Tag Archives: Genetically Modified

Congressional DARK Act Legislation

 dark act 

On March 25, House Rep. Mike Pompeo (R. KS) introduced HR 1599: Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015.

It seeks “(t)o amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to food produced from, containing, or consisting of a bioengineered organisms, the labeling of natural foods, and for other purposes.”

Critics call the measure the Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act. It blocks state and local efforts to require GMO labeling.

Current Vermont, Connecticut and Maine laws requiring labels on GMO foods and ingredients would be null and void.

The FDA would be prevented from establishing a national mandatory standard. Current agency policy lets companies voluntarily label GMO foods. No major company does so.

DARK Act legislation lets the industry-controlled FDA approve foods for sale under a system requiring companies merely to notify the agency about products “substantially equivalent” to non-GMOs.

Labeling genetically modified foods and ingredients “natural” is willful deception. DARK legislation lets federal regulators define the term to include harmful to health GMOs.

It would block states from prohibiting “natural” labeling for GMO foods.

The DARK Act’s latest version includes a section instructing the USDA to set legal rules for non-GMO labels – a provision able to establish weaker standards than already.

DARK Act legislation is a Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) initiative. It aims to keep consumers more uninformed about what they eat than already – including about the hazards of harmful to health GMO foods and ingredients.

GMA and its member companies lobby Congress intensively to block GMO labeling – plus efforts against labeling ballot initiatives in California, Washington, Oregon and Colorado.

Enacting HR 1599 would let food producers continue to use dangerous GMOs while denying consumers the right to know what they’re eating.

In February, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D. OR) introduced HR 913: Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act – “to require that genetically engineered food and foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients be labeled accordingly.”

Barbara Boxer (D. CA) introduced a comparable Senate version. They require labeling GMO foods and ingredients.

Given industry opposition, odds for passage are virtually nil. Mass consumer outrage is needed.

Over 90% of Americans support GMO labeling. Congress won’t mandate it without sustained popular pressure.

The  Institute for Responsible Technology lists 10 reasons to avoid GMOs.

1. Independent studies show they harm human health. They cause organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, infertility, and other longterm problems.

2. GMO soil contamination is permanent – threatening the health of future generations.

3. GMOs require increased herbicide use, increasing health hazards.

4. Gene mixing from unrelated species risk dangerous unpredictable side effects – “new toxins, allergens, carcinogens and nutritional deficiencies.”

5. Government oversight protecting consumers is virtually nonexistent. Industry executives control federal agencies. Rules they mandate serve bottom line interests, not consumer health and welfare.

6. Monsanto and other biotech giants promoted agent orange, PCBs and DDT safety. Now they’re using the same phony research claiming GMOs are safe to eat.

7. Independent research revealing GMO health hazards is suppressed. Scientists discovering serious problems are “attacked, gagged, fired, threatened and denied funding.”

8. GMOs cause irreparable environmental damage. They “harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources and are unsustainable.”

9. GMOs don’t increase crop yields as fraudulently touted. In some cases, yields decline.

10. Avoiding GMOs is the only way to help eliminate them altogether. What industry can’t sell, it won’t produce.

You are what you eat. The phrase has been around a lot time. It hits home hard today given the harm to human health caused by GMOs and other toxins contaminating the typical Western diet.


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.

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

Make Noise!

bullhorn

If you don’t take any other action this week, please take one of these.

Call your Congress member, especially if he or she is a member of the House Committee on Agriculture or the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Or, write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, post on your Congress member’s Facebook page, or organize a rally outside your Congress member’s home office on May 26, 27 or 28.

Do something. Make noise.

Because if we don’t, Congress could take away our right to know about GMOs in our food. Forever.

We’re talking about HR 1599, “The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act,” introduced by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) Ironic. Pompeo’s bill proposes nothing if not inaccurate labeling of foods—by preventing you from ever learning which foods may contain GMOs.

Critics of the bill have dubbed it the DARK Act, aka “Deny Americans the Right-to-Know” Act. Because that’s exactly what it does.

HR 1599 now has 31 Republican and 11 Democrat co-sponsors, representing 28 states. With Vermont’s GMO labeling law set to take effect July 1, 2016, Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association are desperate to pass the DARK Act.

Our job is to stop them. But we need you.

Read the essay

Find out if your Congress member is on the Agriculture or Energy and Commerce Committee

Find out if your Congress member is a co-sponsor of the DARK Act Organize a Day of Action against the DARK Act

Is Scientific American Censoring GMO-Skeptical Comments?

censored
By: GM Watch |

Academic physician-educator banned from pointing out errors in pro-GMO article – Claire Robinson reports

Scientific American recently published a pro-GMO article by Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic magazine.

The article contains outright false claims, such as the old GMO industry line, “Humans have been genetically modifying foods through selective breeding for more than 10,000 years.” In fact GM is radically different from natural breeding and entails different risks.

Shermer also writes enthusiastically of GM golden rice, which he says is engineered “to help Third World children with nutritional deficiencies that have caused millions to go blind”. But he completely ignores the fact that golden rice failed its field trials and has never been shown to be safe to eat or efficacious in treating vitamin A deficiency in the target malnourished populations.

In other words, GM golden rice still isn’t ready and perhaps never will be. Meanwhile non-GMO methods have successfully reduced vitamin A deficiency in the Philippines to the point where it’s no longer a severe public health concern.

Dr Martin Donohoe, Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of Community Health at Portland State University, noticed many inaccurate and misleading claims in Shermer’s article. Dr Donohoe submitted a polite, factual, and well-referenced comment to Scientific American’s comments thread under the article (you can read his comment below).

Dr Donohoe began by correcting Shermer’s claims about the naturalness of GM: “Shermer confuses genetically modified (GM) crops (created through the insertion of a gene from another organism) with genetic modification through selective intra-species breeding based on genotype and phenotype.”

After correcting several other errors of fact on the part of Shermer, Dr Donohoe ended his comment with a mild-mannered suggestion to the self-proclaimed “skeptic” Shermer:

“I suggest Shermer be more skeptical of the claims of industry scientists, whose promulgations are (as the record in agriculture, medicine, and elsewhere shows), subject to bias, data manipulation, and over-promotion.”

However, and to his surprise, Dr Donohoe noticed that his comment was removed from the comments thread a couple of days after it was posted. He received an email from a nameless “Scientific American Webmaster”, who said, “Your comment has been deleted because it contains personal contact information, which is not permitted in our comments.”

Fine, Dr Donohoe thought. He removed his personal contact information and tried to re-submit his edited comment.

But he could not. His ability to comment had been disabled. Dr Donohoe emailed “Scientific American Webmaster”, politely asking why. He received a reply saying:

“Our Community Guidelines are clear about promotion and providing personal contact information in the comments, in that they are not permitted.  We sent the email pasted below to inform you of our Guidelines, however further posts from your account continued to violate our Guidelines.”

Since Dr Donohoe had deleted his personal information from his comment, that only left “promotion” as a valid reason for Scientific American to delete his comments.

We examined Dr Donohoe’s comment in light of Scientific American’s Guidelines forbidding “promotion”. The comment does not contain any “promotion”.

Moreover, as Dr Donohoe pointed out in an emailed response to “Scientific American Webmaster”: “I do not have any financial stake in nor ownership of any citation mentioned, except for the fact that I run my own website, free of charge (in fact I pay a company to host it), and it receives no funding; nor do I personally.” Even the sources he cites in his comment are publicly available free of charge.

In his email, Dr Donohoe asked once again “why my posts were removed and my account disabled”.

In due course he received a curt reply from “Scientific American Webmaster”, saying:

“This help desk has already provided our rules to you, as well as our reasons for removing your commentary. Continued emails to this help desk regarding the matter will force us to mark your email as spam. If other users’ comments are violating our Guidelines, they will also be removed.

“This help desk will not respond to any further emails from you regarding our comments forum and it’s [sic.] rules.”

Dr Donohoe summed up his experience with Scientific American for GMWatch: “My comments were removed, my ability to comment was disabled, and I was told not to contact the webmaster again. I knew Scientific American was pro-GMO, but my comment was straightforward and I find their response troubling and excessive.”

Given the lack of openness of Scientific American’s anonymous “Webmaster” about the true reasons for the apparent censorship, we can only speculate that they are trying to shield the GMO promoter Shermer from a cold shower of inconvenient facts.

NOTE: Dr Martin Donohoe’s website, Public Health & Social Justice, is here and is a great resource.

Re Paleo Diets, GMOs and Food Taboos, by Michael Shermer, April 2015, p78

– see http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-paleo-diets-more-natural-than-gmos/
Comment submitted by Dr Martin Donohoe to Scientific American’s comments thread

Shermer confuses genetically modified (GM) crops (created through the insertion of a gene from another organism) with genetic modification through selective intra-species breeding based on genotype and phenotype. He argues that were it not for GM crops, “the planet could only sustain a tiny fraction of its current population.”

In fact, there is no commercially available GM crop that is more drought-resistant, salt- or flood-tolerant, or which increases yields, in comparison with existing non-GM varieties. A large majority of GM crops are instead herbicide-resistant; most of the rest are engineered to produce an insecticidal protein.

Leaving aside voluminous peer-reviewed literature on the real and possible health consequences of GM crops, evolution (which presumably Shermer accepts) has led to resistance among the first wave of GM crops to the very herbicide they were engineered to resist, usually glyphosate (a probable human carcinogen).

Thus, new generations of crops have been designed for resistance to two or more pesticides, leading to increased pesticide use, which affects the health of farm laborers and consumers. Even so, GM crop yields are lower than those obtained through traditional breeding.

There is already enough food to provide over 2700 calories/day to every person.  Poverty is exacerbated by GM crops, which are unlikely to achieve the goal of feeding a hungry world.  They undermine food and nutritional security and food sovereignty and democracy, while benefiting a small number of multinational corporations (which have been cited repeatedly for scientific and financial malfeasance). Feeding everyone requires political and social will (e.g., one week of developed world farm subsidies is equal to the annual cost of food aid needed to eliminate world hunger, and almost ½ of American food goes to waste).

I suggest Shermer be more skeptical of the claims of industry scientists, whose promulgations are (as the record in agriculture, medicine, and elsewhere shows), subject to bias, data manipulation, and over-promotion.

Notes

1. US Dept. of Agriculture
2. Summarized in GMO Myths and Truths: http://gmomythsandtruths.earthopensource.org/, from Earth Open Sourcel; see also Union of Concerned Scientists (Food and Agriculture pages): http://www.ucsusa.org/, Consumers Union at http://consumersunion.org/, and Center for Food Safety at http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/, and GM Watch at http://www.gmwatch.org/.
3. Per the World Health Organization’s Cancer Agency
4. Pesticides will cause an estimated 1 million cancers in the current generation of Americans (National Academy of Sciences) and 1 million people died over a recent 6 year period due to pesticide exposure (World Health Organization)
5. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
6. United Nation Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
7. United Nations International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development

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.

Welcome To GMO Australia And Vaccine Australia

Recently the Lucky Country down under has become GMO Australia and Vaccine Australia, with decisions by the Government to favor Big Biotech and Big Pharma.

Recently the Lucky Country down under has become GMO Australia and Vaccine Australia, with decisions by the Government to favor Big Biotech and Big Pharma.

Welcome to GMO Australia! While you’re there, welcome to Vaccine Australia too!

Australia, a Western democratic nation with a very high standard of living, prides itself on being “the lucky country”, on giving people a “fair go” and above all being free. Those ideals, however, need to be seriously called into question after recent events down under which have shown the shocking extent to which Australia is being controlled and overrun by corporate interests, especially those pushing GMOs (Big Biotech companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, DuPont, BASF and Bayer) and vaccines (Big Pharma companies such as GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Pfizer, Eli Lily, Bayer, Novartis, Sanofi, Roche, etc.). Such events make you wonder whether Australia is going to become GMO Australia” or Vaccine Australia” and what is going to happen to the standard of living for Australian citizens, if the nation continues to go down a path of condoning genetic contamination and ushering in mandatory vaccination.

GMO Australia

The recent case between 2 Australian farmers in Western Australia has garnered international attention. Steve Marsh and Michael Baxter had been friends since their school days, and both went into farming. Baxter decided to grow GMO canola which, inevitably as GM crops do, blew into Marsh’s field, which was certified organic. The resulting genetic contamination of his crops meant that Marsh was stripped of his certification, and thus his livelihood and income. The case has caused a huge division in Australia, and recently, in an atrociously corporate decision, the judge ruled that Marsh was to pay Baxter for his losses.

Baxter, by the way, was being funded by Monsanto, who was forced to admit that it financially supported his legal defense. This gives you an idea of how desperate Big Biotech is to influence the laws and judges’ decisions all over the world. Monsanto is prepared to pay out big bucks to ensure GMO Australia exists.

Yes, it is sad that this case has divided the community so much, but the implications go beyond that. What this effectively means is that anyone not using GM seeds is vulnerable and susceptible to getting their organic crops contaminated – and then sued on top of it! Organic farmers don’t even want GM seeds in their fields. Since there is no real way to stop open-air pollination and genetic contamination, how is this not in effect a takeover of the world’s food supply by Big Biotech?

The right to grow your own food is an inherent human right. Food and seeds are part of the common wealth of humanity. Yet, as common sense as these 2 statements are, insane judges and greedy corporations have distorted these basic principles. Genetic contamination is the unavoidable consequence of GMOs – and probably their ultimate purpose too. It does not bode well for the future of food in Australia or on Earth.

Vaccine Australia

Vaccine Australia is in full swing. Australia made international headlines a few days ago with its decision to legally ban religious exemptions for vaccinations. In essence, the Australian Government is declaring that medically, it knows best when it comes to health and medicine, and legally, that it has the right to tell you what to put in your body, which means it thinks it owns your body. This is an absolute disgrace and an outrage. Let us remember that governments are created to protect the rights of their citizens; that is their sole purpose. They are only ever representative of The People, in whom the ultimate power in any society rests. Governments are servants, not masters; they are created by The People and, equally, can be dissolved by The People.
The Aussie Government is trying to boost the immunization rate, so in addition to removing religious exemptions, it is also bribing (“incentivizing”) doctors to inject more of their patients, as well as financially punishing people by tightening up welfare eligibility for parents who fail to vaccinate their children!
So in a sense medical fascism has come to Australia – before it came to the US. There have been various bills put forth in America to try to remove philosophical and religious exemptions from vaccines, such as in California, but at this stage Americans have still not been forced to submit to vaccines. Now, the Australian Government has beat the US to it in terms of medical fascism and is trying to claim it has the supposed authority to inject you with a syringe containing a virus grown in animal cells, and full of dangerous adjuvants – deadly carcinogens like mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde and MSG, and of harmful substances such as human diploid cells (aborted fetal tissue), antibiotics, allergens and GMOs.

Western Medicine Violating its Own Code of Ethics

Of course, the father of modern allopathic medicine, Hippocrates, would be rolling in his grave if he caught wind of this latest stunt by the Australian Government. Mandating that people be forced to accept certain medications, even if they were the healthiest medicine on Earth with zero side effects, goes against the very code of ethics that doctors have sworn to uphold, as well as the Hippocratic oath, which urges doctors to ensure they don’t hurt the patient. Western medicine is supposed to require informed consent; now Australia is eliminating any requirement for consent, informed or not.
Here is an excerpt from the Hippocratic Oath:
“With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage. Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so.”
Here is an excerpt from the Australian Medical Association’s Code of Ethics:
“Approach health care as a collaboration between doctor and patient.”
How exactly is mandatory vaccination a “collaboration”?

Australia Also Eliminating Right to Free Speech Around Vaccines

All this goes to show that Big Pharma must have a mighty tight grip on the reins of power in Canberra. It was only a few months ago that Dr. Sherri Tenpenny had her travel visa denied by the Australian authorities on flimsy grounds. Tenpenny, a world acclaimed expert on the dangers of vaccines, was planning to give a few presentations on the topic. In an appalling act of fear, the Australian Government decided that it no longer cared about the inherent human right to free speech, and decided to shut Tenpenny out, lest her “dangerous” message of truth about vaccines reach the ears of too many Australians, who, armed with a bit more knowledge, might just reject the whole notion that vaccination is a good idea. Welcome to Vaccine Australia.

Australia: Forging Ahead with the New World Order?

In addition to becoming Vaccine Australia and GMO Australia, the island nation has also been accelerating the NWO (New World Order) agenda in other ways, such as increasing domestic surveillance and suppressing basic human rights to privacy – all in the name of fighting terrorism. In September 2014, the Abbott Government passed a draconian piece of anti-terror legislation which capitalized on people’s fears after the “Sydney Siege”. Yes, Australia is well and truly on the bandwagon of governments that exploit the fake “War on Terror” to grab more control over their populace. According to the SMH, this new bill allows Aussie spies to “monitor the entire Australian internet with just one warrant”. It also means that “journalists and whistleblowers will face up to 10 years’ jail for disclosing classified information.”

North or South, East or West: The Conspiracy is Unfolding Worldwide

At this stage in the game, it’s an illusion to think you can outrun the global conspiracy or hide from the NWO. It’s being rolled out on a planetary scale, and although the US is playing a leading role in helping the elite Controllers form a Global Fascist Dictatorship, other aspects of their nefarious agenda are being put into place in other nations. Australia is a testing ground for some of the agenda the Controllers simply can’t get pushed yet in places like the US or Britain. Remember gun control in Australia? It was a piece of cake to goad well-intentioned Australians into handing over their guns (especially with another false flag mind controlled shooting [Martin Bryant]), and now the population at large is disarmed, making any Governmental crackdown like martial law much easier. It has also resulted in more crime; as GunFacts.info states, “Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries.”

A Message to Australians: Wake Up While You Still Can

I’ll finish by saying this. I was born in Australia, grew up in Australia and still love the place from afar. Australians are great people, warm-hearted, jovial, honest and friendly. However, they can tend to be less politically motivated and involved than others. If that tendency is true, it’s going to have to change – and change fast – if they want to retain whatever freedom they have left in the face of an unscrupulous Government determined to take over control of every aspect of Australian life. It’s going to require awareness and enlightened, non-violent, effective action to roll back GMO Australia and Vaccine Australia, and keep Australia free.

Sources:

http://www.naturalblaze.com/2015/04/monsanto-admits-paying-for-gmo-farmers.html

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/19/vaccination-crackdown-australia-announces-end-to-religious-exemptions

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/12/parents-who-refuse-to-vaccinate-children-to-be-denied-childcare-rebates-reports

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

http://www.amsws.org.au/media/docs/images/ama_code_of_ethics.pdf

http://www.naturalnews.com/048278_vaccine_mafia_Australia_Dr_Sherri_Tenpenny.html

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/consumer-security/terror-laws-clear-senate-enabling-entire-australian-web-to-be-monitored-and-whistleblowers-to-be-jailed-20140925-10m8ih.html

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/


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.

Why You Should Grow Heirloom Seeds

Healthy Seeds
By: Sam Cho | Organic Lesson –

When I bought seeds for the first time, I did not know what the difference was between heirloom, hybrid, and GMO. If you are in the same boat as I used to be then check out the infographic below to learn what the main differences are. Feel free to use the embed code below if you want to share it on your website or blog.

heirloom-seeds-why-grow-infographic
Source: Organic Lesson

What is Heirloom?

Heirloom seeds come from open-pollinated plants that pass on similar characteristics and traits from the parent plant to the child plant. There is no concrete definition that every gardener uses to define heirloom plants. Some people state that heirloom plants are those that were introduced before 1951, while others state that heirloom varieties are those introduced before the 1920s. In general, you should consider heirlooms to be seeds that are possible to regrow and pass on from one generation to the next.

One important thing to note for heirloom plants is whether they are organic or non-organic. In most cases, heirloom plants are organic because they are generally only used by small-scale gardeners who do not use pesticide or other harmful chemicals. However, there may be minor cases when chemicals do get involved since heirloom plants do not always have a similar level of innate protection that hybrid and GMO plants provide against diseases and pests. Remember, heirloom refers to the heritage of a plant, while organic refers to a growing practice. They are two different things.

Heirloom vs. Hybrid vs. GMO

There are some distinct differences that one should be aware of when it comes to heirloom, hybrid, and GMO plants. First, heirloom plants are the only ones that breed true. As mentioned earlier, this means the same characteristics are passed on from generation to generation. The same cannot be said for hybrid and GMO. Hybrid plants are produced when different varieties of plants are cross-pollinated, which can happen with or without human intervention. Because there are different varieties of plants involved, it can’t be guaranteed that the offspring of hybrid plants produces identical traits as the parent plant.

Both heirloom and hybrid plants can be viewed as natural occurrences. GMO plants, on the other hand, can only be produced using unnatural methods such as gene splicing. Scientists essentially modify a seed’s DNA to ensure the resulting plant produces the desired traits and characteristics. A common example of a GMO plant is Bt-Corn.

Why Grow Heirloom Seeds

If hybrid and GMO seeds grow plants with useful traits, why should you grow heirloom plants instead? First, heirlooms are generally known to produce better taste and flavor. Heirloom fruits and vegetables are also known to be more nutritious. Last but not least, they are less expensive over the long haul. Heirloom plants may require a bit more care than their counterparts but the effort you put in will be worth it! Don’t forget that you would also be playing an important part in preserving the genetic diversity of plants by growing heirloom seeds. After all, how can hybrid seeds be produced without the existence of the original seeds?

Where to Find Heirloom Seeds

With the demand for heirloom seeds increasing, you will find that it isn’t as difficult as before to obtain them. There are certain places you might want to check out to get seeds locally. These places include: local farms, seed exchanges, and botanical gardens. How can you be sure that the seeds you are getting definitely came from heirloom plants? One thing you might want to look out for is the Safe Seed Pledge. Although it isn’t regulated, the Safe Seed Pledge is still a good sign that the company is only providing non-GMO products. Most of the well-known seed companies have already signed up for this pledge so look out for it on the seed company websites.

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.

FDA Approves New GMO Foods: Apples And Potatoes

 fda approved gmo apple and potato

Genetically-modified food is one of the most controversial subjects today. Not only are regulations loose and manufacturers getting away with not labeling them, they’re being approved at an alarmingly swift rate without the appropriate long-term health assessment. The Food and Drug Administration recently approved of two GMO foods, potatoes and apples, as safe and equally nutritious as conventional varieties, and they’re pushing to get these items to a grocery store near you.

The Approval of GMO Foods Apples and Potatoes

The new approval is covering six varieties of potatoes and two varieties of apples. [1] The potatoes come from Idaho from the J. R. Simplot Co., and the apples come from Canadian company Okanagan Specialty Fruits, Inc. Fortunately for the health food movement, McDonald’s, a long-time client of J. R. Simplot Co., is no longer purchasing from the company, opting out of using GMO potatoes for its food.

ConAgra is another big-name company that supplies potatoes for restaurants all across the world, and it is also in line with consumer demand for non-GMO potato varieties. While french fries and hash browns are certainly not health fare, it does go to show how companies listen and respond to the desires of consumers. In order to keep up the fight against GMOs and keep them out of our food supply, we need to continue advocating for labeling laws that will help us, as consumers, differentiate between natural food and Frankenfood.

What You Can Do

Along with contacting the FDA and urging them to look into labeling laws, there are a few things you can do to get the ball moving. Buying organic as much as possible shows companies that consumers are demanding more natural, non-GMO foods. Consumer research into buying trends weigh heavily on the actions of companies in producing their products, so vote with your pocketbook by buying as many of your products as natural as possible.

References:

  1. Mary Clare Jalonick and Keith Ridler. FDA approves genetically engineered potatoes, apples as safe. Associated Press.

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

Support GMO Labeling In New England!

Support GMO Labeling

The Organic Consumers Association is working hard to support LD 991, a bill that will require GM foods to sport a label on its packaging. This push is just one in a long line of many by people like you who support transparency in our food system. If we can get Maine, among other states, to start labeling GMO foods, we can slowly get the country to support our efforts.

Maine Needs Your Support!

The Organic Consumers Association needs the necessary funds to bring this bill into visibility, not to mention to support the move toward making the bill into law. Donations are being welcomed at any amount; even $5 is a terrific minimum contribution to this campaign. The OCA is seeking to raise $200,000 by March 31, 2015 to fund GMO labeling in Maine, and your contribution, no matter how small, will make a difference!

Simply click this link to be taken to the OCA donation page to donate by credit card, Paypal, or check. The link will also show you how to donate by phone if you or a family member doesn’t have reliable Internet access but still wants to support.

Thank you for your help! With your contribution, you will help the #LabelGMOsNewEngland campaign to get Maine on board! Global Healing Center is proudly supporting this grassroots campaign with a $500 donation. Again, click here to be taken to the donation page to show your support!


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

GMO’s ‘Big Tobacco’ Moment Shocks Public Awake (VIDEO)

 

monsanto lobbyist

By: Jefferey Jaxen

When paradigms shift, tyrants fall, or corporations lose their market it is often not from some spectacular event, but by a single, humanizing display. We have just witnessed such an event during the interview of high-profile GMO advocate Patrick Moore. This viral video has exploded in popularity giving yet another sign, along with recoiling public dollars, that genetically modified organisms are not wanted. Moore does a near-perfect job in less than two minutes to show the world the unempathetic, hypocritical face of the biotech/GMO industry stripped of all spin, lies, and deception.

lucky cigarettesThe fall of the big tobacco companies, which operated in strikingly identical ways as the biotech/GMO industry today, was crushed in seconds by one, publicly televised statement in 1994, “I believe nicotine is not addictive.” This can now be compared to Moore’s recent statement of “I do not believe that glyphosate (in Argentina) is causing increases in cancer.” For whatever reason, Moore foolishly continues to boast about glyphosate’s (a 2B carcinogen) harmless nature by offering to drink some. “I’d be happy to actually” was Moore’s reply to French investigative journalist and film maker Paul Moreira’s offer to pour him a glass. It is at this stage of the interview that Moore’s credibility and integrity went down the drain fast along with what little was left of biotech/GMO public trust, faith, and confidence. 

What was missed by many viewers of this interview was the true power real questions and real journalism wield. As Moore begins physical escape from his interview gone wrong, he snaps “Interview me about golden rice. That’s what I’m talking about!” This is another window into the controlled debate that the entire premise of the GMO public relations approach is predicated upon.

In a world of make believe, there is no room for reality or simple facts. Similar controlled debates recently took place at South by Southwest in Austin, Texas in which Katherine Paul, Associate Director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), an organization dedicated to protecting organic standards, was officially censored by being removed by the biotech dominated and run “Southbites: Feed Your Mind” debate.

There has never been a better time for citizen journalists and independent thinkers to press this debate. If nothing else, Patrick Moore’s bumbling shows the world that small stones can topple genetically modified giants and that the biotech emperor officially has no clothes.

References:


Jefferey Jaxen is an independent journalist, writer, and researcher. Focusing on personal empowerment and alternative health, his work reveals a sharp eye to capture the moment in these rapidly changing times.  His personal page is located at JeffereyJaxen.com, where this first appeared

 

 

Glyphosate: Like You’ve Never Before Heard It Explained (VIDEO)

glyphosate-effects-fb

Watch this important video. And then watch it again with your friends.

Thierry Vrain, a retired biologist and genetic engineer, explains the links between glyphosate (the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup), GMO food and your health. For everyone who has trouble explaining to friends and family why this issue is so important, and why banning glyphosate and GMO crops and foods is so critical, this video lays it out as you’ve never before heard it explained.


OrganicGrowersVideo

The Top 4 Reasons For The Bees Dying Off (VIDEO)

colony-collapse-hero

Why are all the bees dying off? It has been a few years since the world started to become aware of the phenomenon of bees dying off, and labeled it CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder). It is a grave concern, for we are totally dependent upon the bees to pollinate and help food grow. Einstein famously said that if bees disappeared from the Earth, humanity would only survive for around another 4 years. The subject of bees dying off has been in the news again lately, with a study done by researchers from Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), Macquarie University in Sydney, Washington University in St Louis and the University of Sydney. Their study concluded that the problem may be bee stress. They found that stress factors were leading to older bees dying more quickly than normal, leading to a situation where younger bees had to begin foraging earlier than they would have otherwise, which in turn was leading to a younger foraging population, poorer performance and quicker deaths of foragers.

If this study is correct and bees stress is the cause of CCD, it leads then to a further question: what are the stress factors causing bee numbers to decline? Some have attributed the bees dying off to a particular cause, but in my opinion, the bees are actually under a quadruple assault, and Monsanto and its Big Agra pals are only half the problem.

Why are the Bees Dying Off? Reason #1: Neonicotinoid Pesticides

It has become well known especially in Russia and Europe that neonicotinoid pesticides are linked to bees dying off. Consequently, Europe restricted the use of 3 neonicotinoids for two years starting December 1st, 2013. Neonicotinoids are a relatively new class of insecticides that have a chemical structure very similar to nicotine (hence their name), and work by severely disrupting the central nervous system of insects, leading to paralysis and death. Common neonicotinoids are imidacloprid, acetamiprid and clothianidin, with Bayer’s imidacloprid the most widely used insecticide in the world.

Numerous studies have linked neonicotinoids and CCD, such as:

– this 2012 Xerxes study which found that “few field studies have been properly designed or conducted over a long enough period of time to assess the full risks to bees. Nevertheless, the overall evidence points to the fact that neonicotinoids are harming bees”;

– this 2014 study which found that neonicotinoids were highly likely to be responsible for triggering CCD in honey bee hives that were healthy prior to the arrival of winter; and

– this 2013 study by the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) found that neonicotinoids posed an unacceptably high risk to bees, and that the industry-sponsored science (more junk science or corporate science) which Bayer and friends had given the authorities was flawed and contained data gaps not previously considered. Big Agra companies falsifying date? Surprise, surprise.

Pesticides of course go hand-in-hand with GMOs, the next factor.

Why are the Bees Dying Off? Reason #2: GMOs

Most of the reports about bees dying off over the last 7 years or so have pointed the finger at neonics and other pesticides, and not specifically at GMOs. Yet GMOs by definition require pesticides; they have been genetically engineered to withstand synthetic chemical pesticides; so it is fair to say GMOs are themselves the issue, since pesticides will inevitably accompany them wherever they are planted. Farmers such as this one in Campeche, Mexico lost entire organic honey crops due to fumigation of nearby GM corn crops, for instance.

GMOs themselves may be contributing to bees dying off due to the fact that they are drenched in glyphosate, the toxic chemical patented by Monsanto and the main active ingredient of RoundUp. Glyphosate is ubiquitous in the environment, turning up in the urine of almost all Europeans and in almost all the blood of foetuses. As Dr. Huber’s research paper stated:

“The exposure, physiological damage, and biological impact of glyphosate are consistent with all of the known conditions related to CCD.”

Access to real data on this issue of GMOs and bees dying off may be more difficult now, because Monsanto bought out Beeologics in September 2011, a bee company which had been studying CCD as well as Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV). Monsanto nows control the flow of information and products coming from Beeologics for colony collapse disorder (CCD).

Why are the Bees Dying Off? Reason #3: EMF

EMF (Electro-Magnetic Frequencies), being by nature invisible, are an overlooked cause of the bees dying off, but an important one nonetheless. So many animals in the natural world, especially flying ones, use energetic frequencies and magnetics for many purposes such as orientation and navigation. Swiss researched Daniel Favre states in his study that “honeybees possess magnetite crystals in their fat body cells and they present magnetic remanence (Gould et al. 1978; Keim et al. 2002). These magnetite structures are active parts of the magnetoreception system in honey- bees (Hsu and Li 1994; Hsu et al. 2007).” His study found that:

“mobile phone handsets have a dramatic impact on the behavior of the bees, namely by inducing the worker piping signal. In natural conditions, worker piping either announces the swarming process of the bee colony or is a signal of a disturbed bee colony.”

Favre also stated:

“In one experiment, it was found that when a mobile phone was kept near a beehive it resulted in a collapse of the colony in 5 to 10 days with the worker bees failing to return home, leaving the hives with just queens, eggs, and hive-bound immature bees.”

It appears that manmade EM fields are disrupting bee colonies. As the video clip above shows, mobile phone radiation compromises the bees’ cryptochrome and their sense of direction and connection with the Earth’s magnetic field.

Why are the Bees Dying Off? Reason #4: Geoengineering

This last reason is the most sinister of all why the bees are dying off. As the video clip above shows, bees can easily get caught up in the strange polymer fibers which are being sprayed from above via geoengineering programs. Some of the fibers have been found to be “alive” in the sense that they move by themselves, automatically. They have been implicated the horrible yet widely unacknowledged Morgellons Disease (see carnicominstitute.org for further info on this).

However, because the public at large is still in mass denial about the existence of geoengineering, there is unlikely to any debate at all about whether to stop the abominable practice of it, even if we are shooting ourselves in the foot by doing it.

Bees are under attack from many angles. Awareness needs to be raised on this crucial issue before we decimate the entire bee population – and ourselves in the process.

Sources:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/02/04/1422089112.abstract

http://ento.psu.edu/publications/are-neonicotinoids-killing-bees

http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/pdfarticles/vol67-2014-125-130lu.pdf

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/3066.pdf

http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2013/02/1500-colonies-of-honeybees-die-in-campeche/

http://www.gmoevidence.com/dr-huber-glyphosate-and-bee-colony-collapse-disorder-ccd/

http://genevalunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/favre.pdf

http://www.carnicominstitute.org/html/articles_by_date.html


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.

Syngenta Accused Of Racketeering

(Original photo by Bob Coleman)

(Original photo by Bob Coleman)

By: Jan Cottingham | Arkansas Business

At least a dozen Arkansas farmers have joined hundreds of farmers in 19 other states in almost 800 lawsuits against Swiss seed maker Syngenta over genetically modified corn seed, a case that has been widely reported in the media.

But one of the lawsuits, filed on behalf of two Newport farms, contains a previously unreported twist: an allegation that Syngenta, a global agribusiness, has engaged in a criminal conspiracy to contaminate the U.S. corn crop to force China, other nations that buy U.S. corn and U.S. farmers to accept genetically modified corn.

The suit, field by the Emerson Poynter law firm, which has offices in Little Rock and Houston, alleges that Syngenta violated the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, which is usually used to fight organized crime.

Emerson Poynter filed the class-action suit in January on behalf of Kenny Falwell and Eagle Lake Farms, farming operations in Newport. It, like at least eight other lawsuits against Syngenta over its genetically modified corn seed, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

These lawsuits joined hundreds of other lawsuits filed by U.S. farmers since the fall against Syngenta, the Swiss developer and marketer of seeds and agricultural chemicals.

The suits claim that Syngenta caused losses of between $1 billion and $2.9 billion to U.S. corn farmers after it sold genetically modified or bioengineered corn seed that had not been approved for use by China, a huge and growing importer of U.S. corn and corn byproducts.

The seed in question is Agrisure Viptera, also known as MIR 162, which has been genetically modified to resist corn pests like earworms and cutworms. The U.S. Department of Agriculture approved the Viptera seed in 2010.

China began refusing shipments of American corn in November 2013 after it detected the GMO (genetically modified organism) trait, and the price of corn and corn byproducts dropped. Even farmers who did not grow the GMO corn experienced losses, the suits say.

Lawsuits have been filed in 20 states, representing 86 percent of the corn planted in the U.S. last year, according to plaintiffs’ lawyers.

China went on to approve Viptera in December, but plaintiffs’ lawyers say the development has little, if any, effect on their case. Scott Powell of Hare Wynn Newell & Newton of Birmingham, Alabama, is one of those lawyers.

China, with its rapidly expanding middle class, has “a voracious appetite for corn,” Powell said, and when it stopped buying U.S. corn, it found other vendors, like Brazil. And once a country finds a substitute vendor for a product, it rarely switches back.

Cargill, ADM Sue

Farmers weren’t the only ones alleged to have suffered. Agribusiness giants Cargill Inc. and Archer Daniels Midland Co. sued Syngenta late last year over the sale of the GMO corn before it had received import approval from China.

Cargill, a top U.S. grain exporter, filed suit in September alleging that it lost $90 million when China rejected corn shipments. “Unlike other seed companies, Syngenta has not practiced responsible stewardship by broadly commercializing a new product before receiving approval from a key export market like China,” Mark Stonacek, president of Cargill Grain & Oilseed Supply Chain North America, said in a company statement. “Syngenta also put the ability of U.S. agriculture to serve global markets at risk, costing both Cargill and the entire U.S. agricultural industry significant damages.”

Seed companies, farmers, grain handlers, exporters and others “have a shared responsibility to maintain and preserve market access when introducing new technology,” Cargill said.

In November, ADM, one of the world’s largest corn processors, also sued Syngenta, which reported sales of $15.1 billion in 2014. “Syngenta chose to sell a corn seed product with traits that were not approved in all major export markets, without undertaking reasonable stewardship practices to prevent the resulting crop from commingling with or otherwise tainting the rest of the U.S. corn supply,” an ADM spokeswoman said.

In response to the Cargill lawsuit, Syngenta said that it believed the lawsuit to be without merit and “strongly upholds the right of growers to have access to approved new technologies that can increase both their productivity and their profitability.” Syngenta maintained that it had been “fully transparent in commercializing the trait over the last four years.”

The farmers’ and grain handlers’ lawsuits were consolidated late last month in U.S. District Court in Kansas as a multidistrict litigation assigned to federal Judge John W. Lungstrum.

A team of four lawyers has been named to lead the litigation: Powell; Don Downing of Gray Ritter & Graham of St. Louis; William Chaney of Gray Reed & McGraw of Dallas; and Patrick Stueve of Stueve Siegel Hanson of Kansas City.

‘A Hobson’s Choice’

The lawsuit by Kenny Falwell and Eagle Lake Farms of Newport accuses Syngenta of violations of the RICO statute. Although approved by Congress in 1970 to fight organized crime, it’s been cited in other cases against corporations.

On Thursday, for example, more than 90 landowners and other royalty owners in Pennsylvania accused Chesapeake Energy Corp. and Williams Partners LP of violating RICO by conspiring to restrain trade and engaging in a scheme “to help Chesapeake solve financial problems associated with the massive amount of debt that it incurred in acquiring oil and gas leases at the expense of royalty interest owners.”

The Falwell suit says that trends against GMO products, particularly in regard to the growing Chinese market, threatened Syngenta’s financial and competitive health.

If farmers continued to balk at growing GMO corn, the suit says, “it would weaken Syngenta competitively, reversing its economic growth and momentum and potentially disabling it from recovering the approximately $200 million it had invested in Viptera’s development over a span of five to seven years.”

Therefore, the suit alleges, Syngenta “embarked on a plan to purposely undermine U.S. non-GMO corn growers and those resistant to growing Syngenta’s unapproved genetic corn traits.

“To that end, Defendants engaged in a scheme designed to inevitably taint and contaminate the U.S. Corn supply, effectively causing its economic vitality to be held hostage to MIR-162 trait GMO corn, knowing that the continuous marketing and sale of Syngenta’s MIR-162 trait corn seed would ultimately prejudice and disrupt the U.S. Corn export market and the U.S. Corn commodities market.”

Syngenta knew that it was “impossible” for farmers to keep Viptera corn separate from non-GMO corn, the suit says, and that the U.S. corn supply would inevitably become contaminated.

This situation, the suit alleges, would then present China and other nations importing from the U.S. with “a Hobson’s choice: reject U.S. corn tainted with MIR-162 genetic trait and take a chance on securing other viable trade partners, failing which that nation would risk lacking sufficient corn to feed its people and livestock, or, rather than accept such risk, feel compelled to accept delivery of U.S. Corn.”

There was another goal, according to the lawsuit: to force U.S. farmers to realize that resistance to GMO corn, including Syngenta’s, was “futile and perhaps even economically disadvantageous in the long term.”

This “scheme,” the suit alleges, was carried out by Syngenta and several of its subsidiaries, along with Syngenta CEO Michael Mack and David Morgan, at that time president of Syngenta Seeds Inc., and “a network of independent ‘Syngenta Seed Advisors’” and Syngenta dealers and distributors.

A “Syngenta GMO Corn Seed Enterprise” was formed that contaminated the U.S. corn supply with Viptera corn, the suit alleges. It alleges that the defendants engaged in mail fraud in the marketing of the GMO corn and wire fraud in the dissemination of “false and misleading information and material omissions in public conference calls, press releases, articles and statements published over the news wires and interviews.”

Asked to respond to the allegations of RICO violations, Syngenta spokesman Paul Minehart said:

“Syngenta believes that the lawsuits are without merit and strongly upholds the right of growers to have access to approved new technologies that can increase both their productivity and their profitability. The Agrisure Viptera trait (MIR162) was approved for cultivation in the U.S. in 2010. Syngenta commercialized the trait in full compliance with regulatory and legal requirements. Syngenta also obtained import approval from major corn importing countries. Syngenta has been fully transparent in commercializing the trait over the last four years.”

Powell, who represents other farmers in their pursuit of Syngenta, said he knew of the RICO allegations in the Falwell suit but declined to comment on whether they were likely to be included in the master consolidated complaint, which is being drafted. That complaint is due March 13.

Paid By Monsanto: Universities Taking Money From The Biotech Bully

monsanto-money

By: Barbara Peterson | Farm Wars

I want food that Grandma ate. How hard is that to understand? I don’t want it chemically lobotomized and coated with poison. I don’t want it genetically spliced to become something between a salamander and a tomato. I don’t want it radiated and mutated. I don’t want a virus inserted in its DNA. I don’t want its RNA tampered with to change its traits. I just want good, old fashioned food. The kind you grow in your garden and use to feed your family and critters. The kind the bees like to collect pollen from and not go belly up the minute they enter the hive. The kind that you can pick with your bare hands and eat right from the plant. The kind that won’t turn your stomach into a pesticide factory and your guts into mush.

I actually have the gall to want food that is edible and good for me, not just something a chemical company threw together sporting a pretty label and packaging that says it is. Is that really too much to ask?

Well, according to Monsanto et al, it is. And the agribusiness giants have taken over the universities.

These corporate GMO and chemical farming pushers are brainwashing whole generations of young adults and senior adults that GMOs are safe, have been around for thousands of years, and are a perfectly natural alternative to Grandma’s garden, made by Monsanto. The chemical/life sciences company. You know the one. The one that appears to poison the very ground that it sits on along with the people around it.

Just how were Nitro citizens exposed to dioxin? Monsanto was producing the toxic herbicide Agent Orange in Nitro, and dioxin is a chemical byproduct of the substance. It is known to cause serious health conditions. The factory which produced Agent Orange was opened in Nitro in 1948 and remained in operation until 2004, even though usage of this herbicide in the past (in Vietnam and other Asian countries) was fatal to millions of citizens and the war veterans who were exposed to it.

http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-ordered-pay-93-million-small-town-poisoned-herbicide/#ixzz38ZTuFLvq

Is this what we want for our children? Our planet? Our dinner plates?

Monsanto laughed all the way to the bank while covering up the toxicity of its industrial shenanigans as Anniston, Alabama’s children played in and ate dirt soaked with PCBs at yet another toxic superfund site created by Monsanto.

On the west side of Anniston, the poor side of Anniston, the people ate dirt. They called it “Alabama clay” and cooked it for extra flavor. They also grew berries in their gardens, raised hogs in their back yards, caught bass in the murky streams where their children swam and played and were baptized. They didn’t know their dirt and yards and bass and kids — along with the acrid air they breathed — were all contaminated with chemicals. They didn’t know they lived in one of the most polluted patches of America.

http://farmwars.info/?p=664

That is what Monsanto is about. Greed and avarice. Not feeding a starving world as the PR would have you believe.

And this is the company my friends, that is hell bent on owning the foundation of the world’s food supply, including that snack you are munching on, organic or not. And we are supposed to trust its good intentions? I’ll just bet those kids who played on that toxic soil in Anniston are feeling the love about now, as they inhale their last breaths through a respirator in the cancer wing of the local hospital.

Want to know why supposed “scientists” from universities such as UC Davis can get by with purporting to be “not receiving funds” from the biotech industry while spouting Monsanto propaganda? Because the money they receive is laundered through the universities they work for. They don’t receive it directly from Monsanto, they simply receive their paycheck from the university that does. Or the foundation that does. Or whatever biotech sinkhole that will accept money for services rendered.

(click image tio enlarge)

universities

http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/PublicResearchPrivateGain.pdf

Land grant universities’ dependence on industry money has corrupted the independence of public science, as academics align their research projects with the ambitions of the private sector. Industry funding also diverts academic resources and attention away from projects that benefit the public, including research that challenges corporate control of food systems.

Donors can and do influence the outcomes of research to meet their business needs. More than 15 percent of university scientists acknowledge having “changed the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.”

Individual examples of pro-industry research abound… [A] study found that around half of authors of peer-reviewed journal articles about the safety of genetically engineered (GE) foods had an identifiable affiliation with industry. All of these produced favorable results to industry sponsors, while very few acknowledged having received industry funding.

http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/PublicResearchPrivateGain.pdf

The future of a major research deal between UC Davis and the Monsanto corporation brings the role of the university into bold relief. How far can a university go in collaborating with private industry before its mission of contributing to basic knowledge becomes distorted? How will we know when it’s gone too far?

http://nature.berkeley.edu/srr/Alliance/novartis/davis.htm

Here is a link to a letter confirming only one of Monsanto’s many contributions to UC Davis:

http://www.cheeseslave.com/wp-cont…/…/2012/10/grfx_c3_31.pdf

The following is a portion of a Sacramento Bee article that has been removed from the newspaper’s site:

A “who’s who” of international biotechnology companies fund work at UC Davis. They include Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont and Bayer. Some grants pay for specific research, but many arrive with no official strings attached. Whatever the form, the companies get something in return – access to the university’s talent pool and, often, first crack at its scientific breakthroughs.

The public is having a hard time figuring out where the corporate door ends and where the university door begins,” said Bill Liebhardt, former director of the UC system’s sustainable farming program, which promotes nonindustrial farming methods.

Small farmers — the very people agricultural colleges like UC Davis were established to help — feel neglected. “The university is being led by industry,” said Judith Redmond, co-owner of Full Belly Farm, an organic vegetable farm in Yolo County. (Source: Sacramento Bee)

But don’t worry, Monsanto and its cohorts are feeding the world. What’s left of it when they get through is anyone’s guess.

This type of behavior is unacceptable by any standards. The Universities are essentially bought off by corporate biotech interests such as Monsanto’s and tasked with unleashing a technology with relatively unknown consequences on the general public under the guise of a love for humanity; a PR campaign designed to sell as much of the stuff as possible. This type of behavior is not only unethical, but criminal. Yet, that is exactly what Monsanto has a sordid history of doing and getting away with. With the government’s blessing and complicity. Money talks, reason walks. Along with common sense, compassion, and any spark of humanity left in the souls of those wretched creatures who are pulling the trigger on humanity one gene-spliced concoction at a time.


Article first appeared at Farm Wars.

 

USDA Approves ‘Untested, Inherently Risky’ GMO Apple

gmo apple

On Friday, February 13, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the first genetically engineered apple, despite hundreds of thousands of petitions asking the USDA to reject it.

According an article in Politico, the USDA said the GMO apple “doesn’t pose any harm to other plants or pests.”

Great. But what about potential harm to the humans who consume them?

The Arctic Apple (Golden Delicious and Granny varieties), developed by Canada-based Okanagan Specialty Fruit, shockingly doesn’t require approval by the U.S. Food & Drug Association (FDA). The FDA will merely conduct a “voluntary review” before, presumably, rubber-stamping the apple for use in restaurants, institutions (including schools and hospitals) and grocery stores—with no meaningful long- (or even short-) term safety testing for its potential impact on human health.

Here’s why that should concern every consumer out there, especially parents of young children.

In April 2013, we interviewed scientists about the genetic engineering technology used to create the Arctic Apple, whose only claim to fame is that it doesn’t turn brown when sliced. The benefit to consumers? Being able to eat apples without having any sense of how old they are?

Here’s what we learned about the technology, called RNA interference, or double strand RNA (dsRNA), from Professor Jack Heinemann (University of Canterbury, New Zealand), Sarah Agapito-Tenfen (from Santa Catarina University in Brazil) and Judy Carman (Flinders University in South Australia), all of whom said that dsRNA manipulation is untested, and therefore inherently risky:

Given that the dsRNA from our food, and presumably the Frankenapple, will enter the bloodstream and cells of consumers, safety research should be done BEFORE this GMO apple is put on the grocery shelf to prove that the dsRNA that enters consumers’ bodies will not harm them. To date, no such research has been reported, so the Frankenapple is flying in the dark.

On the contrary, recent research has shown that dsRNAs can transfer from plants to humans and other animals through food. The biotech industry has always claimed that genetically engineered DNA or RNA is destroyed by human digestion, eliminating the danger of these mutant organisms damaging human genes or human health. But many biotech scientists say otherwise. They point to evidence that the dsRNA present in food survive digestion in the stomach and intestines and actually enter the bloodstream and tissues of the body, where it can influence the functioning of the eater’s cells.

Some of the scientists also pointed out that GMO apples will likely lead to even greater use of pesticides, on a product that (unless it’s organic) already tests positive for 42 pesticides, according to the Pesticide Action Network’s analysis of the most recent USDA data.

Here’s why. Turns out the chemical compound that is shut off in the engineered fruit through RNA manipulation, in order to make it not oxidize or brown, is a chemical compound that also fights off plant pests. What happens when the apple’s ability to fend off insects is compromised? Growers will need to spray greater amounts. Those pesticides will eventually find their way into our bodies, either because we ingested the fruit, or breathed the air or drank the water where the pesticides were sprayed.

So the upshot of Friday’s USDA approval of the Arctic GMO Apple?

As OCA International Director Ronnie Cummins told a reporter at Reuters, consumers will once again be guinea pigs for the biotech industry’s untested, potentially dangerous technology. And we risk being exposed to an even greater number of pesticides.

Just so we can have apples that never turn brown.

Parents should be especially concerned, as GMO apples will most likely be sold to restaurants and institutions—there will be no way to know if your child is consuming them except to avoid anything containing apples. And if the Arctic Apple varieties show up in grocery stores, where they will be unlabeled unless we pass a federal mandatory GMO labeling law, the only way to avoid them will be to buy certified organic.

All the more reason to add your voice to the millions who have already asked Congress to pass a mandatory GMO labeling law. Take Action here.


Katherine Paul is associate director of the Organic Consumers Association.

 

Rhode Island Newest State To Propose GMO Labeling Law

gmo_corn_hazard_735

By: Alon Galor | The Brown Daily Herald – 

Proposition, similar to those in Maine and Connecticut, responds to increase in public awareness.

Legislation introduced Jan. 15 would require genetically engineered products in Rhode Island to be clearly labeled “produced with genetic engineering,” and would also specify what the term “genetically engineered product” — which has multiple definitions — would mean in the state. Rep. Raymond Hull, D-Providence and Rep. Dennis Canario, D-Portsmouth, Little Compton, Tiverton separately introduced legislation on genetically modified organisms, though the two will likely collaborate in the future, Hull said.

Similar bills have been passed in Maine and Connecticut but will not take effect until comparable legislation is passed in other states, according to a General Assembly press release. For the bill proposed in Maine to take effect, five nearby states must pass similar legislation, while Connecticut’s law is contingent on the passage of GMO bills in enough northeastern states so that their combined populations include 20 million residents, according to the press release.

The announcement of Rhode Island’s bill arrives during a period of increased media scrutiny of GMOs, following the Jan. 13 dissolution of the European Union-wide ban on genetically modified farming, which allowed national governments to impose their own restrictions.

“I’ve introduced this bill for four years,” Hull said. “It gets just so far and then it stops. But there is more momentum now than there has been in the past. We’re very optimistic.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which regulates the disclosure requirements of foods, declares that there is no meaningful difference between GMO and non-GMO foods.

The department also sets standards for labeling of ingredients, including artificial flavors, colors, preservatives and sweeteners. It stipulates that fruit juices must be labeled “fresh” or “made from concentrate,” and producers are not allowed to use the term “juice” if the product is not made of 100 percent juice. It also mandates that specific labels such as “fresh,” “frozen,” “fresh frozen” and “frozen fresh” be assigned to products such as peas.

Around the country and in Rhode Island, labels exist to specify non-GMO foods and certified organic foods, which by definition are not genetically modified.

Studies have shown that genetically modified crops may exhibit increased drought resistance, higher pesticide tolerance and increased nutritional content.

“We are moving into a world that is more food-stressed over the next 50 years due to climate change and population growth,” said Rep. Arthur Handy, D-Cranston, a co-sponsor of Hull’s bill and chairperson of the House Environment and Natural Resources Committee. “Genetically modified foods may play a role in combating this stress.”

Other studies link genetically modified foods to decreased antibiotic efficacy, more frequent use of pesticides and unapproved food additives and allergens.

The longterm implications of genetically modified foods may be difficult to foresee since they have only been around for a few decades. “There have been no longitudinal studies conducted on the health impacts of genetically engineered foods on humans,” said Jim Leahy, executive director of Citizens for GMO Labeling, a grassroots movement dedicated to labeling genetically modified products.

Approximately 70 percent of supermarket foods contain genetically modified ingredients, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“I think that consumers ought to have the right to know exactly what they are purchasing,” Handy said, adding that “unless we can get to a point where we are positive that everything is safe, it would be better for us to be informed.”

GMO labeling is practiced in 65 countries, Leahy said. Many polls — including some conducted by the New York Times, MSNBC, Reuters and ABC News — all indicate that more than 90 percent of Americans are in favor of GMO labeling.

With issues such as gun control and GMO labeling, there is a large public majority that supports government regulation, but vocal and powerful groups have hindered the ability of policymakers to enact change, Handy said. Opponents of labeling genetically modified products “are being much more vocal,” he said, adding that “unless folks express themselves more vigorously on this issue, we’re more likely to go with the folks we hear from.”

“A central concern of manufacturers and producers is that labeling sends a signal that GMOs are bad,” Handy said.

“They are worried that it may cut into their bottom line,” Hull said.

Hull’s proposed bill would not impose GMO labeling on alcoholic beverages, food provided in any restaurant, farm products sold by a farmer or food derived from a non-genetically modified animal fed or injected with engineered foods or drugs, according to the bill’s text.

“It doesn’t mean that we can’t revisit those caveats after the bill is passed,” Hull said.

Looking ahead, Hull said he would “probably join forces” with Canario and his bill, though he added that only his own bill addresses concerns such as liquor companies’ use of genetically modified corn in producing alcohol.