Alimentos Modificados Genéticamente – ¿Envenenando Nuestra Gente?

Traducción Luis R. Miranda
allAfrica.com
Junio 9, 2011

Opinión

Uno de los más extensos experimentos no regulados en seres humanos se está llevando a cabo aquí en África del Sur. Los sudafricanos fueron los primeros en el mundo en consumir alimentos genéticamente modificados (OGM)como parte de su dieta. Según fuentes de la industria más del 75% de nuestro maíz blanco es ahora GM. Esto significa que la papilla consumida a diario en la mayoría de los hogares de Sudáfrica está compuesto de maíz genéticamente modificado.

La afirmación de la industria que nadie se ha enfermado después de ingerir alimentos modificados genéticamente es científicamente deshonesta. Se basa en el principio de “si no miras, no encuentras”. Debido a que los alimentos modificados genéticamente no están claramente identificados a través de un etiquetado claro, es muy imposible saber qué enfermedades están relacionadas con el consumo del producto.

Se dice que estos alimentos han sido probados y son seguros. Al mismo tiempo, los productores de transgénicos afirman que sus productos son “sustancialmente equivalentes” – idénticos a sus contra partes naturales. Como tales, no requieren pruebas. Cuando las pruebas se ha hecho han sido presas de las mismas trampas que han afectado las pruebas de toxicología hechas a productos químicos durante décadas. No es sorprendente que las empresas que producen OGM, sin excepción han evolucionado a partir de las empresas químicas agrícolas, infames en su abuso de los protocolos estadísticos y experimentales.

La mayoría de las pruebas se han realizado en los alimentos y presentado por las mismas compañías que buscan su aprobación. El diseño de estas pruebas ha sido opaco y engañoso. Las investigaciones han demostrado que los resultados han sido sistemáticamente manipulados y sesgados. Dice la epidemióloga Judy Carman: “Su enfoque conjunto para el análisis no sería útil para una clase de estadística básica.”

Los primeros análisis de todos los estudios de alimentación encuentran exactamente tres experimentos. Aún estas pruebas muestran tendencias preocupantes. Más reciente meta-análisis han reforzado estas preocupaciones. Un hallazgo consistente ha sido el daño al hígado y los riñones. Cabe destacar que el hígado y la enfermedad renal han aumentado desde que los cultivos transgénicos se introdujeron en los EE.UU..

Lo notable es que cuando los investigadores empleados o conectados a los desarrolladores de los alimentos GM hicieron estudios, no se reportaron problemas. Por otra parte, estudios realizados por científicos independientes siempre motivan su preocupación. Un análisis publicado recientemente puso de relieve esta tendencia. Esta relación es común en los análisis de otros productos químicos y alimentos.

Más preocupante aún es el hecho de que los estudios de alimentación fueron hechos a muy corto plazo, con no más de tres meses. Fundamentalmente, ninguno de ellos utiliza más de un tercio de los productos transgénicos en la dieta. En el sur de África, comemos maíz transgénico no identificado como un alimento básico en niveles que en muchos casos puede alcanzar el 100% de la dieta. La pregunta es: Si el daño es preocupante y está estadísticamente demostrado que los riñones, el hígado y otros órganos son destruídos cuando los animales son alimentados con un tercio de su dieta con productos modificados genéticamente, en estudios de una duración de tres meses, entonces ¿qué diablos va a pasar con aquellos de nosotros que comemos una dieta que es predominantemente a base de maíz GM, todos los días durante años?

Esto no es nada menos que un experimento masivo no regulado. Para empeorar las cosas este experimento no se lleva a cabo en una población sana, sino en una cuya salud está doblemente comprometida: en primer lugar, las personas no comen una dieta lo suficientemente variada. En segundo lugar, tenemos el mayor número de habitantes con VIH, SIDA e infecciones de tuberculosis en el mundo.

Hay muchos otros estudios que han señalado los problemas del consumo de los cultivos transgénicos, incluso a niveles reducidos de una tercera parte de la dieta total. Los estudios han demostrado menor recuento de espermatozoides y esterilidad. Los investigadores han pedido constantemente para que se siga investigando. Todo lo que la industria de los transgénicos hace es lo de siempre; intentar salirse con la suya.

Esta situación escandalosa cuenta con la asistencia de nuestra mala regulación de los alimentos modificados genéticamente que sólo se identificarán a finales de este año. En otras palabras, las personas han estado comiendo alimentos GM en la ignorancia total de los hechos. Hasta el momento, no hay una prueba independiente, llevada a cabo durante generaciones sobre como la dieta de varias de las personas se ve afectada al consumir alimentos GM. Esto equivale a poco menos que negligencia criminal por parte de nuestro gobierno, que siempre ha hecho caso omiso de estas preocupaciones, y en lugar ha tomado el lado de una industria con una trayectoria muy defectuosa.

Por supuesto esta industria insiste en que la Unión Europea y otros han producido informes que demuestran que los cultivos transgénicos no tienen ningún riesgo para la salud. El hecho es que los reguladores de la UE se han basado en exactamente las mismas pruebas producidas por la propia industria. En segundo lugar, la influencia de la industria en el régimen normativo es significativo. Esta industria tiene no sólo los reguladores habitualmente mal informados, a través de pruebas con el suministro de datos estadísticos sesgados, pero siempre ha interferido en el régimen de reglamentación.
Por ejemplo, la normativa que regula los cultivos transgénicos en los EE.UU. fue redactada por el ex jefe de asuntos reguladores de Monsanto, Michael Taylor, quien dejó la empresa Monsanto para trabajar en el gobierno con el fin de elaborar una legislación favorable a la industria. Luego regresó a Monsanto. Desde entonces, ha vuelto al gobierno, en lo que se conoce como “la puerta giratoria”. Esto no es en absoluto un caso aislado y una situación similar existe en el sur de África.

Esta es sólo la punta del iceberg. Hay casos documentados de como la industria restringe y prohíbe las pruebas independientes de sus productos. Esto es posible debido a que estos productos están patentados se necesita permiso de las empresas para accesar diversos aspectos cruciales de e información en las pruebas científicas, el cual es siempre negado.

No se trata sólo de los peligros inherentes de los cultivos transgénicos. El producto GM más cultivado en el mundo, la soja resistente a los herbicidas, se ha relacionado con niveles altos del herbicida Roundup, fabricado por Monsanto, que también es propietaria de las patentes en más del 90% de todos los cultivos transgénicos a nivel mundial. Monsanto también introdujo el maíz resistentes a los herbicidas, que se cultivan en el sur de África. Pese a las afirmaciones de que los cultivos transgénicos reducen el uso de productos químicos, hemos visto exactamente que lo contrario ocurre en todo el mundo.

Por ejemplo, en Argentina, el uso de herbicidas ha aumentado 180 veces en 13 años. En los EE.UU., 174 000 toneladas más se usan cada año. En Brasil es de hasta un 95%. La responsabilidad del impacto ambiental y en la salud de las personas no es la preocupación de los agricultores, sino que simplemente es pasada a los consumidores, que no son los más sabios. Y los riesgos que estos productos químicos crean son cada vez más y más preocupantes que los cultivos transgénicos en sí.

Cuando los primeros cultivos transgénicos se introdujeron la cantidad permitida legalmente de residuos de herbicidas en los alimentos se aumento en 200 veces en el caso de la Unión Europea, con incrementos similares en otros lugares, todo para acomodar las peticiones de las corporaciones. Roundup está vinculado a graves impactos en la salud humana, incluidos los daños al crecimiento del embrión y el feto (impactos tetragénicos), así como el daño celular, entre muchos otros impactos sobre los mamíferos. Hay literalmente docenas de estudios publicados que indican las preocupaciones acerca de este producto químico. También afecta a los anfibios, insectos, lombrices y bacterias del suelo que liberan nutrientes para las plantas.

Además de estas preocupaciones, hay una inconsistencia evidente en el argumento de que los cultivos transgénicos son necesarios para alimentar al mundo: El hecho de que el producto GM más cultivado en el mundo, la soja, siempre ha sido demostrado que rinden menos que la soja convencional y natural. A pesar de años de promesas de que los cultivos GM son más resistentes a la sequía estas promesas siguen sin cumplirse.

Oxfam Internacional publicó recientemente un informe que indica que los precios de los alimentos se duplicaran, desde sus ya altos niveles en las próximas dos décadas. ¿Cómo podemos solucionar este problema? Somos constantemente informados por los partidarios de los cultivos transgénicos que debemos adoptar la tecnología para alimentar al mundo. La realidad es que los programas de mejoramiento convencional de plantas han logrado mucho más, a un costo mucho más bajo, mejorando el rendimiento, la resistencia viral, la mejora nutricional y resistencia a la sequía.

Quince años de cultivos genéticamente modificados en África del Sur han demostrado que la rápida adopción de cultivos transgénicos no ha tenido impacto alguno sobre la cantidad de alimentos que llegan a la boca de los más necesitados. La única conclusión que puede ser obtenida es que los cultivos transgénicos no son la solución. Más importante es que estamos jugando un peligroso juego de la ruleta rusa genética con la salud de nuestro pueblo.

La Evaluación Internacional del Papel del Conocimiento, Ciencia y Tecnología para el Desarrollo (IAASTD), en su informe titulado “Agricultura en la encrucijada”, señaló que los cultivos transgénicos en el mejor de los casos desempeñará un papel limitado en la lucha contra el hambre mundial. El enfoque en la agricultura de altos insumos industriales y los OGM han marginado las prácticas agrícolas más eficaces. El estudio de la IAASTD fue financiado por el Banco Mundial y varios organismos de la ONU, e involucró a más de 400 expertos en agricultura de todo el mundo.

El enfoque perjudicial en los cultivos transgénicos en las últimas dos décadas ha contribuido a retrasar el desarrollo de la investigación que se necesita con urgencia. En lugar de centrarse en el clima y los aspectos relacionados en los sistemas de producción de las comunidades que necesitamos para fomentar la seguridad alimentaria y la verdadera independencia, el enfoque político-institucional sobre los cultivos transgénicos nos ha dirigido hacia la confianza en el modelo de dependencia personificado por la agricultura industrial, en cuanto erosiona nuestra salud y la ya precaria situación.
Se mire como se mire, los cultivos transgénicos personifican el problema, no la solución.

GM Food – Poisoning Our People?

Glenn Ashton
allAfrica.com
June 8, 2011

One of the most massive unregulated experiments on humans ever is being carried out right here in South Africa. South Africans are the first people in the world to consume a genetically modified (GM) food as a staple. According to industry sources more than 75% of our white maize is now GM. This means that the pap and samp consumed daily in the majority of South African households is now mainly comprised of genetically modified maize.

The industry claim that nobody has become ill from GM foods is scientifically dishonest. It is based on the principle of “don’t look – don’t find.” Because GM foods are not clearly identified through clear labelling, it is impossible to know what sicknesses are related to the consumption of the product.

We are repeatedly told these are the most widely tested foods ever. However, GM producers claim their products to be ‘substantially equivalent’ – identical to their natural counterparts. As such they do not require testing. Where testing has been done it has fallen prey to the same pitfalls that have dogged chemical and toxicological testing for decades. This is unsurprising as the GM companies have without exception evolved from agricultural chemical companies, infamous in their abuse of statistical and experimental protocols.

Most food tests have been undertaken and submitted by the very companies seeking approval. The design of these tests has been opaque and misleading. Research has shown results to have been routinely manipulated and skewed to the extent that epidemiologist Judy Carman said, “Their whole approach to the analysis would fail a basic statistics class.”

The earliest analysis of all feeding studies found exactly three experiments. Even these indicated worrying trends. More recent meta-analyses have reinforced these concerns. A consistent finding has been damage to the liver and kidneys. It is notable that liver and kidney disease has increased since GM crops were introduced in the US.

What is remarkable is that when researchers employed or connected to the developers of GM foods did studies, no problems were reported. On the other hand, studies undertaken by independent scientists consistently raised concerns. A recently published analysis highlighted this trend. This relationship is common in analyses of other chemicals and foodstuff.

Of even more concern is the fact that feeding studies were extremely short term, with most lasting three months. Crucially, none of them used more than one-third of GM product in the diet. In South Africa we eat unidentified GM white maize as a staple food at levels that may in many cases reach 100% of the diet. The question is: If statistically worrying damage is shown to kidney, liver and other organs when animals are fed one third of their diet as GM products, in studies lasting three months, then what on earth will happen to those of us who eat a diet that is predominantly based on GM maize, every day for years on end?

This is nothing less than a massive, unregulated experiment. To make matters worse this experiment is not being undertaken on a healthy population but one that is doubly compromised: First through most people not eating a sufficient or varied enough diet and secondly because we have the highest burden of HIV, AIDS and TB infections in the world.

There are numerous other studies that have indicated problems from consuming GM crops, even at reduced levels of a third of the total diet. Studies have shown reduced sperm count and even sterility. Researchers have consistently called for further work to be done. All the GM industry does is consistently try to spin itself out of trouble.

This outrageous situation is assisted by our poor regulation of GM food that will only need to be labelled later this year. In other words we have been eating the world’s first GM staple food in total ignorance of the fact. So far not one independent, multi-generational dietary test has been undertaken locally by independent scientists. This amounts to little less than criminal negligence by our government, which has consistently ignored all of these concerns, instead taking the side of an industry with a seriously blemished track record.

Of course this industry insists that the EU and others have produced reports clearing GM crops of any health risk. The fact remains that EU regulators have relied upon exactly the same compromised tests consistently produced by the industry itself. Secondly, the influence of industry within the regulatory regime is significant. This industry has not only routinely misinformed regulators, through supplying tests with skewed statistical data, but it has consistently interfered in the regulatory regime itself.

For instance, the regulations governing GM crops in the US were drafted by the ex-Monsanto head of regulatory affairs, Michael Taylor, who left Monsanto to work in government in order to draft industry friendly legislation. He then returned to Monsanto. He has since returned to government, in what is known as ‘the revolving door’. This is not by any means an isolated case and a similar situation exists in South Africa.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are repeated documented cases of this industry restricting and prohibiting independent testing of its products. This is possible because these products are patented and owned by the companies and permission must be granted for access to various crucial aspects of information in scientific testing, which is consistently refused.

It is not only the inherent dangers associated with GM crops themselves. The most widely grown GM crop in the world, herbicide resistant soy, has been linked to sharply increased levels of the herbicide Roundup, made by Monsanto, which also owns the patents on over 90% of all GM crops grown globally. Monsanto is also rapidly introducing herbicide resistant maize, now being grown in South Africa. Despite claims that GM crops reduce chemical use, we have seen exactly the opposite occurring around the world.

For instance, in Argentina, herbicide use has increased 180 fold in 13 years. In the USA, 174 000 tonnes more are used per year. In Brazil it is up by 95%. Responsibility for the downstream health impacts is not the farmers’ concern but is simply passed onto consumers who are none the wiser. And the risks of these chemicals are increasingly been proven to be as worrying, if not more so, than the concerns about the GM crops themselves.

When the first GM crops were introduced the amount of herbicide residue on food was permitted to be increased by 200 times in the case of the European Union, with similar increases elsewhere. Roundup is linked to serious human health impacts, including damage to embryo and fetus growth (tetragenic impacts) as well as cellular damage, amongst many other impacts on mammals. There are literally dozens of published studies indicating concerns about this chemical. It also affects amphibians, insects, earthworms and soil bacteria that liberate plant nutrients.

Besides these serious concerns, there is a final, glaring inconsistency in the argument that GM crops are required to feed the world. This is the fact that the most widely grown GM crop in the world, GM soy, has consistently been shown to yield less than conventional, natural soy. Despite years of promises of more nutritional or drought resistant GM crops, these promises remain unmet.

Oxfam recently released a report stating that food prices will more than double, from already high levels, over the next two decades. How do we address this problem? We are constantly informed by supporters of GM crops that we must adopt their technology to feed the world. The reality is that conventional plant breeding programmes have achieved far more, at far lower cost, enhancing yield, viral resistance, nutritional improvement and drought resistance.

Fifteen years of growing GM crops in South Africa has demonstrated that the rapid uptake of GM crops has had no impact at all on the amount of food reaching the mouths of the most needy. The only conclusion can be that GM crops are not the solution. More importantly we are playing a dangerous game of genetic roulette with the health of our people.

The four year International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), in its report entitled “Agriculture at a Crossroads” indicated that GM crops would at best play a limited role in tackling global hunger. The focus on high-input industrial farming and GMOs has marginalised far more effective agricultural practices. The IAASTD study was funded by the World Bank and several leading UN organisations, and involved over 400 agricultural experts from around the world.

The perverse focus on GM crops over the past two decades has been instrumental in retarding development of urgently needed research. Instead of focussing on the proven, climate resilient and community based food production systems we require to encourage true food security and independence, the political-corporate focus on GM crops has steered us towards reliance on the dependency model epitomised by industrial agriculture, while simultaneously eroding our already tenuous health status.

Every way you look at it, GM crops epitomise the problem, not the solution.

Aspartame made with GM Bacteria

Anthony Gucciardi

The manufacturers of the most prevalent sweetener in the world have a secret, and it’s not a sweet one. Aspartame, an artificial sweetener found in thousands of products worldwide, has been found to be created using genetically modified (GM) bacteria. What`s even more shocking is how long this information has been known. A 1999 article by The Independent was the first to expose the abominable process in which aspartame was created. Ironically, the discovery was made around the same time as rich leaders around the globe met at the G8 Summit to discuss the safety of GM foods.

The 1999 investigation found that Monsanto, the largest biotech corporation in the world, often used GM bacteria to produce aspartame in their US production plants. The end result is a fusion between two of the largest health hazards to ever hit the food industry — artificial sweeteners and an array of genetically altered organisms. Both have led to large-scale debate, with aspartame being the subject of multiple congressional hearings and scientific criticism. Scientists and health advocates are not the only ones to speak out against aspartame, however. The FDA received a flurry of complaints from consumers using NutraSweet, a product containing aspartame. Since 1992, the FDA has stopped documenting reports on the subject.

The process in which aspartame is created involves combining an amino acid known as phenylalanine with aspartic acid. First synthesized in 1965, aspartame requires bacteria for the sole purpose of producing phenylalanine. Monsanto discovered that through genetically altering this bacteria, phenylalanine could be created much more quickly. In the report by The Independent, Monsanto openly admitted that their mutated bacteria is a staple in the creation process of aspartame.

“We have two strains of bacteria – one is traditionally modified and one is genetically modified,” said the source from Monsanto. “It’s got a modified enzyme. It has one amino acid different.”

Multiple studies have been conducted regarding genetic manipulation, with many grim conclusions. One study found that the more GM corn was fed to mice, the fewer babies they had. Another study, published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences, found that the organs that typically respond to chemical food poisoning were the first to encounter problems after subjects consumed GM foods. The same study also states that GM foods should not be commercialized.

“For the first time in the world, we’ve proven that GMO are neither sufficiently healthy nor proper to be commercialized. […] Each time, for all three GMOs, the kidneys and liver, which are the main organs that react to a chemical food poisoning, had problems,” indicated Gilles-Eric Seralini, an expert member of the Commission for Biotechnology Reevaluation.

Consumer groups are now curious as to whether or not other products secretly contain genetically modified ingredients. Due to the fact that the finished product`s DNA does not change when using genetically modified bacteria, it is hard to know for sure. With the FDA ruling against the labeling of GM salmon, it is becoming more of a challenge to determine whether or not a product contains GM ingredients. Consumers are voicing their opposition for GM ingredients going incognito, with the largest growing retail brand being GMO-free products.

“The public wants to know and the public has a right to know,” said Marion Nestle, a professor in the Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health Department at New York University.

Unveiling the secret process in which aspartame is created acts as yet another reminder to stay away from artificial sweeteners, and one should choose natural alternatives such as palm sugar, xylitol, or stevia.

Sources:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w…
http://www.biosicherheit.de/pdf/akt… (PDF)
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy…
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire…

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030918_aspartame_GM_bacteria.html#ixzz1ABMJe6wm

Zero Hora Newspaper Lies to Readers about Chem-trails

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
June 23, 2010

Chem-trails do not decorate or adorn the sky. They are part of an experiment used globally called Geo-engineering that seeks to limit the

Chem-trails are lines of toxic Aluminum Oxide, Barium and Sulfur left on the sky by airplanes with the intent of reflecting solar radiation.

amount of sunlight the planet receives in order to reduce the nonexistent global warming. As The Real Agenda already reported, chemical trails or chem-trails, as they are called in English, are composed of crystals of aluminum oxide, barium and sulfur, used to -according to some scientists-, block and reflect sunlight in order to decrease the temperature of the planet. The problem with these trails is that, inevitably, they become part of the air people breathe, causing them severe breathing problems and other health complications.

Geo-engineering, or the artificial manipulation of weather and climate patterns, is a topic that has stirred controversy after it was discovered that government agencies have studied and are still studying the application of weather modification techniques, they say, to eliminate or limit global warming and other weather “diseases”. As with other artificially engineered products, such as GM foods, most of us were ignorant about it and took a huge effort from the alternative media to uncover and expose this program. See the video of chemical trails over the city of Sao Leopoldo, RS, Brazil and planes spreading them here.

The use of chemical trails is not only a question of climate change, but involves a set of environmental changes. The first direct consequences of the spraying of chemicals have been a multitude of health complications to the population, as the effects of neurological and behavioral changes, impaired blood circulation, heart problems, effects on the eyes and vision, reproductive failure, damage to the immune system, gastrointestinal, liver and kidney function damage, hearing defects, disorders of the metabolism, dermatological lesions, asphyxiation and pulmonary embolism. How do we know? Tests conducted on people suffering from any or several of these complications have high levels of one or more of the chemicals sprayed on population centers. In other tests, air samples also showed high concentrations of barium and aluminum.

But if these tracks are not toxic chemicals, as the Zero Hora Newspaper says, why is Monsanto, a chemical company itself, creating seeds that can withstand the chemicals used in the spraying? According to Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri, the chemicals applied to populated and depopulated areas are harming not only the environment but also human health.

“… We also know that certain types of chemicals can damage human health and animals, especially the immune system … … the dangers of hormonal changes are now more fully explained in the Internet but are not well known by people who listen to traditional news media.(1) Most of these highly toxic chemicals are invisible and thus are easily out of our collective radar. With the level of stress created by the financial crisis deliberately orchestrated by the elites, where millions of people lost their jobs and homes, a deteriorating environment is not a priority for anyone, especially if there is little information about it. This scenario is part of a broader perspective and is what Naomi Klein writes in his book “The Shock Doctrine.” We have major crises, one after another, making it difficult to keep up with our daily routine, much less to have time to consider the toxicological implications of huge amounts of heavy metals and chemicals that poison our food chain and therefore our supposed health . “We’re on top of a food chain in ruins. ”

Read the complete evaluation from Dr. Perlingieri on Geo-engineering and climate change here.

Chem-trails over Sao Leopoldo, Brazil on June 4th, 2010

In spite of negative consequences, there are scientists who insist on the use of chemical trails.”I suggest that both the aluminum oxide as well as silica particles can be used diluted as an additive in the fuel used in aviation,” writes engineer John Gorman, who conducted experiments to test the feasibility of such a scenario. “We want to burn fuel containing the additive specifically when the aircraft is strolling in the lower stratosphere,” he adds. Reports of chemical trails over hundreds of cities in countries around the world are now common. Plumes of smoke paint the blue skies of gray after commercial and private planes release chemicals. Both government agencies and institutions such as the air force and private contractors are responsible for operating the aircraft, putting the chemicals in tanks or even in the fuel that airplanes use.

With all the negative effects that chem-trails have had on populations, many scientists have made pronouncements about the dangers that this type of Geo-engineering poses to the environment and people. Dan Schrag, from Harvard University, warned that any attempt to change the environment, including the ecosystem itself, could have disastrous consequences, including droughts and other natural disasters. “I think we should consider the climate engineering only as an emergency response to a climate crisis, but there is no evidence to show that a climate crisis exists,” said Schrag. Alan Robock, a professor at Rutgers University, says the consequences could go much further than drought. These experiences, he says, “could create disasters”, damaging the ozone layer and potentially changing the stratosphere, eliminating weather patterns, such as the rainy season from which billions of people depend on for their crops and to feed their families. “The problem is that this is exactly what the use of chemical trails are supposed to do: change weather patterns. The use of chemicals to block the sun’s rays will lead to drastic changes in the biosphere and atmosphere, such as the hydrological cycle, wind patterns and how the sun drives the winds around the planet. Other consequences such as soil fertility and water availability are beginning to be emerge.

Do not let the lies of the Zero Hora newspaper confuse you. Geo-engineering and chemical trails are not the same as condensation trails or contrails. While the contrails disappear after a few minutes in the sky, chem-trails are left by airplanes crossing the sky several times, producing figures like chessboards, circles and semi-circles.

If humans are responsible for global warming, why block the sun? The truth is that the sun is the most gigantic hot body in the solar system and as such, the element that determines the climate. Different calculations estimate that human activity emits only between 4 and 6 percent of total CO2 in the atmosphere, thus having little influence on weather patterns. Volcanic eruptions and the sun, for example, have a greater effect on climate than any human activity. CO2 is really what most of the biosphere uses as food. An environment rich with CO2, provides more fuel for the plants and trees and more food for animals and humans. Another consequence of chemical trails is acid rain. Raindrops containing chemicals cause massive acidification of lakes and rivers, contributing to the poisoning of humans, trees at higher elevations and many sensitive forest soils.

But not only those who reject the theory of anthropogenic global warming are skeptical about the use of chemical trails. The chief scientist of Greenpeace UK, Doug Parr, a defender of the explanation of anthropogenic global warming, disqualifies Geo-engineering as “strange” and “dangerous.” A report from KSLA earlier this year found that chemical experiments with aerosols have been happening for decades. The report revealed experiments exposed in 1977 in hearings before the U.S. Senate. The report showed experiments with biochemical compounds in humans and reported that “239 populated areas were contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969.

According to the article on Zero Hora, -which omits the name of the reporter- these tracks mean nothing more than random condensation of

This is what a chem-trail looks like 30 minutes after it was sprayed. It then spreads and covers the sky in what seems to be haze.

contrails, but the evidence shows exactly the opposite. The newspaper reporters are ignorant or simply lie to their readers deliberately.

If the ultimate goal of Geo-engineering is to reduce the effects of global warming due to human activity and their related emissions of greenhouse gases, you would think that this method would at least have a good chance of working, Would not you? Well, it happens that Geo-engineering has no effect in preventing what corrupt scientists say causes global warming in the atmosphere. Therefore, the use of chemical trails is at best an inefficient solution and, at worst, a mass poisoning of humanity.

Scientist David Suzuki says Geo-engineering is “madness” and goes further to say: “If we learned anything from the past, is that although we are very skillful in inventing new and powerful technologies, our knowledge of how our world works and how things are interconnected is almost zero. ”

But there is a more worrisome aspect about Geo-engineering We all know what governments are capable of doing when they want to manipulate people: inexplicable wars, false pandemics, non-existent terrorist events … Although the use of chemicals as weapons of war is generally seen as morally and universally banned, we have seen very convincing evidence that such a prohibition is not always respected. According to an article published in Wired Magazine, other forms of Geo-engineering such as ocean fertilization can be used to sterilize the oceans, that in turn would destroy fisheries and water ecosystems.

Even the globalist United Nations, traditional supporter of these policies expressed concern with the use of chemical trails. The 14th Session of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice was the first place where the United Nations Council discussed Geo-engineering since the signing of the ENMOD Treaty in 1976. The treaty banned Geo-engineering when it is used for hostile purposes.  SBSTTA 14 will recommend to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to impose a moratorium on all activities related to climate change through Geo-engineering at a meeting in Nagoya Japan on October 2010.

So why have we adopted a technique of changing the climate which is harmful to humans and whose main goal is not achievable? Who benefits from this type of Geo-engineering technologies that are adopted for other reasons? Certainly not the environment. More answers about chemical trails or chem-trails, its origins and what they mean can be found in The Science of “Air Pharmacology” and “Chemtrails.”

Naturally, the knowledge spreads faster and better when more people locally and responsibly report on these issues. So tell your family, friends and acquaintances about the origin and dangers of Geo-engineering around the globe. Just as THE PEOPLE exposed the lies about anthropogenic global warming and Climategate, it is our duty to expose this too.

To my colleagues at the Zero Hora newspaper, I have to say: it costs nothing to write a full report with credible sources and facts. But I think we all know why this newspaper avoids writing the truth. It is part of the great media empire from Brazil known as GLOBO. Maybe it’s hard to speak or write the truth while working there. Only those who lend themselves to lie or tell half-truths because of their ignorance or laziness have space in a company like Zero Hora or the GLOBO empire.