Tag Archives: Genetically Modified
Clear evidence shows GMO foods and ingredients are inherently unsafe. Reliable independent studies prove it.
Claims otherwise are Big Lies. Scientifically conducted animal studies show major human health risks from GMO products – including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, gastrointestinal abnormalities, and major organ changes.
Monsanto and other GMO producers spend millions of dollars burying hard evidence – including funding scientists, journalists and others on the take to lie for hard cash.
Americans don’t know what they’re eating. Labeling is prohibited.
Most foods and ingredients they ingest are GMO tainted – slow poison harming their health.
Congress lets these products go unregulated. Bipartisan support approves poisoning the nation’s food supply.
NYT editors are in lockstep with Monsanto and other biotech giants. They outrageously claim “no reliable evidence (proving) genetically modified foods now on the market pose any risk to consumers.”
They cite the corporate controlled FDA as its source. They claim “little reason to make labeling compulsory.”
Concerned consumers can buy organic products, they say. They ignore obvious issues.
Why hasn’t Washington mandated proved safe foods and ingredients? Why aren’t hazardous GMOs and dangerous chemicals banned.
America’s food supply isn’t safe to eat. Federal, state and local governments do nothing to change things.
Nor editors in the tank for money and power. Times editors gave feature op-ed space to Mark Lynas – an industry funded supporter through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – a known promoter of GMO products.
When asked the source of his funding, Lynas claims the Gates supported African Agricultural Technology Foundation provides it.
On April 24, he headlined his Times op-ed “How I Got Converted to GMO Foods.” He ignored how well paid he’s been to promote them.
He touted the alleged success of pest-resistant eggplant “supplied by the government-run Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute.”
He claimed productivity doubled. He ignored how it declines the longer GMO seeds are planted – or the toxic products they produce.
He claims farmers like Mohammed Rahman look forward to lifting his family out of poverty.
He nonsensically says he’s improving environmental conditions at the same time.
How one issue relates to the other. Activists want his GMO eggplant banned. It’s unsafe for human health. Not according to Lynas.
“I, too, was once in that activist camp,” he says. “I a lifelong environmentalist, I was opposed to genetically modified foods in the past.”
“Then I changed my mind. I decided I could no longer continue taking a pro-science position on on global warming and an anti-science position on GMOs.”He lied calling GMOs safe to human health.
“As someone who participated in the early anti-GMO movement, I feel I owe a debt to Mr. Rahman and other farmers in developing countries who could benefit from this technology,” he says.
“At Cornell, I am working to amplify the voices of farmers and scientists in a more informed conversation about what biotechnology can bring to food security and environmental protection.”
“We need this technology,” he insists. “We must not let the green movement stand in the way.”
It bears repeating. Independently conducted studies free from industry influence and pressure show GMO foods and ingredients harm human health.
The debate is over. It’s up everyone who eats to demand governments assure what they ingest is safe – that all harmful foods and ingredients are banned.
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.
Welcome to GMO Australia! While you’re there, welcome to Vaccine Australia too!
Australia, a Western democratic nation with a very high standard of living, prides itself on being “the lucky country”, on giving people a “fair go” and above all being free. Those ideals, however, need to be seriously called into question after recent events down under which have shown the shocking extent to which Australia is being controlled and overrun by corporate interests, especially those pushing GMOs (Big Biotech companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, DuPont, BASF and Bayer) and vaccines (Big Pharma companies such as GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Pfizer, Eli Lily, Bayer, Novartis, Sanofi, Roche, etc.). Such events make you wonder whether Australia is going to become “GMO Australia” or “Vaccine Australia” and what is going to happen to the standard of living for Australian citizens, if the nation continues to go down a path of condoning genetic contamination and ushering in mandatory vaccination.
The recent case between 2 Australian farmers in Western Australia has garnered international attention. Steve Marsh and Michael Baxter had been friends since their school days, and both went into farming. Baxter decided to grow GMO canola which, inevitably as GM crops do, blew into Marsh’s field, which was certified organic. The resulting genetic contamination of his crops meant that Marsh was stripped of his certification, and thus his livelihood and income. The case has caused a huge division in Australia, and recently, in an atrociously corporate decision, the judge ruled that Marsh was to pay Baxter for his losses.
Baxter, by the way, was being funded by Monsanto, who was forced to admit that it financially supported his legal defense. This gives you an idea of how desperate Big Biotech is to influence the laws and judges’ decisions all over the world. Monsanto is prepared to pay out big bucks to ensure GMO Australia exists.
Yes, it is sad that this case has divided the community so much, but the implications go beyond that. What this effectively means is that anyone not using GM seeds is vulnerable and susceptible to getting their organic crops contaminated – and then sued on top of it! Organic farmers don’t even want GM seeds in their fields. Since there is no real way to stop open-air pollination and genetic contamination, how is this not in effect a takeover of the world’s food supply by Big Biotech?
Western Medicine Violating its Own Code of Ethics
“With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage. Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so.”
“Approach health care as a collaboration between doctor and patient.”
Australia Also Eliminating Right to Free Speech Around Vaccines
Australia: Forging Ahead with the New World Order?
North or South, East or West: The Conspiracy is Unfolding Worldwide
A Message to Australians: Wake Up While You Still Can
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.
By: Sam Cho | Organic Lesson –
When I bought seeds for the first time, I did not know what the difference was between heirloom, hybrid, and GMO. If you are in the same boat as I used to be then check out the infographic below to learn what the main differences are. Feel free to use the embed code below if you want to share it on your website or blog.
Source: Organic Lesson
What is Heirloom?
Heirloom seeds come from open-pollinated plants that pass on similar characteristics and traits from the parent plant to the child plant. There is no concrete definition that every gardener uses to define heirloom plants. Some people state that heirloom plants are those that were introduced before 1951, while others state that heirloom varieties are those introduced before the 1920s. In general, you should consider heirlooms to be seeds that are possible to regrow and pass on from one generation to the next.
One important thing to note for heirloom plants is whether they are organic or non-organic. In most cases, heirloom plants are organic because they are generally only used by small-scale gardeners who do not use pesticide or other harmful chemicals. However, there may be minor cases when chemicals do get involved since heirloom plants do not always have a similar level of innate protection that hybrid and GMO plants provide against diseases and pests. Remember, heirloom refers to the heritage of a plant, while organic refers to a growing practice. They are two different things.
Heirloom vs. Hybrid vs. GMO
There are some distinct differences that one should be aware of when it comes to heirloom, hybrid, and GMO plants. First, heirloom plants are the only ones that breed true. As mentioned earlier, this means the same characteristics are passed on from generation to generation. The same cannot be said for hybrid and GMO. Hybrid plants are produced when different varieties of plants are cross-pollinated, which can happen with or without human intervention. Because there are different varieties of plants involved, it can’t be guaranteed that the offspring of hybrid plants produces identical traits as the parent plant.
Both heirloom and hybrid plants can be viewed as natural occurrences. GMO plants, on the other hand, can only be produced using unnatural methods such as gene splicing. Scientists essentially modify a seed’s DNA to ensure the resulting plant produces the desired traits and characteristics. A common example of a GMO plant is Bt-Corn.
Why Grow Heirloom Seeds
If hybrid and GMO seeds grow plants with useful traits, why should you grow heirloom plants instead? First, heirlooms are generally known to produce better taste and flavor. Heirloom fruits and vegetables are also known to be more nutritious. Last but not least, they are less expensive over the long haul. Heirloom plants may require a bit more care than their counterparts but the effort you put in will be worth it! Don’t forget that you would also be playing an important part in preserving the genetic diversity of plants by growing heirloom seeds. After all, how can hybrid seeds be produced without the existence of the original seeds?
Where to Find Heirloom Seeds
With the demand for heirloom seeds increasing, you will find that it isn’t as difficult as before to obtain them. There are certain places you might want to check out to get seeds locally. These places include: local farms, seed exchanges, and botanical gardens. How can you be sure that the seeds you are getting definitely came from heirloom plants? One thing you might want to look out for is the Safe Seed Pledge. Although it isn’t regulated, the Safe Seed Pledge is still a good sign that the company is only providing non-GMO products. Most of the well-known seed companies have already signed up for this pledge so look out for it on the seed company websites.
By: Jon Rappoport | NoMoreFakeNews.com –
Imagine you are a lawyer arguing a case before a judge. There is no jury. The judge will decide the outcome.
The judge tells you, “Look, the other side, your opponents in this case, have filed documents with me. These documents are at the heart of their argument. I can’t allow you to read the documents. I can only give you access to heavily redacted versions. You’ll have to do the best you can. I have read the full documents. Your opponents, of course, know every word of those documents. But you don’t. And you won’t. Good luck. Limp along as well as you can.”
That’s what we’re talking about here.
(The link to the document is located at the bottm of this article.)
During the temporary halt, a complete independent investigation would be done, to find out exactly how harmful the pesticides and GMOs were.
But the legal and binding vote was suspended, because Monsanto and Dow immediately sued.
The case is now hung up in Federal Court.
I’ve just learned that Monsanto filed documents “under seal,” to make its case in the proceeding now before Federal Judge Susan Oki Mollway.
Monsano requested the court make the documents secret, and the previous Judge, Barry Kurren, agreed to it.
Here, in legalese, is Kurren’s decision:
“ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL IN PART THE DECLARATIONS OF SAM EATHINGTON, JESSE STIEFEL, AND ADOLPH HELM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION re 13- Signed by Judge BARRY M. KURREN on 11/14/2014.
‘IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ ex parte application is GRANTED. Accordingly, the subject declarations shall be filed by the Court under seal, and redacted versions may be filed with the Plaintiffs’ Motion.’”
That means the lawyers for the voters of Maui can’t see those Monsanto documents. Not in full. They can only read redacted versions of Monsanto making its case for continued GMO/pesticide experiments on Maui—contravening the demands of Maui voters.
What kind of court is this?
Judge Mollway, who will decide the case, can read everything Monsanto offers in its defense, but the lawyers against Monsanto have no full access and, therefore, can’t argue their side from full knowledge.
This echoes of cases where prosecutors claim “national security” as an issue. In those instances, documents are either excluded as evidence, or only redacted versions are allowed in.
Is this what we’re dealing with here? Monsanto’s concerns have become, in a federal court, a matter of national security?
Below, you will see a link to one such redacted Monsanto document. You will see the many blacked out lines.
One section (no.7) states: “…Monsanto currently owns or leases approximately 784 acres of farmland on the island. Certain specific locations on Maui are uniquely suitable to multi-season/cycle breeding and research.” The next 14 lines of the section are blacked out.
It’s not much of a stretch to infer those 14 lines are blacked out to conceal Maui locations of Monsanto facilities. You mean the addresses and names of Monsanto stations and growing fields on Maui are a secret?
Suppose, in your city, in your region, a major corporation was carrying out, on a regular basis, experiments with new, non-commercial, toxic pesticide chemicals and genetically altered organic materials. And suppose you were told that the permanent facilities of that corporation in your region were located at secret sites. How would you feel about it?
Wouldn’t that raise significant suspicions in your mind? Wouldn’t you want to know exactly what was going on at each and every one of those facilities? And if you were denied that information, as well as the names and addresses of the locations, wouldn’t you infer the secrecy was covering up something harmful to you?
Whole sections of the Monsanto court document are blacked out (e.g., no. 8 and 9). What do they say? Only the Judge and Monsanto know. The lawyers representing the voters of Maui don’t have a clue.
Section 10 states: “The current [Monsanto] workforce in the County [of Maui] has been trained over many years at the precise pollination techniques required and to perform other specialized tasks.” The next two lines are blacked out. Why? Because Monsanto considers further explanation of what these workers do to be proprietary secrets? This is what the Maui voters want to know about, because they, the people of Maui, are on the receiving end of the secret wind-blown pesticide and GMO experiments.
Section 11 of the court document is quite strange. It states: “And the US Department of Agriculture [USDA] sets requirements for how regulated field trials of new GE [genetically engineered] crops must be conducted.” The next 12 lines are blacked out. Why? Are the USDA regulations themselves a secret? Is there something about these regulations Monsanto doesn’t want the public to know? The “field trials” are at the heart of what the people of Maui are objecting to. How toxic are the secret experimental pesticides? How dangerous to health are the secret experimental GMOs?
Section 13 mentions a corn-crop disease called Goss’s Wilt. Then, six lines are blacked out. Why? What is Monsanto hiding from the people of Maui?
How in the world can the lawyers representing the voters of Maui argue their case in federal court when all this information is being withheld from them? The answer: they can’t.
The lawyers representing the people of Maui should be filing new motions to declare this case an impossible travesty. Until the lawyers can read every word of the documents Monsanto has filed with the court, there is no case, there is no proceeding, there is only a con job, with Monsanto the preordained winner by default.
And until the alternative media covers the Monsanto-Maui case and blows it up into the scandal it is, there will be no chance of justice.
Here is a link to the Monsanto court document I’ve been referring to:
original article: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/revealed-a-secret-monsanto-document-in-the-maui-gmo-case/
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.
Genetically-modified food is one of the most controversial subjects today. Not only are regulations loose and manufacturers getting away with not labeling them, they’re being approved at an alarmingly swift rate without the appropriate long-term health assessment. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved of two GMO foods, potatoes and apples, as safe and equally nutritious as conventional varieties, and they’re pushing to get these items to a grocery store near you.
The Approval of GMO Foods Apples and Potatoes
The new approval is covering six varieties of potatoes and two varieties of apples.  The potatoes come from Idaho from the J. R. Simplot Co., and the apples come from Canadian company Okanagan Specialty Fruits, Inc. Fortunately for the health food movement, McDonald’s, a long-time client of J. R. Simplot Co., is no longer purchasing from the company, opting out of using GMO potatoes for its food.
ConAgra is another big-name company that supplies potatoes for restaurants all across the world, and it is also in line with consumer demand for non-GMO potato varieties. While french fries and hash browns are certainly not health fare, it does go to show how companies listen and respond to the desires of consumers. In order to keep up the fight against GMOs and keep them out of our food supply, we need to continue advocating for labeling laws that will help us, as consumers, differentiate between natural food and Frankenfood.
What You Can Do
Along with contacting the FDA and urging them to look into labeling laws, there are a few things you can do to get the ball moving. Buying organic as much as possible shows companies that consumers are demanding more natural, non-GMO foods. Consumer research into buying trends weigh heavily on the actions of companies in producing their products, so vote with your pocketbook by buying as many of your products as natural as possible.
- Mary Clare Jalonick and Keith Ridler. FDA approves genetically engineered potatoes, apples as safe. Associated Press.
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.
The Organic Consumers Association is working hard to support LD 991, a bill that will require GM foods to sport a label on its packaging. This push is just one in a long line of many by people like you who support transparency in our food system. If we can get Maine, among other states, to start labeling GMO foods, we can slowly get the country to support our efforts.
Maine Needs Your Support!
The Organic Consumers Association needs the necessary funds to bring this bill into visibility, not to mention to support the move toward making the bill into law. Donations are being welcomed at any amount; even $5 is a terrific minimum contribution to this campaign. The OCA is seeking to raise $200,000 by March 31, 2015 to fund GMO labeling in Maine, and your contribution, no matter how small, will make a difference!
Simply click this link to be taken to the OCA donation page to donate by credit card, Paypal, or check. The link will also show you how to donate by phone if you or a family member doesn’t have reliable Internet access but still wants to support.
Thank you for your help! With your contribution, you will help the #LabelGMOsNewEngland campaign to get Maine on board! Global Healing Center is proudly supporting this grassroots campaign with a $500 donation. Again, click here to be taken to the donation page to show your support!
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.
By: Jefferey Jaxen–
When paradigms shift, tyrants fall, or corporations lose their market it is often not from some spectacular event, but by a single, humanizing display. We have just witnessed such an event during the interview of high-profile GMO advocate Patrick Moore. This viral video has exploded in popularity giving yet another sign, along with recoiling public dollars, that genetically modified organisms are not wanted. Moore does a near-perfect job in less than two minutes to show the world the unempathetic, hypocritical face of the biotech/GMO industry stripped of all spin, lies, and deception.
The fall of the big tobacco companies, which operated in strikingly identical ways as the biotech/GMO industry today, was crushed in seconds by one, publicly televised statement in 1994, “I believe nicotine is not addictive.” This can now be compared to Moore’s recent statement of “I do not believe that glyphosate (in Argentina) is causing increases in cancer.” For whatever reason, Moore foolishly continues to boast about glyphosate’s (a 2B carcinogen) harmless nature by offering to drink some. “I’d be happy to actually” was Moore’s reply to French investigative journalist and film maker Paul Moreira’s offer to pour him a glass. It is at this stage of the interview that Moore’s credibility and integrity went down the drain fast along with what little was left of biotech/GMO public trust, faith, and confidence.
What was missed by many viewers of this interview was the true power real questions and real journalism wield. As Moore begins physical escape from his interview gone wrong, he snaps “Interview me about golden rice. That’s what I’m talking about!” This is another window into the controlled debate that the entire premise of the GMO public relations approach is predicated upon.
In a world of make believe, there is no room for reality or simple facts. Similar controlled debates recently took place at South by Southwest in Austin, Texas in which Katherine Paul, Associate Director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), an organization dedicated to protecting organic standards, was officially censored by being removed by the biotech dominated and run “Southbites: Feed Your Mind” debate.
There has never been a better time for citizen journalists and independent thinkers to press this debate. If nothing else, Patrick Moore’s bumbling shows the world that small stones can topple genetically modified giants and that the biotech emperor officially has no clothes.
Jefferey Jaxen is an independent journalist, writer, and researcher. Focusing on personal empowerment and alternative health, his work reveals a sharp eye to capture the moment in these rapidly changing times. His personal page is located at JeffereyJaxen.com, where this first appeared.
Watch this important video. And then watch it again with your friends.
Thierry Vrain, a retired biologist and genetic engineer, explains the links between glyphosate (the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup), GMO food and your health. For everyone who has trouble explaining to friends and family why this issue is so important, and why banning glyphosate and GMO crops and foods is so critical, this video lays it out as you’ve never before heard it explained.
By: Jan Cottingham | Arkansas Business –
At least a dozen Arkansas farmers have joined hundreds of farmers in 19 other states in almost 800 lawsuits against Swiss seed maker Syngenta over genetically modified corn seed, a case that has been widely reported in the media.
But one of the lawsuits, filed on behalf of two Newport farms, contains a previously unreported twist: an allegation that Syngenta, a global agribusiness, has engaged in a criminal conspiracy to contaminate the U.S. corn crop to force China, other nations that buy U.S. corn and U.S. farmers to accept genetically modified corn.
The suit, field by the Emerson Poynter law firm, which has offices in Little Rock and Houston, alleges that Syngenta violated the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, which is usually used to fight organized crime.
Emerson Poynter filed the class-action suit in January on behalf of Kenny Falwell and Eagle Lake Farms, farming operations in Newport. It, like at least eight other lawsuits against Syngenta over its genetically modified corn seed, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
These lawsuits joined hundreds of other lawsuits filed by U.S. farmers since the fall against Syngenta, the Swiss developer and marketer of seeds and agricultural chemicals.
The suits claim that Syngenta caused losses of between $1 billion and $2.9 billion to U.S. corn farmers after it sold genetically modified or bioengineered corn seed that had not been approved for use by China, a huge and growing importer of U.S. corn and corn byproducts.
China began refusing shipments of American corn in November 2013 after it detected the GMO (genetically modified organism) trait, and the price of corn and corn byproducts dropped. Even farmers who did not grow the GMO corn experienced losses, the suits say.
Lawsuits have been filed in 20 states, representing 86 percent of the corn planted in the U.S. last year, according to plaintiffs’ lawyers.
China went on to approve Viptera in December, but plaintiffs’ lawyers say the development has little, if any, effect on their case. Scott Powell of Hare Wynn Newell & Newton of Birmingham, Alabama, is one of those lawyers.
China, with its rapidly expanding middle class, has “a voracious appetite for corn,” Powell said, and when it stopped buying U.S. corn, it found other vendors, like Brazil. And once a country finds a substitute vendor for a product, it rarely switches back.
Cargill, ADM Sue
Farmers weren’t the only ones alleged to have suffered. Agribusiness giants Cargill Inc. and Archer Daniels Midland Co. sued Syngenta late last year over the sale of the GMO corn before it had received import approval from China.
Cargill, a top U.S. grain exporter, filed suit in September alleging that it lost $90 million when China rejected corn shipments. “Unlike other seed companies, Syngenta has not practiced responsible stewardship by broadly commercializing a new product before receiving approval from a key export market like China,” Mark Stonacek, president of Cargill Grain & Oilseed Supply Chain North America, said in a company statement. “Syngenta also put the ability of U.S. agriculture to serve global markets at risk, costing both Cargill and the entire U.S. agricultural industry significant damages.”
Seed companies, farmers, grain handlers, exporters and others “have a shared responsibility to maintain and preserve market access when introducing new technology,” Cargill said.
In November, ADM, one of the world’s largest corn processors, also sued Syngenta, which reported sales of $15.1 billion in 2014. “Syngenta chose to sell a corn seed product with traits that were not approved in all major export markets, without undertaking reasonable stewardship practices to prevent the resulting crop from commingling with or otherwise tainting the rest of the U.S. corn supply,” an ADM spokeswoman said.
In response to the Cargill lawsuit, Syngenta said that it believed the lawsuit to be without merit and “strongly upholds the right of growers to have access to approved new technologies that can increase both their productivity and their profitability.” Syngenta maintained that it had been “fully transparent in commercializing the trait over the last four years.”
The farmers’ and grain handlers’ lawsuits were consolidated late last month in U.S. District Court in Kansas as a multidistrict litigation assigned to federal Judge John W. Lungstrum.
‘A Hobson’s Choice’
The lawsuit by Kenny Falwell and Eagle Lake Farms of Newport accuses Syngenta of violations of the RICO statute. Although approved by Congress in 1970 to fight organized crime, it’s been cited in other cases against corporations.
On Thursday, for example, more than 90 landowners and other royalty owners in Pennsylvania accused Chesapeake Energy Corp. and Williams Partners LP of violating RICO by conspiring to restrain trade and engaging in a scheme “to help Chesapeake solve financial problems associated with the massive amount of debt that it incurred in acquiring oil and gas leases at the expense of royalty interest owners.”
The Falwell suit says that trends against GMO products, particularly in regard to the growing Chinese market, threatened Syngenta’s financial and competitive health.
If farmers continued to balk at growing GMO corn, the suit says, “it would weaken Syngenta competitively, reversing its economic growth and momentum and potentially disabling it from recovering the approximately $200 million it had invested in Viptera’s development over a span of five to seven years.”
Therefore, the suit alleges, Syngenta “embarked on a plan to purposely undermine U.S. non-GMO corn growers and those resistant to growing Syngenta’s unapproved genetic corn traits.
“To that end, Defendants engaged in a scheme designed to inevitably taint and contaminate the U.S. Corn supply, effectively causing its economic vitality to be held hostage to MIR-162 trait GMO corn, knowing that the continuous marketing and sale of Syngenta’s MIR-162 trait corn seed would ultimately prejudice and disrupt the U.S. Corn export market and the U.S. Corn commodities market.”
Syngenta knew that it was “impossible” for farmers to keep Viptera corn separate from non-GMO corn, the suit says, and that the U.S. corn supply would inevitably become contaminated.
This situation, the suit alleges, would then present China and other nations importing from the U.S. with “a Hobson’s choice: reject U.S. corn tainted with MIR-162 genetic trait and take a chance on securing other viable trade partners, failing which that nation would risk lacking sufficient corn to feed its people and livestock, or, rather than accept such risk, feel compelled to accept delivery of U.S. Corn.”
There was another goal, according to the lawsuit: to force U.S. farmers to realize that resistance to GMO corn, including Syngenta’s, was “futile and perhaps even economically disadvantageous in the long term.”
This “scheme,” the suit alleges, was carried out by Syngenta and several of its subsidiaries, along with Syngenta CEO Michael Mack and David Morgan, at that time president of Syngenta Seeds Inc., and “a network of independent ‘Syngenta Seed Advisors’” and Syngenta dealers and distributors.
A “Syngenta GMO Corn Seed Enterprise” was formed that contaminated the U.S. corn supply with Viptera corn, the suit alleges. It alleges that the defendants engaged in mail fraud in the marketing of the GMO corn and wire fraud in the dissemination of “false and misleading information and material omissions in public conference calls, press releases, articles and statements published over the news wires and interviews.”
Asked to respond to the allegations of RICO violations, Syngenta spokesman Paul Minehart said:
“Syngenta believes that the lawsuits are without merit and strongly upholds the right of growers to have access to approved new technologies that can increase both their productivity and their profitability. The Agrisure Viptera trait (MIR162) was approved for cultivation in the U.S. in 2010. Syngenta commercialized the trait in full compliance with regulatory and legal requirements. Syngenta also obtained import approval from major corn importing countries. Syngenta has been fully transparent in commercializing the trait over the last four years.”
Powell, who represents other farmers in their pursuit of Syngenta, said he knew of the RICO allegations in the Falwell suit but declined to comment on whether they were likely to be included in the master consolidated complaint, which is being drafted. That complaint is due March 13.
By: Barbara Peterson | Farm Wars –
I want food that Grandma ate. How hard is that to understand? I don’t want it chemically lobotomized and coated with poison. I don’t want it genetically spliced to become something between a salamander and a tomato. I don’t want it radiated and mutated. I don’t want a virus inserted in its DNA. I don’t want its RNA tampered with to change its traits. I just want good, old fashioned food. The kind you grow in your garden and use to feed your family and critters. The kind the bees like to collect pollen from and not go belly up the minute they enter the hive. The kind that you can pick with your bare hands and eat right from the plant. The kind that won’t turn your stomach into a pesticide factory and your guts into mush.
I actually have the gall to want food that is edible and good for me, not just something a chemical company threw together sporting a pretty label and packaging that says it is. Is that really too much to ask?
Well, according to Monsanto et al, it is. And the agribusiness giants have taken over the universities.
These corporate GMO and chemical farming pushers are brainwashing whole generations of young adults and senior adults that GMOs are safe, have been around for thousands of years, and are a perfectly natural alternative to Grandma’s garden, made by Monsanto. The chemical/life sciences company. You know the one. The one that appears to poison the very ground that it sits on along with the people around it.
Just how were Nitro citizens exposed to dioxin? Monsanto was producing the toxic herbicide Agent Orange in Nitro, and dioxin is a chemical byproduct of the substance. It is known to cause serious health conditions. The factory which produced Agent Orange was opened in Nitro in 1948 and remained in operation until 2004, even though usage of this herbicide in the past (in Vietnam and other Asian countries) was fatal to millions of citizens and the war veterans who were exposed to it.
Is this what we want for our children? Our planet? Our dinner plates?
Monsanto laughed all the way to the bank while covering up the toxicity of its industrial shenanigans as Anniston, Alabama’s children played in and ate dirt soaked with PCBs at yet another toxic superfund site created by Monsanto.
On the west side of Anniston, the poor side of Anniston, the people ate dirt. They called it “Alabama clay” and cooked it for extra flavor. They also grew berries in their gardens, raised hogs in their back yards, caught bass in the murky streams where their children swam and played and were baptized. They didn’t know their dirt and yards and bass and kids — along with the acrid air they breathed — were all contaminated with chemicals. They didn’t know they lived in one of the most polluted patches of America.
That is what Monsanto is about. Greed and avarice. Not feeding a starving world as the PR would have you believe.
And this is the company my friends, that is hell bent on owning the foundation of the world’s food supply, including that snack you are munching on, organic or not. And we are supposed to trust its good intentions? I’ll just bet those kids who played on that toxic soil in Anniston are feeling the love about now, as they inhale their last breaths through a respirator in the cancer wing of the local hospital.
Want to know why supposed “scientists” from universities such as UC Davis can get by with purporting to be “not receiving funds” from the biotech industry while spouting Monsanto propaganda? Because the money they receive is laundered through the universities they work for. They don’t receive it directly from Monsanto, they simply receive their paycheck from the university that does. Or the foundation that does. Or whatever biotech sinkhole that will accept money for services rendered.
(click image tio enlarge)
Land grant universities’ dependence on industry money has corrupted the independence of public science, as academics align their research projects with the ambitions of the private sector. Industry funding also diverts academic resources and attention away from projects that benefit the public, including research that challenges corporate control of food systems.
Donors can and do influence the outcomes of research to meet their business needs. More than 15 percent of university scientists acknowledge having “changed the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.”
Individual examples of pro-industry research abound… [A] study found that around half of authors of peer-reviewed journal articles about the safety of genetically engineered (GE) foods had an identifiable affiliation with industry. All of these produced favorable results to industry sponsors, while very few acknowledged having received industry funding.
The future of a major research deal between UC Davis and the Monsanto corporation brings the role of the university into bold relief. How far can a university go in collaborating with private industry before its mission of contributing to basic knowledge becomes distorted? How will we know when it’s gone too far?
Here is a link to a letter confirming only one of Monsanto’s many contributions to UC Davis:
The following is a portion of a Sacramento Bee article that has been removed from the newspaper’s site:
A “who’s who” of international biotechnology companies fund work at UC Davis. They include Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont and Bayer. Some grants pay for specific research, but many arrive with no official strings attached. Whatever the form, the companies get something in return – access to the university’s talent pool and, often, first crack at its scientific breakthroughs.
“The public is having a hard time figuring out where the corporate door ends and where the university door begins,” said Bill Liebhardt, former director of the UC system’s sustainable farming program, which promotes nonindustrial farming methods.
Small farmers — the very people agricultural colleges like UC Davis were established to help — feel neglected. “The university is being led by industry,” said Judith Redmond, co-owner of Full Belly Farm, an organic vegetable farm in Yolo County. (Source: Sacramento Bee)
But don’t worry, Monsanto and its cohorts are feeding the world. What’s left of it when they get through is anyone’s guess.
This type of behavior is unacceptable by any standards. The Universities are essentially bought off by corporate biotech interests such as Monsanto’s and tasked with unleashing a technology with relatively unknown consequences on the general public under the guise of a love for humanity; a PR campaign designed to sell as much of the stuff as possible. This type of behavior is not only unethical, but criminal. Yet, that is exactly what Monsanto has a sordid history of doing and getting away with. With the government’s blessing and complicity. Money talks, reason walks. Along with common sense, compassion, and any spark of humanity left in the souls of those wretched creatures who are pulling the trigger on humanity one gene-spliced concoction at a time.
Article first appeared at Farm Wars.
On Friday, February 13, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the first genetically engineered apple, despite hundreds of thousands of petitions asking the USDA to reject it.
According an article in Politico, the USDA said the GMO apple “doesn’t pose any harm to other plants or pests.”
Great. But what about potential harm to the humans who consume them?
The Arctic Apple (Golden Delicious and Granny varieties), developed by Canada-based Okanagan Specialty Fruit, shockingly doesn’t require approval by the U.S. Food & Drug Association (FDA). The FDA will merely conduct a “voluntary review” before, presumably, rubber-stamping the apple for use in restaurants, institutions (including schools and hospitals) and grocery stores—with no meaningful long- (or even short-) term safety testing for its potential impact on human health.
Here’s why that should concern every consumer out there, especially parents of young children.
In April 2013, we interviewed scientists about the genetic engineering technology used to create the Arctic Apple, whose only claim to fame is that it doesn’t turn brown when sliced. The benefit to consumers? Being able to eat apples without having any sense of how old they are?
Here’s what we learned about the technology, called RNA interference, or double strand RNA (dsRNA), from Professor Jack Heinemann (University of Canterbury, New Zealand), Sarah Agapito-Tenfen (from Santa Catarina University in Brazil) and Judy Carman (Flinders University in South Australia), all of whom said that dsRNA manipulation is untested, and therefore inherently risky:
Given that the dsRNA from our food, and presumably the Frankenapple, will enter the bloodstream and cells of consumers, safety research should be done BEFORE this GMO apple is put on the grocery shelf to prove that the dsRNA that enters consumers’ bodies will not harm them. To date, no such research has been reported, so the Frankenapple is flying in the dark.
On the contrary, recent research has shown that dsRNAs can transfer from plants to humans and other animals through food. The biotech industry has always claimed that genetically engineered DNA or RNA is destroyed by human digestion, eliminating the danger of these mutant organisms damaging human genes or human health. But many biotech scientists say otherwise. They point to evidence that the dsRNA present in food survive digestion in the stomach and intestines and actually enter the bloodstream and tissues of the body, where it can influence the functioning of the eater’s cells.
Some of the scientists also pointed out that GMO apples will likely lead to even greater use of pesticides, on a product that (unless it’s organic) already tests positive for 42 pesticides, according to the Pesticide Action Network’s analysis of the most recent USDA data.
Here’s why. Turns out the chemical compound that is shut off in the engineered fruit through RNA manipulation, in order to make it not oxidize or brown, is a chemical compound that also fights off plant pests. What happens when the apple’s ability to fend off insects is compromised? Growers will need to spray greater amounts. Those pesticides will eventually find their way into our bodies, either because we ingested the fruit, or breathed the air or drank the water where the pesticides were sprayed.
So the upshot of Friday’s USDA approval of the Arctic GMO Apple?
As OCA International Director Ronnie Cummins told a reporter at Reuters, consumers will once again be guinea pigs for the biotech industry’s untested, potentially dangerous technology. And we risk being exposed to an even greater number of pesticides.
Just so we can have apples that never turn brown.
Parents should be especially concerned, as GMO apples will most likely be sold to restaurants and institutions—there will be no way to know if your child is consuming them except to avoid anything containing apples. And if the Arctic Apple varieties show up in grocery stores, where they will be unlabeled unless we pass a federal mandatory GMO labeling law, the only way to avoid them will be to buy certified organic.
All the more reason to add your voice to the millions who have already asked Congress to pass a mandatory GMO labeling law. Take Action here.
Katherine Paul is associate director of the Organic Consumers Association.
By: Alon Galor | The Brown Daily Herald –
Proposition, similar to those in Maine and Connecticut, responds to increase in public awareness.
Legislation introduced Jan. 15 would require genetically engineered products in Rhode Island to be clearly labeled “produced with genetic engineering,” and would also specify what the term “genetically engineered product” — which has multiple definitions — would mean in the state. Rep. Raymond Hull, D-Providence and Rep. Dennis Canario, D-Portsmouth, Little Compton, Tiverton separately introduced legislation on genetically modified organisms, though the two will likely collaborate in the future, Hull said.
Similar bills have been passed in Maine and Connecticut but will not take effect until comparable legislation is passed in other states, according to a General Assembly press release. For the bill proposed in Maine to take effect, five nearby states must pass similar legislation, while Connecticut’s law is contingent on the passage of GMO bills in enough northeastern states so that their combined populations include 20 million residents, according to the press release.
The announcement of Rhode Island’s bill arrives during a period of increased media scrutiny of GMOs, following the Jan. 13 dissolution of the European Union-wide ban on genetically modified farming, which allowed national governments to impose their own restrictions.
“I’ve introduced this bill for four years,” Hull said. “It gets just so far and then it stops. But there is more momentum now than there has been in the past. We’re very optimistic.”
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which regulates the disclosure requirements of foods, declares that there is no meaningful difference between GMO and non-GMO foods.
The department also sets standards for labeling of ingredients, including artificial flavors, colors, preservatives and sweeteners. It stipulates that fruit juices must be labeled “fresh” or “made from concentrate,” and producers are not allowed to use the term “juice” if the product is not made of 100 percent juice. It also mandates that specific labels such as “fresh,” “frozen,” “fresh frozen” and “frozen fresh” be assigned to products such as peas.
Around the country and in Rhode Island, labels exist to specify non-GMO foods and certified organic foods, which by definition are not genetically modified.
Studies have shown that genetically modified crops may exhibit increased drought resistance, higher pesticide tolerance and increased nutritional content.
“We are moving into a world that is more food-stressed over the next 50 years due to climate change and population growth,” said Rep. Arthur Handy, D-Cranston, a co-sponsor of Hull’s bill and chairperson of the House Environment and Natural Resources Committee. “Genetically modified foods may play a role in combating this stress.”
Other studies link genetically modified foods to decreased antibiotic efficacy, more frequent use of pesticides and unapproved food additives and allergens.
The longterm implications of genetically modified foods may be difficult to foresee since they have only been around for a few decades. “There have been no longitudinal studies conducted on the health impacts of genetically engineered foods on humans,” said Jim Leahy, executive director of Citizens for GMO Labeling, a grassroots movement dedicated to labeling genetically modified products.
Approximately 70 percent of supermarket foods contain genetically modified ingredients, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
“I think that consumers ought to have the right to know exactly what they are purchasing,” Handy said, adding that “unless we can get to a point where we are positive that everything is safe, it would be better for us to be informed.”
GMO labeling is practiced in 65 countries, Leahy said. Many polls — including some conducted by the New York Times, MSNBC, Reuters and ABC News — all indicate that more than 90 percent of Americans are in favor of GMO labeling.
With issues such as gun control and GMO labeling, there is a large public majority that supports government regulation, but vocal and powerful groups have hindered the ability of policymakers to enact change, Handy said. Opponents of labeling genetically modified products “are being much more vocal,” he said, adding that “unless folks express themselves more vigorously on this issue, we’re more likely to go with the folks we hear from.”
“A central concern of manufacturers and producers is that labeling sends a signal that GMOs are bad,” Handy said.
“They are worried that it may cut into their bottom line,” Hull said.
Hull’s proposed bill would not impose GMO labeling on alcoholic beverages, food provided in any restaurant, farm products sold by a farmer or food derived from a non-genetically modified animal fed or injected with engineered foods or drugs, according to the bill’s text.
“It doesn’t mean that we can’t revisit those caveats after the bill is passed,” Hull said.
Looking ahead, Hull said he would “probably join forces” with Canario and his bill, though he added that only his own bill addresses concerns such as liquor companies’ use of genetically modified corn in producing alcohol.
Would you like to know if the faculty at public universities, whose paychecks come out of your taxpayer dollars, are producing pro-GMO articles and studies at the request of public relations firms that work for companies like Monsanto?
We would. So would the nonprofit U.S. Right to Know (USRTK). That’s why the group filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests two weeks ago, asking for correspondence and emails to and from professors and scientists at public universities who wrote for the agrichemical industry’s website, GMO Answers.
According to USRTK:
We taxpayers deserve to know the details about when our taxpayer-paid employees front for private corporations and their slick PR firms. This is especially true when they do work for unsavory entities such as Ketchum, which has been implicated in espionage against nonprofit organizations.
Espionage? It’s true—and it’s all here in a recent report published by USRTK, Seedy Business.
The universities have been “rattled” by the requests, according to a report in Science Insider, which also reported that so far, one of the universities (at least four have received requests) has refused. USRTK asked for letters and emails exchanged after 2012 between the scientists and 14 companies and groups. The list includes Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, Dow, Council for Biotechnology Information and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), and corporate PR firms including FleishmanHillard and Ogilvy & Mather.
The scientists—many of whom have publicly supported agricultural biotechnologies—are debating how “best to respond,” according toScience Insider. How about truthfully?
Although Europe has for the most part rejected genetically engineered organisms, that has not prevented GMO giant Monsanto from taking advantage of one-third of Europe’s arable land.
Long considered Europe’s “bread basket,” Ukraine’s agricultural potential is huge. It’s rich dark soil is highly valued and ideal for growing grain.
Farmland producing it matches Texas in size and amounts to about one-third of Europe’s arable land.
Ukraine exports include wheat, corn, barley, vegetables, sugar beets, sunflower seeds, meat and milk.
About one-fourth of Ukrainian workers are in agriculture or forestry related areas. Monsanto and other agribusiness giants intend exploiting Ukraine’s agricultural potential.
In 2014, the Oakland Institute published a report titled “Walking on the West Side: The World Bank and the IMF in the Ukraine Conflict,” saying:
“Whereas Ukraine does not allow the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture, Article 404 of the EU agreement, which relates to agriculture, includes a clause that has generally gone unnoticed: it indicates, among other things, that both parties will cooperate to extend the use of biotechnologies.”
“There is no doubt that this provision meets the expectations of the agribusiness industry.”
“As observed by Michael Cox, research director at the investment bank Piper Jaffray, ‘Ukraine and, to a wider extent, Eastern Europe, are among the most promising growth markets for farm-equipment giant Deere, as well as seed producers Monsanto and DuPont.”
Earlier Ukrainian law prohibited private sector farmland ownership. No longer. Private investors can buy it beginning in January 2016. More on this below.
IMF loan stipulations require permitting GMO production. Biowarfare is transforming millions pristine acres into poisoned wasteland. Ecogenocide for profit. Monsanto’s dirty hands are hugely involved.
In May 2014, The New York Times explained what was coming. Saying Ukraine’s agricultural success is crucial for its economy and ability to “reduc(e) its dependence on Russia.”
“Western interests are pressing for change…As part of (an IMF loan agreement), the country’s government must push through business reforms that” let agribusiness and other corporate sectors operate freely.
“Big multinationals” want to exploit Ukraine’s potential. Especially Europe’s richest farmland. Fascist run Ukraine is now ground zero for mass proliferation of harmful-to-health GMO crops in Europe.
On January 13, the European Parliament passed legislation granting member states the right to permit or prohibit GMO crops.
Nine EU countries currently ban them. Monsanto’s MON810 maize is the only GMO crop some European countries permit.
New legislation potentially opens things to greater GMO European production. According to UK-based Soil Association policy director Peter Melchett:
“The rights of farmers who do not wish to grow GMO crops, particularly in England are under threat by this proposal.”
“Indeed, the entire organic sector, growing rapidly in Europe and which may double by 2020, is in danger – as are the rights of anyone who wants to buy GMO free foods.”
Greens Party food safety spokesman Bart Staes said the new law “risks finally opening the door for genetically modified organisms to be grown across Europe.”
“Despite a majority of EU member states and citizens being consistently opposed to GMOs, the real purpose of this new scheme is to make it easier to wave through EU authorizations of GMO crops.”
“Countries opposed to GMOs are given the carrot of being able to opt-out of these authorizations but the scheme approved today fails to give them a legally-watertight basis for doing so. This is a false solution.”
Agribusiness giants like Monsanto may now apply more pressure than ever on EU countries to permit GMO production.
Friends of the Earth said the new law lets them have “first say in the decision-making process.”
Countries henceforth against GMO production may not ban them based on environmental concerns.
Only on environmental policy objectives, town and country planning, land use, socio-economic impacts, prohibiting GMOs in the presence of other crops, agricultural policy objectives or public policy.
Greenpeace said excluding environmental concerns could have “serious consequences.” According to its EU agriculture policy director Marco Contiero:
“This new law is supposed to give countries some legal muscle to prevent GMO crops from being grown on their territory.”
“But it has some major flaws. It grants biotech companies the power to negotiate with elected governments and excludes the strongest legal argument to ban GMO crop – evidence of environmental harm.”
Obama maintains strong ties to agribusiness giants like Monsanto. So do Bush and Clinton families. They oppose labeling.
Reportedly they eat organic foods whenever possible. Uncaring about mass marketing of harmful-to-human health GMOs.
On February 6, Sputnik News headlined “German Lawmakers Claim Ukraine Conflict Covers Up Massive Cropland Seizures.”
Saying it’s a “smokescreen” to let World Bank/European Bank for Reconstruction and Development financed agribusiness steal Ukraine’s highly valued farmland.
German left faction parliamentarian Birgit Bock-Luna said Ukraine’s conflict “is used to cover up a sale of farmlands in the interest of major corporations.”
A temporary ban prohibits it until January 2016. Monsanto, German and other agribusiness giants are circumventing the law.
Seizing land through leasing schemes. Generously financed by international money lenders, Millions of Ukrainian acres are being opened to GMO production.
“Lawmakers say they have reason to believe that the German government has been involved in funding farmland grabs in Ukraine through its ministries, providing assistance to joint EU and German agricultural projects with Kiev,” Sputnik News reported.
“The Ukraine Investment Climate Advisory Services Project, Germany’s agricultural center Deutsche Agrarzentrum (DAZ), and the German Advisory Group on Economic Reforms in Ukraine are some of the projects that helped to negotiate land grabs with Ukrainian government officials, lawmakers said.”
Kiev putschists are handing over Ukraine’s rich farmland to agribusiness in return for IMF loans.
The Oakland Institute’s report said Yanukovych’s pre-coup government began implementing “pro-business reforms” through the Ukraine Investment Advisory Services Project.
As well as by “streamlining trade and property transfer procedures…” Putschist takeover accelerated IMF/World Bank mandated structural adjustments.
Foreign investment followed. Agribusiness and other Western corporate interests are grabbing all they can.
At the expense of Ukraine’s economy and welfare of its people. Business giants “failed to demonstrate how (their) programs will improve the lives of Ukrainians and build a sustainable economic future.”
Free-wheeling plunder accomplishes the opposite. Ukraine is being systematically raped.
Its resources stolen. Its people exploited. Its economy deteriorating toward collapse.
While US supported war against its own citizens rages.
During a Wednesday Kiev press conference with illegitimate fascist prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Kerry repeated one Big Lie after another about conditions in Ukraine and Russia.
Claiming “remarkable democratic successes, even in the face of…incredible obstacles.”
Accused Donbas freedom fighters of Kiev-committed high crimes against peace.
“Let there be no doubt about who is blocking the prospect of peace here,” Kerry blustered.
“Russian weapons and fighters” are involved, he said. Despite no corroborating evidence whatever, Kerry claimed “no question about tanks flowing, rocket systems being transported, convoys of goods carrying both people, weapons, and other instruments of battle.”
On the one hand, Washington’s Ukrainian proxy war is murdering thousands of Donbas residents.
Irresponsibly challenging Russia at the same time. Positioning thousands of NATO forces near its border. Risking East/West confrontation.
On the other, Monsanto and other Western corporate predators are raping Ukraine. It’s a central European laboratory for plunder.
Poisoned with GMO crops. While its economy deteriorates toward collapse. On Thursday alone, its hryvnia currency lost 30% of its value.
Analysts called what happened stunning. Forbes said its economy “reached a breaking point.”
Its Donbas war is “put(ting) increasingly unbearable pressure on an economy” struggling to keep from collapsing altogether.
“Things can’t go on this way for much longer before something snaps,” said Forbes. Without multi-billions of dollars in aid, “there won’t be a Ukrainian economy left” before long.
Maybe no Europe if Washington’s rage for war isn’t stopped. On Friday, Munich’s 51st three-day Security Conference began.
Hundreds of politicians, diplomats, military officials, business executives, geopolitical experts, and various other public figures began discussing conflict resolution options while US manipulated war on Donbas escalates.
Twenty heads of state are attending. So are 60 foreign ministers. According to conference director Wolfgang Ischinger:
“The more serious the crisis, the more important the security conference will be for those diplomats who need to find solutions to conflicts.”
“The crisis in Ukraine, the continuing conflicts and processes of disintegration in the Middle East as well as new terrorist phenomena like the so-called ‘Islamic State’ have shown clearly that the basic rules of the international system are in question.”
Poroshenko is attending. So is Sergey Lavrov. Joe Biden and John Kerry head a US delegation.
According to Munich’s Suddeutsche Zeitung, they’re expected to urge tougher anti-Russian measures.
“(I)ncreas(ing) the price for (nonexistent) Russia(n) aggressive behavior.” Adding Europe’s security is at stake. Ignoring Washington’s full responsibility.
On Saturday, Biden, Lavrov and Merkel will address conference participants. Expect Ukrainian crisis conditions to be highlighted.
Lavrov is expected to meet Kerry and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg separately.
A panel discussion will address “The World in 2015: Collapsing Order, Reluctant Guardians?” Based on a report prepared for the conference.
Given Washington’s rage for war, Europe’s security is more jeopardized than any time since summer 1914 and 1939. Don’t expect Munich discussions to change things.
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.
Whether to require labeling on GMO foods should be the easiest and simplest of decisions. If health and safety is really a mandate of federal agencies, where is the beef in their policies? Come on people, banning such modifications is not even remotely being considered, so why will the government not lead the way and allow the public to be reasonably informed with full disclosure of exactly the makeup and alterations to the very essence of the food we eat.
Advocates stressing caution provide Top 10 Reasons to Label Genetically Engineered Foods. Where are the warning labels that sheer common sense demands?
- The Convention on Biodiversity recognizes that genetic engineering is a threat to amount and variety of life on the planet.
- Scientists reviewing data from Monsanto’s own studies “have proven that genetically engineered foods are neither sufficiently healthy or proper to be commercialized.”
- Biotech’s scattershot technique of spraying plant cells with a buckshot of foreign genes that hit chromosomes in random spots would trigger the expression of new allergens and change the character of plant proteins.
- Milk and dairy products from cows injected with genetically engineered growth hormones ARE different from conventional and organic milk and dairy products.
- The third generation of hamsters fed genetically engineered soy suffered slower growth, a high mortality rate, and a bizarre birth defect: fur growing in their mouths. Many also lost the ability to have pups.
- Animals fed genetically engineered feed ARE different from animals fed conventional and organic feed.
- A single serving of genetically engineered soy can result in horizontal gene transfer, where the bacteria in the human gut adopts the soy’s DNA.
- Genetically engineered foods ARE different from conventional and organic foods.
- Genetically engineered foods have not been tested to determine whether they are safe for human consumption.
- Almost all non-organic processed food and animal products in the U.S. today contain ingredients that come from genetically engineered crops or from animals given genetically engineered feed, vaccines or growth hormones.
Health concerns are on the minds of responsible consumers, especially since Obamacare rationing lowers the quality of care. Proponents of limited government are cautious to expand regulations and bureaucratic regulation. However, how can a consumer accept the risk when meaningful labeling is absent?
If you think you are diligent in avoiding selecting such genetically engineered food with your shopping, think again because, What Are We Eating?
“We Currently Eat Genetically Engineered Food, But Don’t Know It.
A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria, in order to produce foreign compounds in that food. This type of genetic alteration is not found in nature, and is experimental. The correct scientific term is “transgenics,” and is also often referred to as (GE) genetically engineered.
Example: Genetically Modified corn has been engineered in a laboratory to produce pesticides in its own tissue. GMO Corn is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency as an Insecticide, but is sold unlabeled. [EPA Pesticides ]”
So what is the nutrimental value of this laboratory designed foods? Should there be open transparency so that full disclosure can evaluate exactly what comprises this new source of sustenance? If you listen to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), think again. CSPI Refuses to Debate Consumers Union on Labeling of GMO Foods presents suspect reasoning.
“Gregory Jaffe, CSPI’s director of Biotechnology told a reporter last year — “we don’t feel it should be mandated on labels that foods are produced with GM crops.”
“You could argue for example that non-GMO label claims are misleading since they falsely imply that food made without GE ingredients is safer or superior in some other way,” Jaffe said.”
Attempts to equate natural foods with a genetically engineered menu are no surprise. That bistro of fine dining, Monsanto falls back on the select club of government authorities and medical experts of chemically toxic healers to justify the limits on warnings of known risks. In Labeling Food and Ingredients Developed from GM Seed, establishment science protects the corporate benefactors of the designer disease and drug treatment cycle.
“Within the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees food labeling. FDA guidance requires labeling of food products containing ingredients from GM seed if there is a meaningful difference between that food and its conventional counterpart. The American Medical Association (AMA) supports FDA’s approach and approved a formal statement asserting that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of foods containing GM ingredients.”
Skyrocketing cancer associated with processed foods promises to be dwarfed by the hidden consequences of GMO experimentations. Yet, the government simply ignores their mission of promoting public health.
Overcoming this threat is no easy process. When Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods provides a list of pros and cons for mandatory labeling, their negative reasons fall short of reassuring that a GMO food system is safe. Their argument follows a familiar pattern, Caveat Emptor “Let the buyer beware”.
“Mandatory labeling would extend much further and would require, at a minimum, that all food products containing any GM ingredient (above a certain threshold for trace amounts) to indicate that fact. Stronger mandatory labeling requirements could include identification of each specific GM ingredient and its level of content in the product. Mandatory labeling requires further regulatory interventions including monitoring and enforcement. Under a mandatory labeling system, all consumers—both those that are concerned about the GM ingredients and those that are not—help bear the costs associated with being able to verify that foods do or do not use GM ingredients.”
Since our health is ultimately our own responsibility, having reliable labeling on all GMO foodstuffs should be a prudent requirement to enhance public knowledge. Taking actions like those listed in 10 Things You Can Do to Stop GMOs, should not necessitate a full scale crisis. Putting people before corporate profits needs to become the standard every consumer deserves.
SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed, former political operative. This pundit’s formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. As a small business owner and entrepreneur, several successful ventures expanded opportunities for customers and employees. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. He is retired and lives with his wife in a rural community. “Populism” best describes the approach to SARTRE’s perspective on Politics. Realities, suggest that American Values can be restored with an appreciation of “Pragmatic Anarchism.” Reforms will require an Existential approach. “Ideas Move the World,” and SARTRE’S intent is to stir the conscience of those who desire to bring back a common sense, moral and traditional value culture for America. Not seeking fame nor fortune, SARTRE’s only goal is to ask the questions that few will dare … Having refused the invites of an academic career because of the hypocrisy of elite’s, the search for TRUTH is the challenge that is made to all readers. It starts within yourself and is achieved only with your sincere desire to face Reality. So who is SARTRE? He is really an ordinary man just like you, who invites you to join in on this journey. Visit his website at http://batr.org.
As if Froot Loops weren’t already a poor enough choice, with their sugar, dyes, and artificial flavors, (and no “froot” anywhere in sight) now, independent testing has shown that those ingredients aren’t the worst thing that Kelloggs is serving up. The cereal also contains Round-up herbicide (glyphosate) and genetically modified corn. Oh – and not just a little bit of GMO corn – it’s 100% GMO.
Independent DNA lab testing has verified that 100% of the corn in Kellogg’s Froot Loops is genetically modified corn, containing DNA sequences known to be present in insecticide producing Bt and Roundup Ready corn. The soy also contained DNA sequences known to be present in Roundup Ready GMO soy. What’s more, tests documented the presence of glyphosate at 0.12 mg/kg, the main chemical ingredient of Monsanto’s best-selling Roundup weedkiller. (source)
Is it any wonder we’re in the midst of a gigantic cancer cluster in this country? No wonder children have behavioral issues like ADHD. No wonder people are fat, exhausted, and sick.
It’s no longer an exaggeration to say this stuff is poison. Now, it’s a proven fact.
For those who think the word “poison” is an exaggeration, let’s be clear on exactly what glyphosate is. It’s weedkiller. You spray it on weeds to kill them. There is irrefutable proof of toxicity and death from glyphosate. Two recent peer-reviewed studies confirm this.
The first study found that glyphosate increases the breast cancer cell proliferation in the parts-per-trillion range.
An alarming new study, accepted for publication in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology last month, indicates that glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide due to its widespread use in genetically engineered agriculture, is capable of driving estrogen receptor mediated breast cancer cell proliferation within the infinitesimal parts per trillion concentration range.
The study, titled, “Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors,” compared the effect of glyphosate on hormone-dependent and hormone-independent breast cancer cell lines, finding that glyphosate stimulates hormone-dependent cancer cell lines in what the study authors describe as “low and environmentally relevant concentrations.”
Another study found that consumption of glyphosate causes intestinal and gut damage, which opens the door to numerous human diseases, such as diabetes, gastrointestinal disorders, heart disease, obesity, autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s
However, another classification of allergy-type food is emerging and getting recognized for adverse effects on the human intestinal tract and gut. Those foods are genetically modified organisms known as GMOs or GEs. There is scientific research indicating intestinal damage from GMO food and the article “Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Disease” discusses how the inordinate amount of pesticides sprayed on GMOs leaves residues in GMO crops that, in turn, are being traced to modern diseases. (source)
And this is in cereal marketed to children with that big goofy cartoon toucan.
The toucan, incidentally, says, “Follow your nose, it always knows.” If you want to follow your own nose to the blatant corruption, you need go no further than the stench of the fact that this is perfectly fine with the FDA, the USDA, and the EPA, those noble guardians of our health. So, if you trust them, don’t even worry about a little weedkiller in the cereal.
If you want to follow your own nose follow it to the blatant corruption that allows this kind of thing. You need go no further than the stench of the fact that this is perfectly fine with the FDA, the USDA, and the EPA, those noble guardians of our health. So, if you trust them, don’t even worry about a little weedkiller in the cereal.
As Mike Barrett of Natural Society points out, I guess now we know why Kelloggs has spent so much money to keep foods containing GMOs from being labeled as such.
There is a good reason that Kellogg’s spent over $1,012,552 on media propaganda in California & Washington to defeat voter ballot initiatives that would have required the labeling of GMO foods, and now are contributing again to the defeat of labeling initiatives in Oregon (contributing $250,000).
If your kids eat this stuff, in light of this information, it’s time to make a change to the breakfast menu. A bowl of modified corn and weed killer does not a healthy breakfast make. They might argue with you, and that’s fine. Pull rank. Of course they like it and think it tastes good. Chemists spent a lot of time and effort concocting a formula to make the cheapest, most toxic ingredients taste absolutely delicious. But the risk is too high to even consider this an occasional treat. I wouldn’t consider weedkiller acceptable, even in moderation.
Healthier Cereal Options
If your kids insist that the day just can’t start without a bowl of cereal, don’t despair. There are many options out there that are far superior to anything from Kelloggs or General Mills. Forget about serving bowls of frankenfood and weedkiller and try one of these options instead:
Oatmeal: Your grandparents loved it and it’s still one of the healthiest breakfasts around. You can top this hot, filling meal with fruit, honey, syrup, nuts – the possibilities are endless.
Grits: As with anything made from corn, be sure you select an organic option. The displaced Southerner in me loves a bowl of grits with butter, milk, and black pepper.
Cereal: One of my favorite kid-friendly brands is Envirokidz. The organic choices are fun things like Chocolate Koala Crisps and Peanut Butter Panda Puffs. Definitely cool enough to make your tykes forget about Tony the Tiger and Toucan Sam.
Homemade granola: I absolutely love homemade granola, and so do my kids. This is one of my favorite recipes and the nice thing about granola is that you can easily adjust it to your family’s favorite flavors.
Other hot cereals: Nearly any grain can be turned into a hot cereal. Wheatberries are especially flavorful and filling. Many parts of the world make rice porridge by cooking rice in milk, then adding honey and cinnamon for flavor.
What are your favorite healthy breakfast cereals?
Does your family eat cereal for breakfast? What are your favorite alternatives to the toxin-filled conventional grocery store choices?
Daisy Luther lives in a small village in the Pacific Northwestern area of the United States. She is the author of The Organic Canner and The Pantry Primer: How to Build a One Year Food Supply in Three Months. On her website, The Organic Prepper, Daisy uses her background in alternative journalism to provide a unique perspective on health and preparedness, and offers a path of rational anarchy against a system that will leave us broke, unhealthy, and enslaved if we comply. 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]