Published: Wednesday 28 November 2012
“Explaining how GM ingredients have been linked to tumors and organ damage in rats in the only lifelong rat study available, the newsletter highlighted how the only real long- term research indicates that GMOs are a serious health danger.”

Just days after a leading genetically modified organism (GMO) researcher spoke out against GMOs and how many pro-GMO ‘scientists’ are in bed with Monsanto or carry their own GMO patents, the largest managed healthcare provider in the United States is now publicly speaking out against GMOs. In a recent newsletter, the Kaiser Permanente company discussed the numerous dangers of GMOs in a recent newsletter and how to avoid them.

Explaining how GM ingredients have been linked to tumors and organ damage in rats in the only lifelong rat study available, the newsletter highlighted how the only real long- term research indicates that GMOs are a serious health danger. The newsletter, which you can view here, states:

“Despite what the biotech industry might say, there is little research on the long-term effects of GMOs on human health. Independent research has found several varieties of GMO corn caused organ damage in rats. Other studies have found that GMOs may lead to an inability in animals to reproduce.”

Top Health Giant Says Buy Organic for Proper Health

The newsletter then goes on to tell readers how they can avoid GMOs in their food through buying high quality organic and looking for other non-GMO indicators. It is important to remember the organic labeling meanings when shopping organic, however, which this newsletter unfortunately does not address. Make sure you know which ‘level’ of organic you are consuming:

  • Products labeled ‘100% organic’ – These ...
Published: Wednesday 7 November 2012
“Genetically engineered foods found on market shelves have most commonly been altered in a lab to either be resistant to being sprayed by large amounts of toxic herbicides, or to produce, internally, their own insecticide,” explains Mark A. Kastel, Codirector of The Cornucopia Institute.

After a deluge of allegedly misleading advertisements paid for in large part by pesticide and biotechnology corporations, California voters defeated Proposition 37, which would have given them the right–to-know whether the foods they buy at the grocery store contain genetically engineered ingredients (GMOs).

With 95 percent of the vote counted, according to the California Secretary of State’s office, the proposal was defeated 53-47 percent.

“Genetically engineered foods found on market shelves have most commonly been altered in a lab to either be resistant to being sprayed by large amounts of toxic herbicides, or to produce, internally, their own insecticide,” explains Mark A. Kastel, Codirector of The Cornucopia Institute.

“Corporations that produce both the genetically engineered crops and their designer pesticides, in concert with the multi-billion-dollar food manufacturers that use these ingredients, fought this measure tooth and nail, throwing $46 million at the effort that would have required food manufacturers to include informational labeling on GMO content on their packaging,” Kastel added.

Many food activists nationwide looked to the California initiative as “the last best hope” for GMO labeling in this country. Such labeling is required throughout Europe, and by scores other countries worldwide. In the U.S., polls indicate that more than 90 percent of citizens support labeling and the right to choose if they have not been deluged by misleading advertisements paid for by biotechnology corporations. But both Republicans and Democrats in Washington have been unwilling to address the issue, likely due to massive campaign contributions from the biotechnology and agribusiness lobbies.

The ...

Published: Wednesday 7 November 2012
“Anti-GMO research is the latest to be under fire from the same agencies that allow Monsanto’s ridiculous 90 day trial to pass as scientific gold.”

Agencies within the United States and elsewhere tend to be very distrusting when it comes to studies linking GMOs to any form of illness, demanding every specific detail from the scientific researchers and trying their best to scrutinize just a single factor within the study. But when it comes to haphazard 90 day trials intended to prove the ‘safety‘ of genetically modified organisms, it seems that these agencies are more than willing to look the other way.

And according to the author of the recent landmark study that discovered a lifetime consumption of GMOs in rats led to not only tumors but massive amounts of organ damage, his anti-GMO research is the latest to be under fire from the same agencies that allow Monsanto’s ridiculous 90 day trial to pass as scientific gold. In response to the mass retaliation from government agencies that let GMOs ram through the regulatory process with barely any safety measures (that are continually being reduced) and questionable Monsanto-funded ties, lead researcher of the GMO rat tumor study Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini said:

 “The agencies that criticize our study’s statistical weakness have never demanded from industry a 10th of the data that they now instruct us to provide them with.”

In the same statement, Seralini explained how the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) actually accepted tests that lasted for 90 days or less conducted on a shockingly low four or five groups of rats for the Amflora potato — a genetically modified potato variety. What Seralini did not mention which is of even further concern, however, is that the USDA is now limiting the ...

Published: Sunday 28 October 2012
“The USDA certifies foods that are organic when the growers, handlers, and producers use practices that adhere to their standards.”

As if most consumers weren’t confused enough already about making the “right” food choices, the pseudo-scientific Stanford study released early last month had many of those on the fence thinking it was okay to once-again blindly trust what they found on their supermarket shelves. But, let’s lay this argument to rest (again) and talk about why organics really do matter.

What does organic really mean? Well, the USDA certifies foods that are organic when the growers, handlers, and producers use practices that adhere to their standards. These standards vary by food product and the USDA certifier must inspect the farm before a food can be labeled as organic. Generally, however, organic produce in particular is that which is produced “without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation.” This immediately excludes genetically modified foods (GMOs).

So, what’s wrong with a few pesticides, a few lab-created organisms in our foods? Plenty.

A recent analysis (and not the only one) demonstrated that U.S. children have lost a combined total of 16 million I.Q. points due to pesticides in their food. While “pesticides make you stupid,” sounds like a silly argument for organics—it’s a legitimate one. Pesticides truly do lower the intelligence of children. These pesticides are absorbed when the child is in utero, through the mother. So, whether you are pregnant or hope one day to have children, cutting out pesticides now could save your child’s mind down the road.

One of the most prominently used herbicides, Monsanto’s Roundup, has been tied to numerous health problems including ...

Published: Friday 19 October 2012
“They found that the average American adult, weighing 179 pounds, consumes 68 pounds of beet sugar, 58 pounds of corn syrup, 38 pounds of soybean oil, and 29 pounds of corn-based products each year.”

 

We know that the vast majority of corn, soybeans, and much of many other crops are genetically modified, but do we know how the how much GMOs are consumed each year? Actually, yes. Average Americans today eat about 193 pounds of genetically modified foods over 12 months—and that’s an underestimate, according to the Environmental Working Group.

EWG analyzed data from 2011 provided by the US Department of Agriculture to investigate how much GMOs Americans were eating annually.   Four foods—sugar beets, corn syrup, soybean oil, and corn-based products—were selected for calculation, with 95 percent of sugar beets, 93 percent of soybeans, and 88 percent of corn grown in the US being some of the top genetically modified foods.

They found that the average American adult, weighing 179 pounds, consumes 68 pounds of beet sugar, 58 pounds of corn syrup, 38 pounds of soybean oil, and 29 pounds of corn-based products each year.  This means the average American eats more than his or her body weight in GMOs annually—likely more than that.

Other GMOs

GMOs can be found aplenty in the average grocery store (and even Whole Foods, despite marketing claims).  EWG did not include in their study the myriad other GM foods we eat every year; here are some GMO foods to add to your GMO foods list.

Published: Friday 14 September 2012
“The Farm Bill serves as a mass funding mechanism for the USDA — it provides funding for roughly 90 percent of the Department’s operations, meaning those operations may have to shut down if the Farm Bill isn’t renewed.”

 

The 2012 Farm Bill is still languishing in the House, with GOP leadership in the chamber intentionally preventing action on the legislation for political reasons. According to the New York Times, “House leaders declined to take up either [the Senate or the House] version of the legislation. They are not eager to force their members to take a vote that would be difficult for some of them, nor would they wish to pass a measure largely with Democrats’ votes right before an election.”

But without a new five-year Farm Bill or at least a temporary extension of current legislation, the Department of Agriculture may be forced to shutter almost all of its operations.

The Farm Bill serves as a mass funding mechanism for the USDA — it provides funding for roughly 90 percent of the Department’s operations, meaning those operations may have to shut down if the Farm Bill isn’t renewed. According to the National Sustainable Agriculture Commission, the effect of even a temporary shutdown could be long-lasting:

USDA would be forced to occupy a multiple-month holding pattern, temporarily stopping many services and programs. Program administration involves a certain amount of planning and preparation, stakeholder input, rule making, and outreach. Even if program opportunities aren’t announced until later in the year, the preparation work that leads up to announcements takes time and certainty. Programs can’t simply be “turned off” and then ...

Published: Friday 14 September 2012
Today’s protest is the beginning of a series of over 65 different autonomous actions that officially start on September 17, a year since Occupy Wall Street movement began.

 

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 ...

Published: Thursday 13 September 2012
“While the fight for GMO labeling is loud and clear, corporations and companies opposing GMO labeling, for their own profit and corrupt relations, will stop at nothing to ensure GMOs remain a secret to the public.”

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 ...

Published: Thursday 30 August 2012
“The first two crops on this list have been on the old, slower-track approval process, which allows 60 days for the public to comment. The remaining four are new additions but are on the fast track.”

Remember when the USDA gave Monsanto’s new GMO crops the fast track to approval? Regardless of the numerous accounts of organ damage, pesticide-resistant weeds, and unintentionally mutated organisms like resistant insects, our own government is manipulating the game to let “biotech bullies” like Monsanto get speedier regulatory reviews. Consequently, the environment, livestock, and consumers will be exposed to even greater danger.

As stated in their press release, the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, envisions transforming the USDA “into a high-performing organization that focuses on its customers.” We’d like to think that we, the consumers, are those customers. The likes of Monsanto, Dow, and Syngenta, however, would probably disagree.

Here’s your chance to tell the USDA otherwise. The first two crops on this list have been on the old, slower-track approval process, which allows 60 days for the public to comment. The remaining four are new additions but are on the fast track, meaning we still only have until September 11th of 2012 to have our say before these seeds hit the soil and, maybe, your dinner table.

6 New GMO Crops to Act ...

Published: Friday 24 August 2012
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.

 

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, 10s 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 ...

Published: Thursday 16 August 2012
Three of the new crops are under the old petition process. Under the old process there is only one 60-day public comment period.

Earlier this summer USDA posted twelve new GE crops for public comment with a September 11 deadline, and nine are under the new fast-tracked process. That's twelve new GMOs to review and issue comments on in two months! 

Here's the lowdown. Three of the new crops are under the old petition process. Under the old process there is only one 60-day public comment period. Here are the three crops under the old process:

Dow 2,4-D and Glufosinate Tolerant Soybean (APHIS-2012-0019Take Action!

Since the introduction of GM crops, the US has seen herbicide use increase by over  READ FULL POST DISCUSS

Published: Tuesday 7 August 2012
“Overall, GM sounds like a sweet deal only for Monsanto (and our own FDA and USDA, repeatedly found in bed with them). It remains a bad deal for us, the consumers.”

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 ...

Published: Sunday 29 July 2012
“If produce is certified USDA-organic, it’s non-GMO (or supposed to be!)”

Genetically modified foods have been shown to cause harm to humans, animals, and the environmental, and despite growing opposition, more and more foods continue to be genetically altered. It’s important to note that steering clear from these foods completely may be difficult, and you should merely try finding other sources than your big chain grocer. If produce is certified USDA-organic, its non-GMO (or supposed to be!) Also, seek out local farmers and booths at farmer’s markets where you can be assured the crops aren’t GMO. Even better, if you are so inclined: Start organic gardening and grow them yourself. Until then, here are the top 10 worst GMO foods for your “do not eat” GMO foods list.

Top 10 Worst GMO Foods for Your GMO Foods List

1. Corn: This is a no-brainer. If you’ve watched any food documentary, you know corn is highly modified. “As many as half of all U.S. farms growing corn for Monsanto are using genetically modified corn,” and much of it is intended for human consumption. Monsanto’s GMO corn has been tied to numerous health issues, including weight gain and organ disruption.

2. Soy: Found in tofu, vegetarian products, soybean oil, soy flour, and numerous other products, soy is also modified to resist herbicides. As of now, biotech giant Monsanto still has a tight grasp on the soybean market, with approximately 90 percent of soy being genetically engineered to resist Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup. In one single year, 2006, 96.7 million pounds of glyphosate was sprayed on soybeans alone

3. Sugar: According to NaturalNews, ...

Published: Sunday 22 July 2012
“Each year, the tiny program screens thousands of produce samples. It has found more than two dozen bacteria-laced examples that prompted recalls of lettuce, tomatoes and other foods from grocery stores.”

The nation's largest produce-safety testing program narrowly escaped closure thanks to a last-minute grudging reprieve from the Agriculture Department, and finding a permanent solution to keep tainted fruits and vegetables from reaching consumers could take an even bigger effort.

Each year, the tiny program screens thousands of produce samples. It has found more than two dozen bacteria-laced examples that prompted recalls of lettuce, tomatoes and other foods from grocery stores.

It was at risk of being scrapped after President Barack Obama's proposed budget slashed the effort's funding earlier this year. But USDA spokesman Justin DeJong said late Monday that although the Microbiological Data Program "does not align with USDA's core mission," it will operate through December, using existing agreements with states to keep testing for salmonella, E. coli and listeria over the next six months.

Public health officials and food safety advocates have long argued that getting rid of the program would leave the country without a crucial tool to investigate outbreaks of deadly food borne illnesses.

If samples test positive for bacteria, it can trigger nationwide recalls and keep contaminated produce from reaching the public.

Dr. Robert Tauxe, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's top food-germ investigator, has said the program's information can be key to pinpointing foods tied to outbreaks, and it could not easily be replaced by companies' internal tests or more modest federal sampling programs.

The CDC said contaminated fruits and vegetables caused nearly one-third of the major multi state food borne illness outbreaks last year.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., a longtime food safety advocate, said she would continue to push for the program to stay open beyond the year's end, since the House and ...

Published: Wednesday 18 July 2012
Published: Wednesday 11 July 2012
Published: Sunday 8 July 2012
The biotech industry may outdo us in funding ability, but we as consumers still outnumber them.

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 ...

Published: Wednesday 4 July 2012
Published: Sunday 1 July 2012
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.

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/

Published: Friday 1 June 2012
Everything from high fructose corn syrup-sweetened Coke to soybean oil-containing Hellman’s would have to bear a label reading something like “Contains GMO ingredients.”

In November, California voters will decide on a ballot initiative that would require labeling of all foods containing ingredients from genetically modified crops. The initiative made it to the ballot after almost 1 million Californians signed a petition in favor of it—nearly double the 504,760 signatures needed under the state's proposition rules. The campaign that organized the push to get the measure on the ballot focused on possible health effects of GMO foods.

This news will not likely be applauded by my friends over at Crop life America, the main trade group of the GM seed/agrichemical industry. The big GMO crops—corn, soy, sugar beets, and cotton—are processed into sweeteners, fats, and additives used widely by the food industry. Everything from high fructose corn syrup-sweetened Coke to soybean oil-containing Hellman’s would have to bear a label reading something like "Contains GMO ingredients."

That would send a shockwave through the food industry—one that could ultimately be felt on the industrial-scale U.S. farms that have been devoting their land to GMO crops for years, and the companies that profit from selling them patented seeds and matching herbicides. The reason isn't just that California represents an imposing chunk of the U.S. food market. It's also that a food-labeling law that starts in California is unlikely to stay in California.

To see why, look at ...

Published: Friday 25 May 2012
“The studies, conducted in the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, all pointed to neonicotinoids, a class of chemicals used widely in U.S. corn production, as likely contributors to colony collapse disorder.”

Newly published scientific evidence is bolstering calls for greater regulation of some of the world’s most widely used pesticides and genetically modified crops. 

Earlier this year, three independent studies linked agricultural insecticides to colony collapse disorder, a phenomenon that leads honeybees to abandon their hives. 

Beekeepers have reported alarming losses in their hives over the last six years. The USDA reports the loss in the United States was about 30 percent in the winter of 2010-2011. 

Bees are crucial pollinators in the ecosystem. Their loss also impacts the estimated $15 billion worth of fruit and vegetable crops that are pollinated by bees in the United States. 

The studies, conducted in the United States, France, and the United Kingdom, all pointed to neonicotinoids, a class of chemicals used widely in U.S. corn production, as likely contributors to colony collapse disorder. The findings challenged the EPA’s position—based on studies by Bayer CropScience, a major producer of the neonicotinoid clothianidin—that bees are only exposed to small, benign amounts of these insecticides.

The new studies found that bees are exposed to potentially lethal amounts of neonicotinoids in pollen and in dust churned up by farm equipment. They also found that exposure to neonicotinoids can reduce the number of queen bees and disorient worker bees. 

An alliance of beekeepers and environmental groups filed a petition on March 21 asking the EPA to block the use of clothianidin in agricultural fields until the EPA conducts a sound scientific review of the chemicals.

Meanwhile, farm chemicals and the biotech industry have come under fire for the problem of pest resistance. Some weeds and bugs have become less susceptible or immune to the chemicals or biotechnology used to control them. 

In March, national experts on corn pests published a letter to the EPA ...

Published: Thursday 24 May 2012
“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.”

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

Published: Monday 21 May 2012
“The super resistant weeds threaten not only independent family farmers and major agricultural businesses alike, but also the future of food production.”

What happens when Monsanto’s modified creations get out of hand and threaten the biosphere with mutated ‘super weeds’ that continue to suffocate farmland across the entire planet? Experts call upon farmers and government officials to return to traditional sustainable farming practices — the kind without Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. It was recently reported by the media (despite them always being quite, and NaturalSociety and others reporting on this extensively back in 2011) that a “fast-spreading plague” of the super weeds is spreading and they will not be stopped easily.

The super resistant weeds threaten not only independent family farmers and major agricultural businesses alike, but also the future of food production. Experts are now calling for a radical change in farming practices, with time-tested traditional methods being the ultimate goal. In addition, weed scientists seek to hold a ‘summit’ or panel of sorts to address the issue in Washington. As a leading task force member who is working with the USDA on the issue stated, this is a bi-product of rampant biotechnology that must be remedied by returning to traditional norms.

“We ...

Published: Tuesday 15 May 2012
“New documents reveal that Monsanto’s genetically modified crops may have actually been planted before USDA approval in 2005.”

New documents reveal, now unleashed worldwide to millions of listeners and viewers on The Alex Jones Show with Mike Adams of NaturalNews, that Monsanto’s genetically modified crops may have actually been planted before USDA approval in 2005. In this exclusive interview, Mike and Anthony discuss the new findings and their implications on giant agriculture and the food industry as a whole.

The letter, sourced from Cal/West Seeds company provides direct evidence that contamination was withheld, and the USDA turned a blind eye to proof of contamination in 2005 despite being completely informed of the startling information.

The letter directly states to the USDA:

We first discovered the unintended presence of the Roundup Ready gene in our conventional alfalfa seeds in ...

Published: Wednesday 2 May 2012
“The USDA may have turned a blind eye to the entire situation, allowing widespread GMO contamination of GMO-free crops.”

Did Monsanto actually plant genetically modified alfalfa before it was deregulated by the USDA? There is some shocking evidence that, until recently, was withheld from the public showing that Monsanto’s genetically altered alfalfa may have been set free in 2003 — a full two years or more before it was deregulated in 2005. In a letter, obtained by NaturalSociety with permission to post for public viewing, it becomes clear that the USDA may have turned a blind eye to the entire situation, allowing widespread GMO contamination of GMO-free crops.

Amazingly, the letter actually proves that the USDA was fully aware of the situation. In order to fully understand the intricate details of this event, it is first important to understand a few key factors regarding alfalfa and its connection to the entire food supply.

Alfalfa is a perennial plant that grows for more than 2 years and may not need to be replanted each year like annuals. Because it is a perennial plant, it is exceptionally vulnerable to contamination. Interestingly, the modified alfalfa — created by Monsanto in partner with a group known as Forage Genetics — was the first perennial plant to be deregulated for open planting by the USDA. But did Monsanto unleash the plant before this occurred?

This is very serious because it is only a matter of time before alfalfa across America could be corrupted with Monsanto’s patented genetically modified trait. Organic meat and dairy could be tainted when animals are fed the modified alfalfa as well, threatening the very integrity of the organic food supply. What’s more, the contamination of natural alfalfa could be nearly impossible — if not entirely impossible — to remedy, so it could actually fracture the genetic stability of the entire crop on a global scale.

Shocking Letter Reveals Monsanto’s Contamination Dates Back 2 Years Before ...

Published: Tuesday 24 April 2012
“The USDA has failed to require tests of how 2,4-D herbicide and Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide interact synergistically in the environment and in humans.”

You can help to hold the USDA and Dow Chemical accountable simply by posting your comments on the official public record of Dow Chemical’s petition with the USDA to approve their 2,4-D herbicide resistant GMO crops (remember that 2,4-D herbicide is half of the recipe for Agent Orange).

The USDA is required to respond to all UNIQUE comments publicly. Therefore, it is essential that you write your own message in addition to using any of the issues listed below. It’s also important to note that comments close April 27th, so make sure to get them in today. It’s simple to do, and you can view the list of issues and links below. Simply go to the USDA website to leave your comments and take action!

Here is a list of issues concerning the new dangerous 2,4-D herbicide resistant crops and source links that we encourage you to use, along with your own message, in your comments to the USDA:

Effects on human health:

  • I am demanding a full Environmental Impact Statement on these crops because they can affect human health.
  • What are the cumulative effects for these crops and the increase in 2,4-D herbicide usage?
  • EPA documents show that 2,4-D herbicide is the seventh largest source of dioxin in the US.

Pollution of the environment:

  • EPA documents reveal that 2,4-D agricultural runoff has polluted groundwater across the US. Dioxin has a half-life of more than 100 years when leached into soil and embedded in water systems. Additionally, ...
Published: Thursday 19 April 2012
“Owning a major organization that focuses heavily on the bee collapse and is recognized by the USDA for their mission statement of ‘restoring bee health and protecting the future of insect pollination’ could be very advantageous for Monsanto.”

Monsanto, the massive biotechnology company being blamed for contributing to the dwindling bee population, has bought up one of the leading bee collapse research organizations. Recently banned from Poland with one of the primary reasons being that the company’s genetically modified corn may be devastating the dying bee population, it is evident that Monsanto is under serious fire for their role in the downfall of the vital insects. It is therefore quite apparent why Monsanto bought one of the largest bee research firms on the planet.

It can be found in public company reports hosted on mainstream media that Monsanto scooped up the Beeologics firm back in September 2011. During this time the correlation between Monsanto’s GM crops and the bee decline was not explored in the mainstream, and in fact it was hardly touched upon until Polish officials addressed the serious concern amid the monumental ban. Owning a major organization that focuses heavily on the bee collapse and is recognized by the USDA for their mission statement of “restoring bee health and protecting the future of insect pollination” could be very advantageous for Monsanto.

In fact, Beelogics’ company information states that the primary goal of the firm is to study the very collapse disorder that is thought to be a result — at least in part — of Monsanto’s own creations. Their website states:

While its primary goal is to control the Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) ...

Published: Monday 9 April 2012
“It is currently forbidden by the agency itself for any producer to distribute or sell cloned meat.”

It may come as a surprise, but you may be consuming cloned meat on a regular basis. In fact, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (head of the USDA) says that he has no idea whether or not cloned meat has been sold inside the United States — or even how much. But instead of investigating or setting up parameters, the USDA asserts that it is safe in their view so there is no cause for alarm. It is currently forbidden by the agency itself for any producer to distribute or sell cloned meat.

The news came back in August of 2010, when U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack went on record saying that he really doesn’t know whether or not cloned meat is being put on dinner tables nationwide. The announcement was made after the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency told consumers that meat from descendants of cloned animals had already entered the food supply. Of course the agency made the statements a year after the cloned products leaked into the food chain. Still, just like the USDA, the UK’s FSA stated that they believe cloned meat poses no risk, so citizens should not panic. The reason? They say that cloned meat has ‘ no substantial difference’ to traditional meat, and therefore it is safe.

The statements echo those of Monsanto, whose genetically modified creations have been linked to everything from organ damage to toxicity-induced cell death.

Here’s what Tom Vilsack’s response is to whether or not cloned meat is being ...

Published: Tuesday 27 March 2012
The top producer of the toxic ingredient has shut down production in 3 out of 4 of its plants for 60 days, the ‘temporary’ closure may soon become “a permanent suspension.”

In response to serious health activism that has spread like wildfire over the ammonia-treated ‘pink slime‘ product once commonly found in school lunches and supermarkets alike, the top producer of the toxic ingredient has shut down production in 3 out of 4 of its plants for 60 days. According to the corporate administer of Beef Products Inc, a South Dakota-based company, the ‘temporary’ closure may soon become “a permanent suspension.”

Even McDonald’s was forced to remove the pink slime amid calls from activists in a campaign spearheaded by celebrity chef Jamie Oliver. Meanwhile, a startling 70% of supermarket ground beef maintained the slime. The pink slime is made up of leftover meat from beef after all of the muscular cuts have been removed. The meat is not muscle, but fat trimmings and connective tissue that are separated from the bone. Jamie Oliver says that the result is what would be sold at the cheapest form for dogs.

Published: Tuesday 27 March 2012
“The claims made in a book from the biotechnology industry are laughable. But these blatant lies are passed off as ‘science’ for schoolchildren.”

It's not enough that the biotech industry -- led by multinational corporations such as Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, BAS, and Dupont -- is poisoning our food and our planet. It's also poisoning young minds.

In a blatant attempt at brainwashing, the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) has widely circulated what it calls a Biotechnology Basics Activity Book for kids, to be used by "Agriculture and Science Teachers." The book -- called Look Closer at Biotechnology -- looks like a science workbook, but reads more like a fairy tale. Available on the council's Web site, its colorful pages are full of friendly cartoon faces, puzzles, helpful hints for teachers -- and a heavy dose of outright lies about the likely effects of genetic engineering on health, the environment, world hunger and the future of farming.

CBI's lies are designed specifically for children, and intended for use in classrooms.

At a critical time in history when our planet is veering toward a meltdown, when our youth are suffering the health consequences (obesity, diabetes, allergies) of Big Ag and Food Inc.'s over-processed, fat-and sugar-laden, chemical-, and GMO-tainted foods, a time when we should be educating tomorrow's adults about how to reverse climate change, how to create sustainable farming communities, how to promote better nutrition, the biotech industry's propagandists are infiltrating classrooms with misinformation in the guise of "educational" materials.

Brainwashing children. It's a new low, even for Monsanto.

You don't have to read beyond the first page of Look Closer at Biotechnology to realize that this is pure propaganda:

Hi Kids! Welcome to the Biotechnology Basics ...

Published: Tuesday 20 March 2012
“In accordance with the Obama Administration’s new hands-off approach to regulating GMOs, APHIS decided to actually approve MON87460 even after a cursory evaluation of the data exposed it as a complete failure.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) does not even pretend to legitimately evaluate genetically-modified organisms (GMO) before approving them anymore, having recently green-lighted approval for a new variety of "drought-resistant" GM corn produced by Monsanto that admittedly grows no better under drought conditions than natural varieties do.

 

According to the Washington Post, APHIS fast-tracked the corn, known as MON87460, without ever conducting an appropriate environmental risk analysis on the crop's efficacy, which includes determining ...

Published: Friday 16 March 2012
“A groundswell developed over the “yuck factor” of the ground beef extended with filler that is made from beef renderings and treated with ammonia hydroxide.”

After a public uproar sparked by a Houston mom's online petition, the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture on Thursday backed off the federal school lunch program's use of "pink slime" by letting school districts decide whether to accept the controversial beef product.

A groundswell developed over the "yuck factor" of the ground beef extended with filler that is made from beef renderings and treated with ammonia hydroxide. The USDA says the product is safe.

"USDA only purchases products for the school lunch program that are safe, nutritious and affordable — including all products containing Lean Finely Textured Beef," as pink slime is officially known, the department said in a statement.

"However, due to customer demand, the department will be adjusting procurement specifications for the next school year so schools can have additional options in procuring ground beef products," the statement said. "USDA will provide schools with a choice to order product either with or without Lean Finely Textured Beef."

The USDA, roiled by more than 225,000 signatures on the online petition that was launched in early March as well as the ongoing publicity, made its decision in advance of the April purchase order for the fall's school lunch program. Some 32 ...

Published: Tuesday 13 March 2012
“The negative effects of Monsanto’s Roundup on human health and the environment have been firmly established by numerous scientific studies and large-scale investigations.”

Monsanto's reckless disregard for public health and the agricultural stability of the planet may be even more significant than previously thought. A shocking new report reveals how Monsanto's Roundup is actually threatening the crop-yielding potential of the entire biosphere. The report reveals that glyphosate, which was developed by Monsanto in the early 1970s and is the active ingredient in its patented herbicide Roundup, may be irreversibly devastating the microbiodiversity of the soil - compromising the health of the entire planet, as a result.

New research published in the journal Current Microbiology highlights the extent to which glyphosate is altering, and in some cases destroying, the very microorganisms upon which the health of the soil, and - amazingly - the benefits of raw and fermented foods as a whole, depend. Concerningly, certain beneficial strains of bacteria used as food-starters in cultures for raw yogurt, such as Lactobacillus cremoris, have entirely disappeared from certain geographic regions where traditionally they were found in plenty. The study reports that the death and growth inhibition of selected food microorganisms was observed in concentrations of Roundup that are lower than are recommended in agricultural practice.

This means that farmers who are increasingly using larger and larger concentrations of Roundup and similar glyphosate-based herbicide formulations to countermand the increasingly resistant super weeds GM agriculture has spawned, are not only damaging the immediate health of the soil, but subsequent yields of indispensable food-starter microorganisms, as well as the microbes that ensure the overall fertility of the soil for producing crops well into the future.

Monsanto's Roundup assaults the planetary biosphere

Microorganisms are responsible for much more than just the health content of raw and fermented foods. The most numerous inhabitants in the web of life, ...

Published: Sunday 4 March 2012
“Accused of organizing phony protests in support of their crops and using their profile as a mega corporation to influence key legislators, Monsanto has openly admitted influence in the key Boulder decision amid serious heat from the press.”

As concerns over the consumption of genetically modified foods continue to grow internationally, legislation is increasingly being introduced to mandate the labeling of products containing genetically modified ingredients. With thousands — if not millions — of products lining the grocery store shelves containing at least some genetically modified organisms (GMOs), consumers are demanding action. A total of 18 states are now examining laws that seek to explicitly label products containing GMOs.

Needless to say, the initiative isn’t making Monsanto very happy – the leading producer of genetically modified seeds with 90 percent of the market cornered. In fact, Monsanto has admitted influencing previous decisions to root out their GMO crops in places like Boulder, Colorado. Accused of organizing phony protests in support of their crops and using their profile as a mega corporation to influence key legislators, Monsanto has openly admitted influence in the key Boulder decision amid serious heat from the press.

Published: Wednesday 29 February 2012
“The USDA instead continues to not only go against public interest, but recklessly endanger the public with unacceptable and outright ludicrous policies that threaten your health on a routine basis.”

Despite being tasked to defend public health, the USDA instead continues to not only go against public interest, but recklessly endanger the public with unacceptable and outright ludicrous policies that threaten your health on a routine basis. Perhaps most compelling is the fact that not only does the USDA allow for the widespread use of GMO crops, which have been pinpointed by scientific research as harmful to your health, but the USDA has now announced that they will be extraditing the approval process for these genetically modified creations.

What’s more, the organization actually said that one major hurdle they had to face when speeding up the regulation process — which cuts the regulatory time period in which GMO crops are studied for safety in half — was public interest. Does this sound like an organization that actually cares about your health? Here are 4 proofs that the USDA cares more about securing corporate profits than your health.

1. USDA Chooses Monsanto Sales Over Public Safety

Could it be possible that the USDA is actually turning a blind eye to the known adverse effects of Monsanto’s GMO crops, such as organ damage, in order to secure Monsanto’s growth and subsequent sales? In the original Bloomberg report announcing that the USDA was giving a ‘special’ speed review for Monsanto’s future crops, experts explained that the move was to secure the financial future of Monsanto — not to help farmers, citizens, or the United ...

Published: Sunday 26 February 2012
“This is a move to help Monsanto and other biotechnology giants squash competition and make profits.”

If you thought Monsanto’s lack of testing on their current GMO crops was bad before, prepare to now be blown away by the latest statement by the USDA. Despite links to organ damage and mutated insects, the USDA says that it is changing the rules so that genetically modified seed companies like Monsanto will get ‘speedier regulatory reviews’. With the faster reviews, there will be even less time spent on evaluating the potential dangers. Why? Because Monsanto is losing sales with longer approval terms.

The changes are expected to take full effect in March when they’re published in the Federal Register. The USDA’s goal is to cut the approval time for GMO crops in half in order to speedily implement them into the global food supply. The current USDA process takes longer than they would like due to ‘public interest, legal challenges, and the challenges associated with the advent of national organic food standards‘ 

Published: Tuesday 7 February 2012
“Going beyond organic, a new generation of farmers is nurturing nature as well as crops.”

“Frogs are an indicator species,” Jack Gray explains, leaning over a small, muddy pond to look for tadpoles.

Here on the 170-acre Winter Green Farm, 20 miles west of Eugene, Ore., Gray has raised cattle and grown vegetables and berries for 30 years.

It’s a sunny April day, but water pools in the pastures, evidence of the rains this part of Oregon is known for.

Gray is in his mid-50s and agile from decades of working outside. He built this pond to provide habitat for native amphibians, because bass in another pond were eating the red-legged frogs and Western pond turtles.

Cows graze in a field behind him; wind whispers through a stand of cattails, and two mallards lift off. Gray points out the calls of killdeer, flycatchers, and blackbirds. Up the hill a flock of sheep chomp on long ...

Published: Sunday 27 November 2011
48.8 million: People who lived in food insecure households last year.

Last year, 17.2 million households in the United States were food insecure, the highest level on record, as the Great Recession continued to wreak havoc on families across the country. Of those 17.2 million households, 3.9 million included children. On Thanksgiving Day, here’s a look at hunger in America, as millions of Americans struggle to get enough to eat in the wake of the economic crisis:

READ FULL POST 11 COMMENTS

Published: Friday 18 November 2011
“Rural Development Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations act that prevents the Department of Agriculture from implementing new school lunch standards.”

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a longtime advocate of children’s nutrition, today released the following statement after language was inserted into the Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture, Rural Development Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations act that prevents the Department of Agriculture from implementing new school lunch standards.

“I strongly support a number of provisions in H.R. 2112, the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food & Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, such as the vital funding for low-income food assistance programs. I must voice my outrage at language included in this legislation which blatantly ignores and imperils the health of this country’s school children.

“Just days ago, language was inserted into H.R. 2112 which prevents the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) from implementing important new school lunch standards that are scheduled to go into effect next year.  The language also allows pizza, if it has at least two tablespoons of tomato paste, to be defined as a vegetable.   

“Childhood obesity is a disease affecting 17% children throughout the country. According the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, childhood ...

Published: Friday 29 July 2011
Syndicate content
Make your voice heard.
Write for NationofChange
Small and medium businesses aren't the only ones at risk for massive financial miscalculations....
Autism and autism spectrum disorders have created unique challenges for parents for years. These...
Let’s face it, the world used to seem like a huge place. A place in which there were areas, towns,...
Recently, when I trying to define what the term “global energy markets” really meant, I stumbled...
Ukraine and neo-Nazis Ever since serious protest broke out in Ukraine in February the Western...