediate Release: Nov. 5, 2009
Media Inquiries: Rita Chappelle, 301-796-4672, rita.chappelle@fda.hhs.gov Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA FDA Health Alert for Certain Pet Treats Made by Pet Carousel Products may be contaminated with Salmonella
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is issuing this health alert to warn consumers not to use Pig Ears and Beef Hooves pet treats manufactured by Pet Carousel because the products may be contaminated with Salmonella. The products were distributed nationwide in both bulk and retail packaging for sale in pet food and retail chain stores. Pet Carousel is based in Sanger, Calif.
The products were manufactured under conditions that facilitate cross-contamination within batches or lots. Although no illnesses associated with these products have been reported, the FDA is advising consumers in possession of these products to not handle or feed them to their pets.
The affected pig ear products were packaged under the brand names Doggie Delight and Pet Carousel. The affected beef hooves were packaged under the brand names Choo Hooves, Dentley’s, Doggie Delight, and Pet Carousel. All sizes and all lots of these products made by Pet Carousel are included in this alert.
During September 2009, the FDA conducted routine testing of pig ears made by Pet Carousel. The test results detected a positive reading for Salmonella. This prompted an FDA inspection of Pet Carousel’s manufacturing facilities. During the inspection, the agency collected additional pet treat samples. Further analysis found Salmonella present in beef hooves, pig ears and in the manufacturing environment.
Salmonella can affect both humans and animals. People handling dry pet food and/or pet treats can become infected with Salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the treats or any surfaces exposed to these products. Consumers should dispose of these products in a safe manner by securing them in a covered trash receptacle.
Healthy people infected with Salmonella may experience some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Although rare, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments including arterial infections, endocarditis (inflammation of the lining of the heart), arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their health care provider immediately.
Pets with Salmonella infections may become lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever and vomiting. Some pets may only experience a decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected, but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed any of the affected products or is experiencing any of these symptoms, contact your veterinarian immediately.
The FDA will continue to investigate this matter to determine the source of the Salmonella contamination and offer updates as appropriate.
Consumers can report complaints about FDA-regulated pet food and pet treat products by calling the consumer complaint coordinator in their area. You can locate the nearest consumer complaint coordinator at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/ReportaProblem/ConsumerComplaintCoordinators/default.htm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — Phoenix, AZ, Nov 4, 2009 – PetSmart (NASDAQ: PETM) is voluntarily recalling two Dentley’s Beef Hoof products for potential salmonella contamination. The products were manufactured by Pet Carousel, Inc. in Sanger, Calif.
The recalled products include only the following types of Dentley’s Beef Hooves purchased between Oct. 2, 2009 and Nov. 3, 2009:
Dentley’s Bulk Cattle Hoof UPC# 73725703323 Dentley’s 10 Pack Beef Hooves UPC# 73725736055
No other products are included in this recall.
The affected products were shipped from the Pet Carousel plant to three PetSmart distribution centers in Ottawa, Ill.; Groveport, Ohio and Newnan, Ga.; and then shipped directly to certain PetSmart stores. Although the affected product was not shipped to every store, as a precautionary measure PetSmart immediately recalled the product from all of its US stores and instituted a register block to prevent any product from being inadvertently scanned and sold. In addition, PetSmart removed the product from the PetSmart.com Web site and notified PetPerks customers with valid e-mail addresses in the PetSmart database who purchased the affected products.
Salmonellosis is an infection with bacteria called salmonella. Most persons infected with salmonella develop diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps 12 to 72 hours after infection. The illness usually lasts four to seven days, and most persons recover without treatment. However, in some individuals, the diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be hospitalized. In these patients, the salmonella infection may spread from the intestines to the blood stream, and then to other body sites and can cause death unless the person is treated promptly with antibiotics. The elderly, infants, and those with impaired immune systems are more likely to have a severe illness.
Many dogs do not show clinical signs of salmonella. However, when they do, they often have diarrhea or other signs of systemic infections.
Customers who purchased the recalled products should discontinue use immediately and return the product to any PetSmart store for a complete refund or exchange. Customers who have concerns about their health or their pet’s health should consult a medical professional. For additional information about the recall, customers can visit www.petsmartfacts.com, www.petsmart.com ; www.fda.govor contact PetSmart Customer Service at 1-888-839-9638.
PetSmart, Inc. is the largest specialty pet retailer of services and solutions for the lifetime needs of pets. The company operates more than 1,145 pet stores in the United States and Canada, 156 in-store PetSmart PetsHotel(R) cat and dog boarding facilities, and is a leading online provider of pet supplies and pet care information (www.petsmart.com). PetSmart provides a broad range of competitively priced pet food and pet products; and offers complete pet training, pet grooming, pet boarding, Doggie Day Camp(SM) pet day care services and pet adoption services. Since 1994, PetSmart Charities, Inc., an independent 501(c)(3) non-profit animal welfare organization, has funded more than $87 million in grants and programs benefiting animal welfare organizations and, through its in-store pet adoption programs, has helped save the lives of more than 3.7 million pets.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.petsmartfacts.com customercare@petsmart.com 1-888-839-9638
NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Jessica White PetSmart Media Line (623) 587-2177 mediarelations@ssg.petsmart.com
SOURCE: PetSmart, Inc.
http://www.petsmartfacts.com
mailto:customercare@petsmart.com mailto:mediarelations@ssg.petsmart.com
The following batches of Wysong Canine Diets Maintenance™ and Senior™ have shown above acceptable moisture levels and may contain mold.
Wysong Maintenance™: lot #: 090617 Wysong Maintenance™: lot #: 090624 Wysong Maintenance™: lot #: 090706 Wysong Maintenance™: lot #: 090720 Wysong Senior™: lot #: 090623
We ask that if you have received any of these Wysong products to please not feed them, and contact Wysong for product replacement.
Email: Wysong@Wysong.net Subject: Product Replacement
Alternatively, please return or exchange at the store from which you purchased the product. Credit will be issued via our Distributors to the Retailer.
We apologize for the inconvenience. http://www.wysong.net/recall.php
In a move full of wisdom and foresight, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 241 and AB 1122 today.
See http://gov.ca.gov/pdf/press/2009bills/AB241_Nava_Veto_Message.pdf and http://gov.ca.gov/pdf/press/2009bills/AB1122_Lieu_Veto_Message.pdf
AB 241 would have had a devastating effect on Canine Companions for Independence and Guide Dogs for the Blind. It would have made the most responsible breeders, the ones who stay on as co-owners for the life of all dogs they place so they can be responsible, criminals. And it established the age of an adult dog as 4 months. In many breeds they have not even gone home by that time. AB 1122 would again have jeopardized the activities of responsible breeders, dog shows, rescue transports, etc. Both bills would have unreasonable costs for enforcement associated with them as well.
Kudos, Governor Schwarzenegger!
Just when you thought pet food was safe again, here’s yet another recall from Nutro. See their web site for details: http://www.nutroproducts.com/press10-1-09.shtml
Isn’t it time you started feeding your dogs REAL food?
