Tag Archives: Genetically Modified

New Report Takes Cheap-Shot At Organic Foods With “Recall” Scare

GMO-Propaganda

A new “report” of data intended to be used as propaganda, in this case against foods that are NOT genetically modified, a company called Stericycle has produced data that it says proves organic food recalls are up. The news of the report, of course was recently spread by the U.S. corporate media as a subtle propaganda campaign to directly condemn organic foods in hopes to offsetting consumer growing confidence and demand for organics. All no doubt to the delight and support of GMO food producers like Monsanto.

No one should be surprised by this, considering that Stericyle, a “global” publicly traded company who also owns Bio Systems, is also the U.S.’s leading company for ‘sharps management’ services. In other words Stericyle profits immensely from selling needle and syringe disposal plastic containers to hospitals globally! This statement is from their own site:

“Today, we operate in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America, and employ more than 18,000 people worldwide. Our primary business in each of these markets focuses on providing integrated solutions for the management of medical wastes.”

It is thus in their interest for people to use hospitals and remain sick since they are deeply intertwined with the profits surrounding hospitals and sickness.

It is no wonder therefore that Stericycle would play such a central role in putting out information that ignores the overall insignificance of this data because overall when you take into account the full picture- that when you consider the markedly increase in demand for organic foods, the recalls have actually not changed at all. The Organic Trade Association has already come out and flatly called out the lies put out by Stericycle. Senior Director Gwendolyn Wyard has stated;

“A key point to keep in mind is that an overall increase in organic recalls between 2012 and 2015 would not be surprising — not because organic food is less safe, but because of the dramatic increase in organic food sales and purchases that we’ve been seeing in this country,”

Vice President of Stericycle, Kevin Pollack quietly admits that the reason for the rise in recalls is “partly” because of the enormous increase in the demand for organic foods. Despite this quiet admission Pollack goes on to spread organic food psyop phobia stating:

“What’s striking is that since 2012, all organic recalls have been driven by bacterial contamination, like salmonella, listeria and hepatitis A, rather than a problem with a label,” … “This is a fairly serious and really important issue because a lot of consumers just aren’t aware of it.”

And just like that, Pollack leaves it to the U.S. corporate media to spread the propaganda from there. The propaganda here is subtle and transparent to anyone not paying attention, but is quite obvious to anyone who is. The message being conveyed here is that genetically modified foods are somehow safer than organic foods and that organic (non-GMO) foods are becoming increasingly “dangerous”!

Let’s consider a few things. Let’s all remove our Orwellian hats for a moment. First, there is no such thing per-se as “organic” food. We all call it organic, but more importantly it’s natural and it’s real. Everything else that is not real, natural or organic is fake, genetically modified, synthetic, or not real. Sadly the GMO psyop is so deep today that the control system has everyone thinking that genetically modifying things is a normal thing to do and somehow not genetically modifying things open you up to danger, illness, death and destruction.

Pro-GMO Psyop Stages

As we review the first level of this secret pro-GMO psyop we consider that the first intent of this propaganda piece is to make that “weird” special category of food called “organics” seem like it perhaps doesn’t belong in our world. It’s the culprit of bacterial spreading and it is therefore a problem for humanity. Organic foods are being painted as somehow bad for you.

The second level of this pro-GMO psyop is that once the problem is offered- “organic foods are responsible for spreading bacteria”- then we must come up with a solution. That solution of course, not mentioned here is to perhaps cut down on organics, or maybe get rid of them all together. The replacement problem-solving food of course is genetically modified foods, the one with the tiny microscopic labels that no one can read with the paragraph sized list of ingredients of things most of us can’t pronounce.

The third level of this pro-GMO psyop is that nowhere in these corporate media stories or in the issued report are the dangers of GMO foods mentioned. Let’s not forget that GMO foods are banned in many countries and for good reason. That’s because genetically modified foods are dangerous. Yet these dangers are completely ignored to the delight of Monsanto, Syngenta and other GMO giants.

Health and safety is not something to debate. I would rather risk a self-limited bacterial infection which a healthy immune system can take on, than to alter my DNA and ingest a cancer-causing and other chronic human disease-causing food. The fact is that outside of nature’s natural “organic” foods there are no safe choices. The truth they don’t want you to know is that all GMOs should be banned forever. This is about science, health, common sense and morality.

The controllers layer these deceptions and then point you in the opposite direction. So instead of looking at the GMO problem they want everyone instead fearing organic foods.

Have you considered that perhaps this is the very early stages of a future aggressive campaign against organic foods? Have you considered that perhaps this is a propaganda beta-test to see how people react to the story? I believe this is very possible. These subtle stories usually grow in size later on. Perhaps later on they’ll stage a massive “out-break” to be blamed on “organics”. The public would then be forced (vaccine-style) to eat GMO foods. Imagine that!

Remember the measles outbreak psyop of 2014? We all saw how it morphed into forced vaccination bills (SB277) in states like California, which if it sticks will surely be a template for an attempt at a federal mandatory bill. Don’t forget the measles story came out in small sections for months throughout 2014. The mainstream media kept trying different angles on it. Then by the end of the year they switched from Measles to Ebola and gauged everyone’s reaction on that. Before you knew it they employed Hollywood celebrity mocking “anti-vaxxers”, funded several “pro-vaccine” campaigns and the rest is history.

So don’t be fooled by subtle seemingly innocent stories about a new “report” that suggests that organics food recalls are up and how “serious” this is. This is just propaganda from the same people who have given us many other recent “studies”, new “data”, and “reports” always spinning the narrative sometimes slowly, sometimes more aggressively toward the profit of choice.

We should all be aware by now that essentially all scientific research of  medical claims are absolutely “untrustable and fraudulent“. Especially when we observe the synchronistical spread of these study results by the mainstream media only to later on observe that these study conclusions seem to always have political or corporate profit ramifications.

So nothing should surprise us from the empire that tells us that a “new study” shows cancer is just “bad luck“. Or that everything needs to be genetically controlled instead of considering the environmental factor like eating healthy and pursuing a healthy lifestyle so that you can minimize your trips to the doctor and not waste so much money on hospital bills.

SOLUTIONS

Eating healthy I believe is the most important thing you can do to dump doctors and expensive tyrannical medical-hospital systems out of your life. Health begins during conception, continues after birth and then throughout your life. This is why it is so important to avoid anything that is unnatural as much as possible.

Don’t let a multi-trillion dollar vaccine maker or pharmaceutical company tell you their GMO food, drug or vaccine is “safe”. They only tell you that because “safe” claims means trillions $$ of dollars for them especially if they can get government to force you to take their product.

Aside from pursuing personal health as a token of self ownership and self-responsibility, let’s continue to pursue solutions in the form of inter-dependence. Share health knowledge with one another and help make healthy foods available to one another. If you can now is the time to grow your own food and become familiar with what medicinal values organic foods have. The most important goal is to boost your immune system and thus strive to make government’s medical tyrannical system obsolete since many diseases are based on functional compromise of the body and a depleted, improperly working immune systems.

I believe doctors including many medical doctors will eventually go to where the demand is, given that most of them are well meaning and in their hearts are committed to evidence-based medicine. Many of them will begin to see the greater agenda at play and there are many signs this is already happening.

Ultimately, health is an individual thing and there is no other topic that requires self accountability and responsibility than your own health. As always it starts with you. Eating healthy organic food is one of the easiest and most powerful and effective things people can do to start dumping the control system. It’s no wonder they are slowly preparing their propaganda for what appears to be a long but eventually losing battle.


Bernie Suarez is a revolutionary writer with a background in medicine, psychology, and information technology. He has written numerous articles over the years about freedom, government corruption and conspiracies, and solutions. A former host of the 9/11 Freefall radio show, Bernie is also the creator of the Truth and Art TV projectwhere he shares articles and videos about issues that raise our consciousness and offer solutions to our current problems. His efforts are designed to encourage others to joyfully stand for truth, to expose government tactics of propaganda, fear and deception, and to address the psychology of dealing with the rising new world order. He is also a former U.S. Marine who believes it is our duty to stand for and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. A peace activist, he believes information and awareness is the first step toward being free from enslavement from the globalist control system which now threatens humanity. He believes love conquers all fear and it is up to each and every one of us to manifest the solutions and the change that you want to see in this world, because doing this is the very thing that will ensure victory and restoration of the human race from the rising global enslavement system, and will offer hope to future generations.

Leading Medical Journal Wants GMO Labeling

gmo labelThe topic of GMO labeling is one of long standing, one that is seeing a clear divide in current media. Should foods in the United States require GMO labeling, following suit of many other countries throughout the world? If there’s nothing to hide, then why not label foods? The argument is that GMO foods are no better or worse for health than non-GMOs, and that labeling may confuse consumers and drive down profit for numerous food manufacturers. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) is coming to the aid of labeling proponents, calling for the labeling of GMO foods in a recent perspective article. This bold step by a leading and respected medical journal may be the tipping point toward helping us know exactly what’s in our food.

NEJM Says “Yes” to GMO Labeling

Scientific consensus is that GMO foods are harmless in any amount, and the labeling of foods containing GM ingredients is worthless and cumbersome to food companies. This simply isn’t true, because there are numerous studies indicating GM food to be dangerous, or at least slightly irritating, to human and animal health. The NEJM says that GMO labeling “is essential for tracking emergence of novel food allergies and assessing effects of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops.” [1] It calls for the respect of consumers who want labeling of foods containing GM ingredients. It’s safe to say that in not doing so, consumers become distrustful of certain brands who refuse to label or lobby against labeling. An estimated $100 million has been spent by the food industry in lobbying for less transparency in just one year. [2] So, if it’s the money companies think they’ll miss out on if they do label, they’re likely to also miss it by not labeling.

But it isn’t just about the genetically-altered material that’s contained within GM foods. The NEJM further states: “And the argument that there is nothing new about genetic rearrangement misses the point that GM crops are now the agricultural products most heavily treated with herbicides and that two of these herbicides may pose risks of cancer.” Even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is delaying a permit for Enlist Duo, a combination herbicide that is said to fight herbicide resistance. It has, however, been approved for use in a number of states. [3] It’s a good thing, too, considering that all chemical herbicides present a real threat to human health. Glyphosate, or Roundup, is a common herbicide that is a probable human carcinogen, so one can only imagine what Enlist Duo–an herbicide that is more powerful than glyphosate–poses. To give you a clue as to how pervasive glyphosate is, research is showing that the herbicide is being found in human breast milk. [4]

Vote With Your Pocketbook

The best way you can let the food industry know you want GMO labeling and/or complete absence of GMOs from the food supply is to purchase organic. Any processed food you buy should be certified organic by the USDA, because these will not contain GMOs, pesticides, or any chemical ingredient of any kind. The more money that goes toward organic food, the more the industry takes notice. Most produce is not GM–yet. Still, conventional corn and soy are commonly GMO, so if you consume these foods, make sure they’re organic.

How do you feel about GMOs? Please let us know in the comments!

References:

  1. Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., and Charles Benbrook, Ph.D. GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:693-695. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1505660.
  2. Libby Foley. Big Food Companies Spend Millions to Defeat GMO Labeling. EWG.
  3. Carey Gillam. EPA expands areas of approved use for Dow’s Enlist Duo herbicide. Reuters.
  4. Elizabeth Grossman. Is There Herbicide in Breast Milk? Civil Eats.

Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM has studied natural healing methods for over 20 years and now teaches individuals and practitioners all around the world. He no longer sees patients but solely concentrates on spreading the word of health and wellness to the global community. Under his leadership, Global Healing Center, Inc. has earned recognition as one of the largest alternative, natural and organic health resources on the Internet.

GMO Propagandist Who Said ‘Trust Science’ Got Funds From Monsanto

Roundup-dollars-Kevin-Folta-960x480

Investigation reveals damaging conflict of interest despite claims of no Monsanto funding. Report by Claire Robinson and Jonathan Matthews at GM Watch

In what appears to be an exercise in damage limitation, an article in the journal Nature has disclosed that Kevin Folta, a plant scientist at the University of Florida, received a US$25,000 grant last year from Monsanto. Monsanto noted that the money “may be used at your discretion in support of your research and outreach projects”, according to the journal.

Folta is active on the GMO-promoting website GMO Answers. The website is “funded by the members of The Council for Biotechnology Information, which includes BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto Company and Syngenta.” The site describes Folta as an “independent expert” and to date has not disclosed his Monsanto funding.

The Folta-Monsanto collaboration was revealed in an investigation by the food transparency campaign, US Right to Know. The investigation yielded 4,600 pages of e-mails and other records from Folta.

Folta says that the funds are earmarked for a proposed University of Florida programme on communicating biotechnology. But according to the article in Nature, the documents show that Monsanto paid for Folta’s travel to speak to US politicians, the media, farmers, and students.

US Right to Know launched its investigation of academic researchers after it noticed that several had answered questions about GM crops on the GMO Answers website. US Right to Know considers the industry-funded site, which is managed by public relations firm Ketchum of New York, to be a “straight-up marketing tool to spin GMOs in a positive light”. It is now seeking the records of public-sector researchers — who are subject to freedom-of-information laws — to confirm its suspicions.

It appears from the Nature piece that the emails released by the University of Florida may show that Folta used material provided by Ketchum’s PR people in his GMO Answers’ responses. Folta is quoted as saying of Ketchum’s suggested answers, “I don’t know if I used them, modified them or what.”

What makes the Folta disclosures particularly notable is that to date Folta has gone to great lengths to bat off suggestions that he gets any money from Monsanto, emphasizing that he is an independent scientist working in a public institution and funded from public sources. “I’m paid by the citizens of my state to help them understand science. I’m a shill for science and the land grant university mission,” he commented on one site. On another, when the question of whether he got money from the biotech industry came up, he emphasized how open he is about his funding: “Hey guys, you know you could just reach out and ask… always glad to talk about such things. My research has been funded 100% by public sources, except for a small amount we get for strawberry research… No Monsanto.” Later he elaborates: “Alas, no research money from Monsanto, never any personal compensation for any talks” (our emphasis). That posting was made this year – after the Monsanto funding is now known to have been awarded.

Indeed, only two months ago Kevin Folta declared, “I have nothing to do with Monsanto.”

And as far as we are aware, prior to the article in Nature, Folta has never disclosed anywhere that he has received this funding from Monsanto, even in response to direct questions. This failure to disclose needs to be seen in the context of Folta’s long history of not just aggressively denying receiving any monies at all from Monsanto, even as much as “a dime”, but ridiculing those who suggested otherwise.

Defending Roundup
Kevin-Folta-tweets-1-and-2-400px

As well as GMOs, Folta is well known for his aggressive defence of another very lucrative Monsanto product: Roundup. On Twitter and in public talks, Folta has told audiences that he drinks Monsanto’s herbicide formulation, a registered poison. Not only does Roundup come with a warning that it is a poison and should not be taken internally, but it is the subject of ongoing research worldwide for its suspected and proven adverse effects on human and animal health. It’s also a “probable” carcinogen, according to the World Health Organization’s cancer agency IARC. Yet on Twitter, Folta has said that he has drunk it “to demonstrate harmlessness”. On another occasion he declared, “I’m going to tip a freshly-opened pint next week at ISU. No fear here. Trust science.”

What makes these issues so important is that it is clear from the scientific literature, dating back over three decades, that funding has a marked influence on science. This has led to demands for disclosure of industry payments, most notably by scientific journals. It is also recognized that even the provision of free travel and other expenses may compromise integrity and impartiality and that this principle does not only apply to research, but also extends to science communication activities, as in the case of Folta.

Kevin Folta’s impartiality has been challenged many times. He says on GMO Answers, “My answers are 100% consistent with the peer-reviewed literature.” But he has been found to disregard peer-reviewed research, for example, on the nutritional value of organic food, in order to push his biotech agenda.

And now Folta’s apparent failure to give any indication of his Monsanto support until forced to do so has fatally damaged his credibility.

The article Kevin Folta received $25,000 from Monsanto and the image first appeared at GM Watch. See more GMO news there.

Scotland Bans Growing GM Crops

corn field

Independent evidence shows GM foods and ingredients harm human health. All nations should ban them.

UN General Assembly measures and international humanitarian laws say all nations are responsible for protecting the health, safety and welfare of their people.

Harmful to human health GMOs should be universally banned. Scotland acted responsibly. More on its action below.

Monsanto and other GMO producers own Congress and US administrations – no matter which party holds power. In late July, House members overwhelmingly passed the Orwellian Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act (HR 1599) critics call the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act by a nearly two-to-one margin (275 – 150).

It prohibits state and local authorities from requiring GMO labeling – so consumers can make informed choices whether to buy or avoid them. Center for Food Safety director Andrew Kimbrell said in response:

“Passage of this bill is an attempt by Monsanto and its agribusiness cronies to crush the democratic decision-making of tens of millions of Americans. Corporate influence has won and the voice of the people has been ignored.”

Arguably the measure is unconstitutional – along with permitting the sale of GMO foods and ingredients. Its Preamble mandates “promot(ing) the general welfare” – impossible by allowing the sale of foods and ingredients known to harm human health without at least requiring labels telling consumers what they need to know.

HR 1599 requires Senate approval and Obama’s signature to become law. It looks certain without overwhelming public opposition against it.

EU regulations on GMO foods are stricter than America’s. Proposed new European Commission rules would let individual member states opt out of an EU-approved system.

Competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager said “(t)he objective is to give national governments’ view the same weight as scientific advice in the authorisation of GMOs in their territory.”

“This proposal, when it is adopted, will enable member states to address at national level considerations covered by the decision-making process that we use right now.”

“These are new measures and they will provide member states with tools to decide on the use of EU-imported GMOs based on reasons other than risks for health and the environment which will remain assessed by the European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA).”

Europe is divided on GMOs. Britain favors them. France, Austria and other EU countries oppose them. Germany’s Environment Ministry wants an unconditional GMO ban.

Minister Barbara Hendricks wants all genetic engineering backdoors blocked. She calls the technology “the wrong track. It is risky for nature and the environment and is not desired by consumers.”

Polls show Western consumers overwhelmingly reject them. Monsanto’s maize MON810 is the only GM crop grown in Europe – in Spain and Portugal.

Greenpeace called the European Commission proposal “farc(ical) because it leaves the current undemocratic system untouched. It would allow the Commission to continue ignoring major opposition to GM crops, despite president Juncker’s promise to allow a majority of EU countries to halt Commission decisions on GMOs.”

Consumers Union asked “what are they afraid of?” Polls consistently show around 90% of Americans favor labeling – 85% say GMO products should never be called “natural.”

It means pure and wholesome from nature – not a corporate scientist’s laboratory. Prohibiting GMOs is threatened by trade agreements like TPP and TTIP.

For now, Scotland intends banning GM crops grown on its soil. Officials call the move environmentally friendly. Minister for the environment, food and rural affairs Richard Lochhead said his nation “is known around the world for our beautiful natural environment – and banning growing genetically modified crops will protect and further enhance our clean, green status.”

“There is no evidence of significant demand for GM products by Scottish consumers and I am concerned that allowing GM crops to be grown in Scotland would damage our clean and green brand, thereby gambling with the future of our £14 billion ($22 billion) food and drink sector.”

Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) Alison Johnstone said “(o)pting out of growing genetically modified crops is the right move for Scotland. Cultivation of GM crops would harm our environment and our reputation for high quality food and drink.”

“GM is not the answer to food security, and would represent further capture of our food by big business. Scotland has huge potential with a diverse mix of smaller-scale producers and community food initiatives, and we need to see those grow further.”

In April, the European Commission OK’d importing 10 new GM crops for the first time since 2013 (for human food and animal feed) – including corn, soybeans, cotton and rapeseed oil.

Universally banning these products along with commonly used toxic chemicals is the only way to keep world food supplies safe to eat.


Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected]. His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”. www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html Visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com.

10 Random Disturbing Facts Most Americans Are Too Fearful To Face

america

Sometimes you have to put out information in hopes that those who haven’t heard this will at least absorb a fraction of it. If you haven’t heard this and you absorb just one of these random points, I believe that may be enough to cause a major paradigm shift your life or in the life of someone you know. Here are 10 random, mostly recent but some archival information that is factual and verifiable for anyone willing to look it up.

1- Genetically Modified Foods are illegal in many countries for health and medical reasons all the while the U.S. passes laws making GMO labeling illegal. You may be thinking, say what?  That’s right. U.S. citizens are being propagandized daily and are being practically forced to blindly consume GMOs while countries like Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Madeira, New Zealand, Peru, Australia, Russia, France and Switzerland have all booted Monsanto and their GMO crops from their countries. That’s like being booted out of a town for being a rapist and child molester only to have that same person settle into the next town over and become a grade school teacher or pastor. Now imagine the citizens of that other town having a law forced on them that says rapists and child molesters must be allowed to teach little kids and run churches. That’s what we’re talking about here.

While humanity in other countries wake up fully to the dangers of GMO foods, Monsanto and other GMO food producers are having a feast in the U.S. buying out politicians, distorting news, research and evidence that proves GMO foods are directly linked to cancer. Like a scene from a bad movie only it’s not a movie it life. Actually it’s YOUR life if you are in the United States dealing with this nightmare.

As bizarre as it seems, only in the U.S. do criminal corporations like Monsanto enjoy the benefits of the support of the political and legal system. A bird’s eye view of the situation clearly shows how corrupt and evil the control system in the United States really is. Sadly, most Americans have no idea that they are being lied to every day and lured into eating dangerous cancer causing and health destroying food just so that someone can profit from your disease later on.

2- As a result of ‘Act of 1871‘ by the 41st Congress, the United States ‘Corporation’ was created to trample the original Republic. Shockingly, this fraudulent synthetic corporate government entity is the only “United States” most people in America know today. And this non-governmental corporate entity covering a 10 square mile grid in Washington D.C. parades as a sovereign legitimate government and has been doing so for over 100 years.

Of all the things that need to be repaired and reversed in the United States, this one issue one of the most important root issue for people to wrap their heads around.

Imagine the impact of getting a real grassroots movement of people to push awareness of the truth of the current District of Columbia U.S. Corporate Government and the corresponding imitation Constitution OF the United States (instead of “For” the United States as stated in the original organic document).

This is one of those issues that most people don’t know where to start, how to apply this idea, and how to lead this idea in a meaningful way so they simply give up. The fact is that people are afraid to face this mega-sized issue with overwhelming implications for the average person.

3- “7 countries in 5 years”- This wide open confession came straight out of the mouth of U.S. General Wesley Clark years after the illegal invasion of Iraq. The General openly spilled the beans on the U.S. military’s plan to illegally invade 7 countries in the Middle East under the lie of the war on terror. Shockingly to this day no war crimes trials have taken place. No one has been executed, convicted or imprisoned for these massive war crimes against humanity. Shockingly, the criminals even still make TV appearances and prance around the country offering their opinions and enjoying a comfortable life appearing at events and speaking.

In fact, General Wesley Clark himself ended up being promoted to lead NATO units in the Middle East. He has even made recent propaganda appearances on TV playing into the Jade Helm “master the human domain” psyop teasing freedom lovers with Hitler-like rhetoric about caging anyone who doesn’t agree with the U.S. government!

4- The U.S. military and its defense contractors have over 150+ live and legitimate patents for spraying the sky with nano-particles all the while the masses are told it’s “conspiracies”. Those still unaware of this may be shocked to know these patents are not even hidden from the public. You can read them all for yourself. Despite this open knowledge these programs roll on comfortably as we have observed their spraying techniques change from various forms of chemtrails to aerosolized plumes/injections or chembombs to a mixture of both.

Astoundingly, we are now living at a time when we are surrounded by a generation of young Americans that think tic-tac-toe is normal in the sky. They think that crazy lines in the sky are part of nature. They see advertisements with lines in the sky and think nothing of it. They have no idea that not long ago there was a time when there were no lines in the sky at all. They have no concept of blue skies and clear starry nights. Shockingly and sadly an integral part of this lack of knowledge is the fear of knowing. More than any other topic, probably the spraying of our skies is cloaked in fear and anxiety of what to do if it is true. Many people would rather not know.

5- As briefly mentioned in #3, the United States Military is currently conducting an admitted A.I. psychological operation on the human domain as people carry on as usual. It’s called Jade Helm and right now learning more about Jade Helm for many Americans means putting down that remote control, turning off that ballgame, pausing the video game or missing their favorite TV show. It takes work to research this and more importantly the insecurity that comes with knowing that our own military is studying you the individual to control you is again too profound to really understand for some. They might ask, why would the military do this? Not knowing that the new world order has been planned for over 100 years now.

This is another issue that is too overwhelming for the average person to understand or more importantly face head-on. SOCOM documents exposed by researchers are clear about the intention of Jade Helm Jade 2 software and no matter how much you ignore it, it’s still here, it’s very real and it’s in motion as we speak.

6- The entire debt based fiat worthless paper money circulating in the U.S. is supplied and controlled by a private corporation with no legal authority to do so. We call them the Federal Reserve. It’s the illegal private banking system created officially in 1913 under the ‘Federal Reserve Act’ which Congress gave a green light to. This single act essentially handed the United States of America to a gang of private bankers with no accountability to the people. Along with the Act of 1871, this Federal Reserve Act is also one of the most significant and horrific turning points in the history of America. An act that accounts for many of the problems and sufferings in American for now over 100 years.

If enough people could finally wrap their heads around this single reality, that a private illegal mob of banksters have psyched out and enslaved Americans, fooling them into accepting their fake fiat currency while ensuring their perpetual enslavement, the full-on revolution would start today.

7- Throughout the history of humanity people do things by planning it out, this simple act or organizing is considered bizarre, unlikely and improbable by a generation of brainwashed people controlled by one hypnotic phrase- “conspiracy”! That’s right. You may be reading this and thinking this refers to you. The simple phrase “conspiracy” or “conspiracy theory” has singlehandedly mind-controlled millions of Americans like no other word or phrase has. Unfortunately there is no way around it. “Conspiracy” is a substitute word for an otherwise ordinary act of planning or coordinating. Something all people do especially groups like corporations and governments. You MUST plan, organize, or “conspire” to do things. That’s how things get done!

8- The U.S. has been caught numerous times militarily defending, arming, supplying and training ISIS fighters. Here we are at the one year anniversary of the ISIS super psyop American TV marketing campaign and today the ISIS psyop has been blown wide open more often than the amount of times the global warming movement has been exposed as lies. These reports trapping U.S. and Israeli (NATO) governments in boldface staged lies and capturing solid evidence of their support for ISIS have gone completely ignored and censored by U.S. mainstream media to keep the ISIS psyop narrative going in the minds of Americans.

The situation is so controlled and so propagandized that even if every member of ISIS went on TV tomorrow exclusively expressing their partnership with CIA and Mossad, the very next day U.S. mainstream media will present another ISIS story telling you how much they are the enemy and need to be defeated. Make no mistake, this control system is completely immune and entirely unfazed by truth, hard evidence and hard facts.

9- Turning back the clock- 5 Israeli men were caught, arrested, fingerprinted and detained on September 11th 2001 after they were celebrating the destruction of the world trade center seconds after the buildings were destroyed, while the buildings burned AND while the rest of America watched in shock and tears. These men were later mysteriously released back to Israel where they bragged on camera about being in New York City to “document the event”. The history of Israeli entities involvement in the 9/11 attacks are particularly concrete yet the frightening reality is that today’s U.S. mainstream media acts like none of this ever happened.

For this reason it’s always good to remind everyone that this is very real. The individuals names are Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shonvel, Oded Ellner and Omer Gavriel Marmari and they were given a clean pass back to Israel by then Chief of Justice Department Michael Chertoff. Of course Chertoff would later become Director of George Bush’s Homeland Security and play a significant role in writing the Patriot Act. Plainly put, one of the head masterminds of 9/11 essentially singlehandedly released a handful of key 9/11 suspects and allowed them to fly peacefully and freely back to their Israel homeland to brag about what they did.

10- In the U.S, like it was with Hitler’s Germany, propaganda is perfectly legal. Most Americans have no idea this is the case. They don’t realize that the U.S. corporate fraudulent government can legally lie to you every single day to get you to believe whatever they want you to believe and then turn around behind closed doors and laugh at you for believing their legal lies. Try telling that to most Americans and see how they look at you.

This is another example of a hard-to-handle lie that is pushed on Americans every day and the average working American has no time to truly wrap their heads around this stunning fact so they bury their heads in the sand instead, unwilling to look at the issue because the fear they won’t know what to do with the information.

It’s no wonder that today TV shows and comedic rants are often shaped to put a positive slant on lying. To trivialize the seriousness and the consequences of lying. They even make lying seem like an evil necessity or even a cool trend. Most people are completely unaware of these subliminal messages that endorse the control of a government whose survival is dependent on continuous lies and deceit.

Solutions

Let’s keep sharing the information and forcing people to look at this information. These are just 10 random issues I felt are important but there could be another 10 here just as easily. Information is spreading and people are getting this. Sometimes it takes hitting rock-bottom before people take action and start to think differently. Whatever drives someone you can always be sure that pushing the information will help accelerate this process. Let’s keep doing that and if you agree share this information with someone and give them something to think about.


Bernie Suarez is a revolutionary writer with a background in medicine, psychology, and information technology. He has written numerous articles over the years about freedom, government corruption and conspiracies, and solutions. A former host of the 9/11 Freefall radio show, Bernie is also the creator of the Truth and Art TV projectwhere he shares articles and videos about issues that raise our consciousness and offer solutions to our current problems. His efforts are designed to encourage others to joyfully stand for truth, to expose government tactics of propaganda, fear and deception, and to address the psychology of dealing with the rising new world order. He is also a former U.S. Marine who believes it is our duty to stand for and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. A peace activist, he believes information and awareness is the first step toward being free from enslavement from the globalist control system which now threatens humanity. He believes love conquers all fear and it is up to each and every one of us to manifest the solutions and the change that you want to see in this world, because doing this is the very thing that will ensure victory and restoration of the human race from the rising global enslavement system, and will offer hope to future generations.

Rare Footage Shows George Bush’s 1987 Visit To Monsanto, Uttering Seven Infamous Words That Changed Everything (VIDEO)

George Bush Sr., seen here at Monsanto’s HQ in 1987, had a lax attitude toward the “bureaucratic and safety hurdles” facing the company’s GMO crops.

George Bush Sr., seen here at Monsanto’s HQ in 1987, had a lax attitude toward the “bureaucratic and safety hurdles” facing the company’s GMO crops.

By: Nick Meyer | Alt Health Works

Proponents of genetically engineered crops would have you believe that we’ve been “modifying” foods for “thousands of years.”

But the truth is that these lab-created GMOs are far different from traditional hybrid crops and have only been around for a few decades.

And if not for intense lobbying on the part of St. Louis agrochemical giant Monsanto, GMOs might have never even seen the light of day in the United States.

In 1986, with countless millions at stake, four executives from the Monsanto Company paid a White House visit to then-Vice President named George H.W. Bush with the goal of gaining an important ally in Washington.

Monsanto wanted to secure its spot on the “deregulation” bandwagon being driven by the Reagan administration at the time.

One year later, Bush took the bait and paid a visit to the company’s headquarters for a media event that included personal time with company scientists and reps.

Monsanto’s reps wanted Bush to help them get their dangerously untested GMOs to market, and pleaded with him (see the video below) to help make it happen.

What Bush said in response gave rise to a culture of blissful ignorance and irresponsibility that allowed Monsanto’s controversial “frankencrops” to spread virtually unopposed ever since.

George Bush to Desperate Monsanto: “Call Me…”

With countless safety and regulatory hurdles to overcome, the Monsanto Company found itself in a tough position in 1987. They desperately wanted to begin testing their GMO crops outdoors but needed the go-ahead from Washington to do it.

Originally Monsanto planned to introduce their GMOs slowly, but grew frustrated and instead opted for an aggressive policy of “eliminating what White House hardliners called ‘bureaucratic hurdles’ like health and environmental safety testing which were Monsanto’s key problems,” as narrator and director Marie-Monique Robin notes in the video clip below from the movie ‘The World According to Monsanto.’

In the clip, Bush meets with Monsanto reps as press cameras flash in the background. One scientist explains the basics of how these GMO “foods” are created.

“…We take DNA, cut it apart, mix different pieces together and then rejoin them, splice them back together,” he says. “This tube contains DNA that was made from a bacterium…”

Bush responds with a question: “This will lead you have a stronger plant or a plant that will lead you to…?”

“In this case it resists the herbicide,” the Monsanto rep says. Another rep adds on, “We have a fabulous herbicide.”

He was of course speaking about Roundup, the product whose main component glyphosate was just declared a “probable human carcinogen” by the World Health Organization.

Later in the clip, you’ll see Bush laugh and utter the seven infamous words (“Call Me…”) that gave rise to an era of total freedom for the GMO industry at the expense of the consumer.

Bush would eventually become president; watch at the end as his own VP Dan Quatle reveals the real reason why GMOs were fast-tracked in the United States even though other countries are still banning them.

Watch below, and feel free to share with a friend to expose the truth:

No Rest. Please.

It’s recess time for Congress

It’s recess time for Congress. That means a lot of U.S. Senators are hiking in national parks, or boating and beachcombing, or just kicking back at home, enjoying backyard barbecues and local golf courses.

Maybe. But at least a few Senators are busy putting the finishing touches on a Senate version of the DARK Act, a bill that could permanently scuttle the GMO labeling movement.

That means we need to be working overtime, while Congress is taking a break.

OCA staff recently met with three Senators and staff of an additional 11 Senators, in their Washington D.C. offices. But we really need to get the attention of Senators in their home district offices, too, especially during the August recess.

That’s where you come in. We’’ve begun scheduling meetings with Senators from all over the country, but we need your help. Your Senators will respond best to you, their constituents. And frankly, if they don’t hear from you, they won’t know that you care about GMO labeling or the DARK Act. They may not pay any attention at all to the issue—until they’re handed a slick package of lies from Monsanto’s lobbyists. And from what we’ve seen so far, many of our lawmakers are buying those lies, hook, line and sinker.

Let’s face it. Members of the Senate don’t have time to read every bill that comes across their desks. They pay the most attention to the bills that generate the most media attention, the bills that generate the most knocks on their doors.

If you haven’t yet, please sign this petition asking your Senator to oppose any federal bill that preempts state or federal mandatory labeling laws.

Then, please contact —[email protected]—if you can attend a meeting with your Senator. Organic Consumers will connect you with your fellow voters, and provide all the materials you need, including a media advisory and talking points.

Your Senator may be taking a break in August. But we can’t rest for a minute if we want to stop the DARK Act. Email if you want to attend or organize a meeting [email protected] Keep track of scheduled meetings Download your DARK Act flyer Download these DARK Act talking points Tips on organizing a meeting (scroll down) Call 202-224-3121. Ask to speak to your Senator’s staff. After you’ve signed the petition, called your Senator and signed up to attend a meeting, don’t forget to post on your Senator’s Facebook page!

TAKE ACTION: Tell Your Senator: Support Consumer and States’ Rights. Reject Rep. Pompeo’s DARK Act—H.R. 1599—and any other federal legislation that would preempt states’ rights to label GMOs!

Bad Science? Most Lab Rats Exist On Contaminated, GMO Diet

lab rat
By: Pat Thomas | The Ecologist – 

Lab Rats Used in Safety Studies Eat Feeds Laced with Pesticides, Herbicides and GMOs.

A new scientific study has found that laboratory rats used in health and toxicity studies are routinely given feeds contaminated with herbicides, pesticides and GMOs, writes Pat Thomas, potentially invalidating the results of crucial safety tests on GMOs, agrochemicals, medical drugs and other substances, on which health and environmental regulators base critical decisions.

In the face of uncertainty we often look to science to help us make sense of things.

This is particularly true in complex areas such as GMOs where adverse effects may be difficult to predict or may even be masked by other aspects of our lives and diets.

The potential link between GMOs and cancer is a good example. Do GMOs cause cancer? Many people believe they do, but cause and effect studies of this are rare.

Certainly some studies have shown a higher incidence of tumours (and tumours can be different from cancer) in animals fed GMOs and their associated herbicide glyphosate. Others have shown that the glyphosate, used widely on and absorbed by GMO crops, is an endocrine disrupter and thus can be a trigger for cancer.

Indeed the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization, has recently concluded that glyphosate is a ‘probable human carcinogen‘.

But in the real world, lots of things are known to cause cancer and so it is difficult to know how much or little GMOs contribute to the rising incidence of this disease. We can’t know because the tests aren’t being done, for example, to find out if, for example, glyphosate might combine in food or in our bodies with other chemicals we are commonly exposed to to promote cancer, or to make it more aggressive.

It’s important to remember that the absence of evidence of harm is not the same as proof of safety. For this and so many other reasons there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs.

Now, with the publication of a new study, we have even more cause to question the science of GMO safety and even the wider world of toxicological testing.

‘Doing’ science

Before we look at the results of the study let’s look at how we ‘do’ science.

Toxicity studies are most commonly conducted in rats. Setting aside the rights and wrongs of animal testing, many scientists believe that studying effects on rodent health has a reasonable predictive value for how a substance might affect human health.

But there are unique problems with ‘lab rats’ which scientists have been wrestling with for years.

The main problem is that they are so unhealthy to begin with.

Some of this is down to the fact that laboratory rats are sedentary and can develop all the same diseases that humans develop from being inactive. They can also be stressed and this too has an impact. Genetics also plays a part. The genetic manipulation used to produce strains of laboratory rats can leave them more vulnerable to disease than normal rats.

As a result, populations of laboratory rodents across the world develop high rates of so-called ‘spontaneous’ diseases. For instance, after two years the average incidences of mammary fibroadenomas and pituitary adenomas among certain kinds of Sprague Dawley rats can be up to 71% and 42% respectively.

When a scientist tests a toxic substance, for instance in the diet, he or she will generally divide a group of rodents into a control group, which eats a normal diet, and a test group, whose diet includes the toxic substance. Interpreting the results of the study requires that we make some assumptions about the health and ‘normalcy’ of the ‘control group’.

Such assumptions, however, have come under fire in a new study by French scientists which looks at the toxicity of the ‘normal’ diet of the lab rat.

A question mark

The scientists tested 13 samples of proprietary feed. All of the samples contained significant amounts of pesticides and other contaminants.

Traces of the herbicide glyphosate (both glyphosate itself and its breakdown product AMPA) were detected in 9 of the 13 diets; and 11 of the 13 diets contained ‘Roundup Ready’ GMOs that are grown with large amounts of glyphosate, the main active ingredient of Monsanto’s Roundup formulation.

Traces of the insecticides pirimiphos methyl, deltamethrin, chlorpyrifos methyl and ethyl, and malathion were also found in the rats’ food along with significant traces of heavy metals (mostly lead and cadmium) and PCBs.

The study found that the contamination levels recorded in the food were high enough to cause serious diseases and disrupt the hormonal and nervous systems of the animals in control groups.

What this means is that instead of comparing a clean, healthy diet with a contaminated diet, scientists are comparing a contaminated diet with an even more contaminated diet.

The contamination of the ‘control diet’, which can make the rats sick, effectively masks the true toxic effect of the test diet – essentially making it seem less toxic than it actually is. This effect could be why we see so many studies showing ‘non-significant’ toxicity of some very highly toxic substances in animal trials.

This applies especially to ‘endocrine disruptor’ chemicals which are active at very low ‘trace’ levels of parts per billion. Tests that examine toxic effects at such very low concentrations would produce null results if the feed is already contaminated at comparable or higher levels.

Supporting evidence

This new study is not the only to determine that rat chow can be contaminated.

Last year some of the scientists involved in the current French study analysed the rat chow used in a conventional GMO canola feeding experiment and found that it contained 18% of the Roundup tolerant maize NK603, 14.9% of MON810 (a modified Bt insecticide producing GMO) and 110 ppb of glyphosate and 200 ppb of AMPA (the breakdown product of glyphosate).

They argued that such a level of contamination invalidated the authors’ conclusions about the safety of the variety studied and were a threat to sensible regulation of GMOs.

Earlier this year in the US Dr Anthony Samsel, an independent scientist and consultant, analysed the Purina diet routinely used in animal feeding experiments designed to test the safety of GMOs. His findings showed that three of the standard Purina feeds formulated for rats, mice and other mammals contain both GMOs and glyphosate.

Scientists questioning the science

Rat chow manufacturers like Purina don’t routinely test for these contaminants, and make no guarantees for the purity of their feeds in this regard. Yet these feeds are used every day, in laboratories around the world in feeding experiments.

No certification regarding the purity of test feed is required by journal editors or by food safety regulators either in the EU of the US – and this has been going on for decades.

Scientists are now beginning to speak out about these problems and their implications for the regulation of toxic substances.

GRACE (GMO Risk Assessment and Communication of Evidence) is a publicly funded EU research project. The results of its work are guiding future methods and criteria that will be used in the EU to assess the risks of genetically engineered plants for cultivation or use in feed and food.

But a recent report from the group Testbiotech demonstrated contamination of the control group feed used in the GRACE Project study of MON810 maize and called for the study to be retracted.

Heroes … and villains

The scientists who are speaking out on this issue are heroes and should be congratulated. Instead they have been met with the full force of a well-financed sceptic army whose sole job is to detect and stamp out any criticism of GMO food and the science behind it.

But the lock-step, knee-jerk reactions of groups like the Genetic Literacy Project are looking increasingly dumb in the light of the rapidly changing landscape of GMO science.

There is no escaping that the problem of contaminated laboratory diets are a serious regulatory issue since all of our safety regulations for toxic substances are based on the results of this kind of animal testing.

It’s also human health issue – possibly predictive, but certainly reflective of our own toxic diets and the ‘background’ damage they do to our health, as well as how hard it is to determine cause and effect when it comes to the multiple toxins we are routinely exposed to.

It is also an animal welfare issue, particularly if scientists know that they are routinely feeding contaminated food to their animals and they keep on doing it anyway.

For all these reasons we must take a much harder look at the science of GMOs and the places it can lead – but also mislead – us.


Pat Thomas is a director of the campaigning group Beyond GM, founder of GM-free Me, and a former editor of The Ecologist. This article first appeared on the GM-free Me website.

100,000 In 7 Days

right to know, dark act

Today, in an Open Letter to Sen. Bernie Sanders, we are calling on Sen. Sanders to lead the charge against legislation—H.R. 1599—written and funded by Monsanto, that is intended to strip Americans of the basic right to know whether or not our food contains genetically engineered ingredients.

We are also asking you to help us get 100,000 signatures on this petition to Sen. Sanders over the next seven days, to reinforce how important this issue is to the majority of Americans, and persuade Sen. Sanders to speak out.

Why Sanders?

Because he is a Senator from Vermont, a state whose GMO labeling law will be repealed if Congress passes H.R. 1599, or any similar bill that preempts states’ rights to label GMOs.

Because he is a sponsor of the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act, introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) to establish a uniform federal standard for mandatory labeling of GMOs—a bill which is doomed, if Congress passes H.R. 1599.

Because he is an outspoken critic of corporate influence. And H.R. 1599 is a prime example of companies like Monsanto buying laws that are written for the sole purpose of protecting their profits.

Sen. Sanders may be our last hope. We need 100,000 names by next week. Please sign this petition. Share it on social media. Email it to your family and friends. TAKE ACTION: Tell Bernie Sanders: Protect Our Right to Know. Stop the DARK Act!

Preemption: The Legal Principle Used By Big Biotech To Get GMO Labeling Banned

What most consumers would love to see – plain, honest, GMO labeling – but due to Big Biotech’s use of preemption, it’s not happening.

What most consumers would love to see – plain, honest, GMO labeling – but due to Big Biotech’s use of preemption, it’s not happening.

Preemption is the legal principle being trotted out in the last couple of years by politicians and judges ruling on biotechnology and GMO cases. Big Biotech has seized upon the principle of preemption, and unfortunately but unsurprisingly, is now using it with gusto to prevent states, counties and municipalities from passing and enacting ordinances, moratoriums or other laws to curb the use of GMOs. That way Monsanto can control the Federal Congress, Supreme Court and White House without having to control every single state or local government.

Preemption was again used in HR 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 (dubbed by many the DARK Act, or Denying Americans the Right to Know Act), a bill which was recently passed and which is another classic example Orwellian doublespeak in its name. The bill does nothing to produce “safety” or “accuracy” around GMOs – it prevents restrictions on unsafe GMOs and GMO labeling, and keeps Americans in the dark when it comes to accurately knowing what their food is and where it comes from.

What is Preemption?

Preemption is the legal principle that when a law from a higher court and lower court conflict, the law from the higher court displaces or takes precedence over the law from the lower court. In the case of the USA, people argue that when federal and state law conflict, federal law preempts state law due to the Supremacy Clause (Article 5, Paragraph 2) of the US Constitution (there are some who argue that the States created the Federal Government and therefore should be higher in law, but unfortunately the Supreme Court has ruled the Federal Government takes supremacy, so now we have hundreds of years of legal precedent. The Federal Government has taken the power unto itself and it’s going to be difficult to wrest control back from them).

Preemption has so far thwarted the Hawaii’s grassroots efforts to curb and ban GMOs from its beautiful islands. Preemption was used as the justification for the overturning of Maui’s GMO moratorium ordinance, as well as ordinances from Kauai and Hawaii (Big Island). It’s all too easy for judges to sit back and refuse to take a principled stand on the GMO issue, or to allow local residents to have a say in what happens around them. It’s doesn’t matter if RUPs (Restricted Use Pesticides) are blowing out from GMO fields into nearby schools (as is happening in the small town of Waimea on Kauai) and making kids sick – once Big Biotech (Monsanto, Syngenta, BASF, Dow, DuPont, Pioneer, Bayer and others) has control of the Federal Laws and judges, they can use preemption to stop any local efforts at curbing their destructive actions.

What’s in the DARK Act?

Below are some excerpts from HR 1599 or the DARK Act:

“The premarket notification must include the developer’s determination that food from, containing, or consisting of the GMO (GMO food) is as safe as a comparable non-GMO food. For the GMO to be sold as food, the FDA must not object to the developer’s determination. If the FDA determines that there is a material difference between a GMO food and a comparable non-GMO food, the FDA can specify labeling that informs consumers of the difference.

A food label can only claim that a food is non-GMO if the ingredients are subject to certain supply chain process controls. No food label can suggest that non-GMO foods are safer than GMO foods. A food can be labeled as non-GMO even if it is produced with a GMO processing aid or enzyme or derived from animals fed GMO feed or given GMO drugs.

The FDA must allow, but not require, GMO food to be labeled as GMO.

The FDA must regulate the use of “natural” on food labels.

This bill preempts state and local restrictions on GMOs or GMO food and labeling requirements for GMOs, GMO food, non-GMO food, or “natural” food.”

In plain English, what this is stating is that:

– GMO labeling will be voluntary not mandatory (the producer will write up “premarket notification” which the FDA can’t overrule);

– Producers can’t say organic or non-GMO food is safer;

– Food is non-GMO even if from animals given GMO food or GMO drugs;

– The FDA cannot require mandatory GMO labeling;

– The word “natural” still has no real meaning on labels, and can be used for pretty much any food, including GMO food;

– Due to preemption, no state or local government can pass restrictions on GMOs or GMO labeling.

Preemption Will Affect a Lot of States and Counties

It seems that preemption is going to affect a lot of lower governments. According to Common Dreams, the DARK Act will preempt “more than 130 existing local and state statutes, regulations and ordinances in 43 states and block any future similar oversight of GMOs”. It also notes that “in 2013 and 2014 more than 30 states introduced legislation to require GMO labeling, and Vermont, Connecticut and Maine recently passed GMO labeling laws”, as well as counties such as Jackson County in Oregon passing outright bans of GMO cultivation of crops.

Mandatory Vaccination but No Mandatory GMO Labeling?

When you go beyond the lies and propaganda of the Western MSM (mainstream media), you reach a point where you recognize the insanity of the system. We live in a world where the authorities are pushing mandatory vaccination but refuse to enforce mandatory GMO labeling – despite the fact the GMOs are creations of chemical companies (Big Biotech) in order to sell more poisonous chemicals. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the herbicide glyphosate (main ingredient of Monsanto’s RoundUp) as a probable human carcinogen and 2,4 D (from Dow) as a possible human carcinogen. GMOs are soaked with carcinogenic chemicals, yet we are not even allowed to know which foods contain them, or take local action to stop Big Biotech from planting them and spraying them in our towns!

Such an outrageous situation can only continue for so long before it erupts into a full-on rebellion. The conditions in the US right now are pre-revolution conditions. Let’s hope activists can find a peaceful way to go forward. Perhaps we can all recall the example of Belgium in 2011, where pure food activists pulled up GM fields, and even replaced the trial GM potato crops with organic potatoes! Where there’s a peaceful will there’s a peaceful way …

 

Sources:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1599

http://www.environmentallawstrategy.com/2015/07/maui-gmo-ban-overturned-federal-court-remains-consistent-on-preemption-analysis/

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2015/07/24/house-votes-keep-americans-dark-food-passes-industrys-dark-act

https://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/05/29/belgian-protesters-destroy-gm-field-trial/


Makia Freeman is the editor of The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of the global conspiracy, from vaccines to Zionism to false flag operations and more, and also including info on natural health, sovereignty and higher consciousness.

Anti-GMO But Pro-Vaccine?

anti_gmo_vaccine

The truth is that the GMO and vaccine agendas are the same; only, activists appear to think there is a difference.

Few things are as disturbing to me as the divide that exists between the GMO and vaccine awareness movements. If you look closely you’ll see the exact same concerns: the violation of informed consent, the neglect of the precautionary principle, predominance of industry propaganda over actual science, the revolving door between government regulators and legislators and industry, and the undermining of the fundamental right of bodily self-possession, the keystone of health freedom. And yet, these two groups behave as if they are fighting their own separate battles, with the end result that they usually are.

Non-GMO Blindspot

There are numerous examples of how these movements are lost without one another. For instance, the non-GMOs movement adamantly supports organic production methods, correct? But if you look at big players, such as Organic Valley and Horizon Organic, both openly utilize vaccines in their veterinary care practices, some of which either contain genetically modified components, adventitious retroviruses that alter host DNA sequences and/or expression, or utilize pathogens which have been genetically altered in a way that may result in altered genetic expression in the vaccinated animal and/or those who consume these animal products. These obviously non-organic practices and/or consequences to the consumer are perfectly legal: the USDA Organic standards not only permit vaccination, but consider it the only pharmaceutical product that should be administered to cows in the absence of obvious disease. Clearly, what is legal is not always right. Many companies are perfectly happy milking the muti-billion dollar organic market at the expense of haplessly loyal consumers who buy “organic-washed” products.

Even the Non-GMO Project, which while performing a valuable service of independently certifying foods as non-GMO, also generates a false sense of consumer security because many of these non-GMO foods still contain pesticides, and in the case of “non-GMO” oats, agrochemicals like glyphosate (Roundup). This is because non-GMO certification is radically different from USDA organic certification. And what really needs to happen is that non-GMO products must also be verified to be clear of common GM agrochemicals like glyphosate and its metabolite byproducts (AMPA).

The goal is to be assured we aren’t being poisoned by our food, is it not? 

If so, the non-GMO movement needs to shift its focus to a deeper appreciation and criticism of the institutional/systemic problems that subtend the relatively myopic fixation on GMO labeling initiatives to broader concerns with environmental destruction and widespread toxicant exposures that come with modern food production methods.

GMOs in Vaccines?

And then there is a topic few on the non-GMO side seem to want to tackle head on: the present-day vaccine schedule contains a wide range of genetically modified ingredients that are being injected directly into the most vulnerable infants and children in our population. The HPV vaccine, for instance, which is comprised of a genetically modified form of yeast containing HPV-like antigens, has the worst adverse reports events (some lethal) on record.  Mind you, it has never once been proven to prevent a single case of cervical cancer because proxy markers for efficacy and not clinical proof were all the FDA required for its approval. Where is the non-GMO uproar about this? How do the most vulnerable and victimized populations benefit from the non-GMO and non-vaccine movements turning away from one another, or claiming that the explosion of autism diagnoses is only caused by either GMO foods or vaccines, not both, which is the more obvious likelihood?

Even the rage against Monsanto, widely considered “the world’s most evil corporation,” may constitute a diversionary tactic against the increasing number of activists in need of a suitable, socially sanctioned object of catharsis. Millions marched against Monsanto, but how many were aware that Monsanto is owned by an even larger corporation, Pfizer, who has been expanding its vaccine portfolio and influence on vaccine legislation while the public eye has been largely focused on labeling GMOs. [1]:

Former Monsanto is today known as Pharmacia LLC. Pharmacia is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer Inc., which operates the Pharmaceutical business.” [Source: Monsanto: Who We Are]

But you can’t just blame one or two companies for the increasingly bleak picture. The direction of technological science, unguided by internal ethical principles or external regulatory controls, is towards the complete convergence of the vaccine and GMO agendas in a way that precludes informed consent and any vestige of consumer/patient choice. This abstract provides insight into what I mean:

J Biosci Bioeng. 2014 Oct;118(4):441-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2014.04.004. Epub 2014 May 1.

Stable accumulation of seed storage proteins containing vaccine peptides in transgenic soybean seeds.

Maruyama N1, Fujiwara K2, Yokoyama K2, Cabanos C2, Hasegawa H3, Takagi K4, Nishizawa K5, Uki Y2, Kawarabayashi T6, Shouji M6, Ishimoto M4, Terakawa T3.

Abstract

There has been a significant increase in the use of transgenic plants for the large-scale production of pharmaceuticals and industrial proteins. Here, we report the stable accumulation of seed storage proteins containing disease vaccine peptides in transgenic soybean seeds. To synthesize vaccine peptides in soybean seeds, we used seed storage proteins as a carrier and a soybean breeding line lacking major seed storage proteins as a host.Vaccine peptides were inserted into the flexible disordered regions in the A1aB1b subunit three-dimensional structure. The A1aB1b subunit containing vaccine peptides in the disordered regions were sorted to the protein storage vacuoles where vaccine peptides are partially cleaved by proteases. In contrast, the endoplasmic reticulum (ER)-retention type of the A1aB1b subunit containing vaccine peptides accumulated in compartments that originated from the ER as an intact pro-form. These results indicate that the ER may be an organelle suitable for the stable accumulation of bioactive peptides using seed storage proteins as carriers.

Above, a genetically modified soy bean (transgenic soy) has been engineered to express proteins that would be used to produce a vaccine against pathological brain structures found in Alzheimer’s disease. Not an isolated case, there is a wide range of research now on the development of vaccines using plants and animals (bioreactors) to produce biological products, including half human (chimeric) proteins to be used in medicine. Some of these vaccines are intended to be edible. What could possibly go wrong with such GMOs?  Consider that biopollution with transgenes are forever, and that if the species containing the transgenes produces pollen, it could “biorape” non-GMO plants, converting them into GM vaccine-antigen producing plants. This is not science fiction, rather, a logical inevitability once these organisms are created and released into the biosphere.

Is not the underlying concept of GMO-produced edible vaccines the perfect illustration of our point: the two movements need to acknowledge they face the same adversaries. The GMO and vaccine agendas are essentially the same, with the same controllers and the same intention of forced implementation, especially if we fail to act together.

Genetically Engineering Ourselves: DNA Vaccines

But there is an even more salient example of the merger of these two agendas: DNA vaccines. This is the next iteration of the vaccine agenda: infecting host cells with transgenes that will take over and cause infected cells to produce vaccine antigen within your body.  How healthy does this sound? This is what I would call a prime example of applied transhumanism.

While millions now fight for the right to label their breakfast cereals or Starbucks latte’s GMO or non-GMO, the other side of the same massive, global biotech industry is developing technology to genetically modify YOU and your children. Which is scarier? Which is more relevant? And why is the non-GMO movement not joining forces with the non-Vaccine movement, which is up against a tidal wave of legislation to effectively make compliance with all present and future vaccine recommendations mandatory (and there are over 140 in development!). California was lost to this carefully architected human rights monstrosity, and now the dominos are set to fall all over the country, including the state you live in.

This is a dismal picture, but there are signs that leaders in the movement are waking up to the necessity of collaboration, and are keen to the fact that the exact same controllers – individuals, corporations and governments — are orchestrating both the pro-GM and pro-vaccine agendas, and benefiting profoundly by fragmenting us.

Perhaps next time you are thinking about ousting GMOs by “voting with your fork,” you would be well served to consider with equal vehemence that removal of exemptions against GMO-containing vaccines is worse than “forced feeding.”


[1] https://www.pfizer.com/system/files/presentation/ProxyStatement2015.pdf


Article Contributed by Sayer Ji, Founder of GreenMedInfo.com.

Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the National Health Federation. He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is internationally recognized as the largest and most widely referenced health resource of its kind.

Formaldehyde In GMO Soy?

gmo_soy_accumulates_formaldehyde_greenmedinfo_com

When the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) wrongfully declared GMOs “substantially equivalent” to non-GMO foods, the agency set the table for decades of corruption. Corruption of our food supply. Corruption of our health. Corruption of our Democracy.

Now, along comes a new study, published in the peer-reviewed Agricultural Sciences, that says GMO crops, or at least GMO soy crops, are absolutely not substantially equivalent to non-GMO soy crops.

From a press release:

The study, led by Dr. V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai, Ph.D., an MIT-trained systems biologist, utilizes his latest invention, CytoSolve, a 21st century systems biology method to integrate 6,497 in vitro and in vivolaboratory experiments, from 184 scientific institutions, across 23 countries, to discover the accumulation of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, and a dramatic depletion of glutathione, an anti-oxidant necessary for cellular detoxification, in GMO soy, indicating that formaldehyde and glutathione are likely critical criteria for distinguishing the GMO from its non-GMO counterpart.

More than 90 percent of all U.S. soy crops are GMO. Soy is commonly found in a long list of foods.

The biotech industry was founded on bad science and great public relations. For the most thorough history of how Monsanto has corrupted our food and our government, read Steven Druker’s, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government and Systematically Deceived the Public.

Learn more

Lying Through Their Teeth!

monsanto

In yet another blatant show of support for Monsanto, members of the U.S House Committee on Agriculture signed off on a bill intended to permanently shut down the GMO labeling movement.

The Committee took only 17 minutes to push H.R. 1599 toward a full House vote, expected to take place early next week. Members justified their votes on the basis of lies. Official statements issued by Committee Chairman Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Texas) and Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) were disingenuously crafted to make consumers think the purpose of this bill, the “Mother of All Monsanto Protection Acts,” is to give consumers what they want—labels on foods containing GMOs.

From Peterson’s statement:

Consumers increasingly want to know more about where their food comes from and how it is produced. I think H.R. 1599 satisfies that demand while also recognizing what we know about the safety of the foods that our farmers produce.

H.R. 1599 doesn’t come close to satisfying consumer demand for labeling. It creates the framework for a government-run voluntary labeling scheme, while shutting down states’ rights to require mandatory labeling. Who in their right mind believes that corporations that spent hundreds of millions of dollars to keep labels off their GMO foods are suddenly going to voluntarily label them after this bill passes?

Conaway’s and Peterson’s statements perpetuated the lie that GMOs have been thoroughly tested and proven safe. And the issue of Monsanto’s glyphosate, the toxic chemical used on more than 80 percent of GMO foods, being officially classified as probably cancerous to humans? Barely mentioned.

Read the blog post

New Yorkers Outraged After GMO Moths Released

diamond-back-moth-644x363

Environmental, advocacy and organic farming organizations have sent a letter Thursday to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Agriculture Commissioner Richard Ball along with Cornell University President David Skorton and Agricultural School Associate Dean Susan Brown, urging them to release information to the public about the field release of genetically engineered (GE) diamondback moths at Cornell’s agricultural experiment station in Geneva, New York and to stop any outdoor trials until more adequate information is available.

In September 2014 several of the organizations commented on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed field release of Oxitec’s GE diamondback moths at Cornell University. The agency did not contact the organizations to address their myriad concerns, and months later, the groups found out through a separate correspondence with the USDA that the GE moth permit had been quietly approved with no press release or other public notification.

“This release of genetically engineered autocidal moths is the first of its kind in the United States and it sets a very poor precedent that they were released with minimal environmental review and transparency,” said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. “The USDA’s irresponsible management of this genetically engineered insect is putting the environment and agriculture at risk.”

“Proposals to release GE moths in England were halted in 2012 amid concerns about the risk assessment. Many issues that would be closely studied before the moths were released in Europe have not yet been considered in the USA,” said Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch UK. “Consumers and farmers deserve much better information about GE insects that could end up in the food chain.”

“The USDA took comments on whether this first genetically engineered insect should be released for field trials and then without responding to our comments approved the trials without public notice,” said Jaydee Hanson, Senior Policy Analyst at Center for Food Safety. “The first use of GE insects in an agricultural setting should have required public consultations with potentially affected parties, as well as, trials in physically enclosed spaces before even considering open field trials. This violates one of the basic principles of biosafety for genetically engineered organisms—that they should be physically constrained in trials, not openly released.”

The mechanism for these GE moths to control population levels is for offspring to die in the larval stage. The larval moths will die on plants, including crops such as broccoli and cabbage. In its assessment, the USDA failed to recognize that if farms near the field trial sites happen to be certified organic or non-GE, their certification could be lost if these larval stage GE moths were present because genetic engineering, even for pest control, is prohibited. With no prior public information, accidental escapes and contamination would be a significant issue for proximate fields.

“The USDA has dropped the ball by approving this field trial without a thorough review and without notifying New York’s organic farmers. The loss of certification would be a major economic problem for these operations, threatening future earnings from their crops and wiping out a major investment of time and money to get the certification,” said Anne Ruflin, Executive Director of the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York. “If GE contamination occurs, it has the potential to not only permanently damage long-standing partnerships with organic buyers but also to destroy an organic farmer’s livelihood and standing in the community.”

“The maker of these moths, Oxitec, has had a long track record of conducting GE insect field trials throughout the world without proper notification of the public and now they have brought their model to the United States,” said Lisa Archer, Friends of the Earth Food & Technology Program Director. “The USDA and Cornell must put a stop to this activity and ensure that these insects have been thoroughly reviewed before they are released into the wild.”

Read the letter here: fwwat.ch/1FIVQid

Contact:

Kate Fried, Food & Water Watch, kfried(at)fwwatch(dot)org

Abigail Seiler, Center for Food Safety, aseiler(at)centerforfoodsafety(dot)org

Anne Ruflin, Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, Anne(at)nofany(dot)org

Helen Wallace, GeneWatch UK

Source: Sustainable Pulse

DARK Days Ahead?

dark days

Today, at 10 a.m., Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) and their band of pro-GMO, anti-consumer, stomp-all-over-states’-rights outlaws will stand before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health and ask the Committee to support H.R. 1599.

We’ve been calling H.R. 1599 the DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, because that’s what the bill is intended to do—keep you in the dark about the toxic chemical-drenched GMOs in your food.

But that’s only half the story. Since Pompeo introduced his bill-to-kill GMO labeling laws earlier this year, he’s been tinkering with the language. Now, the latest version of the DARK Act is even darker than the original.

In fact, if you thought the Monsanto Protection Act was bad (and it was), the new-and-improved DARK Act is the Mother of all Monsanto Protection Acts.

In addition to preempting states’ rights to label GMOs, the latest iteration of H.R. 1599 will wipe out all state and local laws that regulate the growing of GMO crops—laws like the one passed in May 2014, Jackson County, Ore.—and weaken federal oversight of GMO crops and foods.

What can you do? Call Congress today, ask your Representatives and Senators to oppose H.R. 1599. Then, check our list of meetings and rallies being held at district offices around the country. OCA has been working with constituents in key districts to schedule these meetings, and get press coverage.

We still need volunteers to help organize meetings in the following districts: Kentucky: Guthrie, Whitfield; Texas -Burgess, Barton, Green; Tennessee – Blackburn; Washingon – Rodgers; Missouri – Long; North Carolina – Ellmers, Butterfield; Indiana – Brooks; New York -Collins; Michigan – Upton; Oregon – Schrader; California – Cardenas.

Today’s hearing is just the first step. We need to continue to meet with members of Congress in their home district offices to make it clear that voters and consumers want Congress to oppose this law. If you can help, email [email protected].

TAKE ACTION: Call Congress TODAY! 202-224-3121 (Tips for calling)

Join a district meeting or rally

Organize a district meeting or rally

 

Truvia’s Sweet Scam: Highly Processed, GMO, And Contains Hardly Any Stevia (VIDEO)

Truvias-sweet-deception

If you’re one of the people who was excited when the “natural” sweetener that was allegedly made from the stevia plant became more commonly available, I’m afraid I have some bad news for you.

All of that hype about the “new” zero-calorie Truvia? All the talk about how natural it is? That’s just not true.

Incidentally, while the FDA has approved this bastardization of stevia, the actual leaf, where the active chemicals are found, is banned from sale as a food additive or sweetener and may only be sold as an “herbal supplement.”

The Big Food/Big Agri Connection

There’s a direct connection to Big Agri – Cargill, a privately held, multi-billion dollar corporation, was the driving force behind getting FDA approval of the sweetener, despite evidence that it might not actually be safe in its processed form. Cargill is also a major player in the meat industry (with all of its unspeakable feedlot horrors) and has been subject to numerous food safety recalls over the past few years due to contaminated meat. Cargill, that bastion of food safety, was the driving force behind the FDA’s decision to switch the status of stevia from a “supplement” to a food that is “generally recognized as safe”.

Cargill wasn’t alone, however. Big Food joined forces, since diet soda sales have plummeted over the past 10 years. According to the Wall Street Journal, the sale of low-calorie soft drinks has declined by billions per year over the past decade, as consumers became aware of the potential risks of neurotoxic artificial sweeteners.

So, to combat those health concerns, Coca Cola produced Truvia and Pepsi produced PureVia. Now, I don’t know about you, but I can’t consume anything produced by either of those companies (both Coke and Pepsi lobbied fiercely against the labeling of GMOs) and delude myself into believing the product is healthy.

Decades ago, diet sodas were touted as a healthy way to have a refreshing beverage without expanding your waistline. Unfortunately, the zero-calorie beverages were anything but healthy, and many people have suffered ill effects from the consumption of those drinks. Even corporate-funded Fox News was forced to admit that diet sodas were detrimental to human health.

Enter Truvia, the cure for all of those diet soda ills. Because, it’s natural!

Truvia is the second best-selling sugar substitute in the United States, most likely because the deceptive marketing is targeted at those who want to make healthier, less artificial choices. Remember how last week we discussed that Big Food isn’t making very much money? This is just the next volley of propaganda in which Big Food attempts to deceive the public into believing their processed food-like substances are actually food. Sales of Truvia in 2014 exceeded $400 million.

But…Truvia is not actually “natural”

Not so fast. While it’s true that the powdered stevia you get in the little packets is in part derived from a plant grown in Paraguay, it isn’t just the plant you’re getting. If it was just a powdered up plant, Coca Cola and Cargill wouldn’t be able to hold the patents to make it, right?

Traditionally, a leaf from the stevia plant was dropped into a hot beverage to steep and lend its sweetness. But the current product that’s being touted for its “natural sweetness” is a far cry from a leaf from the garden. (Despite how Cargill glosses over the heavy processing on the Truvia website.) In fact, Cargill had to settle a civil lawsuit a few years back because of their claims that the product was natural. The lawsuit forced them to put millions of dollars aside to settle future claims and they were required to put an asterisk on their tagline “Nature’s calorie-free sweetener.”

Nor is it actually mostly stevia…it’s mostly derived from GMO corn

Truvia is actually made mostly of erythritol, a sugar alcohol derived from genetically modified corn. Only 5% of the compound is actually derived from the stevia plant.

Despite the fact that erythritol is made from corn, and most corn is GMO, the Truvia website provides the strangest dance of denial I’ve witnessed in quite some time. They seem to feel that since it’s just derived from corn, then processed like crazy, that the origin of the corn has no bearing on the end product.  Here’s what the website says, which sure sounds to me like GMO corn is used:

Does Truvía® natural sweetener contain GMO? Is it genetically modified? [Link]

No. Truvía® natural sweetener is not GMO, and does not contain any genetically modified ingredients. There are no known varieties of genetically modified stevia available anywhere in the world. The carrier for the intensely sweet stevia leaf extract is called erythritol. The erythritol used in Truvía® natural sweetener is produced by a yeast organism that is found in nature. The yeast ferments or digests dextrose and other nutrients. In other words, dextrose is the food for the yeast – much like corn may be food for a cow that produces meat or milk. The dextrose used as the feedstock for the yeast is a simple sugar that is derived from the starch component of U.S.-grown corn. Although genetically enhanced corn and non-transgenic corn are grown in the U.S. today, erythritol is not derived from corn and dextrose feedstock (just as milk is not derived from cattle feed); it is derived from the yeast organism. Erythritol is not genetically modified, and does not contain any genetically modified proteins.

Do you use GMO corn to produce the erythritol used in Truvía® natural sweetener? [Link]

The erythritol used in Truvía® natural sweetener is produced by a yeast organism that is found in nature. The yeast “ferments” or “digests” dextrose and other nutrients. Dextrose is the food for the yeast – much like corn may be food for a cow that produces meat or milk. The dextrose is derived from the starch component of U.S.-grown corn. Both GM corn and non-GM corn are grown in the U.S. today. Cargill does not segregate the corn used to manufacture the dextrose used in the erythritol process.

Why is Truvía® natural sweetener non-GMO if you use GMO corn? [Link]

Erythritol is not made from corn or dextrose (just as milk is not made from cattle feed); erythritol is made from a yeast organism that eats the dextrose for food. Erythritol itself is not derived from a genetically modified source, and does not contain any genetically modified proteins.

Pardon me, but I sincerely doubt that Truvia is manufactured from the mere 12% of corn in the United States that is not GMO.

Here’s how Truvia is made

Truvia contains 3 ingredients: Erythritol, Rebiana, and natural flavors.

Erythritol

We talked about erythritol and it’s genetically modified origins above. This ingredient makes up 95-99% of the “natural sweetener.” Straight from the Cargill website, here’s how erythritol is made:

Erythritol is the first polyol to be manufactured on a commercial scale by a fermentation process. The starting material is a simple sugar-rich substrate which is fermented by a yeast like fungus to yield erythritol.

The product is then crystallized to 99.5 percent purity from the filtered and concentrated fermentation broth.

erythritol

Rebiana

Rebiana (chemical name rebaudioside A)  makes up less than 1% of the little packet. Rebiana (also called Reb-A) is a substance that is derived from the stevia leaf, but is not actually stevia. Although Truvia’s website says that Rebiana is retrieved from the stevia leaf by soaking it in water, the patent held by Coca Cola divulges that it actually takes 40 steps (!!!) to extract the desired molecule, steps that include the use of yummy stuff like acetone, methanol, ethanol, acetonitrile, and isopropanol.

Natural Flavoring

If you’ve been paying attention, you know that the term “natural flavoring” is so broad as to be without definition. Even MSG can be considered “natural” according to some, since it originates,far far back in the process, from yeast. Other types of natural additives are repugnant, so they hide the real origins behind that much-abused word, natural. (Read Natural Additives: Bugs, Hair, and Anal Secretions, Oh My for the full story on that meaningless ingredient listing.)So, really, this third ingredient could be anything.

A Dishonorable Mention Goes to Stevia in the Raw

Another deceptive product on the stevia bandwagon is Stevia in the Raw. It’s also not really stevia -it’s primary ingredients are dextrose and maltodextrin, both derived from corn, and both likely to be genetically modified. As well, maltodextrin often contains MSG, which doesn’t have to be disclosed in the ingredients list.

Incidentally, stevia may reduce fertility

While we’re on this subject, stevia alone may not be great for reproductive health. Women in South America use the herb to decrease the likelihood of conception. Check out this video on the topic.

The Conclusion? Truvia is NOT Stevia

Here’s the long and the short of it: if you have a sweet tooth, you simply have to understand that sweet things have calories. Whether you decide to consume things that are sweet is entirely up to you, but a non-harmful, no-calorie sweetener is simply the stuff of fairy tales. Little packets of sweet substances without calories are, without exception, highly processed and often very harmful.

If you want to sweeten a beverage with stevia, your very best bet is to make like the folks in Paraguay and steep a leaf of it in your beverage.(You can get organic stevia leaves HERE, or you can grow it yourself.) The second best option is a pure extract like this one.

Truvia, for all its gushing propaganda, contains less than 5% of anything even derived from the stevia plant, much less actual stevia.


Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor who lives in a small village in the Pacific Northwestern area of the United States. She is the author of The Pantry Primer: How to Build a One Year Food Supply in Three Months. On her website, The Organic Prepper, Daisy writes about healthy prepping, homesteading adventures, and the pursuit of liberty and food freedom. Daisy is a co-founder of the website Nutritional Anarchy, which focuses on resistance through food self-sufficiency. Daisy’s articles are widely republished throughout alternative media. You can follow her on Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter, and you can email her at [email protected]

“Non-GMO” Cheerios Oats Still Sprayed With Roundup, Supplier Announces

cheerios_oats_roundup_contamination

General Mills Cheerios may now be “non-GMO” but it is virtually guaranteed to contain Roundup herbicide residues, as disclosed by North America’s largest oat supplier. 

While there are no genetically modified oats on the marketplace today, non-organic oats might as well be labeled Roundup Ready (RR). This is because it is common practice to spray them with Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate, putting them in the same category of glyphosate contaminated crops which includes RR GM soy, corn and canola.

Why must oats be sprayed? Known as pre-harvest desiccation, glyphosate is sprayed on oat crops right before their harvest, ostensibly to increase product uniformity and yield, and to save time in harvesting.

A report on Washingtonsblog.com explains how Monsanto funded research, which is notoriously biased, is behind this practice:

“Specifically, Monsanto International published a paper in 2010 touting the application of Roundup to kill crops right before harvest, in order to dry out the crops in advance and produce a more uniform and earlier harvest (starting on page 28):

“Uneven maturity and green tissue delays harvest. Spraying glyphosate desiccates green foliage & stems. The photograph (below left) shows the uniform dessication of sunflower by the use of glyphosate(Roundup Bioaktiv) applied by helicopter in Hungary (Czepó, 2009a). The photograph (below right) shows complete foliar desiccation of grain maize on the right side 14 days after application of glyphosate (Roundup Bioaktiv) at 0.54kg ae/ ha in 7 0L/ ha applied by helicopter using Reglojet nozzles and including Bandrift Plus at 0.1 % at 34% grain moisture in Hungary, with the untreated visible on the left-hand side.”

Assuming pre-harvest desiccation actually works as Monsanto claims, it should result in lower drying costs, an earlier harvest, and ultimately higher profit. But what is not figured in is the cost to the consumer who is already faced with widespread exposure to a chemical that has already been found in most the water, air, rain samples tested and which may retain serious toxicity at concentrations in as low as parts-per-trillion range?

Most people today consider Roundup herbicide exposure to be a problem linked solely to GMO foods, and not oats. This misperception has been a convenient fact for the non-GMO sector of Big Agra, which continues to use a wide range of highly toxic agrochemicals in food and feed crops that can still legally be described and/or labeled as non-GMO.

But the industry is beginning to be forced to respond to both a powerful shift in consumer awareness and demand in favor of organically produced, non-GMO oat products, as well as to a WHO report released last March that identified glyphosate to be a ‘probable carcinogen.’

Cheerios-Removes-App-During-Fury-of-Anti-GMO-Backlash

Did General Mills’ Move Towards “non-GMO” Cheerios Distract From the Roundup Problem?

When General Mills announced Cheerios would go non-GMO, the decision was received with some skepticism by those who quickly pointed out the fact that GMO oats don’t exist and Cheerios, for the most part, was already a non-GMO product.  One writer for Modern Farmer addressed the deceptive tactic:

General Mills’ decision to stop using genetically modified organisms to make Cheerios (and, more to the point, its decision to brag about it on cereal boxes) was relatively easy: there’s no such thing as genetically modified oats.

While General Mills decision to switch Cheerios to non-GMO sugarcane sugar could be considered a positive step forward, it effectively distracts from the fact that General Mills’ oat products are contaminated with glyphosate due to the use of raw material that underwent post-harvest desiccation. How do we know this? Because North America’s largest oat supplier, known to supply General Mills, Kraft, Kellogg, On Agra Foods, and others, just announced it will continue to buy oats that are sprayed with glyphosate.

Richardson Milling Supports Roundup Contaminated Oats; Grain Millers Phases Them Out

In a disturbing announcement, the Canada-based oat supplier Richardson Milling – North America’s largest supplier of oats – says glyphosate dessication is acceptable for its oats and that it has no intention of changing its policies.  This decision flies in the face of an accumulating body of scientific evidence that shows glyphostate has a wide range of harmful properties, including possible carcinogenicity, which is now supported by the World Health Organization’s own assessment. We can only assume that downstream manufacturers such as General Millers are in tacit agreement with their suppliers decision, despite their public bragging about taking some of their cherished cereal brands “GMO free.”

Other oat suppliers, such as Grain Millers, are taking a more precautionary step. Grain Millers, based in Minnessota, announced two months ago that they will no longer buy oats if the crop has been treated with glyphosate pre-harvest. Notably, they reported quality problems in glyphosate treated oats, such as reduced beta glucan content. Beta glucan is a soluble fiber which has been linked to a wide range of health benefits, such as improved blood lipid profiles, cardiovascular protection, and strengthening the immune system. In fact, the reason why food manufacturers are able to place a “Healthy Heart” claim on oat-based products is due to the beta glucan content.

A spokesperson for Grain Millers, Terry Tyson, was reported as stating that glyphosate interrupts the oat plant’s natural maturation process, which may decrease beta glucan content.  Tyson was quoted on Producer.com stating:

“Other factors can also adversely affect beta glucan levels, but our research demonstrates that premature application of glyphosate can have that effect.”

Clearly the issue with glyphosate extends beyond it simply reducing the levels of a beneficial plant compound. Glyphosate, even at exceedingly small concentration, poses a serious health risk. Because there is widespread focus on GMO labeling and not Roundup contamination labeling it is possible that people are being ‘gene-washed’ into buying non-GMO labeled products that still contain physiologically significant levels of Roundup herbicide.

Beyond “GMO-Free” Gene-Washing

The concern about glyphosate contamination of oats is highly instructive as we move towards mass acceptance of non-GMO labeling and/or certification initiatives which do not account for the widespread use of glyphosate in non-genetically modified products. Even USDA certified organic brands, such as Organic Valley and Horizon Organic Dairy, regularly use veterinary vaccines that contain genetically modified ingredients; an unethical practice we have termed “Organic-Washing.”

And so, because glyphosate is being used as an EPA approved, pre-harvest desiccant, it  is more likely to fly under the radar and not be identified as a highly toxic ‘pesticide’ contaminant, which it is. Nor do these certifications address other important food quality issues such as the presence of other pesticides in ostensibly non-GMO products or the common non-labeled use of irradiated ingredients.

I would urge consumers and health advocates to consider whether the term non-GMO is as relevant as it would first appear. For instance, labeling water “Gluten Free” is factually true, but a highly disingenuous form of consumer manipulation.  Consumers don’t just want to know their food does not contain transgenes from other species and their associated novel proteins. They want to know that their food is not contaminated with agrochemicals commonly used in GM agriculture. And right now the non-GMO labeled products on the market are not doing an effective job at providing assurance of that.

Please follow the global Non-GMO Coalition and the Organic Consumers Association to learn more about how we can empower ourselves further on these issue.


Article Contributed by Sayer Ji, Founder of GreenMedInfo.com.

Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the National Health Federation. He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is internationally recognized as the largest and most widely referenced health resource of its kind.