Potential Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods

This article discusses the potential health risks of

genetically engineered foods (GMOs). It draws on some

previously used material because its importance bears

repeating. It also cites three notable books and

highlights one in particular - Jeffrey Smith’s

"Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of

Genetically Engineered Foods." Detailed information

from the book is featured below.

Genetically engineered foods saturate our diet today.

In the US alone, over 80% of all processed foods

contain them. Others include grains like rice, corn

and wheat; legumes like soybeans and soy products;

vegetable oils, soft drinks; salad dressings;

vegetables and fruits; dairy products including eggs;

meat, chicken, pork and other animal products; and

even infant formula plus a vast array of hidden

additives and ingredients in processed foods (like in

tomato sauce, ice cream, margarine and peanut butter).

Consumers don’t know what they’re eating because

labeling is prohibited, yet the danger is clear.

Independently conducted studies show the more of these

foods we eat, the greater the potential harm to our

health.

Today, consumers are kept in the dark and are part of

an uncontrolled, unregulated mass human experiment the

results of which are unknown. Yet, the risks are

enormous, it will take years to learn them, and when

we finally know it’ll be too late to reverse the

damage if it’s proved conclusively that genetically

engineered foods harm human health as growing numbers

of independent experts believe. Once GM seeds are

introduced to an area, the genie is out of the bottle

for keeps. There is nothing known to science today to

reverse the contamination already spread over

two-thirds of arable US farmland and heading

everywhere unless checked.

This is happening in spite of the risk because of what

F. William Engdahl revealed in his powerfully

important, well documented book titled "Seeds of

Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic

Manipulation." It’s the diabolical story of how

Washington and four Anglo-American agribusiness giants

plan world domination by patenting animal and

vegetable life forms to gain worldwide control of our

food supply, make it all genetically engineered, and

use it as a weapon to reward friends and punish

enemies.

Today, consumers eat these foods daily without knowing

the potential health risks. In 2003, Jeffrey Smith

explained them in his book titled "Seeds of

Deception." He revealed that efforts to inform the

public have been quashed, reliable science has been

buried, and consider what happened to two

distinguished scientists - UC Berkeley’s Ignacio

Chapela and former Scotland Rowett Research Institute

researcher and world’s leading lectins and plant

genetic modification expert, Arpad Pusztai. They were

vilified, hounded, and threatened for their research,

and in the case of Pusztai, fired from his job for

doing it.

He believed in the promise of GM foods, was

commissioned to study them, and conducted the first

ever independent one on them anywhere. Like other

researchers since, he was shocked by his findings.

Rats fed GM potatoes had smaller livers, hearts,

testicles and brains, damaged immune systems, and

showed structural changes in their white blood cells

making them more vulnerable to infection and disease

compared to other rats fed non-GMO potatoes. It got

worse. Thymus and spleen damage showed up; enlarged

tissues, including the pancreas and intestines; and

there were cases of liver atrophy as well as

significant proliferation of stomach and intestines

cells that could be a sign of greater future risk of

cancer. Equally alarming, results showed up after 10

days of testing, and they persisted after 110 days

that’s the human equivalent of 10 years.

Later independent studies confirmed what Pusztai

learned, and Smith published information on them in

his 2007 book called "Genetic Roulette: The Documented

Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods." The

book is encyclopedic in depth, an invaluable

comprehensive source, and this article reviews some of

the shocking data in it.

Compelling Evidence of Potential GMO Harm

In his introduction, Smith cites the US Food and Drug

Administration’s (FDA) policy statement on GM food

safety without a shred of evidence to back it. It

supported GHW Bush’s Executive Order that GMOs are

"substantially equivalent" to ordinary seeds and crops

and need no government regulation. The agency said it

was "not aware of any information showing that foods

derived by these new methods differ from other foods

in any meaningful or uniform way." That single

statement meant no safety studies are needed and

"Ultimately, it is the food producer" that bears

responsibility "for assuring safety." As a

consequence, foxes now guard our henhouse in a brave

new dangerous world.

FDA policy opened the floodgates, and Smith put it

this way: It "set the stage for the rapid deployment

of the new technology," allowed the seed industry to

become "consolidated, millions of acres (to be)

planted, hundreds of millions to be fed (these foods

in spite of nations and consumers objecting, and) laws

to be passed (to assure it)." The toll today is

contaminated crops, billions of dollars lost, human

health harmed, and it turns out the FDA lied.

The agency knew GM crops are "meaningfully different"

because their technical experts told them so. As a

result, they recommended long-term studies, including

on humans, to test for possible allergies, toxins, new

diseases and nutritional problems. Instead, politics

trumped science, the White House ordered the FDA to

promote GM crops, and a former Monsanto vice-president

went to FDA to assure it.

Today, the industry is unregulated, and when companies

say their foods are safe, their views are

unquestioned. Further, Smith noted that policy makers

in other countries trust FDA and wrongly assume their

assessments are valid. They’re disproved when

independent studies are matched against industry-run

ones. The differences are startling. The former report

adverse affects while the latter claim the opposite.

It’s no secret why. Agribusiness giants allow nothing

to interfere with profits, safety is off the table,

and all negative information is quashed.

As a result, their studies are substandard, adverse

findings are hidden, and they typically "fail to

investigate the impacts of GM food on gut function,

liver function, kidney function, the immune system,

endocrine system, blood composition, allergic

response, effects on the unborn, the potential to

cause cancer, or impacts on gut bacteria." In

addition, industry-funded studies creatively avoid

finding problems or conceal any uncovered. They cook

the books by using older instead of younger more

sensitive animals, keep sample sizes too low for

statistical significance, dilute the GM component of

feeds used, limit the duration of feeding trials,

ignore animal deaths and sickness, and engage in other

unscientific practices. It’s to assure people never

learn of the potential harm from these foods, and

Smith says they can do it because "They’ve got ’bad

science’ down to a science."

The real kinds show GMOs produce "massive changes in

the natural functioning of (a) plant’s DNA. Native

genes can be mutated, deleted, permanently turned off

or on....the inserted gene can become truncated,

fragmented, mixed with other genes, inverted or

multiplied, and the GM protein it produces may have

unintended characteristics" that may be harmful.

GMOs also pose other health risks. When a transgene

functions in a new cell, it may produce different

proteins than the ones intended. They may be harmful,

but there’s no way to know without scientific testing.

Even if the protein is exactly the same, there are

still problems. Consider corn varieties engineered to

produce a pesticidal protein called Bt-toxin. Farmers

use it in spray form, and companies falsely claim it’s

harmless to humans. In fact, people exposed to the

spray develop allergic-type symptoms, mice ingesting

Bt had powerful immune responses and abnormal and

excessive cell growth, and a growing number of human

and livestock illnesses are linked to Bt crops.

Smith notes still another problem relating to inserted

genes. Assuming they’re destroyed by our digestive

system, as industry claims, is false. In fact, they

may move from food into gut bacteria or internal

organs, and consider the potential harm. If corn genes

with Bt-toxin get into gut bacteria, our intestinal

flora may become pesticide factories. There’s been no

research done to prove if it’s true or false.

Agribusiness giants aren’t looking, neither is FDA,

consumers are left to play "Genetic Roulette," and the

few animal feeding studies done show the odds are

against them.

Arpad Pusztai and other scientists were shocked at

their results of animals fed GM foods. His results

were cited above. Other independent studies showed

stunted growth, impaired immune systems, bleeding

stomachs, abnormal and potentially precancerous cell

growth in the intestines, impaired blood cell

development, misshaped cell structures in the liver,

pancreas and testicles, altered gene expression and

cell metabolism, liver and kidney lesions, partially

atrophied livers, inflamed kidneys, less developed

organs, reduced digestive enzymes, higher blood sugar,

inflamed lung tissue, increased death rates and higher

offspring mortality as well.

There’s more. Two dozen farmers reported their pigs

and cows fed GM corn became sterile, 71 shepherds said

25% of their sheep fed Bt cotton plants died, and

other reports showed the same effects on cows,

chickens, water buffaloes and horses. After GM soy was

introduced in the UK, allergies from the product

skyrocketed by 50%, and in the US in the 1980s, a GM

food supplement killed dozens and left five to ten

thousand others sick or disabled.

Today, Monsanto is the world’s largest seed producer,

and Smith notes how the company deals with reports

like these. In response to the US Public Health

Service concerning adverse reactions from its toxic

PCBs, the company claims its experience "has been

singularly free of difficulties." That’s in spite of

lawsuit-obtained records showing "this was part of a

cover-up and denial that lasted decades" by a company

with a long history of irresponsible behavior that

includes "extensive bribery, highjacking of regulatory

agencies, suppressing negative information about its

products" and threatening journalists and scientists

who dare report them. The company long ago proved it

can’t be trusted with protecting human health.

In his book, "Seeds of Destruction," Engdahl names

four dominant agribusiness giants - Monsanto, DuPont,

Dow Agrisciences and Syngenta in Switzerland from the

merger of the agriculture divisions of Novartis and

AstraZeneca. Smith calls these companies Ag biotech

and names a fifth - Germany-based Bayer CropScience AG

(division of Bayer AG) with its Environmental Science

and BioScience headquarters in France.

Their business is to do the impossible and practically

overnight - change the laws of nature and do them one

better for profit. So far they haven’t independent

because genetic engineering doesn’t work like natural

breeding. It may or may not be a lot of things, but it

isn’t sex, says Smith. Michael Antoniou, a molecular

geneticist involved in human gene therapy, explains

that genetic modification "technically and

conceptually bears no resemblance to natural

breeding." The reproduction process works by both

parents contributing thousands of genes to the

offspring. They, in turn, get sorted naturally, and

plant breeders have successfully worked this way for

thousands of years.

Genetic manipulation is different and so far fraught

with danger. It works by forcibly inserting a single

gene from a species’ DNA into another unnaturally.

Smith puts it this way: "A pig can mate with a pig and

a tomato can mate with a tomato. But this is no way

that a pig can mate with a tomato and vice versa." The

process transfers genes across natural barriers that

"separated species over millions of years of

evolution" and managed to work. The biotech industry

now wants us to believe it can do nature one better,

and that genetic engineering is just an extension or

superior alternative to natural breeding. It’s

unproved, indefensible pseudoscience mumbo jumbo, and

that’s the problem.

Biologist David Schubert explains that industry claims

are "not only scientifically incorrect but

exceptionally deceptive....to make the GE process

sound similar to conventional plant breeding." It a

smoke screen to hide the fact that what happens in

laboratories can’t duplicate nature, at least not up

to now. Genetic engineering involves combining genes

that never before existed together, the process defies

natural breeding proved safe over thousands of years,

and there’s no way to assure the result won’t be a

deadly unrecallable Andromeda Strain, no longer the

world of science fiction.

The industry pooh-pooh’s the suggestion of potential

harm, and unscientifically claims millions of people

in the US and worldwide have eaten GM food for a

decade, and no one got sick. Smith’s reply: How can we

know as "GM foods might already be contributing to

serious health problems, but since no one is

monitoring for this, it could take decades" to find

out. By then, it will be too late and some industry

critics argue it already may be or dangerously close.

Today, most existing diseases have no effective

surveillance systems in place. If GM foods create new

ones, that potentially compounds the problem manyfold.

Consider HIV/AIDS. It went unnoticed for decades and

when identified, many thousands worldwide were

infected or had died.

Then there’s the problem of linkage. In the US and

many countries, GM foods are unlabeled so it’s

impossible tracing illness and diseases to specific

substances ingested even if thousands of people are

affected. It can plausibly be blamed on anything,

especially when governments and regulatory agencies

support industry claims of reliability and safety.

It’s rare that problems like the L-Tryptophan epidemic

of the late 1980s are identified, but when it was

thousands were already harmed. L-Tryptophan is a

natural amino acid constituent of most proteins and

for years was produced by many companies including

Showa Denko in Japan. The company then got greedy, saw

a way to increase profits from a product designed to

induce sleep naturally, and gene-spliced a bacterium

into the natural product to do it. The result was many

dozens dead, over 1500 crippled, and up to 10,000

afflicted with a blood disorder from a new incurable

disease called Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome or EMS.

It’s a painful, multi-system disease that causes

permanent scarring and fibrosis to nerve and muscle

tissues, continuing inflammation, and a permanent

change in a person’s immune system. It cost the

company two billion dollars to settle claims. Hundreds

have since died, in all likelihood from contracting

EMS.

This is the known toll from a single product. Consider

the potential harm with Ag biotech wanting all foods

to be unlabeled GMOs worldwide and governments unable

to balk because WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and

Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)

rules deny them. They’re also prevented under WTO’s

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS). It states

that national laws banning GMO products are "unfair

trade practices" even when they endanger human health.

Other WTO rules also apply - called "Technical

Barriers to Trade." They prohibit GMO labeling so

consumers don’t know what they’re eating and can’t

avoid these potentially hazardous foods.

The 1996 Biosafety Protocol was drafted to prevent

this problem, and it should be in place to do it.

Public safety, however, was ambushed by Washington,

the FDA and the agribusiness lobby. It sabotaged talks

and insisted biosafety measures be subordinate to WTO

trade rules that apply regardless of other

considerations, including public health and safety.

The path is thus cleared for the unrestricted spread

of GMO seeds and foods worldwide unless a way is found

to stop it.

Independent Animal Studies Showing GMO Harm

Rats fed genetically engineered Calgene Flavr-Savr

tomatoes (developed to look fresh for weeks) for 28

days got bleeding stomachs (stomach lesions) and seven

died and were replaced in the study.

Rats fed Monsanto 863 Bt corn for 90 days developed

multiple reactions typically found in response to

allergies, infections, toxins, diseases like cancer,

anemia and blood pressure problems. Their blood cells,

livers and kidneys showed significant changes

indicative of disease.

Mice fed either GM potatoes engineered to produce Bt-

toxin or natural potatoes containing the toxin had

intestinal damage. Both varieties created abnormal and

excessive cell growth in the lower intestine. The

equivalent human damage might cause incontinence or

flu-like symptoms and could be pre-cancerous. The

study disproved the contention that digestion destroys

Bt-toxin and is not biologically active in mammals.

Workers in India handling Bt cotton while picking,

loading, weighing and separating the fiber from seeds

developed allergies. They began with "mild to severe

itching," then redness and swelling, followed by skin

eruptions. These symptoms affected their skin, eyes

(got red and swollen with excessive tearing) and upper

respiratory tract causing nasal discharge and

sneezing. In some cases, hospitalization was required.

At one cotton gin factory, workers take antihistamines

daily.

Sheep grazing on Bt cotton developed "unusual systems"

before dying "mysteriously." Reports from four Indian

villages revealed 25% of them died within a week. Post

mortems indicated a toxic reaction. The study raises

questions about cottonseed oil safety and human health

for people who eat meat from animals fed GM cotton.

It’s crucial to understand that what animals eat, so

do people.

Nearly all 100 Filipinos living adjacent to a Bt corn

field became ill. Their symptoms appeared when the

crop was producing airborne pollen and was apparently

inhaled. Doing it produced headaches, dizziness,

extreme stomach pain, vomiting, chest pains, fever,

and allergies plus respiratory, intestinal and skin

reactions. Blood tests conducted on 39 victims showed

an antibody response to Bt-toxin suggesting it was the

cause. Four other villages experienced the same

problems that also resulted in several animal deaths.

Iowa farmers reported a conception rate drop of from

80% to 20% among sows (female pigs) fed GM corn. Most

animals also had false pregnancies, some delivered

bags of water and others stopped menstruating. Male

pigs were also affected as well as cows and bulls.

They became sterile and all were fed GM corn.

German farmer Gottfried Glockner grew GM corn and fed

it to his cows. Twelve subsequently died from the Bt

176 variety, and other cows had to be destroyed due to

a "mysterious" illness. The corn plots were field

trials for Ag biotech giant Syngenta that later took

the product off the market with no admission of fault.

Mice fed Monsanto Roundup Ready soybeans developed

significant liver cell changes indicating a dramatic

general metabolism increase. Symptoms included

irregularly shaped nuclei and nucleoli, and an

increased number of nuclear pores and other changes.

It’s thought this resulted from exposure to a toxin,

and most symptoms disappeared when Roundup Ready was

removed from the diet.

Mice fed Roundup Ready had pancreas problems, heavier

livers and unexplained testicular cell changes. The

Monsanto product also produced cell metabolism changes

in rabbit organs, and most offspring of rats on this

diet died within three weeks.

The death rate for chickens fed GM Liberty Link corn

for 42 days doubled. They also experienced less weight

gain, and their food intake was erratic.

In the mid-1990s, Australian scientists discovered

that GM peas generated an allergic-type inflammatory

response in mice in contrast to the natural protein

that had no adverse effect. Commercialization of the

product was cancelled because of fear humans might

have the same reaction.

When given a choice, animals avoid GM foods. This was

learned by observing a flock of geese that annually

visit an Illinois pond and feed on soybeans from an

adjacent farm. After half the acreage had GM crops,

the geese ate only from the non-GMO side. Another

observation showed 40 deer ate organic soybeans from

one field but shunned the GMO kind across the road.

The same thing happened with GM corn.

Inserting foreign or transgenes is called insertional

mutagenesis or insertion mutation. When done, it

usually disrupts DNA at the insertion site and affects

gene functioning overall by scrambling, deleting or

relocating the genetic code near the insertion site.

The process of creating a GM plant requires scientists

first to isolate and grow plant cells in the

laboratory using a tissue culture process. The problem

is when it’s done it can create hundreds or thousands

of DNA mutations throughout the genome. Changing a

single base pair may be harmful. However, widespread

genome changes compound the potential problem

manyfold.

Promoters are used in GM crops as switches to turn on

the foreign gene. When done, the process may

accidently switch on other natural plant genes

permanently. The result may be to overproduce an

allergen, toxin, carcinogen, antinutrient, enzymes

that stimulate or inhibit hormone production, RNA that

silences genes, or changes that affect fetal

development. They may also produce regulators that

block other genes and/or switch on a dormant virus

that may cause great harm. In addition, evidence

suggests the promoter may create genetic instability

and mutations that can result in the breakup and

recombination of the gene sequence.

Plants naturally produce thousands of chemicals to

enhance health and protect against disease. However,

changing plant protein may alter these chemicals,

increase plant toxins and/or reduce its

phytonutrients. For example, GM soybeans produce less

cancer-fighting isoflavones. Overall, studies show

genetic modification produces unintended changes in

nutrients, toxins, allergens and small molecule

metabolism products.

To create a GM soybean with a more complete protein

balance, Pioneer Hi-Bred inserted a Brazil nut gene.

By doing it, an allergenic protein was introduced

affecting people allergic to Brazil nuts. When tests

confirmed this, the project was cancelled. GM proteins

in other crops like corn and papaya may also be

allergenic. The same problem exists for other crops

like Bt corn, and evidence shows allergies skyrocketed

after GM crops were introduced.

Another study of Monsanto’s high-lysine corn showed it

contained toxins and other potentially harmful

substances that may retard growth. If consumed in

large amounts, it may also adversely affect human

health. In addition, when this product is cooked, it

may produce toxins associated with Alzheimer’s,

diabetes, allergies, kidney disease, cancer and aging

symptoms.

Disease-resistant crops like zucchini, squash and

Hawaiian papaya may promote human viruses and other

diseases, and eating these products may suppress the

body’s natural defense against viral infections.

Protein structural aspects in GM crops may be altered

in unforeseen ways. They may be misfolded or have

added molecules. During insertion, transgenes may

become truncated, rearranged or interspersed with

other DNA pieces with unknown harmful effects.

Transgenes may also be unstable and spontaneously

rearrange over time, again with unpredictable

consequences. In addition, they may create more than

one protein from a process called alternative

splicing.

Environmental factors, weather, natural and man-made

substances and genetic disposition of a plant further

complicate things and pose risks. They’re introduced

as well because genetic engineering disrupts complex

DNA relationships.

Contrary to industry claims, studies show transgenes

aren’t destroyed digestively in humans or animals.

Foreign DNA can wander, survive in the

gastro-intestinal tract, and be transported by blood

to internal organs. This raises the risk that

transgenes may transfer to gut bacteria, proliferate

over time, and get into cells DNA, possibly causing

chronic diseases. A single human feeding study

confirmed that genes, in fact, transferred from GM soy

into the DNA gut bacteria of three of seven test

subjects.

Antibiotic Resister Marker (ARM) genes are attached to

transgenes prior to insertion and allow cells to

survive antibiotic applications. If ARM genes transfer

to pathogenic gut or mouth bacteria, they potentially

can cause antibiotic-resistant super-diseases. The

proliferation of GM crops increases the possibility.

The CaMV promoter in nearly all GMOs can also transfer

and may switch on random genes or viruses that produce

toxins, allergens or carcinogens as well as create

genetic instability.

GM crops interact with their environment and are part

of a complex ecosystem that includes our food. These

crops may increase environmental and other toxins that

may accumulate throughout the food chain. Crops

genetically engineered to be glufosinate

(herbicide)resistant may produce intestinal herbicide

with known toxic effects. If transference to gut

bacteria occurs, greater problems may result.

Repeated use of seeds like Monsanto’s Roundup Ready

soybeans results in vicious new super-weeds that need

far greater amounts of stronger herbicides to combat.

Their toxic residues remain in crops that humans and

animals then eat. Even small amounts of these toxins

may be endocrine disruptors that can affect human

reproduction adversely. Evidence exists that GM crops

accumulate toxins or concentrate them in milk or

animals fed GM feed. Disease-resistant crops may also

produce new plant viruses that affect humans.

All type GM foods, not just crops, carry these risks.

Milk, for example, from cows injected with Monsanto’s

bovine growth hormone (rbGH), has much higher levels

of the hormone IGF-1 that risks breast, prostate,

colon, lung and other cancers. The milk also has lower

nutritional value. GM food additives also pose health

risks, and their use has proliferated in processed

foods.

Potential harm to adults is magnified for children.

Another concern is that pregnant mothers eating GM

foods may endanger their offspring by harming normal

fetal development and altering gene expression that’s

then passed to future generations. Children are also

more endangered than adults, especially those drinking

substantial amounts of rbGH-treated milk.

Conclusion

The above information is largely drawn from Smith’s

"Genetic Roulette." The data is startling and confirms

a clear conclusion. The proliferation of untested,

unregulated GM foods in the span of a decade is more a

leap of faith than reliable science. Microbiologist

Richard Lacey captures the risk stating: "it is

virtually impossible to even conceive of a testing

procedure to assess the health effects of (GM) foods

when introduced into the food chain, nor is there any

valid nutritional or public interest reason for their

introduction." Other scientists worldwide agree that

GM foods entered the market long before science could

evaluate their safety and benefits. They want a halt

to this dangerous experiment that needs decades of

rigorous research and testing before we can know.

Unchecked and unregulated, human health and safety are

at risk because once GMOs enter the food chain, the

genie is out of the bottle for keeps. Thankfully,

resistance is growing worldwide, many millions are

opposed, but reversing the tide won’t be easy.

Washington and Ag biotech are on a roll with big

unstated aims - total control of our food, making it

all genetically engineered, and scheming to use it as

a weapon to reward friends and punish enemies.

Smith is hopeful that people will prevail over

profits. Hopefully he’s right because human health and

safety must never be compromised. Resistance already

halted the introduction of new crop varieties, and

Smith believes that with enough momentum existing ones

may end up withdrawn. He cites an example he calls a

"Shift away from GM foods in the United States" in

2007. Leading it is an initiative launched last spring

to remove GM ingredients from the entire natural food

sector. It’s led by a coalition of natural food

products producers, distributors and retailers along

with the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT).

It’s called the Campaign for Healthier Eating in

America, and its aims are big - to educate consumers

about GM food risks and promote healthy alternatives

through shopping guides.

A Pew survey reported that 29% of Americans,

representing 87 million people, strongly oppose these

foods and believe they’re unsafe. That’s a respectable

start if backed up with efforts to avoid them, and

more information how is at ResponsibleTechnology.org.

Jeffrey Smith founded IRT in 2003 "to promote the

responsible use of technology and stop GM foods and

crops through both grassroots and national

strategies." It seeks safe alternatives and aims to

"ban the genetic engineering of our food supply and

all outdoor releases of (GM) organisms, at least until

(or unless scientific opinion) believes such products

are safe and appropriate based on independent and

reliable data."

IRT urges consumers to become educated about the

risks, mobilize to combat them and act in our mutual

self-interest. It’s beginning to happen, and Smith

believes "there is an excellent chance that food

manufacturers will abandon GM foods in the near

future" if a public groundswell demands it. He ends

his book saying: "Although GMOs present one of the

greatest dangers, with informed, motivated people, it

is one of the easiest global issues to solve."

Hopefully he’s right.

---

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at

lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and

listen to The Global Research News Hour Mondays on

RepublicBroadcasting.org from 11AM - 1PM US Central

time for cutting-edge discussions of world and

national issues with distinguished guests.