GMOs: Not Even in Moderation

If I told you that there was a poison, let’s say, strychnine, for example, that you could ingest in teeny tiny minuscule doses and live to tell the tale, would you do it?  

Strychnine poisoning is one of the most painful ways to die.  

Ten to twenty minutes after exposure, the body’s muscles begin to spasm, starting with the head and neck in the form of trismus and risus sardonicus. The spasms then spread to every muscle in the body, with nearly continuous convulsions, and get worse at the slightest stimulus. The convulsions progress, increasing in intensity and frequency until the backbone arches continually. Convulsions lead to lactic acidosis, hyperthermia and rhabdomyolysis. These are followed by postictal depression. Death comes from asphyxiation caused by paralysis of the neural pathways that control breathing, or by exhaustion from the convulsions. The subject dies within 2–3 hours after exposure.  (Source)

Despite the agonizing death that could await, people used to deliberately consume small doses of strychnine as an athletic performance enhancer and as a stimulant.  The use of strychnine increased at the turn of the 20th century, then fell out of favor as the risk of use was too high.

With what we know these days about the use of strychnine, would you dip a little into your coffee and say, “Oh, it’s okay in moderation”?  Would you sprinkle a little on a granola bar to give to your child before a soccer game? Would you feed a little to your family because it was a special occasion?

*****

So, with the things we are learning about GMO foods, why do we think the consumption of these is okay in moderation?  Every week or so, some new hazard springs up in the alternative news.  The hazards are carefully and quietly swept under the rug by the mainstream media at the behest of their “johns” – the Big Food advertisers who pay the salaries of the media mouthpieces.

There are many valid, peer-reviewed studies that tell us consuming genetically modified foods is a death sentence.  Proponents of GMOs like to attempt to pick apart the science.  They like to accuse those of us who are concerned about GMOs of being foolish, uneducated and superstitious.  From their lofty perches in academia, they condescend to the rest of us, claiming that GMOs are no different than the natural evolution of plant life, and that we, the ignorant masses, are too irrationally afraid of things that are new and wonderful to deserve labeling of these chemistry projects.  They invoke guilt upon those of us who practice organic gardening and support organic farms, alleging that these “unsustainable practices” will leave the Third World to die of starvation as the non-modified crops we insist upon succumb to failure.

Here are some facts about the GMOs that are poisoning our global food supply.

Effects of GM Corn on Mammalian Health

A notorious French study on rats fed a lifetime of GMO corn proved that the rats had a 50-70% chance of developing horrific, grotesque tumors from the diet.  Naysayers attempted to refute the science behind the study and a war developed in the scientific community.    Natural News summarized some findings of the study:

• Up to 50% of males and 70% of females suffered premature death.

• Rats that drank trace amounts of Roundup (at levels legally allowed in the water supply) had a 200% to 300% increase in large tumors.

• Rats fed GM corn and traces of Roundup suffered severe organ damage including liver damage and kidney damage.

• The study fed these rats NK603, the Monsanto variety of GM corn that’s grown across North America and widely fed to animals and humans. This is the same corn that’s in your corn-based breakfast cereal, corn tortillas and corn snack chips.

Flavr Savr Tomato Caused Gastric Lesions and Death

2010-12-31-xtomatofish2.png

One of the first GMO monstrosities prematurely approved by the FDA was the Flavr Savr tomato, by the company Calgene (now a part of Monsanto).  Scientists added a bit of recombinant fish DNA to slow the spoiling process.  BEFORE the tomato was approved by the FDA, the tomatoes were fed to rats for only 28 days before gastric bleeding and death occurred.  7 of the 40 rats developed bleeding stomachs and 7 more died and the FDA STILL APPROVED the tomatoes for public consumption.

 

The only reason they were taken off the market is because the flavor and texture were poor.  Had they been tasty, they’d still be on supermarket shelves.

GM cotton crops in India caused livestock death and severe allergic reactions in humans.

India began commercial planting of  Bt Cotton back in 2002.   Since that time, farm and factory workers began complaining of health concerns.

“All the evidence gathered during the investigation shows that Bt has been causing skin, upper respiratory tract and eye allergy among persons exposed to cotton… The allergy is not restricted to farm labourers involved in picking cotton but has affected labourers involved in loading and unloading Bt from villages to market, those involved in its weighing, labourers working in ginning factories, people who carried out other operations in the field of Bt cotton, or farmers who stored cotton in their homes etc.” (Source)

The issue was not limited to humans.  Sheep that grazed on the crop began to die mysteriously.  25% of the livestock died within a week of being allowed in the fields from what post-mortem analysis called “toxic reaction.”

A secret virus has been discovered in genetically modified food.

The most recent horror to come to light was released in a report by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

According to an explanation on the Natural Society website:

“…Researchers discovered a previously unknown viral gene that is known as ‘Gene VI’. What’s concerning is that not only is the rogue gene found in the most prominent GMO crops and about 63% of GMO traits approved for use (54 out of 86 to be precise), but it can actually disrupt the very biological functions within living organisms. Popular GMO crops such as Roundup-Ready soybeans, NK603, and MON810 corn were found to contain the gene that induces physical mutations.”

How does this potentially effect the consumer?  The report continues to discuss the characteristics of Gene VI.  The gene:

  • Helps to assemble virus particles
  • Inhibits the natural defense of the cellular system
  • Produces proteins that are potentially problematic
  • Makes plants susceptible to bacterial pathogens

 

Monsanto cafeterias serve organic food.

The most telling thing is that in the not-so-hallowed halls of Monsanto, genetically modified food is not served.

Those who create these science projects and label them food do not consume their own creations.

Since 2000, there have been reports that cafeterias at Monsanto plants have chosen not to serve GMOs.  A notice in one cafeteria in the UK said:

“as far as practicable, GM soya and maize (has been removed) from all food products served in our restaurant. We have taken the steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve.”

 

Both the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller University Foundation have been found praising organic food, while simultaneously promoting Monsanto’s toxic seeds to Third World countries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many countries have banned GMOs, or at the very least require labeling for the consumer.

The following countries have either banned the cultivation and sale of GMOs or require a warning label:

  • All countries in the European Union
  • Australia  
  • Chile
  • China 
  • France
  • India
  • Japan
  • Kenya
  • New Zealand
  • Peru
  • Russia
  • Saudi Arabia
  • South Africa
  • Switzerland
  • Thailand
Why are the United States and Canada not found on this list?  At the very least, why won’t these two industry leaders require labeling of GMOs?

Food safety “authorities” have no interest in safety at all.

The FDA is notoriously in bed with Monsanto.  They have insisted on no long term studies.  They regularly authorize the sale and distribution of toxins in the food supply.  The public cannot have any confidence in an agency whose board of directors enter through a revolving door with the world’s number one producer of toxic GMOs.

Over 85% of corn grown in North America is GMO.  Over 80% of soy grown in North America is GMO. Over 90% of canola grown in North America is GMO.

In one form or another, these GMO items can be found in nearly every non-organic item on your grocery store shelves.  Many fast food chains spent millions of dollars in the campaign against the labeling of GMOs when it was on the ballot in California last November, which would indicate that they too benefit from GMOs.

The question is, are these toxins safe in “moderation”?  Can you feed your children HFCS made from genetically modified corn in small amounts?

Long term toxicity has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.  GMOs can accelerate aging, cause organ failure, cause tumors, affect unborn babies, affect fertility and weaken the immune system.  If we choose to consume these things “moderately”, how can we know what that threshold of moderation actually is, when those in charge of food safety refuse to study it, perhaps because they fear what they will discover?

I’ve always believed that foods, even “junk foods” are okay in moderation, as long as most of your diet is clean and healthy.  In the light of ever-appearing revelations about the deadly effects of genetically modified foods, I’ve revised my personal stance. I don’t believe that GMOs are acceptable in moderation and strive to avoid them for my family whenever possible, a task which is becoming increasingly difficult as a quick scan of an ingredients lable will confirm.

The End Of The World As We Know It may not be the result of a horrific natural disaster or act of terrorism from overseas.  It may be as simple as pollen floating from one field to contaminate the next one, until we are starving to death or dying of cancer amidst a bounty of succulent-looking, fresh-from-the-farm poison.

 
About the author:

Please feel free to share any information from this site in part or in full, leaving all links intact, giving credit to the author and including a link to this website and the following bio.

Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor.  Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at daisy@theorganicprepper.ca

If you enjoyed this article, please Vote for The Organic Prepper as a top prepping web site.
Share this:

50 Comments  to  GMOs: Not Even in Moderation

  1. Ted Cook says:

    Thanks for the info, going all organic from this point forward

  2. Roger says:

    I get all my seeds( we grow almost 70% of our own food) from a company here in Wales their website is www. Real seeds.co.uk. One of the owners studied genetics etc at uni. Their website contains a couple of good articles on why NOT to touch GM. Their seeds are brilliant btw.
    It seems fewer and fewer people want GM as time progresses but I think the fight is far from over

  3. karak says:

    Great Job! Loved all the links & the way you put it all together.

  4. Jac says:

    I’m so glad I read this! It’s helping me to reform my grocery list. I buy organic as much as I can, but I still pick up tortilla chips, ice cream and a few products that would include gmo soy. Time to kick those things out too! Learning how to cook from scratch with organic products is the way to go to replace the bad things I still pick up.

  5. David says:

    I have found some tasty non-GMO products. Garden of Eatin makes non-GMO tortilla chips and Ezekial 4:9 makes bread and tortillas that are good. I would love to grow all my own food but it is a process. You can’t go from totally reliant on your grocer to totally self reliant overnight. :)

    Here is a website that provides a list of manufacturers and their products.

    http://www.nongmoproject.org/

  6. David says:

    Amy’s kitchen also proudly proclaims to be non-GMO. They have an article just posted Jan 16 railing against Monsanto and trumpeting a small farm victory against them.

    The Ezekiel products are produced by Food For Life. They also claim on their website to not use any GMO products and are certified organic.

  7. NDAgri says:

    Pure false info. See today’s Atlantic article on GMO myths.

  8. David says:

    NDAgri didn’t read the article, or only took what benefited their argument.

    “If sustainability is the goal, all farmers, not just GE crops farmers, need to move in a more sustainable, organic direction.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/what-you-need-to-know-about-genetically-engineered-food/272931/

    Now here is another link from the same magazine talking about research that the other article denies has taken place.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/06/debunking-the-health-claims-of-genetically-modified-foods/258665/

    And finally here is the link to the research.

    http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58

  9. QuietBear says:

    The simple fact that the corporations & govt agencies that promote the manufacture and use of gmo’s, spend billions of dollars to get them approved & to prevent labeling, as well as their usual propaganda as to the illusion of safety, is proof enough that something’s not right in River City…
    Demand real food.
    Grow your own if possible.
    Get to know your farmer.
    Get to know your food.

  10. Sally Oh says:

    Can you add an email subscription link? Feedblitz is what I use. I’m sure there are free ones out there. It’s the only way I can make sure I don’t miss a post. Thank you!

  11. Sally Oh says:

    Excellent movie on the topic: GeneticRouletteMovie.com. Often promoted free but costs $2.99 to watch otherwise.

  12. Rodger says:

    The ‘French rat study’ fell into widespread ethical discredit, from almost the moment it was released, even the authors acknowledged their fraud. Amongst other things, the rats they chose wee known to be highly prone/susceptible to naturally developing tumours, whether fed GMO’s or not.

    Get yourselves properly informed, and off the emotional ‘I hate GMO’s’ gravy train because its fashionable today to do so (hate them). This article (the French study) was a fraud.

  13. Elizabeth says:

    So lemme get this straight. Because YOU feel condescended to, scientists must be lying. And since anything but “organic” farming won’t meet your impeccably irrational alarmist standards, we should stop trying to end hunger in the world thrh rational scientific means, believe only the hack scientists who validate YOUR misguided fears, and perhaps all sing Cumbaya in a very self-righteous tone while we watch people continue to DIE on a planet that lacks the arable land mass to provide ALL of us with “organically grown” “pure” (whayeverthehellthatmeans) food. Got it.

    • Mike says:

      Monsanto engineers the seeds to be sterile so farmers must continue to buy from them year after year. Bullshit this company wants to help the world in any way, it’s obvious they’re in it for the profit. Not to mention their crops do not withstand drought conditions, farmers have sued for compensation when their crops fail to perform.
      Maybe if biotechnology was properly managed and the right precautions were taken we could judiciously utilize it but right now, we as a species, are like a child with gun.

    • Mike says:

      So, Elizabeth, I must assume you don’t eat Organic, so, hows your health these days? Doing good, how about your children, parents siblings, no unexplained rashes, cancers, migraines, fibromyalgia, auto immune deficiencies, explainable weight gain / loss, acid reflux?

      Hmm, we are going to feed the world by making farmers in poor countries pay for seed at an inflated price rather than being able to cultivate their own seed, and having contracts stating they cannot plant any other seed, sounds rather like being held hostage.

      Increasing the yields by GMO which if you actually look at the studies for soy and corns actually has a far less nutritional content than their organic brethren, does not appear that way.

      Rather than you attacking others, why don’t you do some extensive reading on all sides and then draw a truly informed conclusion, I urge you to do so for your and your families health.

    • So, we should feed the starving people poison?

  14. ADELAIDE morro says:

    THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL THIS INFO,,,it is sad but no one really wants to here this but I ‘am forever grateful..

  15. Lois Coltman says:

    People should be very careful about researching the science of gmo.
    There is lots of disinformation unfortunately coming from the anti gm brigade who are inclined to sometimes believe the first thing they read.
    I am a gmo sceptic & disagree with corporate bullying and lobbying but peer review should be the method with which the science if gm is scrutinised.
    This is the notorious French study that you mention and natural news has cherry picked the parts that suit its agenda.
    Sorry- not allowed. The study was flawed.
    I don’t like monsanto for other reasons but a flawed argument from anti gm groups who cannot understand science and the peer review process doesn’t help anyone.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair

    • Jenelle says:

      If they used Wikipedia as a source in any ‘Scientific article’, they would be laughed out of town. Reputable Universities won’t allow it as a source in student reports either. Anyone can write whatever they want there. There is no peer review of Wikipedia.

      • Richard says:

        Wikipedia has become a battleground for hot topics and GMOs are no exception. I suggest anyone who gives a fuck should look deeper into WHO wrote that Seralini affair Wiki entry. You will find its Jon Entine- a well known 3rd party ally of biotech. Interestingly enough,Jon has founded the Genetic Literacy Project which regularly goes on the attack whenever someone dares to question the safety of GMOs. We can rest assured that Jon is well qualified to “write about the science” as he puts it; his BA in Philosophy plus the checks Monsanto writes him are all the credentials he needs.

  16. Lois Coltman says:

    On the other hand there’s a very dark corporate amalgam of activity that is the reason I don’t trust these biotech monsters.
    In the mid 90′s there were many products released by Solaris which is/was a subgroup of Monsanto, they made things like Ant-Stop & fire ant bait.
    The company that did the ‘Cancer risk calculations’ for some of these products was Ciba Geigy. (Google ant stop material safety data sheet, its PDF)
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novartis

    Later to become Novartis, later to become Syngenta.
    They have a chequered history being the owners & sellers of Nestle back along, a terribly unethical company as we know, and as Novartis faced a high court judgement in Madras that stopped them from drying makers of generic drugs in India which they held the patents for. Oxfam got involved and it was ruled that they would effectively be denying treatment and life saving drugs to millions of cancer aids and HIV sufferers if they pursued their aim of shutting these drug manufacturers down.
    A kind of financially motivated genocide in my opinion.

    So just how safe were ciba geigys cancer risk calculations, considering their vested interest in the pharma & chemical industry, considering we were told Rpundup was safe, DDT was ok, and agent orange was like aspirin (?!) & where are the peer reviewed science papers for these studies??
    I don’t trust any of them further than I could throw one of their questionable charactered CEO’s, and its great that people call for transparency, for results of studies, peer reviews, and challenge corporate bullying culture.
    This is Norman Borlaug
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

    He apparently developed gm forms of rice and wheat that saved millions possibly (according to Penn & Teller also) even a billion.
    This was by 1970.
    Over 40 years ago.
    My question is what has happened to Borlaugs vision, and if one man can do this then why do monsanto need corporate control over this tech to make millions of dollars?
    Hardly the behaviour of starvation eradicating minds?! Especially when there are still 20,000 people dying everyday of hunger 40 years after Borlaugs great work.

    • E says:

      Exactly! If one of their goals (as Elizabeth so poignantly pointed out) is to help feed starving folks ANY WAY they CAN, then why doesn’t Monsanto fund food drive reliefs to those parts of the world that desperately need food? Why eat up control of as many seeds sources and buy the trademarked names of heirloom vegetables or clamp down on farmers use of last years crop seeds?

      This is a business for PROFIT, only.

      And, really the great majority of proponents for “science proof” at every step have shown a tremendous arrogant narrow-minded view of this world. How about this: Saturated fat will cause heart attacks, so use margarine because “scientific clinical studies” http://www.rmhiherbal.org/review/2000-4.html#ref-2h
      showed it’s healthy to ingest hydrogenated oils, instead. Even Physicians were convinced to promote it for healthier eating!!

      What’s the story now?! GIve me break with this “if it’s not science clinical trials backed” only, anecdotal or experience based information is useless, bullshit.

      • Um no says:

        All of these comments are ancient, but still, Margarine is possible worse than butter which is worse that vegetable shortening which is worse than not having butter at all.

        Also, corruption happens to any long standing industry, so when one guy who wants to capitalize on his tech goes ethically gray, we shouldn’t damn the rest of the biotech community for it.

        It’s like talking shit about another doctor while your 10 year doctor is standing next to you. Most of these “Screw them, we are better because we are us and believe we are making a better choice for ourselves” overtones and masturbatory comments do not help in persuading others into one’s cause.

        Seriously, this is why people become Atheists, conservatives, MRAs, Anarchists, and other things just to piss people off on their soap box and pillars.

  17. Is there any soy milk products or protein that are not GMO? I really like soy for protein shakes and cereal.

    • RPB says:

      Sunrise makes GMO free organic tofu that’s available for a regular, cheap grocery store prices in your average grocery store!

  18. Brittany says:

    It’s my understanding that GMOs, particularly those created by Monsanto and similar companies, were originally created so that farmers could spray stronger pesticides on their crops without causing damage to the actual food. Given that, does anyone know if the results from these GMO studies were obtained by feeding with just the GMO product, or if when the product was grown it was also sprayed with strong pesticides? If the latter, I would think there could be some confounding results in which the scientists couldn’t differentiate between an effect of GMO or an effect of pesticides.

  19. Eye opening information. I’ve been needing clarity on GMO and it’s effects. Your article gave it to me. THANK YOU.

  20. Rob says:

    “There are many valid, peer-reviewed studies that tell us consuming genetically modified foods is a death sentence.”

    Would someone post, say, half-a dozen? Many thanks.

  21. Rob says:

    re: The French Study used to *ground* the author’s argument:

    WikiPedia:
    The French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee reviewed the 2009 Vendômois et al. study and concluded that it “..presents no admissible scientific element likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs.”

    Opinion relating to the deposition of 15 December 2009 by the Member of Parliament, François Grosdidier, as to the conclusions of the study entitled “A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health” by J. Spiroux de Vendômois, F. Roullier, D. Cellier and G.E. Séralini, Int. J. Biol. Sci, 2009: 5(7) : 706-726. (Report). High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee.

  22. JOm says:

    Daisy,

    I appreciate your efforts. There is a lot of scary information out there right now regarding GMOs, however I would suggest that you take a closer look at the type of studies that are valued when it comes to epidemiology. For example, animal studies are not weighed heavily in the nutrition world. Sure, they are taken into consideration when determining if further human studies are needed, but the main point here is that animals are not humans. They have different biological systems. They metabolize nutrients and chemical compounds differently, and at the end of the day, results from these studies must be taken with a grain of salt. Your strong reliance on these materials discredits your words, which I hate to see as I am intrigued by your overall message.

  23. braak says:

    Hi, I was just reading your article, and I think you might have linked to the wrong French study about GMO corn?

    The one that you linked to had the rats fed corn for 90 days, and doesn’t say anything about tumors — just signs of possible hepatorenal toxicity, and its conclusions are primarily that further, more in-depth study is needed.

    (1. Introduction: “We investigated three different GM corn namely NK 603, MON 810 and MON 863, which were fed to rats for 90 days. “; 4. Discussion, “Proof of toxicity is hard to decide on the basis of these conditions. Longer-term (up to 2 years) feeding experiments are clearly justified and indeed necessary. This requirement is supported by the fact that cancer, nervous and immune system diseases, and even reproductive disorders for examples can become apparent only after one or two years of a given intervention treatment under investigation, but they will not be evident in all cases after three months of administration when first signs of toxicity may be observed [22, 23]. In addition, large effects (e.g. 40% increase in triglycerides) in all likelihood will be missed with the protocol of the current studies, since they are limited by the number of animals used in each feeding group and by the nature of the parameters studied. Thirdly, the statistical power of the tests conducted is low (30%) because the experimental design of Monsanto (see Materials and Methods).”)

    Is it possible that you meant to link to a different study?

  24. Andrew says:

    Ah yes, The hippy brigade is slowly being revived to tell all of us how wrong we are and how everything we are doing is going to kill us. And lets not forget how everybody who makes a substantial amount of money and who owns a large company are diabolical human beings hell bent on destroying the world. And please continue to tell every qualified scientist who doesn’t agree with you how wrong they are and how you, a middle class american who possibly has a bachelors degree in whatever the hell you could get your hands on, Is infinitely more intelligent and qualified to state your opinion as a fact on the matter because of your tireless hours of internet research

  25. Lola says:

    “From their lofty perches in academia, they condescend to the rest of us…and that we, the ignorant masses, are too irrationally afraid of things that are new and wonderful…”
    You know who else makes these kinds of arguments? People who insist the Earth is 6000 years old; people who believe in spiritual healings and that vaccines cause autism, etc. The “plainfolks” approach when discussing something of scientific importance is disgusting; it basically signals an unwillingness to listen to hard data or logical reasoning over emotional appeals.
    Looking at the mentioned studies, the French one is complete garbage. In addition to using mice that were highly prone to developing tumors because of their genetic lineage (further exacerbated by a diet of ONLY CORN), their statistical methods are a travesty. They used 10 mice/trial condition. When they failed to get statistical significance using one test (no surprise, you only used 10 F$%#%@ mice/trial), they simply plugged and chugged formulas for other statistical tests even though the modeling assumptions for using the tests aren’t met (usually >20 trials for a BASIC idea of how statistically significant it is). There is no “war in the scientific community”; this study has been discredited.

    The concern about cotton should be no surprise; a gene for producing pesticide was introduced, and many pesticides are terrible irritants. But this doesn’t show that the simple act of introducing new genes into organisms makes them deadly, only that a pesticide-producing plant irritates humans (no surprise there). The fact that Monsanto serves organic food in one of its UK cafeterias is irrelevant and based on speculation that Monsanto knows something we don’t (show me the data!) The fact that several countries have placed restrictions on GMOs serves as circular reasoning (well it’s banned so we should ban them). For what reasons have they banned GMOs? Also, WHICH GMOs?

    Overall this article is just alarmist and misses the finer points about GMOs and the idea of “organic products” in general. I see no reason to categorically fear all GMOs simply because a few have shown harmful side effects. And the point about pesticides? Go back to either biology or chemistry class. “The dose makes the poison.”

  26. Kip says:

    Hi. Where is the picture of rat M? You have J,K and L but not M. Why is that?

    • Robert L Bell says:

      Rat M is not BOOGA BOOGA scary enough to frighten the simpletons so the author left the photo on the cutting floor.

  27. Katie says:

    Your article is shit and your sources are shit. You’re just a shill for the organic industry.

    • Daisy Luther says:

      And you are ill-mannered with a poor vocabulary. Clearly, the organic industry pays for better quality shills than biotech does.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>