GMO, Geneticly modified crops, Monsanto poison crops
GMO CHANGES YOUR DNA!
The vast majority of Americans want genetically modified food labelled. If California passes November's ballot, they could get it
June 2012 Last month, nearly 1m signatures were delivered to county registrars throughout California calling for a referendum on the labeling of genetically engineered foods. If the measure, "The Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act", which will be on the ballot in November, passes, California will become the first state in the nation to require that GM foods be labeled as such on the package.
This is not the first time that the issue has come up in California. Several labeling laws have been drafted there, but none has made it out of legislative committee. Lawmakers in states like Vermont and Connecticut have also proposed labeling legislation, which has gone nowhere in the face of stiff industry opposition. And the US Congress has likewise seen sporadic, unsuccessful attempts to mandate GM food labeling since 1999.
What makes the referendum in California different is that, for the first time, voters and not politicians will be the ones to decide. And this has the food industry worried. Understandably so, since only one in four Americans is convinced that GMOs are "basically safe", according to a survey conducted by the Mellman Group, and a big majority wants food containing GMOs to be labeled.
This is one of the few issues in America today that enjoys broad bipartisan support: 89% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats want genetically altered foods to be labeled, as they already are in 40 nations in Europe, in Brazil, and even in China. In 2007, then candidate Obama latched onto this popular issue saying that he would push for labeling – a promise the president has yet to keep.
In Europe, only 5% of food sold contains GMOs, a figure that continues to shrink. In the US, by contrast, an estimated 70% of the products on supermarket shelves include at least traces of genetically engineered crops – mostly, corn and soy byproducts and canola oil, which are ingredients in many of America's processed foods.
GMO, Geneticly modified crops, Monsanto poison crops
And in 2014 Monsanto has a plant in Ukraine and wants to poison all of EU!
Monsanto is poisoning bees and people
Bees mysteriously dying worldwide
HARBINGER WARNINGS - Isaiah 9 prophecy
Posted <*))))>< by
ZionsCRY DAILY NEWS
NEWS and analysis you can TRUST
How Genetically Modified Foods Could Affect Our Health in Unexpected Ways
January 11, 2012 Chinese researchers have found small pieces of rice ribonucleic acid (RNA) in the blood and organs of humans who eat rice. The Nanjing University-based team showed that this genetic material will bind to receptors in human liver cells and influence the uptake of cholesterol from the blood.
The type of RNA in question is called microRNA (abbreviated to miRNA) due to its small size. MiRNAs have been studied extensively since their discovery ten years ago, and have been implicated as players in several human diseases including cancer, Alzheimer's, and diabetes. They usually function by turning down or shutting down certain genes. The Chinese research provides the first in vivo example of ingested plant miRNA surviving digestion and influencing human cell function in this way.
Should the research survive scientific scrutiny -- a serious hurdle -- it could prove a game changer in many fields. It would mean that we're eating not just vitamins, protein, and fuel, but gene regulators as well.
That knowledge could deepen our understanding of many fields, including cross-species communication, co-evolution, and predator-prey relationships. It could illuminate new mechanisms for some metabolic disorders and perhaps explain how some herbal and modern medicines function.
Insecticides Modified In GM Corn Polluting U.S. Waters
Aug 2012 Corn, a crop most likely to be genetically modified – with 70 percent of corn engineered simply to drown in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup - is casting off its GMO contaminants into surrounding waterways, and likely making it into your drinking water. According to researchers, the insecticides modified into the corn are being detected in streams up to 500 meters away from corn farms, and quite possibly further. The research was conducted in the states of Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana, where corn fields are abundant. Scientists found the bacterial protein washed off the corn and directly into the streams. While they won’t say for certain what this means for human health, the consensus is that it can’t be good.
Gates Foundation Push Genetically Engineered Crops
July 2011 The Gates Foundation claims that biotechnology, GE crops and Western agricultural methods are needed to feed the world's growing population and programs like WEMA will help end poverty and hunger in the developing world. Critics say the foundation is using its billions to shape the global food agenda and the motivations behind WEMA were recently called into question when activists discovered the Gates foundation had spent $27.6 million on 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock between April and June 2010. Water shortages in parts of Africa and beyond have created a market for "climate ready" crops worth an estimated $2.7 billion. Leading biotech companies like Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow are currently racing to develop crops that will grow in drought conditions caused by climate change, and by participating in the WEMA program, Monsanto is gaining a leg up by establishing new markets and regulatory approvals for its patented transgenes in five Sub-Saharan African countries, according to the Centre's report.
GM, GMO, geneticly modified, foods are POISON
Not only corn and wheat, but cows and chickens eat this toxic feed and it gets into our food chain too.
PRAY before you eat - ANYTHING!
If you can AVOID buying GM (geneticly modified, Monsanto) foods, then AVOID them. They are spreading DEATH in
animals, and rash and sickness to humans. I listened to a man on the radio talking about this. This GM food is already
in grocery stores - and its NOT marked GM. Therefore praying before we eat has become mandatory! Genetic engineering
threatens the public health - and life. WHY? The crop is engineered with a toxin to kill bugs. This toxin multiplies in our
intestines and is toxic to us also. Look for non-GMO or organic. What foods have GM in it? GMO baby food too!!!!
Go to Healthierliving.org and click on genetically modified food or call the mfr.
Over 80% of all processed foods contain them as well as rice, corn, soybeans, soy products, vegetable oils, soft drinks (soda pop),
salad dressings, vegetables, fruits, dairy products, meat, and other animal products plus an array of hidden additives
and ingredients in products like tomato sauce, ice cream and peanut butter.
Unsafe Genetically Modified Food
GMO Proliferation Bills in the US Congress
Global Research, April 03, 2009
HR 875 (and the others) are what Linn Cohen-Cole calls “Monsanto’s dream bill” to proliferate the world with GMO contamination and control its entire food supply.
4 in all so far plus another authorizing funding under a 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. One is HR 875: “Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009.” Introduced in the House on February 4 by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, (D, CT) whose husband has ties to Monsanto, with 39 co-sponsors, it’s been referred to the Agriculture and Energy and Commerce Committees.
molecular biology, genetically modified foods
Genetically Modified Foods
G.M. FOOD NEWS
Avoid these foods (some of my favorites!)
What Are Genetically Engineered Foods
Fluoride poisoning - what are the harmful effects?
Nov 2009 posted by Poppajoe
When I read about the GM foods, it stirred my memory on a lot of different ways we are being poisoned. For example - MSGs, Sodium nitride and Sodium Floride which was created in a nazi labatory to control their prisoners. Now Bayor labatories are making this stuff to put in our drinking water, toothpaste and many other products. This can be verified by searching floride poisoning. The NWO agenda is very big and can be frightening if you don't know the Lord.
Several scientific studies show that fluoride has adverse effects on the brain. It has been implicated as a cause of memory lapses, dementia, ADHD and autism. It is said to reduce IQ and has been named a cause of Altzheimer's Disease. It is linked not only to hypothyroidism, but also to hyperthyroidism, osteoporosis, skeletal fluorosis, kidney disease, and cancer.
It causes a condition of the teeth called dental fluorosis. Although fluoride proponents claim fluoride protects teeth from tooth decay, it actually damages them. In western Europe where fluoridated water was rejected, children's dental health is just as good as here in the USA.
Perhaps the most interesting side effect, it is said that fluoride affects a section of the brain that regulates our reactions to stressful circumstances, making human beings easier to control. This results in a docile population that might otherwise fight against injustice and oppression. This is why Hitler used it on concentration camp prisoners.
I wanted to expound on the poisoning of America by adding some information about floride.
MSG additives are part of GM foods
I wanted to add to the above information about what our goverment is doing to our food. We are being poisoned slowly from so many ways that we have to pray for God's protection. Read this link about MSGs
Jesse Ventura's program December 2009 told the many ways the Bildeburgers have planned to kill 6 billon people from the Earth. They covered many different ways like GM foods, Fluoridation, chemicals in the food, forced vacinations or be put in detention camps.
The acting done by his investigating teams seams to be staged and dramatized but the topics covered are so real. I hope this isn't being done to make us look like a bunch of crazy conspiracy nuts. I pray that Jesse is serious about his investigations and continues to put out information that people normally wouldn't have found out. Maybe this will get their curiosity to the point of digging deeper. There was part about the Georgia Guidestones and the NWO agenda that is written in stone, that is something they can google to see for themselves.
(Above info taken off older threads, moved here)
How can you tell if a food GMO-free? by Dr Mercola
More U.S. States Starting to Demand Labeling of GM Foods
Finally we're starting to see some real opposition against genetically engineered foods in general, and unlabeled GMO's (genetically modified organisms) in particular, in the U.S.! Aside from this Vermont bill, California, Michigan and Washington are also working on ballot initiatives to get mandatory labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods in their states. Vermont takes it a step further though, as the legislation would effectively also end phony "all natural" claims for products that in actuality contain wholly unnatural, GMOs.
Personally, I believe GM foods must be banned entirely, but labeling is the most efficient way to achieve this. Since 85 percent of the public will refuse to buy foods they know to be genetically modified, this will effectively eliminate them from the market just the way it was done in Europe.
Sheer ignorance on the part of American consumers has allowed Monsanto and other biotech companies to saturate the market with their genetically altered wares. And misuse of the "all natural" label has only made matters worse. According to a 2010 Hartman Group poll, more than 60 percent of consumers erroneously believe that the "natural" label implies or suggests the absence of GM ingredients, but that is sadly NOT the case... In fact, at the current time, the ONLY label that can protect you against GM ingredients is the USDA 100% Organic label.
After reading the Cornucopia Institutes' 2011 report Cereal Crimesiii, many, including myself, were shocked to discover some of their favorite natural and even some organic brands were using GM ingredients! For example, natural products that contained 100 percent genetically modified grains included:
Two breakfast cereal products that are currently enrolled in the Non-GMO Project, Barbara's Bakery's Puffins and Whole Foods' 365® Corn Flakes, contained more than 50 percent GM corn. Meanwhile, the control, Nature's Path® USDA certified organic corn flakes, contained only trace amounts of GM contamination (less than 0.5 percent). Another sign that American consumers are getting fed up with being stonewalled on the GMO labeling issue is the fact that lawsuits are starting to crop up, accusing food manufacturers of deceptive and misleading practices over their "all natural" claims. Here are just a couple of recent examples:
•Frito-Lay is being sued by a New York consumer over their 'all natural' snacks that are actually made using GM ingredients, such as Tostitos and SunChipsiv
•On August 31, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against Kellogg/Kashi® for allegedly misleading consumers with its "natural" claims. One Kashi® product in particular, GoLean® Shakes, is composed almost entirely of synthetic and unnaturally processed ingredients, according to the plaintiff
Chinese produce human breast milk using genetically modified dairy cows
June 2012 The Chinese hope to be selling the milk in super markets within three years. The milk is identical to human milk and has the same immune enhancing and antibacterial features as breast milk according to scientists at the Agricultural University in Beijing.
There is already a transgenic herd of 300. It was bred by inserting human genes into cloned bovine embryos. These were then implanted in cows. The milk is still undergoing safety tests for now.
Workers at the plant say the milk tastes stronger and sweeter than ordinary dairy milk. The milk will be marketed as a more nutritious drink than dairy milk. I am not sure what the advantages really would be as after a certain age humans are not natural imbibers of breast milk. However, the same could be said about dairy milk from the very start ! The milk could be quite useful as a replacement for baby formula I should think and probably better for babies.
Unlike Europe China has embraced genetically modified foods. Animals have been produced to be resistant to mad cow disease and have been modified to produce more nutritious meat. China has genetically modified cooking oil, papayas, tomatoes and also potatoes which are all widely available. Most recently insect-resistant rice and corn that allows hogs to absorb more nutrients when they eat it has also been approved. In the west many environmentalists oppose genetic modification of foods. For more see this article.
I am thankful enough to use insulin produced by genetically modifiying e coli bacteria. For some reason I do not hear the usual ethical and safety howls about this from some of my leftist friends.
GM cooking oil, papayas, tomatoes and potatoes are already widely available
Insect-resistant rice and corn modified to help pigs absorb more nutrients were both recently approved by the government
Eliminating GMOs prevents disease NaturalNews
Thousands of doctors have started warning their patients to avoid genetically modified (GM) foods, pretty quickly too.
They report the elimination of disease simply when patients cut genetically modified foods out of their diets.
They are finding the elimination of immune disorders, arthritis, diarrhea, irritable bowel syndrome, allergies, skin problems, general pain, migraines, and restless leg syndrome, among other problems.
In terms of allergies, it might take 5 days.
Most common GM foods include soy, corn, canola oil, and sugar and recommending that they buy organic.
Monsanto GM corn gave rats cancer
September 21, 2012 Monsanto Apologists Attempt to Spin Shocking GMO Study.
Establishment trots out “experts” in desperate bid to debunk fact that genetically-engineered food is a threat to humanity
A shocking new study conducted by French scientists which shows that rats fed on Monsanto’s genetically modified corn suffered cancer and premature death has been met with a furious response from GMO apologists, who are desperately trying to cast doubt on the the study in an effort to discredit its findings.
50 percent of male and 70 percent of female rats fed on a diet containing NK603 – a genetically modified corn produced by Monsanto – or those exposed to Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller – suffered tumors and multiple organ damage, causing them to die prematurely, the study found.
The study was conducted by French scientists at the University of Caen and published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.
Almost immediately after the findings were made public at a press conference in London, numerous other scientists rushed to Monsanto’s defense and claimed that the study was inaccurate.
“This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted,” said Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King’s College London. “The statistical methods are unconventional … and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip.”
However, the statistical methods are perfectly straightforward. Only 30 percent of males and 20 percent of females in the control group of rats that were not exposed to Monsanto’s products died prematurely – meaning males were 30 per cent more likely to die prematurely after eating Monsanto corn and females a whopping 50 per cent more likely to die.
What The Government Doesnt Want You to Know About GMO
September 29, 2012 Monsanto and their GM agenda
France orders probe after rat study links GM corn, cancer
9/19/12 France's government on Wednesday asked a health watchdog to carry out a probe, possibly leading to EU suspension of a genetically-modified corn, after a study in rats linked the grain to cancer.
Scientists Move to Create Genetically Modified Camels for Pharmaceutical GM Milk
9/28/12 As if genetically altered salmon, genetically modified babies, and GMO crops aren’t science fiction enough for you—soon drug makers will be using genetically modified camels in their pharmaceuticals.
Yes, you read that right—camels.
According to the Science and Development Network, the camels will be used to make genetically modified milk, which will then be processed into cheaper drugs.
Genetically Modified Camels for Pharmaceutical GM Milk – What?
The drugs from these laboratory-created camels will include insulin and clotting factors for hemophilia.
They will be used, at least initially, in the arid regions of the Middle East and North Africa, from which the camels originally came. Apparently, that’s why camels are being used instead of cattle, because of their adjustment to the extreme climates.
How GMO foods alter organ function and pose a very real health threat to humans
The top 10 breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto
October 2012 NaturalNews
The top 10 breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto GMO corn
Cocoa Puffs - Corn Chex - Frosted Flakes - Honey Graham Oh's
Honey Nut Chex - Kellogg's Corn Flakes - Kellogg's Corn Pops
Kix - Puffins Peanut Butter - Kashi Heart to Heart
LOOK at the tumors from GMO corn on NN link!
By now, nearly everyone interested in healthy living is aware of the recent research linking Monsanto's GMO corn to cancer tumors and an increase risk of premature death in both men and women. News of the research is spreading like wildfire across the 'net, and support for Proposition 37 - which seeks to label GMOs in foods - is growing by the day.
But the media has not yet reported on the everyday foods being sold in grocery stores right now and made with Monsanto's genetically modified corn (GM corn). Which foods are most likely to contain Monsanto GM corn? To answer this question, I visited a local grocery store in Austin, Texas and purchased 10 breakfast cereals made with high levels of non-organic corn.
According to the Center for Food Safety, up to 85% of the corn grown in the United States is genetically modified. This means corn-based cereals that use non-organic corn have a very high likelihood of containing GM corn.
The following list presents the top 10 popular breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto's genetically modified corn. For the record, none of these cereals claim to be GMO-free, nor made with organic corn. The exact GMO content of these cereals remains a mystery precisely because manufacturers of these cereals refuse to label them with their GMO content. This lack of full disclosure by the food industry underscores the urgent need for a labeling law so that consumers can make an informed decision.
Legal note: In no way are we claiming these cereals will cause cancer tumors to grow in your body or that they pose an immediate risk to your health. Those studies have not yet been done on humans. GM corn is an experimental crop with unknown long-term effects of humans. Breakfast cereals made with GM corn may turn out to pose a significant long-term risk to human health, but that has not yet been determined. This article is presented in the public interest, reflecting reasonable caution over a common food ingredient which French scientists have now convincingly linked to cancer and premature death in studies conducted on rats.
The top 10 popular breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto's GM corn
Which cereals contain no GMOs? Nature's Path
There is only one brand of breakfast cereal I know of that's 100% non-GMO and 100% organic across their entire product line. That company is Nature's Path:
If you buy breakfast cereal, and you don't want to eat Monsanto's GM corn, always choose cereals from Nature's Path. This is my No. 1 most highly trusted cereal company.
Many "natural" brands that appear to be healthful and natural are actually not organic or GMO-free. For example, "Barbara's Bakery" cereals are not organic. Although they are positioned in store shelves alongside other organic cereals, they are actually made with conventional crops grown with pesticides which may include Monsanto's Roundup.
You may also notice that most of the cereals most likely to contain GM corn are children's cereals. It is the children in America who are being fed the most GMOs. This represents a highly unethical food experiment being conducted on an entire generation, and the long-term effects of human consumption of GMOs are simply not known.
What we do know is that rats fed this very same Monsanto GM corn developed shockingly large cancer tumors.
The photo released by the French research team, showing large cancer tumors growing at a strongly heightened risk in rats fed a "lifetime" of Monsanto's GM corn, is shown below. According to that study, 70% of females died premature and showed significant damage to their liver, kidneys and other organs.
SAFE CEREAL! NOT GMO!
* posted by BornAgain2 - I moved to my GM thread
Oct. 24 I tried Natures Path Sunrise crunchy vanilla.
IT IS DELICIOUS!
The GMO cereals were in the same section of that store. Shame!
Whole Foods Hidden Camera GMO Sting - Organic Spies - CENSORED by YouTube
10/3/12 This is the now-famous video that was censored by YouTube. It shows Whole Foods employees LYING about the GMOs being sold by the store.
Fact: Whole Foods is a massive retailer for Monsanto's GM corn, which is found in all sorts of products on the shelves at Whole Foods. This is the same strain of genetically engineered corn that French researchers recently linked to massive cancer tumors in rats.
As of this writing, Whole Foods has offered ZERO support for Proposition 37 and has made NO effort to require GMO labeling for the products it sells.
Spread the truth about Whole Foods and GMOs.
Order out of Chaos aka Problem-Reaction-Solution
The motto of the 33rd Degree Freemasons
GM crops have increased the use of danger pesticides and created superweeds and toxin-resistant insects
October 3, 2012 Genetically modified plants now dominate US agriculture, and the situation will only get worse.
Planting GM crops has led to an increase rather than a decrease in the use of pesticides in the last 16 years, according to US scientists.
The researchers said that the plants have caused superweeds and toxin-resistant insects to emerge, meaning farmers have not only had to use more pesticides on their crops overall, but are also using older and more dangerous chemicals.
The findings dramatically undermine the case for adopting the crops, which were sold to farmers and shoppers on the basis that they would reduce the need to be treated with powerful chemicals.
What does the number on a fruit sticker mean?
We’ve compiled info from 3 different sources to help uncover what many already know about what those little stickers on produce actually tell you- in our attempt to further help you as a consumer KNOW what you are eating and if it has been genetically modified.
7 out of 10 items in grocery store shelves contain ingredients that have been genetically modified. Fruit and vegetables do not come with nutrition labels but they do have stickers (PLU – Price Look Up Code) which contain pertinent information.
Next time you decide to purchase that apple or cut a slice out of that melon, consider the PLU sticker. This sticker will tell you whether the fruit was organically grown, genetically modified, or produced with chemical fertilizers, herbicides or fungicides.
PLU stickers that have 4 digits and begin with a “3″ or “4″: produce is conventionally grown. This means that this produce was sprayed with weed killers and chemical pesticides.
PLU stickers that have 5-digits and start with “8″: produce was genetically engineered (man intervened by manipulating the genes to produce a larger or brighter colored food). This produce may have been chemically treated.
PLU stickers that have 5-digits and start with “9″: produce was raised organically. You can be sure that this produce was not treated with any chemicals.
If you see other variations of code on your produce, you can refer to the following website and look up the PLU code as well as other information regarding this topic: http://www.fruitsticker.com.
Romney's first project with Bain in 1977: Help propel Monsanto
September 26, 2012 Back in 2008, Obama promised his supporters he would be on their side when it comes to knowing what they are eating, and in a campaign speech he stated, "We'll let folks know whether their food has been genetically modified because Americans should know what they're buying."http://spreadlibertynews.com
Today, Monsanto (the seed police) and similar unethical chemical giants loom over ALL FARMERS AND ALL FOOD, and a global cancer epidemic is imminent. Monsanto survived its near collapse thanks to Mitt Romney, and Monsanto thrives today thanks to George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Soon, if enough Supreme Court Justices side with the biotech industry, the U.S. government will have complete reign over the food industry. http://www.naturalnews.com/034847_Michael_Taylor_Monsanto_FDA.html
The Mitt Romney – Monsanto Connection
October 5th, 2012
No matter what the TWO PARTY SYSTEM says, they support GMO
Spermicidal Breakfast Cereal DONT LAUGH!
What would happen if contraceptive corn or antibiotic wheat accidentally made it to the supermarket? Nobody knows, but that isn't stopping agribusiness from pursuing these crops.
Just when the global diatribe over food and genetically modified crops (GM) is heating up in tone and breadth, the corporations that create them are staging a showcase for a fresh batch of transgenics.
These new GM crops, known as biopharmaceuticals, or biopharms for short, produce industrial and pharmaceutical chemicals within their tissues. The plants, including soy, rice, corn and tobacco, are genetically altered to produce substances such as growth hormones, curdling agents (coagulants), vaccines for humans (as well as farm animals), human antibodies, industrial enzymes, contraceptives and even pregnancy deterrents.
Scientists and corporations alike embrace biopharmaceuticals with glee: "Imagine being able to harvest enough globulin (a compound that fights arthritis) for the whole world in all of fifty acres?" writes Dr. William O. Robertson for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "Imagine being able to find the protein healthy people use to prevent arthritis or breast cancer and being able to produce it in large quantities in rice and tobacco."
ProdiGene, a leader in the field, calculates that by the end of this decade, 10% of the corn produced in the US will be biopharmaceutical. The volume of biopharmaceutical drugs and chemicals could reach the $200 billion figure, according to Dow AgroSciences' Guy Cardinau.
An Apple a Day may make you sick
We’ve all heard the rhyming phrase, “An apple a day keeps the doctor away”, but perhaps it’s just the opposite for some people. I received a question from a reader on our website that stated he suffered gluten exposure from the wax on his apple. I had never heard this before but as a clinical nutritionist I love to learn new things that I can pass along to my patients and readers. Therefore I did a little research and discovered that while gluten does not appear to be an issue, dairy and soy contamination most certainly do seem to be present on certain apples as well as other produce.
Wax or shellac is commonly put on our foods to prevent moisture loss and bruising during shipping. The wax also increases their shelf life. If you’ve ever picked up a non-organic pepper or eggplant you’ve likely noticed that they are almost slippery – this is due to the wax put on them.
How Dairy Products get on Your Fruits and Veggies
Within the wax or shellac there are two types of proteins used, one is soy and the other is casein, a milk protein. This means that if you tend to react to soy or dairy products, you may very well react to the healthy fruits and vegetables that I continue to encourage you to eat! I must confess to getting frustrated at the many ways in which our food system is tampered with.
Genetically Modified Foods, Depopulation, and Prop. 37
OCTOBER 9, 2012 In earlier times it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today it is infinitely easier to kill them.
Studies Prove GM Foods and Roundup Lethal
Research and studies demonstrate that Genetically Modified (GM) foods potentially serve two purposes, neither of which is to feed the starving masses or increase crop yield on a long-term basis. Instead, the purposes of GM foods appear to be those of a bad science-fiction nightmare:
1 - Reduce the human population by poisoning the food supply, causing increases in cancer, inflammation, disease, organ failure and premature death. At the same time, using food to covertly render the population infertile.
2 - Give a handful of elites and the companies they control complete control over the world’s food supply.
As Henry Kissinger said, “If you control the oil you control the country; if you control the food, you control the population.” Joseph Stalin agreed and is infamous for starving millions of people to death and submission.
With their accomplices at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and within governments, a few corporate giants and their major investors are responsible for much of the damage, destruction, and injuries caused by GM foods.
Monsanto and Dow Chemical manufacture GM seeds and toxic herbicides such as Roundup (Glyphosate). These two corporations also produced Agent Orange herbicide. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of Agent Orange. The Red Cross of Viet Nam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange.
Dow Chemical was also the manufacturer of Napalm, which was used to burn the skin off children like Phan Thi Kim Phuc.
Why are these corporate criminals being allowed to take over the world’s food supply? Money and corruption would be the obvious answers, but after reviewing the evidence objectively and without cognitive dissonance, depopulation and control over the world’s food supply prove more likely.
Biofarms To Integrate Pharmaceuticals, Vaccines Into GMO ‘Biopharm’ Crops
October 8, 2012 THIS IS CRIMINAL! The existence of such technology brings the fight against GMOs to an entirely new level. Outside of the known effects such as recent links to tumors, DNA damage, and other complications, GMO crops on your dinner table could soon contain pharmaceutical drugs like statins in an effort of ‘mass medicating’ the public. Such an effort would likely be used in conjunction with others to fight against those who choose to opt out of vaccinations, delivering the vaccine through the food supply. It may sound absurd, and it is, but is not a new notion. Researchers previously designed a method in which mosquitoes could be ‘flying vaccine carriers’ to inject large numbers of individuals with vaccinations without their knowledge of consent. As one spokesman for a major ecology organization explained...
BengaziGate - Monsanto Killed Stevens
October 11, 2012 Libya US Ambassador Stevens killed to stop massive Monsanto planting operation in Libya.
The information linking Silvestre to this attack was obtained by Turkish intelligence after they detained 2 terrorists involved who were using Tunisian passports and traveling back to Italy after leaving Libya.
Silvestre is one of the most feared eco-terror groups in the world who in 2010 were stopped by Swiss police forces from blowing up the site of the £55 million nano-technology headquarters of IBM in Europe located in Rueschlikon, near Zurich.
Silvestre had targeted this IBM headquarters due to this American companies plans to genetically modify 70% of the world cocoa supply through the use of nano-bio technology.
The reason Silvestre targeted Americans in Libya was the planned US-EU takeover to implement UNEP that demanded the massive planting of Monsanto genetically modified corn which former Libyan dictator Gaddafi had refused to allow in his country. China also wisely refuses GMO.
Libya was attacked and taken over by the US and EU due to its immeasurable fresh water supply controlled by The Great River Project.
BengaziGate cover up
Support Waning for GMO Labeling Proposition 37
All part of the depopulation agenda.
October 12, 2012 A new poll finds support for Proposition 37 on California November ballot dropping. Prop. 37 would require labels on all foods containing genetically-modified ingredients.
Voters have seen ads about it.
The NO on 37 campaign has spent about $19million to oppose labeling GMO ingredients.
Jeffery Smith on george noory he warned that this was coming with the media blitz to try and get people to vote no.
GMO foods are contributing to health problems in those who consume them. Crops such as corn, soybeans, cotton, and sugar beets are now primarily genetically modified, and a lot of the corn and soybean in particular goes into animal feed. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine reviewed studies of lab animals being fed GM foods and reported that the diet was causing problems with their immune, reproductive, and gastrointestinal systems, contributing to organ damage, and they were aging faster,
We see improvment in pets and livestock when they get off GMOs, but for humans that are increasingly eating such foods, these kinds of problems are on the rise.
The big player in the GMO industry is Monsanto.
Supporters of Genetically Engineered Foods Insist on Organics for Their Family
If GE Foods are So Great, Why Wont the Elite Eat Them?
October 2012 by Dr. Mercola
Over the past few years, an interesting pattern has emerged, where political supporters of genetically engineered (GE, GM, GMO) foods are feasting on organics, while promoting unlabeled GE foods for everyone else.
The Obamas, Clintons and Bushes eat organic.
Ann Romney credits a combination of organic foods and holistic medicine for turning her health around after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.
Ad blitz drains support for California GMO-labeling plan
I posted these 2 threads in another forum.
GMO Monsanto Oct 13 post in science
Monsanto killed Amb Stevens
Europe NOT ALLOWED to Ban GM Frankenstein foods
EU not allowed to be GM-free
October 19, 2012 Nations and regions which want to stay free of genetically-modified crops will be banned from doing so under a devastating ruling by EU scientists.
The decision, the first from the new European Food Safety Authority, means governments will be unable to stop the controversial plants being grown on their soil, opening the floodgates.
It is a disastrous blow to consumers and farmers who are fearful about the safety of Frankenstein foods.
Scotland, Wales and many English local authorities oppose GM crops.
Once commercial planting of GM crops is allowed, their pollen will spread and contaminate the entire countryside.
Europe NOT ALLOWED to Ban GMOs
October 18th, 2012 GMOs may be the new thalidomide.
Nations and regions which want to stay free of genetically-modified crops - CANT.
This comes a week after they showed HUGE tumors on rats fed GMO corn for 2 years:
NaturalNews - Eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto Roundup chemical caused rats to develop horrifying tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death.
Epigenetic Horrors Await As Monsanto Acquires Key Gene Silencing Technology For Use in Humans
Oct 2012 The nascent field of epigenetics is making scientists and pharmaceutical houses drool all over the world. Recent discoveries that DNA is much more than a blueprint for protein building have opened the door to a brand new ATGC playground. Many of the regions formerly considered mere ‘junk’ DNA appear to regulate gene expression through keyed methylation (turning genes on or off). RNA is much more than just a messenger within the cell; microRNA–little bits of RNA–is derived from ‘junk DNA’. MicroRNA acts as molecular police within the cell, protecting our DNA from retroviral insertion and ‘jumping genes’. Even the number of repeats within the ‘junk’ seem to have a purpose beyond that of DNA mapping for CSI episodes. SINES and LINES (Short Interspered Elements and Long Interspersed Elements, respectively) may be...
IT IS KNOWN GMO is UNHEALTHY for HUMAN and ANIMAL - BOTH!
Judge OK's Genetically Modified Crops On National Wildlife Refuges[/size
Oct. 2012 A federal judge says genetically modified crops can be planted on national wildlife refuges in the Midwest. Herbicide-resistant crops are used to prepare land for native habitat restoration, said Rick Speer, assistant refuge supervisor for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Midwest region. The agency limits the use of the genetically modified crops to native habitat restoration projects, but environmental groups sued to stop the practice. "Whether you're planting native grasses, developing wetlands or trying to plant trees for forested habitat, it just gives you a better chance for success starting with a fairly clean seedbed," Speer said.
Inside the Monsanto Information War
The two-year study, published in a peer-reviewed US journal in September, found that rats fed a lifetime supply of either Monsanto's NK603 corn, the Roundup herbicide which NK603 is engineered to tolerate, or both suffered organ damage and premature deaths at higher rates than control groups. Séralini hyped the cancer findings and told the media he stands by his research, but he has also said that more research needs to be done. The study, after all, was a long-term toxicology study modeled from short-term industry studies like those funded by Monsanto to gain regulatory approvals in Europe, not a carcinogenicity study. Similar industry studies span about 90 days, and Séralini's team said that many of the health problems appeared in rats after the 90-day mark.
Do biotech GMO corporations steal election?
I'm hearing grumblings through the grapevine that an effort may be underway to steal the election against Proposition 37. So far, these are just rumors, but knowing how these evil corporations trying to defeat the ballot measure really operate, there is NOTHING they won't do to protect their dirty little (agricultural) secrets. Including stealing the election.
Stealing elections is only really possible in close elections, but that's exactly where Proposition 37 is right now. It's just barely ahead in the polls: 44% to 42%, with the remainder undecided or neutral. This means Prop 37 is well within the "stealing" range.
How do you steal an election? Use electronic voting machines, of course. And then hack the crap out of them until the numbers come out the way you want. That's how most clinical trials are conducted, of course, so fudging the numbers is nothing new to the kind of evil corporations that dominate the GMO hellscape.
Electronic voting is a total fraud
Electronic voting machines are being rolled out all across California right now. These machines, as we've seen in past elections, are full of bugs and backdoors that allow your vote to be altered at will by whoever owns or influences the voting machine engineers. There is no paper trail, so your electronic vote goes into a vast black hole where it is easily and invisibly altered.
The entire purpose of using electronic voting machines is, of course, to eliminate accurate vote tracking of any kind, thereby allowing elections to be manipulated at will. And if you think evil globalist corporations wouldn't stoop to this kind of behavior, think again: The "No on 37" campaign has already been caught violating federal law by fabricating fictitious FDA quotes and mailing them out to California voters.
Truthfully, knowing what really goes on behind the scenes, I wouldn't put it past these people to engage in vote fraud, death threats, extortion, bribery or whatever it takes to defeat Proposition 37. This is the way they routinely conduct business, folks. We are talking about the most evil cabal of demonic, destructive corporations on the planet. Absolutely nothing is out of bounds for them. Think Al Capone... criminal mafia... death threats and professional hackers. That only scratches the surface!
After all, the very products they sell -- GMOs, pesticides, Agent Orange -- are nothing short of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Stealing an election doesn't even rank at any level worth noting in their dark, smoky rooms where global domination schemes are hatched and plotted through the use of every evil tactic that has ever been invented.
How you can help prevent Proposition 37 vote fraud
Stealing elections is only possible when the vote results are close, so the best way to ensure evil forces don't steal the outcome on Proposition 37 is to help us achieve a wide margin of victory at the polls.
This means spreading the word on GMOs and Proposition 37. Visit the YES on 37 website, watch the videos, donate funds and share knowledge with your family and friends. Check out the new music video We Have the Right to Know about GMO, featuring top celebrities and health experts, all commenting on GMOs and singing the song, too. (I contributed background vocals to this song, in case you were curious.)
If you know someone who is into healthy living, honest food and grassroots activism, make sure they get to the polls in California and vote! And make sure they vote YES on 37!
A grassroots victory is within reach
In fact, I personally think the way Californians vote on Prop 37 is far more important than the way they vote for President. Because both Romney and Obama are pro-GMO sellouts who are in bed with big business. Only the People are truly anti-GMO, and that's why this ballot measure is such an important expression of people power!
Your vote on Proposition 37 is more important than ever! With the biotech criminals running a steady stream of LIES on television, all funded by Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, DuPont and all the other usual suspects, they are managing to trick or confuse a large number of California voters who know nothing about food labeling or GMOs. We've got to fight back with sheer numbers!
Together, we can win this vote for food freedom and honest food. It's the home stretch, folks, and every bit of your effort, donations, activism and good will is needed right now. We are facing off against a terrible, destructive monster, and we are in a position where we can sever its head on November 6th and put an end to its rampage of death and destruction. We must take every opportunity available to achieve victory right now, because another such opportunity may not come along for years.
Spread the word: Vote YES on 37 if you live in California. Defeat GMOs now, at the ballot box, and help overwhelm any attempt by malicious forces to steal the election results via black box voting.
Glyphosate Found in City Dwellers' Urine
Oct 2012 Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, which is sprayed in large quantities on genetically engineered, so-called "Roundup Ready," crops. Such crops are genetically engineered to withstand otherwise lethal applications of the herbicide.
According to the German journal Ithaka,1 every single urine sample collected from city dwellers around Berlin tested positive for glyphosate, with values ranging from 0.5 to 2 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) – that's between five and 20 times the permissible upper limit for glyphosate in German drinking water, which is set at 0.1 ng/ml. According to the featured article:2
"Glyphosate probably entered human populations over the past 10 years through its increasing presence in daily foods such as meat and dairy products, vegetable and fruit produce and grains products. Glyphosate-laced genetically modified Roundup soya which enters the animal food chain, is only one of the risk factors.
Even more dangerous now is the increasing use of herbicides in the EU over the past several years for the desiccation of entire stocks of harvestable crop.
'Spraying crops to death,' as desiccation should be more aptly called, means that herbicides are being sprayed directly on the crops shortly before they are to be harvested to facilitate the harvest by uniformly killing off all living plants (including the crops) on the field.
If crops cannot fully mature due to excessive rain, as was the case in the summer of 2011, herbicides are used to bring the crops to maturity by means of a 'death-spray.' The method facilitates the drying of the crops as well as removing all weeds for the next sowing period, and has become common for the harvest of potatoes, cereals, canola and pulses.
For potatoes, spraying herbicides on the field immediately before harvest (2.5 l / ha), hardens the skin and reduces its susceptibility to late blight and germination, which improved the potatoes shelf life. Active compounds of the herbicide directly enter the potato through the leaves; however, decomposition of the poison takes place in the body of the consumer."
by Dr. Mercola 10/23/12
Last year, doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec made the disturbing discovery that Bt-toxin from genetically engineered Bt corn in fact accumulates in the human body – contrary to industry assurances. The toxin was identified in 93 percent of pregnant women tested; 80 percent of umbilical blood in their babies; and 67 percent of non-pregnant women.
The study blew a giant hole in safety claims over genetically engineered Bt crops.
Now, results from a German study shows that people who have no direct contact with agriculture have significant concentrations of glyphosate in their urine. It's becoming quite apparent that genetically engineered crops are a source of multiple toxins, in addition to having been found to contain far lower levels of nutrients. So much for saving the world from starvation.
Scientist that discovered GMO health hazards immediately fired, team dismantled
Oct 2012 NaturalNews
Though it barely received any media attention at the time, a renowned British biochemist who back in 1998 exposed the shocking truth about how genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) cause organ damage, reproductive failure, digestive dysfunction, impaired immunity, and cancer, among many other conditions, was immediately fired from his job, and the team of researchers who assisted him dismissed from their post within 24 hours from the time when the findings went public.
Arpad Pusztai, who is considered to be one of the world's most respected and well-learned biochemists, had for three years led a team of researchers from Scotland's prestigious Rowett Research Institute (RRI) in studying the health effects of a novel GM potato with built-in Bt toxin. Much to the surprise of many, the team discovered that, contrary to industry rhetoric, Bt potato was responsible for causing severe health damage in test rats, a fact that was quickly relayed to the media out of concern for public health.
But rather than be praised for their honest assessment into this genetically-tampered potato, Pusztai and his colleagues were chastised by industry-backed government authorities, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose office was discovered to have secretly contacted RRI just hours after Pusztai and his team announced the results of their study on television. For speaking the truth, Pusztai was immediately fired from his position, and his team dismissed from their positions at the school.
Shock findings in new GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow horrifying tumors, 70% of females die early
Sept. 2012 NaturalNews = Eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto's Roundup chemical fertilizer caused rats to develop horrifying tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death. That's the conclusion of a shocking new study that looked at the long-term effects of consuming Monsanto's genetically modified corn.
The study has been deemed "the most thorough research ever published into the health effects of GM food crops and the herbicide Roundup on rats." News of the horrifying findings is spreading like wildfire across the internet, with even the mainstream media seemingly in shock over the photos of rats with multiple grotesque tumors... tumors so large the rats even had difficulty breathing in some cases. GMOs may be the new thalidomide.
"Monsanto Roundup weedkiller and GM maize implicated in 'shocking' new cancer study" wrote The Grocery, a popular UK publication. http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/technology-and-supply-chain/monsant
"Scientists found that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, developed mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females."
The Daily Mail reported, "Fresh row over GM foods as French study claims rats fed the controversial crops suffered tumors."
It goes on to say: "The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group."
GM Wheat May Damage Human Genetics Permanently
Nov 2012 The Australian government, in the form of its science research arm, is joining Agribusiness profiteering by designing a GM wheat that could kill people who eat it & be inherited by their children.
We have not yet seen the worst damage that genetic engineering may do. Australia's governmental agency, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), is developing a wheat species that is engineered to turn off genes permanently.
Professor Jack Heinemann at the University of Canterbury's Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety has studied the wheat's potential. Digital Journal reports that he says1:
|What we found is that the molecules created in this wheat, intended to silence wheat genes, can match human genes, and through ingestion, these molecules can enter human beings and potentially silence our genes. The findings are absolutely assured. There is no doubt that these matches exist. |
The implications are clarified by Professor Judy Carman of Flinders University:
|If this silences the same gene in us that it silences in the wheat—well, children who are born with this enzyme not working tend to die by the age of about five. |
Proposition 37 trailing in early returns
7 Nov 2012 A high-profile measure to require new labels on food was trailing in early returns Tuesday.
Proposition 37 would require labeling of genetically modified foods. If it passes, California would become the first state to require a "genetically modified" label on a host of food products, from breakfast cereals to tofu. Dairy, meat, alcohol and restaurant meals would be exempt.
The battle over Proposition 37 was an unusually high-profile fight because it pitted businesses against businesses. Big natural-food companies and several organic farmers were on one side. A variety of traditional farmers and chemical, seed and processed-food firms were on the other.
Spending on Proposition 37 exceeded $50 million. The yes campaign raised at least $8.9 million, while the no side raised at least $45.6 million. St. Louis-based Monsanto, a leading maker of genetically engineered seeds, contributed $8.1 million to the No campaign.
Biofarms To Integrate Pharmaceuticals, Vaccines Into GMO ‘Biopharm’ Crops
October, 2012 The existence of such technology brings the fight against GMOs to an entirely new level. Outside of the known effects such as recent links to tumors, DNA damage, and other complications, GMO crops on your dinner table could soon contain pharmaceutical drugs like statins in an effort of ‘mass medicating’ the public. Such an effort would likely be used in conjunction with others to fight against those who choose to opt out of vaccinations, delivering the vaccine through the food supply. It may sound absurd, and it is, but is not a new notion. Researchers previously designed a method in which mosquitoes could be ‘flying vaccine carriers’ to inject large numbers of individuals with vaccinations without their knowledge of consent. As one spokesman for a major ecology organization explained..
Results of Prop 37:
Millions of GMO Mosquitoes Released Without Risk Assessment or Oversight
November 8, 2012 Look out people of planet earth, genetically engineered bugs are here. Just in case you haven’t figured it out yet, our technocracy is working ever diligently on genetically engineering every last living cell on the planet – WITHOUT EXCEPTION. What does this mean for life here on earth? Ever hear the expression “soup sandwich?” Well, after these “scientific” geniuses are through with us, that is exactly what all life will be – a genetic soup sandwich, made in a lab, and stamped with a corporate logo embedded in our DNA.
If the following report from Testbiotech doesn’t send chills up your spine, I don’t know what will. Get ready world, because nothing will ever be the same. Ever. There is no remediation technique available to clean up genetically engineered mutations released into the wild and spread through horizontal gene transfer. Barb
Regulatory decisions on releasing genetically modified (GM) insects biased by corporate interests
Dr Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch UK said “The public will be shocked to learn that GM insects can be released into the environment without any proper oversight. Conflicts-of-interest should be removed from all decision-making processes to ensure the public have a proper say about these plans.”
London/ Munich Thursday 8th November 2012 A briefing published today by public interest groups highlights how regulatory decisions on GM insects in Europe and around the world are being biased by corporate interests.
The briefing shows how UK biotech company Oxitec has infiltrated decision-making processes around the world. The company has close links to the multinational pesticide and seed company, Syngenta. Oxitec has already made large-scale open releases of GM mosquitoes in the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Brazil and is developing GM agricultural pests, jointly with Syngenta. Plans to commercialise GM insects would result in many millions of GM insects being released in fields of crops, including olives, tomatoes, citrus fruits, cabbages and cotton. In future, any insect species might be genetically modified.
New Varieties of Genetically Modified Tomatoes Coming Soon To A Grocery Near You
11/8/12 The tomato was one of the first commercially available genetically modified (GM) crops. In 1994, GM tomatoes hit the market in the US but have since disappeared. They’re about to make a come back at a grocery near you. Earlier forms of this GM crop included the transgenic tomato (FlavrSavr) which had a “deactivated” gene. This meant that the tomato plant was no longer able to produce polygalacturonase, an enzyme involved in fruit softening. The premise was that tomatoes could be left to ripen on the vine and still have a long shelf life, thus allowing them to develop their full flavour. Normally, tomatoes are picked well before they are ripe and are then ripened artificially
Hold your horses
November 8, 2012 On election night, not long after the polls closed in California, the announcement came out: Prop 37 was losing. A little while later, it was all over. 37 had gone down to defeat.
But is that the whole story? No.
November 8th, two days after the election, many votes in California remain uncounted.
I tried to find out how many.
It turns out that the Secretary of State of CA, responsible for elections in the state, doesn’t know.
I was told all counties in California have been asked, not ordered, to report in with those figures. It’s voluntary.
So I picked out a few of the biggest counties and called their voter registrar offices. Here are the boggling results:
Santa Clara County: 180,000 votes remain uncounted.
Orange County: 241,336 votes remain uncounted.
San Diego County: 475,000 votes remain uncounted.
LA County: 782,658 votes remain uncounted.
In just those four counties, 1.6 million votes remain uncounted.
The California Secretary of State’s website indicates that Prop 37 is behind by 559,776 votes.
So in the four counties I looked into, there are roughly three times as many uncounted votes as the margin of Prop 37′s defeat.
And as I say, I checked the numbers in only four counties. There are 54 other counties in the state. Who knows how many votes they still need to process?
So why is anyone saying Prop 37 lost?
People will say, “Well, it’s all about projections. There are experts. They know what they’re doing. They made a prediction…”
Really? Who are those experts? I have yet to find them.
Many Pro-GMO Corporate Biologists Own GMO Patents, In Bed With Monsanto
Nov 2012 The lead researcher behind the monumental study that linked Monsanto’s GMOs and best-selling herbicide Roundup to tumor development and early death is now blowing the whistle on many corporate scientists who are not just close to Monsanto and profit-harvesting GMO crops — many of them actually have or are seeking their own GMO patents. These patents, of course, enable them to make bountiful amounts of cash. Other corporate scientists are on (or ‘were’ at one point) Monsanto’s pay roll, including former Monsanto executive turned Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the FDA Michael R. Taylor. Dr. Gilles-Eric Séralini, a French scientists who has been under assault from Monsanto and pro-GMO scientists, was responsible for perhaps the largest awakening over the dangers of Monsanto’s GMO foods that we have ever seen.
EU rejects French report linking GM maize to cancer
The EU's food safety agency definitively rejected Wednesday a bombshell French report linking genetically modified corn to cancer, saying it failed to meet "acceptable scientific standards."
"Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Seralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards," the European Food Safety Authority said in a statement.
"Consequently it is not possible to draw valid conclusions about the occurrence of tumours in the rats tested," the agency said.
EFSA, which reviews the use and authorisation of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), added that it "finds there is no need to re-examine its previous safety evaluations of NK603," the genetically modified maize developed by US agribusiness giant Monsanto.
Is Genetically Modified Food Killing Us?
11/26/12 Last month, a group of Australian scientists published a warning to the citizens of the country, and of the world, who collectively gobble up some $34 billion annually of its agricultural exports. The warning concerned the safety of a new type of wheat. As Australia’s number-one export, a $6-billion annual industry, and the most-consumed grain locally, wheat is of the utmost importance to the country. A serious safety risk from wheat — a mad wheat disease of sorts — would have disastrous effects for the country and for its customers. Which is why the alarm bells are being rung over a new variety of wheat being ushered toward production... Professors Heinemann and Carman warn, there’s a risk that the gene-silencing done to these plants might make its way into humans and wreak havoc on our bodies... If their theories prove true, the results might be as bad as mimicking glycogen storage disease IV, a super-rare genetic disorder which almost always leads to early childhood death.
DuPont Sends In Former Cops To Enforce Genetically Modified Seed Patents, Sues Farmers
DuPont Co. (DD), the world’s second-biggest seed company, is sending dozens of former police officers across North America to prevent a practice generations of farmers once took for granted. The provider of the best-selling genetically modified soybean seed is looking for evidence of farmers illegally saving them from harvests for replanting next season, which is not allowed under sales contracts. The Wilmington, Delaware-based company is inspecting Canadian fields and will begin in the U.S. next year, said Randy Schlatter, a DuPont senior manager. “Farmers are never going to get cheap access to these genetically engineered varieties,” said Charles Benbrook, a research professor at Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources. “The biotech industry has trumped the legitimate economic interests of the farmer again by raising the ante on intellectual property.”
GMO Riders Could Be Back in “Fiscal Cliff” Funding Package
Dec 2012 The Budget Control Act of 2011 goes into affect at midnight on December 31. That is the bill already passed that raises taxes and cuts the budget. Congress does not like this scenario, so it is working on an omnibus 2013 Appropriations Bill that will address tax and spending cuts before January 1.
Even though no bill has yet been introduced, if Congress and President Obama reach agreement, the bill will be rushed through. Unfortunately, we have received word from sources on Capitol Hill that the GMO bills that previously were attached to the Agriculture Appropriations Bill and the Farm Bill could be part of this package. And because it’s a must-pass funding package, any GMO rider that is included will likely become law.
These are the same GMO riders we told you about last July. Section 733 of the Agriculture Appropriations Bill (the so-called “Farmer Assurance Provision,” though one might just as well call it the “Monsanto Protection Act”) would strip federal courts of the authority to halt the sale or planting of illegal, potentially hazardous GMO crops—even if a court has told them to stop—while USDA is still assessing potential hazards. The Secretary of Agriculture must, under this provision, grant any farm operator or producer upon request a temporary permit allowing GMO crops to be planted or cultivated, even if a court has called a halt to it until an Environmental Impact Statement is completed.
This rider will almost certainly be included in the omnibus appropriations bill. The second rider, which had been attached to the Farm Bill, would outlaw any review of GE crop impacts based on the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, or any other environmental law. And no agency other than USDA would be allowed to provide analysis. Even worse, even if negative information were allowed, this would have no affect on the approval of GMO crops. It is less likely that it will be included in the funding bill, but entirely possible.
The biotechnology lobby (Monsanto et al.) is pushing these riders hard to get them folded into the last-minute funding package. Moreover, Sen. Inouye, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, still supports the riders, even though the other senators on his committee have already expressed opposition.
While their lobbyists are working on Congress, the biotech industry continues to enforce their seed patents at the expense of small farmers. For example, DuPont is sending former police officers across North America to prevent farmers from saving the seeds from the harvest to replant the next year—despite this being a traditional farming practice. DuPont considers such practices illegal, a threat to patent protection, and in violation of their sales contract. Whether DuPont and other biotech companies will be allowed to continue taking direct action against farmers is a matter that will be considered by the Supreme Court.
Hundreds of thousands of genetically modified mosquitoes set to be released into the Florida Keys in experiment to fight dengue fever
December 2012 The non-biting male mosquitoes genetically modified would pass along a birth defect killing their progeny before reaching maturity
After a few generations officials say Key West's Aedes aegypti population would die off reducing risk of dengue fever
FL Keys Mosquito Control District: Modified genes will disappear after mosquitoes carrying it die making no permanent change to wild population
Hundreds of thousands of genetically modified mosquitoes are awaiting federal approval for release into the Florida Keys as part of an experiment aimed at reducing the risk of dengue fever.
Mosquito control officials have requested the Food and Drug Administration's sign off on the experiment that would be the first of its kind in the U.S.
Some residents of the tourist town of Key West worry though on how much research has been done to determine the risks of releasing genetically modified mosquitoes on the Keys' fragile ecosystem.
Officials are targeting the Aedes aegypti mosquitoes because they can spread dengue fever, a disease health officials thought had been eradicated in the U.S. until 93 cases originated in the Keys in 2009 and 2010.
]“You Can’t Tell People that Food Prevents Disease!”
December 11, 2012 Codex Committee
Not even nutrient-related disease! Our executive director’s gripping report from the front lines.
As we discussed last week, ANH-USA represented US consumers at the international Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses, which met last week in Germany. Our executive director, Gretchen DuBeau, reports that the committee made a number of decisions that may well affect natural health in the US.
Here in the US, we have been debating various issues concerning natural health: Will we retain access to a wide variety of dietary supplements in high-nutrient-level dosages? Will we be able to access nutritious, healthy foods, or will selection and quality diminish because of industry or government control? Will we finally achieve mandatory labeling for GMOs? We naturally think that, if we are able to convince our policymakers, our rights will be protected. But we could be wrong. We have to keep a close eye on what happens overseas too.
Codex, which was established by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), is creating international guidelines for member nations to follow. And while these guidelines are supposed to be voluntary, it is conceivable that our country’s food policies could be overridden by international trade law. At the very least, the wrong international guidelines won’t make it easier to keep the right ones here.
First Study Into GM Atlantic Salmon Mating Reveals Danger Of Escape To Wild Gene Pool
7/13/11 If genetically modified Atlantic salmon were to escape from captivity they could succeed in breeding and passing their genes into the wild, Canadian researchers have found. Their research, published in Evolutionary Applications, explores the potential reproductive implications of GM salmon as they are considered for commercial farming. "The use of growth-enhancing transgenic technologies has long been of interest to the aquaculture industry and now genetically modified Atlantic salmon is one of the first species to be considered for commercial farming. Yet, little is known about the potential impact on wild salmon populations if the GM species were to escape captivity," said lead author Darek Moreau from the Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada.
The FDA Says We Can Probably Eat Genetically-Modified Super Salmon Soon
12/22/12 Dying to get some genetically-modified, fast-growing, ethically-precarious Frankenfish in your stomach? Well, today's the day, folks—in a groundbreaking announcement, the FDA has released a report that a brand of engineered salmon are safe, and we may soon be blessed with amped up bagels-and-lox brunches for all.
These souped-up super salmon, farmed by Massachusetts-based company AquaBounty, reportedly grow twice as fast as regular salmon because of added growth hormones, which seems to us like something totally safe to put inside your body, and also sounds suspiciously like the plot of Jack. Environmental groups have been voicing concern that the salmon, which are currently segregated from normal, non-scary fish, would harm and deplete the natural salmon population if they escaped into the wild.
But the FDA, which announced two years ago that the AquaBounty salmon didn't appear to hurt humans, say the fish are "as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon" and won't hurt any of the natural salmon. They'll be taking public comments on their report for the next 60 days before making it official, and if the fish are cleared, they'll be the first genetically-altered edible animals in the world, bringing us one-step closer to living in a universe overrun entirely by evil, gargantuan sea creatures.
Human Genes Engineered Into Experimental GMO Rice Being Grown In Kansas
Unless the rice you buy is certified organic, or comes specifically from a farm that tests its rice crops for genetically modified (GM) traits, you could be eating rice tainted with actual human genes. The only known GMO with inbred human traits in cultivation today, a GM rice product made by biotechnology company Ventria Bioscience is currently being grown on 3,200 acres in Junction City, Kansas — and possibly elsewhere — and most people have no idea about it. Since about 2006,Ventria has been quietly cultivating rice that has been genetically modified (GM) with genes from the human liver for the purpose of taking the artificial proteins produced by this “Frankenrice” and using them in pharmaceuticals. With approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),Ventria has taken one of the most widely cultivated grain crops in the world today, and essentially turned it into a catalyst for producing new drugs.
20 GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS COMING TO YOUR PLATE
If the need to halt GMOs were not urgent enough, this article should scare the pants off you. Here we glimpse some of the potentials for the unabated and bizarre proliferation of GMOs. Some of these developments you will already know about (hopefully), but some will come as a surprise. As I see it we are now at a crossroads where we can still dismantle this dangerous and perverted manipulation of the very fabric of life, the sacred code of nature, which will undoubtedly affect each and every one of us in profound ways now and in the future.
Here we are reminded that the fight against GMOs and to save organics is not just a battle for what we knew yesterday, which is bad enough. It is a fight against the future of the GE movement and the unlikely and increasingly creepy, scary, and deranged turns it will likely take. Just today I read elsewhere that 35 species of fish, in addition to salmon, are slotted to be genetically engineered for various traits. I am not going to preview the highlights of what is below, but maybe you too will be left wondering, “What will they think of next?”
I hope we never have to find out. We have to stop this now before we and future generations have to be genetically engineered, RoundUp and 2,4-D Ready at the least perhaps, to withstand the onslaught of the weird stuff being channelled into our food supply and into our environment. If you haven’t already, perhaps after reading this article you will be more ready to take a real stand against GMOs by enacting the 11 Simple Steps to Eradicate GMOs and join our GMO Eradication Movement. Now put down that bowl of GMO corn chowder, buckle your seatbelts, clear you ears and clean off your eyeglasses for the list of 20 GMOs coming soon and already arrived to supermarket shelves near you.
Good luck distinguishing these Frankenfoods from real, natural food as they flood our supermarkets.
Genetically altered to withstand heavy applications of toxic chemicals, resist disease or contain more nutrients, so-called “Frankenfoods” are appearing on supermarket shelves at a rapid rate. Currently, genetically modified (GM) corn and soy can be found in many processed foods, and the produce section may contain GM zucchini, corn on the cob and papaya. But beyond those that have already been approved for human consumption, many more GMOs are on the way – and they probably won’t be labeled. These 20 crops and animal products include both those that are already available (whether we like it or not) and some that are still in development, like cows that produce human breast milk.
If you eat any kind of processed food on a regular basis – tortilla chips, cereal, granola bars – chances are, you consume genetically modified corn. The Center for Food Safety estimates that over 70% of the processed foods in American grocery stores contain genetically modified corn or soy. Corn is altered to contain proteins that kill insects that eat them, so they effectively produce their own pesticides.
Rice plants are often modified to be resistant to herbicides and pests, to increase grain size and to generate nutrients that don’t exist in the grain naturally. Varieties include Bayer’s herbicide-resistant “LibertyLink” rice, vitamin A-infused “golden rice” and the bizarre Ventria Bioscience “Express Tec” rice, which has been altered to contain human proteins naturally found in breast milk. The latter is used globally in infant formula.
Among the first foods to be genetically altered, GM tomatoes have been developed to be unnaturally high in anti-oxidants, to have more intense flavor and to stay fresh longer. While there are not currently any genetically modified tomatoes on store shelves, they’re being used extensively by scientists to study the function of genes that are naturally present in the plants.
The most common genetically engineered food of all is the soybean. Since 1996, scientists have been creating varieties of soybeans that are resistant to both pests and herbicides, and they wind up in places you’d least expect them, like candy bars. A new GM soybean with higher levels of healthy oils was approved by the USDA in 2010; chemical companies DuPont and Monsanto are both working on their own versions of the biotech bean.
We don’t think of cotton as a food, and technically it isn’t – but we still end up eating it. Cotton isn’t classified as a food crop, so farmers can use any chemicals they want when growing it. That means cottonseed oil, which is present in products like mayonnaise and salad dressing, can be packed full of pesticides. Along with soy, corn and canola, cotton grown for oil extraction is one of the most frequently genetically modified crops in the world.
Canola, a cultivar of rapeseed, produces one of the most commonly consumed food oils, and it’s one of America’s biggest cash crops. What you may not know is that canola stands for “Canadian oil, low acid,” referring to a variety of rapeseed developed in the 1970s. 80% of the acres of canola sown in the U.S. are genetically modified, and a 2010 study in North Dakota found that the modified genes of these plants have spread to 80% of wild natural rapeseed plants.
Despite the fact that an environmental impact study has yet to be completed, the USDA has announced that farmers may now plant Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beets, which have been altered to withstand the company’s herbicide. This decision comes despite a 2010 court order that prohibited planting the GMO beets until the study was performed. Sugar beets provide about half of America’s sugar.
Salmon may become the first genetically modified animal to be approved for direct human consumption. The FDA has decided that a variety of GM salmon that grow twice as fast as their natural, un-modified peers is both safe to eat and safe for the environment.
“We’re looking here at a scenario where the fish might wind up sooner or later in the ocean,” Brian Ellis, plant biotechnologist at the University of British Columbia Vancouver, told Discovery News. “I think if we go down this route, we have to be prepared to accept some potentially unknown consequences.”
Providing the other half of America’s precious sugar, sugar cane is set to debut on our shelves in genetically modified form sometime soon. Brazil’s state-owned agricultural research agency has beenhard at work developing drought-resistant sugar cane that also bears increased yields for years now, and may have it certified for commercial use within five years. Australia is also working on its own version.
After the Ringspot Virus nearly destroyed all of Hawaii’s papaya crops, a new variety was engineered to resist the disease, and it now represents the majority of the papayas grown in the United States.
“Papaya would be unique in the sense where the industry in Hawaii is dependent on biotech,” says Kevin Richards, director of regulatory relations for the American Farm Bureau. “What you have in Hawaii is a very contained, isolated agro-eco system, which is vulnerable to diseases.”
The first genetically modified food to be approved for cultivation in Europe in over a decade, Amflora potatoes are currently being grown in Sweden. High in starch content, the potatoes are actually meant for use in paper, glues and other commercial products rather than as food, but that doesn’t mean they won’t end up affecting the food chain. Nearby farmers worry about their rabbits, deer, and especially their bees.
Could genetically modified crops have something to do with the mysterious ailments that are killing honeybee colonies by the billions? Some researchers believe so. A zoologist in Germany found that genes used to modify rapeseed crops had transferred to bacteria living inside bees. GMOs are currently considered to be among the possible causes of Colony Collapse Disorder. And if the genes are causing changes within the bees, they’re also likely to cause changes to the honey that the bees produce.
After banana crops in Uganda were affected by a bacterial disease that caused the plants to rot, scientists developed a genetically modified variety that could help alleviate the $500 million annual loss. The ban on GM crops was waived to make way for the GM version of Uganda’s staple food. A gene from sweet pepper was inserted into the bananas that make them resistant to the bacteria. Cultivated bananas have almost no genetic diversity, so supporters of this decision argue that introducing the GMO fruits will actually help bananas as a whole.
Frankenfish Could Be Close to Approval!
The FDA’s flawed environmental assessment deliberately omitted critical information. Action Alert!
On December 21, 2012 under cover of the holidays and hoping for as little media attention as possible, the FDA released an environmental assessment (EA) of AquaBounty’s “AquAdvantage” transgenic salmon, which we dubbed “Frankenfish” back in 2010). This assessment stated that the genetically engineered salmon would have “no significant impact” on the US environment—thus pushing the fish one step closer to approval.
The FDA’s analysis, however, is deeply flawed in that it looked only at the impact it might have on the US environment. The FDA is not required to look at environmental impacts in foreign nations, even though the salmon is created in Canada and raised in Panama! That’s why an EA is insufficient and a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary: an EIS is far more detailed, and takes into account environmental impacts beyond US borders, exactly what the government wanted to avoid.
AquaBounty claims that the company’s process for raising GE fish is safer than traditional aquaculture, yet documents released by the Canadian government show that a new strain of Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA), the deadly “flu” that has been devastating fish stocks around the world, contaminated the company’s Prince Edward Island facility in 2009. This caused AquaBounty to cull much of its broodstock and lose its “fish health” certificate from the Canadian authorities (thus barring exports of the fish); the company only regained the certificate in November 2011. None of this information was included in the FDA’s report.
The EA, which relies heavily on data provided by AquaBounty, also fails to mention the fact that up to five percent of the fish may be fertile, when we were assured they would all be sterile. The genetically engineered fish could easily escape into local waterways and wreak havoc on the ecosystem and our already-threatened wild salmon populations.
The timing of the report is also suspect beyond the holiday cover. The EA is dated May 2012, but it was released after the election, so it could not affect the president’s electability (GMOs are controversial among Obama’s political base). The report’s failure to include vital health and environmental information flies in the face of the White House’s 2009 science integrity memo pledging that political officials would not suppress scientific findings and conclusions.
The FDA’s assessment was released in support of AquaBounty’s NDA, or New Drug Application, for the salmon. Most people don’t realize that there is no regulatory process for approving genetically engineered animals in the US; this is most likely so they can avoid extensive scrutiny. Although the review of GE animals is shoehorned into the New Drug Application process, the oversight of GE animals is insufficient and never even looks at the impact on the health of humans who eat GE animals.
The EA also ignores the urging of more than 40 members of Congress to conduct a more rigorous review of the salmon’s environmental and health safety. The public filed nearly 400,000 comments demanding FDA reject this application, and 300 environmental, consumer, health and animal welfare organizations, salmon and fishing groups and associations, food companies, and chefs and restaurants filed joint statements with FDA opposing approval of the salmon. Public outcry apparently means nothing in today’s crony capitalist environment!
Approval of the salmon will open the floodgates for other genetically engineered animals, including pigs and cows. AquaBounty’s largest shareholder—the company that bailed them out of their financial woes—is the biotech company Intrexon. Its senior VP and head of animal sciences is Thomas Kasser, a twenty-year veteran of Monsanto Choice Genetics, where he worked on recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH); he is also a former vice-president of Pfizer and McDonalds.
“We’re facing the extinction of a species.” That’s what one Midwest-based large-scale commercial beekeeper told me last week at the annual gathering of the American Honey Producers Association (AHPA). And he meant it.
Bee losses have been dramatic, especially in recent years. And beekeepers are feeling the sting. According to many who manage hives, commercial beekeeping won’t pencil out in the future unless things change, and soon.
Beekeepers from across the country gathered in San Diego to swap stories and share best practices in the trade, as well as to learn more about the latest research on declines in bee populations (often referred to as Colony Collapse Disorder). Independent science continues to point to pesticides as one of the critical co-factors in bee losses — alongside nutrition and disease — and beekeepers continue to see major declines. And these losses parallel the ongoing increase in pesticide products used on seeds and in fields across the country.
As one beekeeper told me, “On average, 40% over-wintering losses across the country. That’s what we’re facing. And my losses are closer to 70% — this is likely gonna be the worst year for bees.”
But it isn’t just this year; USDA reports major bee population declines since 2006. Another beekeeper told me he lost over $250,000 in honey business last year alone, and he’s no longer pollinating melon and cherries. As he reminded me, this not only has direct impacts on him, but his employees, their communities, suppliers, vendors, the food system and agricultural economy.
Pesticide industry, front & center
Workshops on pesticides were more common than ever at this annual AHPA conference, as evidence mounts showing pesticides to be a key catalyst in bee declines. And representatives from chemical giants like Arysta, Bayer and Monsanto made their presence known, even hosting workshops to pacify concerned beekeepers.
These corporations have a lot at stake. With the market becoming increasingly consolidated, just a few companies manufacture many of the same seeds and pesticides implicated in honey bee losses. If history is any guide, these corporations will likely continue to object to finding healthy, sustainable and commonsense solutions to bee declines.
Toward commonsense solutions
By the end of the conference, several themes had emerged. Beekeepers, and the farmers they work with, don't have the necessary support from state and federal officials to protect pollinators and maintain productive businesses. They feel victim to a handful of powerful pesticide corporations and lax government regulators.
In order to support healthy pollinators, several beekeepers suggested the following:
Reduce pesticide use, especially near bees. With the weight of the evidence behind them, beekeepers are encouraging reductions in pesticide use, including the use of products like neonicotinoids and fungicides, and especially near bees.
Fix the system that tracks bee incidents. Beekeepers find it burdensome and ineffective to report pesticide-related bee kills, as the onus is often placed on them, and many states have failed to create systems for monitoring bee kills.
Create transparent state and federal systems for tracking pesticide use. Beekeepers, like rural and farmworker communities, are best served by knowing what’s being used near them, including amount, type and weather conditions. The federal government and most states — except for California, New York and Oregon— have failed to create a meaningful pesticide use tracking program.
Some beekeepers have taken matters into their own hands, forming the National Pollinator Defense Fund. With a commitment to protecting bees and their livelihood, this new band of beekeepers will “defend managed and native pollinators vital to a sustainable and affordable food supply from the adverse impacts of pesticides.”
No doubt it will take all of us to make sure they are successful, and to ensure we will have healthy bees and beekeepers for years to come.
Toxic Gene Discovered in GM Crops
February 7, 2013 The recent revelation of a toxic gene lurking in genetically modified (GM) crops underscores the failure of food approval regulators to protect the public – again. A European watchdog group discovered that a virus gene that could be poisonous to humans was overlooked in the international approval process, creating more doubt over food safety.
New research by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) shows the missed gene is present in GM corn and soy crops grown around the globe for both human and animal consumption. Humans not only ingest the gene directly from eating GM corn and soy products but also indirectly from eating the meat, milk and eggs from the animals fed the crops.
The study reveals that 54 of the 86 GM plants in the US authorized for commercial growing and food contain the dangerous gene. As the research was conducted by independent experts rather than scientists critical of GM crops, the findings are particularly powerful.
High-stakes fight over soybeans at high court
2/18/13 EVIL MONSANTO!
Vernon Hugh Bowman seems comfortable with the old way of doing things, right down to the rotary-dial telephone he said he was using in a conference call with reporters.
But the 75-year-old Indiana farmer figured out a way to benefit from a high-technology product, soybeans that are resistant to weed-killers, without always paying the high price that such genetically engineered seeds typically bring. In so doing, he ignited a legal fight with seed-giant Monsanto Co. that has now come before the Supreme Court.
The court case poses the question of whether Bowman's actions violated the patent rights held by Monsanto, which developed soybean and other seeds that survive when farmers spray their fields with the company's Roundup brand weed-killer. The seeds dominate American agriculture, including in Indiana where more than 90 percent of soybeans are Roundup Ready.
Monsanto has attracted a bushel of researchers, universities and other agribusiness concerns to its side because they fear a decision in favor of Bowman would leave their own technological innovations open to poaching. The company's allies even include a company that is embroiled in a separate legal battle with Monsanto over one of the patents at issue in the Bowman case.
The Obama administration also backs Monsanto, having earlier urged the court to stay out of the case because of the potential for far-reaching implications for patents involving DNA molecules, nanotechnologies and other self-replicating technologies.
Monsanto's opponents argue that the company has tried to use patent law to control the supply of seeds for soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa. The result has been a dramatic rise in seed prices and reduced options for farmers, according to the Center for Food Safety. The group opposes the spread of genetically engineered crops and says their benefits have been grossly overstated.
"It has become extremely difficult for farmers to find high-quality conventional seeds," said Bill Freese, the center's science policy analyst.
Consumer groups and organic food producers have fought Monsanto over genetically engineered farm and food issues in several settings. They lost a campaign in California last year to require labels on most genetically engineered processed foods and produce. Monsanto and other food and chemical companies spent more than $40 million to defeat the ballot measure.
Monsanto says the success of its seeds are proof of their value. By and large, "farmers appreciate what we do," David Snively, Monsanto's top lawyer, said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Herbicide-resistant soybean seeds first hit the market in 1996. To protect its investment in their development, Monsanto has a policy that prohibits farmers from saving or reusing the seeds once the crop is grown. Farmers must buy new seeds every year.
Like almost every other farmer in Indiana. Bowman used the patented seeds for his main crop. But for a risky, late season crop on his 300 acres in Sandborn, about 100 miles southwest of Indianapolis, Bowman said, "I wanted a cheap source of seed."
He couldn't reuse his own beans or buy seeds from other farmers who had similar agreements with Monsanto and other companies licensed to sell genetically engineered seeds. And dealers he used to buy cheap seed from no longer carry the unmodified seeds.
So Bowman found what looked like a loophole and went to a grain elevator that held soybeans it typically sells for feed, milling and other uses, but not as seed.
Bowman reasoned that most of those soybeans also would be resistant to weed killers, as they initially came from herbicide-resistant seeds, too. He was right, and he repeated the practice over eight years.
He didn't try to keep it a secret from Monsanto and in October 2007, the company sued him for violating its patent. Bowman's is one of 146 lawsuits Monsanto has filed since 1996 claiming unauthorized use of its Roundup Ready seeds, Snively said.
A federal court in Indiana sided with Monsanto and awarded the company $84,456 for Bowman's unlicensed use of Monsanto's technology. The federal appeals court in Washington that handles all appeals in patent cases, upheld the award. The appeals court said that farmers may never replant Roundup Ready seeds without running afoul of Monsanto's patents.
The Supreme Court will grapple with the limit of Monsanto's patent rights, whether they stop with the sale of the first crop of beans, or extend to each new crop soybean farmers grow that has the gene modification that allows it to withstand the application of weed-killer.
The company sees Bowman's actions as a threat both to its Roundup Ready line of seeds and to other innovations that could be easily and cheaply reproduced if they were not protected.
"This case really is about 21st century technologies," Snively said.
Bowman and his allies say Monsanto's legal claims amount to an effort to bully farmers.
The Center for Food Safety's Freese points out that Monsanto's biggest moneymaker is corn seed, which cannot be replanted. "So seed-saving would have no impact on the majority of Monsanto's seed revenue," he said.
The case is Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 11-796.
Two Latest GE-Related Health Threats
'Monster Salmon,' and Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria from GE Experiments Found in Chinese Waterways
27 Feb 2013 Fish — and salmon in particular — has always been an ideal source for the animal-based omega-3 fats EPA and DHA, but as levels of pollution have increased, fish in general have become less viable as a primary source of healthful fats.
Soon, there will be even more to worry about as salmon is getting a genetic makeover.
Not only will you need to beware of inferior and poorly labeled farmed salmon, you’ll also have to contend with it possibly being genetically engineered (GE), since the US still does not require GE foods to be labeled as such.
On December 21, 2012, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took a giant step closer toward the final approval of the first genetically engineered (GE) food animal — a salmon designed to grow abnormally fast,1 and to an unnaturally large size.
It now appears the first GE fish could reach your dinner plate within the next year or two, unless a sufficiently strong opposition is mounted.
According to the FDA,2 the GE salmon is “as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon,” but many have brought up significant flaws and limitations of the environmental assessment (EA) on which this conclusion is drawn.
In recent years, mounting evidence shows that initial suspicions that GE foods might have unforeseen consequences were indeed correct — from alteration of soil composition, to contaminating waterways with antibiotic resistant bacteria linked to GE crops,3 to serious health consequences for animals and humans who consume GE products.
Whole Foods Products will carry GMO labeling
March, 2013 Whole Foods says all products in its North American stores that contain genetically modified ingredients will be labeled as such by 2018.
The company says it's the first national grocery chain to set such a deadline for labeling foods that contain genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. A spokeswoman for the supermarket operator said organic foods will not have to carry the labels since they do not contain genetically modified ingredients by definition.
Although Whole Foods is known as an organic grocer, it also sells a wide array of non-organic products.
The use of GMOs has been a growing issue in recent years, with health advocates pushing for mandatory labeling even though the federal government and many scientists say the ingredients are safe.
Senate Passes Monsanto Protection Act
In the typical slippery nature of Monsanto’s legislation-based actions, the biotech giant is now virtually guaranteed the ability to recklessly plant experimental GM crops without having to worry about the United States government and its subsequent courts. The Monsanto Protection Act buried deep within the budget resolution has passed the Senate, and now nothing short of a presidential veto will put an end to the ruling.
In case you’re not familiar, the Monsanto Protection Act is the name given to what’s known as a legislative rider that was inserted into the Senate Continuing Resolution spending bill. Using the deceptive title of Farmer Assurance Provision, Sec. 735 of this bill actually grants Monsanto the immunity from federal courts pending the review of any GM crop that is thought to be dangerous. Under the section, courts would be helpless to stop Monsanto from continuing to plant GM crops that are thought even by the US government to be a danger to health or the environment.
Monsanto Protection Act
5 Terrifying Things To Know About The HR 933 Provision
3/27/13 The "Monsanto Protection Act" is the name opponents of the Farmer Assurance Provision have given to this terrifying piece of policy, and it's a fitting moniker given its shocking content.
President Barack Obama signed a spending bill, HR 933, into law on Tuesday that includes language that has food and consumer advocates and organic farmers up in arms over their contention that the so-called "Monsanto Protection Act" is a giveaway to corporations that was passed under the cover of darkness.
There's a lot being said about it, but here are five terrifying facts about the Farmer Assurance Provision -- Section 735 of the spending bill -- to get you acquainted with the reasons behind the ongoing uproar:
1.) The "Monsanto Protection Act" effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future. The advent of genetically modified seeds -- which has been driven by the massive Monsanto Company -- and their exploding use in farms across America came on fast and has proved a huge boon for Monsanto's profits.
But many anti-GMO folks argue there have not been enough studies into the potential health risks of this new class of crop. Well, now it appears that even if those studies are completed and they end up revealing severe adverse health effects related to the consumption of genetically modified foods, the courts will have no ability to stop the spread of the seeds and the crops they bear.
2.) The provision's language was apparently written in collusion with Monsanto. Lawmakers and companies working together to craft legislation is by no means a rare occurrence in this day and age. But the fact that Sen. Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, actually worked with Monsanto on a provision that in effect allows them to keep selling seeds, which can then go on to be planted, even if it is found to be harmful to consumers, is stunning. It's just another example of corporations bending Congress to their will, and it's one that could have dire risks for public health in America.
3.) Many members of Congress were apparently unaware that the "Monsanto Protection Act" even existed within the bill they were voting on. HR 933 was a spending bill aimed at averting a government shutdown and ensuring that the federal government would continue to be able to pay its bills. But the Center for Food Safety maintains that many Democrats in Congress were not even aware that the provision was in the legislation:
“In this hidden backroom deal, Sen. [Barbara] Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement. “This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Sen. Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.”
4.) The President did nothing to stop it, either. On Tuesday, Obama signed HR 933 while the rest of the nation was fixated on gay marriage, as the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument concerning California's Proposition 8. But just because most of the nation and the media were paying attention to gay marriage doesn't mean that others were not doing their best to express their opposition to the "Monsanto Protection Act." In fact, more than 250,000 voters signed a petition opposing the provision. And Food Democracy Now protesters even took their fight straight to Obama, protesting in front of the White House against Section 735 of the bill. He signed it anyway.
5.) It sets a terrible precedent. Though it will only remain in effect for six months until the government finds another way to fund its operations, the message it sends is that corporations can get around consumer safety protections if they get Congress on their side. Furthermore, it sets a precedent that suggests that court challenges are a privilege, not a right.
“I think any time you tweak with the ability of the public to seek redress from the courts, you create a huge risk,” Seattle attorney Bill Marler -- who has represented victims of foodborne illness in successful lawsuits against corporations -- told the New York Daily News.
New Law Spurs Controversy, Debate Over Genetically Modified Crops
An uproar has erupted on social media platforms in the days following President Obama's signing into law legislation opponents are deriding as the Monsanto Protection Act - but groups disagree about what the real consequences of the bill will be.
The derogatory name for the bill refers to the biotech company, Monsanto, which opponents say lucked out with the measure's passage. Critics see it as a win for peddlers of genetically-modified foods and a danger to farmers and consumers alike.
It passed as part of the continuing resolution whisked through Congress earlier this month to avoid a government shutdown slated for March 27. Obama signed that bill on Tuesday, while many in Washington were preoccupied with the debate over same-sex marriage.
The section of the CR that groups are objecting to - section 735 - dealt with how questionable crops can be regulated. In the event that a seed is approved by the USDA but that approval is challenged by a court ruling, the seed can still be used and sold until the USDA says otherwise, according to that new law.
Before the Blast, West Fertilizer’s Monsanto Lawsuit
As details emerge about the Texas fertilizer plant that was the site of Wednesday’s fatal explosion and fire, a few tidbits can be gleaned from a 2007 lawsuit that the plant’s owners filed against agribusiness giant Monsanto Co. MON +0.80%
The suit, filed as a potential class action in U.S. District Court for the western district of Texas, claimed that Monsanto had artificially inflated prices for its herbicide Roundup through anti-competitive actions. The suit did not relate to storing fertilizer, believed to be at the root of Wednesday’s blast.
The suit was filed by Texas Grain Storage Inc. The company now calls itself West Fertilizer Co.
In the suit, the company said that it was started in 1957 as a grain-storage business by the Plasek family in the town of West, Texas. It later built a small fertilizer-blend plant and started selling fertilizer to area farmers.
Zak Covar, executive director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, told a news conference Wednesday that the fertilizer storage and blending facility had been there since 1962.
In 1970 it started selling other agricultural products, including some from Monsanto, and by 1997 it had struck a deal with Monsanto to directly purchase Roundup each year.
A court filing in 2008 indicated that Texas Grain Storage recently had been sold. Emil Plasek is listed as a former owner.
Texas Grain Storage said it monitored the Roundup, stored in a stainless steel tank, through a telephone connected to the tank, the company said.
Many documents in the case are sealed, and the public documents don’t reveal the names of the plant’s then-current owners. Texas corporation records list the president of the company as Donald R. Adair, and show a business operating as Adair Grain Inc. at the same address.
Texas Grain Storage was represented by roughly 30 lawyers at 12 firms, according to court records. One lawyer who represented Texas Grain said the suit stalled in 2010 after a magistrate judge denied a request to certify the case as a class action. The lawyer said Texas Grain appealed the ruling, and that a district judge has yet to rule on the appeal. The last public filing in the case was in 2010.
Monsanto responded to Texas Grain’s complaint by saying the company didn’t have standing to bring the case and was barred by the statute of limitations. Thursday, a Monsanto spokesman said, “The long dormant lawsuit filed by Texas Grain had nothing to do with fertilizer or the operation of the West, Texas plant.”
Heavy use of herbicide Roundup linked to health dangers-U.S. study
4/25/13 * Study says chemical residues linked to disease
* Roundup developer Monsanto says glyphosate is safe
* Researchers say more study is needed
April 25 (Reuters) - Heavy use of the world's most popular herbicide, Roundup, could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson's, infertility and cancers, according to a new study.
The peer-reviewed report, published last week in the scientific journal Entropy, said evidence indicates that residues of "glyphosate," the chief ingredient in Roundup weed killer, which is sprayed over millions of acres of crops, has been found in food.
Those residues enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease, according to the report, authored by Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant from Arthur D. Little, Inc. Samsel is a former private environmental government contractor as well as a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body," the study says.
We "have hit upon something very important that needs to be taken seriously and further investigated," Seneff said.
Environmentalists, consumer groups and plant scientists from several countries have warned that heavy use of glyphosate is causing problems for plants, people and animals.
The EPA is conducting a standard registration review of glyphosate and has set a deadline of 2015 for determining if glyphosate use should be limited. The study is among many comments submitted to the agency.
Monsanto is the developer of both Roundup herbicide and a suite of crops that are genetically altered to withstand being sprayed with the Roundup weed killer.
These biotech crops, including corn, soybeans, canola and sugarbeets, are planted on millions of acres in the United States annually. Farmers like them because they can spray Roundup weed killer directly on the crops to kill weeds in the fields without harming the crops.
Roundup is also popularly used on lawns, gardens and golf courses.
Monsanto and other leading industry experts have said for years that glyphosate is proven safe, and has a less damaging impact on the environment than other commonly used chemicals.
Jerry Steiner, Monsanto's executive vice president of sustainability, reiterated that in a recent interview when questioned about the study.
"We are very confident in the long track record that glyphosate has. It has been very, very extensively studied," he said.
Of the more than two dozen top herbicides on the market, glyphosate is the most popular. In 2007, as much as 185 million pounds of glyphosate was used by U.S. farmers, double the amount used six years ago, according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data.
FLU * H1N1 * H5N1 * H7N9
GMO crops linked to deadly flu, page 2
Indiana Farmer Loses Battle Against Monsanto
By Ariane de Vogue | ABC News – 5/13/13
The Supreme Court ruled today against a 76-year-old Indiana farmer who had taken on Monsanto in a patent dispute over a genetically modified soybean seed.
"The question in this case," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a unanimous court, "is whether a farmer who buys patented seeds may reproduce them through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission. We hold that he may not."
Monsanto developed the seed that is resistant to a powerful weed killer called Roundup.
Farmers pay a premium price for the seeds and enter into the contract with the company promising to buy new seeds for subsequent planting seasons. Monsanto makes the requirement in order to protect the company's investment and its patented technology. The seed is now used for more than 90 percent of soybeans grown in the United States.
Vernon Bowman has purchased the seed for years for his first crop and abided by the technology agreement. But for a more risky, second-crop planting later in the season, Bowman didn't want to invest in the expensive soy bean.
Second plantings are susceptible to the dangers of a short growing time and the threat of drought. He decided to take a risk and buy a mix of unlabeled seed from the local grain elevator hoping that most of it would be Roundup resistant. After harvesting that crop, he would save the progeny and replant it in the late 1990s.
Lawyers for Bowman argued in court that Monsanto's patent was exhausted after the first sale.
Monsanto sued the farmer in 2007. (cont.)
U.S. Senate overwhelmingly rejected Sanders’ proposal to label GMO foods
The Vermont House of Representatives was the first legislative body in the nation to move ahead with a proposal requiring the labeling of all genetically engineered foods this spring, and a number of other states are considering labeling legislation, but it looks like a congressional mandate could be a long way off.
Monsanto, a company that has been in the forefront of genetic modification of food, has threatened to sue Vermont over the legislation.
The U.S. Senate rejected an amendment from Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., last week that would have put a similar requirement in place nationwide. The vote was 27-71.
“Monsanto and other major corporations should not get to decide this, the people and their elected representatives should,” Sanders said in a statement.
Monsanto’s Contributions to US House and Senate Candidates
29 May 2013 The amounts allocated under official provisions to candidates in support of their House or Senate election campaign are by no means large.
What is striking, however, is that the contributions are spread out and include a large number of both Republicans and Democrats.
Many more listed here and a graph
Whoever wins, Monsanto has the support of the White House, the Senate and the House, not to mention key appoints in the US Department of Agriculture (USDA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). “While there are numerous points of overlap between Monsanto and the United States Government under the Obama administration, the three most important connections are that of Michael Taylor, Roger, Beachy, and Islam Siddiqui—all three of these Monsanto affiliates were appointed to high level positions within the government by the Obama administration.”
For further details see the incisive article by Josh Sager Monsanto Controls both-the-White House and the US Congress
Total to Democrats: $72,000
Total to Republicans: $190,500
Barrow, John (D-GA) $2,500
Bishop, Sanford (D-GA) $5,000
Boehner, John (R-OH) $10,000
Braley, Bruce (D-IA) $5,000
Camp, Dave (R-MI) $5,000
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) $10,000
Clay, William L Jr (D-MO) $10,000
Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO) $5,000
Conaway, Mike (R-TX) $2,000
Courtney, Joe (D-CT) $4,500
Crawford, Rick (R-AR) $2,500
Fincher, Steve (R-TN) $8,000
Gardner, Cory (R-CO) $7,500
Goodlatte, Bob (R-VA $4,500
Huelskamp, Tim (R-KS) $2,500
Hultgren, Randy (R-IL) $2,500
Jenkins, Lynn (R-KS) $2,500
Johnson, Timothy (R-IL) $3,000
King, Steven A (R-IA) $2,500
Latham, Tom (R-IA) $10,000
Total to Democrats: $37,500
Total to Republicans: $85,000
Akin, Todd (R-MO) $3,500
Baucus, Max (D-MT) $1,000
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA) $5,000
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA) $2,000
Hatch, Orrin G (R-UT $5,000
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) $1,000
Lugar, Richard G (R-IN $3,000
McCaskill, Claire (D-MO) $5,000
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) $10,000
Moran, Jerry (R-KS) $2,500
Non-Approved Genetically Modified Wheat Found In Oregon Field, Says USDA
The Agriculture Department said Wednesday that a non-approved strain of genetically engineered wheat has been discovered in an Oregon field, a potential threat to trade with other countries that have concerns about genetically modified foods.
Dr. Michael Firko of the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service said a farmer discovered the genetically modified plants on his farm and contacted Oregon State University, which notified USDA early this month.
There is no genetically engineered wheat currently approved for U.S. farming. USDA officials said the wheat is the same strain as a genetically modified wheat that was legally tested by seed giant Monsanto a decade ago but never approved. Monsanto stopped testing that product in Oregon and several other states in 2005.
The USDA said the genetically engineered wheat is safe to eat, but the department is investigating how it ended up in the field, whether there was any criminal wrongdoing and whether its growth is widespread.
The Oregon Department of Agriculture said the field is in Eastern Oregon. USDA officials declined to speculate whether the modified seeds blew into the field from a testing site or if they were somehow planted or taken there, and they would not identify the farmer or the farm's location.
The discovery could have far-reaching implications for the U.S. wheat industry if the growth of the engineered product turns out to be widespread. Many countries around the world will not accept imports of genetically modified foods, and organic foods sold in the United States cannot be engineered by law.
Organic companies have expressed frequent concern that genetically modified seed will blow into their farms and contaminate their products.
USDA said this is the only report it has received of a genetically engineered wheat.
"Even so, we are taking this very seriously," Firko said.
Monsanto / MERS-CoV Grave Threat to World
The entire world is faced with an extreme threat from genetically modified mutant plants created by the American Monsanto.
This threatens our planets entire food supply and has been linked to
MERS-CoV, the deadly respiratory syndrome coronavirus.
Monsanto crops linked to mysterious deaths in Alabama from GM cotton plants.
Putin ordered the Russian military to over flying the United States to detect how widespread these GM crops have become.
(They are EVERYWHERE, and part of the reason Obama killed Libya leader Kdaffy and wants Assad OUT. Both prevented poison GM in their nations.)
Oddly, the Russian plane began its final flight over the Gulf of Mexico but was thwarted by an anomalous radar blob event.
The radar blob was chaff dropped from American military aircraft.
Alabama croplands are a widespread and unfolding disaster. Americas most vital growing regions of wheat appear to be inundated with illegal genetically modified wheat.
Monsanto mutant wheat plants is linked to the mysterious outbreak of the MERS-CoV virus that the World Health Organization warned is a threat to the entire world.
Dutch scientists at the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands patented this deadly MERS-CoV virus and refused anyone else from examining it.
Monsanto and DuPont are tied to the Netherlands Erasmus University
The world court is in the Netherlands. Some of this article is probably true, a few facts may be altered. Is MERS-Cov the virus accident in China?
The Dutch queen Beatrix who retired in 2013 is a Bilderberg member.
Apocalypse Slams Into America, Few Notice
Monsanto poisoning populations, read n learn
March Against Monsanto
GMO Food Fight! STOP MONSANTO!
FLU * H1N1 * H5N1 * H7N9
Monsanto Hid Its GMO Wheat Where No One Would Find It: In a Field
Stephen Colbert has solved the zombie wheat mystery: After it scrapped its GMO wheat program a decade ago, Monsanto, “another defenseless multinational,” destroyed all tested material. Then, just to be sure no one would find it, “they buried that wheat in the middle of a field.”
For its part, Monsanto recently suggested in an Associated Press story (not the realm of satire) that GMO activists could have been behind the mysterious crop. “We’re considering all options and that’s certainly one of the options,” Robb Fraley, the company’s chief technology officer, said of the possibility of sabotage.
Colbert seems to agree: “We all know Monsanto is the real victim here,” since it will likely face prosecution over the zombie wheat. Instead of holding the company accountable for the presence of the plants, Colbert says that someone should ask the wheat where it came from—“at this point it can probably talk.”
To wit, a farmer in Kansas has filed the first lawsuit related to the incident, which seeks to recoup revenue lost due to the fact that the discovery of the unapproved plants drove down wheat prices and led export partners like Japan to cancel orders.
One of the farmer’s attorneys, Warren Burns, told the Associated Press, “The scope of the damage is potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars.”
Human Genes Engineered Into Experimental GMO Rice Being Grown in Kansas
Unless the rice you buy is certified organic, or comes specifically from a farm that tests its rice crops for genetically modified (GM) traits, you could be eating rice tainted with actual human genes. The only known GMO with inbred human traits in cultivation today, a GM rice product made by biotechnology company Ventria Bioscience is currently being grown on 3,200 acres in Junction City, Kansas -- and possibly elsewhere -- and most people have no idea about it.
Since about 2006,Ventria has been quietly cultivating rice that has been genetically modified (GM) with genes from the human liver for the purpose of taking the artificial proteins produced by this "Frankenrice" and using them in pharmaceuticals. With approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),Ventria has taken one of the most widely cultivated grain crops in the world today, and essentially turned it into a catalyst for producing new drugs.
Originally, the cultivation of this GM rice, which comes in three approved varieties (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/biotech_ea_permits.html), was limited to the laboratory setting. But in 2007,Ventriadecided to bring the rice outdoors. The company initially tried to plant the crops in Missouri, but met resistance fromAnheuser-Buschand others, which threatened to boycott all rice from the state in the event that Ventria began planting its rice within state borders (http://todayyesterdayandtomorrow.wordpress.com).
So Ventria's GM rice eventually ended up in Kansas, where it is presumably still being grown for the purpose of manufacturing drugs on 3,200 acres in Junction City. And while this GM rice with added human traits has never been approved for human consumption, it is now being cultivated in open fields where the potential for unrestrained contamination and spread of its unwanted, dangerous GM traits is virtually a given.
To be frank, these things are what give me that "be ye angry and sin not..." feeling, b/c these same states that are fighting for social conservative issues like anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, and in some cases Obamacare are pretty much the same ones that are quietly allowing evil Monsanto to have their ways.
It's as if they're quietly admitting fighting for these socially conservative issues is nothing more than a smokescreen and an illusion on their part...
North Carolina Law Would Make It Illegal to Expose Monsanto
(Will Potter) Two million people in 52 countries marched against Monsanto last week in protest of genetically-modified food and in support of consumer choice. There’s international pressure on this GMO giant like never before.
But proposed legislation in North Carolina would make it illegal for whistleblowers to expose how Monsanto and other corporations are threatening public health and the environment.
North Carolina’s SB 648 is appropriately named the “Commerce Protection Act.” The bill makes it illegal to obtain employment in order to “create or produce a record that reproduces an image or sound occurring within the employer’s facility, including a photographic, video, or audio” or “to capture or remove data, paper, records, or any other documents…”
It goes on to say that “any recording made or information obtained… shall be turned over to local law enforcement within 24 hours.”
The proposal is one of a dozen “ag-gag” bills that have been introduced across the country this year. Tennessee’s Governor Bill Haslam recently vetoed a similar proposal after a national outcry from groups like the Humane Society, ACLU, labor unions, the Sierra Club, and others.
Most recently Amnesty International called the bills an affront to human rights:
|“What at first might appear to be exclusively an animal abuse issue is, on closer inspection, clearly also a freedom of expression issue, a workers’ rights issue, an environmental issue and a public health issue,” said Vienna Colucci, Director of Policy at Amnesty International USA. “And this is why such a diverse coalition has come together to oppose ‘ag-gag’ bills.” |
And on top of that, the first ag-gag prosecution in the nation was a complete failure after it became a public relations disaster.
Not surprisingly, supporters of SB 648 in North Carolina are trying to run away from this failing trend, and say that the bill is not “ag-gag.” As I’ve discussed at length previously, that’s a complete lie. This bill has all the toxic provisions as other ag-gag proposals, and it was introduced on the same day Butterball workers pleaded guilty to animal cruelty after being exposed by undercover investigators.
The Chamber of Commerce issued a press release yesterday that said the bill is not ”ag-gag” because “an ag-gag bill focuses solely on the agriculture industry.”
On that point, the Chamber is absolutely correct. This bill is not limited to factory farms and slaughterhouses. It’s much worse than that. Just as Indiana’s ag-gag bill criminalized anyone who exposed fracking, this North Carolina bill is so broad that it includes allindustries.
This is the evolution of “ag-gag.” These bills are not just about protecting Big Ag, they are about shielding all corporations from public accountability and oversight. And that’s a proposal that Monsanto and countless other corporations would love to see become law.
|BornAgain2 wrote: |
|The proposal is one of a dozen “ag-gag” bills that have been introduced across the country this year. Tennessee’s Governor Bill Haslam recently vetoed a similar proposal after a national outcry from groups like the Humane Society, ACLU, labor unions, the Sierra Club, and others.
Most recently Amnesty International called the bills an affront to human rights:
So if I understand this correctly, among the protagonists are the Humane Society, ACLU, labor unions, the Sierra Club, and Amnesty International?
Uhm...definitely the LAST people to ally with, especially Amnesty International - looks like the Monsanto minions have setup the other side of the Hegelian Dialectic/controlled opposition in this one!
GMO Food Toxins Linked To Anemia And Other Blood Disorders
Fruits and vegetables have been genetically modified since the mid-1990s. The genetic modification started with tomatoes, and then slowly permeated animals like cattle, dairy, and other edible plants.
Often, crops are genetically modified to improve their durability or their ability to grow under adverse conditions like poor weather. Plants can also be modified to naturally avert insects who may eat them before they can be harvested and sold to consumers. While these modifications are useful and protect farmer's crops and guarantee consumers particular fruits and vegetables regardless of natural hindrances, could they cause harm to humans?
Plants are often genetically modified to make a molecule called endotoxin. This toxin keeps pests from attacking a plant and eating it before it's ready to harvest. However, in a new study where mice were fed endotoxin, researchers found that even the smallest, and once deemed safe, doses of the toxin appeared to cause harmful immune reactions. The researchers looked at the mouse's immune responses, discovering that many changes occurred to only its blood but no other organ.
Researchers looked at immune reactions in the exposed mice after one, three, and seven days. They found that after one day, the mouse's blood contained many inflammation-inducing molecules. These inflammatory molecules were not localized to anywhere in particular, indicating that the blood was rejecting the toxin and the immune system was sending out molecules to mark it for immune attack. By the third day, the level of inflammatory agents in the blood had significantly increased, further indicating that the toxin was creating a negative effect in the mice, even at a small dose.
Read more at http://www.medicaldaily.com/artic...-disorder.htm#LlBLd7zIewL3eDSR.99
Push For Genetic Modification Of Living Things Grows
The environment secretary was renewing the push for widespread use of genetically modified (GM) crops today, nearly a decade after it was effectively ruled out across the EU. Owen Paterson will warn that the UK and Europe risk being left behind because of their aversion to the technology and that it could help cure medical ailments as well as alleviate world hunger. "At the moment, Europe is missing out," Paterson will say. "While the rest of the world is ploughing ahead and reaping the benefits of the new technologies, Europe risks being left behind." Paterson will suggest that GM technology could be as transformative as the agricultural revolution and is entirely safe for human consumption.
40 Tons of GMO Crops TORCHED in America, Media Blackout
Though the controlled corporate media apparatus is suppressing the story, 40 tons of GMO crops were torched, prompting an FBI investigation. There has been a COMPLETE MEDIA BLACKOUT, outside of local circles has dared to mention it, perhaps because government fears that if the public learns that other people are getting fighting mad (literally), they might join in, and become an actual revolution. It was only reported locally live on KXL Radio and echoed by the Oregonian, where the ONLY web mention exists, hard to find because the headline wording is carefully avoids the most likely keywords for a search.
Here’s what happened — 40 Tons of GMO Sugar Beets were set ablaze in Eastern Oregon, yesterday. FORTY TONS — the entire acreage of two full fields of crops IN THE GROUND were set ablaze over a THREE NIGHT PERIOD OF TIME. That means ARSON.
Evidence is that 6,500 plants were destroyed BY HAND, ONE PLANT AT A TIME. That, in turn, implies A LOT OF PEOPLE were involved: would you want to stick around once a fire was going and wait to be discovered? No, someone (many someones) probably wanted to move as quickly as possible. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A MOVEMENT, a kind of ORGANIZED REVOLT — and this is exactly the kind of retribution that many have warned was coming; when lawmakers and corporations refuse to honor the Constitution and instead engage in ‘legalized’ criminal acts such as enabled by the ‘Monsanto Protection Act.’
More than decade ago, environmental saboteurs vandalized experimental crops across the country in a revolt against high-tech agriculture. Foes of genetic engineering also struck in 2000, when members of the Earth Liberation Front, with roots in Oregon, set fire to agriculture offices at Michigan State University. ELF’s position was that genetic engineering was “one of the many threats to the natural world as we know it.”
But ELF cells normally come forward immediately to claim responsibility, because to them, its all about publicity to educate the public. Since there has been no statement about the recent arson this may have simply been Oregon Farmers who have said, ‘Enough!’ Another clue that may be the case is that this comes on the heels (two weeks) of Japan’s rejection of the entire Oregon Wheat crop for the year (a tremendous financial blow because over 80% of Oregon Wheat is exported) because ONE report said ONE field was contaminated with at least ONE GMO plant.
Read more at http://www.newssum.com/40-tons-of...-blackout-147#m6wDs96R0kdv7CIB.99
Monsanto Gives Up on Pushing GMOs in Europe
24 Jul 2013 Big Ag stalwart Monsanto announced last week that it is abandoning its efforts to seek approval from European regulators for new GMO crops.
The ferocity of anti-GMO sentiment in Europe—where several countries have banned GMO crop cultivation—combined by the multi-step regulatory process put in place by EU lawmakers, proved to be simply too cumbersome for Monsanto.
According to Nature, the approval of new GMO crops has been frozen for years in Europe because crops must first be deemed safe by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) before being voted on by the European Commission. EFSA is made up of bureaucrats, while the Commission is composed of political representatives of EU member states. Those politicians have taken a look at public outcry against GMOs and have sat on any new GMO decisions, essentially halting the approval process.
Monsanto will still seek reapproval for one GMO crop—MON810 corn—which is already grown in Europe, but will abandon all of its other applications.
Instead, Nature reports that the company will focus on its push to get GMO crops approved for import into Europe as animal feed.
Scientists discover what's killing the bees and it's worse than you thought
As we've written before, the mysterious mass die-off of honey bees that pollinate $30 billion worth of crops in the US has so decimated America's apis mellifera population that one bad winter could leave fields fallow. Now, a new study has pinpointed some of the probable causes of bee deaths and the rather scary results show that averting beemageddon will be much more difficult than previously thought.
Scientists had struggled to find the trigger for so-called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) that has wiped out an estimated 10 million beehives, worth $2 billion, over the past six years. Suspects have included pesticides, disease-bearing parasites and poor nutrition.
But in a first-of-its-kind study published today in the journal PLOS ONE, scientists at the University of Maryland and the US Department of Agriculture have indentified a witch's brew of pesticides and fungicides contaminating pollen that bees collect to feed their hives. The findings break new ground on why large numbers of bees are dying though they do not identify the specific cause of CCD, where an entire beehive dies at once.
When researchers collected pollen from hives on the east coast pollinating cranberry, watermelon and other crops and fed it to healthy bees, those bees showed a significant decline in their ability to resist infection by a parasite called Nosema ceranae. The parasite has been implicated in Colony Collapse Disorder though scientists took pains to point out that their findings do not directly link the pesticides to CCD. The pollen was contaminated on average with nine different pesticides and fungicides though scientists discovered 21 agricultural chemicals in one sample. Scientists identified eight ag chemicals associated with increased risk of infection by the parasite.
29 Jul 2013 The £250,000 hamburger: First test tube-grown beef will be served in London restaurant this week
The artificial burger will be cooked and served for the first time this week
It cost in the region of £250,000 to produce the prototype
The 5oz beef burger is grown from the stem cells of one cow
Creator Professor Mark Post believes the development could help solve problems in the meat industry.
The world’s first test-tube burger will be served in London next week. It is made from meat grown in a laboratory, rather than cattle raised in pastures.
And its developers hope it will show how the soaring global demand for protein can be met without the need for vast herds of cattle.
The 5oz ‘Frankenburger’, which cost £250,000 to produce, is made from 3,000 tiny strips of meat grown from the stem cells of a cow.
The raw meat is said to be grey with a slippery texture similar to squid or scallop.
GMO companies launch website to fight anti-biotech movement
August 2013 A group of biotech seed companies on Monday launched an online forum to combat mounting opposition to genetically modified foods among consumer groups and activists.
The website, www.GMOAnswers.com, is designed as a "central online resource" for information on genetically modified organisms and their use in agriculture and food production, the Biotechnology Industry Organization said.
The website is backed in part by Monsanto , DuPont , Dow AgroSciences, a unit of Dow Chemical, and other companies whose products include seeds that have been genetically altered in ways the companies say improve food production.
The website launch is part of a broad campaign by the biotech industry to try to beat back growing calls for GMO food labeling and for tighter regulation of the biotech seed industry in the United States. European opposition to GMOs is so strong that Monsanto this month said it would withdraw all pending requests to grow new types of GMO crops.
GMO Corn Ban Lifted in France
So much for the vision of a GMO-free Europe: Following Monsanto’s announcement that it would no longer seek approval to grow new crops in the EU, France’s Council of State court overturned a ban the government placed on the company’s MON 810 corn in 2012.
Unlike the Round-Up resistant corn that’s so commonly planted in the United State, MON 810 is designed to excrete a toxin that’s poisonous to insects. So if any European corn borers take a bite out of stalk or ear, they die. The variety was approved for commercial planting in Europe back in 1998, but France and five other countries—Austria, Hungary, Greece, Luxembourg and Germany—enacted their own bans.
What to Eat When You’re Broke
Crickets or Cultured Beef Anyone? 5 Proteins of the Future
By Danielle Gould | Forbes – Mon, Aug 26, 2013 10:04 AM EDT
As global demand for meat increases, it's clear that future protein production will require incredible innovation. Our global population is set to reach 9 billion by 2050, and both demand for meat and meat prices are expected to double concurrently. Given these trends, researchers project that it will be impossible to fill bellies all over the world via traditional meat production.
The good news is that scientists and entrepreneurs — backed by venture capital funds like Kleiner Perkins, Khosla Ventures and Founders Fund — are now developing more sustainable, healthier and cheaper protein alternatives. Do crickets, mealworms, or lab-grown burgers sound appetizing? Maybe not today, but read on to find out how these protein innovators hope to change your mind and catapult a more sustainable food supply chain. And check out the video from the Food Startups Future of Protein Meetup below.
Cultured-beef gained notoriety with the bite heard round the world — the first public tasting of Mark Post's $300,000, Google founder backed, lab-grown burger in early August. Today, nearly 1/5 of all greenhouse gases come from industrial livestock production and roughly two thousand gallons of water go into a single pound of industrial beef. But a new study from Oxford University found that lab-grown meat would require just one percent of the land and four percent of the water of traditional livestock production. Post sees cultured beef as just one of many "radical transformations of production methods [that] are required to keep up with global doubling of demand in the decades to come." But while the first burger has been ketchup smeared and met with mixed reviews, commercially produced lab-grown burgers are at least a decade away. Post and his supporters must now shift the focus towards producing lab-grow meat in a more efficient and cost-effective way to promote wide-spread consumption and environmental impact. Check out Post's contribution to our Hacking Meat conversation.
Founded in 2012 to address the global market for entomophagy, Tiny Farms wants you to eat bugs. While they may not be popular in the United States, over 2 billion people worldwide use insects as a food ingredient. Tiny Farms aims to capitalize on the United Nations Food and Agricultural Administration stance that insects could be key to providing enough food for the word's growing population by replacing traditional meat production with more energy, space and time-efficient insect production. Still in its larva stage, the company is tackling the practical (people don't equate creepy crawly with dinner) and regulatory (food safety) obstacles that insect agriculture will face. In the future, it will supply the technology, training and expertise to scale edible bug production. Tiny Farms also hopes to eventually create retail products, such as mealworm brittle, and infiltrate the supply chain by providing restaurants with crunchy recipes and bug-based know-how.
HAMPTON CREEK FOODS
"Where doing good actually tastes good," Hampton Creek Foods aims to wean the world off of animal-based products by creating cheaper, healthier and more delicious replacements. Its first product, Beyond Eggs is a plant-based replacement for eggs to be used in baked goods (not just on its own). However, its second product is a plant-based replacement for good old-fashioned scrambled eggs. The company hopes that by developing "functionally superior" alternatives that are even cheaper than industrial eggs, it will be able to convince both corporate food giants and every day consumers to make the switch. But changing consumer perception will not be easy--would you be willing to supplement your morning yolk-filled ritual with plant-based powder? Hampton Creek Foods has raised a total of $4.5 million from Khosla, Founders Fund, Kat Taylor and the Collaborative Fund to date.
Exo wants you to trade in your cliff bars for cricket bars. This month, the company successfully raised over $46,000 on Kickstarter, more than doubling its pledged amount. With the money they raise, the team hopes to build a factory that churns out the bug-based bars for the masses. “Exo will introduce to the West one of the most nutritious and sustainable protein sources in the world: insects," reads its website. By combining cricket flour (slow roasted and milled crickets) with other organic additions like raw cacao, dates, almond butter and coconut, the company has created a low sugar, gluten, soy and dairy free, nutrient rich bar, packed with more protein than beef. Riding on the coat tails of the date-based, General Mills-acquired, Lara Bar, Exo hopes to convince mainstream consumers to go one step further and reach for the cricket-laden snack when their next work-out induced protein craving hits.
This meal alternative shake is designed to supply a person's daily nutritional needs and can be customized based on an individual's body type and personal goals. Initially developed by Rob Reinhart, of Y-Combinator backed Level RF, as a low-cost personal food hack, Soylent recently raised $1 million in pre-orders through its Indigogo campaign. Costing $65 for a week's supply, the shake is made of starch, whey protein, olive oil, and raw chemicals and contains a plethora of carbs, amino acids, proteins and vitamins. The product's aim is not to supply an alternative for every meal, but rather to replace those meals that we don't really care about. Until now the company has had 50 Beta testers, but it plans to ship 140,000 orders in September, reports TechCrunch.
‘Monsanto Protection Act’ quietly extended by Congress
Published time: September 12, 2013 02:23
Edited time: September 13, 2013 10:37
A budget provision protecting genetically-modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks was extended for three months in an approved US House of Representatives’ spending bill on Tuesday evening.
Called “The Monsanto Protection Act” by opponents, the budget rider shields biotech behemoths like Monsanto, Cargill and others from the threat of lawsuits and bars federal courts from intervening to force an end to the sale of a GMO (genetically-modified organism) even if the genetically-engineered product causes damaging health effects.
The biotech rider first made news in March when it was a last-minute addition to the successfully-passed House Agriculture Appropriations Bill for 2013, a short-term funding bill that was approved to avoid a federal government shutdown.
The current three-month extension is part of the short-term FY14 Continuing Resolution spending bill.
The Center for Food Safety, a vocal opponent of the rider, released a statement expressing dismay that the measure once again avoided proper legislative process while usurping the power to challenge GMO products in court.
“The rider represents an unprecedented attack on US judicial review, which is an essential element of US law and provides a critical check on government decisions that may negatively impact human health, the environment or livelihoods,” they wrote. “This also raises potential jurisdictional concerns with the Senate Agriculture and Judiciary Committees that merited hearings by the Committees before its consideration.”
Following the original vote in March, President Barack Obama signed the provision into law as part of larger legislation to avoid a government shutdown. Rallies took place worldwide in May protesting the clandestine effort to protect the powerful companies from judicial scrutiny.
“It is extremely disappointing to see the damaging ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ policy rider extended in the House spending bill,” said Colin O’Neil, director of government affairs for Center for Food Safety. “Hundreds of thousands of Americans called their elected officials to voice their frustration and disappointment over the inclusion of ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ this past spring. Its inclusion is a slap in the face to the American public and our justice system.”
Largely as a result of prior lawsuits, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is required to complete environmental impact statements (EIS) to assess risk prior to both the planting and sale of GMO crops. The extent and effectiveness to which the USDA exercises this rule is in itself a source of serious dispute.
The reviews have been the focus of heated debate between food safety advocacy groups and the biotech industry in the past. In December of 2009, for example, Food Democracy Now collected signatures during the EIS commenting period in a bid to prevent the approval of Monsanto’s GMO alfalfa, which many feared would contaminate organic feed used by dairy farmers; it was approved regardless.
The biotech rider “could override any court-mandated caution and could instead allow continued planting. Further, it forces USDA to approve permits for such continued planting immediately, putting industry completely in charge by allowing for a ‘back door approval’ mechanism,” the Center for Food Safety said.
Are GMO foods making you sick?
Posted on September 5, 2013 by Heather Morgan
Americans have been consuming genetically modified foods for nearly 30 years. But now, as more scientific studies begin to surface, both scientists and consumers are starting to question the effects of GMO’s on our health. From severe allergies, cancer, and yes, even weight gain, concerns regarding the effects of GM foods are triggering a closer look.
The concern about GMOs is related mainly to “Bt” toxins, which are toxins produced by a particular bacteria and genetic modification has given crops the ability to make the toxins themselves. Research has shown that the Bt toxins actually get into our blood stream.
It was originally thought that Bt toxins could not survive the digestive process, now there is proof it does not.
So what do Bt toxins do to our health? Well, studies are underway in determining just how much these toxins are affecting us, but meanwhile, we are lab rats whether we like it or not.
There are things you can do, however, to protect yourself from potentially harmful affects of GM foods such as eating organic foods, shopping at food stores that care about your health, such as Whole Foods and Trader Joes, and avoid processed, packaged, fast and most institution foods. I also suggest shopping locally so you can talk to your farmers, ask questions, and support organic farming practices.
As of 2011, up to 88 percent of the corn planted in the United States, and 94 percent of the soybeans, are genetically modified. According to the Non-GMO Project:
“In 30 other countries around the world, Including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production of GMO’s, because they are not considered proven safe. In the U.S., on the other hand, the FDA approved commercial production of GMOs based on studies conducted by the companies who created them and profit from their sale.”
Unfortunately, today we must know where our food comes from. Don’t be afraid to ask questions at your local food store, local restaurants, and farmers markets.
You can also get involved with political movements in support of labeling GM foods. One of my favorite organizations is called the Non-GMO Project. Find them on the internet and sign up to stay informed. The implications of GM foods on health are looking serious enough to warrant public demands for answers. You CAN avoid GM foods by shopping at farmers markets. Whole Foods and Trader Joes, and mostly by getting informed and eating local and organic.
Check out the Non-GMO Project today and learn more about how you can avoid GM foods and their effect on your health.
Will Monsanto Destroy Another Crop?
By Rich Duprey | More Articles
September 22, 2013 | Comments (37)
The U.S. wheat industry was nearly brought to its knees after the discovery of a genetically modified strain Monsanto (NYSE: MON ) had tested years ago was inexplicably found growing in an Oregon farmer's field. Because most of the rest of the world rejects GM wheat and the wheat from the Pacific Northwest is mostly targeted for export, the ramifications of the discovery were massive.
Now it's deja vu all over again. A Washington State farmer had his alfalfa crop rejected by a broker after it tested positive for the presence of genetic modification. The implications for this recurrence are just as profound as they were for wheat.
Several countries immediately imposed bans on the import of U.S. wheat and an investigation that's still ongoing was launched to figure out how a strain of genetically modified wheat that Monsanto said it completely destroyed except for the small amount the U.S. government supposedly has under lock and key in its vaults made it into the wild.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, alfalfa, with a value of around $8 billion, is the fourth-most widely grown field crop in the country, surpassed only by corn, wheat, and soybeans. Alfalfa hay, which the Washington farmer was selling, is a valuable export and hit a record high of $1.25 billion last year. Washington is one of the country's largest export alfalfa producers.
Like the runaway wheat strain, the tainted alfalfa was found to contain the genetic presence of the Round-Up Ready trait. That's the powerful and deadly herbicide that kills any plant life its sprayed on unless Monsanto has rejiggered its genetic code to withstand its onslaught. You can spray the herbicide on Round-Up Ready seed all day long, and it will still grow because of its genetic modification.
The only difference between alfalfa incident and the wheat one earlier this year is the U.S. government permits farmers to grow genetically modified alfalfa; it prohibits GM wheat from being grown because of the global opposition to it.
And that highlights one of the biggest risks opponents of GM foods have pointed out: once you start growing a genetically modified crop, you can't protect non-GM fields from being contaminated. One farmer can grow GM alfalfa -- or corn or soybeans -- and another across the road can choose not to, but wind and bees can can cause the fields to be cross-pollinated, and the non-GM farmer is left without recourse.
The episode raises some far-reaching fears. Farmers now are at risk if they practice the time-honored tradition of seed saving, and not just here, but all around the globe. DuPont (NYSE: DD ) just acquired South Africa's largest seed company that owns a large storehouse of maize germplasm, one of the most important crops on the continent where Monsanto already owns 50% of the market. Once they start accepting GM seed, they'll quickly learn they're no longer allowed to save it as the chemical giants own the food chain.
Not only should alfalfa farmers be worried because many countries including China don't allow any imports of GM crops, but alfalfa hay might not be able to be fed to domestic livestock because the introduction of GM contaminants can ruin their sales. And no just of beef, but organic dairy and other animal-based products. Monsanto says all is well as other importers like United Arab Emirates, have no restrictions on genetically modified crops and negotiations are under way with China too.
Once again the livelihood of farmers is being threatened by the pursuit of Monsanto to expand its reach over agriculture. We continue to be assured there's no harm to come from eating GM food,s but we are continuously reminded why such foods need to be labeled at a minimum.
As this looks like it's going to become a recurring nightmare for our nations farmers, let's all take bets on which crop will be next to threaten their futures and put the country's economy at risk, all for Monsanto and the biotech industry's benefit.
Insects and birds carry pollens distances.
Good crops are infected.
That was always The Plan
Whole Foods Market whistleblower says employees were deliberately trained to lie about GMOs - new Organic Spies video
A new video from the group calling itself "Organic Spies" is once again rocking the organic food industry. In the video, a woman who identifies herself as a former employee of Whole Foods Market (WFM) testifies that she and other employees were deliberately trained by Whole Foods Market management to lie to store customers about whether the stores carry foods made with genetically engineered ingredients (GMOs).
According to this female whistleblower, whose identity is concealed for her protection, Whole Foods Market employees were deliberately instructed to lie to customers as part of their employee training. The denial of GMOs being sold in Whole Foods stores was an integral part of the training of employees, she explains:
When we first started, we had a "Day One and a Day Two, and they teach us about the core values of Whole Foods Market, the core values of nothing's artificial, everything's natural... When I first started at Whole Foods, I didn't know what a GMO was. I had no idea what it was. They taught us what it was, and how Whole Foods Market did not carry GMOs.
So if a customer would have came up to me and said, do you guys have anything with GMOs? Does this product contain GMOs? [I would have said] absolutely not. Does not contain GMOs. Because we were taught that we don't carry anything with GMOs, only natural, nothing artificial.
Whistleblower confirmed as former Whole Foods employee
According to Organic Spies, Whole Foods Market deliberately taught employees to lie to customers about GMOs for a five-year period, spanning 2007 - 2011.
The Organic Spies group claims to have evidence of this from multiple Whole Foods Market stores in several major cities across the United States.
Organic Spies further claims that Whole Foods top executives were fully aware that low-level employees were being deliberately trained to lie to customers about GMOs. This claim is denied by Whole Foods Market (see below).
As part of the due diligence conducted by Natural News, I personally saw documents that appear to confirm this whistleblower was a former employee of Whole Foods. I also spoke with her by phone and was able to confirm that she speaks with what appears to be specialized knowledge that would not normally be known by someone who had not been an actual employee of Whole Foods.
Here's an image from the video, depicting this whistleblower:
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042144..._whistleblower.html#ixzz2fnzniCea
Flour Made From Insects Will Feed Underfed Populations
Chew on this. A team of MBA students were the recipients of the 2013 Hult Prize earlier this week, providing them with $1 million in seed money to produce an insect-based, protein-rich flour for feeding malnourished populations in other countries. The product is called Power Flour. "It's a huge deal because we had a very ambitious but highly executable five-year plan in place," said team captain Mohammed Ashour, whose team hails from McGill University in Montreal. "So winning this prize is a great step in that direction." Ashour, along with teammates Shobhita Soor, Jesse Pearlstein, Zev Thompson and Gabe Mott, will be immediately working with an advisory board to recruit farmers and workers in Mexico, where a population of roughly 4 million live in slum conditions with widespread malnutrition. "We will be starting with grasshoppers," Ashour said.
Battle Over Genetically Altered Crops In Hawaii
8 Oct 2013 The balmy tropical isles here seem worlds apart from the expansive cornfields of the Midwest, but Hawaii has become the latest battleground in the fight over genetically modified crops.
The state has become a hub for the development of genetically engineered corn and other crops that are sold to farmers around the globe. Monsanto and other seed companies have moved here en masse, and corn now sprouts on thousands of acres where sugar cane or pineapples once grew.
But activists opposed to biotech crops have joined with residents who say the corn farms expose them to dust and pesticides, and they are trying to drive the companies away, or at least rein them in.
The companies counter that their operations are safe and that the industry is essential to Hawaii’s economy.
In the last two weeks, legislative committees on the islands of Kauai and Hawaii have approved proposed ordinances that would restrict the ability of the seed companies to operate. The Kauai bill will go before the full County Council on Tuesday.
“It’s a paradise over here that is being ruined by this,” said Michiyo Altomare, who lives in this small town on Kauai that is just across a narrow river from a bluff upon which the seed company Pioneer grows corn.
Ms. Altomare and her husband, Corrado, built their dream house here 30 years ago, hoping to enjoy the winds that waft down from the bluff. But when sugar cane gave way to corn, she said, those winds began carrying fine red soil that coated her counters, forcing the family to shut their windows and install central air-conditioning.
On some occasions, Ms. Altomare smelled pesticides and called the police. Mr. Altomare suffers from high platelet levels that his doctor said could have resulted from chemical exposure. The couple’s grown children, she said, “don’t want to live here.”
The seed companies say the pesticides and genetically engineered crops are already well regulated by the federal and state governments. They say curtailment of the Hawaii operations would disrupt agriculture for the nation.
“Almost any corn seed sold in the U.S. touches Hawaii somewhere” in its development, said Mark Phillipson, an executive of Syngenta, a Swiss seed and agrochemical company. Mr. Phillipson is also president of the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, which represents the seed companies.
The companies are supported by those who say the seed business is vital to the economy. Seeds are Hawaii’s leading agricultural commodity, contributing $264 million to the economy and 1,400 jobs, according to a study commissioned by the companies.
Hearings on the bills have often lasted into the night and overflowed their locations.
Kauai seems to be in a summer camp color war, with supporters of the bill wearing red T-shirts and opponents blue ones. An estimated 1,500 to 4,000 people in red shirts marched in favor of the bill in early September. The seed companies are here because the warm climate allows for three corn crops to be harvested in a year, compared with one in the Midwest. That accelerates the several generations of crossbreeding needed to perfect a new variety.
“Instead of taking 13 years to develop a new variety, it takes seven years,” said Ryan K. Oyama, a research scientist at Pioneer, which is owned by DuPont.
There are as many biotech crop-field trials in Hawaii as in Iowa or Illinois, mostly for corn but also soybeans, wheat and rice. The output of Hawaii is not corn for food or feed, but seeds that are shipped to the mainland, where they are further multiplied and eventually sold to farmers.
Breeding is also needed for nonengineered crops, and some of the companies have had operations in Hawaii since the 1960s.
But the operations have expanded in the last two decades as the sugar and pineapple industries collapsed in the face of cheaper foreign competition and the state began seeking new uses for the abandoned land.
Monsanto, Pioneer, Syngenta, Dow and BASF occupy a combined 25,000 out of the state’s 280,000 acres of agricultural land, with operations on Kauai, Oahu, Maui and Molokai.
'Frankenfish' coming to a supermarket near you as campaigners warn against GM salmon
American supermarkets are being pressured to refuse to stock genetically modified salmon, which is poised to become the first GM animal ever approved for human consumption in the coming weeks. A so-called "super salmon", which has been under development in Massachusetts for 18 years, is expected to be cleared for sale soon by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Monsanto's Very Bad Week: 3 Big Blows for GMO Food
25 October 2013 It hasn't been a good week for Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry.
Just three days ago, Mexico banned genetically engineered corn. Citing the risk of imminent harm to the environment, a Mexican judge ruled that, effective immediately, no genetically engineered corn can be planted in the country. This means that companies like Monsanto will no longer be allowed to plant or sell their corn within the country's borders.
At the same time, the County Council for the island of Kauai passed a law that mandates farms to disclose pesticide use and the presence of genetically modified crops. The bill also requires a 500-foot buffer zone near medical facilities, schools and homes -- among other locations.
And the big island of Hawaii County Council gave preliminary approval to a bill that prohibits open air cultivation, propagation, development or testing of genetically engineered crops or plants. The bill, which still needs further confirmation to become law, would also prohibit biotech companies from operating on the Big Island.
The mail-in ballot state's voters are already weighing in on Initiative 522, which would mandate the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Knowing full well that 93 percent of the American public supports GMO labeling, and that if one state passes it, many others are likely to follow, entrenched agribusiness interests are pulling out all the stops to try to squelch yet another state labeling effort.
This time, however, things aren't going quite as planned. On Wednesday, Washington state Attorney General Bob Feguson filed a lawsuit against the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). The GMA, a lobby for the junk food industry, has been by far the largest donor to efforts to defeat the labeling initiative. The lawsuit alleges that the GMA illegally collected and spent more than $7 million while shielding the identity of its contributors.
The source of the money has now been exposed, and it turns out to be Pepsico, Coca-Cola, NestleUSA, General Mills and a few other junk food companies. The lawsuit reveals that GMA leadership held a series of secret meetings to plot how to perpetrate a money laundering scheme and illegally hide member donations from Washington state voters, in direct violation of campaign disclosure laws.
Unlike the junk food companies that feared consumer backlash, Monsanto hasn't even bothered to hide the more than $4 million the company has given to the "no" campaign. In fact, GMA, Monsanto and a handful of other corporate donors have now broken a state record by pouring more than $17 million into their effort to stop Washington's GMO labeling ballot initiative.
Voting is already underway in Washington, and the final ballots will be cast on November 5. The "yes" side is ahead in the most recent polls, but supporters of the right to know fear that a barrage of heavily funded and misleading ads could sour voters to the initiative.
THIS is GOOD NEWS! We win a battle - but I am afraid the WAR has been lost.
Trans Fat “Ban” Not What It Appears
It’s a political move that could promote a Monsanto GMO product. Action Alert!
You may have already heard the news: the FDA has banned trans fats! Well, sort of.
Under the FDA’s proposed rule, trans fat itself is not banned. Instead, the ban is on the major source of trans fats in processed food—partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs). PHOs are artificial trans fats, created via the process of adding hydrogen to vegetable oils in order to make them semi-solid. Naturally occurring trans fat is found in some meat and dairy including beef, lamb and, in small amounts, butter. Many margarines, on the other hand, are made with PHOs and therefore contain high levels of artificial trans fats. Increasingly, margarines are switching to palm oils (which are semi-solid at room temperature and solid if refrigerated) to eliminate PHOs.
It’s important to note that since this is a proposed rule, and not a final one, there’s still a chance it could be changed or dropped. In the rule, the FDA mentions that the agency is open to alternate approaches to addressing PHOs in food, such as the setting of acceptable trans fat threshold levels.
The timing and intent of the FDA’s rule is suspect for three reasons. First, it was announced only after most companies had already eliminated trans fat—it’s currently only in a handful of foods. Secondly, it was a quiet reaction to a lawsuit the FDA was sure to lose. And lastly,the ban will promote market demand for two new GMO soybeans by Monsanto and DuPont, which are engineered for trans fat free oils.
Essentially, the FDA released the PHO ban at a politically perfect point: when it would no longer anger Big Food, when it would quietly resolve a lawsuit (without the FDA losing face or gaining bad press), and when it would be would be of tremendous benefit to Big Biotech’s and Big Food’s newly deregulated products.
Here’s the timeline:
•January 2006: The FDA mandates labeling for foods containing trans fat. There is, however, a loophole that allows foods containing fewer than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving to claim “zero trans fat.”
•2007 to 2011: By 2011, trans fat is reduced or eliminated in 66% of the most common processed supermarket products.
•August 2009: Dr. Fred Kummerow files a citizen petition with the FDA in August of 2009 to have trans fats banned, based on the scientific evidence of harm.
•January 2011: The FDA signs off on a “safety assessment” on Monsanto’s Vistive Gold soybean (aka MON 87705)—based, of course, on studies submitted by Monsanto.
•December 2011: The USDA deregulates the Vistive Gold soybean, meaning it can be planted anywhere without restrictions.
•August 2013: Because—after four years—the FDA has failed to respond to Dr. Kummerow’s petition, he files a state-level lawsuit against the FDA.
•November 2013: The FDA issues its proposed ban on trans fat—with no mention of Dr. Kummerow’s lawsuit.
Monsanto and DuPont’s soybeans and the oils derived from them (DuPont makes a competing product called Plenish High Oleic Soybean Oil) are meant to appeal to consumers by giving them a “healthy” veneer since they are trans fat free. This is only the beginning: increasingly biotech companies are marketing products that are positioned to benefit consumers’ health but actually contain GMOs. (Read more about it in our article on the subject).
This move ignores the fact that since many processed foods and most whole foods are already free of trans fats, the new GMO soybeans are a superfluous “innovation.” The biotech giants also fail to tell the public that conventional soybean oil, due both to its overuse in American foods and the way it is created, can be incredibly unhealthy.
For the past five or six decades, soybean oil—which is composed of 35% to 55% omega 6 fats—has been the leading fat in processed food: the average American consumes 10% of their total daily calories from soybean oil. The overconsumption of soybean oil is one of the contributing factors to the average American’s imbalance of omega 3 and omega 6 fats. Additionally, the way nonorganic soybean oil—hydrogenated or not—is produced is inherently toxic:
•Soybean, canola, corn, sunflower, and cottonseed oils are processed with hexane, a known neurotoxin. It’s the same substance that’s used to make gasoline.
•It’s likely that trace amounts of hexane remains in final oil, yet the FDA does not require testing and has not set a maximum residue level for hexane.
•Soybean oil is also treated with sodium hydroxide and phosphoric acid; it’s then bleached with hydrochloric acid, which removes all vitamin A from the oil.
•The “deodorizing” process (in its natural state, soybean oil can be smelly) strips the oil of vitamin E and phytosterols, completing its transition to “nutritionally void.”
In light of its likely political motivations—and despite the rapturous announcement in the mainstream media—we find little to praise in the FDA’s PHO ban.
Coming To A Field Near You: 'Agent Orange Corn'?
Despite widespread opposition from food safety, environmental and watchdog groups, as well as health professionals and concerned consumers, the USDA has paved the way for the commercial use of genetically engineered crops dubbed "Agent Orange" corn and soybeans. In its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) released Friday, the agency said that its "preferred" option for Dow AgroSciences' "Enlist" corn and soybean, genetically engineered (GE) to be resistant to the herbicide 2,4-D, is to deregulate them. 2,4-D, the third most widely used herbicide in the U.S., is made by Dow Chemical, and was a component of Agent Orange. The herbicide has been linked to Parkinson's, birth defects, reproductive problems, and endocrine disruption.
Battle Over GMOs Percolating In U.S., With 93 Percent Of Americans In Favor Of Labeling
A GMO labeling battle is rumbling in the United States, with those demanding full disclosure of genetically modified organisms in food products pitted against big companies. Although some giants such as General Mills have recently taken timid steps toward being more upfront with consumers, the United States, unlike some 60 other countries, lacks a legal requirement to do so. Still, in the world’s largest economy, where almost all soy, sugar beet, corn and canola crops are genetically engineered, bills requiring labeling for GMO foods were introduced in 26 states last year. A recent New York Times poll found that 93 percent of Americans want GMO food to be labeled. For O’Neil, “the tipping point came with the California ballot initiative” on GMO labeling that was narrowly rejected in 2012 due to a costly counter-campaign by large multinationals.
House Approves Farm Bill, Ending a 2-Year Impasse
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill authorizing nearly $1 trillion in spending on farm subsidies and nutrition programs, setting the stage for final passage of a new five-year farm bill that has been stalled for more than two years.
Negotiators from the House and Senate spent several weeks working out their differences on issues in the legislation, including cuts to food stamps, income caps on farm subsidies and a price support program for dairy farmers. The bill is expected to save about $16.6 billion over the next 10 years.
The bill passed the House by a vote of 251 to 166. The Senate is expected to take up the bill later this week.
Compared with earlier, more contentious votes on the farm bill, Wednesday’s vote was largely bipartisan. Many Democrats who had opposed it because of cuts to the food stamp program supported it on Wednesday. A number of Republicans, including many who wanted deeper cuts to the food stamps, also voted for passage.
The House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, and the majority leader, Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, had endorsed the bill and urged Republicans to support it, even though they said they would have liked to see more changes.
“This is legislation we can all be proud of because it fulfills the expectations the American people have of us,” said Representative Frank D. Lucas, Republican of Oklahoma, who led House efforts to pass the farm bill.
House leaders are now expected to turn their attention to other issues, including the Affordable Care Act, ahead of the 2014 midterm elections.
It is unclear where the Obama administration stands on the new farm bill. Mr. Obama had signaled his opposition to any bill that cut food stamps and expanded crop insurance.
The new farm bill, which had been mired in partisan gridlock, makes fundamental changes to both nutrition and farm programs. It cuts the food stamp program by $8 billion, and about 850,000 households will lose about $90 in monthly benefits under the change.
Anti-hunger groups called the food stamp cuts draconian. Feeding America, a coalition of food banks across the county, said the change would result in 34 lost meals per month for the affected households.
The bill does provide a $200 million increase in financing to food banks, though many said the money might not be enough to offset the expected surge in demand for food.
Farm programs were not spared from the cuts in the new bill. The most significant change to farm programs is the elimination of a subsidy known as direct payments. These payments, about $5 billion a year, are paid to farmers whether or not they grow crops, and the issue had become politically toxic over the last several years as farm income has risen to record levels.
The new bill cuts this subsidy and adds some of the money to the government-subsidized crop insurance. The government pays 62 percent of premiums for the $9 billion-a-year insurance program.
Lawmakers said the elimination of the direct payments ensured that only those who actually farm would receive subsidies and only when affected by a disaster such as drought. Budget watchdog groups called it a bait-and-switch, and said it replaced one subsidy with an even more generous one.
“This bill is so bad, they literally stripped reform from the title,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, based in Washington.
Although most agriculture groups generally supported the new farm bill, several were left disappointed.
The seafood industry expressed disappointment that a contentious seafood inspection program at the Agriculture Department remained in the bill, despite bipartisan efforts to repeal it. Meat and poultry industry groups also expressed their concern with the bill because it did not include language to delay a labeling program that requires retailers to list the country of origin of meat. The industry said the labeling was too costly.
The bill does not address the changes to the international food aid program sought by the Obama administration, but it does give an increase of about $80 million to the United States Agency for International Development to buy food closer to disaster areas, rather than shipping food from the United States.
Anti-hunger groups, including the World Food Program, support the proposal. Several environmental groups, such as Ducks Unlimited, also expressed their support for the new farm bill because it includes new soil and water conservation measures.
GM crop lawsuit in Australia
Feb 11, 2014 A landmark legal battle between two farmers over GM contamination in Australian Court.
The case is expected to determine GM farmers liability if their crops affect neighboring territories.
Steve Marsh sued his neighbor Michael Baxter for negligence over the contamination of the land that Marsh used for growing organic oat and wheat crops SE of Perth.
This will set a precedent for future cases.
It is important that farmers retain their rights to farm GM-free food.
GMO crops cause environmental risks
Feb. 25, 2014 Most corn and soybean crops grown in America are GMO, genetically-engineered made to withstand certain conditions and chemicals.
But while GMO seeds have been sowed on US soil for 15 years now, the latest USDA report reveals that Americans still have concerns about consuming custom-made, laboratory-created products.
The report was released by the USDA.
Scientists and agriculturists have genetically-modified organisms since they were first introduced in the US.
The consensus seems to be that no one is certain just yet about what toll the surge in GMOs will truly have.
Since 1984 GMO crops are found in most American biggest farms, and scientists have discovered new ways to make situation-specific seeds that have traits more desirable than traditional crops. Desirable to who? Not the wise.
Frankenfish Touted As Way To Feed Us All
Feb. 2014 From ethical and ecological concerns to health issues and economic factors, the questions around genetic modification of farmed fish are swimming in debate. Genetically modified fish are those that have had their DNA scientifically modified to introduce new traits or amplify existing ones. GMO fish have the ability to resist certain diseases, are tolerant to higher or lower temperatures than their natural counterparts would be, and typically grow faster than wild or conventionally farmed fish. This brings profitable fish to market in less time, which in turn brings money into the pockets of the corporations behind the science. There are currently at least 35 species of fish being genetically engineered, including such popular species as trout, catfish, tilapia, striped bass, flounder, and salmon.
Monsanto's Roundup may be linked to fatal kidney disease
Feb. 27, 2014 A heretofore inexplicable fatal, chronic kidney disease that has affected poor farming regions around the globe may be linked to the use of biochemical giant Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide in areas with hard water, a new study has found.
The new study was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
Researchers suggest that Roundup, or glyphosate, becomes highly toxic to the kidney once mixed with “hard” water or metals like arsenic and cadmium that often exist naturally in the soil or are added via fertilizer. Hard water contains metals like calcium, magnesium, strontium, and iron, among others. On its own, glyphosate is toxic, but not detrimental enough to eradicate kidney tissue.
The glyphosate molecule was patented as a herbicide by Monsanto in the early 1970s. The company soon brought glyphosate to market under the name “Roundup,” which is now the most commonly used herbicide in the world.
The hypothesis helps explain a global rash of the mysterious, fatal Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown etiology (CKDu) that has been found in rice paddy regions of northern Sri Lanka, for example, or in El Salvador, where CKDu is the second leading cause of death among males.
Furthermore, the study’s findings explain many observations associated with the disease, including the linkage between the consumption of hard water and CKDu, as 96 percent of patients have been found to have consumed “hard or very hard water for at least five years, from wells that receive their supply from shallow regolith aquifers.”
The CKDu was discovered in rice paddy farms in northern Sri Lanka around 20 years ago. The condition has spread quickly since then and now affects 15 percent of working age people in the region, or a total of 400,000 patients, the study says. At least 20,000 have died from CKDu there.
EU fear of GM food from US hampers trade
Mar 13, 2014 My friends, pray over your meals - hopefully as a family. Only the Lord can cleanse food today. Most of it is not healthy. Other nations forbid GM poison seeds, but in USA thats almost all you can get.
Europe is reluctant to buy hormone meat or GM food from the USA.
8 months of trade talks worldwide show continued low public support for the GMO deal.
TTIP is under threat from protesters it deems anti-globalization. LOL! Christians and the awake.
In 2012, the EU exported $16.6 billion in farm produce to the US, while US farmers delivered $9.9 billion to Europe. The gap was largely blamed on the EU ban on GM food imports.
The EU is also closed to US beef from cattle raised with growth hormones.
Monsanto poisoning the population
GMO - the REAL reason USA went into Ukraine, Libya, Syria
Russia will not import GMO products
April 6, 2014 With Monsanto bringing GMO into Ukraine, how will Russia stop this?
Russia will not import GMO products, said PM Dmitry Medvedev, Russia has enough space and resources to produce organic food. VERY WISE.
Moscow has no reason to import or encourage the production of genetically modified (POISON!) products. Russia should remain free of genetically modified products.
If the Americans like to eat GMO products, let them. WE DONT LIKE!
There is currently no limitation on the trade or production of GMO-containing food in Russia. However, when the percentage of GMO exceeds 0.9 percent, the producer must label such goods and warn consumers.
The Jesuits and The FDA
To sum it up: On the Jesuits.org web site - one of their links takes you to the FDA page, where from there it shows you their NWO agendas like GMOs, Canola oil, etc!
Yes, it seems like just about every agenda out there IS tied to the Jesuits!
Argentina environmentalists, farm workers protest Monsanto pesticides
May 15, 2014 Agriculture workers and various environmental advocacy groups in Argentina are protesting the use of pesticides produced by biotech giant Monsanto as they seek to halt work on the company’s new chemical plant in Malvinas Argentina.
Residents, along with workers who regularly come into contact with Monsanto's products, are calling for the suspension of the use of the company's pesticides, claiming they cause adverse health effects. The protest comes amid mounting scientific evidence that the liberal and often unregulated use of Monsanto’s chemicals are linked to growing instances of various cancers and birth defects.
The collection of groups protesting construction of the new plant in Argentina’s province of Cordoba have halted progress for months now, while they seek a permanent injunction based on health and environmental concerns.
“Here we have the aberration that on one side of the fence is the fumigation (use of pesticides) and on the other side of the fence is the town, or the local school, which is subjected to aerial spraying. Teachers have to come outside and shelter their students indoors because these toxic chemicals are raining down,” said Antonio Riestra, a member of the Unidad Popular party, which has joined the cause.
Beyond halting work on the new plant, activists hope to gain support from the local and national government to eject Monsanto out of Argentina. That goal seems remote, though, considering the proliferation of Monsanto pesticides along with the company’s genetically modified crops.
Within the last few decades, Argentina has transformed itself into the world’s third-largest soy producer, almost all of which is genetically-modified seed. The crop is now the country’s most important export.
Along with the growth of soy crops has come the liberal use of pesticides – the most pervasive of which is Monsanto’s glyphosate, which singles out invasive weeds when applied to the crops. The use of glyphosate – more commonly known as RoundUp – has surged, evidently as a result of weeds' increasing resistance to the herbicide.
NO NO GMO! March against Monsanto
May 24, 2014 Global anti-GMO action, People against Monsanto, largest producer of genetically engineered seeds.
Millions marching worldwide against the US chemical and agricultural company Monsanto in an effort to boycott the use of Genetically Modified Organizms in food production.
We must act now to stop GMOs and harmful pesticides. It wont help, its part of Agenda 21 to kill off humans.
Monsanto threatens health, fertility and longevity.
Monsanto spent millions to obstruct all labeling attempts while suppressing all research containing results not in their favor.
Birth defects, organ damage, infant mortality, sterility and increased cancer risks are just some of the side-effects GMO.
Most of the genetically modified crops grown in the US, almost all of them end up in factory farms, concentrated in animal feeding operations.
World protests Monsanto
Thousands across the world voice concern over the spread of GMO foods and crops and to raise awareness over the biotech giant Monsanto growing grip on the global food supply chain.
It was not only the fear of genetically modified organisms in foods that knows no boundaries. Activists on five continents around the globe, comprising of 52 nations joined the fight under the March against Monsanto umbrella.
GMO food - by John Stossel
May 30, 2014 Sorry John, I am NOT convinced. GMO is BAD!
90% of all corn grown in America is genetically modified now. That means it grew from a seed that scientists altered by playing with its genes. The new genes may make corn grow faster, or they may make it less appetizing to bugs so farmers can use fewer pesticides.
John, are you aware the pesticide is IN THE SEED, therefore in our corn?
Theres no reason to believe altering genes is dangerous.
This upsets some people. GMOs are unnatural, they say. A scene from the movie Seeds of Death warns that eating GMOs causes holes in the GI tract and multiple organ system failure.
Chipotle produces videos suggesting that GMOs cause cows to explode.
Sorry John, I am NOT convinced. GMOs are BAD! That food is not good for humans or animals - or bees.
You have taken absurd examples instead of the good research.
Putin Orders War Alert, tells Obama to STOP Monsanto, or we will
June 22, 2014 Russian President Putin ordered Obama to Stop Monsanto, or we will.
The bee apocalypse occurring in the United States threatens the entire global food supply.
Putin signed an Emergency Executive Memorandum ordering his regime to develop a plan for protecting pollinators such as honey bees, butterflies, birds and bats.
Bee colonies in the United States has declined from 6 million in 1947 to 2.5 million today, could lead to an agricultural apocalypse.
Putin demands Obama forbid the introduction of GMO crops into the Ukraine. GOOD!
Stop Monsanto, or we will.
Russia shares a border with Ukraine and GMO are a threat to Russian national security.
GMOs: Respected Analyst Says They Could Destroy Life on the Planet
Invoking the risk of famine as a justification for GMOs is “a deceitful strategy, no different from…Russian roulette,” according to the report. Action Alert!
Nassim Nicholas Taleb is a scholar, statistician, Wall Street analyst and advisor, professor at New York University, and the bestselling author of Fooled by Randomness and The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. He predicted the 2008 financial crisis by pointing out that commonly used risk models were wrong. (He was correct, and he became quite wealthy from the strategic financial decisions he made at that time.)
Now his analysis of our use of genetically modified organisms shows that GMOs could cause “an irreversible termination of life at some scale, which could be the planet.” Taleb and his two co-authors argue that calling the GMO approach “scientific” betrays “a very poor—indeed warped—understanding of probabilistic payoffs and risk management.”
Taleb believes GMOs fall squarely under the rule that we should always err on the side of caution if something is really dangerous. This is not just because of potential harm to the consumer, but because of systemic risk to the system, which in this case is the ecosystem that supports all life on the planet:
Top-down modifications to the system (through GMOs) are categorically and statistically different from bottom-up ones (regular farming, progressive tinkering with crops, etc.). There is no comparison between the tinkering of selective breeding and the top-down engineering of arbitrarily taking a gene from an organism and putting it into another.
The interdependence of all things in nature, Taleb points out, dramatically amplifies risks that may initially seem small when studied in isolation. Tiny genetic errors on the local scale could cause considerable—and even irreversible—environmental damage when the local is exported to the global. The lack of understanding of basic statistical principles, he says, is what leads GMO supporters astray:
The interdependence of components [in nature] lead[s] to aggregate variations becoming much more severe than individual ones….Whether components are independent or interdependent matters a lot to systemic disasters such as pandemics or generalized crises. The interdependence increases the probability of ruin, to the point of certainty.
The problem is that the general public, and indeed most policy analysts, are ill-equipped to understand the statistical mathematics of risk. But as Brian Stoffel explains in his helpful article on Taleb’s research, we can assume that each genetically engineered seed carries a risk—albeit a very tiny risk—that in the intricately interdependent web of nature, the GMO seed might somehow eventually lead to a catastrophic breakdown of the ecosystem we rely on for life. Let’s call it a 0.1% chance, just for the sake of illustration. All by itself, that risk seems totally acceptable. But with each new seed that’s developed, the risk gets greater and greater, and over time, we could hit “the ecocide barrier”:
Critics say, “But risk is inherent in everything. We can’t just be paralyzed by fear and not progress!” Taleb responds that the risk of “generalized human extinction” is absolutely not “inherent in everything.” That’s because most consequences are localized, not systemic. And progress can be made using bottom-up techniques that have worked for eons.
While quite a few countries have banned GMOs because of their risk to human health and the environment, the US lags behind. Politicians complain that we don’t have the full picture on GMOs and therefore shouldn’t ban them—but that’s because of the lack of human safety studies being performed on GMOs in the US, and because GM companies keep a lot of their data proprietary, that is, concealed from the public. Consider the implications of keeping it secret: if the research finds GMOs to be harmless, wouldn’t that be something you’d want to shout from the rooftops, if you were Monsanto?
There is, however, clear evidence that GMOs pose risks (such as increased herbicide use) that could easily destabilize ecosystems, pose grave dangers to human health, and all without much benefit to the farmer or indeed anyone but the manufacturer:
A study found that pigs fed GM feed had higher rates of severe stomach inflammation and developed heavier uteruses.
Glyphosate (Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide) caused increased fungal infections and lower crop yields on GM plants—the very plants that had been genetically engineered to resist it, according to a study by Brazilian researchers.
Higher residues of glyphosate have been found in GM soy. Some independent researchers found that glyphosate induced morphological changes in frogs, and had a negative effect on human gut bacteria.
Our fact sheet on GMO risks offers much more evidence of ecological harm.
Thats the plan - to destroy human life on Earth.
UN Agenda 21 - depopulation
Revelation 6 - The pale (green) horseman
That - Monsanto - was the war in Libya, in Ukraine, etc -
to insert GMO where the wise govts refused to allow GMO.
Montana * Monsanto GMO wheat contamination
Sept 27, 2014 OTHER NATIONS DO NOT WANT POISON GMO CRAP!
Monsanto’s experimental genetically modified wheat has been discovered growing in 3 acres in a Montana field, about a year after the discovery of the unapproved crop growing in Oregon disrupted US wheat exports.
The plants were discovered at a test site at Montana State University, where Monsanto was conducting field trials of its wheat back in 2000-2003 genetically modified to tolerate Roundup herbicide. They were not supposed to host any tests after 2003.
The last such discovery in Oregon led to several international customers postponing US wheat deliveries.
GM Babies Graduate High School
Sept. 29, 2014 Genetically modified human babies born in 1997 are entering their senior year of high school. The film GATTACA came out in 1997 about genetically modified humans.
Evil scientists injected 30 embryos with a third person’s genetic material. The children have extra snippets of mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA, from two mothers, they have 3 parents.
The participants are now teenagers.
Coca-Cola Just Paid $1,000,000 To Keep This Hidden From You
NTEB News Desk | September 22, 2014 | 13 Comments
They don’t want you to know what’s in there for a very good reason
Coca-Cola has been having a rough time. The company owns Honest Tea, Odwalla, Powerade, Vitamin Water, Simply Orange, and other products marketed to health-conscious consumers. But it is best known for making Coke, a product that is utterly devoid of nutritional value and is often blamed for contributing to the obesity epidemic — an epidemic that is costing hundreds of billions of dollars and causing hundreds of thousands of deaths each year.
With demand for the company’s carbonated and artificially flavored sugar water declining, hope for Coca-Cola’s profitability has been increasingly resting on the brands it markets as healthier alternatives. Bloomberg.com reports that sales of Coca-Cola-owned brands like Honest Tea, Powerade, and Simply Orange are the company’s new profit center.
But there’s a problem.
In October, campaign finance reports revealed that Coca-Cola had secretly contributed more than a million dollars to the fight against GMO labeling in Washington. It took the state’s Attorney General suing the Grocery Manufacturers’ Association (GMA) for what turned out to be an $11 million violation of the state’s campaign finance laws to reveal these secret contributions. But now that the truth has been exposed, some healthy food activists are fighting back.
Andrew Kimbrell, founder of the Center for Food Safety, comments:
Consumers of healthy beverages want to know what’s in their food. By using money from sales of natural brands to secretly fund an anti-choice agenda that deprives consumers of the right to know what they’re eating, Coca-Cola has been betraying the public interest and standing on the wrong side of history.
We at the Food Revolution Network agree. And we have launched a petition on Change.org that calls for Coca-Cola to stop funding anti GMO labeling campaigns. Check out and sign the petition here.Coca-Cola’s CEO, Muhtar Kent, says, “We have… provided a tremendous amount of choice to people.” But when it comes to the right to know if your food was genetically engineered, Coca-Cola would apparently like to keep you in the dark. According to reports, Honest Tea co-founder Seth Goldman said as recently as September that “after internal discussions,” Coca-Cola wouldn’t be “directly” funding efforts to defeat I-522. Apparently Coca-Cola thought that allegedly illegally laundering money through the Grocery Manufacturers’ Association would keep their involvement a secret.Honest Tea doesn’t look quite so honest when it’s being used to put an organic face on an alleged money laundering scheme whose goal is keeping you from knowing if your food is genetically engineered.And what makes matters worse, Honest Tea proudly proclaims throughout their website that they are GMO free — while their parent company is actively working to prevent GMO labeling.
I wrote Coca-Cola asking if they intended to continue funding anti GMO labeling campaigns. The company’s response was to repeat the anti-labeling lobby’s talking points. They told me that Washington’s labeling initiative, I-522, would: “Require tens of thousands of common food and beverage products to be relabeled exclusively for Washington State unless they are remade with higher-priced, specially developed ingredients. The measure will increase grocery costs for a typical Washington family by hundreds of dollars per year.”
These are charges that the nine-time Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper The Seattle Times called “mostly false” and that Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, flatly rejected. In short, Coca-Cola not only tried to hide their contributions to the anti-labeling efforts in Washington, but they continue to try to deceive people about the actual realities of GMO labeling.
And they’re using sales of Honest Tea, Odwalla, Powerade, Vitamin Water, Simply Orange, and all their other brands, to finance their agenda.
U.S.D.A. Approves Modified Potato. Next Up: French Fry Fans.
A potato genetically engineered to reduce the amounts of a potentially harmful ingredient in French fries and potato chips has been approved for commercial planting, the Department of Agriculture announced on Friday.
The potato’s DNA has been altered so that less of a chemical called acrylamide, which is suspected of causing cancer in people, is produced when the potato is fried.
The new potato also resists bruising, a characteristic long sought by potato growers and processors for financial reasons. Potatoes bruised during harvesting, shipping or storage can lose value or become unusable.
The biotech tubers were developed by the J. R. Simplot Company, a privately held company based in Boise, Idaho, which was the initial supplier of frozen French fries to McDonald’s in the 1960s and is still a major supplier. The company’s founder, Mr. Simplot, who died in 2008, became a billionaire.
The potato is one of a new wave of genetically modified crops that aim to provide benefits to consumers, not just to farmers as the widely grown biotech crops like herbicide-tolerant soybeans and corn do. The nonbruising aspect of the potato is similar to that of genetically engineered nonbrowning apples, developed by Okanagan Specialty Fruits, which are awaiting regulatory approval.
Documentary, “Poison on the Platter”: GE Foods Are Spreading Across India
November 22, 2014
By Dr. Mercola
The corporate and regulatory forces that are out to get genetically engineered (GE) foods onto your dinner plate by any means possible are not confined to the United States.
In his documentary, Poison on the Platter, Indian filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt examines from a unique non-Western perspective how multinational corporations and government regulators have conspired to spread GE foods across India.
The film provides an insightful perspective about the world impact of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), as discussed by scientists on the other side of the globe.
If you don’t believe contamination of our food supply by GMOs holds the potential for planetary disaster, you might change your mind after seeing this film. Mahesh Bhatt warns:
“In their mad rush to capture the multi-billion dollar Indian agriculture and food industry, the biotech multinational companies are bulldozing warnings by scientists about the adverse impact of GM foods on health and environment...
[T]his is hurtling mankind toward a disaster, which will be far more destructive than anything the world has seen so far, simply because it will affect every single person living on this planet.”
GE proponents claim that GE foods are the solution to world hunger, increased crop yield and variety, lowered input costs, and reduced environmental impact.
They also claim that foods derived from GMOs are “substantially equivalent” to foods created by conventional growing methods. The problem is that none of those claims are supported by science.
The List of Risks Posed by GE Foods Continues to Grow
Epidemiological patterns reflect a rise in more than 30 human diseases alongside the steady increase of GE ingredients in our food supply and the dramatic increase in the use of agrichemicals, such as glyphosate.
Glyphosate is not “just” an herbicide—it was originally patented as a mineral chelator. It immobilizes nutrients, making them unavailable for your body. Glyphosate is also patented as an antibiotic that can devastate human gut bacteria.
When you mix the genes of one species with those of another, you’re courting disaster. GE food trials involving laboratory animals have uncovered higher mortality, infertility, and multi-organ damage—such as bleeding stomachs.
Even Monsanto’s own mouse studies demonstrated that GE foods have toxic effects on multiple organs, including the liver and kidneys. One of the most ominous concerns about the GE food system is its impact on our soils.
Monoculture and massive agrichemical use are decimating soils at an alarming rate—soils that took thousands of years to develop. Trillions of beneficial microbes that make up healthy soil are destroyed, depleting its nitrogen and leading to soil erosion, pollution, and wasted water from massive runoff.
Nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizer runoff has created dead zones along many coastal waterways. GE crop monocultures destroy in a blink what nature has taken millennia to create.
US Recklessly Speeds Ahead with Next-Generation GE Crops
What’s going on in India is not that different from the US. Despite all of the hellish evidence, there seems to be no risk substantial enough to deter the American government from pushing ahead with new GE seeds.
Herbicide and insecticide use is skyrocketing. USDA recently deregulated Dow Chemical’s next-generation GE crops, which are not only glyphosate-resistant, but also carry resistance to toxins like the Agent Orange ingredient 2,4-D and Dicamba. EPA has also approved Enlist Duo—a new herbicide to be used on Dow’s 2,4-D and glyphosate-resistant corn and soybeans.
EPA has also doubled the amount of glyphosate allowed in your food. For example, soybean oil is allowed to contain a whopping 400 times the limit at which it can impact your health. Widespread use of GMOs has led to an enormous resistance problem.
Superweeds and resistant pests are rapidly spreading across farmland, which has necessitated the deployment of even more noxious chemicals. USDA data reveals that glyphosate use has increased 12-fold since 1996. Meanwhile, weed resistance has been documented on 60 million farm acres across the US.
The US Earns the Gold for Highest GE Food Production
The US is the world’s leading producer of GE foods, many of which are being exported to countries, like India, that will allow it. Monsanto is the largest manufacturer of GE seeds, producing 90 percent of those used across the globe. Yet three quarters of Americans are not even aware that they consume GE ingredients in almost every meal.
Many other countries believe that GE foods must be safe because Americans have been consuming them for two decades—and “not dying from them.” However, the fallacy of this reasoning is evident when you realize that it took the US about 500 years to realize that tobacco wasn’t safe.
The incidence of chronic diseases in the US has escalated since the introduction of GE foods. Therefore, no one can claim that Americans are healthy, and no one can say with any assurance that GE foods are safe. Many scientists argue that we haven't had enough time for the effects of GMOs to fully reveal themselves across populations—and when they do, the damage may be irreparable. In the words of GMO expert and founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology Jeffrey Smith:
“I can say with absolute confidence that there is irrefutable and overwhelming evidence that genetically engineered foods are harmful and that they are not being evaluated properly by the governments of India, United States, the European Union, or anywhere in the world. This is one of the most dangerous technologies ever introduced on Earth, and it’s being deployed in our food supply. It is madness! What we need is a political willingness to say no more... We don’t understand the language of DNA.”
Cheap Food Brings Expensive Healthcare
Genetically engineered foods have increased to keep pace with an exploding demand for "cheap food." Farmers are constantly pushed for higher yields. The current system is creating a glut of ecological problems, such as ravaging our bee populations. Forty years ago, Americans spent 16 percent of their income on food and eight percent on healthcare; today, those numbers are reversed. This "cheap food" system has bought us the most expensive healthcare in the world. In the same way that medical schools and universities are controlled by the drug industry, the food system is controlled by the agrichemical industry.
The industrialized food system is putting many small farmers out of business. Land grant universities, funded by corporate agribusiness, are under enormous pressure to shush any research that goes against the party line. Educational institutions are afraid to "bite the hand that feeds them." Mark Kastel, Co-Founder of The Cornucopia Institute, explains how other strategies are used to ensure that the public never finds out about the health dangers of GMOs:
"Monsanto and others actually have contracts with farmers, a technology agreement that prohibits the farmers from using any of their crop for research—other than agronomic research and yield research. So they can't partner with a physician or a medical researcher to take a look at the impact on human health. They've really impeded our ability to know whether or not GMOs are safe."
Big Bucks Buys Big Votes
Money changes everything. Monsanto, Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and other pro-GMO forces continue pouring millions into every anti-labeling campaign in an effort to prevent you from knowing what you’re eating. Their strategy consists of false claims, lies, and scare tactics, but their money is buying them smaller and smaller margins—labeling laws are coming closer to passage with each election. Every “loss” is actually a “win” when you look at the trends. As people gain awareness of the issues, they will refuse to stand for the status quo.
In 2012, industry spent $45 million to defeat California’s Prop 37 labeling bill, and it lost by six points.
Between 2012 and mid-2014, Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) successfully blocked GMO labeling laws in over 30 states, at a price tag of more than $100 million. According to the most recent analysis, opponents of GMO labeling spent more than $27 million on lobbying in the first six months of 2014 alone—this is about three times more than they spent during all of 2013.
In the November 2014 election, the GMO industry and supporters spent $37 million to prevent Oregon and Colorado from passing their respective labeling laws. This effort was successful in Colorado, but in Oregon the race couldn’t be any tighter!
It’s Time to Stop the Insanity
Election season may be over, but you can vote with your wallet every day. If enough of us make our voices heard, things CAN change. For example, you can boycott GMA Member Traitor Brands, which helps level the playing field. As always, continue educating yourself and sharing what you've learned. Think of yourself as being pro-evidence, as opposed to anti-GMO. Just because you question something doesn't mean you're opposed to it—you just want more evidence so that you can make a good decision for yourself and your family. This film provides one more learning tool that you can forward to your friends and family, to help them take charge of their health.
The insanity has gone far enough. It’s time to unite and fight back, which is why I encourage you to boycott every single product owned by members of the GMA, including natural and organic brands. To learn more about this boycott, and the traitor brands that are included, please visit TheBoycottList.org. I also encourage you to donate to the Organic Consumers Fund. Your donation will help fight the GMA lawsuit in Vermont.
Voting with your pocketbook, at every meal, matters. It makes a huge difference. By boycotting GMA Member Traitor Brands, you can help level the playing field, and help take back control of our food supply. And as always, continue educating yourself about genetically engineered foods, and share what you’ve learned with family and friends.
Monsanto’s Roundup Responsible for Skyrocketing Rates of Celiac Disease, Gluten Intolerance and Other Wheat-Related Illnesses?
The mystery behind skyrocketing rates of Celiac disease, gluten intolerance, and other wheat-related illnesses may not have anything to do with wheat or even gluten, but rather the process by which conventional American wheat is grown and harvested.
Unbeknownst to most consumers is the fact that just before harvest, a vast majority of conventional wheat grown in the U.S. is doused in Roundup herbicide, which ends up poisoning your favorite breads, cereals, cakes, and pastries.
Many conventional wheat farmers in America, driven by greed and carelessness, flood their wheat crops with Roundup just before harvest in order to slightly boost yields and reduce harvest time. But the end result is Roundup being absorbed directly into the wheat kernels that end up processed on your dinner plate.
The Healthy Home Economist‘s Sarah Pope explains in a recent article how the pre-harvest application of Roundup is used to dry conventional wheat and make it easier to harvest. This process helps wheat crops release their seeds more quickly, resulting in moderately higher yields.
But according to wheat farmer Keith Lewis, this practice isn’t licensed, though it is quite common in the U.S. When Roundup-sprayed wheat is eventually processed for human consumption, unknown levels of it end up in the final product.
“A wheat field often ripens unevenly, thus applying Roundup pre-harvest evens up the greener parts of the field with the more mature,” he explained during a 2012 interview with Dr. William Davis, author of the bestselling book Wheat Belly.
“The result is on the less mature areas, Roundup is translocated into the kernels and eventually harvested as such.”
Stop buying corporate American wheat products
In her report, Pope highlights a graph that was included in a 2013 study published in the journal Interdisciplinary Toxicology, which clearly illustrates a corresponding increase in both Celiac disease incidence and glyphosate use on wheat crops.
Since it first became an option for American wheat farmers in the early 1990s, spraying conventional wheat crops with Roundup just prior to harvest has basically become the norm. The latest U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) figures show that, as of 2012, 99 percent of durum wheat, 97 percent of spring wheat, and 61 percent of winter wheat is doused in herbicides prior to harvest.
“Using Roundup on wheat crops throughout the entire growing season and even as a desiccant just prior to harvest may save the farmer money and increase profits, but it is devastating to the health of the consumer who ultimately consumes the glyphosate residue laden wheat kernels,” writes Pope.
The reason this is problematic is that Roundup damages several key pathways by which the human body processes and absorbs nutrients. Besides inhibiting cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, which detoxifies the body of foreign chemical compounds, glyphosate damages the gut microbiome, which is responsible for absorbing nutrients.
“… just because Roundup doesn’t kill you immediately doesn’t make it nontoxic,” writes Pope. “In fact, the active ingredient in Roundup lethally disrupts the all important shikimate pathway found in beneficial gut microbes which is responsible for synthesis of critical amino acids.”
|“In synergy with disruption of the biosynthesis of important amino acids via the shikimate pathway, glyphosate inhibits the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes produced by the gut microbiome. CYP enzymes are critical to human biology because they detoxify the multitude of foreign chemical compounds, xenobiotics, that we are exposed to in our modern environment today.” |
The only way to avoid this is to avoid all conventional wheat grown in the U.S., as well as all products made from it. Pope recommends sticking with low gluten, unhybridized Einkorn wheat, or wheat grown in other countries.
Until American farmers wake up to the fact that they are actively poisoning the public with their toxic, glyphosate wheat, it is vital to avoid purchasing all American-grown wheat that is not certified organic.
Baby formula is loaded with GMOs - Avoid these brands
(NaturalNews) A petition is circulating to persuade three of the top infant formula brands in the U.S. -- Abbott Laboratories (Similac), Mead Johnson Nutrition (Enfamil) and Nestle (Gerber Good Start) -- to stop using genetically modified (GM) ingredients in their baby products. Each of these powdered formulas is loaded with corn and soy byproducts, along with sugar, which means they are more than likely GM in nature and harming children.
Several years ago, Natural News warned our readers about these dangerous food products for infants, focusing specifically on Similac's "Go & Grow" formula. The product, which is marketed for babies aged 9 to 24 months, claims it contains "balanced nutrition for older babies." But as we pointed out, the product is nearly half composed of corn syrup solids (sugar), with the remaining 50-or-so percent composed of soybean oil, soy protein isolate, safflower oil and more sugar in the form of sucrose.
Besides being an absolutely unhealthy product in general, based on these ingredients, Similac Go & Grow is an utter freak show of GM additives, which are particularly harmful for developing children. GMOs have been linked to hormone disruption, gut damage and other problems that, again, especially in children, can lead to a lifetime of chronic health problems.
But Similac isn't alone -- practically every major brand of commercial infant formula is composed mostly of corn, soy, and sugar components, each of which is more than likely GM due to the fact that upwards of 90 percent of corn, soy and sugar beet crops planted in the U.S. are GMOs.
"For the infant that is unable to nurse I insist upon an organic commercial formula," stated pediatrician Michelle Perro, warning against commercial, GMO-laden infant formulas.
"Because of the toxic effects of herbicides, particularly glyphosate (due to its prolific usage) as well as other organophosphates and genetically engineered foods in non-organic commercial formulas, these are not an option for infant feeding. In order to ensure the health of our infants and children, there is no amount of acceptable herbicide or GMO that should be in their diets."
Major infant formula brands spent millions defeating GMO labeling
Beyond just poisoning our children, Abbott, Mead Johnson and Nestle all want to keep this poisoning a secret. As explained by GMOInside.org, each of these companies spent big bucks fighting California's GMO labeling initiative, Proposition 37, which would have required that infant formulas contain warnings about GMO content.
Abbott reportedly spent $334,500 in support of the "No on 37" campaign, while Mead Johnson, which has a much smaller market share, spent $80,000. Nestle, an industry leader in commercial infant formula, contributed $1,461,600 to block Californians from knowing what's in their food. Combined, these three companies raked in about $135 billion in sales in 2012.
"It's infuriating that parents in the United States are not given the same assurances as citizens in more than 60 other countries including China, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia, when it comes to GM ingredients," said Green America President Aliza Gravitz. "All parents have a right to healthy food options for their children."
A Green America petition calls on these Big Three infant formula manufacturers to stop using GMOs, which have never been proven safe for human consumption. The long-term effects of GMOs in humans have never been studied, and because babies' bodies are already less equipped to deal with processing toxins, it is only logical to stop feeding them untested genetic materials that could lead to permanent health damage.
Taxpayer Money Helps Pay for Monsanto Devastation
February 24, 2015
By Dr. Mercola
Earlier this month, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced a $3.2-million campaign to save “beleaguered” Monarch butterflies.1 As recently as 1996, there were close to 1 billion monarchs across the US. Today, their numbers have dwindled by 90 percent.
The crux of their campaign is restoring and enhancing monarch habitat, as habitat loss due to agricultural practices has played a role in their demise. More than 200,000 acres of habitat is slated to be restored for monarchs while the program is also planning over 750 schoolyard habitats and pollinator gardens.
It’s a good start, but there is something glaringly absent from the FWS announcement – Monsanto’s role in all of this.
Monsanto’s Glyphosate Is Killing Off Monarchs’ Favorite Plant
Milkweed is an easy target for glyphosate, the chemical in the herbicide Roundup that’s used prolifically on Monsanto’s Roundup Ready™ genetically engineered crops.
This perennial plant used to be common across American prairies, and it plays an integral role in monarchs’ survival. It is the only plant on which the adult monarch will lay its eggs.
Once the larvae hatches, the caterpillar will eat the plant. In fact, it is the only food that monarch caterpillars eat. Without milkweed along its migratory path, the monarch cannot reproduce – which means it cannot, ultimately, survive.
This is reason enough to take urgent action, but the loss of monarchs isn’t only about butterflies. According to FWS:
“Spectacular as it is, protecting the monarch is not just about saving one species. The monarch serves as an indicator of the health of pollinators and the American landscape.
Monarch declines are symptomatic of environmental problems that pose risks to our food supply, the spectacular natural places that help define our national identity, and our own health. Conserving and connecting habitat for monarchs will benefit other plants, animals and important insect and avian pollinators.”
‘Farming Per Se Is Not the Problem’
FWS acknowledges that agricultural practices have played a role in devastating monarchs’ habitat. But it’s not just farming that’s the problem – it’s the planting of GM crops, particularly corn and soy, and the subsequent application of Roundup that is killing off the butterflies.
According to a report, “Monarchs in Peril,” by the Center for Food Safety (CFS), “farming per se is not the problem,” as monarchs have coexisted with agriculture since the 1800s.2
Even as prairies and forests in the Midwest were converted to cropland, one particularly hardy species of milkweed, common milkweed, survived. Its deep, extensive root system allowed it to survive tillage, mowing, harsh winters, and even the application of most herbicides, which typically didn’t affect their roots. CFS noted:
“Thus, throughout the 20th century, common milkweed within and around corn and soybean fields has supported a large population of monarch butterflies.
In fact, in the late 1990s roughly half of the monarchs in Mexican winter roosts had developed on common milkweed plants in the Corn Belt, making this far and away the most important habitat for maintaining the monarch population as a whole.”
As of 2013, however, about 90 percent of soybeans and more than 80 percent of corn grown in the US are of the GM Roundup Ready variety. Between 1995, the year before the first Roundup Ready crops were introduced, and 2013, total use of glyphosate on corn and soybeans increased 20-fold, according to the CFS report.
Meanwhile, as usage of glyphosate has skyrocketed, milkweed has plummeted. In 1999, CFS noted that milkweed was found in half of corn and soybean fields, but this declined to 8 percent 10 years later. In 2013, it was estimated that just 1 percent of the common milkweed present in 1999 remained. Tragically, while milkweed is not harmed by many herbicides… it is easily killed by glyphosate. CFS reported:
“Recently… a dramatic change in farming practices — the widespread cultivation of genetically engineered, glyphosate-resistant Roundup Ready corn and soybeans—has triggered a precipitous decline of common milkweed, and thus of monarchs.
Glyphosate, sold by Monsanto under the name of Roundup, is one of the very few herbicides that is effective on milkweed. Unlike many other weedkillers, once absorbed it is translocated (moved internally) to root tissue, where it kills milkweed at the root and so prevents regeneration.
Glyphosate is particularly lethal to milkweed when used in conjunction with Roundup Ready crops. It is applied more frequently, at higher rates, and later in the season — during milkweed’s most vulnerable flowering stage of growth — than when used with traditional crops.
The increasingly common practice of growing Roundup Ready crops continuously on the same fields means that milkweed is exposed to glyphosate every year, with no opportunity to recover.”
Call for Monarchs to Be Added to the Endangered Species List
With 90 percent of monarchs vanishing since the 1990s, groups including the Center for Biological Diversity are calling for the butterfly to be placed on the endangered species list.
Meanwhile, rather than directing Monsanto to pay the costs of restoring Monarch habitat… and calling for an end to the elimination of milkweed from cropland, Dan Ashe, director of Fish and Wildlife Service, said that everyone is responsible for killing off monarchs:3
“We’ve all been responsible. We are the consumers of agricultural products. I eat corn. American farmers are not the enemy. Can they be part of the solution? Yes.”
Monsanto surely breathed a sigh of relief upon finding no mention of their herbicide in the FWS report and, not surprisingly, applauded it by saying “farming and habitat for Monarchs can co-exist.”4 Critics, however, believe the FWS is not going far enough to protect this valuable species.
For instance, CFS advocates restricting the spraying of glyphosate late in the growing season, when milkweed is flowering and more likely to be killed.5 According to Larissa Walker, pollinator campaign director at CFS:6
“While funding for efforts to restore milkweed habitat are essential to the monarch butterfly's survival, without addressing the eradication of milkweed within agricultural fields, monarch populations will not rebound to resilient, healthy levels.
Research has shown that monarch butterflies lay up to four times more eggs on milkweed within agricultural fields, and unfortunately, this vital breeding habitat has been destroyed by herbicides used in conjunction with genetically engineered crops.”
Honeybees Are Also in Danger
Like Monarch butterflies, honeybees have been declining in record numbers in recent decades, due to what has been dubbed “colony collapse disorder.” There is no price that can be put upon the work of bees, which pollinate one-third of the food we eat.
Just about every fruit and vegetable you can imagine is dependent on the pollinating services of bees. Apple orchards, for instance, require one colony of bees per acre in order to be adequately pollinated. Almond growers must have two hives per acre.
So far there have been enough bees to keep up with production… but just barely. Those in the industry describe an increasingly dire situation in which finding enough bees to pollinate crops is "chaos." One recent study found that worker bees who begin foraging prematurely perform very poorly, and this compounds the stresses on the colony and accelerates failure of the hive.7
Glyphosate may also play a role in bee colony collapse disorder. As stated by GMO expert Dr. Don Huber, there are three established characteristics of colony collapse disorder that suggest glyphosate may be (at least partly) responsible:
The bees are mineral-deficient, especially in micronutrients
There’s plenty of food present but they’re not able to utilize it or to digest it
Dead bees are devoid of the Lactobacillus and the Bifidobacterium, which are components of their digestive system
The bees also become disoriented, suggesting endocrine hormone disruption. Neonicotinoid insecticides, which are endocrine hormone disruptors, have been demonstrated to make a bee disoriented and unable to find its way back to the hive – and have been implicated in bee die-offs. Glyphosate is also a very strong endocrine hormone disruptor. Dr. Huber also cited a study on glyphosate in drinking water at levels that are commonly found in US water systems, showing a 30 percent mortality in bees exposed to it.
No One’s Testing to See How Much Glyphosate Is on the Produce You Eat
If pesticides, herbicides, and other agricultural chemicals are decimating pollinators, have you stopped to think about what happens when you eat them? Research has demonstrated that these agricultural chemicals are neurotoxic, capable of damaging your nervous system. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 60 percent of herbicides, 90 percent of fungicides, and 30 percent of insecticides are also carcinogenic.
All of these toxins are permitted on conventional farms, and any number of them can end up on your plate when you purchase conventionally grown fruits and vegetables. However, it’s difficult to know exactly how many pesticides and herbicides may be on your food and what the health consequences may be. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) insists pesticide residues on food are no cause for concern.
According to the agency's latest report, more than half of all foods tested last year had detectable levels of pesticide residues, but most, they claim, are within the "safe" range. Yet, the USDA does not test for glyphosate, which is the most commonly used herbicide in the US (and world)! It’s worth noting that 73 percent of conventionally grown foods had at least one pesticide residue, as did 23 percent of their organically grown counterparts. A US Government Accountability Office report also called into questioned pesticide residue reporting and testing, noting the following glaring issues:8
The small percentage of produce tested (less than .01 percent of imported produce was tested in 2012)
The lack of disclosure about what is not tested (i.e. glyphosate)
The calculation methodology itself
In First, Americans Spent More in Restaurants Than Grocery Stores
By a nose, American dollars spent at restaurants and bars outstripped those plunked down in grocery stores in January, a first since the Census Bureau began tracking data in 1992.
"It’s been happening over the last 20 years gradually, but it’s really accelerated in recent years," explained Mark J. Perry, the University of Michigan economics and finance professor who created the above diagram for conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute. Spending in restaurants has kicked into high gear “especially in just the last five or six months,” he added.
Think about it this way: More than two decades ago, Americans spent $162 in groceries for every $100 they spent in restaurants. But this past January, they spent nearly equal amounts of money in both places: $50.475 billion in restaurants and bars, and $50.466 billion in grocery stores.
Perry attributes the numbers to dropping gas prices, which have left many people with more disposable income. But it’s unlikely that a single factor is to thank for the trend. “I think it’s a combination of a recovering economy and changing eating habits,” he said, extrapolating that “the millennial generation [may be] more likely to eat out than cook at home.” Perry also noted that dining in restaurants simply isn’t the once-in-a-blue-moon event it used to be.
"The role of the restaurant has changed in society," he said. "It’s less of a special occasion [destination], and even for some people, like me, eating out is an everyday occasion."
Martha Hoover, the founder of sprawling Indianapolis restaurant empire Patachou, goes one step further: Restaurants have earned a role in society that is equal to “work” or “home.”
"I think there’s been an explosion of independent restaurants, which are normally in neighborhoods," she said. "They’re usually smaller, more intimate, and more personal, and I think these restaurants have created a true ‘third’ place beyond home and work. You have this third place that’s also an extension of your community."
Routines have changed, Hoover continued. “If you’re talking about a family of four that wants to eat dinner together every night, they’ve transferred their kitchen table to a restaurant table,” she said. “Of course, as a restaurateur, I think it’s remarkable.”
So does San Francisco restaurateur Anna Weinberg, who with husband James Nicholas founded the eateries Cavalier, Marlowe, and Park Tavern.
"We’ve seen a huge shift in San Francisco," she told Yahoo Food. "I’ve seen people who treat restaurants like they do in New York City: as their kitchens." Weinberg attributes the change to people working longer hours, leaving them with little time to prepare their own meals. Grocery shopping, too, can be a pricey proposition if one develops a predilection for organic and local fare.
"It doesn’t cost me any less to go to Whole Foods [than a restaurant]—in fact it costs me more," Weinberg said. "I might spend $32 on a good steak [at the grocery store]. It costs me less in my own restaurant."
Weinberg also noted that nearby companies have begun using her restaurants as meeting places, which she believes is part of a larger trend. “We never used to open our restaurants between lunch and dinner, because it didn’t seem worthwhile,” she explained. “But we do now because people use them for business meetings. They’d rather do it at our communal table, drinking a ****tail, than their offices.”
Weinberg says the overall shift from eating at home to dining in restaurants has affected how she plans menus: There are more salads in the mix, to accommodate the “ladies who lunch.” Also, her daily menus change more often, to appeal to repeat customers.
To sum up, Weinberg described an average lunchtime scene at her New American bistro Marlowe: Table after table of young men, casually dressed in t-shirts, all from neighboring technology companies. They’re not necessarily foodies, but they have money to burn. For many, it’s not the first time they’ve dined at Marlowe that week.
"We’re kind of like their mom’s lunch," Weinberg said with a laugh. "I just can’t imagine seeing these kids in a supermarket."
How GMOs Took Over the Food Supply
March 2015 - Altered Genes, Twisted Truth, Dr. Mercola
Genetically manipulated foods may be one of the most serious threats to our health and survival of future generations. Steven Druker is the attorney who filed a lawsuit in the late '90s challenging the FDA who allowed GMOs in the market without a shred of safety testing.
Druker wrote a book - Altered Genes, Twisted Truth, How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public.
Pro-Monsanto Scientist Insists Weed Killer Is Entirely Safe to Drink. Then, TV Host Offers Him Glass…
A pro-Monsanto scientist who insisted during a television interview that Roundup is perfectly safe to drink refused to consume a glass of the weed killer on-air after being challenged by the host.
“You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you,” Dr. Patrick Moore told French cable channel Canal+ for an upcoming documentary.
“You want to drink some? We have some here,” the host asked.
“I’d be happy to actually. Not really, but I know it wouldn’t hurt me,” Moore replied.
“If you say so, I have some,” the host quipped back.
“No, no. I’m not stupid,” Moore answered. “People try to commit suicide with it and fail regularly.”
The French cable host pressed.
“Let’s tell the truth,” he said.
“It’s not dangerous to humans,” he said. “No, it’s not.”
“So are you ready drink a glass of glyphosate?” he asked.
“No I’m not an idiot,” Moore said before abruptly ending the interview and calling the host a “jerk.”
Roundup was recently named as a probably carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer due to the use of glyphosate as an ingredient. Monsanto strongly disagreed with the decision.
Moore, who has been called a Monsanto lobbyist, told The Huffington Post he is not.
“Knowledgeable scientists, consumers and our farmer customers may be familiar with and confident in the safety of glyphosate, but their statements don’t make them lobbyists for our company,” a spokesperson told the website. “Dr. Patrick Moore is one of those individuals. He agrees with the science that supports the safety of glyphosate, and is an advocate for technology and innovation. But Dr. Patrick Moore is not and never has been a paid lobbyist for Monsanto.”
Pesticides on fruits, veggies linked with poorer semen quality
Men who eat more fruits and vegetables with pesticide residue have lower sperm counts and a lower percentage of normal sperm, according to a new study.
The researchers studied sperm samples from 155 men who were attending a fertility clinic between 2007 and 2012 because they and their partners were having trouble conceiving.
The men also answered 131 questions about the food they ate, including how often and in what quantities they ate 38 fruits and vegetables like apples, avocadoes or cantaloupe. The researchers compared their answers to annual U.S. Department of Agriculture data on average pesticide residue in types of produce.
For example, peppers, spinach, strawberries, apples, and pears tend to have high levels of pesticide residue, whereas peas, beans, grapefruit, and onions have low-to-moderate amounts.
Half the men ate at least 3.5 servings of fruits and vegetables per day.
The total amount of fruits and veggies in the diet was not associated with semen quality. But men who ate at least 1.5 servings of high-pesticide produce per day had about half as many sperm in their semen, and two-thirds as many normal-appearing sperm, as men who ate less than half a serving of high-pesticide produce per day, according to results in Human Reproduction.
“This does not necessarily imply reduced fertility,” said senior author Jorge Chavarro of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “We will continue our work to try to figure out to what extent these effects in semen quality may ultimately impact fertility.”
Pesticide-laden produce was linked to poorer semen quality even when the authors accounted for smoking status and the men’s weight in relation to their height, which can both affect sperm quality. In fact, men who ate more high-pesticide fruits and vegetables tended to exercise more and have a healthier diet overall, Chavarro said.
Other studies had tied poorer semen quality to occupational and environmental exposure to pesticide chemicals, and the latest results indicate the same is true for pesticides in the diet.
Given that pesticides are designed to kill and harm pest reproduction, it is not surprising that they are harmful to human reproduction, said Dr. Hagai Levine of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, who coauthored an editorial published with the findings.
Recent evidence indicates that sperm quality is an important measure of general health, and poor semen quality predicts higher risk of death, Levine told Reuters Health by email.
“This is an observational study, not an interventional study, so other characteristics, associated both with pesticide-riddled fruit consumption and with semen quality could explain the results,” he said. But the researchers did account for other factors like age, body mass, physical activity, race, smoking, urogenital conditions, season and year, he noted.
“These results do not point to any one specific pesticide or group of pesticides,” Chavarro told Reuters Health by email. “Instead, they suggest that pesticide mixtures, as used in agriculture, may be to blame.”
“Gaining a better understanding on which specific mixtures or pesticides explain this relation will be key moving forward, however,” he said.
He and his team are actively investigating whether women’s markers of fertility may also be linked to pesticides in the diet, he said.
Organic produce carries less pesticide residue, if you can afford it, he said.
Another option is to choose fruits and vegetables known to have low levels of pesticide residues, he said.
Some pesticides remain on the surface of produce and may come off when washed, but many others are absorbed into fruit and washing will do nothing in those cases, Chavarro said.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/1IggMzd Human Reproduction, March 30, 2015.