Why Schools Should Remove Gene-Altered Foods from Their Cafeterias: nutrition & violent behavior

[Guest guest]

Why Schools Should Remove Gene-Altered Foods from Their Cafeterias

M.

Comanche County Chronicle, Elgin, OK, September, 2008

<http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14507.cfm>http://www.organicco\

nsumers.org/articles/article_14507.cfm

Before the Appleton Wisconsin high school

replaced their cafeteria's processed foods with

wholesome, nutritious food, the school was

described as out-of-control. There were weapons

violations, student disruptions, and a cop on

duty full-time. After the change in school meals,

the students were calm, focused, and orderly.

There were no more weapons violations, and no

suicides, expulsions, dropouts, or drug

violations. The new diet and improved behavior

has lasted for seven years, and now other schools

are changing their meal programs with similar results.

Years ago, a science class at Appleton found

support for their new diet by conducting a cruel

and unusual experiment with three mice. They fed

them the junk food that kids in other high

schools eat everyday. The mice freaked out. Their

behavior was totally different than the three

mice in the neighboring cage. The neighboring

mice had good karma; they were fed nutritious

whole foods and behaved like mice. They slept

during the day inside their cardboard tube,

played with each other, and acted very mouse-like.

The junk food mice, on the other hand, destroyed

their cardboard tube, were no longer nocturnal,

stopped playing with each other, fought often,

and two mice eventually killed the third and ate

it. After the three month experiment, the

students rehabilitated the two surviving junk

food mice with a diet of whole foods. After about

three weeks, the mice came around.

Sister Luigi Frigo repeats this experiment every

year in her second grade class in Cudahy,

Wisconsin, but mercifully, for only four days.

Even on the first day of junk food, the mice's

behavior " changes drastically. " They become lazy,

antisocial, and nervous. And it still takes the

mice about two to three weeks on unprocessed

foods to return to normal. One year, the second

graders tried to do the experiment again a few

months later with the same mice, but this time

the animals refused to eat the junk food.

Across the ocean in Holland, a student fed one

group of mice genetically modified (GM) corn and

soy, and another group the non-GM variety. The GM

mice stopped playing with each other and withdrew

into their own parts of the cage. When the

student tried to pick them up, unlike their

well-behaved neighbors, the GM mice scampered

around in apparent fear and tried to climb the

walls. One mouse in the GM group was found dead at the end of the experiment.

It's interesting to note that the junk food fed

to the mice in the Wisconsin experiments also

contained genetically modified ingredients. And

although the Appleton school lunch program did

not specifically attempt to remove GM foods, it

happened anyway. That's because GM foods such as

soy and corn and their derivatives are largely

found in processed foods. So when the school

switched to unprocessed alternatives, almost all

ingredients derived from GM crops were taken out automatically.

Does this mean that GM foods negatively affect

the behavior of humans or animals? It would

certainly be irresponsible to say so on the basis

of a single student mice experiment and the

results at Appleton. On the other hand, it is

equally irresponsible to say that it doesn't.

We are just beginning to understand the influence

of food on behavior. A study in Science in

December 2002 concluded that " food molecules act

like hormones, regulating body functioning and

triggering cell division. The molecules can cause

mental imbalances ranging from attention-deficit

and hyperactivity disorder to serious mental

illness. " The problem is we do not know which food molecules have what effect.

The bigger problem is that the composition of GM

foods can change radically without our knowledge.

Genetically modified foods have genes inserted

into their DNA. But genes are not Legos; they

don't just snap into place. Gene insertion

creates unpredicted, irreversible changes. In one

study, for example, a gene chip monitored the DNA

before and after a single foreign gene was

inserted. As much as 5 percent of the DNA's genes

changed the amount of protein they were

producing. Not only is that huge in itself, but

these changes can multiply through complex interactions down the line.

In spite of the potential for dramatic changes in

the composition of GM foods, they are typically

measured for only a small number of known

nutrient levels. But even if we could identify

all the changed compounds, at this point we

wouldn't know which might be responsible for the

antisocial nature of mice or humans. Likewise, we

are only beginning to identify the medicinal

compounds in food. We now know, for example, that

the pigment in blueberries may revive the brain's

neural communication system, and the antioxidant

found in grape skins may fight cancer and reduce

heart disease. But what about other valuable

compounds we don't know about that might change or disappear in GM varieties?

Consider GM soy. In July 1999, years after it was

on the market, independent researchers published

a study showing that it contains 12-14 percent

less cancer-fighting phytoestrogens. What else

has changed that we don't know about? [Monsanto

responded with its own study, which concluded

that soy's phytoestrogen levels vary too much to

even carry out a statistical analysis. They

failed to disclose, however, that the laboratory

that conducted Monsanto's experiment had been

instructed to use an obsolete method to detect phytoestrogens results.]

In 1996, Monsanto published a paper in the

Journal of Nutrition that concluded in the title,

" The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean

seeds is equivalent to that of conventional

soybeans. " The study only compared a small number

of nutrients and a close look at their charts

revealed significant differences in the fat, ash,

and carbohydrate content. In addition, GM soy

meal contained 27 percent more trypsin inhibitor,

a well-known soy allergen. The study also used

questionable methods. Nutrient comparisons are

routinely conducted on plants grown in identical

conditions so that variables such as weather and

soil can be ruled out. Otherwise, differences in

plant composition could be easily missed. In

Monsanto's study, soybeans were planted in widely

varying climates and geography.

Although one of their trials was a side-by-side

comparison between GM and non-GM soy, for some

reason the results were left out of the paper

altogether. Years later, a medical writer found

the missing data in the archives of the Journal

of Nutrition and made them public. No wonder the

scientists left them out. The GM soy showed

significantly lower levels of protein, a fatty

acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid.

Also, toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice

the amount of a lectin that may block the body's

ability to assimilate other nutrients.

Furthermore, the toasted GM soy contained as much

as seven times the amount of trypsin inhibitor,

indicating that the allergen may survive cooking

more in the GM variety. (This might explain the

50 percent jump in soy allergies in the UK, just after GM soy was introduced.)

We don't know all the changes that occur with

genetic engineering, but certainly GM crops are

not the same. Ask the animals. Eyewitness reports

from all over North America describe how several

types of animals, when given a choice, avoided

eating GM food. These included cows, pigs, elk,

deer, raccoons, squirrels, rats, and mice. In

fact, the Dutch student mentioned above first

determined that his mice had a two-to-one

preference for non-GM before forcing half of them

to eat only the engineered variety.

Differences in GM food will likely have a much

larger impact on children. They are three to four

times more susceptible to allergies. Also, they

convert more of the food into body-building

material. Altered nutrients or added toxins can

result in developmental problems. For this

reason, animal nutrition studies are typically

conducted on young, developing animals. After the

feeding trial, organs are weighed and often

studied under magnification. If scientists used

mature animals instead of young ones, even severe

nutritional problems might not be detected. The

Monsanto study used mature animals instead of young ones.

They also diluted their GM soy with non-GM

protein 10- or 12­fold before feeding the

animals. And they never weighed the organs or

examined them under a microscope. The study,

which is the only major animal feeding study on

GM soy ever published, is dismissed by critics as

rigged to avoid finding problems.

Unfortunately, there is a much bigger experiment

going on one which we are all a part of. We're

being fed GM foods daily, without knowing the

impact of these foods on our health, our

behavior, or our children. Thousands of schools

around the world, particularly in Europe, have

decided not to let their kids be used as guinea

pigs. They have banned GM foods.

The impact of changes in the composition of GM

foods is only one of several reasons why these

foods may be dangerous. Other reasons may be far worse.

See <http://www.seedsofdeception.com>http://www.seedsofdeception.com

With the epidemic of obesity and diabetes and

with the results in Appleton, parents and schools

are waking up to the critical role that diet

plays. When making changes in what kids eat,

removing GM foods should be a priority.

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

Vaccines - http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers & Homeopathy Online/email courses - next classes Sept 10, 2008

[Guest guest]

I am confused. Do we discuss this on this site? Should I bring this

up on the other site?

On Sep 16, 2008, at 8:47 PM, Sheri Nakken wrote:

>

> Why Schools Should Remove Gene-Altered Foods from Their Cafeterias

>

> M.

> Comanche County Chronicle, Elgin, OK, September, 2008

> <http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14507.cfm>http://

> www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14507.cfm

>

> Before the Appleton Wisconsin high school

> replaced their cafeteria's processed foods with

> wholesome, nutritious food, the school was

> described as out-of-control. There were weapons

> violations, student disruptions, and a cop on

> duty full-time. After the change in school meals,

> the students were calm, focused, and orderly.

> There were no more weapons violations, and no

> suicides, expulsions, dropouts, or drug

> violations. The new diet and improved behavior

> has lasted for seven years, and now other schools

> are changing their meal programs with similar results.

>

> Years ago, a science class at Appleton found

> support for their new diet by conducting a cruel

> and unusual experiment with three mice. They fed

> them the junk food that kids in other high

> schools eat everyday. The mice freaked out. Their

> behavior was totally different than the three

> mice in the neighboring cage. The neighboring

> mice had good karma; they were fed nutritious

> whole foods and behaved like mice. They slept

> during the day inside their cardboard tube,

> played with each other, and acted very mouse-like.

>

> The junk food mice, on the other hand, destroyed

> their cardboard tube, were no longer nocturnal,

> stopped playing with each other, fought often,

> and two mice eventually killed the third and ate

> it. After the three month experiment, the

> students rehabilitated the two surviving junk

> food mice with a diet of whole foods. After about

> three weeks, the mice came around.

>

> Sister Luigi Frigo repeats this experiment every

> year in her second grade class in Cudahy,

> Wisconsin, but mercifully, for only four days.

> Even on the first day of junk food, the mice's

> behavior " changes drastically. " They become lazy,

> antisocial, and nervous. And it still takes the

> mice about two to three weeks on unprocessed

> foods to return to normal. One year, the second

> graders tried to do the experiment again a few

> months later with the same mice, but this time

> the animals refused to eat the junk food.

>

> Across the ocean in Holland, a student fed one

> group of mice genetically modified (GM) corn and

> soy, and another group the non-GM variety. The GM

> mice stopped playing with each other and withdrew

> into their own parts of the cage. When the

> student tried to pick them up, unlike their

> well-behaved neighbors, the GM mice scampered

> around in apparent fear and tried to climb the

> walls. One mouse in the GM group was found dead at the end of the

> experiment.

>

> It's interesting to note that the junk food fed

> to the mice in the Wisconsin experiments also

> contained genetically modified ingredients. And

> although the Appleton school lunch program did

> not specifically attempt to remove GM foods, it

> happened anyway. That's because GM foods such as

> soy and corn and their derivatives are largely

> found in processed foods. So when the school

> switched to unprocessed alternatives, almost all

> ingredients derived from GM crops were taken out automatically.

>

> Does this mean that GM foods negatively affect

> the behavior of humans or animals? It would

> certainly be irresponsible to say so on the basis

> of a single student mice experiment and the

> results at Appleton. On the other hand, it is

> equally irresponsible to say that it doesn't.

>

> We are just beginning to understand the influence

> of food on behavior. A study in Science in

> December 2002 concluded that " food molecules act

> like hormones, regulating body functioning and

> triggering cell division. The molecules can cause

> mental imbalances ranging from attention-deficit

> and hyperactivity disorder to serious mental

> illness. " The problem is we do not know which food molecules have

> what effect.

>

> The bigger problem is that the composition of GM

> foods can change radically without our knowledge.

> Genetically modified foods have genes inserted

> into their DNA. But genes are not Legos; they

> don't just snap into place. Gene insertion

> creates unpredicted, irreversible changes. In one

> study, for example, a gene chip monitored the DNA

> before and after a single foreign gene was

> inserted. As much as 5 percent of the DNA's genes

> changed the amount of protein they were

> producing. Not only is that huge in itself, but

> these changes can multiply through complex interactions down the line.

>

> In spite of the potential for dramatic changes in

> the composition of GM foods, they are typically

> measured for only a small number of known

> nutrient levels. But even if we could identify

> all the changed compounds, at this point we

> wouldn't know which might be responsible for the

> antisocial nature of mice or humans. Likewise, we

> are only beginning to identify the medicinal

> compounds in food. We now know, for example, that

> the pigment in blueberries may revive the brain's

> neural communication system, and the antioxidant

> found in grape skins may fight cancer and reduce

> heart disease. But what about other valuable

> compounds we don't know about that might change or disappear in GM

> varieties?

>

> Consider GM soy. In July 1999, years after it was

> on the market, independent researchers published

> a study showing that it contains 12-14 percent

> less cancer-fighting phytoestrogens. What else

> has changed that we don't know about? [Monsanto

> responded with its own study, which concluded

> that soy's phytoestrogen levels vary too much to

> even carry out a statistical analysis. They

> failed to disclose, however, that the laboratory

> that conducted Monsanto's experiment had been

> instructed to use an obsolete method to detect phytoestrogens

> results.]

>

> In 1996, Monsanto published a paper in the

> Journal of Nutrition that concluded in the title,

> " The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean

> seeds is equivalent to that of conventional

> soybeans. " The study only compared a small number

> of nutrients and a close look at their charts

> revealed significant differences in the fat, ash,

> and carbohydrate content. In addition, GM soy

> meal contained 27 percent more trypsin inhibitor,

> a well-known soy allergen. The study also used

> questionable methods. Nutrient comparisons are

> routinely conducted on plants grown in identical

> conditions so that variables such as weather and

> soil can be ruled out. Otherwise, differences in

> plant composition could be easily missed. In

> Monsanto's study, soybeans were planted in widely

> varying climates and geography.

>

> Although one of their trials was a side-by-side

> comparison between GM and non-GM soy, for some

> reason the results were left out of the paper

> altogether. Years later, a medical writer found

> the missing data in the archives of the Journal

> of Nutrition and made them public. No wonder the

> scientists left them out. The GM soy showed

> significantly lower levels of protein, a fatty

> acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid.

> Also, toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice

> the amount of a lectin that may block the body's

> ability to assimilate other nutrients.

> Furthermore, the toasted GM soy contained as much

> as seven times the amount of trypsin inhibitor,

> indicating that the allergen may survive cooking

> more in the GM variety. (This might explain the

> 50 percent jump in soy allergies in the UK, just after GM soy was

> introduced.)

>

> We don't know all the changes that occur with

> genetic engineering, but certainly GM crops are

> not the same. Ask the animals. Eyewitness reports

> from all over North America describe how several

> types of animals, when given a choice, avoided

> eating GM food. These included cows, pigs, elk,

> deer, raccoons, squirrels, rats, and mice. In

> fact, the Dutch student mentioned above first

> determined that his mice had a two-to-one

> preference for non-GM before forcing half of them

> to eat only the engineered variety.

>

> Differences in GM food will likely have a much

> larger impact on children. They are three to four

> times more susceptible to allergies. Also, they

> convert more of the food into body-building

> material. Altered nutrients or added toxins can

> result in developmental problems. For this

> reason, animal nutrition studies are typically

> conducted on young, developing animals. After the

> feeding trial, organs are weighed and often

> studied under magnification. If scientists used

> mature animals instead of young ones, even severe

> nutritional problems might not be detected. The

> Monsanto study used mature animals instead of young ones.

>

> They also diluted their GM soy with non-GM

> protein 10- or 12 fold before feeding the

> animals. And they never weighed the organs or

> examined them under a microscope. The study,

> which is the only major animal feeding study on

> GM soy ever published, is dismissed by critics as

> rigged to avoid finding problems.

>

> Unfortunately, there is a much bigger experiment

> going on one which we are all a part of. We're

> being fed GM foods daily, without knowing the

> impact of these foods on our health, our

> behavior, or our children. Thousands of schools

> around the world, particularly in Europe, have

> decided not to let their kids be used as guinea

> pigs. They have banned GM foods.

>

> The impact of changes in the composition of GM

> foods is only one of several reasons why these

> foods may be dangerous. Other reasons may be far worse.

>

> See <http://www.seedsofdeception.com>http://www.seedsofdeception.com

>

> With the epidemic of obesity and diabetes and

> with the results in Appleton, parents and schools

> are waking up to the critical role that diet

> plays. When making changes in what kids eat,

> removing GM foods should be a priority.

>

> --------------------------------------------------------

> Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

> Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

> Vaccines - http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm

> Vaccine Dangers & Homeopathy Online/email courses - next classes

> Sept 10, 2008

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sometimes this list can get cluttered up with lots of ongoing OT discussions.

It can drive those away that are solely here for the vaccine info. It is good

to have these topics onlist, as they are all connected to our health, but keep

the main conversation on the OT list, so it doesn't get too much. I don't

think it is a problem for people to comment here though. Depends on how much

interest there is in the discussion.

Fieldman

Re: Why Schools Should Remove Gene-Altered Foods from

Their Cafeterias: nutrition & violent behavior

I am confused. Do we discuss this on this site? Should I bring this

up on the other site?

On Sep 16, 2008, at 8:47 PM, Sheri Nakken wrote:

>

> Why Schools Should Remove Gene-Altered Foods from Their Cafeterias

Recent Activity

a.. 19New Members

b.. 2New Photos

Visit Your Group

Meditation and

Lovingkindness

A Group

to share and learn.

Health

Heartburn or Worse

What symptoms

are most serious?

Check out the

Y! Groups blog

Stay up to speed

on all things Groups!

.

[Guest guest]

What is the off topic list?

correy

On Sep 16, 2008, at 9:14 PM, Fieldman wrote:

> Sometimes this list can get cluttered up with lots of ongoing OT

> discussions. It can drive those away that are solely here for the

> vaccine info. It is good to have these topics onlist, as they are

> all connected to our health, but keep the main conversation on the

> OT list, so it doesn't get too much. I don't think it is a problem

> for people to comment here though. Depends on how much interest

> there is in the discussion.

>

> Fieldman

>

> Re: Why Schools Should Remove Gene-Altered

> Foods from Their Cafeterias: nutrition & violent behavior

>

> I am confused. Do we discuss this on this site? Should I bring this

> up on the other site?

> On Sep 16, 2008, at 8:47 PM, Sheri Nakken wrote:

>

> >

> > Why Schools Should Remove Gene-Altered Foods from Their Cafeterias

>

> Recent Activity

> a.. 19New Members

> b.. 2New Photos

> Visit Your Group

> Meditation and

> Lovingkindness

>

> A Group

>

> to share and learn.

>

> Health

> Heartburn or Worse

>

> What symptoms

>

> are most serious?

>

> Check out the

> Y! Groups blog

>

> Stay up to speed

>

> on all things Groups!

> .

>

>

>