Monsanto Buys Up Heirloom Seed Suppliers

Monsanto is buying up heirloom seed companies and trademarks. Maddy Harland discovers who is buying what and how to avoid Monsanto. She explores why what we buy can be a form of positive activism.

shutterstock_144268783.jpg

The NM Tree and Garden Center located in Rio Rancho, New Mexico has discovered that Monsanto is buying heirloom seed companies. They are also buying the trademarks to a number of heirloom seeds. This means that you may think you are supporting an heirloom seed company but in reality the company is owned by Monsanto. The seeds themselves are still non-GMO and heirloom and they can be saved at the end of the harvest and resown next season, but you are still giving money to Monsanto. Continue reading

Advertisements

10 Toxic Foods Made In China That Are Filled With Plastic, Pesticides And Cancer Causing Chemicals

Recently I was reading an article on AltHealthWorks.com about a fake rice being produced in China. The rice is being made out of plastic believe it or not and no one is doing anything about it. Naturally, as a health advocate and researcher of food and how food is processed I thought to myself, this is going WAY too far. Continue reading

McDonald’s Is Facing Its Final Days, According To Franchise Bosses

UNILAD-mcds12-web61895

McDonald’s lovers could be facing their worst case scenario if one report is to be believed, after claims that the franchise could well be dying out.

Several of the franchise owners have made their concerns over CEO Steve Easterbrook’s turnaround plan known, claiming it will do more harm to the fast food company than good.

Continue reading

Northern Ireland Bans GM Crops

GM-crops-900x350

Following Scotland Germany, Greece and Latvia, Northern Ireland is also banning genetically modified (GM) crops under the new EU opt-out regulations.

Mark H Durkan the Environment Minister announced on Monday that he is prohibiting the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in Northern Ireland.

Sustainable Pulse Reports:

Continue reading

Hungarians Just Destroyed All Monsanto GMO Corn Fields

Hungary-Burns-Monsanto-Crops-740x477

Hungary has taken a bold stand against biotech giant Monsanto and genetic modification by destroying 1000 acres of maize found to have been grown with genetically modified seeds, according to Hungary deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development Lajos Bognar.

Unlike many European Union countries, Hungary is a nation where genetically modified (GM) seeds are banned. In a similar stance against GM ingredients, Peru has also passed a 10 year ban on GM foods.

Continue reading

Billy Corgan of The Smashing Pumpkins Talks Chemtrails on Stage

Billy Corgan 1

It’s not that often that we hear famous people talk about chemtrails and it’s certainly rare to hear them bring the subject up at concerts. To me, I think it’s wonderful when this happens, it’s good to see someone with such a huge platform speak up about these topics. Not long ago we got a surprise from Kylie Jenner when she decided to take to Twitter and post about chemtrails.

Continue reading

‘Corporate Influence Has Won’: House Passes Anti-GMO Labeling Bill

 

label gmo

Legislation dubbed the DARK Act had backing of powerful groups who poured money into defeating state-level GMO-labeling efforts

by Andrea Germanos

The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed legislation that would block states from requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods, or GMOs—a move that consumer rights groups decried as corporate power defeating Americans’ right to know what’s in their food.

Continue reading

Are Parents Going to Jail for Vaccine Injuries?

the-syndrome-scene

Health Impact News Editor Brian Shilhavy Comments:

One of the true travesties of justice in modern society is the medical profession’s refusal to acknowledge vaccine injuries. While U.S. law forces the government to pay out damages to vaccine injuries and deaths in a special federal vaccine court that was setup to protect the manufacturers of vaccines from any legal liabilities, medical professionals continue to deny the existence of vaccine injuries, and therefore research to learn how to help vaccine damaged children is never funded nor conducted.

Continue reading

Monsanto Linked to Israel’s Illegal Use of White Phosphorous in Gaza War

Colombia has announced that it will stop using Monsanto's controversial herbicide glyphosate - the active ingredient in its bestselling RoundUp - on illicit coca crops as part of state efforts to eradicate the plants.Agribusiness giant Monsanto – best known for their genetically modified soybeans and “probably carcinogenic” herbicide – has supplied the US government with white phosphorous used in incendiary weapons for at least 20 years, and some of that made its way to Israel for use in Operation Cast Lead.

The blog Current Events Inquiry dug into some heavily redacted documents posted in 2012 on the US Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website, to discover that Monsanto was the  purveyor of white phosphorous to the US, and subsequently Israel, including during Operation Cast Lead, which resulted in heavy casualties among Palestinians in Gaza in 2008 and 2009.

Continue reading

Biotech shills posing as economists try to boost GMO sales by proposing subsidies for junk food and taxes for organic food

OrganicProduce

As the drought in California — home to much of the nation’s food production — worsens, desperation is rampant as politicians, policymakers and others scramble for ways to mitigate the worsening crisis.

One of the most recent ideas is also one of the most foolish because it is based on a series of misconceptions and outright falsehoods that have been perpetuated in large part by the mainstream media.

Continue reading

Federal Government Prepares to Track Unvaccinated Adults

vaccines-are-safe-630x315

During the National Vaccine Advisory Committee’s (NVAC) February meeting, American adults were put on notice by Big Brother that non-compliance with federal vaccine recommendations will not be tolerated. Public health officials have unveiled a new plan to launch a massive nationwide vaccination promotion campaign involving private business and non-profit organizations to pressure all adults to comply with the adult vaccination schedule approved by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). [1] Continue reading

Is There Any Middle Ground On The Vaccine Debate?

vaccine_infant

People have their pros and cons about vaccines, we all know this. It’s been one of the most heated discussions between parents in at least the last 10 years. Most people do their chosen amount of research, state their case, and never budge from that point. This can be a dilemma, no matter which side you are looking at it from. But what if we were to approach it from a different angle, one that most anti-vaxxers can relate with but pro-vaxxers can still agree to(hopefully)? Continue reading

New Study Finds GMO Soy Toxic to Kidneys, Liver, and Reproduction

Soy_gm_bean_dna_735
In North America, approximately 75 to 89% of the soy beans grown are genetically modified (GM). One may not realize it, but this is concerning news – especially because recent research found that GM soy is toxic to the kidneys, liver, and more.

There isn’t just one smoking gun anymore pointing at GMO toxicology. There is now an entire arsenal of scientific research proving that genetically modified organisms adversely affect the body. In yet another new study conducted by Egyptian researchers, rats given GM soy were found to have deadly amounts of toxicity in their kidneys, liver, testes, sperm, blood and even DNA. Continue reading

The 10 GMO Myths That Monsanto Wants You To Believe

 

1aa

Monsanto and their biotech buddies would have you believe that they are super-heroes, set on saving hungry children from starvation wearing a dazzling fake-green cape. In fact, in a recent attack on activists, Monsanto’s CEO Hugh Grant said that because critics “can afford” organic food, we don’t care about the plight of those who can’t afford it. “There is this strange kind of reverse elitism: If I’m going to do this, then everything else shouldn’t exist,” said Grant. “There is space in the supermarket shelf for all of us.” Continue reading

16 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True

dollar-bill

(The Truth) – Are you a conspiracy theorist?  If not, perhaps you should be.  Yes, there have certainly been a lot of “conspiracy theories” over the years that have turned out not to be accurate.  However, the truth is that a large number of very prominent conspiracy theories have turned out to actually be true.  So the next time that you run into some “tin foil hat wearing lunatics”, you might want to actually listen to what they have to say. They may actually know some things that you do not.  In fact, one recent study found that “conspiracy theorists” are actually more sane than the general population.  So the next time you are tempted to dismiss someone as a “conspiracy theorist”, just remember that the one that is crazy might actually be you.  The following are 16 popular conspiracy theories that turned out to be true…
Continue reading

UK government bans GMOs from its own Parliament restaurants while telling public to embrace genetic poisons

https://i2.wp.com/wac.naturalnews.tv/2412-5.jpg

By Jonathan Benson

Since the mid-to-late 1990s when genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) were first being thrust onto the market by governments working in lockstep with the biotechnology industry, the U.K. Parliament has effectively barred their use in all food items served to government officials at Parliament restaurants, according to new reports. This, despite the fact that prominent elected officials in the U.K. are right now pushing GMOs on a public that is largely opposed to them, effectively shining the spotlight on their own insane hypocrisy with regards to the GMO issue. Continue reading

80% of Processed Foods in US Are Banned In Other Nations

80percent packaged foods banned 263x164 80% of Processed Foods in US Are Banned In Other NationsI write a lot about the dangers of processed foods when it comes to wreaking havoc on our health, but even I was surprised to find that 80% of pre-packaged foods sold in the United States are actually banned in other nations. And for good reason.   Continue reading

Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New ‘Highly Toxic’ Pesticide

https://i0.wp.com/fracturedparadigm.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/bee_orange_flower.jpgDespite new findings that prove a heightened crisis in US bee populations and a recent ban in Europe on similar chemical applications, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has decided to further endanger the population Monday by approving a “highly toxic” new pesticide.

The “EPA continues to put industry interests first to exacerbate an already dire pollinator crisis,” writes the group Beyond Pesticides.

The agency granted sulfoxaflor, a product of the Dow Chemical Company, “unconditional registration” for use on vegetables, fruits, barley, canola, ornamentals, soybeans and wheat among others, despite the EPA’s own classification of the insecticide as “highly toxic to honey bees.”

According to the Washington Examiner, the EPA’s studies on the chemical’s long-term effect on bees proved to be “inconclusive due to some issues with the study designs” and thus the EPA has proposed simply reducing the amount applied.

As part of their decision, the EPA approved new language for the sulfoxaflor labels which reads, “Do not apply this product at any time between 3 days prior to bloom and until after petal fall,” during heightened pollinator activity.

Further, they approved an additional ‘advisory pollinator statement’:

Notifying known beekeepers within 1 mile of the treatment area 48 hours before the product is applied will allow them to take additional steps to protect their bees. Also limiting application to times when managed bees and native pollinators are least active, e.g., before 7 am or after 7pm local time or when temperature is below 55oF at the site of application, will minimize risk to bees.

Though the EPA believes this advisory to be “robust” enough to protect pollinators, environmental advocacy groups such as Beyond Pesticides believe such statements “not only underscore the risks to bees” but prove to be unrealistic since systemic pesticides, including sulfoxaflor, “continue to exist in the plant (including pollen and nectar) for longer periods of time that well surpasses the recommended application intervals, and therefore expose bees to residues longer than suggested.”

And, in addition to harming bees, sulfoxaflor has been known to cause tumors and carcinomas in mice and rats and has been classified as “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential.”

Dismissing these concerns, the EPA alternately points to the “need for sulfoxaflor by industry and agriculture groups to control insects no longer being controlled by increasingly ineffective pesticide technologies,” proving the ongoing and harmful nature of unsustainable techniques such as pesticide sprays.

Following Europe’s announcement that they would suspend the use of bee-harming neonicotinoids in an effort to combat the rampant colony collapse crisis, many hoped the US would announce similar reforms.

However, following this week’s announcement, groups say it is clear the EPA will continue pursue an “irresponsible” and “counter-intuitive” agenda in regards to bee health and the environment.

 

http://fracturedparadigm.com/2013/06/12/ignoring-bee-crisis-epa-greenlights-new-highly-toxic-pesticide/

Vermont May Be First State to Require Labeling of Genetically Modified Food

 

It’s not a done deal, but Vermont took the first step toward legally requiring the labeling of foods that have been genetically modified.

Although the Vermont House moved the legislation one step toward becoming law last week, the GMO industry is fighting it tooth and nail, threatening lawsuits right and left. As a recent Truthout article noted,“Monsanto Threatens to Sue Vermont Over GMO Labeling Bill.”

The threat of legal action by multi-billion dollar corporations who are acquiring a monopoly on patented genetically modified food lets states like Vermont know that they will spend unlimited amounts of money on litigation, thus striking fear in state legislators who are worried about economically fragile budgets. As a May 13th Grist article quotes an NPR report:

No representatives on Thursday argued against the concept of more transparent food labeling. The most frequent point of opposition voiced on the floor concerned a likely lawsuit from the biotech or food industries that the Attorney General’s Office estimates could cost the state more than $5 million.

Grist comments on this argument in relation to a failed proposition in California:

A ballot initiative that would have required GMO labels in California was defeated last year after Monsanto and other corporations spent nearly $50 million on ads opposing it. A national GMO-labeling bill was introduced recently in Congress, but it has little to no chance of becoming law./Vermont House members caved a little in not requiring that milk or meat, for example, that come from animals who have been fed GMO’s be labeled as a concession to the behemoth genetically modified food industry.  But it would require all food that contains GMO ingredients or is from a genetically engineered animal (salmon, for instance) be labeled as such.

So what would the Vermont bill accomplish?

Grist puts it succintly:

Most of the corn, soy, and sugar beets grown in the U.S. are genetically modified, and they’re widely used in processed foods. But shoppers who want to avoid them have no good way of doing so. Requiring food manufacturers to label genetically modified foods would allow people to say “no” to such products.

Transparency in knowing what we are eating: isn’t it a basic right to be given full information on what we put into our bodies?  Monsanto and the other GMO giants are rightfully fearful that people will avoid genetically engineered food in large numbers and hurt their profits.  But health and personal choice come before hiding the truth, stock prices, share holder dividends and executive compensation.

The lopsided (107-37) passage of the genetically modified foods labeling bill in the Vermont House joins other state victories on progressive issues that BuzzFlash at Truthout has recently highlighted.  These include Minnesota becoming the 12th State to legalize same-sex marriage and the Vermont Senate voting to back abolishing any claim to legal corporate personhood.  

What this means is that state-by-state activists are making headway on progressive issues becoming law, advancing crucial public policy as Washington remains grid locked.  State elected holders are generally more responsive to local constituents because of the smaller size of their districts.  Money still has a very large impact on state legislatures – to be sure – but less so on social issues than in the nation’s capital.

Is this cause for a moment of celebration?  Yes, it proves that the logjam of backwards-looking policies can be broken.

Moreover, it’s a call to activists to dig in for a long slog.  With hard disciplined efforts, victories can be won.

 

 

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17965-vermont-may-be-first-state-to-require-labeling-of-genetically-modified-food

Monsanto Now Owns Blackwater (Xe)

A report by Jeremy Scahill in The Nation (Blackwater’s Black Ops, 9/15/2010) revealed that the largest mercenary army in the world, Blackwater (now called Xe Services) clandestine intelligence services was sold to the multinational Monsanto. Blackwater was renamed in 2009 after becoming famous in the world with numerous reports of abuses in Iraq, including massacres of civilians. It remains the largest private contractor of the U.S. Department of State “security services,” that practices state terrorism by giving the government the opportunity to deny it.

Many military and former CIA officers work for Blackwater or related companies created to divert attention from their bad reputation and make more profit selling their nefarious services-ranging from information and intelligence to infiltration, political lobbying and paramilitary training – for other governments, banks and multinational corporations. According to Scahill, business with multinationals, like Monsanto, Chevron, and financial giants such as Barclays and Deutsche Bank, are channeled through two companies owned by Erik Prince, owner of Blackwater: Total Intelligence Solutions and Terrorism Research Center. These officers and directors share Blackwater.

One of them, Cofer Black, known for his brutality as one of the directors of the CIA, was the one who made contact with Monsanto in 2008 as director of Total Intelligence, entering into the contract with the company to spy on and infiltrate organizations of animal rights activists, anti-GM and other dirty activities of the biotech giant.

Contacted by Scahill, the Monsanto executive Kevin Wilson declined to comment, but later confirmed to The Nation that they had hired Total Intelligence in 2008 and 2009, according to Monsanto only to

keep track of “public disclosure” of its opponents. He also said that Total Intelligence was a “totally separate entity from Blackwater.”

However, Scahill has copies of emails from Cofer Black after the meeting with Wilson for Monsanto, where he explains to other former CIA agents, using their Blackwater e-mails, that the discussion with Wilson was that Total Intelligence had become “Monsanto’s intelligence arm,” spying on activists and other actions, including “our people to legally integrate these groups.” Total Intelligence Monsanto paid $ 127,000 in 2008 and $ 105,000 in 2009.

No wonder that a company engaged in the “science of death” as Monsanto, which has been dedicated from the outset to produce toxic poisons spilling from Agent Orange to PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), pesticides, hormones and genetically modified seeds, is associated with another company of thugs.

Almost simultaneously with the publication of this article in The Nation, the Via Campesina reported the purchase of 500,000 shares of Monsanto, for more than $23 million by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which with this action completed the outing of the mask of “philanthropy.” Another association that is not surprising.

It is a marriage between the two most brutal monopolies in the history of industrialism: Bill Gates controls more than 90 percent of the market share of proprietary computing and Monsanto about 90 percent of the global transgenic seed market and most global commercial seed. There does not exist in any other industrial sector monopolies so vast, whose very existence is a negation of the vaunted principle of “market competition” of capitalism. Both Gates and Monsanto are very aggressive in defending their ill-gotten monopolies.

Although Bill Gates might try to say that the Foundation is not linked to his business, all it proves is the opposite: most of their donations end up favoring the commercial investments of the tycoon, not really “donating” anything, but instead of paying taxes to the state coffers, he invests his profits in where it is favorable to him economically, including propaganda from their supposed good intentions. On the contrary, their “donations” finance projects as destructive as geoengineering or replacement of natural community medicines for high-tech patented medicines in the poorest areas of the world. What a coincidence, former Secretary of Health Julio Frenk and Ernesto Zedillo are advisers of the Foundation.

Like Monsanto, Gates is also engaged in trying to destroy rural farming worldwide, mainly through the “Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa” (AGRA). It works as a Trojan horse to deprive poor African farmers of their traditional seeds, replacing them with the seeds of their companies first, finally by genetically modified (GM). To this end, the Foundation hired Robert Horsch in 2006, the director of Monsanto. Now Gates, airing major profits, went straight to the source.

Blackwater, Monsanto and Gates are three sides of the same figure: the war machine on the planet and most people who inhabit it, are peasants, indigenous communities, people who want to share information and knowledge or any other who does not want to be in the aegis of profit and the destructiveness of capitalism.

* The author is a researcher at ETC Group

Study reveals GMO corn to be highly toxic

AFP Photo / Paul J. Richards

A leaked study examining genetically-modified corn reveals that the lab-made alternative to organic crops contains a startling level of toxic chemicals.

An anti-GMO website has posted the results of an education-based consulting company’s comparison of corn types, and the results reveal that genetically modified foods may be more hazardous than once thought.

The study, the 2012 Corn Comparison Report by Profit Pro, was published recently on the website for Moms Across America March to Label GMOs, a group that says they wish to “raise awareness and support Moms with solutions to eat GMO Free as we demand GMO labeling locally and nationally simultaneously.” They are plotting nationwide protests scheduled for later this year.

The report, writes the website’s Zen Honeycutt, was provided by a representative for De Dell Seed Company, an Ontario-based farm that’s touted as being Canadian only non-GMO corn seed company.

“The claims that ‘There is no difference between GMO corn and NON Gmo corn’ are false,” says Honeycutt, who adds she was “floored” after reading the study.

According to the analysis, GMO corn tested by Profit Pro contains a number of elements absent from traditional cord, including chlorides, formaldehyde and glyphosate. While those elements don’t appear naturally in corn, they were present in GMO samples to the tune of 60 ppm, 200pm and 13 ppm, respectively.

Honecutt says that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (FDA) mandates that the level of glyphosate in American drinking water not exceed 0.7 ppm and adds that organ damage in some animals has been linked to glyphosate exposure exceeding 0.1 ppm.

“Glyphosate is a strong organic phosphate chelator that immobilizes positively charged minerals such as manganese, cobalt, iron, zinc [and] copper,” Dr. Don Huber attested during a separate GMO study recently released, adding that those elements “are essential for normal physiological functions in soils, plants and animals.”

“Glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of living things and GMO corn is covered with it,” adds Honeycutt, who notes that the nutritional benefits rampant in natural corn are almost entirely removed from lab-made seeds: in the samples used during the study, non-GMO corn is alleged to have 437-times the amount of calcium in genetically modified versions, and 56- and 7-times the level of magnesium and manganese, respectively.

These studies come on the heels of a recent decision on Capitol Hill to approve an annual agriculture appropriations bill, even though a provision within the act contained a rider that frees GMO corporations such as the multi-billion-dollar Monsanto Company from liability. The so-called “Monsanto Protection Act,” written by a lawmaker that has lobbied for the agra-giant, says biotech companies won’t need federal approval to test and plant GMO-crops, even if health risks are unknown.

“The provision would strip federal courts of the authority to halt the sale and planting of an illegal, potentially hazardous GE crop while the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) assesses those potential hazards,” reads a letter to the House of Representatives that was delivered to Congress last month with the signatures of dozens of food businesses and retailers, as well as interest groups and agencies representing family farmers. “Further, it would compel USDA to allow continued planting of that same crop upon request, even if in the course of its assessment the Department finds that it poses previously unrecognized risks.”

http://rt.com/usa/toxic-study-gmo-corn-900/

Monsanto vs. Mother Earth

(secure.avaaz.org) It’s unbelievable, but Monsanto and Co. are at it again. These profit-hungry biotech companies have found a way to exclusively ‘own’ something that freely belongs to us all — our food! They’re trying to patent away our everyday vegetables and fruits like cucumber, broccoli and melons, forcing growers to pay them and risk being sued if they don’t.

But we can stop them from buying up Mother Earth. Companies like Monsanto have found loopholes in European law to get away with this, so we just need to close them shut before they set a dangerous global precedent. And to do that, we need key countries like Germany, France and the Netherlands — where opposition is already growing — to call for a vote to stop Monsanto’s plans. The Avaaz community has shifted governments before, and we can do it again.

Many farmers and politicians are already against this — we just need to bring in people power to pressure these countries to keep Monsanto’s hands off our food. Sign now and share with everyone to help build the biggest food defense call ever.

Safety Group Blows Lid on ‘Secret Virus’ Hidden in GMO Crops

gmotomatoinject 265x165 Safety Group Blows Lid on Secret Virus Hidden in GMO Crops

(Natural Society) -Yet another disturbing reason has emerged as to why you should be avoiding health-devastating genetically modified organisms, and it may be one of the most concerning yet. We know that GMO consumption has been linked to a host of serious conditions, but one thing we are not so sure about is the recent discovery of a hidden viral gene deep within genetically modified crops.

For years, GMOs have been consumed knowingly and unknowingly around the globe, with Monsanto and the United States government claiming that the altered franken crops are perfectly safe despite very limited (or virtually none in some cases) initial testing and scientists speaking out against the dangers. One such danger that has actually not been spoken about has been revealed in a recent report by a safety watchdog group known as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

Another Dirty Secret of Monsanto

In the EFSA report, which can be read online, you can find (within the scientific wording) that researchers discovered a previously unknown viral gene that is known as ‘Gene VI’. What’s concerning is that not only is the rogue gene found in the most prominent GMO crops and about 63% of GMO traits approved for use (54 out of 86 to be precise), but it can actually disrupt the very biological functions within living organisms. Popular GMO crops such as Roundup-Ready soybeans, NK603, and MON810 corn were found to contain the gene that induces physical mutations. NK603 maize, of course, was also recently linked to the development of mass tumors in rats.

According to Independent Science News, Gene VI also inhibits RNA silencing. As you may know, RNA silencing has been pinpointed as vital for the proper functioning of gene expression when it comes to RNA. Perhaps more topically, it is a defense mechanism against viruses in plants and animals alike. On the contrary, many viruses have developed genes that disable this protective process. Independent Science News reports that the Gene VI is one such gene.

Overall, there is a degree of knowledge on Gene VI. What we do know going by information within the report is that the gene:

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

All of which are very significant effects that should be studied in depth by an independent team of scientists after GMO products are taken off the market pending further research on the entire array of associated diseases. And that does not even include the effects we are unaware of.

This is yet another incident in which Monsanto and other biotech companies are getting away with an offense against the citizens of the world with (most likely) no action taken by the United States government. What we have seen, however, is nations like Russia, Poland, Hungary, and Peru taking a stand against Monsanto in direct opposition to their disregard for public safety. Russia, in fact, banned Monsanto’s GMO corn variety after it was linked to mass tumors in rats.

As more and more dirty secrets come out from the GMO industry at large, it gives further reason and more support to remove GMOs as a whole from the food supply.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/safety-group-blows-lid-on-secret-virus-hidden-in-gmo-crops/#ixzz2KExk1cz4

Wal-Mart, Pepsi and 20 Major Food Companies Consider Lobbying for GMO Labeling?

 

(Activist Post)A lot of events are converging to create a tipping point to finally allow the labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods.

The FDA is likely to approve GM salmon and apples against the people’s will. Many big food companies have received massive social media backlash from consumers, particularly parent companies to organic ones that heavily funded campaigns against GMO labeling.

For instance, Ben & Jerry’s ice cream got shrapnel from some of these “Traitor’s Boycotts” because its parent company Unilever funded to prevent labeling. Ben & Jerry’s will remove its GM ingredients by the end of 2013.

The funded and questionable failure of California’s Proposition 37 has stoked the flames since last September.

Consumers have even themselves begun labeling grocery products with a passionate drive to bring awareness to others. Wal-mart got flak last summer for selling unlabeled and possibly dangerous GM sweet corn.

Most recently, Washington state introduced a labeling initiative for the 2013 ballot.

Their concern is not only about “right to know” but surrounds fears that unlabeled genetic salmon and apples could seriously damage the economy by getting their exports blocked – especially from countries that require labeled GM food. It is estimated that at least 20 other states are considering labeling initiatives.

This amalgam is perhaps why there is talk of Wal-mart, PepsiCo, ConAgra and at least 20 major food companies possibly switching sides and lobbying for national labeling.

It’s probably the very least all those companies could do after spending more than $45 million to keep food unlabeled. Gary Hirshberg of Just-Label-It and chairman of Stonyfield Organic called it a poor return on their investment, referring to their actions provoking demand instead of squashing it. Too late – money talks both ways, but now they are starting to get it.

Organic Consumers Association (OCA) reported earlier that those companies, the FDA and some advocacy groups met in January behind closed doors at the Meridian Institute, a major discussion hub.

It appears that some Fortune 500 companies have now shied away from Monsanto. Consumer activism works.

Ronnie Cummins of OCA warned to keep watch:

We should be wary of any compromise deal at the federal level, one that would preempt the passage of meaningful state GMO labeling laws that have real teeth.

How many of you saw a red flag for a case of Problem-Reaction-Solution or Controlled Opposition? Are they discussing a watered-down solution – a strategic attack? At the very least, they know that they have a problem.

While so many consumers are adamantly opposed to GMOs existing anywhere close to planet Earth, some law makers like Senator Jamilah Nasheed of St. Louis simply feel:

I don’t want to hinder any producer of genetically modified goods — However, I strongly feel that people have the right to know what they are putting into their bodies.

Fighting the presence of GMOs and trying to raise awareness has been an uphill and often unseen battle for over 20 years.

Not only have the FDA and USDA failed to help, but they have systematically ushered them in with no safety testing and have covered up studies proving hazards.

At least with consumer awareness reaching critical mass (we vote with our forks and dollars), big companies like Wal-Mart and food giants finally voicing labeling desires is a step in a good direction if they stop selling us out for profits.

Let’s continue giving them an uphill battle to win back our patronage – if ever. They don’t want to keep shelling out millions to further provoke us if they have to keep doing it repeatedly to their own demise. If they want people’s money, they had better listen.

The definitive movie on genetically modified foods – watch Genetic Roulette: The Gamble of Our Lives for free, limited time only.

Uncovered, the ‘toxic’ gene hiding in GM crops: Revelation throws new doubt over safety of foods

(dailymail.co.uk) A virus gene that could be poisonous to humans has been missed when GM food crops have been assessed for safety.

GM crops such as corn and soya, which are being grown around the world for both human and farm animal consumption, include the gene.

A new study by the EU’s official food watchdog, the European Food Safety Authority(EFSA), has revealed that the international approval process for GM crops failed to identify the gene.

A new study conducted by the EU has shown that standard test for GM foods may be missing a potentially poisonous gene for humans A new study conducted by the EU has shown that standard tests for GM foods may be missing a potentially poisonous gene for humans

As a result, watchdogs have not investigated its impact on human health and the plants themselves when assessing whether they were safe.

The findings are particularly powerful because the work was carried out by independent experts, rather than GM critics.

It was led by Nancy Podevin, who was employed by EFSA, and Patrick du Jardin, of the Plant Biology Unit at the University of Liege in Belgium.

They discovered that 54 of the 86 GM plants approved for commercial growing and food in the US, including corn and soya, contain the viral gene, which is known as ‘Gene VI’.

In this country, these crops are typically fed to farm animals producing meat, milk and eggs.

Significantly, the EFSA researchers concluded that the presence of segments of Gene VI ‘might result in unintended phenotypic changes’.

Such changes include the creation of proteins that are toxic to humans. They could also trigger changes in the plants themselves, making them more vulnerable to pests.

Critics say the revelations make clear that the GM approvals process, which has been in place for 20 years, is fatally flawed.

They argue the only correct response is to recall all of the crops and food products involved. Director of the campaigning group, GM Freeze, Pete Riley, said the discovery of the gene, ‘totally undermines claims that GM technology is safe, precise and predictable’.

He said: ‘This is a clear warning the GM is not sufficiently understood to be considered safe.’Authorisation for these crops must be suspended immediately, and they should be withdrawn from sale, until a full and extended review of their safety has been carried out.’

Typically, GM crops are modified in the laboratory to give them resistance to being sprayed with powerful weed killers such as Monsanto’s Round-up.

This means that, in theory, fields can be doused with the chemical, so wiping out the weeds and allowing the food plants to thrive.

It was previously assumed that virus genes are not present in plants once they are grown in the field and reach consumers, however it is now clear that this is not the caseIt was previously assumed that virus genes are not present in plants once they are grown in the field and reach consumers, however it is now clear that this is not the case

The modification process involves inserting genes into the plants using a technique that allows them to piggyback on viruses that are commonly found in the soil and plants.

It has been assumed that virus genes are not present in the plant once it is grown in the field and reaches consumers, however it is now clear that this is not the case.

A review of the EFSA research in Independent Science News said the presence of the viral gene appears to have been missed by biotech companies, universities and government regulators.

‘This situation represents a complete and catastrophic system failure,’ it said. ‘There are clear indications that this viral gene might not be safe for human consumption. It also may disturb the normal functioning of crops, including their natural pest resistance.

‘A reasonable concern is that the protein produced by Gene VI might be a human toxin. This is a question that can only be answered by future experiments.’

Biotech supporters argue that there is no evidence from countries such as the USA that eating GM food causes any harm.

However, the reality is that no health monitoring has taken place to establish this. The findings will embarrass the government and the food and farming Secretary, Owen Patterson, who has embarked on a pro-GM propaganda exercise designed to win over sceptical consumers.

Mr Patterson recently rejected public concerns as ‘humbug’ and ‘complete nonsense’. Policy director at the Soil Association, Peter Melchett said: ‘For years, GM companies have made a deliberate and chilling effort to stop independent scientists from looking at their products.

‘This is what happens when there is a complete absence of independent scrutiny of their GM crops.’Biotech firms are represented by the Agricultural Biotechnology Council(ABC).

Its chairman, Dr Julian Little, said the EFSA study was one small part of a strict and complex scrutiny process.

He said: ‘Over the past 25 years, the European Commission has funded more than 130 research projects involving 500 independent research groups which have found no higher risks to the environment or food chain from GM crops than from conventional plants and organisms.

‘Furthermore, nearly three trillion meals containing GM ingredients have been eaten without a single substantiated case of ill-health. The combination of these two facts can give consumers a huge amount of confidence in the safety of GM crops.’

GM critics and EFSA are at odds over the implications of the research paper, which was written by the deputy chairman of the organisation’s advisory panel on the issue and a former senior member of staff.

EFSA insists that the research highlighting the presence of Gene VI does not represent a new discovery of a viral gene and does not indicate a safety concern about GM crops already approved.

It said the viral gene ‘cannot infect animals or humans and therefore presents no threat to human or animal health’. This is challenged by GM critics who say there is no research evidence to justify this statement.

Illusion of Choice By George Carlin, Ron Paul, and Judge Napolitano

Service with a smile and pain: McDonald’s McRib Sandwich a Franken Creation of GMOs, Toxic Ingredients, Banned Ingredients

mcdonaldsmcrib 265x167 McDonalds McRib Sandwich a Franken Creation of GMOs, Toxic Ingredients, Banned Ingredients

(NaturalSociety) -It’s ‘McRib season’, and thousands across the nation are scrambling to use online websites like the ‘McRib locator‘ to stuff the McDonald’s McRib sandwich down their throats. A sandwich that is not only full of genetically modified ingredients, a medley of toxic fillers and preservatives, but also some ingredients that are actually banned in other nations around the world. But honestly, are you surprised?

The McRib is the result of intensive marketing by McDonald’s. Utilizing the basics of supply and demand through creating scarcity over the McRib by only unleashing the culinary abomination for a fraction of the year that is only known once it is released, McDonald’s fans have been known to ‘hoard’ McRib sandwiches and eat them in extreme excess. It’s even a topic of the popular documentary Super Size Me, where filmmaker Morgan Spurlock (who gorges himself with McDonald’s for 30 days only to find serious health consequences) encounters ‘McRib hunters’ who actually travel the country eating McRib sandwiches.

Related: 3 Fast Food Secret Ingredients

McDonald’s even made McRib fans sign a petition to ‘save the McRib’ online, bringing out a conglomerate of fans to bring back their favorite franken sandwich.

What’s Inside a McDonald’s McRib Sandwich?

 

But what’s really inside the McRib specifically that makes it such a food abomination? Containing over 70 ingredients, the McRib is full of surprises — including ‘restructured meat’ technology that includes traditionally-discarded animal parts brought together to create a rib-like substance. Here’s some of the disturbing substances found within the McDonald’s McRib sandwich: 

A flour-bleaching agent used in yoga mats

Out of the 70 ingredients that make up the ‘pork’ sandwich, a little-known flour-bleaching agent known as azodicarbonamide lies among them. At first glance, this strange ingredient sounds concerning enough to look into. After a little research, you will find that even mainstream media outlets have generated content revealing how azodicarbonamide is actually used in the production of foamed plastics. Foamed plastics like yoga mats and more.

What’s more? In Australia and Europe, the use of azodicarbonamide as a food additive is banned. In Singapore specifically, use of this substance in food can result in a $450,000 fine and 15 years in jail. Thank you McDonald’s for supplying the nation with such healthful ingredients.

‘Restructured Meat’ from Pig Heart, Tongue, Stomach

McDonald’s McRib is famous in some circles for utilizing what’s known as ‘restructured meat’ technology. Since McDonald’s knows you’d never eat a pig heart, tongue, or stomach on your plate, they decided instead to grind up these ingredients and put them into the form of a typical rib. That way, consumers won’t know what they’re putting into their mouths. As the Chicago Mag reported, the innovator of this technology back in 1995 said it best:

“Most people would be extremely unhappy if they were served heart or tongue on a plate… but flaked into a restructured product it loses its identity.Such products as tripe, heart, and scalded stomachs…”

So in other words, it’s not actually a rib. Instead, it’s a combination of unwanted animal scraps processed down in major facilities and ‘restructured’ into the form of a rib. Then, 70 additives, chemicals, fillers, and GMO ingredients later, you have a ‘meat’ product that tastes like ribs.

1aa

Family Farmers to Travel to Washington, D.C. to Take on Monsanto

farmers vs monsanto

(ActivistPost) – Dozens of family farmers, Plaintiffs in the landmark lawsuit Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al v. Monsanto, will travel from across America to Washington, D.C. next week to take on Monsanto and demand the right to farm. They will attend the January 10th Oral Argument in the Appeal of Dismissal to be aired before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. A Citizen’s Assembly in support of family farmers at 10am in Lafayette Square will coincide with the beginning of the Oral Argument inside the court room.

“Our farmers want nothing to do with Monsanto,” declared Maine certified organic seed farmer, Jim Gerritsen, President of lead Plaintiff Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association. “We are not customers of Monsanto. We don’t want their seed. We don’t want their gene-spliced technology. We don’t want their trespass onto our farms. We don’t want their contamination of our crops. We don’t want to have to defend ourselves from aggressive assertions of patent infringement because Monsanto refuses to keep their pollution on their side of the fence. We want justice.”

Many farmers have been forced to stop growing certain crops to avoid genetic contamination and potential lawsuits from Monsanto. This case challenges the validity of Monsanto’s genetically engineered seed patents and seeks Court protection for family farmers who, through no fault of their own, may have become contaminated by Monsanto’s patented seed and find themselves accused of patent infringement.

Monsanto filed 144 lawsuits against America’s family farmers and settled another 700 out of court between 1997 and 2010. These aggressive lawsuits have created an atmosphere of fear in rural America and driven dozens of farmers into bankruptcy.

“The District Court erred when it denied the organic seed plaintiffs the right to seek protection from Monsanto’s patents,” said attorney Dan Ravicher of the not-for-profit Public Patent Foundation ”At the oral argument on January 10, we will explain to the Court of Appeals the District Court’s errors and why the case should be reinstated.”

A Citizen’s Assembly In Support of Family Farmers is scheduled for 10am in Lafayette Square on Thursday, January 10. Family farmers, their lawyers, and supporters will join after the hearing to explain why they traveled thousands of miles to protect their farms and communities.

“Farmers have planted and saved seeds for more than 10,000 years without interruption until Monsanto’s genetically engineered seeds entered the market in 1996. Almost immediately Monsanto began a campaign of harassment against America’s farmers, trespassing on their land and launching frivolous patent infringement lawsuits,” said Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now!. “It’s time to end Monsanto’s campaign of fear against America’s farmers and stand up for farmers’ right to grow our food without legal threats and intimidation.”

The lawsuit was originally filed in March 2011 by a large group of 83 Plaintiffs, which included individual family farmers, independent seed companies and farm organizations, whose memberships total over 300,000 individuals. The case was dismissed in February 2012 by Federal Judge Naomi Buchwald who ruled that the farmers lacked standing.

Lawyers from the Public Patent Foundation representing the farmers have identified numerous reversible legal and factual errors committed by the judge, which they assert caused her to mistakenly dismiss the case and have filed a powerful appeal brief with the court. Amici briefs in support of the Plaintiffs have been filed by a group of eleven prominent law professors and by a group of fourteen non-profit agricultural and consumer organizations.

Citizens Call for GMO Labeling in Washington – The Movement Continues

gmocorn 265x165 Citizens Call for GMO Labeling in Washington   The Movement Continues
(NaturalSociety) -Once again the fight for GMO labeling has reignited with the introduction of a new GMO labeling bill, but this time in Washington. The “Label it Wa” campaign has already gained 350,000 signatures, and is finally headed to the Secretary of State’s office in Olympia for submission. As the movement comes during the same time that a New Mexico law calls for mandatory labeling of GMOs, it is obvious that individuals everywhere are still deeply concerned over the issue of GMOs.

If you aren’t concerned about GMOs, or think that foods aren’t labeled due to a lack of support over the issue, think again. In addition to being linked to weight gain and disrupting vital organs like the liver, GMO foods have actually been shown to cause massive tumors in rats, in addition to causing early death. Even more concerning is the fact that nearly 80% of the US food supply contains GMO ingredients. Ingredients that are likely created by biotech giant Monsanto, who is responsible for upwards of 90 plus percent of the world’s GM seed supply.

Perhaps this is why grassroots movements are popping up all around the country, and other nations have already taken a stand against GMOs. Despite the largest GMO labeling campaign Prop 37 taking a dive (due to false advertising and quite possibly questionable vote counting), still over 90 percent of citizens in the United States are heavy supporters of GMO labeling legislation.

Will the interest of Washington citizens win this campaign? One county in Washington, San Juan, has already succeeded in banning GMOs – at least to a degree. The residents helped pass Initiative Measure No. 2012-4 late last year that makes it illegal to ”propagate, cultivate, raise or grow plants, animals and other organisms which have been genetically modified.” Despite not effecting GMO products in stores, it’s still a step in the right direction for Washington citizens. It should also be noted that citizens of Washington have also helped pass one of the first amendments allowing for the recreational use of marijuana – another move that shouts ‘we demand individual rights’ by the people.

In the end, every act toward the labeling of GMOs brings us one step closer to winning the fight for these rights (and an overall ban on the disease-linked creations). California’s Prop 37 may not have passed, but the bill, along with the Washington bill and every other GMO labeling bill, are necessary stepping stones for both labeling of GMOs and the essential ‘right to know’.

 

Next Prop 37? New Mexico Law Calls for Mandatory Labeling of GMOs

newmexicogmolabeling 265x165 Next Prop 37? New Mexico Law Calls for Mandatory Labeling of GMOs

(Natural Society) -Is this the next Prop 37, complete with a forthcoming wave of successful activism and education from concerned consumers? Unfortunately we know that Prop 37 failed due to not only irrefutable deception and lies from the Monsanto-funded ‘No on 37′ campaign, but also seriously questionable vote counting. What did succeed, however, is mounting awareness over the dangers of GMOs and the subsequent need for labeling.

This awareness has triggered New Mexico lawmakers to introduce legislation that actually calls for the mandatory labeling of GMOs within the state. In essence, it’s the next Prop 37 — and it’s influence is very much the same. It’s also a second chance for health activists worldwide to start the proverbial fire that will ignite similar legislation around the nation and eventually the world.

The New Mexico bill, which was introduced by State Senator Peter Wirth (D-Santa Fe), goes into debate this year and will likely be hit (in a similar manner to Prop 37) with a ton of corporate-backed roadblocks. Nevertheless, it’s statistically what the consumers want. Over 90 percent of United States citizens have repeatedly voiced their support of GMO labeling legislation. And that’s using very conservative figures; many show 96% or higher.

Now I don’t agree with everything Senator Wirth does, but this bill is definitely a step in the right direction. And as he puts it, it’s blatantly simple. It’s really not challenging to add an additional notification to consumers that products contain genetically altered ingredients — ingredients that have been linked to everything from infertility to tumors. In fact, it’s beyond absurd that these indicators do not exist. Of course Monsanto and other mega corps profiting on this fact simply do not want you to know what you’re eating.

In a statement reported by RT, Wirth explains:

“The premise of this amendment is simple – New Mexicans deserve the right to know what’s in the food they are eating and feeding to their families.”

The issue is that a precedent was set with the multi-million dollar squelching of Prop 37, an achievement that Monsanto and fellow goons put as one of their greatest. With Prop 37 being crushed by deception, it makes approving this legislation harder. Because in the eyes of some legislators (besides those paid off by corporations who profit from GMOs) it has already been tried.

Major organizations are already giving their support for the bill, however, and many more will likely soon come out and sound the alarm. Food & Water Watch is one of these organizations, with the New Mexico offices coming out and cheering the success of the bill and the necessity of GMO labeling. The organization’s New Mexico Organizer Eleanor Bravo said:

“Giving foods with GE ingredients a label will only improve and expand independent health and scientific knowledge about genetic engineering…”

The time is now to begin spreading the word about this initiative and lighting the fire. It’s almost a certainty that Monsanto & Co. will pump millions into defeating this legislation if it gets too big, but we can have the edge by getting into the game before they disseminate their deceitful propaganda to voters. Ultimately Monsanto will fail, and it will be a grassroots campaign that is responsible for throwing the last stone.

 

What’s in Your Milk? 20+ Painkillers, Antibiotics, and More

milkchemicals 260x162 What’s in Your Milk? 20+ Painkillers, Antibiotics, and More

(Natural Society)- With the aid of innovative and highly sensitive testing, Spanish-Moroccan scientists determined that there could be up to 20 painkillers, antibiotics, and growth hormones in a single glass of milk. The researchers say that the traces are so small that consumers need not worry about adverse effects, so we’ll just have to take their word for it, it seems.

The scientists analyzed 20 samples of milk—cow’s, goat’s, and human—bought in Spain and Morocco, and found a chemical cocktail of ingredients added to the animal’s diet prior to milking or contamination through feed or on the farm. Some of the contaminants found in trace amounts include triclosan (an anti-fungal), 17-beta-estradiol (a sex hormone), and florfenicol (an antibiotic).

It’s worth noting that the image provided by the University of Jaen lists the anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac twice in error. Their findings were published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.

Advances in Food Safety

University of Jaen’s Dr. Evaristo Ballesteros marveled over their technique, which could be used to assess the food safety of other products. “We believe the new methodology will help to provide a more effective way of determining the presence of these kinds of contaminants in milk or other products.”

“Food quality control laboratories could use this new tool to detect these drugs before they enter the food chain. This would raise consumers’ awareness and give them the knowledge that food is…harmless, pure, genuine, beneficial to health, and free of toxic residues.”

 

While all types of milk tested contained chemicals cow’s milk was most contaminated. This is not surprising, seeing as cows are routinely given antibiotics, growth hormones, and fed questionable GMO feed. Unfortunately, you will probably be picking up some of these chemicals each time you purchase milk from big-time and conventional supermarkets.

milk chemicals1 What’s in Your Milk? 20+ Painkillers, Antibiotics, and More

What Milk Should You Buy?

If you do drink milk, there is always a better option than traveling to your nearest grocery store. Organic milk is superior to conventional milk, as the cows won’t typically be on an antibiotic, growth hormone, and GMO corn feed diet; they will likely be grass-fed and graze freely. But there is an even better milk than organic.

Raw milk, like organic, should not come from antibiotic-fed, hormone-injected cows. In addition, raw milk is not pasteurized, a process that destroys beneficial bacteria, transforms proteins, and ruins many of the other vitamins and nutrients found in the milk. It’s always smart to go one step further when buying raw milk to ensure safety, finding out a little bit about the farm and farmer the milk come.

Detoxing Your Body and Environment

Toxic residue in food is hardly limited to milk. The Daily Mail writes about earlier studies that have found fish with altered brain chemistry and sexuality thanks to caffeine, antibiotics, and hormones from contraceptive pills and HRT that survived treatment from sewage plants.

While some scientists say these trace amounts aren’t enough to affect people, many of them are stored in our bodies for great lengths of time, which can become problematic with frequent consumption. To this end, it’s important to limit our exposure to environmental toxins and poisons found in conventionally grown and prepared food and water. You can also take steps to detox your body naturally.

FDA Quietly Pushes Through Genetically Modified Salmon Over Christmas Break

While you were likely resting or enjoying time with friends and family over the Christmas break, the United States Food and Drug Administration was hard at work ramming through genetically modified salmon towards the final acceptance process. Despite the frankenfish actually being blocked by Congress last year over serious health and environmental concerns, the FDA is making a massive push to release the genetically modified salmon into the world as the FDA-backed biotech giant and creator of the fish AquaAdvantage screams for profits.

These fish of course threaten the very genetic integrity of the food chain when considering the fact that they will ultimately be unleashed into waters with other salmon and likely even the ocean at large. The AquaAdvantage genetically modified salmon have been engineered through genetic manipulation to grow double the size and weight of the average salmon. Hitting 24 inches instead of 13 and weighing in at 6.6 pounds instead of 2.8, the GM fish contains both a gene from another salmon known as the Pacific Chinook as well as an eel-like fish.

This unnatural genetic infusion allows the fish to generate a growth hormone 24/7, making it a massively mutated ball of growth hormones and disease.

Genetically Modified Salmon Threaten Genetic Stability of Food Chain

In the event that awareness is not spread and Congress allows the FDA to approve AquaAdvantage’ GM salmon, it will become the first approved GM animal for growth and human consumption.

Modified salmon will mate with regular breeds, creating hybrid mutations that may likely never be tracked. Hybrid families that may continue to repopulate for generations, all containing modified genes. After being consumed by predators like sharks or others, the sharks are then affected by the genetically modified fish through the development of various health conditions conditions. In mice trials alone it was found that eating GMOs triggered mass tumors and early death in the animals — and that’s just crops. Genetically modified crops are concerning enough, but are much less complex than animals.

The fact of the matter is that no one truly knows the long term effects of GM crops, let alone GM animals. But hey, why not test it out on the public? After all, who cares? It’s not like the FDA will do anything to Monsanto despite the numerous studies linking GMOs to disease. Instead, they just say it’s pseudo science and that only FDA-backed ‘science’ is worth anything. Forget the fact that the only lifelong rat study done on GMOs found it led to tumor development.

So what can we do?

geneticallymodifiedsalmon1 260x162 FDA Quietly Pushes Through Genetically Modified Salmon Over Christmas BreakThere are a number of methods here, but first and foremost the word needs to be spread far and wide that genetically modified salmon is being pushed through by the FDA. People despise GM products on average, with 90 plus percent in favor of at least labeling. In addition, there is a petition going around to send to politicians to ask them to stop this approval as they did in 2011.

Ultimately, it comes down to opposition. If enough people know this is coming and are very upset about it, they will have trouble ramming it through. That’s why they announce these things over Christmas weekend. They don’t want anyone to even hear about it — they want to make it harder to popularize since hardly anyone saw it.

We can beat this as we did back in 2011, and the FDA knows it. Their dirty tactics are not effective in the technological age in which the transfer of information is more powerful than ever. Share this news and spread the word. Block genetically modified salmon from getting put on your dinner table without any labels.

Human & Synthetic Hormones Now Contaminate Fresh Produce

 

 

(Activist Post) – Hormones and/or hormone-mimicking chemicals are omnipresent environmental contaminants. Already found in places as varied as our teeth (dental sealant) to our paper products (receipts, money), our meat to our canned foods, new research now indicates that even fresh, whole vegetables and fruits are no longer immune to this growing biological and chemical threat.

A newly released study has found that a variety of substances with hormone-disrupting properties now widely contaminate commercially available fresh vegetables and fruits, in some cases at concentrations exceeding the recommended acceptable daily intake (ADI) for children as recommended by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA).

Published this month in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, researchers at the Indian River Research and Education Center, University of Florida/IFAS, found the synthetic endocrine-disrupting chemicals bisphenol A (BPA), nonylphenol (NP), and the natural steroidal estrogen 17-β-estradiol, in vegetables and fruits randomly sampled from local markets, using gas chromotagraphy with tandem mass spectrometry.[i]

According to the researchers, the “BPA was detected in all vegetable and fruit samples, ranging from 0.2±0.1 to 9.0±4.9 µg kg-1, indicating significant exposure potential for humans.” Nonylphenol (NP), a chemical in the alkylphenol class mainly used to manufacturer detergents, was detected in pumpkin, sweet potato, citrus, and apple samples. Concentrations of 17-β-estradiol in vegetables and fruits ranged from 1.3±0.4 to 2.2±1.0 µg kg-1 except those in tomato and strawberry.

Notably, the highest concentrations of BPA were found in potatoes, lettuce contained the highest concentration of natural estrogens, and pumpkin the highest concentration of alkylphenols (APs).

How Did These Chemicals End Up In Our Food?

The answer is wastewater and sewage sludge — two things that, as many would be surprised to find, are commonly used to grow our food. While wastewater may contain as much as 95% water, the other 5% remaining is a biological and chemical atrocity. Even the sewage used in this degenerate, albeit highly productive (though unsustainable), form of farming has been renamed and transformed euphemistically into “biosolids,” to make it somehow sound more palatable.

The reuse of wastewater for irrigation of agricultural land is a well established practice that introduces many contaminants into our environment and crops including pharmaceuticals, hormones and personal care products.

Wastewater may contain human sewage, industrial site drainage, toxic waste (e.g. pesticide manufacturing), petroleum waste products or byproducts, for instance. Other wastewater constituents include:

  • Pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, parasites
  • Soluble organic materials such as urea, drugs, pharmaceuticals
  • Macro-solids such as condoms, needles, diapers, sanitary napkins
  • Emulsions such as paint, adhesives, hair colorants
  • Gases such as hydrogen sulfide, methane, carbon dioxide
  • Animals such as insects, protozoa, small fish

It is estimated that 90% of the global wastewater being used in agriculture today is untreated, meaning that it contains hundreds, if not thousands of potential biological and chemical toxicants that may ultimately end up in your food and body.

With the increasing use of raw or processed sewage to grow conventional food, it has become prone to overgrowth with pathogenic (even deadly) bacteria, which is why the USDA promotes food irradiation to nuke (“cold pasteurize”) the intrinsically unsanitary food into the kind of sterility that also entails the destruction of its nutrition value.

Even when sewage is pretreated in order to remove chemicals, foreign materials, and microorganisms, up to 93% of highly concentrated active drug compounds still remain, including hormones and hormone metabolites that remain biologically active.[ii]

With the latest research now indicating that our modern, industrialized agricultural system is creating a toxic nightmare within our food, it is time for us to face the gravity of the situation, and make some real changes. All the more reason to support organically, and preferably locally, produced food by voting with our fork, as it does not utilize these intrinsically toxic farming practices.

Get Your Flu Shot or Get Fired: Media Hails New ‘Safety’ Policies Forcing Shots on Workers

ashot

(Natural Society)- Don’t want to be injected with the seasonal flu vaccine due to concerns over ingredients like MSG, antibiotics, formaldehyde, and aluminum as admitted by the FDA on their own website? Well then you may lose your job for refusing a ‘safety’ measure, as more and more major corporations are forcing the flu vaccine (among others) on workers in
order to keep their job.

But how is this being enabled? Despite being met with massive resistance as vaccination rates are actually declining across the board due to concerns by citizens worldwide, mainstream media organizations like the Chicago Chronicle have been running numerous hit pieces on those who reject the flu vaccine as ‘uninformed’ and just plain old silly.

These articles also champion in the ‘safety’ measures of forced vaccination within mega corporations like Alexian Brothers Health System with unquestioning loyalty towards the companies. Dismissing any legitimate civil or health concerns with a laughable ‘oh, stop’ and no actual response, this mainstream media article was actually published to the tens of millions that read the Chicago Chronicle each month.

Media: ‘Stop’ Questioning Corporations!

When addressing the real concerns regarding how a corporation can force an employee to inject themselves with MSG, antibiotics, aluminum, and other contaminants, the Chicago Chronicle just dismisses it without question. The article reads:

“If your employer can order you to inject or inhale a vaccine, the reasoning goes, what else might it require? Oh, stop. A hospital isn’t out of line when it tells its employees to get vaccinated — or get fired.”

Just as the Chronicle states, the corporate media desperately wants you to please stop asking virtually any questions. After all, it makes whitewashing the news and propagating literal fabrications very challenging. Even the European Union Food Safety Agency asked scientists and consumers to please stop studying genetically modified organisms following the breaking report that GMOs had been linked to tumors.

Of course media pieces like these are actually a bi-product of resistance from the people. As more and more individuals refuse the carcinogen-packed flu shot on a yearly basis, vaccine manufacturers are in a panic. Big Pharma as a whole is in trouble, and the only way they know how to perform damage control is through spending millions upon millions in PR runs.

All of the PR runs and media campaigns to dismiss legitimate concerns (without ever actually addressing them beyond a sarcastic or satirical discount like ‘oh, stop’) cannot, however, stop the emergence of real information to the public regarding GMOs, the contaminants within the flu shot, and other items.

The mainstream media and mega corporations would like you to please stop questioning their actions, but they will never get their wish.

 

Global Governance Begins on December 14

(americanthinker.com) The International Telecommunications Union (ITU), an imprint of the UN, is holding its World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) from December 3-14, 2012. The stated purpose of the WCIT is to update the UN’s “global treaty” on telecommunications to deal more directly and comprehensively with the internet. Knowing who controls the UN, it is not hard to see that a primary aim of the updated “treaty” will be to give credence to the regulation and monitoring of online activity in ways that are desirable to the (authoritarian) majority of member states.

Here is a portion of the ITU’s official explanation of the need for a new regulatory regime, in its Resolution 146:

[T]he International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) were last amended in Melbourne in 1988.

[T]he international telecommunications environment has significantly evolved, both from the technical and policy perspectives, and… it continues to evolve rapidly.

[A]dvances in technology have resulted in an increased use of IP-enabled infrastructure and relevant applications presenting both opportunities and challenges for ITU Member States and Sector Members.

[I]n order for ITU to maintain its pre-eminent role in global telecommunications, it must continue to demonstrate its capacity to respond adequately to the rapidly changing telecommunication environment.

[I]t is important to ensure that the ITRs [International Telecommunications Regulations] are reviewed and, if deemed appropriate, revised and updated in a timely manner in order to facilitate cooperation and coordination among Member States and to reflect accurately the relations between Member States, Sector Members, administrations and recognized operating agencies.

In case you missed a few classes of Regulatory Bureaucracy Speak 101, please allow me to translate:

Since we last updated our global telecommunications regulations, the internet, operating in a relatively unregulated environment, has grown by leaps and bounds, as human productive endeavors when left unregulated have an annoying tendency to do. Therefore, in order to keep this wildly successful communications network from getting any farther ahead of our regulatory apparatus, it is time to develop a strong, binding framework to limit internet growth, use, and activity in ways deemed necessary by those UN member states, such as China, Russia, and Iran, that are opposed on principle to unrestricted international communication, on the grounds that it tends to foster an informed and rebellious population.

In sum, authoritarian regimes with a vested interest in limiting public access to the outside world, or monitoring and censoring communications for “sensitive” content, are beginning to question whether the ITU is a sufficient guarantor of their control over their inmates with regard to global communication. If we do not act now to “demonstrate our capacity to respond adequately,” our “pre-eminent role in global telecommunications” — i.e., our role as facilitator of the statist status quo — will be challenged. In other words, if Vladimir thinks we are not serving his interests anymore, he will get angry, and no one wants to see Vladimir angry.

Is this translation of mine all just a lot of conservative fear-mongering about an innocent UN agency going about its daily business of fostering “supportive, transparent, pro-competitive, and predictable policies,” as Resolution 146 says?

Well, one easy way to check on that would be to read through the WCIT meeting’s official agenda. Unfortunately, that agenda, though linked on the ITU website, is password-protected to restrict access to members of the global bureaucracy. Specifically, the agenda may officially be read only by those government administrators, relevant apparatchiks, and contributing academics who are members of the Telecommunication Information Exchange Service. Yes, that is TIES — you could not invent a more suitable acronym for the “information service” of a global regulatory agency.

Internet users and providers, including even some, such as Google, that have a spotty history of resisting government encroachments into their industry, are expressing grave concerns about the ITU’s intentions. However, the ITU’s secretary-general, Hamadoun I. Touré, seeks to reassure us that this meeting of the UN’s telecommunications regulatory agency has nothing to do with regulating communication. Asked on Al-Jazeera why, given the extraordinary success of the internet as an unregulated domain, the ITU is choosing to write regulations now, he said:

The ITRs that is going to take place in Dubai is not about that. The ITRs is not about internet regulation. I’m very much surprised that all the debate is about this. The ITRs is revising the 1988 treaty that set the stage for the information society we are in today. But at the time, in 1988, it was only telephone communications, mainly, and back then, the settlement between operators was based on time, distance, and location. Today, we have a very significant growth of voice, video, and data, and therefore there is a need to fine tune the business model so that there is more investment in the infrastructure, to cope with the exponential growth in voice, video, and data traffic…. It’s not about internet freedom. Nobody today would dare to go against the freedom of the internet.

Lesson One on how to recognize a liar: if absolutely everything a man says is provably untrue, he is probably lying. (Merely ignorant people speak the truth occasionally, just by accident.)

“The ITRs” — that is, the International Communications Regulations — are “not about regulation.” So when we read, as in Resolution 146 above, that the International Telecommunications Regulations must be “revised and updated in a timely manner,” this revision and updating (of “Regulations”) is somehow unrelated to regulation. Well, that’s comforting.

The purpose of this conference — which the chief regulator, cutting to the chase, does not refer to by its actual name (WCIT), but by its primary objective, the ITRs that will be produced there — is to revise “the 1988 treaty that set the stage for the information society we are in today.” What a perfect self-revelation of the power-mad soul of a globalist regulator. The UN treaty on telecommunications, Touré claims, “set the stage” for the internet revolution in mass communications. Brilliant researchers, technological whiz kids, and adventurous entrepreneurs did not make it happen; UN bureaucrats did.

And we must put this absurd self-aggrandizement in the context of Touré’s very next sentence: “But at the time, in 1988, it was only telephone communications, mainly.” So the 1988 UN regulations “set the stage” for the internet boom, even though they had nothing to do with the internet. To be fair, this statement is undoubtedly true, though not in a way that Touré would ever concede: it was indeed the lack of UN regulations regarding the internet that made its exponential growth possible.

And this unfettered growth, of course — the sense that the internet is expanding “out of control” — is precisely the “challenge” that the new ITRs will be designed to address. Note, as well, how reminiscent Touré’s words are of another famous anti-freedom globalist, who, in his well-known “You didn’t build that” remarks, offered the following:

The internet didn’t get created on its own; government research created the internet, so that all the companies could make money off the internet.

By “on its own,” in that sentence, President Obama means “by individuals.” His point, like the ITU secretary-general’s, is that coercive regulatory authorities are ultimately responsible for the existence and success of the internet, as they are responsible for the existence and success of everything. This makes government the ultimate proprietor of all things, thus authorizing government to insert itself into these things at its own discretion.

Another Obamaesque point from Touré: the development of new communications technology creates “a need to fine tune the business model so that there is more investment in the infrastructure.” Market forces, you see, could never develop “infrastructure” to meet the needs of business expansion — rather, government, observing current conditions, must determine what people need, and make or arrange the appropriate “investments” to provide it. Again, this reinforces the notion of government as sole proprietor of the underlying conditions of commerce — that is, of the market itself. Government creates the terms and conditions, and then “allows” people to carry out their business on its well-regulated turf. The “free market,” the roads, the internet — all of these are, in the authoritarian’s view, “infrastructure,” and we all know that “infrastructure” is in the public domain. The need for “infrastructure” is now the left’s euphemistic argument for government regulation of everything.

The best part of Touré’s lying clinic, however, is saved for last: “Nobody today would dare to go against the freedom of the internet.” If a sixth grade naïf said such a thing, a responsible adult would smile kindly, and then gently explain that there are, sadly, many people in the world who do not believe men should be free. If the chief regulator of the UN’s telecommunications agency says it, you should feel like the humans in the movie Mars Attacks as the aliens recite their memorized English sentence — “Don’t run, we are your friends” — while zapping everyone in sight.

The UN agenda is dominated by national governments that certainly would, and do, dare to “go against the freedom of the internet.” (Ask a Chinese exchange student if she has a Facebook account, and see what response you get. Actually, don’t ask — those kids don’t need any added fear in their lives.) Of course Touré knows this. His explicit denial of the obvious proves him a (bad) liar. “Freedom of the internet,” as defined by the UN, has precisely the same validity and purpose as the word “Democratic” in the name Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

So what is this all about? It is often said that the first task in a modern military occupation is to take control of the means of mass communication, thereby to control the dissemination of information. The internet, by virtue of its having spread throughout the world so quickly, and of its being largely immune to national boundaries, creates a special problem for authoritarian governments which are, in effect, occupying forces in their own nations.

Certain governments have taken many steps to curtail internet activity within their own borders, of course. The problem is that the very free nature of the internet itself tends to shine a bright spotlight on the oppressiveness of such national policies. Far preferable for such suppressors of speech, then, would be an “international treaty” reached by “global consensus” that creates a system of loopholes for the suppression of speech on grounds of “national security” and the “prevention of foreign interference in a sovereign nation’s political process.”

In short, suppression of undesirable political speech, both within and between nations, would be much easier and less subject to scrutiny if it could be undertaken with the imprimatur of a UN treaty full of deliberately vague language about “protecting the integrity of a nation’s self-determination,” for example. Furthermore, once such a treaty — i.e., set of regulations — becomes the agreed upon standard for all or most nations, its euphemisms will begin to sound more palatable and reasonable to an inattentive public. (“After all, it isn’t right that foreigners should be stirring up civil discord and anti-government sentiment, is it?”) Before you know it, today’s critics of the ITU’s agenda will be echoing John Boehner’s post-election capitulations on ObamaCare — “it’s the law of the land.”

No surprise, then, that the main impetus behind the implementation of new regulations, and the granting of greater authority to the ITU itself, comes from Russia and China. (See Declan McCullagh’s observations on this threat here, and L. Gordon Crovitz’ Wall Street Journal piece here.) Online fraud, spam, and issues of protecting public morals will all be used as convenient cover for creating international authority for national authoritarianism.

It seems likely that the new ITRs — ushered in under the guise of modernizing “infrastructure” — will have as their main purpose and effect the whitewashing of despotic suppression of free speech, monitoring of users, and restriction of users’ access to information not approved for dissemination by the state. These methods are already used by some governments without (official) UN approval. The formal go-ahead from UN headquarters, however, will make the job of crushing internet age resistance movements (think of Iran’s Green Revolution) much easier, by allowing the oppressive regime to file formal grievances against groups or governments that it deems to be violating its national sovereignty or undermining its political system.

This quiet UN takeover of the internet is the important first step in a new kind of occupation. The globalists, with the help of the re-elected Obama administration, are going to move forward quickly with their plans for what Al Gore and Herman van Rompuy call “global governance.” A key part of this process is the reduction of the world’s last defense against authoritarianism — the United States of America — to the status of just another mild-mannered vote at the UN. Enter Barack Obama, with his hyper-conciliation to the Muslim Brotherhood, his promise to Vladimir Putin to finish dismantling America’s defenses after his re-election, and his remaking of a prosperous constitutional republic as an economically doomed leftist regulatory state.

Just as hyper-regulation within a nation subverts representative government, by creating a panoply of bureaucratic directives that supervene upon changing electoral tides, so international hyper-regulation will have the effect of nullifying any transnational voice of unified dissent — specifically, any voice speaking on behalf of the free exchange of ideas.

The range of speech, both with regard to content and dissemination, will be curtailed by the ITU’s proposed regulations. That will be the point of these regulations. They will help authoritarians preserve their power, prevent the oppressed from organizing from a distance, and restrict the much needed influx of moral support from abroad.

Now, Mr. Obama, if you will just sign one more executive order, Agenda 21 in its entirety will become “the law of the land,” and the forced migration may proceed — gently at first, as we don’t want to startle anyone. But don’t worry, if the objections get too boisterous, we can always assert the national security provisions of the International Telecommunications Regulations to tamp things down a little. Those ITRs are proving very effective for normalizing conditions in China, Russia, and Iran. And your Department of Homeland Security has already anticipated this eventuality by introducing into its guidelines on domestic terrorism language identifying people who revere liberty as potential security threats.

In any case, as November 6 proved, at least 140 million American adults can be effectively subdued by repeatedly chanting, “Don’t run, we are your friends.”

Scientists: Ban GMO testing in India

(Natural Society) Scientists gathered in New Delhi to discuss the need for the Indian  government to ban GMO trials in their country. The gathering was a media  briefing  organized by Aruna Rodrigues, “the lead petitioner in a  public interest litigation” seeking the ban.

As we reported last month, the proposed ban, backed by a committee  appointed by the India Supreme Court, would ban  GMO field trials for 10 years, at the very minimum, postponing the damaging  environmental and health hazards of the seeds and GMO  foods.

India is (rightfully) concerned that the GMO field trials of Monsanto could  lead to significant contamination of other farms in the country, contamination  which could be the undoing of many otherwise-sustainable farms.

“What we really need is a shift in paradigm, where a holistic approach drives  our interventions in agriculture without reductionist solutions hogging the  center-stage and taking away precious resources,” said Professor Hans Herren,  Co-Chair of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and  Technology for Development (IAASTD), winner of the 1995 World Food Prize.

These top scientists gathered to mark their support for the measure that  could offer just one more significant blow to the seed-giant.

Conventional crops aren’t only safer than GM crops; they are more productive.  And any step closer to instituting GMO seeds in India or elsewhere is a step  away from farm productivity and sustainable agriculture.

“Only two countries in the world, both in South America, grow GM on more than  40% of their agricultural land and both are suffering from an increased food  insecurity,” pointed out Professor Jack Heinemann from the School of Biological  Sciences at the University of Canterbury. “Most of their poor neighbors that  have not adopted GM have improving food security statistics.”

This isn’t the only problem—farmers who are forced to use the GM seeds pay  higher prices and take greater risks. This is seen in the shocking suicide rates  among farmers who have moved to GM crops, a frightening occurrence. In  2009, for instance, about one Indian farmer killed  himself every 30 minutes.

With the risks of GM crops at undeniable levels, countries across the world  are leading the way in stopping Monsanto in its tracks. One can only hope their  fervor will continue to spread.