Tag Archives: Monsanto

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

Roundup-dollars-Kevin-Folta-960x480

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


KINGS POINT PRODUCTIONS

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 …

 

Sources:

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

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

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

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


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

Lying Through Their Teeth!

monsanto

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

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

From Peterson’s statement:

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

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

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

Read the blog post

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

kraft

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?

monsanto-company-mon-makes-45-billion-initial-bid-for-syngenta-ag-adr
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?

monsanto-672x400

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.

Once Again, The World Marches

march-against-monsanto-home

They marched in Australia. They marched in Africa. They marched in Canada. They marched in Dublin and London and all across Europe.

Here in the U.S., we marched in Portland, Maine and Seattle, Wash., and in between, in cities large and small, coast to coast.

On May 23, 2015, the world marched against Monsanto.

Monsanto isn’t alone in its greed-driven quest to sell toxic chemicals, to monopolize the world’s seed supply, to put small farmers out of business, to keep consumers in the dark about the pesticide-laden GMOs in our food. Dow, Dupont, Syngenta, Bayer. They are all destroying our soil and our food—which will ultimately lead to the destruction of the very ecosystem that sustains us.

But Monsanto has become the face of everything that’s wrong with our food and farming system today. And for that matter, everything that’s wrong with our Democracy.

So we marched. In great numbers. All over the globe.

And we’ll do it again next year. And every year after, as long as it takes. Until we rebuild our soil, our farms, our forests, our food system, and our health.

A sampling of photos and articles from the 2015 global March against Monsanto

Image credit: www.march-against-monsanto.com

Think The Anti-GMO Movement Is Unscientific? Think Again

“Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid, or deliberately lying. The reality is, we don’t know. The experiments simply haven’t been done, and now we have become the guinea pigs.”  ~ David Suzuki, geneticist

Now that the mainstream media is catching on to the public sentiment against GMO food, or at least against unlabeled GMO food, to the tune of millions of Americans who made it a point to drag themselves out of their homes to protest Monsanto last month (as well as at least 40 additional countries), inevitably the indictment will be made: “the anti-GMO movement is “unscientific.”” Is that really so?

What we do know is that the unintended consequences of the recombinant DNA process employed to create genetically engineering organisms are beyond the ability of present-day science to comprehend.  This is largely due to the post-Human Genome Project revelation that the holy grail of molecular biology, the overly-simplified ‘one gene > one trait’ model, is absolutely false.

Only recently, for instance, a previously unidentified viral gene fragment was discovered to be present in most of the GM crops commercialized to date; a finding which calls into question the safety of 54 commercialized crops already commercialized and being used in both food and feed. There could be hundreds of viral-gene altered proteins within these foods, whose complex interactions with DNA and toxicity have never been characterized.

Which statement therefore is more unscientific?

1)      GMO food safety cannot be proven

2)      GMO food harms cannot be proven

The scientific and logical answer would be that both GMO food safety and harms cannot be sufficiently proven; for reasons that include the fundamentally unethical nature of a human clinical trial that could result in poisoning the test subjects.

But, the weight of evidence actually indicates that statement #2 is the more unscientific one, as there is a growing body of scientific research produced by independent scientists indicating that GMO food harms can be clearly demonstrated, and through a simple process of extending feeding studies beyond the 90-day cut-off mark established by biotech corporations with a vested interest in hiding chronic adverse health effects. [see the latest long-term feeding study]

In other words, a failure of science to positively identify a problem does not mean that a problem does not exist. To err on the side of caution, is no less scientific than to err on the side of reckless abandon. When we fail to exercise the precautionary principle in our risk assessments, we are basically saying that GM foods are innocent until proven guilty. Juxtapose that to the burden of proof applied to nutritional or dietary supplements, which despite billions of doses taken in the US each year, have never been found to take anyone’s life. These are increasingly defined as guilty unless proven innocent through multi-million dollar clinical trials.

The problem, of  course, is that the burden of proving safety or toxicity falls on the exposed populations (Suzuki’s “guinea pigs), which only after many years of chronic exposure reveal the harms in their diseases, and then only vaguely in hard-to-prove post-marketing surveillance and epidemiological associations and linkages.

So, with this in mind, let’s bring up one dimension of the toxicity of GM foods and agriculture that cannot be thrown out as ‘unscientific,’ because it is clearly proven to be a health problem in the peer-reviewed and published literature: Roundup herbicide.

Glyphosate Document

free Roundup herbicide download

First, GreenMedInfo.com would like to announce that we are providing a free PDF download of all the research we have accumulated on the dangers of the glyphosate-based herbicide formulations, the most well-known being Monsanto’s patented glyphosate-based formulation known as Roundup. This document contains over 100 study abstracts from the National Library of Medicine (NLM) linking these herbicides to over 40 adverse health effects. Each study in the document is hyperlinked back to the original citation location on the NLM’s bibliographic citation database  MEDLINE. Download the document for free here: Glyphosate formulation research.

As the research in this document will clearly show (and the related open access research page on our website which also contains all the abstract) Roundup’s main ingredient glyphosate is now a ubiquitous poison, found in virtually all water, air and rainfall samples tested. It contaminates the groundwater, the source of most of our natural drinking water, and the soil to the point where it has suppressed and destroyed the microbial biodiversity in certain regions of the world, including probiotic organisms of major food importance. Moreover, it has been found to exhibit toxicity and carcinogenicity in cell studies at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than found in agricultural applications (within the parts per trillion range).  When you calculate that several hundred millions of pounds are produced and used globally each year, this chemical is producing a health and environmental nightmare that is running completely out of control, with the future outlook looking even grimmer. With the discovery of  glyphosate-resistant weeds and insects, companies like Dow and Monsanto are planning on ‘stacking’ herbicide resistance GM traits, and producing plants that are resistant to a multitude of highly toxic agrichemicals, including the Agent Orange ingredient 2,4-D, guaranteeing the ratcheting up of a chemical arms race against the biosphere (and ourselves).

Another fundamental point that many miss with GM food safety is that not only is genetically engineered no longer food (food, by definition, are organisms that we have co-evolved with and consumed for hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions of years), but in the case of the Bt gene-containing commercial crops are actually classified by the EPA as biopesticides.

But it gets worse. Roundup-ready foods have been engineered to survive the application of glyphosate-based herbicide poisoning. The toxic compounds in herbicides like Roundup, which include toxicity-amplifying surfactants like polyethoxylated tallow amine, end up in the tissue of the plants that we consume, or that our animals consume, bioaccumulating and amplifying their toxicity when we consume them as food.  One major metabolite of glyphosate called Aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), which accumulates in the plant tissues of all Roundup Ready GM plants, is itself highly toxic, but which has not fallen under stringent regulatory oversight.  Essentially, if you eat GM food, it is not just the transgenes and the unintended toxic proteins they produce that are the problem. Rather, the ‘food’ is guaranteed to contain residues of highly toxic chemicals.

While it can be argued that it is ‘unscientific’ to claim the transgenes and their proteins in GMO food cause harm, it is foolish to argue that the continual exposure to known biocides like Roundup residues in our food is safe. Those who make this argument are the ones who lack the guidance of good science, or use the term ‘science’ as a political weapon against those who would seek out and express the truth.

Next time the invective “Unscientific!” comes up in a discussion about GMO food safety, arm yourself with the research that already exists proving GM food is harmful to animal, human and environmental health. And please help us share this article and the PDF far and wide.

Looking to voice your opinion on GMOs? Join the upcoming Monsanto Video Revolt: http://monsantovideorevolt.com/


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

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

May 23: Break Out The Boots!

march against monsanto

It’s almost time to march. In case you’ve forgotten why the world marches against Monsanto every year, here are a few reminders.

Monsanto’s Agent Orange was responsible for 400,000 deaths and disfigurements and birth defects in 500,000 babies. The company paid out $180 million in a lawsuit, but never took responsibility.

Monsanto has spent (and is still spending) millions of dollars to defeat GMO labeling laws. When the state of Vermont finally passed one, Monsanto sued. The company is determined to drag out that court case, despite a recent ruling suggesting Monsanto doesn’t have much of a case.

Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, the most widely used herbicide in the world, was recently declared a probable carcinogen. The company’s response? Demand a retraction (a move that so far has been unsuccessful). There are so many more reasons we need to keep the pressure on this corporation. So while it might be tempting to think, “Another March against Monsanto? Been there, done that,” think again! This year’s march will be every bit, if not more important than last year’s. Join the Social Media March! Can’t take to the streets on May 23? A group of creative and passionate activists in Georgia have organized a month-long Social Media March against Monsanto. Find out how here. Organize a Day of Action against the DARK Act OCA is asking everyone, but especially everyone whose representatives serve on either the House Agriculture or Energy and Commerce Committees, to organize a Day of Action against HR 1599 (The DARK Act) during the week immediately following the May 23 March against Monsanto. March Against Monsanto events list here Organize a Day of Action against the DARK Act Create a media advisory for your local press Submit a letter to the editor about stopping the DARK Act here

NYT Pro-GMO Propaganda

  nyt

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.

Revealed: A Secret Monsanto Document In The Maui GMO Case

gmo free

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.)

Last Election Day, the people of Maui County voted to halt all local GMO and pesticide experimentation being carried out by Monsanto and Dow.

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.

Is some of Monsanto’s federally funded biowarfare research (contracted by the US National Institutes of Health)—the details of which Monsanto won’t disclose—taking place on Maui?

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:

Declaration of Sam Eathington, Vice President of Global Plant Breeding, Monsanto

Declaration of Sam Eathington, Vice President of Global Plant Breeding, Monsanto


original article: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/revealed-a-secret-monsanto-document-in-the-maui-gmo-case/

Jon Rappoport

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.

World Health Organization: Monsanto’s Roundup “Probably” Causes Cancer

monsanto roundup cancer

The WHO has issued a damning pronouncement about the world’s largest seed company:

Glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s toxic Round-up herbicide, is “probably carcinogenic.”

The announcement comes after a report was published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in a British medical journal.  The agency cited numerous studies in which occupational exposure to glyphosate was linked to “increased risks for non-Hodgkin lymphoma”.

The Wall Street Journal reported:

“The assessment followed a meeting this month among 17 experts representing 11 countries, who evaluated the cancer-causing potential of glyphosate and four other pesticides. The research agency, which hasn’t previously classified glyphosate, monitors global cancer cases while trying to identify causes and responses.”

Monsanto, unsurprisingly, disagrees with the assessment.  Phillip Miller, the Vice President of what is possibly the most hated company in the world, responded to the WHO’s announcement:

“We don’t know how IARC could reach a conclusion that is such a dramatic departure from the conclusion reached by all regulatory agencies around the globe.”

Other studies concur that Round-up is deadly

Actually, it isn’t just the IARC that has reached such a conclusion. I guess VP Miller missed it, but last year, two major, peer-reviewed studies offered proof that glyphosate is deadly.

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)

Monsanto’s stocks are falling

Monsanto’s stock has fallen more than 3% since the WHO’s announcement. Let’s spread this information far and wide and hope that stocks continue to fall for the company.


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]