Monsanto is Scrambling to Bury This Breaking Story – Don’t Let This Go Unshared!

We all know Monsanto has their fingers in all areas of the food industry, but did you know how skilled they are at burying news stories? It's pretty alarming — but we're here to tell you how we can help reverse that trend by making our voices heard!

Perhaps you've heard of glyphosate. It's an extremely, dangerous toxic chemical — found in Monsanto's Roundup. What you may not know — because of Monsanto's skill in burying stories — is that it's found in tons of American founds, and at extremely high levels!

We have to tell everyone we know, or else Monsanto will succeed in continuing to bury this story.

Recently an FDA-registered food safety lab tested a wide range of iconic American foods - and found glyphosate at crazy alarming levels.

Consider this: Glysophate is considered harmful at levels as low as 0.1 ppb - but many foods were found to contain levels more than 1,000 times greater!

Independent research links glyphosate to cancer and it has been deemed a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s team of international cancer experts.

The childhood cancer rate is steadily rising and experts say that they don’t know why. Hmm...

Research also indicates that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor, which disrupts hormones and leads to reproductive problems, early onset puberty, obesity, diabetes, and some cancers.

When it comes to endocrine disruptors, very small exposures are the most damaging - any amount of glyphosate can do tremendous damage!

Glyphosate is also a broad-spectrum antibiotic and kills the good bacteria in your gut. Poor gut health is linked to inflammation and a whole host of diseases.

As GMOs laced with glyphosate are commonly fed to farm animals, this could very well be contributing to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

This chemical has gone so mainstream that glyphosate has infiltrated every facet of our environment – our water, air, soil.

There are still thousands of other brands and whole foods that have not been tested for glyphosate residues, so we can’t be so sure that our own organic, non-GMO, and unprocessed food is safe.

Americans are effectively being forced to eat this poison until something is done to stop the rampant use of this chemical.

Monsanto doesn’t want the public to know these findings for obvious reasons. They have our regulatory agencies in their back pocket to make sure they can continue to make a hefty profit while poisoning the masses.

Our public agencies are allowing corporations to poison Americans for profit.

It is shameful that the American media has thus far failed to cover this breaking news, but WE HAVE THE POWER to make this information go viral.

If you really want to stop the corruption perpetuated by Monsanto and the large chemical companies – this is how we shut them down!

http://www.organicandhealthy.org

California Widow Sues Monsanto For Killing Her Husband

Teri McCall of Cambria, California, lost her husband of 40 years, Anthony “Jack” McCall, to terminal cancer in December 2015. For nearly 30 years on his 20-acre fruit and vegetable farm, Jack had used Monsanto’s herbicide, Roundup.

Now, Teri has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Monsanto Co., alleging that Monsanto had known for years that exposure to glyphosate—the main ingredient in the agribusiness giant’s flagship weedkiller Roundup—could cause cancer and other serious illnesses or injuries.

And she just might win.


A growing body of evidence is accumulating, which indicates that Jack’s death might, indeed, be linked to his exposure to glyphosate.

Glyphosate, which is the most widely applied pesticide worldwide, was declared as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in March of 2015 by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

Besides the “convincing evidence” the herbicide can cause cancer in lab animals, the IARC also found:

“Case-control studies of occupational exposure in the U.S.A., Canada, and Sweden reported increased risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma that persisted after adjustments to other pesticides.”

Teri’s husband, Jack, died shortly after being diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The evidence linking glyphosate to cancer is continuing to mount.

California’s Environmental Protection Agency issued plans in September of 2015 to add glyphosate to the state’s list of chemicals known to cause cancer — making it the first state in the U.S to do so.

And then, just weeks ago, a team of 94 scientists co-authored a report, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, which stated:

“The most appropriate and scientifically based evaluation of the cancers reported in humans and laboratory animals as well as supportive mechanistic data is that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen.”

Glyphosate is applied to 89% of U.S. corn crop and 94% of the soybeans, as well as being used with dozens of other crops. Since the herbicide (and the genetically engineered crops that were created to withstand its use) is a core component of today’s industrial farm landscape, the results of this debate will have far reaching consequences.

The United States now uses about 280 million pounds of glyphosate per year, compared to only about 30 million pounds a year before genetically engineered crops were first commercialized 20 years ago.

Thanks to genetic engineering, we’re now literally spraying our food crops with a pesticide that, increasing numbers of scientists believe, is causing cancer.

The truth is that Jack and Teri McCall are just the tip of the iceberg. How many farmers and consumers, are being exposed to glyphosate on a daily basis? And what is real the impact of 280 million pounds of a probable carcinogen being sprayed on our croplands?

Monsanto and its spokespeople insist that glyphosate is completely safe. Some have even said you can drink it. Although, as this hilarious video illustrates, they may not actually mean it.

Jump for Video and Links

If you want to avoid eating glyphosate, the top thing you can do is to choose organically grown foods. And when you avoid GMOs, you’re also making a big difference.

Monsanto’s Roundup Kills and Damages More than Weeds

Protests against Monsanto’s Roundup, with its poisonous, weed-killing glyphosate, have spread around the globe. An arm of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared it a probable cause of cancer in 2015. California’s Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA) recently decided to label it as such.

Environmental groups and activists in Northern California, a region known for its wines, advocate a moratorium on this herbicide as health concerns mount. Roundup is the world’s most widely used pesticide.

Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, was the focus of a January 28 informational event. It was initiated by the Watertrough Childrens Alliance as a fundraiser for a lawsuit against winemaker Paul Hobbs for converting an apple orchard into a vineyard adjacent to schools, thus putting the health of around 500 children at risk by spraying Roundup. The Sierra Club, Sonoma Group, co-sponsored the evening.

Sebastopol Mayor Sarah Glade Gurney welcomed a panel of three experts and around 60 people from Sonoma and Napa counties attended and moderated an active discussion. Attorney Jonathan Evans of the Tucson, Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity, organizer Ella Teevan of the Washington, D.C.-based Food and Water Watch (FWW), and former Petaluma Vice-Mayor and City Council member Tiffany Renee spoke.

Monsanto also makes Roundup Ready, which are Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). “93% of soy beans and 80% of corn in the U.S. are grown with Monsanto GMO seeds,” reported Teevan. “Food and Water Watch wants a moratorium on more GMOs and their labeling.”

“Our food system and how we interact with our environment is broken. Instead of serving people, profit is served. We need to fix our food system,” Teevan added.

“Glyphosate has become a pervasive presence in the environment. 65% of water in some countries has traces of it,” said Evans. “Exposure can create a number of problems, including liver and kidney damage. It can even change ones DNA. Our goal is to protect health and keep these products out of the market.”

“After the CA EPA decision to label Roundup, Monsanto filed a lawsuit against them. They claimed that their First Amendment rights to free speech were being violated,” Evans reported.

“BECOME EDUCATED CONSUMERS”

“We need to become educated consumers and not buy these products. We need to empower elected officials to act, Evans suggested. “We need to get involved in grassroots actions and push for a just food system,” added Teevan. “Become active participants in democracy.”

“The California city of Richmond banned all pesticide a year ago,” reported Renée. “We advocate such a ban in Petaluma, which must include neonicotinoids. Portland, Oregon has banned neonicotinoids, systemic pesticides that damage bees. Glyphosate is a public health threat. The many costs are suffered by humans, animals, and plants. The benefits are only to a few humans,” she added.

“The highest use of glyphosate in Sonoma County is for winegrapes, yet non-toxic alternatives are available,” said Evans. “Monsanto is a bad actor. They sue farmers when GMO seeds blow onto their lands from neighbors,” he said.

The Huffington Post’s January 26 article “8 Reasons to Avoid Doing Business with Monsanto,” by business editor Alexander C. Kaufman, reports that the giant bioengineering firm has been dubbed “the world’s ‘most evil corporation.’”

Mounting criticism of Monsanto’s “litigious, secretive, and combative” practices have made it financially vulnerable, asserts Kaufman. It plans to cut 3,600 jobs, which would be 16% of its global workforce. Roundup and Roundup Ready constitute 90% of Monsanto’s revenue. “Several countries, cities, and retail chains worldwide have banned or severely limited glyphosate products,” notes Kaufman.

“Hundreds of Moms Across America groups exist nationwide,” he adds, and “more than 2 million people in 52 countries internationally took to the streets to ‘March Against Monsanto.’”

Monsanto is desperately seeking a merger, according to the January 25 issue of GMWatch from the United Kingdom (www.gmwatch.org). One of their goals seems to be to abandon their tarnished name.

CITIZENS SPEAK UP

When Mayor Gurney opened the discussion to the crowd, more than a dozen people promptly came to the microphone. The first speaker quoted a study of seven wines from Sonoma, Mendocino, and Lake counties conducted by the Biochemical Working Group in Ukiah. It documented that traces of glyphosate exceeding EPA safe levels were found in all of them. People are drinking Roundup in their wine. Glyphosate has been banned in Europe.

“We’re tired of our children and babies being damaged by Roundup. We need to mandate a real school protection zone,” declared Janus Matthes of Wine and Water Watch (www.winewaterwatch.org). Instead, “the vineyards are being protected,” she added.

“It is so easy to use Roundup. The breads that you eat that are not organic have glyphosate in them,” noted geologist Jane Nielson, Ph.D.

“Roundup is an antibiotic that kills gut bacteria,” said Amy Martenson of Label GMOs Napa County. She added that “we are having problems with the vineyards. Napa County has the highest rate of cancer in California.”

“We want a GMO free zone up and down the coast. Most counties on the North Coast have prohibited growing GMO crops,” explained Pam Gentry of Citizens for Healthy Farms and Families. They are collecting signatures to place an initiative on this year’s ballot that would ban growing genetically engineered crops in Sonoma County

Monsanto controls an area in South America larger than California called “soybean republic.” Jim Stoops noted, “Sixty doctors have complained about higher cancer rates in that area.”

Meanwhile, GM Watch reported the following: “Monsanto’s attempts to build its GMO seed plant in Argentina have met with three years of unflinching popular opposition. Protesters received an eviction notice, but local activists mobilized to strengthen the blockade, and a prosecutor suspended the order. The demand was, ‘Monsanto, get out of Latin America!’

Back in the U.S., GM Watch reports the following: “Campbell Soup Company said it supports the enactment of federal legislation for a single mandatory labeling standard for GM foods. The company said, ‘Printing a clear and simple statement on the label is the best solution for consumers and for Campbell.’ Campbell says its prices will not increase as a result of labeling.”

The article “Half of All Children Will Be Autistic by 2025” appears in the December 23, 2014, newsletter of the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), with the subtitle “Warns Senior Research Scientist at MIT.”

MIT’s Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., “noted that the side effects of autism closely mimic those of glyphosate toxicity. Children with autism have biomarkers indicative of excessive glyphosate, including zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorder.”

ANH describes “the revolving door between Monsanto and the federal government, with agency officials becoming high-paying executives—and vice versa! Money, power, prestige: it’s all there. Monsanto and the USDA scratch each others’ backs.”

Food and Water Watch’s booklet Monsanto: A Corporate Profile, further documents this: “Monsanto’s board members have worked for the EPA, advised the U.S. Department of Agriculture and served on President Obama’s Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations.”

Renee concluded that “we need activism. Eat locally, hopefully organic or biodynamic. Grow part of your own food.”

link

If the GMO salmon is as good as its maker says, why not label it?

This undated 2010 handout photo provided by AquaBounty Technologies shows two same-age salmon: a genetically modified salmon, rear, and a non-genetically modified salmon, foreground. (AquaBounty Technologies/Associated Press)

By now, you’ve probably heard that the Food and Drug Administration has approved the first-ever genetically engineered animal for human consumption. It’s an Atlantic salmon modified for fast growth with genes from two other edible fish, and it has been — and will undoubtedly continue to be — a lightning rod for all the issues associated with genetically modified foods. There’s safety, there’s escape into the environment and there’s labeling: a trifecta of discord. The fish’s lengthy approval process — the salmon’s developer, AquaBounty Technologies, first approached the FDA 20 years ago — indicates just how intense that discord has been.

So, safety first. Groups such as Consumers Union and Food and Water Watch have expressed concern about both safety and allergenicity, with Consumers Union citing small sample sizes and “inadequate analysis.” It’s unlikely that the FDA assessment will put their minds at ease, since the final decision is largely consistent with preliminary findings from 2010, when the agency determined that food from the GE salmon is as safe as, and no more allergenic than, food from any other Atlantic salmon, and concluded there is “reasonable certainty of no harm.” (Although “genetically engineered” is the term the FDA uses, this salmon is commonly referred to as a genetically modified organism, or GMO.)

The larger issue is the possibility of escape, important because escapees could outcompete or interbreed with native fish. AquaBounty says it has several layers of safeguards to prevent that: The fish are raised on land, in tanks, and the fish grown for food (as opposed to breeding) are all females, and sterile. The FDA calls the possibility of the salmon’s escape “highly unlikely,” and the possibility of their breeding in the wild commensurately unlikely. Environmental conditions around the company’s Canadian and Panamanian facilities, the agency found, make it unlikely that any escapees could thrive and establish a viable population. (The FDA approval is for only those two facilities. Any new installations will require a new environmental assessment and separate approval.)

Consumers Union, again responding to preliminary FDA findings that today’s announcement confirmed, says the agency’s determination that escape is a remote possibility was built on “inadequate science and unfounded assumptions” and expresses concern that the sterilization process isn’t 100 percent successful. (That’s true; the FDA requires that the rate be at least 95 percent, and AquaBounty chief executive Ron Stotish says that rates, in practice, are generally over 99 percent.)

A Canadian governmental risk assessment issued in 2013 also looked at both safety and escapes and described the risk to human health as “low” and the risk to the Canadian environment as “negligible.”

On both of those issues, there will always be some doubt. Safety can’t be proved (we can only infer it from absence of harm so far), and any containment system can fail. So the questions aren’t “Is it safe?” and “Could they escape?” The question is whether the risk in those two areas is outweighed by the benefits.

So let’s talk about the benefits. According to AquaBounty, the advantages are that the fish reaches market weight in about half the time taken by conventional salmon and requires 25 percent less feed to get there. If that’s true (and there’s no reason to suppose it isn’t), what we have here, finally, is a GMO that can benefit people and planet — unlike the other genetically engineered foods approved for use in the United States, which chiefly benefit farmers. Growing healthful fish in less time, with less feed, is a win for humans (in the form of more affordable salmon) and environment (in the form of reduced feed requirements and less pressure on forage fish stocks).

I do have one concern about whether those benefits will play out, but it’s related to neither safety nor the potential for escape. It’s about raising fish in tanks. Although tanks eliminate the potential for ocean pollution and the spread of disease to wild fish, and virtually eliminate the problem of escapees, they require both water and energy. Does that increase in resources counterbalance the decrease that comes from faster growth and better feed conversion? AquaBounty’s Stotish says that energy requirements vary widely by location and that the Panamanian location is very resource-efficient, as the water is gravity-fed and doesn’t need cooling. Although he hasn’t done the calculation in greenhouse gases, he has done it in money, a reasonable proxy. “We have a lower cost per kilo than net pen production,” he says.

That leaves the third issue: labeling. The United States, unlike many other countries, has no requirement that genetically modified food be labeled as such, and the salmon is no exception. When the fish is introduced, Stotish says, it probably will not be identified as genetically engineered — a decision I think is unfortunate. “When you’re the first and only, labeling is a dangerous decision,” he says. “We’d like to label it as a premium product, but we’ll probably introduce it as ‘Atlantic salmon.’ ”

Because there is so much fear and so many misconceptions about genetically engineered food, I feel his pain. But I’d ask him to suck it up and put the label on it. One of the reasons GMOs became such a brouhaha is that consumers feel the technology was foisted, in secret, on an unsuspecting public.

The company has a limited capacity to grow fish, so consumers won’t be seeing the salmon on store shelves right away. Stotish estimates that it’ll be two years before production levels are high enough to get a regular supply to market, and I think that gives AquaBounty plenty of time to change its mind about labeling. If the fish has all the advantages the company claims it does, say it loud. And let everyone — pro and con — vote with their wallets.

LINK

Pesticide Peddler Monsanto Wins 2015 Rubber Dodo Award

TUCSON, Ariz.— Monsanto, producer and seller of Roundup and its toxic active ingredient glyphosate, is the recipient of the Center for Biological Diversity’s 2015 Rubber Dodo Award, given annually to those who have done the most to destroy wild places, species and biological diversity. Glyphosate is now used in more than 160 countries, and more than 1.4 billion pounds are applied each year. It has been classified as a “probable human carcinogen” by the World Health Organization and its heavy use, particularly on herbicide-resistant GMO crops, also developed by Monsanto, is considered a leading cause of the recent, drastic 80 percent decline in monarch butterflies.

Previous Rubber Dodo winners include U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services (2014), the Koch brothers (2013), climate denier James Inhofe (2012), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (2011), former BP CEO Tony Hayward (2010), massive land speculator Michael Winer (2009), Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (2008) and Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne (2007).

“The science is increasingly clear that glyphosate is damaging wildlife and putting people at serious risk, yet Monsanto continues to aggressively peddle the stuff to farmers and really any customer it can find,” said Kierán Suckling, the Center’s executive director. “It’s hard to fathom the depth of the damage that glyphosate is doing, but its toxic legacy will live on for generations, whether it’s through threatening monarchs with extinction or a heightened risk of cancer for people where it’s spread.”

Earlier this week the Center released an analysis that found more than half of the glyphosate sprayed in California is applied in the state’s eight most impoverished counties, where the populations are predominantly Hispanic or Latino.

“Those sitting in Monsanto’s boardrooms and corporate offices won’t pay the price for this dangerous pesticide. It’s going to be people on the ground where it’s sprayed,” Suckling said. “This kind of callous pursuit of profits is at the core of what’s driving the loss of wildlife and diversity on a massive scale around the globe.”

More than 15,000 people cast their votes in this year’s Rubber Dodo contest. Other official nominees were Volkswagen, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Exxon and notorious Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy.

Background on the Dodo

In 1598 Dutch sailors landing on the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius discovered a flightless, 3-foot-tall, extraordinarily friendly bird. Its original scientific name was Didus ineptus. (Contemporary scientists use the less defamatory Raphus cucullatus.) To the rest of the world, it’s the dodo — possibly the most famous extinct species on Earth after the dinosaurs. It evolved over millions of years with no natural predators and eventually lost the ability to fly, becoming a land-based consumer of fruits, nuts and berries. Having never known predators, it showed no fear of humans or the menagerie of animals accompanying them to Mauritius.

Its trusting nature led to its rapid extinction. By 1681 the dodo had vanished, hunted and outcompeted by humans, dogs, cats, rats, macaques and pigs. Humans logged its forest cover while pigs uprooted and ate much of the understory vegetation.

The origin of the name dodo is unclear. It likely came from the Dutch word dodoor, meaning “sluggard,” the Portuguese word doudo, meaning “fool” or “crazy,” or the Dutch word dodaars meaning “plump-arse” (that nation’s name for the little grebe).

The dodo’s reputation as a foolish, ungainly bird derives in part from its friendly naiveté and the very plump captives that were taken on tour across Europe. The animal’s reputation was cemented with the 1865 publication of Lewis Carroll’s Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

Based on skeleton reconstructions and the discovery of early drawings, scientists now believe that the dodo was a much sleeker animal than commonly portrayed. The rotund European exhibitions were likely produced by overfeeding captive birds.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 900,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

Monsanto’s GMO Herbicide Doubles Cancer Risk

Glyphosate – the main ingredient in Monsanto’s widely used herbicide Roundup – is a colorless, odorless chemical and might seem innocuous to those who spray it on crops. But in the past few months the truth has come out: This chemical can be dangerous to farmers who are exposed to it and to people living close to farming areas.

In fact, glyphosate has been found to double the risk of one blood cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and increase the risk of a related cancer, multiple myeloma. (Multiple myeloma was recently classified as a sub-type of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, but they used to be considered distinct diseases.)

In a report released in late July, the world’s leading cancer experts at the International Agency for Research on Cancer shed new light on the cancer-causing properties of glyphosate. The report, which took an in-depth look at the latest research, concluded that glyphosate is definitely carcinogenic to animals in laboratory studies and that human exposure is linked to a higher risk of developing blood cancers such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

The report confirmed the findings of the Agency’s previous meta-analysis, which combined the results of several studies and concluded that occupational exposure to glyphosate doubles the risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The more recent report also highlighted studies that found that farm workers’ glyphosate exposure increases their risk of multiple myeloma by 70 to 100 percent.

It’s no wonder, then, that two farmers have filed lawsuits against Monsanto charging that they had been exposed them to a chemical that is “unreasonably dangerous.” Bottles of Roundup carry no warning that it is a probable human carcinogen.

In response to the International Agency’s recent findings, California has moved to add glyphosate to the state’s list of known carcinogens. This would require that Roundup bottles come with some sort of label warning of its dangers.

And farm workers aren’t the only ones exposed to the herbicide. Researchers have found glyphosate residues in food as well. The cancer research agency points out that a 2007 study found glyphosate residues on six of eight tofu samples made from Brazilian soybeans. Soybeans are the largest genetically modified crop produced globally and account for about half of the total area dedicated to growing GMO crops.

It’s time to label genetically modified food and let consumers decide whether they want to support an agricultural system that exposes farmers ­– and potentially themselves – to unreasonable risks.

Plenty of Links HERE

GMO Science Deniers: Monsanto and the USDA

Perhaps no group of science deniers has been more ridiculed than those who deny the science of evolution. What you may not know is that Monsanto and our United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are among them. That's right: for decades, Monsanto and its enablers inside the USDA have denied the central tenets of evolutionary biology, namely natural selection and adaptation. And this denial of basic science by the company and our government threatens the future viability of American agriculture.

Third Grade Science

Let's start with interrelated concepts of natural selection and adaptation. This is elementary school science. In fact, in Washington D.C. it is part of the basic third grade science curriculum.

As we all remember from biology class, when an environment changes, trait variation in a species could allow some in that species to adapt to that new environment and survive. Others will die out. The survivors are then able to reproduce and even thrive under the new environmental conditions. For example, if a drought were to occur, some plants might have traits that allow them to survive while other plants in the same species would perish. The drought-resistant plants then become the "evolved" species, and they are able to reproduce in the drought environment.

Obvious, you are thinking. But let's explore how Monsanto's top scientists and government regulators would have failed a third grade science class in D.C. and the dire consequences that it is bringing to us all.

Biotech's Dirty Little Secret

First a little background. Since the early 1980s, Monsanto has endlessly hyped genetically engineered (GE) crops they claim could reduce hunger, reduce pesticide use, and survive droughts. In reality, no such "miracle" crops exist. No significantly greater yielding crops, no more effective drought resistance crops. And as for the claim of less pesticide use, behind this myth lies the "dirty little secret" of agricultural biotechnology. Namely, that GE crops actually add hundreds of millions of pounds of pesticides to our fields and crops, and create greater agrochemical residues on our food. Why? Because around 85 percent of all genetically engineered crops in the United States and around the world have been engineered to withstand massive doses of herbicides, mostly Monsanto's Roundup. Usually, if toxic weed-killing chemicals such as Roundup come into contact with a crop they will destroy it as well as the weeds around it. But Monsanto scientists genetically engineered a cassette of bacterial and viral DNA into plants that allowed them to tolerate these herbicides. So the weeds are killed, but the crops remain.

In the United States, more than 50 percent of all our cropland is devoted to GE corn, soy and cotton. They are commodity crops that feed cars, animals in industrial meat production and are used for additives like high fructose corn syrup. Almost none directly feeds people. So rather than feeding the hungry, this technology is about chemical companies selling more chemicals, a lot more chemicals. So as noted, each year 115 million more pounds of Roundup are spread on our farmlands because of these altered crops.

Profits versus Science: Science loses

If half of our nation's cropland is doused year after year with a particular herbicide, that is a significant change in the environment. The accompanying problem of adaptation and selection has probably already occurred to you. Wouldn't that massive increase in Roundup use over that huge a portion of our cropland cause some weed populations to develop resistance? Wouldn't weeds with natural resistance thrive in this new environment? Wouldn't these new "superweeds" eventually become a major problem for U.S. farmers, overrunning their crops?

As government regulators were considering whether to approve these plants in the mid-1990s, they asked Monsanto just that question. No doubt considering the billions they were going to make selling more Roundup, this is a moment when Monsanto's scientists seemed to find it convenient to their bottom line to deny basic evolutionary science. They stated, "Evolution of weed resistance to glyphosate (Roundup's active ingredient) appears to be an unlikely event." They also suggested that massive use of Roundup would lead to "no resistant weeds." Independent scientists were aghast. They mocked Monsanto's view that Roundup was somehow "invincible" from the laws of natural selection, and pointed out that the company's scientists purposely ignored numerous studies that showed there would be weed resistance. But incredibly, despite the strong contrary evidence, the USDA regulators just nodded in science denying agreement with Monsanto.

Of course, adaptation and natural selection did take place. As a result, in less than 20 years, more than half of all U.S. farms have some Roundup resistant "superweeds," weeds that now infest 70 million acres of U.S farmland, an area the size of Wyoming. Each year we see major expansion of this "superweed" acreage. Texas has gone so far as to declare a state of emergency for cotton farmers. Superweeds are already causing major economic problems for farmers with a current estimate of $1 billion lost in damages to crops so far.

Last year in a panel discussion with Robert Fraley, Chief Technology Officer for Monsanto and a founder of these herbicide tolerant crops, I confronted him. How could he and the other Monsanto scientists have claimed that natural selection would not take place? How could they ignore basic evolutionary science and clear contrary evidence? He just shook his head and said "You're right, weeds have evolved resistance." But apparently, Monsanto and their government regulators still haven't learned this third grade science lesson. They're denying science once again, and the stakes are even higher.

"Agent Orange Crops" and More Science Denial

Now Monsanto and Dow Chemical have received government approval to market new genetically engineered corn, soy and cotton, that are "stacked" with engineered DNA that make them resistant to Roundup as well as 2,4-D (one of the chief elements of "Agent Orange"). Monsanto has also gained approval from the USDA for the same three crops that can tolerate Dicamba. 2,4-D and Dicamba are older, more toxic herbicides than Roundup, and these companies are reverting to them because they have brought us to the point of peak herbicides. They simply don't have any new ones, similar to the current crisis in antibiotics.

But won't the weeds simply become resistant to these herbicides as well? Not according to the science deniers at Monsanto and Dow Chemical. Despite predictions that their new crops will add hundreds of millions more pounds of these herbicides each year, they say not to worry. They claim -- as they did 20 years ago -- that natural selection will not happen; that it is extremely unlikely for weeds to survive simultaneous attacks from two or more different herbicides with different methods.

Weed scientists have shredded this argument, noting that weeds in the past, through adaption, have done this and will almost certainly do it again. So in a few years we will be overrun with "superweeds" that are virtually indestructible by any known chemical. But by then Monsanto and Dow will have made billions selling their chemicals and can leave the "superweed" agronomic nightmare for others to solve. Nor will they have to deal with the other nightmares that could possibly occur: increased rates of cancer and diseases like Parkinson's associated with exposure to these herbicides.

A Better Way

A science-based, and safer, way forward is to abandon this doomed-to-fail chemical arms race against weeds and use ecologically based weed control. There are proven organic and agroecological approaches that emphasize weed management rather than weed eradication, soil building rather than soil supplementing. Crop rotation and cover crops can return productive yields without ridding the land of genetic biodiversity, and could reduce herbicide use by 90 percent.

So it's long past due that our government required real and rigorous science when regulating GE crops. It's time for them to say "no" to these herbicide-promoting crops, and prevent the looming agronomic disaster they will inevitably bring with them.

In the meantime, the next time you read hear about "GMO science deniers" -- think of 70 million acres of superweeds; think cancer, Parkinsons and other diseases caused by this growing use of herbicides; think Monsanto and its enablers at the USDA.

Monsanto’s Deep Legacy Of Corruption And Cover-Up

The History of a chemical company

Monsanto is now instantly recognized as the company dominating the global food supply with its more than 7000  current worldwide patents. But today’s Monsanto is not a corporate newcomer. Although its literature heralds the company as having a clear and principled code of conduct and a pledge to demonstrate integrity, respect, ethical behavior, and honesty in everything they do, the truth is that this company has a legacy of contamination and cover-up that dates back more than a century.

The Rise of  one of ‘The Worst Corporations in the World’

At the turn of the 19th century, John Queeny founded Monsanto Chemical Works to produce such nefarious products as saccharin, synthetic vanillin, and laxative and sedative drugs. The company was well positioned as a leading force in the dawning American chemical industry.

From the 1920’s until the late 1960’s, Queeny’s son, Edgar Monsanto Queeny, expanded the company into a global franchise, and changed its name to Monsanto Chemical Company in 1933. He added sulfuric acid, PCBs, DDT, synthetic fibers, and an array of plastics that included polystyrene to the product line.

During this time, Monsanto also created Agent Orange, one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971.

Agent Orange was a combination of equal parts of two herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. The 2,4,5-T used to produce Agent Orange threw off dioxin as a byproduct, a compound the World Health Organization classes as highly toxic. Dioxin can cause reproductive and developmental problems, damage to the immune system, hormone disruption, and the initiation of cancer. Dioxin persists in the environment and accumulates in the body, even at minimal exposure.

In areas where Agent Orange was used, the concentration of dioxin was hundreds of times greater than the levels considered safe by the Environmental Protective Agency (EPA). This resulted in a host of terrible health consequences for anyone exposed. and led to decades of litigation during which Monsanto fought tooth and nail to avoid paying for the horrific damage military personnel suffered from. The class action case that followed was settled out of court in 1984 for $180 million, reportedly the latest settlement of its kind at the time.

Read: Sorry Monsanto – Organic Food Demand is Exploding

More than 60 years of Contamination and Cover Up

Dioxin Leak at Nitro – $93 Million Settlement

From 1929 until 1995, Monsanto operated a chemical plant in the small town of Nitro, West Virginia, where it manufactured Agent Orange. In 1949, a pressure valve blew on a tank of the herbicide, sending plumes of smoke and vapors containing dioxin throughout the town, coating residents and the homes they lived in with powdery residue.

In a short time, some people developed skin eruptions and were diagnosed with an enduring and disfiguring condition known as chloracne. Others had prolonged pain extending from their chest to their feet. According to a medical report following the explosion, “It caused a systemic intoxication in the workers involving most major organ systems.”

Monsanto’s reaction? The company down-played it, claiming the chemical was slow-acting and just a minor irritant.

To get rid of the dioxin, the company dumped it into storm drains, streams and sewers, and stored it in landfills. Dioxin persisted in waterways and in the fish that lived in them. When residents sued for damages, they were told by Monsanto that their allegations had no merit and that the company would defend itself vigorously.

The residents of Nitro or their descendants finally received $93 million from Monsanto in 2012.

PCBs Contaminate the Town of Anniston, Alabama

PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) are used in many industries as hydraulic fluids, sealants, and lubricants. These chemicals have been demonstrated to cause cancer, as well as a variety of other adverse health effects on the immune, reproductive, nervous, and endocrine systems.

Monsanto’s plant in Anniston, Alabama produced PCBs from 1929 to 1971. Since then, tons of contaminated soil have been hauled away from the plant, but the site continues to be one of the most highly polluted areas in the country.

Why was it such a mess? During its production years, waste PCBs were dumped  into a nearby open landfill, poured into a creek that ran alongside the plant,  or just allowed to run off the property during storms. During those years, the townspeople drank from their wells, ate fish they caught, and swam in the creeks, oblivious of the PCBs. When public awareness began to mount, authorities found high levels of PCBs all over the place, and in the bodies of those people, where it will remain forever.

In 1966, a Monsanto biologist testing waterways near the Anniston plant found that when live fish were added to the water, “All 25 fish lost equilibrium and turned on their sides in 10 seconds and all were dead in 3 1/2 minutes.”

In 1970, the FDA found high levels of PCBs in fish near the Anniston plant, and Monsanto jumped into cover-up mode. A leaked internal memo from a company official outlined steps for the company to take to limit disclosure. The strategy called for engaging public officials to fight the battle for them. “Joe Crockett, Secretary of the Alabama Water Improvement Commission will try to handle the problem quietly without release of the information to the public at this time,” the memo promised.

A statement eventually released from Monsanto’s world headquarters in St. Louis stated, “Quoting both plant management and the Alabama Water Improvement Commission, the PCB problem was relatively new, was being solved by Monsanto and, at this point, was no cause for public alarm.”

The class action suit for Anniston was finally settled  in 2003, when Monsanto was forced to pay $700 million.

More PCBs Dumped into the Environment

In 1977, Monsanto closed its PCB plant in Whales, but not before dumping thousands of tons of waste into the quarry of the town of Groesfaen. Authorities there say the site is still one of the most contaminated in Britain.

Internal papers indicate that Monsanto knew about the PCB dangers as early as 1953, when toxicity tests on the effects of PCBs killed more than 50% of the lab rats subjected to them. In 2011, Monsanto reluctantly agreed to help in the clean up after an environmental agency found 67 chemicals at the quarry site that were exclusively manufactured by Monsanto. Yet that effort remained underfunded and the quarry remains contaminated.

The Guardian reported that Monsanto wrote an abatement plan in 1969 which admitted “the problem involves the entire United States, Canada, and sections of Europe, especially the UK and Sweden.”

Navy Rejects Monsanto Product Because it was ‘Too Toxic’

Monsanto tried to sell its hydraulic fluid, known as Pydraul 150, to the navy in 1956, and supplied test results in their sales pitch. But the navy decided to do its own testing, and the company was informed that there would be no sale because the product proved to be too toxic. In an internal memo divulged during a court proceeding, Monsanto’s medical director stated that“no matter how we discussed the situation, it was impossible to change their thinking that Pydraul 150 is just too toxic for use in submarines.”

Monsanto Moves into Food, Biotechnology

Monsanto’s move into biotech began in the 1970’s, and in 1983 the first genetic modification of a plant cell had been achieved. Synthetic bovine growth hormone (rBST) was on the horizon. Monsanto’s public relations department portrayed GM seeds as a panacea for alleviating poverty and feeding the hungry. In 1985, the company bought NutraSweet artificial sweetener, a branded version of aspartame – the compound responsible for 75% of the complaints reported to the FDA’s adverse reaction monitoring system.

Monsanto Seeks Clean Image, Creates Solutia

In the late 1990’s, Monsanto created a new company known as Solutia, and off-loaded its chemical and fiber businesses. L. Bartlett and James B. Steele, chronicling the rise of Monsanto for Vanity Fair magazine, noted the reason for the spinoff was to channel the bulk of Monsanto’s mounting chemical lawsuits and liabilities into the spun-off company, thereby creating a clean image for Monsanto. Solutia became Monsanto’s solution!

As the company, now known simply as Monsanto, moves through the 21st century, it has a ‘new cleaned-up image,’ and a fine sounding mission statement. It refers to itself as a relatively new company that promotes sustainable agriculture and delivering products that support farmers around the world.

Except Monsanto is the 3rd most hated company in the world.

Monsanto’s legacy of contamination and cover-up should be a wake up call for you to run from the GMOs they have spawned. Remember the old adage that says leopards can’t change their spots?

Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

LINK with LIVE JUMPS

What Monsanto Doesn’t Want You To See

 When consumers across Europe started campaigning for GMO labeling in the early 1990s, Monsanto released a series of advertisements in support of mandatory GMO labels. And in 1997, the European Union implemented mandatory genetically modified food labeling requirements for all member states.

But the biotech giant doesn’t want Americans to know about its onetime support of labeling. Since 2012, Monsanto has spent more than $22 million to fight state ballot initiatives to label GMOs and millions more to lobby Congress against mandatory labeling.

Our question for you, Monsanto: Why do you oppose Americans’ having a right to know about GMOs when you supported it for Europeans?

LINK

Monsanto’s Roundup Found in Animals with Birth Defects

Danish farmer Ib Borup Pederson had reared hogs for decades. So he was alarmed when he observed a growing incidence of malformations and birth defects in his newborn piglets. The deformities included: gaps in piglet’s skulls, deformed bones, missing limbs, and a female piglet with testicles.

Realizing that he had switched the feed three years earlier to Monsanto’s genetically-modified seed and because he had never witnessed such high numbers of birth defects in his piglets before, he suspected that the GM-seed or the glyphosate could be to blame. He had the piglets assessed by the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Leipzig, Germany and Hvidsten, Denmark and by the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Sadat City University in Egypt (source: Townsend Letter, January 2015).

Glyphosate, a pesticide used in Monsanto’s genetically-modified seed, has also been called the “Darth Vader chemical.” The researchers found glyphosate in the lungs, livers, kidneys, brains, muscles, and gut walls of the piglets. Their findings were published in the journal Environmental and Analytical Toxicology. It was found in the highest concentration in the lungs and hearts of the animals, with lower concentrations in the muscles. The researchers conclude that “further investigations are urgently needed” to determine whether there is a link between the glyphosate concentrations and the birth defects.

In an earlier study in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, researchers identified a link between glyphosate pesticides and lymphoma—a type of cancer of the lymph nodes and lymphatic system. The scientists found that glyphosate exposure doubled an individual’s risk of the cancer.

Glyphosate, also known as Roundup, has been linked to other serious health conditions and environmental degradation.

As far back as 2009, France’s highest court found Monsanto guilty of lying about the safety of Roundup, including falsely advertising it as “biodegradable,” “environmentally-friendly,” and even claiming that it “left the soil clean.”

In an interview, Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) discussed glyphosate as possibly “the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies.”

Glyphosate has been linked to other diseases, including: breast cancer, kidney failure, and celiac disease. For more information about glyphosate and genetically-modified seeds, check out the excellent book Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically-Engineered Foods You’re Eating by Jeffrey M. Smith, a former executive at an independent laboratory testing for genetically-modified organisms in food.

Related:

*Exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup Pesticide Doubles Cancer Risk
*Monsanto Partners with Media Conglomerate to Share its Message
*Is Monsanto Making Us Sterile?

 A Lot of LINKS Here

Fox News Reporters Fired For Trying To Expose Monsanto Were Right, Gets Heard A Decade Later [Video]

Today, more people are in-the-know when it comes to the complicating dangers of foods that are or contain anything genetically modified (GM) and the practices of the corporation synonymous with said GM products, Monsanto.

The Inquisitr made sure to report on the latest pertaining to Monsanto and anything that is GM. Late last year, Maui County in Hawaii voted in favor of banning GMOs. This caused Monsanto to file a lawsuit against the county because it affected their business. Apparently, Monsanto had the judge overseeing the case in their back pocket, which resulted in them winning. The dance continues as Hawaii County Officials are trying to appeal the court ruling. It is safe to say that such shenanigans wouldn’t be tolerated in Russia or China, since they have zero tolerance for anything GM.

Because of the aggressiveness the organic movement has shown against GM products, people who originally stood up against companies like Monsanto are finally being recognized. This includes two former Fox News reporters who were fired. The reason for their termination is because they were about to expose something that the organic community knows about today: GM bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in milk.

According to True Activist, the story of the two Fox News reporters who were fired for exposing rBGH was originally told in the documentary The Corporation. Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were working on a series of health concerns related to rBGH, which they discovered did not comply with safety requirements highlighted by Health Canada. For some reason, that part was not included in the final published version of the report by the corporation that made it, Monsanto.

Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were going to expose this to the public on Fox News, but the report was put on hold after Monsanto’s high-priced lawyers in New York sent a threat to the news channel. Fearing a lawsuit, the general manager tried to do all they could to stop the report. Eventually, Steve and Jane were fired.

In a follow-up article by Nation of Change, Monsanto tested rBGH (formally known as Posilac) on rats for 90 days. While in its testing stage, Monsanto was busy promoting rBGH as the “most tested product in history,” specifically to push it as safe. Apparently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) favored Monsanto and gave it the rubber stamp for human consumption. Health Canada, however, tested rBGH on their own and came up with very different results. Utilizing testing in the United Kingdom, they found rBGH can be absorbed by the human body, thus possibly being toxic. As a result, the Canadian regulatory bodies saw the potential for serious human health problems and denied rBGH for human consumption.

It should probably be reported the reason why Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were terminated for exposing the truth is because of the time. Back in 1997, the general public weren’t knowledgeable to the dangers of GM products. Not to mention, Monsanto at the time was quite powerful because nobody challenged them. As for The Corporation, it was released back in 2003, a time when GMOs were starting to be recognized but primarily as something good (solution to world hunger, better food, etc.).

Now, more than a decade later, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre are finally being heard as the report they tried to bring to the public on Fox News back in 1997 is now mainstream knowledge among scientists, think tanks, organic farmers, and health experts around the world. As a matter of fact, rBGH is now linked to both breast and prostate cancer.

With more countries banning the company from ever having their GMOs and other GM products in their country, it may just be a matter of time.

Video Link

‘No Bugs, More Food?’ Parent Finds GMO Propaganda In Common Core Science Book

Over the last couple of years, some parents have become cautious of what foods to feed their children, especially with the discovery that genetically modified (GM) foods may be hazardous to a child’s health. The Inquisitr has assisted these parents by reporting on the latest pertaining to GM foods, which could start as early as infancy with GM baby formula and continuing to elementary school with lunch milk containing GM bovine growth hormone (rBGH).

As a result, cautious parents are reporting pros with their children on GM-free diets, and no-GM product businesses, such as Chick-fil-A and Chipotle, are prospering.

However, parents aren’t the only ones who assist in a child’s upbringing, though they should be the most important. Following the old phrase, “It takes a village to raise a child,” teachers accompany in a child’s development, eight hours a day, five days a week, on average. Sometimes, what they teach is in defiance to a parent’s lessons. In this case, a parent is upset that children are being taught genetically modified organism (GMO) propaganda in sixth grade.

According to AltHealth Works, Dawn Jordan, a parent in Missouri (Monsanto’s home state), was shocked to find a section in her niece’s science book, Science: A Closer Look, dedicated to GMOs, specifically GM crops. The section touted four positive bullet points about GMOs which are listed below.

*GMOs can produce more food.
*GMOs have more nutrients.
*GMOs fight disease and insects.
*GMOs need fewer chemical pesticides.

Of course, none of the negatives discovered through scientific testing and research have been included in the textbook. Also, the teacher assisted in the GMO agenda by writing in an answer for one of the questions that asked children to list three ways GMOs could be helpful to humans. Dawn Jordan provides a statement on the teacher’s assistance in promoting GMOs.

“When my niece sent me her homework, I noticed her teacher wrote ‘no bugs, more food’ as a suggestion to her as to what to write about… which disgusts me that a teacher in a public school system has no knowledge whatsoever on the actual truth about GMOs and is merely doing what she is told, without proper research first.”

In a follow-up article by Buy Non-GMO Seeds, it reports that the textbook is published by McGraw-Hill, and is being distributed to schools across the country. It is unknown how many of the books were actually distributed.

This is not the first time Monsanto or another pro-GMO organization or entity has influenced the children of America to support their agenda. Monsanto funded the production of a coloring book titled Look Closer to Biotechnology that was riddled with pro-GMO propaganda. A heavily-biased activity book that listed alleged positives of GMOs but none of the negatives would have been distributed among the public if it weren’t for activists. Summarized, this isn’t the first time Monsanto has attempted to manipulate the minds of children in their favor, and it won’t be the last.

To all you parents out there, now that you’ve read of Monsanto’s agenda of teaching your children about GMOs in their favor, what are your views? Do you find Monsanto and GMOs to be an issue best stopped through education, or are activists just paranoid?

LINK

GMO Farmer: ‘I Won’t Eat My Own Crops’

Thanks to Monsanto, he feels he has no choice

Like a thousand other farmers across the US, Kirk Bair is a farmer looking for ways to grow food economically and with as little labor as possible – but what are the moral implications of planting food you are aware is toxic, and selling it to your friends and neighbors? Is Bair in the right for planting GMO seed, even if conventional seed is hard to come by?

Bair has said:

“When you put a herbicide gene inside a corn seed, soybean, wheat, whatever you’re working with, you’re eating that. You’re ingesting it.”

It is clear that Bair realizes the health dangers of GM crops, but he plants them anyway? Why? He feels he has no choice, and there is a multi-billion dollar industry calling the shots.

“I’ve got some good looking ears coming,” said Kirk Bair, admiring his genetically modified corn crop, developed with Monsanto’s technology.

When asked why he has planted GM corn, Blair states:

“To use conventional corn, non-GMO, I’d have to till, apply pre-emergence herbicide. It’s more economical and more convenient to use GMO corn on real ground. I only use it because I felt like I had to. My seed supplier said, ‘Kirk it’s harder and harder to get a hold of conventional seed.’”

In less than a decade, the US has gone from planning 100% conventional seeds to almost 90% genetically modified seeds. Corn, soybeans and cotton are some of the most commonly grown GM crops – all considered staples.

Even though Blair grows GM crops, he says:

“I want to know what I am eating and I don’t want to eat GMO foods.”

Imagine that – a farmer who won’t eat his own crops. He has even supported labeling initiatives in California stating:

“People need know what they’re eating. People want to know what they’re eating.”

Read: 800 Scientists Demand Global ‘GMO Experiment’ End

This is a strange phenomenon – when farmers will knowingly plant crops they realize are dangerous to human health. Are they right about giving in to Monsanto, Bayer, and Syngenta when banned GM crops are being found in Europe, or when they are growing in Oregon and Minnesota fields without permission?

What about cross-pollination? Is a farmer’s ability to grow non-GMO completely compromised already to such a degree that she or he has to just shut down their tilling machines like a defeated warrior laying down his sword?

One biotech company claims the following reasons that farmers plant GM crops:

“Because they benefit from the technology – after all, 17.3 million farmers around the world do so, and their numbers grow each season.

In addition to higher yields and higher farm income, their reasons include:

Increased management flexibility

Easier adoption of no- or reduced till farming, which saves time, equipment usage, and carbon emissions

Improved weed control

Soil preservation

Less worry about pest damage

Less time spent on crop walking and/or insecticide application

Savings in energy use – mainly associated with less spraying and tillage

Savings in machinery use (for spraying and possibly reduced harvesting times)

Improved quality (e.g., lower levels of mycotoxins in GM insect-resistant maize)”

To the astute reader, there are several items on this list that are completely false – ‘less worry about pest damage’ could elicit an entire book of refutation. GM crops have increased worry about pest infestation. The emergence of superweeds and superbugs was in tandem with GM planting.

The ‘savings in machinery’ is arguable too, as more and more herbicide and pesticide use likely eats up any saved costs from having to spray more often – not less. The soil is also not preserved with GM crop planting – but destroyed. This has been proven many times over.

Multiple studies have looked at GM planting and its effects on the soil. One such study explains:

. . .residues of Bt maize plants that are ploughed into the soil following harvest suppress its ability to respire (produce carbon dioxide), it also reduces mycorrhizal colonisation and seriously alters bacterial populations within the soil ecosystem. This function of soil is vitally important for regulating plant growth and vitality, and for increasing availability of minerals and nutrients.

. . . Bt toxins persist in the soil for a considerable amount of time, which impedes the soil flora recovery and impacts upon plant health and growth in subsequent growing seasons.”

Addressing the other items on the list like improved quality are questionable, as are many other of the fallacious reasons given by EuropaBio.

Many farmers simply won’t accept the biotech misinformation that has been dished out for decades. The Rodale Research Institute on Organic Farming and Gardening lists thousands of farmers who know a better way. Since the 1940s and prior, this country has been growing food without chemicals and GM technology. It is more than possible, and now more than ever, vital.

It is understandable how farmers could initially feel drawn to the Big Ag model, based largely on the calculating lies of the biotech industry – but hopefully more farmers are seeing through biotech’s façade.

Bair seems to have seen behind Oz’s curtain to some degree, but he and other farmers like him obviously need public support to choose non-GM seeds and grow them.

You don’t fight a multi-billion dollar industry on a few acres. Perhaps Bair will join the ranks of Dr. Theirry Vrain, a former pro-GMO scientist who now whistleblows on the entire industry. That would be redemption.

Jump for Live Links

5 Shocking Facts About GMOs

One alarming aspect of the whole GMO debate is the fact that so many Americans are going about their daily lives completely unaware that they are consuming genetically modified organisms at just about every meal. The reason I know this is because I used to be one of them.

So what are GMOs and why should we be concerned about them?

A GMO or genetically modified organism is created by merging the DNA from different species to create an organism; plant, animal, bacteria or virus which cannot be produced in nature or through traditional crossbreeding. It can bring about the production of foods that taste better, have longer shelf lives, or withstand harsh growing conditions.

Sounds harmless enough right? And even a good idea. But this isn’t the whole story, much as big food companies would like you to think it is. There are reasons why we should be extremely wary of consuming any food that has been genetically altered. Here are five of them:

1 GMOs are unhealthy: Since the introduction of GMOs in the mid-1990s, the number of food allergies has sky-rocketed, and health issues such as autism, digestive problems and reproductive disorders are on the rise. Animal testing with GMOs has resulted in cases of organ failure, digestive disorders, infertility and accelerated aging. Despite an announcement in 2012 by the American Medical Association stating they saw no reason for labeling genetically modified foods, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has urged doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for their patients.

2 They increase herbicide use: When Monsanto came up with the idea for Round-up Ready crops, the theory was to make the crops resistant to the pesticide that would normally kill them. This meant the farmers could spray the crops, killing the surrounding weeds and pests without doing any harm to the crops themselves. However, after a number of years have passed, many weeds and pests have themselves become resistant to the spray, and herbicide-use increased (both in amount and strength) by 11% between 1996 and 2011. Which translates to – lots more pesticide residue in our foods – yum!

3 They are everywhere! GMOs make up about 70-80% of our foods in the United States. Most foods that contain GMOs are processed foods. But they also exist in the form of fresh vegetables such as corn on the cob, papaya and squash. The prize for the top two most genetically modified crops in the United States goes to corn and soy. Think about how many foods in your pantry or refrigerator contain corn or its byproducts (high fructose corn syrup) or soy and its byproducts (partially hydrogenated soybean oil).

4 GM crops don’t ensure larger harvests. As it turns out, GMO crop yields are not as promising as some projections implied. In fact, in some instances, they have been out-yielded by their non-GMO counterparts. This conclusion was reached in a 20 year study carried out by the University of Wisconsin and funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Thus negating one of the main arguments in favor of GMOs.

5 U.S. Labeling suppression: Many of the companies who have an interest in keeping GMOs on the market don’t want you to know which foods contain them. For this reason, they have suppressed recent attempts by states such as California and Washington to require labeling of GMO products. And since they have deep pockets, they were successful – for now. The companies who spent the most on these campaigns are Monsanto (who produces the GMO seeds), and Pepsi, Coca Cola, Nestle and General Mills, who produce some of the most processed foods in existence. Incidentally, most other developed countries such as the nations of the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, and China have mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods. Food for thought!

So, if you don’t wish to partake of GMO foods, what can you do? First and foremost, buy organic. The USDA has strict guidelines for producers of organic foods which restrict them from using any GMO products in their foods.

If a food is not organically grown, look for a Non-GMO Project Label which certifies that it has been tested and found to have less than 0.9% GMO-contamination.

At Viance, we are convinced that eating a clean, contaminant-free diet is essential in achieving good health and vibrancy. That is why we do not allow any genetically modified organisms in any of our products.

LINK

Monsanto Is Pretty Much Eliminated From Russia After Country Officially Bans GMOs

Monsanto, the “most evil company in the world” that is notorious for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is regrouping after a monumental loss against Maui, Hawaii. Monsanto will have to abide to citizens’ decision to ban GMOs in their county.

The results come from a lengthy battle, starting when Monsanto filed suit against the Hawaiian county after the GMO ban was voted in. Speculation of corruption arose when news of the judge overseeing the case was connected with Monsanto, mostly through his wife.

Nevertheless, Monsanto lost their case, therefore any more “bad news” to business would be annoying at this time. Unfortunately for them, they will not receive such a reprieve, as Russia officially banned GMOs in their country.

According to an article by RT and followed up by Collective Evolution, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev recently announced that Russia will no longer be importing any form of GMOs into Russia. Furthermore, Medvedev showed favor to organic farming.

“If the Americans like to eat GMO products, let them eat it then. We don’t need to do that; we have enough space and opportunities to produce organic food.”

Russia joins the ranks of others countries listed by the Examiner, including Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and New Zealand, in the banning or partial-banning of GMOs. However, it should be noted that Russia didn’t just ban GMOs because they have space and opportunities. Following the urges of Russian scientists, they are considering at least a 10-year moratorium on GMOs to thoroughly study GMO influence on human health.

Irina Ermakova, the vice president of Russia’s National Association of Genetic Safety, made a huge statement pertaining to the aforementioned study.

“It is necessary to ban GMOs, to impose moratorium (on) it for 10 years. While GMOs will be prohibited, we can plan experiments, tests, or maybe even new methods of research could be developed. It has been proven that not only in Russia, but also in many other countries in the world, GMOs are dangerous. Methods of obtaining the GMOs are not perfect, therefore, at this stage, all GMOs are dangerous. Consumption and use of GMOs obtained in such way can lead to tumors, cancers and obesity among animals. Bio-technologies certainly should be developed, but GMOs should be stopped. We should stop it from spreading.”

Prior to their overall ban, Russia completely banned GMO corn back in 2012, as reported by Fox Business through Nation of Change. They utilized a study done by the University of Caen, reported through the Telegraph, in which they found feeding rats a lifelong diet of GMO corn resulted in huge breast tumors and severe damage to liver and kidneys.

Now that you know Russia has joined the growing list of countries permanently banning GMOs, what are your opinions? Do you think the United States should follow this path as well?

http://www.inquisitr.com/1692271/monsanto-eliminated-russia-officially-bans-gmos/

Food Companies Using Monsanto's Products. (GMOs)

Eating GMOs? You May be Playing Roulette With Your Life

What’s Wrong With GMOs?
“Round-Up Ready” is the name given to soy and corn that was developed by Monsanto and involves the pesticide Round Up being integrated right into the seeds before they are planted. The theory they are trying to sell is that this will require less pesticides to be sprayed, but according to experts at Cornell University, this practice has ended up requiring a more intense use of pesticides as the plants around the corn and soy (and the corn and soy themselves) grow resistant to the Round Up. Mistake?

Coincidence?

Don’t be naive.

It gets worse with GM corn. When an insect eats GMO corn, their stomachs, for lack of a better description, explode. At first, studies showed us that there was no impact on human health. Now studies reveal that tiny tears in the cells of human intestines occur when we eat GMO food. The result is a rise in leaky gut, which leads to a rise in food allergies and auto-immune disorders. This is terrifying stuff. The documentary ‘Genetic Roulette’ by Jeffrey Smith, one of the world’s leading consumer advocates should make you sit up and take notice…and never question whether or not to buy organic again.

And these are just two of the thousands of genetically modified foods being mixed into the ingredients in many foods today.

Messing With Mother Nature
Genetic modification also allows for cross-breeding that is far removed from natural hybridization, although manufacturers of these products would have you believe otherwise with their propaganda. The theory behind GMOs is simple. Scientists select specific genes from one organism and introduce them into another to confer a specific trait. This technology can be used to create new varieties of plants and animals more quickly than conventional methods and produce traits not possible through traditional, natural techniques. The mad scientists behind GMOs would have you believe that their process is just like mixing red and yellow peppers’ DNA to create an orange pepper, but it isn’t. For example, genetic material from salmon can be injected into strawberries to make them more resistant to cold weather. That’s messing with Mother Nature in the most unnatural way.

Look at it this way. Two peppers, even of different colors, would hit on each other in a bar, date, and mate. But a strawberry and a salmon, well, not so much. The consequences of this work are alarming with ramifications we cannot begin to imagine.

While marketers try to sell us on the concept of GMOs as foods that improve yields, are more nourishing for developing countries struggling with famine, and require less use of toxins to grow them, nothing could be further from the truth. While Monsanto and other chemical giants continue to promote these false ideas, there has been no independent proof to support their claims. Only studies conducted within their companies have shown the results they market in their public relations campaigns.

There is, however, increasing concern among independent scientists about the safety of these crops and the resulting foods. The spread of pesticide-resistant plants, the possible toxicity to natural habitats and the species that thrive there, and the impact on human health all remain unanswered questions and are of paramount concern to experts.

Who Benefits From GMOs?
So why do these companies do this? Why take such risks with the collective health of humanity and the planet?

GMO crops and foods would give companies like Monsanto and DuPont the ultimate control over human life . . . the control of food. They have already changed the way commercial farmers farm; this is just the next step to world domination, in the sense of food.

Do you think that the chemical executives sitting in their high-rise glass-walled offices with spectacular views care for one moment about the health of populations in developing countries? Or in the industrialized world, for that matter?

How Did We Get Here?
With more than 167 million acres of GMO crops planted in the United States, making our farmers the largest producers of these crops, there is solid reason for concern. The United States accounts for more than all GMO crops grown around the world. And if you are thinking it’s just about corn and soybeans, here is the laundry list of crops now grown using GMO technology (and don’t you think it’s weird to even use the word “technology” when talking about growing food?): corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, squash, sugar beets, rice, dairy products, farm-raised salmon, papaya, and alfalfa, to name a few. GMO ingredients play a role in more than 70 percent of our food overall.

How can this be? How did these potentially disastrous organisms get into our food in such a high concentration? Public relations would have you believe that the FDA approved GMOs after rigorous testing and long-term studies. Nope. In fact, there are no safety testing requirements, according to their own website. The only testing done on GMOs is done by the companies themselves and are meticulously designed to avoid problems: this, according to Dr. Arpad Pusztai, the leading researcher in this field. (When Dr. Pusztai expressed his concern over GMO issues, he was fired from his job after thirty-five years at a biotech plant.)

The FDA, under the first President George Bush, was specifically directed to promote the research of biotechnology and not ironically, the person in charge of developing the policy was the former attorney to the biotech giant Monsanto, who later became their vice president. The results of his policy showed that GMO crops were not different from traditional crops in “any meaningful or uniform way.” Therefore, testing was not required.

It didn’t stop there. The outrage was perpetrated on Mother Nature came under the Obama administration. In one week, this administration deregulated two very important crops that can affect our future: alfalfa and sugar beets. Deregulation of alfalfa, the nation’s fourth largest crop and a prodigious pollinator, could spell disaster for natural crops. Used mainly in animal feed, GMO alfalfa would contaminate not only soil and crops, but the meat you eat as well. In January of 2011, this important crop was completely deregulated, meaning that there are no restrictions on the growing of GMO, Round-Up Ready alfalfa by Monsanto and no labeling is required . . . so you, the consumer will have no idea. This deregulation also removed what are known as “buffer zones,” specific distances designed to prevent the contamination of organic alfalfa crops by GMO crops, making it virtually impossible to produce organic alfalfa. Indirectly, this means that it could become impossible to produce organic meat and dairy products since alfalfa is such a big part of their feed.

And the hits continued! In February 2011, sugar beets were deregulated allowing for GMO sugar beet crops to be grown without restriction or labeling requirements to avoid “a sugar shortage,” according to Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture for the Obama administration. God, forbid we should consider using a wee bit less sugar. We’d rather screw up the natural order to feed the hungry mouths of business and lobby groups!

We Need GMO Labeling
Tom Vilsack says that to regulate GMO crops would be “burdensome” to business, but whose business? The deregulation of these crops and the resulting contamination puts an unreasonable burden on all those dedicated farmers and business people working hard to produce and create organic foods. The deregulation of these crops significantly threatens the ability to produce certified organic products, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (author of the original Organic Foods Prodution Act). The biotechnology industry has declared war on the organic food industry and through shrewd lobbying has won a decisive victory . . . and will continue unopposed with the onslaught of genetically modified foods that are controlled by only a handful of multinational corporations.

Are you mad as hell yet? It gets better.

Scientists who worked for the FDA came to the overwhelming consensus that GMOs were distinctly different from other crops and could lead to unpredictable and hard-to-detect toxins, allergens, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to conduct long-term studies.

They were ignored.

As a result, only one in four Americans knows that they have eaten or are eating GMO foods. The Campaign for Healthier Eating is committed to educating Americans about what is really in their food. One of the goals is to change the regulations so that GMO ingredients in food must be listed as such. The labeling is voluntary now.

What You Can Do
Read labels, when you can find them, and work to understand them. Begin with your produce. You know those pesky little stickers that are so hard to remove from everything we buy? They could turn out to be your best pals.

If produce is grown with GMO influence, the little stickers will show a 5-digit number beginning with “8.” If the produce is organically produced, the stickers will show a 5-digit number beginning with “9,” and conventionally produced veggies and fruits will have stickers with a 4-digit number. But don’t get your hopes too high that you’ll beat them at their own game. With voluntary labeling you have no idea what you are getting most of the time unless it’s certified organic.

With processed foods, there is no way to tell what GMOs may be lurking in your food, well, foodlike substances. GMO ingredients are widespread and well-hidden. Even some so-called natural food companies employ GMO ingredients so you really have to know the players to win at this game . . . unless you are buying certified organic foods. And with all of the deregulation going on around us, certified organic could become a moot point. At this time, there is only one organization dedicated to rooting out GMOs and letting the consumer know if the products they are using contain GMOs, whether the product is organic or not. The Non-GMO Project’s mission is simple: They are “committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO sources.”

Most important, you can get involved. Go to www.carighttoknow.org and support the cause in any way that you can. And vote with your dollar. Cornucopia Institute has information on who is doing what with this most important campaign. Use your dollar to tell these companies we will settle for no less than the truth. Finally, get your hands on a copy of the documentary, Genetic Roulette and watch it with friends and family. Genetically modified foods and other toxic additives in our foods should scare us witless and have us all mad as hell.

JUMP for links

GMOs Proven Harmful To Human Health

Do you ever wonder why “pro gmo” people simply refuse to acknowledge the science?  The truth is, we don’t know enough about GMOs to deem them safe for human consumption. Believe it or not the very first commercial sale of them was only twenty years ago. There is no possible way that our health authorities can test all possible combinations on a large enough population, over a long enough period of time to be able to say with absolute certainty that they are harmless.

“GM Crop Production is Lowering US Yields and Increasing Pesticide Use…There is no reason GM foods should be approved safe for consumption, we just don’t know enough about them. We could easily feed the planet through organic, GMO-free methods, so there is absolutely no reason we need GM foods around… the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable…Because humans that’ve been exposed to glyphosate have a drop in amino acid tryptophan levels, they do not have the necessary active signalling of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease.“

GMOs Prove Harmful To Humans In These Ten Scientific Studies :

15 GMO Safety Studies LINKS HERE

Soy vey! Monsanto just lost its GM permit in Mexico

A judge in Mexico has revoked Monsanto’s permit to plant genetically engineered soy in that country.

The permit authorised Monsanto to plant its seeds in seven states, over more than 253,000 hectares (625,000 acres), despite protests from thousands of Mayan farmers and beekeepers, Greenpeace, the Mexican National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity, the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas and the National Institute of Ecology.

In withdrawing the permit, the judge was convinced by the scientific evidence presented about the threats posed by GM soy crops to honey production in the Yucatán peninsula, which includes Campeche, Quintana Roo and Yucatán states. Co-existence between honey production and GM soybeans is not possible, the judge ruled.

The judge wrote that the soy posed a threat to the honey industry of the Yucatan because the presence of pollen from GM plants would make it much harder to sell honey in Europe. The honey producers of the Yucatan sell almost exclusively to the E.U., according to the Guardian’s Nina Lakhani.


Honey from wildflowers sounds delicious, as does buckwheat, but soy honey? Hmm. Maybe it’s just as well.

LINK

Are We Too Clueless to Understand GMO Labeling?

If GMOs mean more and better food to feed more people, why not label products as such?

As if there isn’t enough malaise about government already, here’s a great way to get the American people to feel their elected officials aren’t serving them: Tell them that they’re stupid and their opinions don’t matter. Which raises the question: Who are they serving? But I’ll come back to that in a moment.


The House of Representative’s Committee on Horticulture, Research, Biotechnology and Foreign Agriculture recently convened to discuss the benefits of biotechnology. The subject of whether genetically modified organisms, aka GMOs, in our food should be labeled – they currently are not – was on the table. One of the experts asked to testify was David Just, a professor at Cornell University. However, he's apparently not an expert on GMOs, but rather on behavioral economics in child nutrition programs, whatever that means. His opinion was that GMO foods should not be so labeled because people don’t understand about GMOs.

Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) asked him, “What is the biggest drawback? Is it the ignorance of what the product is, just from a lack of education?” To which Just replied: “It is ignorance of the product, and it's a general skepticism of anything they eat that is too processed or treated in some way that they don't quite understand.” In simple English, we’re too stupid to understand this complex subject. The entire Committee, made up of six Democrats and seven Republicans, agreed. In this case, it simply means that seeds are inserted with genetic material from other organisms. It doesn’t take a PhD or the word Congressman or Congresswoman before your name to understand that. That’s astounding when the Internet has allowed people to research and become conversant in countless complex topics. Plus, there has been enormous media coverage of the subject.

Regardless of whether GMOs are dangerous to people and to crops in the long run – that’s a whole other discussion – why would the people who run Monsanto and other companies that make GMOs and the manufacturers who use them in their food products be opposed to labeling? After all, their position is that GMOs mean more and better food to feed more people and decreased use of pesticides. Labeling would simply allow people to chose to consume such foods or purchase other products without GMOs. We already have that choice with organic products. Why not with GMO products? It’s worth noting that the European Union has mandated that GMO products be labeled, and six member nations have banned them outright.

So who are many of our elected officials serving? Could it be that that Monsanto, other chemical companies and big food companies regularly fill the coffers of our elected officials to fund their reelection campaigns? Just wondering. And by the way, guess whose payroll Just is on? That’s right. He’s a consultant to Monsanto. We’re not too stupid to understand that implication.

Many Good Links Here