The Very Real Danger of Genetically Modified Foods

FINALLY!!!  Some mainstream press from The Atlantic Magazine about science that really condemns GMOs as dangerously unsafe!  Some of this information  has been available to the press for years.  Why, with few exceptions, are they so silent?  Why is the New Yorker so silent?  New York Magazine. Why NPR?

Check it out-  it’s about new knowledge of how DNA and RNA really work.

New research shows that when we eat we’re consuming more than just vitamins and protein. Our bodies are absorbing information, or microRNA.


Chinese researchers have found small pieces of ribonucleic acid (RNA) in the blood and organs of humans who eat rice. The Nanjing University-based team showed that this genetic material will bind to proteins in human liver cells and influence the uptake of cholesterol from the blood.


read more


Farming needs Adam Smith’s invisible hand, not finance capitalism


Dr Colin Tudge trained as a biologist and is a 3-time winner of the Science Writer of the Year Award. His career includes serving as Features Editor at New Scientist. He’s the author of numerous works on food, agriculture, genetics, and species diversity.


*Even the establishment faces at the Oxford Farming Conference recognise all’s not well – the theme this year is ‘power’

All we need to feed everyone well and to stop the Earth being wrecked is farming that’s based on well-directed science and good old-fashioned capitalism, all rooted in what might be called common morality – a true desire to take care of each other and of our fellow creatures.

The people in power – big governments, the corporations, the banks, and their attendant battalions of intellectuals and experts – will claim that this is what they have provided. Yet 1 billion out of 7 billion are undernourished; half our fellow creatures are in danger of extinction; the Earth as a whole is falling apart before our eyes – and it’s due not to the fecklessness of humanity or the shortcomings of the Earth but to truly destructive strategies imposed from above. For present policy and all the science that goes with it are not designed to provide good food but to make as much money as possible in the shortest time so as to “compete” in the global market. That may sounds too childishly crude to be true, but alas it is the case.

READ MORE  source The Guardian

Farming designed to maximise wealth is diametrically opposite in structure and technique to farming that is intended to feed people. Properly directed science tells us that we need farms that are as diverse as possible, meaning maximally mixed – for diversity is the key to resilience and long-term yield. Common sense tells us that in a finite world, farming must be low-input, which means as organic as possible. Mixed, low-input farming is complex and must be skills-intensive; there is little advantage in scale-up so the default farm size is small to medium. All this needs excellent science and technology – but small scale, and focused on biology rather than industrial chemistry.

If economists were concerned with on-the-ground reality they’d see that Britain now needs a million more farmers – at least 10 times the number at present; closer to 10% of the workforce than today’s 1%. For a country with 2.5 million unemployed, including a million young people, many of them graduates, skills-intensive farming should be a godsend – not just a short-term expedient but the permanent base of the economy. Good disciples of Adam Smith would welcome small farms and small shops, too, because Smith’s “invisible hand”, which ensures fair play, works best if there’s a host of providers, and doesn’t work at all if there aren’t.

Is true Organic soon to be dead in the USA?


The USDA recently approved Genetically Modified (GM) Alfalfa to be grown in the United States.  Alfalfa is primarily used as a cover crop in winter and as a feed for cattle, particularly by organic meat and dairy farmers who don’t want to feed their cattle genetically modified corn and soy.  Alfalfa is a perennial plant, which makes it extremely vulnerable to contamination.  Phillip Geertson has spent the last 30 years farming and  has been a partner in alfalfa breeding programs for 25 years.  Read his article to understand why GE (Genetically Engineered) Alfalfa was approved, even though there is absolutely no need for it.  Find out what the GM contamination of regular alfalfa really means.  Key quote from article:  “There is no wonder that the rest of the world does not want RR alfalfa seed and have prohibited the import of any alfalfa seed contaminated with even a trace of the RR gene.”
Excellent new article from the Mercola website:

Some, like Dr. Philip Bereano, professor emeritus at the University of Washington and an engaged activist concerning GM foods, believe contamination is actually an intentional strategy by both the government and the industry to weaken the organic industry to simply allow GM animal feed in organics.

Indeed, while USDA chief Tom Vilsack acknowledged alfalfa contamination concerns in an “Open Letter to Stakeholders” on December 30, 2010, stating that the USDA’s environmental impact statement “acknowledges the potential of cross-fertilization to non-GE alfalfa from GE alfalfa,” adding that cross-fertilization is “a significant concern for farmers who produce for non-GE markets at home and abroad,” steps were not taken to address them.

GM (or GE) crops cause damage to animals- not just in lab studies which are unethical in themselves, but as witnessed by veterinarians in the field.  They are known to disrupt human endocrine systems and are known allergens.
CAN’T WE GET Genetically Modified foods LABELLED????  90% of Americans WANT THEM LABELLED!!!!
Sign this petition at least and then BOYCOTT GMOs!!!   (Genetically Modified Organisms)
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry
“Separation of corporation and State”  –Robert Frederick


World Food Day Speech



Hello!     I have a similar message as some of the earlier speakers.  It is this: Food Connects Everything.

If  “you are what you eat” then we have become disconnected from what we are.  Most of us are now disconnected from where our food comes, from how it is raised or from how it is processed.

But that is rapidly  changing. More and more people want to know what the hell is going on under the shrink-wrap and behind the glitzy advertising.  Not very long ago the notion of not being connected to how food was produced was absurd.  Many of us, our families,  friends, neighbors or acquaintances  were small farmers, who had  commitment, of necessity, to the land and to the community.  How fast things change!!!


Guess what:  Wall St. hates small farmers.  They can’t make any money from them.  That’s why the system is now so heavily rigged in favor of enormous, anonymous, disconnected corporate agriculture.  The dice are loaded- in favor of huge food producers that have no interest in community or in the land, or in you or in anything at all except power.  That is what genetically modified food is really about.   Some of these massive corporations have a psychopathic mindset: Increase profit no matter the consequences, no matter what happens to cultures, or to ecosystems:  no matter what happens to the planet as a whole, shown very clearly in the book “Seeds Of Destruction”, by William Engdahl, and in the great documentary “The Corporation”. They can now even legally put a patent on life-forms!

To be able to do that, they first had to help destroy the political process in America. Polls have repeatedly shown that 80-90% of Americans want genetically modified food to be labelled.  But it never even comes up for a vote.  Those that run our government can even pass a Food Safety Modernization Act that had almost no popular support, that doesn’t even mention genetic modification, doesn’t even mention torture chambers and antibiotic overuse in the massive modern feedlots called CAFO’s (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations).

So we must OCCUPY Wall St.   We must change the banks that  control our political system.   Occupy, Protest and Refuse to move.  But we must add to that, something even more important.   We must brave, bold and beautiful: and we must BOYCOTT the food system that is slowly destroying our communities!

So- occupy your kitchen.

Do not eat what was produced by Wall St.

You may think BIG OIL drives our political system,  that the need for oil drives the war machine. Or maybe you may think  the pharmaceutical corporations, or the military industrial complex represent  the true malevolent spirit of corporate dominance in the USA.  But the food industry is much bigger than both of them combined.  And like Big Pharma and Big Oil, Wall St. wants the food industry to be dominated by a handful of corrupt corporations, so good-bye small farmers.

One of the first things Paul Bremer did after the USA occupied Iraq was to re-write their agricultural laws and make Monsanto’s biotechnology products mandatory for Iraqi farmers!  Our State Department has also traded nuclear secrets with India, as a bribe to their leaders in order to get favorable treatment for Monsanto’s operations in India.  Monsanto also has been caught bribing officials all over the world.  This kind of craziness wants control, which to them means having some control over every bite you eat. Believe it or not, that is their stated goal.  Believe it or not- they are getting kinda close to it!

DO not eat what was produced by Wall St.

If you don’t eat it, they won’t make it. AND LET THEM KNOW you are not gonna eat it anymore.  Write a letter to the food giants.  Tell your supermarket manager you want organic options, and that you want all GMO foods to be labelled.  Educate yourselves about genetic modification and spread the word.  Pass books and articles around.  One of the reasons that the anti-GMO movement is hard to grow is that the issues are complex.  And they are not being reported in the media.  One of today’s speakers said that this issue is not on the front page of the NY Times.  Well it isn’t on the second, third or last page either.  They have one writer who occasionally mentions the topic, Mark Bittman, but he is not in their print edition.  He is a blogger.  This topic is never fully explored-not on NPR- and it has never been in The New Yorker, despite all the mountains of scientific evidence showing it to be dangerous.  Appearances to the contrary, information is very carefully controlled in this country.  And as another speaker said today- these GMO-linked pesticides are proven endocrine disruptors.  They have been clearly shown to cause many serious health problems in many different studies all over the world.  Monsanto is now even refusing access to their seeds, making it hard for scientists to study them.  That’s OK with the FDA, since Monsanto’s vice-president has been made head of food safety over there.  So the FDA just takes Monsanto’s own studies as the gospel truth, despite decades of lying, law-breaking and huge settlements and court decisions against them.  This is faked science, and a clear violation of the Precautionary Principle that once was a guiding force in scientific exploration.  Watch the documentary “The World According To Monsanto” for details.  It won’t be on your TV, trust me on that, but you can still find it on the internet.

DO not eat what was produced by Wall St.

Why is it brave and bold and beautiful to do this?  Because everyone is going to think you have become a big pain in the ass.  Many will think you are crazy, or that you have fussy eater syndrome or that you are neurotic and controlling.  You aren’t.  You are SANE, you are brave and you are bold.

Food connects everything.  Food connects Big Oil to Big Pharma to Wall St., to you, and even to the war machine that America has become.  Corporate agriculture uses a lot of oil.  Corporate agriculture makes bad food, which makes you and your children sick, so you then buy Big Pharma’s products.  So by REFUSING to eat their garbage, their aspartame, their high fructose corn syrup, their genetically modified corn and soy and beet sugar, and cotton seed oil and canola oil, by refusing to buy meat that was tortured it’s entire life and force fed genetically modified garbage and growth hormones and antibiotics, you will help hit WALL ST. and the banks in the only place it can hurt them.  In their balance sheets, in their wallets, in their bottom line, in their stock prices.  And you will help yourself.

Do not go to restaurants that do not have a no-GMO policy.  GMO means Genetically Modified Organisms.  This is the hardest part of the boycott.

LET ME TELL YOU what it means to get some bacon and eggs at the corner diner.  Or some prosciutto bolognese at that great Italian restaurant downtown, or a cheap hotdog from the hot dog guy at the game, or on the street.  That bacon was produced on a hog farm in North Carolina or Iowa that literally tortures their pigs, who never see the light of day, never see the sun, while living on concrete floors inside a giant warehouse.  They are stuffed full of genetically modified corn and soy animal feed, stuffed full of antibiotics and growth hormones while surrounded by giant lagoons of pig shit that make local residents sick.  They can make bacon really cheap this way, and they have almost completely driven the small family hog farmers out of business.

This industrial corporate model of agriculture is being exported BY WALL ST. into other nations using free trade agreements negotiated by our State Department, which are the only things congress can agree on anymore.  Big surprise.  Three new free trade agreements were passed just last week.  Free trade agreements make it easier for Wall St. to control you and what you do.  Free trade agreements supersede sovereign national and local authority.  Free trade agreements increase corporate power.

In order to grow enough GE corn and GE Soy for the factory meat farming operations the Amazon forest is being cut down. (GE stands for Genetically Engineered)  Cows are supposed to eat grass, and pigs will eat anything and chickens will eat bugs, but corporate profit says destroy the Amazon to feed GE soy to the animals.

SO-   that bacon that you paid for in that hypothetical corner diner, (and the eggs you just ate with it that were definitely produced by torture the same way the bacon was), is filling you and your children with pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, and growth hormones while poisoning the community where it was produced, destroying the rainforest and driving small farmers out of business. Here and overseas.  And you just paid them to do it.  Wall St. created it BUT YOU ate it.

Let’s face it.  You need a phone- so choose Verizon or ATT or Sprint.  You need gas- choose one of the 5 big oil companies- the same bunch of criminals – you don’t have a choice.  But you can still choose non-corporate food.  MAKE THAT CHOICE.  Cook at home or eat at farm-to-table restaurants.  Shop at health food stores, buy organic, buy free trade, buy local, PACK A LUNCH.  Join Community Supported Agriculture programs. (CSA’s)

WE MUST DEMAND THAT GMO’s be labelled so we know exactly what not to eat!!!

Occupy Wall St. and Occupy Your Kitchen.  Food Connects Everything.  MAKE THAT CONNECTION. Be Brave, Be Bold, Be Beautiful …BOYCOTT.

While you are at it- Take your money, your savings and checkbook accounts- out of the big banks- put them in small local credit unions (Amalgamated is a good one here in New York) or into savings and loans.  Also patronize local craftspeople, take a bike to work and use herbs instead of pharmaceuticals when you get sick.

Be Brave, Be Bold, Be Beautiful, BOYCOTT





October is NON-GMO month!!

The following is from Dr. Mercola’s website, and is one of the best-written and most easily understood summations of why we ALL  need to BOYCOTT GMO’s.  Please read it and follow some of the links.  There are marches and rallies being held all over the country.  There is a march going from Brooklyn NY to Washington DC, demanding that GMO’s be labelled in this country.  The easiest way to avoid GMO’s is to purchase organic foods, if what you are purchasing contains corn, corn sugar or corn oil or any corn derivatives, soy or any of it’s derivatives, cottonseed oil or canola oil.  Go For It, and do the world a favor.  BOYCOTTS WORK!

Source for Mercola Article on GMO’s

Why Are Toxin Proteins Genetically Engineered Into Your Food?


Story at-a-glance
  • Proteins genetically modified to perforate cell membranes, thereby killing the insects that consume them, are added to many foods; if they perforate cell membranes in insects, there’s reason to believe they could cause harm when you eat these foods as well
  • The consequences of consuming these toxic proteins are largely unknown, as most studies have been less than 90 days long, which is inadequate to evaluate chronic toxicity
  • Studies conducted show great cause for concern, including that GM corn and soy cause liver and kidney problems when consumed
  • Liver and kidney damage observed among mammals may be a result of being fed a GMO diet
  • If you eat GM corn and soy, found in most processed foods, research suggests it could cause long-term health problems




Genetic modification and Science

Greenpeace recently destroyed some GM wheat trials in Australia, and subsequently were accused of being “anti-science”.  What follows is their response (partially edited).

Climate denial, science and Genetic Modification
John Hepburn
Rooted [original publisher], August 2 2011

Greenpeace have been strongly criticised in recent weeks over the destruction of a trial crop of genetically modified wheat. Some critics have labelled the organisation ‘anti-science’ and claim that opposition to GM crops somehow contradicts the support of climate science.

Firstly, it is useful to revisit what ‘science’ actually is, and what it isn’t.

Science is broadly defined as the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. The scientific method involves observing the world, putting forward a hypothesis (theory), and then attempting to disprove that hypothesis. Theories that can’t be disproved become accepted, until they are disproved and replaced by a theory that is more robust.

So, contrary to much popular opinion, science really isn’t about ‘proof’ at all. It is about ‘disproof’.

But the scientific method does not stand alone in our decision making about science and technological development. Science is, and must be, guided by values and principles, one of which is the ‘precautionary principle’. The application of the precautionary principle helps to determine where the burden of proof or the burden of disproof should lie.

But firstly, it is important to be clear that genetically modified foods are not science. Nuclear power isn’t ‘science either. Neither are pop-up toasters. They are the commercial products that rely on scientific understanding for their development.

The ‘science’ involved in genetic engineering is the theory of the genome and the relationships between DNA, RNA and proteins. One of the technological spin-offs of these scientific theories (which thus far have not been disproven) is a technique of inserting genes from one species into the genome of another in order to achieve a beneficial trait in the recipient organism.  The body of scientific evidence suggests that the relationships between DNA, RNA and proteins are extremely complex and the implications of inserting a foreign gene are likely to be many and unpredictable.

For example, the Human Genome Project revealed that we humans have far fewer genes than previously expected – around 20,500 genes that encode the proteins for all the parts of our bodies. On the other hand, the tiny roundworm (Caenorhabditis elegans) has nearly as many genes as we do—approximately 20,100—but far fewer body parts.  It is estimated that some 650,000 protein interactions occur in humans, approximately three times more than that in the roundworm. Moreover, it seems that a single protein can have dozens, if not hundreds, of different interactions.

We need to remember this complexity in the relationships between DNA, RNA and proteins when it comes to how we regulate genetically engineered organisms.

The problem, and a root cause of the controversy over the regulation of GM foods, is that determining where the burden of proof should lie for safety of new products not a scientific ‘given’. It is actually a value judgement based largely on an assessment of costs and benefits. The proponents of GM (biotech companies, chemical companies and some scientists) argue in favour of the doctrine of ‘substantial equivalence’. In effect, it assumes that genetically engineered foods are substantially equivalent to traditionally bred varieties of the same food because only a small number of extra genes have been inserted. As a result of this assumption, GM foods are assumed to be safe until proven otherwise.

On the other hand, many public health organisations, environmental groups and some scientists argue that ‘substantial equivalence’ does not account for the complexity of possible results arising from the insertion of novel genes into organisms, and that unexpected effects are likely. Accordingly, if a precautionary approach is taken, then the burden of proof should be on the proponents of GM to demonstrate that GM foods are safe in much the same way that new pharmaceuticals need to be demonstrated to be safe.

Ultimately, this debate is not about science, it is about politics. It is about evaluating who benefits from GM crops, and who should bear the risks. Greenpeace’s position is influenced by the simple observation that most of the GM crops that have been developed have been done so for the private benefit of agro-chemical companies that wish to extend their control over the food chain.

From our discussions with public health experts around the world, a common view emerges: If the potential risks of negative health impacts from GM foods became manifest, then the impacts could be significant, would be spread widely within the community and would be difficult to detect (in part due to poor labelling requirements).

The high profile public debate about genetically engineered foods has been mischaracterised as a pro vs. anti science debate, but it is really a debate about the politics of technology, and about the risks and benefits of one particular technology.
Whenever you have a cost/benefit equation, you need to deal with value judgements and vested interests. In cases where the people taking a risk are the people benefitting, you are likely to see widespread acceptance. A good example of this is the mobile phones which offer clear benefits to people even though there are concerns over a possible increased incidence of brain cancer. With GM foods, the companies benefit, consumers bear the health risks, and the risks of GM crops are ‘externalised’ upon the wider environment.

Greenpeace is not opposed to the science of genetics. We are not opposed to research into new and innovative forms of plant breeding. What Greenpeace are opposed to is the widespread release of genetically modified organisms into the environment and the food chain without due diligence being done on the risk of long-term negative impacts. Our position is based on the precautionary principle, on respect for science, and on critical analysis of the environmental and social risks of new technologies.

“It [glyphosate] kills everything”

“It [glyphosate] kills everything,” said Lincoln P. Brower, an entomologist at Sweet Briar College who is also an author of the paper documenting the decline of monarch winter populations in Mexico. “It’s like absolute Armageddon for biodiversity over a huge area.”



As recently as a decade ago, farms in the Midwest were commonly marred — at least as a farmer would view it — by unruly patches of milkweed amid the neat rows of emerging corn or soybeans.

Not anymore. Fields are now planted with genetically modified corn and soybeans resistant to the herbicide Roundup, (glyphosate) allowing farmers to spray the chemical to eradicate weeds, including milkweed.

And while that sounds like good news for the farmers, a growing number of scientists fear it is imperiling the monarch butterfly, whose spectacular migrations make it one of the most beloved of insects — “the Bambi of the insect world,” as an entomologist once put it.

Monarchs lay their eggs on milkweed, and their larvae eat it. While the evidence is still preliminary and disputed, experts like Chip Taylor say the growing use of genetically modified crops is threatening the orange-and-black butterfly by depriving it of habitat.

“This milkweed has disappeared from at least 100 million acres of these row crops,” said Dr. Taylor, an insect ecologist at the University of Kansas and director of the research and conservation program Monarch Watch. “Your milkweed is virtually gone.”

The primary evidence that monarch populations are in decline comes from a new study showing a drop over the last 17 years of the area occupied by monarchs in central Mexico, where many of them spend the winter. The amount of land occupied by the monarchs is thought to be a proxy for their population size.

“This is the first time we have the data that we can analyze statistically that shows there’s a downward trend,” said Ernest H. Williams, a professor of biology at Hamilton College and an author of the study along with Dr. Taylor and others.

The paper, published online by the journal Insect Conservation and Diversity, attributes the decrease partly to the loss of milkweed from use of “Roundup Ready” crops. Other causes, it says, are the loss of milkweed to land development, illegal logging at the wintering sites in Mexico, and severe weather.

“GMOs may be just like atomic energy”

BASF Said to Consider Genetically Modified Crop Exit in Germany


BASF SE (BAS), the world’s biggest chemical maker, may withdraw genetically modified crop research from Germany in response to growing political opposition, three people familiar with discussions said.

The maker of the Amflora scientific potato is considering the future of its research facility in rural Limburgerhof in southwestern Germany, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the plans aren’t public. A move to the U.S. is possible for the plant biotechnology operations, which employ 700, said one of the people.

Germany plans to close all 17 of its nuclear reactors by 2022, exiting atomic power after a meltdown in Japan stoked safety concerns. The move has strengthened the Green Party, which rejects nuclear energy and is now a junior coalition partner in BASF’s home state. The risks of genetically modified organisms are difficult to calculate, the Greens say.

“GMOs may be just like atomic energy,” said Ulrike Hoefken, the Green Party’s regional environment minister. “The risks are masked and big benefits are claimed. But it’s the general public who is left with the costs for any damage.”

The flight of research means Germany may lose out on the $12 billion market for genetically modified plants, which is set to grow 5 percent annually over the next five years, according to advisory firm Phillips McDougall. BASF founded the agricultural center in Limburgerhof in 1914 and now has 11,000 square meters of greenhouses and some 40 hectares of fields.

Weighing Politics

BASF, in an e-mailed response to questions, said it’s too early to comment on the future of plant biotechnology research, though the company will take regional politics into account. The company has already halted projects focusing solely on the European market, it said. The Green Party tripled its vote in Rhineland-Palatinate, home to BASF’s Ludwigshafen headquarters, on March 27.

“We are committed to green biotechnology [GM crops],” Peter Eckes, head of BASF’s plant science unit, said in an e-mail. “We value the open and constructive dialogue we have had with Rhineland- Palatinate’s government in the past and want to continue this dialogue with the members of the new government. This also includes the clarification of the new government’s attitude toward green biotechnology.”

The potential setback comes a year after BASF won permission to plant its Amflora potato for use as a thickening agent for paper, overcoming 13 years of opposition from environmental groups in Germany and Sweden who cited possible damage to health and ecology.

Missing Out

Developing countries will overtake industrialized nations in planting genetically modified crops before 2015, said Clive James, founder of nonprofit International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, or ISAA

The inside story on Monsanto and the glyphosate birth defect data

Your children are eating genetically modified food  everyday at school.   Most of that food is grown using glyphosate, a potent pesticide we were told was harmless.  It isn’t.  We must demand that the NYC Dept. Of Education adopt a no GMO (genetically modified organism) policy in it’s food purchases.

source for article

The pesticide industry and regulators have repeatedly misled the public with claims that glyphosate is safe, says Claire Robinson.

As a result, Monsanto’s Roundup is used by gardeners and local authorities, in school grounds, and in farmers’ fields

Industry and EU regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s-1990s that Roundup, the world’s best selling herbicide, causes birth defects but they failed to inform the public. This is the conclusion of our new report, ‘Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?‘, authored by a group of international scientists and researchers.

The report reveals that industry’s own studies (including one commissioned by Monsanto itself) showed as long ago as the 1980s that Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate causes birth defects in laboratory animals. Industry submitted these studies to the European Commission in support of its application for glyphosate’s approval for use in Europe. As the ‘rapporteur’ member state for glyphosate, liaising between industry and the Commission, Germany took an active role in minimising the problems with glyphosate and must shoulder a chunk of the responsibility for allowing it onto the market.

The facts are these:

•    Industry (including Monsanto) has known from its own studies since the 1980s that glyphosate causes malformations in experimental animals at high doses

•    Industry has known since 1993 that these effects also occur at lower and mid doses

•    The German government has known since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes malformations

•    The EU Commission’s expert scientific review panel knew in 1999 that glyphosate causes malformations

•    The EU Commission has known since 2002 that glyphosate causes malformations. This was the year it signed off on the current approval of glyphosate

But this information was not made public. On the contrary, the pesticide industry and Europe’s regulators have jointly misled the public with claims that glyphosate is safe. As a result, Roundup is liberally used by home gardeners and local authorities on roadsides, in school grounds, and other public areas, as well as in farmers’ fields.

source read rest of article


This Should be Banned: Found in 80% of Supermarket Foods

This Should be Banned: Found in 80% of Supermarket Foods


Monsanto may soon be allowed to conduct its own environmental studies. Currently, the USDA is responsible for assessing environmental impacts of new GMO crops, but the agency plans to at least temporarily hand over environmental impact reporting responsibilities to the biotech companies behind GMO crops.

If this isn’t the classic example of the fox guarding the henhouse I don’t know what is.

The two-year pilot program will allow the companies to conduct their own environmental assessments, or alternately outsource the work to contractors. The USDA will retain the final say in determining the safety of crops.

According to Fast Company:

“The USDA won’t actually admit that it’s bad at performing its duties — instead, the agency claims that the move will make the environmental reporting process more timely, efficient, and cost-effective … [But if Monsanto] has a vested interest in getting one of its crops deregulated, why wouldn’t it try to fudge the numbers on an environmental review? And why wouldn’t its hired contractors do the same?”

You might think that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) don’t affect you. But in fact, up to 90 percent of all major U.S. grown crops are grown with genetically engineered seed, and can be used in human and animal foods without any safety testing or labeling.

This includes GM corn, soybeans, canola, and sugar beets, which have made their way into approximately 80 percent of current U.S. grocery store items.
If you’re not buying organically produced foods (or growing your own food), then you’re probably eating genetically modified ingredients in most of the processed foods you’re consuming.

The UK Progressive reports:

“Scientific testing has not been done on what effects GMOs may have on humans. What has been shown is that GMO foods contain excessive amounts of certain toxins, the effects of which have not been determined. Genetically modified foods also negatively impact the environment by creating more toxins and potentially leading to the creation of mutated soil bacteria, which may lead to more harm regarding the future of food production.”



The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the agency responsible for assessing the environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crops, but they’ve not been very efficient in this regard. So, in an “effort” to make the environmental reporting process “more timely, efficient, and cost-effective,” they’ve decided to create a two-year long pilot program that allows biotech companies like Monsanto to conduct their own environmental assessments.

This decision is an absolute abomination of massive conflicts of interest.

The Fox is Yet Again Allowed to Guard the Hen House…

What possible incentive does Monsanto have to find environmental harm resulting from the crops they seek to get approved? And if they hire contractors to perform the review, what incentive would they have to come up with a negative assessment?

This is particularly pernicious because of all the chemical companies Monsanto is far and away the most egregious in their blatant disregard for values. They have extorted millions of dollars from small famers no differently than New York City Mafia crime bosses.  Well, that might be acceptable behavior in organized crime, but it is reprehensible in a multi-billion dollar corporation.

If history has shown us anything, it’s that industries CANNOT police themselves. The end result is always the same—corporate vested interests win every time. This is exactly why we need INDEPENDENT agencies to do safety reviews.

The USDA will get “the final say.” But honestly, how likely is the USDA to decline approval once an environmental assessment claims the crop poses no threat to the environment? If they can’t find the time to do the original assessment, they surely will not find the time to double-check the assessments handed in by Monsanto and other biotech companies.

Another MAJOR consideration is that Tom Vilsack is the Secretary of Agriculture. Vilsack has been a major supporter of Monsanto and is a strong believer in genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, especially pharmaceutical corn.

This is a set-up that will endanger consumers everywhere, in more ways than one. As Ariel Schwartz writes for Fast Company, “if it wasn’t so dangerous, it would be funny.” For example, we already KNOW that GM crops are causing a variety of environmental problems,

Such as:

Allowing Monsanto to police itself is an absolute disaster of epic proportions, make no mistake about it. And this makes it all the more important to educate yourself about GM foods, and make every possible effort to avoid them if you want to protect your health, not to mention the health of your children!

Do You Know how Much GM Food You’re Eating?

It’s important to realize that as much as 90-95 percent of the major US-grown crops are genetically engineered, and subsequently used in human- and animal food production without labeling and with no safety testing whatsoever.

These GM crops include:

Corn Canola Alfalfa (New GM crop as of 2011)
Soy Cottonseed Sugar derived from sugar beets

Additionally, the following produce are also commonly GM:

  • Zucchini
  • Crookneck squash
  • Hawaiian papaya

These GM goods are now used as ingredients in approximately 80 percent of all processed foods!

So, unless you’re buying all organic food, or grow your own veggies and raise your own livestock, or at the very least buy all whole foods (even if conventionally grown) and cook everything from scratch, chances are you’re consuming GM foods every single day of the week.

Even more insidious is the fact that anytime you’re buying conventional meat, you’re essentially eating GMO. This is because the vast majority of animal products produced in the US today, which are raised in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), are fed with GM feed (typically GM corn and soy), in addition to being given genetically engineered hormones. Soon CAFO cattle everywhere will also be fed GM alfalfa, which will further drive up the percentage of GM feed these animals consume in total.

This is just one of the reasons why I strongly advise everyone to avoid consuming conventional meats. If you cannot afford to buy all your food organic, then focus on buying organic meats.

Demand for Non-GM Canola on the Rise

According to an Australian ABC News report, demand for ‘sustainable’ canola, meaning non-GM canola, is now so high that the price for this commodity is outpacing the GM variety.

Tom Puddy with CBH, Western Australia’s largest grain handler, is quoted as saying:

“It really comes down to customer preference to have a non-GM product in the food chain. There’s consumers that will demand that, so they’ll pay a premium at a supermarket shelf for particular items that are certified non-GM. ‘The other driver is from the by-product. That’s fed to animals and they don’t want to have a GM by-product in their food chain that’s fed to their animals.”

The extra price is worth it in my opinion. Although safety research is still sorely lacking, the studies that have been made indicate that things do not bode well for us, long-term, if we do not stop genetically altering our food supply.

Follow Your Instincts: GM Foods are NOT Safe

Although the evil GM giants like Monsanto insist that GM foods are no different from conventionally grown varieties, the research in existence begs to differ. Here is just a sampling of the unsavory findings associated with GM foods:

GM peas caused lung damage in mice Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce
GM potatoes may cause cancer in rats Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells
Bacteria in your gut can take up DNA from GM food The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning
GM foods lead to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice, specifically the kidney, liver, heart and spleen Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties
Bt corn caused a wide variety of immune responses in mice, commonly associated with diseases such as arthritis, Lou Gehrig’s disease, osteoporosis, and inflammatory bowel disease Investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products

Just Say No to GMO!

GMOs may be the greatest health disaster in the American diet. (By the way, remember that while fructose is toxic to your body in and of itself, the vast majority of fructose you consume is in the form of high fructose corn syrup, much of which comes from GM corn!)

Within the first nine years of the introduction of GM crops in 1996, multiple chronic illnesses jumped from 7 percent to 13 percent of the population, food allergies doubled in less time, and many other ailments have been on the rise ever since. Millions may already be suffering health problems caused by genetically modified foods and they just don’t know it.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has urged doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients, citing animal studies that show how GMOs cause disorders such as vital organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system problems, accelerated aging, infertility, and dysfunctional regulation of insulin and cholesterol. Unfortunately, few doctors are paying attention and following this advice…

Again, you simply must take control of your own health, and take it upon yourself to ensure you’re not unwittingly destroying your and your family’s health with every bite.

By Banding Together We CAN DEFEAT GM Foods!

Yes, even though the US government seems hellbent on giving biotech giants like Monsanto free reign to destroy the world, we CAN get GMOs banned from the US.

Europe was able to do it over a decade ago without any government assistance. All they did was educate the consumers, and that was enough pressure on the food industry to stop using GM ingredients.

Most people don’t understand that we have already won the war. These companies KNOW they have a limited time to sell their chemicals and make a huge profit at the expense of your health. They know that eventually labeling will be mandated and when it is, the game is up and they will be defeated as over 90 percent of Americans do not want GMOs.

That does not mean you should be complacent. The sooner you get involved, the sooner we will eliminate these toxic threats. We will require loads of education to be effective, however.We must first educate sufficient amounts of people about what GM foods are!As illustrated in the featured video, many are still completely clueless about genetically modified foods and have no idea that they’re eating them every day.

In a nutshell, if you’re eating CAFO meats and processed foods that are not 100% USDA Organic, you’re eating GMO’s. It’s that simple. The answer is to buy organic, and/or look for foods that are “non-GMO certified” by the Non-GMO Project.

For your convenience, download this Non-GMO Shopping Guide, and share it with everyone you know.

Although GM foods still do not require labeling by law, the campaign for GMO labeling is making progress, thanks to the persistence of Jeffrey Smith and the Institute for Responsible Technology, an organization whose goal is to end the genetic engineering of our food supply and the outdoor release of GM crops. If you like, you can join the fight by signing the petition to President Obama in support of mandatory labeling of GM foods.

By educating the public about the risks of GM foods through a massive education campaign, and by circulating the Non-GMO Shopping Guide so consumers can make healthier non-GMO choices, the Institute’s plan is to generate a tipping point of consumer rejection to make GMOs a thing of the past.

Remember food is a critical part of the equation of “Taking Control of Your Health”, you simply must get it right if you want any real chance of avoiding chronic degenerative disease

For ongoing updates on this cause, please follow our Non-GMO’s page on Facebook.