Tag Archives: Monsanto

Join The FoodJustice March Against Monsanto In Washington DC! (VIDEOS)


Join The Food Justice Coalition as we go to D.C. to fight The DARK Act! Friday will be a day of action and Saturday will be The Food Justice Rally with speakers beginning at noon until 1:30pm.

Food Justice Action: 2-Day Schedule of Events

On Friday, Oct. 16th, Truth in Labeling and Moms Across America are organizing lobbying groups to meet with Senators to lobby for the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act. They are also organizing buses with the option for either a round-trip ride or a one-way ride if you stay over for Saturday.

***Note that we have moved the narrative march portion of this action to Friday, Oct. 16th.*** We believe we will have far more of an impact doing the narrative march while the locations we are targeting are open for business. There will be a second march following the rally on Saturday.

We ask all participants to meet at Lafayette Park about 3 p.m. We will begin the march at USTR and the Chamber of Commerce. Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese will speak about the TPP. Then we’ll head to Monsanto to occupy the building while a presentation is given. We are being a bit quiet on specifics as our groups and event pages have been infiltrated by Monsanto shills, but expect some cool visuals. From the Monsanto building, we will head to the EPA (about 5 p.m., as a point of reference). Zen Honeycutt will speak about glyphosate, recent testing and the EPA’s lackadaisical attitude towards a solution. We are asking participants to consider dressing as bees so we can do a bee die-in in the lobby of the EPA. After the EPA, we will head to the White House. Please bring a flashlight so you can help us Shine A Light On The DARK Act. We will have the advantage of rush hour traffic at this point and we believe this unique form of protest will have a stunning visual impact! If you can’t make it, but still want to contribute, you can donate here.

On Saturday, October 17th, the Food Justice Rally starts at noon sharp on the West Lawn of the Capitol building. Know that the permit begins at 10am and I encourage you to come early and take part in education workshops that MAMNYC is organizing. I’ll be speaking alongside other grassroots activists like Steven Druker and Anthony Gucciardi. After the rally, there will be a unity march through the streets of D.C. ***Please bring flashlights, signs, and any banners you may have!***

Why is this Important?

Monsanto is responsible for tainting our food supply with glyphosate and GMOs. Even worse, Monsanto fights GMO labeling and suppresses your right to know what you’re eating.

How to Detox Your Body of GMOs Right NOW

A while back I sat down with Anthony Gucciardi of Natural Society to discuss the top 10 GMO foods you should avoid.

We also talked about the dangers of genetically modified foods and how you can detox your body.

Recommended Reading About Monsanto and GMOs

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.

Unholy Alliance


Never underestimate the power of a mom. Or a blogger. Or, worse yet, a mommy blogger.

Leah Segedie was “completely shocked” when she learned that Monsanto and the American Academy of Pediatrics were bedfellows, joined by a “sponsor partnership.” So the mom, blogger and founder of the popular blogger network, Mamavation, reached out to the Academy’s public affairs team, via a personal friend.

The result? The American Academy of Pediatrics will sever ties with Monsanto at the end of this year.

It’s good to see that an organization entrusted with the final word on the health of kids is finally joining other physicians in taking a stand against one of the chief poisoners of a whole generation of our children.

We devote a lot of time to fighting the anti-GMO war in state and federal legislatures, because we have to. It’s important work, and we’ll keep doing it. But it’s important to remember the power we all have to influence those outside of the State Houses and the U.S. Capitol. And the good that can come of that power.

Read the article

Stalemate? Or Checkmate?


With each new published study, independently conducted and peer-reviewed, alerting us that glyphosate is more toxic than we thought, poses a more serious health threat than was previously believed, the reaction is the same.

Monsanto denies the facts, attacks the scientists and directs the media and the public to its own industry-funded studies as “proof” that glyphosate (and Roundup) are perfectly safe.

After decades of this back-and-forth, and decades of government regulatory agencies siding with Monsanto, instead of independent scientists and the public, we’re still at a stalemate.

That could change, according to the author of this week’s essay—if could be proven in a court of law that Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate is one of the most toxic substances ever launched on the public.

It could happen.

Read the essay


Will Monsanto Launch Another ‘Sneak Attack’ In Congress?


(Organic Consumers) Something is going to happen. If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.

So we were told recently by a Senate staffer, during one of the many meetings we’ve held with Senators to urge them to reject H.R. 1599, or what we refer to as the DARK—Deny Americans the Right to Know—Act.

Could that comment mean Monsanto is cooking up another “sneak attack,” similar to the one it conducted in 2013, that led to passage of the Monsanto Protection Act? Only this time, the sneak attack would be aimed at stomping out the GMO labeling movement?

It wouldn’t surprise us. A quick look at the lay of the land reveals that Monsanto and Big Food have several opportunities to rush the DARK Act into law, without a hearing or a stand-alone vote in the Senate.

How likely is that to happen? We don’t know for certain. But it’s worth remembering that Monsanto and Big Food are nothing if not opportunists. Please sign our petition asking key Senators to reject a Monsanto “sneak attack” that would send the DARK Act sailing into law, without due democratic process.

A Bill to End GMO Labeling for Good

In case you’re still in the dark about the DARK Act, here’s the Readers Digest backgrounder. (There’s plenty more here, including fact sheets, leaflets, talking points and toolkits).

Rep. Mike “Agribusiness Puppet” Pompeo (R-Kan.) introduced H.R. 1599 earlier this year. He then managed to rush it through the House, where it passed by a vote of 275 to 150 on July 23 (2015).

The bill is a sweeping attack on states’ rights to self-govern on the issue of GMO labeling, and on consumers’ right to know if their food has been genetically engineered. If the Dark Act becomes law, there will never be GMO labels, safety testing of GMOs, protections for farmers from GMO contamination or regulations of pesticide promoting GMO crops to protect human health, the environment or endangered pollinators.

Under what most of us would consider a fair and democratic process, the bill would move next to the Senate, where there would be the opportunity for debate, amendments and a vote.

But with the July 1, 2016 enactment of Vermont’s GMO labeling law, Act 120, looming, Monsanto is probably thinking it doesn’t have time to slog through a Senate hearing and stand-alone vote, especially as the Senate has yet to introduce its own version of the bill. And perhaps even more daunting than the July 1 deadline, is the prospect that the DARK Act might get watered down, or worse yet killed, in the Senate—a risk Monsanto would likely prefer to avoid.

Four Potential Sneak Attack Scenarios

So, what are the potential “sneak attack” scenarios that would allow Monsanto to push through the DARK Act this year, without going through the normal Senate process?

There are several. They all take advantage of the fact that Congress is seriously behind on its work, and that the threat of a government shutdown looms.

When Congress leaves its must-pass legislation to the last minute, bills don’t go through the normal legislative process where votes and amendments take place in committee hearings and floor debates. Instead, bills are negotiated behind closed doors, then, to increase the likelihood they’ll pass, brought to votes with only limited debate and amendments.

In a skit titled “You Stuck What Where?” the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart described how this last-minute legislating makes it easy for lawmakers to sneak provisions into bills, with no accountability:

It turns out, members of Congress involved in writing a bill while the bill is in subcommittee, are allowed to add any provision they want, anonymously. No fingerprints. The laws of the most powerful nation are written with the same level of accountability as internet comments.

This year, Congress could procrastinate until December and then cram all of its must-pass legislation into one “grand bargain.” This would be the perfect opportunity for Monsanto to launch a “You Stuck What Where?” sneak attack. We might not even know until it’s too late, if unscrupulous House and Senate leaders were to slip the DARK Act into a “grand bargain” that included appropriations, reauthorizations, extensions of expiring legislation, and an increase in the debt ceiling.

But, even if these bills are dealt with individually, there’s still ample opportunity for sneak attacks.

How could Monsanto sneak the DARK Act into law? Here are what we believe are the scenarios industry lobbyists are probably considering.

1.    They’ll sneak it into a must-pass spending bill.

The government needs to be funded by September 30. But Congress is way behind in its work on its spending bills. Not a single one of a dozen annual appropriations bills has passed both chambers yet this year. That increases the likelihood that lawmakers will try to pass another Continuing Resolution to keep spending at basically the same level as last year, and keep the government open.

This would give Monsanto a chance to launch the same “sneak attack” strategy it used in 2013, when the Monsanto Protection Act (Monsanto called it the Farmers Assurance Provision) was slipped into a six-month Continuing Resolution cobbled together at the 11th hour to avert a government shut-down.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) played a big role in the 2013 Monsanto Protection Act “sneak attack.” He could do it again with the DARK Act, especially if he convinces Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, to help him.

The only question for Monsanto is if the Continuing Resolution will last long enough to block the July 1, 2016 implementation date of Vermont’s new GMO labeling law. Continuing Resolutions are normally short-term, 3 months or as long as 6 months. This wouldn’t help Monsanto.

But, Congress may choose to meet its end-of-the-fiscal-year deadline (September 30) by passing a full-year continuing resolution. If this happens, any riders that get attached to the resolution would have a twelve-month lifespan. That could mean a DARK Act that would delay the implementation of Vermont’s GMO labeling law.

2.    They’ll sneak it into the Child Nutrition Act Reauthorization bill.

On September 17, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) will bring the Senate version of the Child Nutrition Act Reauthorization bill to his committee for amendments, debate and vote. The Child Nutrition Act expires on September 30, and should be reauthorized before then for another five years. But, as with the spending bills, if Congress doesn’t finish its reauthorization work it can opt for a short-term extension.

If Sen. Roberts, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, wanted to do a favor for his Big Ag donors who have given him $791.2k so far this election cycle, he could let Sen. Blunt, slip the DARK Act into the Child Nutrition Act. There would be little anyone could do about that, unless they were willing to risk the future of the school lunch program past September 30, when the legislation expires.

If Monsanto can’t get Sen. Roberts to act alone, the other Senators on the Agriculture Committee could be enlisted in a team effort. With a two-person majority, the committee’s 11 Republicans could vote to attach the DARK Act to the Child Nutrition Act Reauthorization without any Democrat’s support.

3.    They’ll sneak it into another bill as an amendment

If Monsanto doesn’t manage to stick the DARK Act into an appropriations or reauthorization bill anonymously, it can try for an amendment to one of these bills, once either of the bills hits the Senate floor.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) hasn’t been given $1.1M from agribusiness so far this election cycle for nothing. Monsanto and its allies know that the DARK Act could live or die depending on how important it is to Sen. McConnell. As the Senate Majority Leader, he controls which bills go to the floor and which amendments may be offered.

If the DARK Act doesn’t get attached to another piece of legislation by a committee chair or by a vote in committee, it could be brought to the floor as stand-alone legislation. This rarely happens in the Senate, because it takes 60 votes (a bipartisan effort) to cut off debate and avoid a filibuster.

But amendments to legislation are different. An amendment requires only 51 votes to pass—as long as the amendment is germane. (Non-germane amendments require 60 votes.) Of course, what’s “germane” is largely up to the Senate Majority Leader.

The ability to wield these parliamentary tactics gives Sen. McConnell enormous power and will make him the top target of Monsanto’s lobbying machine.

4.    They’ll sneak it into the budget reconciliation bill.

The FY 2016 budget passed by Congress earlier this year allows for a “budget reconciliation” bill to be considered and passed by majority vote—only 51 votes in the Senate.  The bill can also be amended with only 51 votes.

For Monsanto’s sneak attack strategy, the catch is that, under the rules of this reconciliation, the underlying provisions of a reconciliation bill must have a “budget effect.” It’s very difficult to imagine Monsanto being able to make the case that passing the DARK Act could save the government money. However, the rule can be broken with 60 Senators voting to override an objection.

The “budget reconciliation” bill is optional, so it’s likely that Congress won’t act on it until 2016.

When it comes to the DARK Act, will consumers be at the table? Or, as our Senate staffer friend suggested, on the menu? We don’t know yet. But we do know which Senators might be able to give Monsanto a hand with a “sneak attack.” Please read and sign our petition.

Alexis Baden-Mayer is political director for the Organic Consumers Association.

Ronnie Cummins is international director or the Organic Consumers Association and its Mexico affiliate, Via Organica.

Fraudulent. And Illegal.


You’ve heard it over and over again from Monsanto’s public relations machine: GMOs have been thoroughly tested and proven safe.

You know it isn’t true. But unfortunately, many people—and many U.S. lawmakers—have heard only that side of the story. And they’ve heard it so often it’s engrained in their psyches.

It’s up to us to counter Monsanto’s message. In the media. In meetings with Congress members. In phone calls and emails to Congress members.

Thankfully, Steven M. Druker, executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity and author of “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth, How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public,” has made it easier for you to become a messenger of the truth. Druker has taken key points from his 528-page book and created a short 30-point argument for why the U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s decision to allow GMO foods, untested and unlabeled, into the marketplace was fraudulent and illegal. Druker says:

In reality, FDA decision-makers disregarded the input of the agency’s own scientists, covered up their warnings about the risks, lied about the facts and, despite pretensions to the contrary, have failed to conduct any genuine scientific reviews at all (a fact even acknowledged by FDA officials). Without such frauds, GE foods could never have come to market; and they could not remain there if the frauds became widely known. Moreover, the FDA’s policy on GE foods violates federal food safety law, and these novel products are on the market illegally.

Read Druker’s 30-point argument

Order “Altered Genes, Twisted Truth, How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public”

Evidence Mounts On Roundup’s Link To Liver And Kidney Damage


One of the world’s most popular herbicide–Roundup–is making its way back into the headlines in regards to its health and environmental effects. Monsanto, the producer of Roundup (glyphosate), claims this herbicide is safe; however, study after study from independent researchers is showing the exact opposite. A new research study is showing that small amounts of exposure–up to thousands of times lower than permitted in drinking water in the U.S.–can produce unfavorable and concerning effects in the liver and kidneys. Could this study be the turning point for finally phasing out Roundup in agriculture? Or will it simply be ignored and human health continue to suffer?

The Damaging Effects of Roundup to Liver and Kidney Health

According to U.S. estimates, the use of glyphosate, or Roundup, has increased more than 250 times over the past 40 years. There are scientists who suggest the use of the popular herbicide could be a contributing factor into the widespread kidney disease epidemic in Sri Lanka, India, and Central America. [1] Many genetically-modified seeds, also produced by Monsanto, can withstand Roundup, making the issue even more problematic. If GMO plants are beginning to resist glyphosate, then more and more dangerous chemicals are being used during the process, resulting in more exposure among humans and animal life. One of the newest herbicides to come from Monsanto is said to override GMO seeds’ resistant effects; however, this herbicide is also said to be even more dangerous to human health than Roundup.

A new study first of its kind to examine the impact of Roundup on liver and kidney health is indicating that low levels of exposure can result in significant organ damage. [2] The study administered a small amount of Roundup to the drinking water of mice–a concentration that is considered thousands of times lower than what is allowed in U.S. drinking water. After two years, the consumption of the glyphosate-laden water seemed to have spurred kidney and liver damage. The study also compared the female mice and found changed gene expression in the organs, suggesting potential increased risk for a variety of diseases. When genes are disrupted, or turned on and off at the wrong time, it could lead to consequences in a number of different facets of health.

How to Avoid Roundup Exposure

Due to Roundup’s pervasiveness in our environment, complete exposure to the chemical herbicide may not be practical. You can, however, take precautionary steps toward preventing overexposure. If you purchase most of your food organic, you can reduce your exposure to all herbicides and pesticides. You will also be reducing your consumption of GMO foods, which simply does not have enough research behind it to determine its safety. Because many herbicides can be found in small quantities in drinking water, it may also be wise for you to invest in a water filtration system. Performing a regular kidney cleanse and liver cleanse may also be helpful for reducing accumulation of toxic herbicides.

What are your thoughts on Roundup and other herbicides? Please let us know in the comments!


  1. Channa Jayasumana, Sarath Gunatilake, and Priyantha Senanayake. Glyphosate, Hard Water and Nephrotoxic Metals: Are They the Culprits Behind the Epidemic of Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Etiology in Sri Lanka? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014 Feb; 11(2): 2125-2147. doi: 10.3390/ijerph110202125.
  2. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Emilie Clai, Robin Mesnage, et al. Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environmental Sciences Europe 2014, 26:14. doi: 10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5.

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


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

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.

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:

Seeding Fear – The Story Of Michael White vs Monsanto (VIDEO)

seeding fear

All giants fall. Monsanto’s day is coming.

Neil Young’s new documentary, “Seeding Fear,” tells the story of Alabama farmers Michael White and his father who were sued by the agrochemical giant in 2003 for patent infringement of its GMO soybeans.

The film I would like you to see tells the story of a farming family in America, but the same thing is happening around the world,” Young added. “It is a story that takes 10 minutes of your time to see. It is a simple human one, telling the heartbreaking story of one man who fought the corporate behemoth Monsanto, and it illustrates why I was moved to write ‘The Monsanto Years.’ – Neil Young


More here

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 …







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.

Lying Through Their Teeth!


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

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


Big Food: Kicking, Screaming, And Losing Lots Of Money


A red flag sign of an emotionally abusive relationship is when the abuser goes to great lengths to make the abused party seem “crazy” or “ridiculous.” This is actually just an attempt to maintain power in the relationship and the behavior worsens when they sense that their victim is breaking free. They humiliate, demean, and “tease” the victim in an effort to remain in control.  This is the classic pattern of a bully, whether it’s in a romantic relationship, a workplace relationship, or a parent/child relationship.

Apparently this is also how a dying multi-billion dollar industry behaves in an attempt to shame the fleeing customers.

Here’s Exhibit A, from Pepsi:

(Hat tip to John Vibes at True Activist)

This is just the most recent evidence of a trend mocking those who avoid putting processed garbage into their bodies in attempt to do some damage control.

A couple of months back, headlines screamed about “the new eating disorder” of eating as healthfully as possible. The mainstream media (heavily funded by Big Food, of course) co-opted the very real disorder of Orthorexia Nervosa and assigned the label to folks who refused to consume junk food. They based the media blast on a study published in a Spanish medical journal that said:

Orthorexia is an obsessive-compulsive process characterized by extreme care for and selection of what is considered to be pure ‘healthy’ food. This ritual leads to a very restrictive diet and social isolation as a compensation. Orthorexics obsessively avoid foods which may contain artificial colours, flavours, preservant agents, pesticide residues or genetically modified ingredients, unhealthy fats, foods containing too much salt or too much sugar and other components. The way of preparation, kitchenware and other tools used are also part of the obsessive ritual.

Their advertisers need you to think you’re nuts, because the Big Food Beast is failing. Companies are losing money hand over fist as consumers learn the truth about their unhealthy offerings.  Following is a list of companies that are grasping at anything they can get ahold of to maintain their power positions in the industry:

  • ConAgra (Hunts, Swiss Miss, Chef Boy Ardee)
  • Kraft (Oscar Mayer, Jell-O, Maxwell House, Velveeta)
  • Kellogg
  • Campbell’s Soup
  • Coca-Cola
  • McDonalds
  • Monsanto

(sources: Here and Here)

Meanwhile, businesses that focus on healthful, wholesome, non-processed foods are on the fast track to success. Lisa Leake, the author of the book, 100 Days of Real Food, started out with a blog journaling a challenge that she and her family took to break free of processed foods. The blog is now one of the top food destinations on the web and the book is a New York Times #1 bestseller.

While the trend in the direction of real food is bad news for food “manufacturers” (those words really shouldn’t ever be used together), its great news for the health of our nation.

Expect to continue to see the escalation of propaganda that scoffs at healthy eaters. And every time you see it, smile. It means we’re winning.

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]

Take That, Monsanto!

image credit: farmwars.info

image credit: farmwars.info

Monsanto may be able to buy our politicians, but we still have some ethical judges on our side.

On May 29 (2015), a federal judge in southern Oregon ruled that Jackson County’s ban on genetically engineered crops doesn’t violate the state’s Right to Farm Act.

The ruling followed another anti-Monsanto decision in Vermont. On April 27 (2015), Vermont scored a victory in round one of its court battle with Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), when a district judge affirmed the constitutionality of the state’s GMO labeling law.

The Jackson County ruling means that the GMO crop ban, passed in May 2014, will take effect in June. (The ordinance allows farmers currently growing GMO crops to harvest them this season. But they have to remove all GMO crops by June 1, 2015).

In Vermont, the district judge’s ruling paves the way for the country’s first statewide mandatory GMO labeling law to take effect July 1, 2016.

These two victories were hard-fought, against Monsanto-funded odds. But they should give us all hope—and more important, inspire us to keep fighting.


Monsanto Bids To Take Over Syngenta – A Move To Assure A Pesticide-Saturated Future?

By: Mercola.com |

Monsanto recently made a bid to take over European agrichemical giant Syngenta, the world’s largest pesticide producer. The $45 billion bid was rejected, but there’s still a chance for a merger between these two chemical technology giants.

Monsanto is reportedly considering raising the offer, and as noted by Mother Jones,1“combined, the two companies would form a singular agribusiness behemoth, a company that controls a third of both the globe’s seed and pesticides markets.”

As reported by Bloomberg,2 the possibility of Monsanto taking over Syngenta raises a number of concerns; a top one being loss of crop diversity.

“…[A] larger company would eventually mean fewer varieties of seeds available to farmers, say opponents such as [science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, Bill] Freese.

Another is that the combined company could spur increased use of herbicides by combining Syngenta’s stable of weed killers with Monsanto’s marketing heft and crop development expertise.

‘Two really big seed companies becoming one big seed company means even less choice for farmers,’ said Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food and Water Watch, a policy group in Washington.

‘From a public health and environmental perspective this is a complete disaster,’ said Bill Freese… ‘The more I look at this, the more it worries me and the more it needs to be opposed.’”

What’s in a Name?

According to one analyst, the takeover might boost Monsanto’s reputation, as Syngenta has been “less publicly enthusiastic” about genetically engineered (GE) crops.

Personally, I don’t foresee Monsanto ever being able to shed its toxic reputation, no matter how it tries to rebrand itself. It recently tried to do just that by declaring itself “sustainable agriculture company.”

But actions speak louder than mere words, and there’s nothing sustainable about Monsanto’s business. Taking on the Syngenta name would do nothing to change the obnoxious dichotomy between Monsanto’s words and deeds.

In fact, Mother Jones astutely notes that by trying to acquire Syngenta, Monsanto contradicts “years of rhetoric about how its ultimate goal with biotech is to wean farmers off agrichemicals.”

It’s quite clear Monsanto has no desire or plans to help farmers reduce the use of crop chemicals. On the contrary, it has and continues to push for the increased use of its flagship product, Roundup.

March Against Monsanto: Could We Finally See Mandatory Labelling?


Last weekend the March Against Monsanto once again saw millions join in around the world to stand up for quality food supply. Monsanto, the world’s largest biotech company and producer of GMO foods, has been challenged by the public since GMOs first began hitting grocery stores. People are concerned about the safety of GMOs when it comes to their health and the environment, as our right and ability to produce natural foods in a natural way is being compromised without our permission.

One of the largest themes that came out of this year’s event was that activists are no longer against any one person or thing, instead they are with and for nature, for health, and for truth.

Toronto was among 428 other cities from 38 countries around the world that participated in this grassroots march, which took place on May 23rd. People chanting and holding signs marched in Toronto from Queens Park to Christy Pits, where the Farm 2 Fork festival then took place, showcasing all organic and vegetarian food as well as speakers and performances that engaged hundreds of people.

The Movement Demands Rights

This movement is demanding a basic right we should all have: to know what we are eating. Labelling food that contains GMOs is common practice in 64 countries, yet the US and Canada are not one of them. It’s troubling to see so many other developed nations recognizing the dangers while we turn a blind eye here in North America.

This topic is also shaping up to be a hot one in the upcoming election, as more and more people are paying much closer attention to the food they are putting into their bodies. Leading the charge on the political front within government is NDP MP Murray Rankin (Victoria). He put forward a motion in the House of Commons calling for the mandatory labelling of food products containing ingredients that have been genetically modified.

He has been working closely with teen activist Rachel Parent, who has been advocating for labelling for some time now. Perhaps this will be the year of change, as endorsements for the motion have been well received. Industry organizations, consumer advocacy groups, prominent environmentalists, and food retailers agree that people have a right to know if they are consuming GMOs.

If you’re passionate about the topic you can add your name to an online petition at  http://petition.ndp.ca/the-food-you-eat.

Need a bit more information about GMOs? Check out this link as a starting point for better understanding http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/queen-of-green/faqs/food/understanding-gmo/.

You can also check out our GMO archives.

Photo Credit: AP Photo / Kamil Zihnigolu

 by Joe Martino

I created Collective-Evolution 5 years ago and have been heavily at it since. I love inspiring others to find joy and make changes in their lives. Hands down the only other thing I am this passionate about is baseball.