Misuse of a United States government seal can lead to a $250,000 fine, twenty years in prison, and three years of supervised release — unless you’re a campaign organization funded by major corporations like Monsanto. In a move completely ignored by the mainstream media (many of which have financial ties to such corporations), the anti-GMO labeling No on 37 Committee paid for and disseminated a physical piece of direct mail that not only entirely misused the FDA logo but even sported a fabricated quote.

A quote that even the FDA has stated on record that was never stated. That is because it would actually be illegal to do so. You see federal agencies cannot take a stance on Proposition 37, which means that the Monsanto-funded No on 37 campaign literally created the quote and FDA support out of thin air. In other words, the organization leaders blatantly violated 8 U.S.C. §§ 506 and 1017 by misusing the FDA seal and writing a quote out of thin air to support their political campaign to keep Monsanto rolling in the billions.

So are the creators of this deceptive campaign piece going to jail or facing major fines for breaking the law?

You would think so, especially given that the offense is actually a felony. As it turns out, however, No on 37 may actually get away without any real penalty. And even if they are on the receiving end of any repercussions, it will certainly be after the voting takes place on Prop 37 (November 6th). Ultimately, this means that Monsanto and No on Prop 37 will completely get away with their impersonation of a federal government agency without a ...

In less than two weeks, Californians will vote on Proposition 37, which would require labeling of food sold in California grocery stores if the food contains genetically engineered ingredients. Sixty-one other countries already have this requirement in place. You should not have to be a chemist, toxicologist or geneticist to have trust in your food.

There is a long history of false reassurances in the environmental health world, including about many pesticides, fumigants, food dyes and preservatives. The most outrageous manipulations of public trust were industry denials of hazards from tobacco, and the misinformation from the lead industry, which worked aggressively in opposition to the concerns of pediatricians and others about lead’s toxicity, especially to children. 

Genetically engineered foods have been on the U.S. market since the mid-1990s. Studies on short- or long-term health effects are hard to find since the FDA does not require them for market approval. The health effects of genetically engineered foods are still unclear.

One recent small study with rats in France that had a controversial finding is not sufficient evidence and should not change any voter’s opinion. But given the longstanding and repeated patterns of false reassurances in environmental health, it is only fair and prudent for people to be skeptical of safety claims, and have the right to know what they are being exposed to. 

People should have information about the presence of genetically engineered ingredients in their food both when there may be a benefit to the person eating (for example, rice used in poor countries that includes Vitamin A), and when there are benefits only to the producer.

In the US, we already have food labels showing nutrition, allergy information, and other facts that consumers want to know. This proposition would add information telling us if food is ...

On Monday, U.S. health officials warned that up to 13,000 Americans across 23 states could have been exposed to a strain of fungal meningitis that has been traced to contaminated steroid shots produced by a Massachusetts-based compounding pharmacy. The deadly meningitis outbreak — causing a potentially fatal inflammation of the brain or central nervous system — has already resulted in over 100 cases and eight deaths.

Although more than half of the estimated 56,000 U.S. pharmacies across the country practice compounding — repackaging or recombining ...

On Wednesday, September 12, activists calling themselves the Genetic Crimes Unit (GCU) shut down shipping and receiving access points at Monsanto’s Oxnard seed distribution facility located at 2700 Camino Del Sol. By peacefully blockading the exit and access points, the group effectively shut down the distribution of genetically engineered (GMO) seeds for a day.

Monsanto is the largest producer of GMO seeds and is being called out for their genetic crimes by a network called Occupy Monsanto. Today’s protest is the beginning of a series of over 65 different autonomous actions that officially start on September 17, the anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Actions are planned in countries throughout the world, including the US, Germany, Canada, India, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Argentina, Australia, Spain, Russia, and Japan. More info as well as video available for media use of today action can be found here.

After occupying all three shipping and receiving entrances to the Monsanto facility using flashy theatrics, including a car with a giant “fish-corn” on top of it and a 6-foot high jail cell complete with someone dressed up like the CEO Hugh Grant of Monsanto inside. Eventually after 5.5 hours the fire department was called in and 9 anti-GMO activists were arrested and charged with trespassing.

“The reason I am occupying Monsanto and willing to put myself at risk of arrest is because Monsanto has genetically engineered food crops to contain novel untested compounds that result in more weed killer sprayed on our food, without informing consumers. Unlike most industrialized countries including every country in Europe, Japan and even China, in America right now there are no labels on our food informing us whether we are eating GMOs or not. We have a right to opt out of this experiment: it’s not up ...

You may already be fully aware of the fight surrounding the latest California GMO labeling legislation known as Prop 37, a bill which I have been very passionate about supporting over the past few months. As it currently stands in the United States, you are actually being completely kept in the dark about what’s in your food. And it may interest you to know that many pro-GMO corporations such as Monsanto intend to keep it that way.

But why are you being kept in the dark about the dangers of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the fight against Proposition 37?  Despite the massive amount of research linking genetically modified foods to environmental and human dangers, giant corporations are shelling out millions and millions of dollars to ensure that GMOs are not labeled in the food market. Why are Americans and others being kept in the dark?

While studies continue to highlight the very ...

Due to the near future voting on November 6, 2012 for California’s Proposition 37, there has been a lot of heat going back and forth concerning GMO foods. Up until now, 10′s of million of dollars have been funneled into the opposing side of the bill, with biotechnology giant Monsanto dishing out a whopping $4.2 million alone. Monsanto has even recently published a page on their site titled ”Taking a Stand: Proposition 37, The California Labeling Proposal,” where the GMO giant attempts to logically explain why it is against GMO labeling. Needless to say, the post reeks of false and misleading statements, and oftentimes downright deception. Here are the top 7 lies Monsanto wants you to believe regarding GMO labeling and Prop 37.

Monsanto’s Top 7 Lies

1. The bill ”would require a warning label on food products.”

GMO foods will not require a warning label (although they ought to!) Actually, foods made with GMOs would say ”partially produced with genetic engineering” or “may be partially produced with genetic engineering,” – not a warning label, but a clear warning sign to those of us who want to avoid GMOs. The whole idea of the GMO labeling bill is to make consumers aware of what they are consuming, not to bash GMOs on every label. We have a right to know.

2. ”The safety and benefits of these ingredients are well established.”

This may be the most comical statements of all. While no long-term studies portray the dangers or benefits of GMOs, countless ...

Yet another study has concluded that feeding animals GMOs results in higher rates of infant mortality and causes fertility problems. Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov and other researchers fed Campbell hamsters (which have fast reproduction rates) Monsanto GM soy for two years. It should be noted that hamsters do not evolutionarily eat soy—just as cows fed Monsanto corn are actually ruminants and would not naturally eat corn.

“Originally, everything went smoothly,” Surov told broadcasting service The Voice of Russia.  Surov and the researchers fed the same diet to three generations of the hamsters, and that’s when they noticed things going awry.

GMO Causes Fertility Problems, Slow Growth, Hair Growth in Mouths

“We noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs’ growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly.” By the third generation, the hamsters were infertile.

Many animals on the GM diet even displayed rare, strange pathologies like hair growing in recessed pouches inside their mouths. “Some of these pouches contained single hairs,” said Surov in Doklady Biological Sciences, “others, thick bundles of colorless or pigmented hairs reaching as high as the chewing surface of the teeth. Sometimes, the ...

Brazil, the second-largest producer of genetically modified (GM) crops (after the U.S.), is the latest country to take a stand against biotech giant Monsanto, which could end up handing over at least $2 billion as a result.

A war has been waging against Monsanto in Brazil for nearly a decade, virtually ever since the country legalized farming of GM crops in 2005.

Since then, Monsanto has been charging Brazilian farmers double – once for their seeds, and again when they sell their crops.

Farmers Have Had Enough With Monsanto’s Royalty Taxes and Penalties

In case you’re wondering how Monsanto has risen to the ranks of a superpower, a major reason is their patent on GM seeds, like the GM soya seeds in Brazil, which account for nearly 85 percent of the country’s total soybean crop. Each GM seed is patented and sold under exclusive rights.

Therefore, farmers must purchase the GM seeds every year, because saving seeds (which has long been the traditional way) is considered to be patent infringement. Anyone who does save GM seeds must pay a license fee to actually re-sow them.

But that’s not all.

In Brazil, Monsanto has charged farmers a 2 percent royalty fee on all of their Roundup Ready sales since 2005! And, they test all of the soy seeds marketed as “non-GM” to be sure they don’t contain any Monsanto seeds. If they are found to contain the patented seeds, the farmer is penalized close to 3 percent of his sales!

The issue with the latter penalty is that GM soy is very hard to contain, and often contaminates nearby fields. So farmers are forced to pay a penalty for having their fields contaminated with GM crops, through no fault of their own – and likely against their wishes entirely!

For years now, farmers have been taking Monsanto to court over their excessive fees and taxes, and in 2009, a group of farmers sued the company, claiming the ...

Hallucinations. Paranoia. Confusion. Severe anxiety. Unusual behavior.

Suicide.

Why would we want to unnecessarily expose people - especially soldiers - to these side effects?

Unfortunately, that is exactly what we are doing. The symptoms listed above are just some of the officially acknowledged side effects associated with Lariam, an anti-malaria drug commonly prescribed to U.S. soldiers serving abroad, Peace Corps volunteers, business travelers, and tourists. And - as the official medication guide acknowledges - these symptoms can persist long after someone goes off the drug. Yet despite the fact that safer and equally effective malaria prophylactics are available, the use of Lariam to prevent malaria remains a common practice.

The story of Lariam is a window into the world of pharmaceuticals, where the precautionary principle is ignored and dangerous drugs continue to be readily prescribed long after legitimate safety concerns have been raised. ...

Jeffrey Smith from the Institute for Responsible Technology explains exactly how Monsanto's genetically modified corn is toxic to humans, according to a new French study from the University of Caen. In the stunning audio below, Smith details how this corn is designed to rupture the stomach of insects and what it did to the stomachs of humans during this study.

At the very same time President Obama continues to allow his appointees, Michael Taylor, in charge of food safety at the FDA, and Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, to maintain GMOs are safe, the White House holds events to "inform" and "educate" parents about healthy school lunches for children.

There continues to be a disconnect among the FDA, USDA, the White House and Americans about what is safe to eat and disclosure about what Americans are consuming. Upwards of 90% of Americans want genetically modified foods labeled and a petition is still sitting up at the FDA containing well over 1 million signatures from concerned citizens requesting the FDA label GMOs. The FDA had given assurances months ago the agency would consider and respond to the petition. That has yet to happen. In 2007 on the campaign trail, Candidate Obama promised to label GMOs if elected. He has not done so and in fact, appointed Taylor and Vilsack with long-standing ties to Monsanto, a major developer of GMO seeds, instead.

Posted from here: http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/06/25/white-house-advocates-gmo-toxins-while-preaching-healthy-school-lunch-elizabeth-dougherty-food-nation-radio-network-jeffrey-smith-audio/

As the 2012 Farm Bill continues to take shape in the halls of the United States Congress, the immense influence of corporate interests is on display.

On Jun. 21 the United States’ Senate voted overwhelmingly against the Sanders Amendment that would have allowed states to pass legislation that required food and beverage products to label whether or not they contain genetically engineered ingredients.

The amendment, proposed by Independent Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, is particularly relevant as many states prepare to vote on a ballot initiatives that would require such labelling of genetically modified (GM) foods.

Lobbyists from the biotech industry have ardently opposed GMO labelling. These opponents argue that because food labelling has historically been handled by the Food and Drug Association (FDA), it is a federal issue and, therefore, individual states do not have the right to implement such legislation. Indeed, in the case of Vermont, Sander’s home state, ...

Just after France legislators and officials moved to ban Monsanto’s genetically modified strain of GMO maize over environmental and health concerns, the European Union has decided to step in and re-secure Monsanto’s presence in the country — against the very will of the nation itself. This should come as no surprise when considering the fact that the United States ambassador to France, a business partner to George W. Bush, stated back in 2007 that nations who did not accept Monsanto’s GMO crops will be ‘penalized’. In fact, ambassador Craig Stapleton went as far as to say that the nations should be threatened with military-styled trade wars.

That’s right, it appears the reason for the unprecedented move to maintain Monsanto’s deeply-rooted foothold in France has to do with the fact that the United States and other nations are continually pushing Monsanto’s agenda — even going as far as to threaten military-styled trade wars to those who oppose the company. Monsanto has major connections with political heads that have actually threatened trade wars against nations opposed to GMOs on record. As I reported back in January, WikiLeaks cables surfaced revealing startling information concerning Monsanto’s deep involvement with back-end politics.

One of the most telling details involves a statement made by Craig Stapleton, in which he said:

READ FULL POST 19 COMMENTS

Would you purchase prescription drugs from a vending machine? Thanks to a new move by the FDA to allow the public to diagnose themselves with conditions and purchase the appropriate pharmaceuticals from a vending machine, it may become a reality. By simply visiting a ‘drug kiosk’ in a mall or drug store, you may soon be able to buy drugs that treat health conditions like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, asthma, and migraines.

Furthermore, it would be as simple as answering an online questionnaire at this kiosk to obtain drugs that currently require prescriptions. Prescription medications like antibiotics, which are currently being rampantly and unnecessarily given to patients on such a scale that they are majorly contributing to antibiotic-resistant diseases that medical professionals are currently concerned over.

Those backing the idea claim that it would be an effective method of handing out more pharmaceuticals to ‘those who need it’. In contrast, many professionals highlight the fact that most consumers do not have a strong medical understanding and it could lead to serious problems. In addition, the vending machine could massively increase pharmaceutical drug use, which kills more individuals per year than traffic fatalities. Pharmaceutical painkillers in specific are responsible for more deaths than heroin and cocaine combined.

Instead of distributing even more pharmaceuticals to consumers, perhaps the FDA should focus on solutions that do not require risky pharmaceuticals that on average contain