The DNA Protection Act of 2013

[DNAprotection]

The natural genetics or DNA of the natural world or the commons is under attack.
Corporate interests are working 24 hours a day 7 days a weeks to re-design and or re-sequence the genetic material or DNA of the natural world in effort to patent and own such modified genetic designs or 'blueprints'.
The DNA Protection Act of 2013 will protect the naturally intended genetic designs of the living natural world and or the commons within the state of California from the immanent threat of broken DNA caused by genetic engineering and or genetic modification technologies.
We need your help to make The DNA Protection Act of 2013 into a law by way of getting it on the ballot and then getting it passed into law by a majority vote of the people.
This is exclusively a non-partisan and non-affiliated grass roots effort on behalf of all life and all the generations of life to come.

"THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013"

This act shall be known as, and may be cited as THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013, and is hereby incorporated to amend and or be added to the California Health and Safety Code as;
DIVISION 123.THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013... 151004,
and is as set forth herein as follows;

section 1. FINDINGS,
The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of THE DNA PROTECTION ACT OF 2013 are as follows:

1.(a) whereas the people of the state of California recognize the many different religions and cultures and individuals, including "secular", that all together define and or represent and or make up what is commonly known as "THE PEOPLE" of the state of California, and as such, have different names for that which is ultimately responsible for the creation and or existence of the people and all that exists, as exampled by the following sample:
GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al,
and,
1.(b) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al, has endowed unto the people to equally share in dependency on, and responsibility to, what is commonly known as "the commons",
and,
1.(c) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that private and public entities are involved in what is commonly known as "genetic engineering" and or "gene splicing" and or "genetically modifying" all forms of life in effort to redesign the natural creation and or natural world and are applying such technology to 'food crops' and 'farm animals' that then end up in the human food chain,
and,
1.(d) whereas the people of the state of California recognize that said practices and or technologies have unknown side effects and or consequences to the natural world, and or "the commons" in general, and to humans specifically, and that said practices irreparably damage the original and or naturally intended design of life itself, and or specifically that of the commons, and thereby denying the people and the future generations of people of the commons in their naturally intended form and or naturally occurring DNA sequences that were and are naturally designed by and bestowed upon them by GOD, CREATOR, NATURE etc...et al, and to which the people have relied upon since the dawn of human kind and are inseparably dependent upon in the common struggle to live,
and,
1.(e) whereas said genetic engineering practices result in private and or public corporations and or private individuals owning patents on the genetic design of life forms,
and,
1.(f) whereas the naturally occurring forms of life that inhabit the commons currently have no statutory protections against the inevitable and eminent danger of 'genetic pollution' that results and or can result from genetic engineering,
1.(g) we the people of California therefor find that genetic engineering poses an eminent threat of danger to all the naturally sequenced DNA in the natural world, and by the act of direct or indirect manipulation of naturally sequenced DNA does in itself create the irreparable permanent damage to the original genetic designs of life, and so we do hereby create the urgently necessary DNA protections contained herein as described in section 3 of this ACT.

section 2. DEFINITIONS:

2.(a) For the purposes of this ACT, the term "DNA", (deoxyribonucleic acid), shall mean the complex substance that is the main carrier of genetic information for all organisms and a major component of chromosomes and can be analogized to mean the 'blueprints' that determine what form(s) life takes and is central to the natural function(s) of all life in the common struggle to live.

2.(b) For the purposes of this ACT, the term "the commons" shall mean the natural biological world and all life and ecosystems naturally existing in the natural world in its natural state of genetic design or DNA sequencing, and specifically, but not limited to, naturally occurring varieties of plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof) and insects (including the offspring thereof).

2.(c) For the purposes of this ACT, the terms "genetically engineered" and "genetically modified" shall mean the scientific alteration of the structure of genetic material in a living organism, and or the technology of preparing recombinant DNA in vitro by cutting up DNA molecules and splicing together fragments from more than one organism.

section 3. PROVISIONS, PROTECTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS:

3.(a) This ACT does hereby prohibit live genetically engineered and or genetically modified plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such organisms from existing within the boarders of the state of California, and that all living genetically engineered plants (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such genetically engineered genetically modified organisms have six months from the date of the adoption of this ACT into law to be removed from the state by those individuals or corporate or government entities that brought and or posses such within the state of California, and which shall be done in a manner that does not further the threat of genetic pollution and or genetically engineered DNA contamination exposure to the commons and or natural world.

3.(b) Failure to satisfy the requirements of this ACT, and or anyone who possesses and or sponsors in any way the possession of living genetically engineered organisms within the state of California after the initial six month clearing out period shall be subject to the punishments of fines no less than one million dollars per day for corporations and one hundred dollars per day for private individuals and or shall also be punishable by no less than six months in jail for private individuals and no less than ten years in prison for individuals working for or on behalf of corporate entities, and said penalties are to be paid to, and or, served in the county where said violation(s) has occurred. The penalties imposed by this ACT are to be adjudicated and assessed in the Superior Court jurisdiction of the county where the violation(s) have occurred and are to be determined exponentially based on estimates of damage and or potential damage to the collective DNA of the commons and or the natural world and to which consideration of possible impact of said damage is not limited to the county where the violation has occurred, and further, nothing in this ACT shall in any way be construed to mean limiting, preventing or precluding a California court of proper jurisdiction from increasing any of the stated penalties of this ACT at the courts discretion, and that such increases are to be determined based on estimates of damage(s) and or potential damage(s) to a specific and or the collective DNA of the commons and or the natural world and to, whether directly or indirectly, human beings and their naturally designed genetic inheritance of the commons and their collective dependence on, and responsibility to such.

3.(c) This ACT is not intended to preclude or limit or interfere in any way with medical personnel from applying medical technologies or medical procedures that employ genetic modification technologies in their application(s) and or the research in effort to develop such, and so does hereby exempt such conduct from the requirements of this ACT, but said medical technologies or medical procedures and or research must ensure that they are to be applied in a way that isolates the intended or unintended effects of such to the specific patient(s) and is in no way a broader genetic contamination threat and or in no way can be a possible contaminant to the naturally sequenced DNA of any other living organisms of the commons and or the natural world, further, this ACT is not intended to "exempt" any living plant (including the seeds and pollen thereof), animals (including the offspring thereof), insects (including the offspring thereof), and or any such living genetically engineered and or genetically modified organisms intended for human consumption as "medicine" and or "nutritional medicine" that would be self applied at 'home' by ingestion or topically or any other method and is allowed only in a controlled hospital setting and is to be applied directly by or with the assistance of qualified medical personal.

3.(d) If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.

[Peter1469]

How about this instead:

All products made with genetically modified material must be so marked.

[patrickt]

Oh, DNAProtector, you're from California. That's no surprise, is it? Fortunately, I am not in California, I will never be in California, and you should hurry and get your bill passed, in California, while there is still a California.

I can't believe you joined the forum just to make one pathetic post. Me? I like corn. Corn exists because of genetic manipulation.

[Mainecoons]

No. I suggest you instead vote on cutting government and taxes in half in California.

[Peter1469]

Oh, DNAProtector, you're from California. That's no surprise, is it? Fortunately, I am not in California, I will never be in California, and you should hurry and get your bill passed, in California, while there is still a California.

I can't believe you joined the forum just to make one pathetic post. Me? I like corn. Corn exists because of genetic manipulation.


Genetic manipulation such as cross breeding is very different that genetic manipulation that allows a food plant to build its own tiny pesticide factories inside its genes, which end up in your stomach after you eat the plants.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/08/a-pesticide-factory-in-your-stomach-think-corn-chips.aspx

[Captain Obvious]

I would vote taking the corporate interest factor out of the equation and would keep genetic engineering open to scientific research. Maybe... I don't know enough about this topic to really take an educated stand.

[Peter1469]

I would vote taking the corporate interest factor out of the equation and would keep genetic engineering open to scientific research. Maybe... I don't know enough about this topic to really take an educated stand.

Labeling is all that is needed. Too many customers will simply not buy GMO. And if a large state like California could make labeling the law, most companies wouldn't create different packaging for Cali and elsewhere.

[patrickt]

My god, Peter, they can build a factory in my stomach without any building permits from anyone. I doubt that. I read the article and was impressed with the level of supposition and propaganda. I'm still not frightened. Of course, I am in favor of warning people when appropriate but our government prefers force, banning, and it's really a kick for them when the majority of Americans disagree.

[Peter1469]

My god, Peter, they can build a factory in my stomach without any building permits from anyone. I doubt that. I read the article and was impressed with the level of supposition and propaganda. I'm still not frightened. Of course, I am in favor of warning people when appropriate but our government prefers force, banning, and it's really a kick for them when the majority of Americans disagree.

At the very least there should be long term studies before they are introduced into the human diet....

Or better yet. Label them. I will be in the self assigned placebo group. :rollseyes:

Regarding the article, it was from 2010. The guy has expanded on it for the last 3 years.

[KC]

In an ideal world, I would suggest that companies define their labels, and consumer protection exists only to verify that companies set the standards set by those companies and to make sure information about those standards is available to consumers.

[DNAprotection]

How about this instead:

All products made with genetically modified material must be so marked.

How about learning what we don't know first before we think we are 'ready for prime time' on this?
Profit is what motivates the science, yet the same motivation then supplants the completing of the science to instead satisfy the profit and so unlike with other products or inventions etc that have a limited scope or reach in their potential to do harm, GE/GM technologies have an undeniable chain reactive nature about their effects that can be devastating whether one consumes a product or not because we are talking about redesigning the gene pool or the sequences therein, this is the common gene pool that we all swim in and were born from and it is wholly symbiotic in nature...if all those interconnected interactive and interdependent relationships are viewed in chemical terms that are then converted to numbers, it is maybe easier to understand that we simply do not yet have all the numbers to the equations of life that we are attempting to redesign in the continued quest for gold.
Here are a couple of links to check out that might help explain until I have time to write more:

http://www.rodale.com/genetically-modified-seeds


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB8re_OIWrE "Human Rights: Not Just For Humans (& Corporations) Anymore?"
"The courts have ruled that in the US, Corporations have the same rights as people. But do our communities and natural ecosystems have any rights? How about our bodies, right down to our cells and genetic material? Do they have rights? And how can we defend them? On this edition, Thomas Linzey and Katherine Davies argue that in order to defend our bodies and our environment, they must be given rights under the law. "

"Published on Mar 7, 2012

Expanding the rights of individuals, communities, and nature as a key strategy for sustainability. The rights over a person's genes, tissues, and environmental health is near to non-existent. Over 20% of human genome is patented by corporations and universities. Toxic trespass is a condition where human tissues contain unwanted toxins via unregulated food supply, water supply, air conditions and environmental factors. Lead in blood, mercury in hair, and contamination in mother's milk are examples of toxic trespass. As of now we do not have the right to a healthy environmental living condition. The current activism is not working to stop environmental problems. Although environmental law firms have judicial victories, most permits that were fought against end up being reestablished. Many established environmental issues should be seen as human rights issues."

[Peter1469]

I agree that GMO is not ready. But labeling will kill it off - in the mean time testing can be done and the question revisited in 10-20 years. We don't need a huge law or the jack-boot power of the State to achieve this. If there is labeling GMO will go out of business.

[DNAprotection]

I agree that GMO is not ready. But labeling will kill it off - in the mean time testing can be done and the question revisited in 10-20 years. We don't need a huge law or the jack-boot power of the State to achieve this. If there is labeling GMO will go out of business.

Well Peter you have made two quite far reaching assumptions and I can't imagine there is any evidence that would make such conclusions plausible?
Take for example labeling, (at your own risk lol) turn on a TV and watch for ten minutes or less and you will in all likelihood see one or more commercials for 'drugs' or as they say 'medications' and on each of those commercials you will see a nightmarish laundry list of possible side effects that can occur when using said products that almost always include death as one of the possible side effects. Its hard to imagine a corp paying for such commercials or required GIANT AUDIO LABELING if it was as counterproductive to their profit margin as you seem to think such a measure would be etc...
As far as the "jack-boot power of the State", I'm sorry to say that your quite inaccurate or more to the point backwards on that assumption. The state of things at present is that Monsanto et al currently wield the power you speak of and are using it in haste in effort to further the notion of centralized power, only this technology gives reach to the ultimate centralized power ability of redesigning privatizing and controlling the evolution of everything through controlling genetics.
I can't imagine a more "jack-boot power of the State" era than the one you and the other posters here are so willing to usher in.
If you agree that GMO's aren't ready for prime time, then truly take some time to really learn why and what the real potential for unintended or intended consequences are for us all, not just those who 'consume' GMO products. We are talking about chain reactive technologies, I hope you fully understand what that means?

[DNAprotection]

Oh, DNAProtector, you're from California. That's no surprise, is it? Fortunately, I am not in California, I will never be in California, and you should hurry and get your bill passed, in California, while there is still a California.

I can't believe you joined the forum just to make one pathetic post. Me? I like corn. Corn exists because of genetic manipulation.

Oh patrickt, I can hardly believe you would be assuming such lol...Is that the same reasoning you use when assuming Monsanto et al is everything you need? Well if it is then everyone can now see how wrong you were about me posting here and such should also reflect on the plausibility of your conclusions on the subject of genetic engineering/GMO's etc...You must be a big fan of payday Monsanto?
To bad you couldn't approach me as an equal, to bad you apparently had no one in your life to show you how to greet new or different people...you should get a job at the state department if not already working there.
Heres a good toe tapper...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iIBiVYWT9U

[DNAprotection]

I would vote taking the corporate interest factor out of the equation and would keep genetic engineering open to scientific research. Maybe... I don't know enough about this topic to really take an educated stand.

Sec 3(c) of the proposal allows for scientific research and medical applications.
The rest of the proposal works at targeting the corporate interest angle.
There is no other law or proposed law that I know of that seeks to protect the commons from this kind of pollution.
All protection at this time is only afforded to such life that is patented and considered to be intellectual property, and such patented life is protected by law from being polluted by the natural commons and or the varieties of naturally occurring life therein.
Thats why Monsanto et al can file law suits against farmers like this:


http://bestmeal.info/monsanto/facts.shtml
#3: Monsanto Puts Small Farmers out of Business (http://news.bestmeal.info/news/farming/) http://bestmeal.info/images/farmers/farmers-market.jpg
100s of American farmers have been sued. Century-old seed stocks were destroyed. 100,000s of Indian farmers commit suicide by drinking monsanto's RoundUp herbicide after massive GMO crop failures bankrupted them. Monsanto uses the courts aggressively. It has sued hundreds of American farmers for patent infringement in connection with its GE seed. In a high profile case in Canada, which Monsanto won at the Supreme Court level,
Monsanto sued an independent farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for patent infringement for growing GMO genetically modified Roundup resistant canola in 1998. Percy Schmeiser is a Canadian farmer whose canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola by pollen from a nearby GMO farm. Monsanto successfully argued in a lawsuit that Schmeiser violated their patent rights, and forced Schmeiser to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.
Mr. Schmeiser maintained that this was accidental. He testified that in the previous year, 1997, he had suspected contamination by genetically modified Roundup resistant canola along the roadside in one of his fields and hence had sprayed along the field edge with Roundup, whereupon he found that about 60% of the canola survived. The farm hand performing the harvest saved only seed from this contaminated roadside swathe for replanting in the next year, 1998, and presumably this seed was genetically modified (http://bestmeal.info/food/GMOs.shtml) Roundup resistant seed.
The court found that Mr. Schmeiser and his farming company (damages were assessed only against the company as Mr. Schmeiser was found to be acting in his capacity as director), "knew or ought to have known" the nature of the seed which was planted in 1998, and that by planting, growing and harvesting it, there was infringement of Monsanto's patent on canola cells genetically modified for Roundup resistance. This finding was upheld at the appellate court level.
Monsanto Lawsuits Against Farmers In the United States
This type of biotech bullying is happening all over North America. The non-profit Center for Food Safety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Food_Safety) listed 112 lawsuits by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations. The Center for Food Safety's analyst stated that many innocent farmers settle with Monsanto because they cannot afford a time consuming lawsuit. Monsanto is frequently described by farmers as "Gestapo" and "Mafia" both because of these lawsuits and because of the questionable means they use to collect evidence of patent infringement.

http://bestmeal.info/images/toons/MON810.jpg
Indian Farmer Suicides (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_in_India#The_Indian_Suici des) After GMO BT Cotton Crop Failures There have been 125,000+ small farmer suicides (http://news.bestmeal.info/2009/05/corporate-agriculture-is-to-blame-for-the-100000s-of-farmer-suicides-in-india/) in the past decade, and about 4000+/year *REPORTED* in India. In 2006, 1,044 suicides were reported in Vidarbha alone - that's one suicide every eight hours.
Some struggles facing Indian farmers are detailed in the article "Seeds of Suicide: India's Desperate Farmers" on Frontline. The transition to using the latest pest-resistant seeds and the necessary herbicides has been difficult. Farmers have used genetically modified seeds promoted by Cargill and Monsanto hoping for greater yields. Resulting debts from such gambles with genetically modified seeds have led some farmers into the equivalent of indentured servitude. More than 125,000+ farmers have committed suicide, which some claim is mostly due to mounting debt caused by the poor yields, increased need for pesticides, and the higher cost of the Bt cotton seed sold by Monsanto.
http://bestmeal.info/images/monsanto/roundup/roundup-ready-cotton.pngShankara, like millions of other Indian farmers, had been promised previously unheard of harvests and income if he switched from farming with traditional [ORGANIC REUSABLE] seeds to planting GM [GENETICALLY MODIFIED STERILE CARCINOGENIC NON-ORGANIC] seeds instead. Beguiled by the promise of future riches, he borrowed money in order to buy the GM seeds.
But when the harvests failed, Shankara was left with spiralling debts - and no income. So Shankara became one of an estimated 125,000+ farmers to take their own life as a result of the ruthless drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops.... 'We are ruined now,' said [another farmer's] 38-year-old wife. 'We bought 100 grams of BT Cotton. Our crop failed twice. My husband had become depressed. He went out to his field, lay down in the [GMO BT] cotton and swallowed insecticide [MONSANTO's ROUNDUP]".
A report released by the International Food Policy Research Institute in October 2008 provided evidence that the cause of farmer suicide in India was due to several causes and that the introduction of Bt cotton was not a major factor. It argues that the suicides predate the introduction of the cotton in 2002 and has been fairly consistent since 1997. Other studies also suggest the increase in farmer suicides is due to a combination of various socio-economic factors. These include debt, the difficulty of farming semi-arid regions, poor agricultural income, absence of alternative income opportunities, the downturn in the urban economy forcing non-farmers into farming, and the absence of suitable counseling services.


Child Labour and Trans-National Seed Companies in Hybrid Cotton Seed Production in Andhra Pradesh (http://www.indianet.nl/cotseed.html) from India Committee of the Netherlands
Seeds of Suicide: India's desperate farmers (http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_suicid.html) from the Public Broadcasting Service
"Farmer's Suicides (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=4871)". Z Magazine.
"Indian Farmer's Final Solution (http://www.countercurrents.org/gl-sharma290604.htm)". countercurrents.org.
"Rough Cut Seeds of Suicide India's desperate farmers (http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_suicid.html)". PBS Frontline. July 26, 2005. Retrieved 3 October 2010.
P. Sainath (August 2004). "Seeds of Suicide II (http://infochangeindia.org/200408056392/Other/Features/Seeds-of-suicide-I-I.html) ". InfoChange News and Features.
Guillaume P. Gruère, Purvi Mehta-Bhatt and Debdatta Sengupta (2008). "Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: Reviewing the Evidence (http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00808.pdf)". International Food Policy Research Institute.
Sheridan, C. (2009). "Doubts surround link between Bt cotton failure and farmer suicide (http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v27/n1/full/nbt0109-9.html).".
Nagraj, K. (2008). "Farmers suicide in India: magnitudes, trends and spatial patterns (http://www.macroscan.com/anl/mar08/pdf/Farmers_Suicides.pdf)".
Mishra, Srijit (2007). "Risks, Farmers’ Suicides and Agrarian Crisis in India: Is There A Way Out? (http://www.igidr.ac.in/pdf/publication/WP-2007-014.pdf)". Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR).

[DNAprotection]

In an ideal world, I would suggest that companies define their labels, and consumer protection exists only to verify that companies set the standards set by those companies and to make sure information about those standards is available to consumers.
An Ideal world is exactly what corporate interests have in mind with this technology, 'ideal' in the sense that it provides the ultimate level of central control of the markets they profit from, not to mention controlling the genetics of the common gene pool as well as manipulating the evolution of such in intended or unintended ways.
Or it could also be thought of as springtime for Hitler...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNPs4X_UTvY


http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/

On the book's release, Holocaust survivors filed suit against IBM for its alleged role in the Holocaust; Gypsies earlier this month threatened their own lawsuit.
Though the first suit was withdrawn and the second has yet to be filed, hundreds of critics and historians have weighed in against the company, with others coming to its defense. The range of the controversy can be gleaned from the pages of BusinessWeek alone, which in a March review (http://www.businessweek.com:/print/magazine/content/01_12/b3724036.htm) excoriated the "illogical, overstated, padded, and sloppy" book for fostering "a new myth--the automated Holocaust," and in an April commentary (http://www.businessweek.com:/print/bwdaily/dnflash/apr2001/nf20010412_601.htm) said the "enlightening" book "should be required reading for every first-year MBA student."
At the heart of Black's argument is that information technology--in the form of IBM's Hollerith punch-card machines--provided the Nazis with a unique and critical tool in their task of cataloguing and dispatching their millions of victims.
As the book's title suggests, Black attempts to establish that IBM didn't merely vend its products to Hitler--as did many American companies--but maintained a strategic alliance with the Third Reich in which it licensed, maintained and custom-designed its products for use in the machinery of the Holocaust.



American supporters of the European Fascists
Bayer, Dupont etc...

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm


Jeffrey Smith GMO update – Monsanto, Roundup, Bayer, DuPont and more (http://dprogram.net/2012/02/10/jeffrey-smith-gmo-update-monsanto-roundup-bayer-dupont-and-more/)

February 10th, 2012



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=055zPQud8SA

[DNAprotection]

Redesigning the World:
Ethical Questions about Genetic Engineering
Redesigning the World (http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/Redesigning.htm)


For and those that don't understand that there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns that make genetic engineering a risk to us all that only serves the few, here is some recent news, but first lets review the fact that we don't really have any idea yet of what we are really doing when we start re-sequencing or redesigning DNA, the debate ending quote of destiny:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RpSv3HjpEw

Hitler's entire dream was based on genetic superiority.
What would Hitler have done with the genetic engineering capabilities of today's technology?
Now imagine all the corporate mechanisms of control that exist in America and how such has been used over the years to bring even more centralized control.
Now imagine what those same corps and their puppet govs will do with genetic engineering technology?
IBM and Bayer and DuPont etc are the same corps that were in business with Hitler and were in full support of his dream of a master race.
Now IBM et al wants us all to help them 'build a smarter planet'...if anyone can add 2 + 2 then they should be able to add up whats going on with genetic engineering.
Some folks here it seems can only see a Pollyanna version or piece of the picture that suits them such as how such technology could help us all, but unless put into the context of who's developing the technology and for what, such a view is like seeing the toe of a beast yet remaining blind to the rest of the body, especially the hungry mouth.
Its one thing to wish for good, but in this case its more like wishing for a less painful way to be eaten.

In Newsweek Magazine
Hitler's Dreams Of Racial Purity
Hitler's Dreams Of Racial Purity - Newsweek and The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2000/04/16/hitler-s-dreams-of-racial-purity.html)

Responsible Genetics: The Moral Responsibility of Geneticists for the ... - A. Nordgren - Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=VLBuYI-OpvYC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=What+if+Hitler+had+genetic+engineering+technolo gy&source=bl&ots=AIyFcJH0O8&sig=nXxmHp2Rb7lvqR9JqU8Tyarj5Zo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lQsEUevdDKXZigL5ooDwDA&sqi=2&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=What%20if%20Hitler%20had%20genetic%20engineering %20technology&f=false)
20 January 2013

Research in Genetic Engineering Should Be Halted :: Exploratory Essays Research Papers


(http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=19879) The more we learn, the more we learn we don't know:


'Quadruple helix' DNA seen in human cells
Jonathan Amos By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent, BBC News
A representation of the four-stranded structure (L) and fluorescent markers reveal its presence inside cells (R) A representation of the four-stranded structure (L) with fluorescent markers revealing its presence inside cells (R)
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories

DNA: A landmark in science
'Big Data' and a new era of medicine
Tiny machine apes production line

Cambridge University scientists say they have seen four-stranded DNA at work in human cells for the first time.

The famous "molecule of life", which carries our genetic code, is more familiar to us as a double helix.

But researchers tell the journal Nature Chemistry that the "quadruple helix" is also present in our cells, and in ways that might possibly relate to cancer.

They suggest that control of the structures could provide novel ways to fight the disease.

"The existence of these structures may be loaded when the cell has a certain genotype or a certain dysfunctional state," said Prof Shankar Balasubramanian from Cambridge's department of chemistry.

"We need to prove that; but if that is the case, targeting them with synthetic molecules could be an interesting way of selectively targeting those cells that have this dysfunction," he told BBC News.
Tag and track

It will be exactly 60 years ago in February that James Watson and Francis Crick famously burst into the pub next to their Cambridge laboratory to announce the discovery of the "secret of life".

What they had actually done was describe the way in which two long chemical chains wound up around each other to encode the information cells need to build and maintain our bodies.

Today, the pair's modern counterparts in the university city continue to work on DNA's complexities.

Balasubramanian's group has been pursuing a four-stranded version of the molecule that scientists have produced in the test tube now for a number of years.

It is called the G-quadruplex. The "G" refers to guanine, one of the four chemical groups, or "bases", that hold DNA together and which encode our genetic information (the others being adenine, cytosine, and thymine).

The G-quadruplex seems to form in DNA where guanine exists in substantial quantities.

And although ciliates, relatively simple microscopic organisms, have displayed evidence for the incidence of such DNA, the new research is said to be the first to firmly pinpoint the quadruple helix in human cells.
'Funny target'

The team, led by Giulia Biffi, a researcher in Balasubramaninan's lab, produced antibody proteins that were designed specifically to track down and bind to regions of human DNA that were rich in the quadruplex structure. The antibodies were tagged with a fluorescence marker so that the time and place of the structures' emergence in the cell cycle could be noted and imaged.

This revealed the four-stranded DNA arose most frequently during the so-called "s-phase" when a cell copies its DNA just prior to dividing.

Prof Balasubramaninan said that was of key interest in the study of cancers, which were usually driven by genes, or oncogenes, that had mutated to increase DNA replication.

If the G-quadruplex could be implicated in the development of some cancers, it might be possible, he said, to make synthetic molecules that contained the structure and blocked the runaway cell proliferation at the root of tumours.

"We've come a long way in 10 years, from simple ideas to really seeing some substance in the existence and tractability of targeting these funny structures," he told the BBC.

"I'm hoping now that the pharmaceutical companies will bring this on to their radar and we can perhaps take a more serious look at whether quadruplexes are indeed therapeutically viable targets."
Prof Shankar Balasubramanian Prof Shankar Balasubramanian in front of a painting by artist Annie Newman that represents quadruplex DNA



Good news trend for no poll voters:


IBM to ‘financialize’ water; the last frontier in monopolizing human rights and installing neo-feudalism


Release Date: January 23, 2013
Issued By: Waterfund LLC

NEW YORK, NY – January 23, 2013 – Waterfund LLC announced today that it has signed an agreement with IBM (NYSE: IBM) to develop a Water Cost Index (WCI).

Scientists from IBM Research will apply Big Data expertise, acting as a calculation agent, to analyze large and diverse unstructured data sets. This will be used to develop of a WCI framework that would estimate the cost of water in different regions around the world. With its market and financial product expertise, Waterfund will work to structure and commercialize the WCI.

Population growth, massive urbanization and climate change are placing increasing demands on our limited water supply. Forty one percent of the world’s population – that’s 2.3 billion people – live in water-stressed areas; this number is expected to grow to 3.5 billion by 2025. And according to the United Nations, water use has been growing at more than twice the rate of population increase over the last century.

With advances in technology — deep computing and Big Data analytics linked to sophisticated sensor networks and smart meters — IBM is helping clients and partners make smarter decisions about water management. By monitoring, measuring and analyzing water systems, from rivers and reservoirs to pumps and pipes, we can better understand the issues around water. IBM is applying its expertise in smart systems and Big Data to help companies, governments and citizens understand and more effectively deal with these issues.

As governments are increasingly forced to turn to the private sector to fund the construction and maintenance of complex water networks, the Rickards Real Cost Water Index™ will serve as a benchmark for helping measure hundreds of critical projects on a like-for-like basis. Index values will reflect estimated water production costs measured in US dollars per cubic metre for a variety of major global water infrastructure projects ranging from retail water utilities and wholesale water utilities to major transmission projects.

[DNAprotection]

Just wanted to drop off some more info on this subject for your consideration:

More to consider:
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/sept09/nanotechnology_parallels_gmos.php

Nanotechnology offers disturbing parallels to GMOs

A new technology is introduced that proponents claim will provide more nutritious food. Industry races ahead bringing applications to market with little or no government oversight. Scientists grope to understand impacts on human health and the environment. Consumers are left in the dark eating and using products with unknown risks. Sound familiar? The new technology is not genetic engineering, but nanotechnology.

This article is based on presentations given by Kantha Shelke, Ph.D., Corvus Blue and Ian Illuminato, health and environmental campaigner, Friends of the Earth.

This is the first of a two-part series.

Nanotechnology is the creation and manipulation of tiny objects at the level of molecules and atoms. According to Kantha Shelke, Ph.D., nanotechnology is “the art and science of building stuff that does stuff at the nanometer scale.”

A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter or one-hundred thousandth the diameter of a human hair. Imagine comparing the size of a marble to the size of the earth.

The theory behind nanotechnology is that by manipulating and assembling molecules and atoms—the so-called building blocks of matter—in certain configurations scientists can create almost anything.

At the nano-scale, the laws of chemistry and physics work differently, and materials develop unique properties, not seen at normal size. Opaque materials, such as copper and zinc, become transparent; stable materials, such as aluminum, become explosive; and solids, such as gold, turn into liquids.

Many applications
Scientists are applying nanotechnology to a wide range of industries, including food, food packaging, kitchenware, personal care, medicine, electronics, clothing, sports equipment, fertilizers, and pesticides. There are more than 800 consumer products on the market made using nanotechnology. A tableware set contains a nano silver coating that kills bacteria, aiming to prevent food-borne diseases. A toothpaste contains nanoparticles that help remove plaque and provide minerals to protect against tooth decay. A golf club shaft is made from “nano composite technology” to be stronger and lighter weight.

Disturbingly, nanotechnology could also be used to make chemical and biological weapons. A report by NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly Committee stated, “The potential for nanotechnology innovations in chemical and biological weapons is particularly disquieting, as nanotechnology can considerably enhance the delivery mechanisms of agents or toxic substances.”

Nano foods and packaging
In foods, proponents say nanotechnology can boost and target nutrition, extend food shelf life, improve taste and texture, and detect bacterial contamination.

There are 150-600 nano food and 400-500 nano food packaging applications on store shelves. Toddler Health is a nutritional supplement containing nano iron particles that claims to offer toddlers increased bioavailability. Canola Active cooking oil contains NutraLease, a nutraceutical technology that uses nano-capsules to enhance the delivery of nutrients. A preservative known as AquaNova contains nano capsules of water insoluble substances to increase absorption in the body. McDonald’s burger packages contain nano-spheres that require less water and less time and energy to dry. Miller Beer bottles are made from Imperm, a plastic imbued with clay nanoparticles that are as hard as glass but stronger and provide longer shelf life.

Major food companies, such as General Mills, Kraft, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Cadbury-Schweppes, and Unilever, are researching and developing nano food and food packaging applications building what is expected to be a $6 billion market by 2010.

There are nano agricultural applications. Syngenta has developed a plant growth treatment, PrimoMaxx nano emulsion. Cornell scientists developed a cloth with saturated nano fibers that slowly release pesticides and herbicides when it is planted with seeds.

Other agricultural giants conducting nanotechnology research include Dupont, BASF, and Cargill, but, surprisingly, not Monsanto.

Health risks
Like genetically modified foods, products of nanotechnology pose risks to human health and the environment. Nanopaticles are more chemically reactive than larger particles. Because they are so small, they have greater access to the human body than larger particles. They can be inhaled, penetrate skin, gain access to tissues and cells, and cross the blood-brain barrier.

Assessing the risks of nanotechnology is lagging far behind. “There is virtually no data on chronic, long-term effects on people, other organisms or the wider environment,” wrote British scientist John Lawton, author of a report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

Initial studies raise red flags. A recent study published in Nature showed that carbon nanotubes may exhibit the same cancer-causing potential as asbestos. In tests on rats, nanosilver has also been shown to be toxic to liver, brain, and stem cells and may harm beneficial bacteria.

Problems with sunscreens
Sunscreens are the most widely used consumer product containing nanoparticles. Researchers in the United States found that in tests on mice, sunscreen nanoparticles over stimulated brain cells, which could lead to brain damage.

Studies by researchers at the University of Toledo and Utah State University and the University of Utah found that nanoparticles, including nano-titanium dioxide, found in sunscreens killed beneficial bacteria and soil microbes.

Antibacterial nano food packaging and nano-sensor technologies may also harm beneficial bacteria in our bodies and the environment, and lead to the development of more harmful bacteria. Nano agrochemicals are likely to be more potent and toxic even in very small quantities.

Another techno-fix
As a result of the dangers, the National Research Council has called for more research on the health and environmental impacts of nanotechnology. The Action Group on Erosion, Technology, and Concentration and Friends of the Earth are calling for a moratorium on products containing nanoparticles until safety laws are established and the public is involved in decision making.

Like genetic engineering, nanotechnology is viewed as a techo-fix to solve the worlds’ food challenges. However, it is likely to further entrench fossil fuel and chemical intensive industrial agriculture and encourage continued reliance on large monoculture farms, resulting in the loss of small farms and biodiversity.

Regulations struggling to catch up
Government regulators are also lagging far behind the rapid development of nanotechnology. The European Union has taken the lead regulating nanotechnology as it did with GM foods. The EU will require nanoparticles in cosmetics to be labeled on the ingredients list and require increased safety testing for cosmetics containing nanoparticles. It will also prevent nanomaterials from being placed on the food market until being subject to nano-specific, standardized, safety assessments.

The problem with the new regulation is that it will take nearly 44 months to come into effect, despite the fact that nanocosmetics are already on store shelves.

Earlier this year, Canada became the first government in the world to require companies to provide information about their use of nanomaterials in products.

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration’s current policy is similar to its policy of substantial equivalence with GM foods, treating nanoparticle food ingredients no differently than bulk material ingredients or products.

J. Clarence Davies, a former official with the US Environmental Protection Agency, has called for the creation of a new Department of Environmental and Consumer Protection to oversee nano product development and risk assessment.

As with GM foods, the US government and industry both argue that labeling products containing nanoparticles would scare consumers with inaccurate or incomplete information.

Consumers in the dark
As American consumers eat GM foods without their knowledge, so they are unaware of using and consuming nano-based products. There is very little public awareness of nanotechnology. One survey found that 49% of Americans haven’t heard anything about nanotechnology, 26% heard just a little, 17% heard some, and only 7% heard a lot.
© Copyright The Organic & Non-GMO Report September 2009

Additional sources:
The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. www.nanotechproject.org.
Associated Press. “Scientists concerned about nanotech products.” November 13, 2008.
Food and Water Watch. “The Risks of Nanotechnology.” September 2008
Ball, Philip, “Nanoparticles in Sun Creams Can Stress Brain Cells.” Nature. June 21, 2006.
KABC-TV. “Studies Show Nanoparticles Used in Sunscreens and Makeup can Harm the Environment.” March 26, 2009
“Down on the Farm: The Impact of Nano-scale Technologies on Food and Agriculture.” ETC Group. November 2004.