ArchiveArchive

Obama’s new policy registration may very well have ended all non-GMO agriculture in the US

January 4, 2017 by Jude Henry Leave a Comment

President Obama’s pen has stayed so busy signing executive orders (EO) that it’s surprising it hasn’t yet run dry, and as his days in the Oval Office wind down, he has added another one to his lengthy list of such orders. The recent “Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda to Achieve a World Safe and Secure from Infectious Disease Threats” EO is particularly significant in that it may have put a halt to all non-GMO agriculture in the United States.

Key points of the EO

Section 1 of the EO includes some disturbing points:

“As articulated in the National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats and implemented in Presidential Policy Directive 2 (PPD-2), promoting global health security is a core tenet of our national strategy for countering biological threats. No single nation can be prepared if other nations remain unprepared to counter biological threats; therefore, it is the policy of the United States to advance the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), which is a multi-faceted, multi-country initiative intended to accelerate partner countries’ measurable capabilities to achieve specific targets to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease threats (GHSA targets), whether naturally occurring, deliberate, or accidental.” [Emphasis added]

Coordinated effort with military backup

Section 2 of the EO states that the “Council” will include personnel from a multitude of federal government agencies, including the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Department of Defense (DOD) may “facilitate implementation and coordination of Department of Defense programs to further the GHSA, as well as provide technical expertise to measure and evaluate progress in countries the United States has made a commitment to assist.” In other words, the military will enforce this EO if deemed necessary.

Connection to GMOs

How does this tie in with GMOs? The government claims that farm animals are supposedly infected (but typically are not) and must be slaughtered to make way for their “vastly upgraded” counterparts, which are genetically engineered and thus patented and owned by global organizations. The public receives a fear-based agenda riddled with hysteria over disease threats, and they respond to that by willingly going along with the GMO agenda. It’s a convenient agenda for the powers that be, as it allows them to maintain tight control of the food supply while attempting to obliterate small and organic farms.

Unrealistic aims and better alternatives

The EO is titled “Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda to Achieve a World Safe and Secure from Infectious Disease Threats,” but achieving a world like that is unrealistic. Infectious disease threats have always existed on this planet. The title implies a fear of infections, which is portrayed in the popular music video Vaccine Zombie by Mike Adams. As the lyrics say, “I’m afraid of invisible germs … .” Rather than promoting GMOs and toxic initiatives to address infectious disease concerns, a more effective approach involves educating people to lead healthy lifestyles through nutrition and other immune system-fortifying natural strategies.

Action steps

Don’t be fooled by the impressive- and altruistic-sounding title of this EO. Spread the word about GMO dangers by working to inform family and friends through intelligent conversations and the sharing of relevant online content. We can take back our food supply and end the danger of GMOs for ourselves and future generations. Stay tuned as the GMO issue continues to unfold, and be grateful that Obama’s days of signing his name to oppressive executive orders are rapidly winding down as the January inauguration approaches.

Sources:

NaturalBlaze

WhiteHouse

NaturalNews

Does the EPA have all of Monsanto’s hidden science regarding glyphosate and GMOs?

January 3, 2017 by Natural News Editors Leave a Comment

As you sit down to your various holiday feasts during the next week or so, maybe you ought to think about what’s in your food.

Do you really know the chemicals and GMO ingredients, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) probably EVEN doesn’t know many of them due to Monsanto’s probable unreported and/or hidden ‘science’ not surrendered as part of the ‘approval’ process for either glyphosate, Roundup® and Roundup Ready seeds for soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, cotton, and sorghum—with wheat under development!

(Article by Catherine J Frompovich, republished from NaturalBlaze.com)

It’s bad enough that numerous crops are “staged” with glyphosate spraying several days before harvest, which impregnates them with glyphosate residues, and that could be a contributing factor and reason for “gluten intolerance.” Genetically modifying wheat is NOT a good idea, since wheat is the western world’s grain, similar to rice being the eastern world’s grain. And “Golden Rice” hasn’t been accepted very well either.

Monsanto’s lobbyist, Patrick Moore, refuses to drink some Roundup® after proclaiming it won’t hurt you because, as he says, “I’m not an idiot!” What does it tell you about that herbicide and, especially, Monsanto’s own lobbyist, who was promoting GMO Golden Rice, and their products?

Here’s an interesting article from the Harvard University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences website titled “Why Roundup Ready Crops Have Lost Their Allure”. Still, corporate interests are pushing federal approval agencies to inundate the human and animal food chains with many more GMOs. [1]

EcoWatch produced the article “15 Health Problems Linked to Monsanto’s Roundup,” which include: ADHD, Alzheimer’s disease, Anencephaly (birth defects), Autism, Brain cancer, Cancer, Celiac disease and gluten intolerance, chronic Kidney disease, Colitis, Depression, Diabetes, Heart disease, Hypothyroidism, Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBS) and “Leaky Gut Syndrome”, Liver disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS), Multiple Sclerosis (MS), Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Parkinson disease, Pregnancy problems (infertility, miscarriages, stillbirths), Obesity, Reproductive problems, and Respiratory illnesses. [2]

There’s been a rather interesting rumor circulating around Monsanto and GMO foods for quite a while now and it is: In the Monsanto corporate dining room, only organically-grown foods must be served! Can a whistleblower come forth to provide proof of that? If that is factual, then that’s something not only the public must know, but all regulatory agencies dealing with approving their respective aspects of GMOs: the U.S. FDA, USDA and EPA!

In the meantime, Food Democracy NOW has a petition website going titled “Tell the EPA to Release ALL of Monsanto’s Hidden Data on Glyphosate and GMOs”.

I heartily recommend readers read and sign now.

Are you aware that “in 1985, the EPA’s own scientists declared glyphosate to be a Category C ‘possible human carcinogen’ after reviewing studies submitted by Monsanto during the original approval”?

However, there are photographs of two-year-old rats from GMO feed studies that resulted in massive tumors. Monsanto’s studies presented for GMO approvals stopped at 90 DAYS, not the normal two-year-life-cycle of rats!

Relative to Monsanto’s 90-day study, EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) stated,

“With respect to the detection of potential unintended eﬀects in whole GM food and feed, it is unlikely that substances present in small amounts and with a low toxic potential will result in any observable (unintended) eﬀects in a 90-day rodent feeding study, as they would be below the no-observed-eﬀect-level and thus of unlikely impact to human health at normal intake levels.

Laboratory animal feeding studies of 90-days duration appear to be suﬃcient to pick up adverse eﬀects of diverse compounds that would also give adverse eﬀects after chronic exposure.”

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2008.1057/epdf (Pg. S-4)

However, “Seralini’s long-term study linking glyphosate to rat tumors was unfortunately retracted from the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology due to pressure from Monsanto lobbyists. The results of the study have since been republished in Environmental Sciences Europe.” [3]

Look what’s happened to food in Europe, which previously was relatively clean of GMOs!

In June 2015, EFSA issued a new guidance document on the information that companies need to provide when applying for renewed authorisation to import GM plants for food and feed into the European Union. The European Commission grants authorizations to place GM food and feed on the European market for a period of ten years. [4]

Could that impact your food shopping and buying practices regarding foods produced in Europe? It certainly ought to affect what previously was considered GMO-free foods coming from European countries.

What do you think?

Aren’t consumers entitled to know what’s in the food we are eating, e.g., GMOs and how that food was grown or produced/manufactured?

Shouldn’t there be “reverse advertising” on all food labels, e.g., no GMOs or GMO-free?

Shouldn’t the PLU identity number “8” be mandatory for all foods containing GMOs or grown as GMOs? [5]

Currently, the PLU identity number “9” identifies organically-grown food.

Won’t you please tell the EPA what you think about GMOs and sign the petition? Thanks!

Are you eating Monsanto’s weed killer for dinner?

December 7, 2016 by Lance D Johnson Leave a Comment

There’s no surefire way to tell what you’re really eating for dinner these days. Food labels only brush the surface, distracting everyone with meaningless concepts like total calories. The most important information that the consumer needs to know goes unmeasured; it is kept silent.

Our ancestors weren’t confronted with the same problems we face today. Food is being genetically altered in various new ways so that corporations like Monsanto can monopolize on the sale of their agricultural chemicals (Roundup). As super weeds evolve, Monsanto’s manipulation of nature continues. Monsanto has already unleashed a toxic dicamba-based herbicide XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology in 2016.

Watchdog groups publishing glyphosate residues in common foods

Food Democracy Now and The Detox Project are doing the job that regulatory agencies should be doing – letting the public know about rising residues of glyphosate in popular food items. Their shocking report “Glyphosate: Unsafe On Any Plate” unveils glyphosate levels polluting popular food items that might be in your kitchen cabinets.

Every year in the US, the crops, land, soil, air, and water absorb more than 300 million pounds of Monsanto’s weed killer, Roundup. The principle ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, has been classified as a class 2A carcinogen, but American farms continue to blast it all over the food, without second guessing our fate. Chemists are now finding glyphosate in honey, breast milk, and tampons. At study by the U.S. EPA and another by the European Union, concur that glyphosate is absorbed into bones.

This is a greater problem than just corporations making a lot of money. Glyphosate chelates important minerals from the soil, preventing crops from taking up iron, manganese, zinc, and boron. When the crops don’t get everything they need, their ability to defend themselves dwindles. Pests become a greater problem and then more pesticides are sold to address this crisis.

Transgenic seeds introducing genes from other organisms into the food supply

Roundup Ready Crops have been altered at the DNA level so they can withstand the herbicide glyphosate. This has accelerated the evolution of super weeds. Since the active ingredient in Roundup is a registered antibiotic, it may be contributing to increased microbial resistance and super bugs. Glyphosate also adversely affects hormones.

Genetic alterations can be classified into three groups, transgenic, cisgenic, and intragenic. A transgenic seed contains a genome that is spliced with a foreign, non-crossable species, which does not occur naturally. For example, this happens when scientists splice fish genes with tomatoes genes. The transgene can also be synthetically developed in a lab. A cisgenic seed includes the transfer of genes between two related organisms. An intragenic seed is a hybrid that uses genes between crossable species.

Why are we so concerned with calories, a concept barely applicable to our bodies? A calorie is simply a measurement of the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1°C. Why aren’t we more concerned with carcinogenic molecules in our food such as glyphosate? Why don’t our food labels alert us to glyphosate contaminated ingredients or provide the measurement of this toxin in our food? It’s the content of the calorie that counts. What kind of chemicals and heavy metals are in the foods?

The most important question to ask: Are you eating Monsanto’s weed killer for dinner?

Sources:

NaturalBlaze.com

S3.amazonaws.com

FAA approves airborne poison-spraying pesticide drones

August 26, 2016 by Vicki Batts Leave a Comment

If glyphosate wasn’t scary enough for you, Monsanto’s newest idea will surely have your hair standing on end. The agri-business giant has come up with a pesticide drone – because drones and pesticides are two things that clearly belong together. Dumping herbicides and pesticides from the sky seems like something the government should oppose, but instead, somehow the corporate giant has won federal approval for this monstrous development.

The helicopters, which have been designed by Yamaha Corp. U.S.A., are incredibly lightweight and don’t require human pilots. In 2015, the federal government announced their approval for the autonomous helicopters to be used by farmers to spray fertilizers and pesticides. Rice farmers in Japan have already begun using the drones for this very purpose – though that does not exactly inspire confidence.

Supposedly, the drones are best used for precision spraying on hilly terrain and tough-to-reach areas. While this does kind of make sense, the real problem here is that the government is allowing people to spray pesticides from unmanned helicopters. Understandably, officials were “initially hesitant,” but ended up granting a Section 333 exemption for the new civilian drone. Steve Markofski, a spokesman for Yamaha Corp. U.S.A., told the Associated Press, “I certainly understand their cautious approach. It’s a daunting task given our airspace is complicated.”

There are many reasons why these “drone-copters,” if you will, should be approached with caution – or better yet, avoided all together. But apparently matters of national health and security are of very little importance to the FAA. Sadly, this is not really surprising coming from a federal agency.

First of all, these drones will make it easier than ever for farmers to douse their crops – and the surrounding areas – in glyphosate or other toxic chemicals. When you spray these pesticides into the air, especially from above in a drone, you are not just spraying the target; the toxic mist will spread into the air. There is no telling how far exactly these toxic particles can spread, but suffice it to say they can contaminate their surroundings easily.

A report by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences revealed that around 5 percent of the pesticides sprayed on crops will drift to other areas; this is more than enough to be harmful to the surrounding environment. Pesticides are already found in rivers, groundwater and even fresh rain. The risks of unwanted pesticide spread into our air, water and soil are already hard enough to control – what will happen when farmers can spray pesticides and herbicides from a flying, unmanned drone at will?

And furthermore, what is going to happen when that drone is eventually hacked? Chinese hackers have already hacked into U.S. airlines. Don’t you think airline computer systems are a little more secure than Farmer Joe’s pesticide drone-copter? Do we really want these drones to end up spraying people with these pesticides instead of plants? Because that is probably going to happen.

Sources:

Science.NaturalNews.com

Are you sensitive to gluten, or is your body reacting to what’s hidden in your food?

August 12, 2016 by Vicki Batts Leave a Comment

If you’ve got Celiac disease, or are otherwise gluten intolerant, there’s a good chance it isn’t actually gluten you’re reacting to. Indeed, many wheat-related illnesses may actually be provoked by what’s going on these crops instead of what’s naturally in them.

Shortly before harvesting, a large amount of the wheat grown here in America is sprayed with everyone’s favorite herbicide, Roundup. You see, many conventional farmers find that this rather careless practice can help to modestly boost their crops and decrease their harvest time. Roundup is used to help dry out the wheat, which makes harvesting a bit easier. And another “bonus” for farmers is that it causes the wheat crops to release their seeds sooner — which results in moderately higher yields. But the unfortunate result of this practice is that the crops are coated in Roundup, which will be absorbed by the part of the wheat we use for food.

According to wheat farmer Keith Lewis, this is not a licensed practice, but it is still quite common. In an interview with Dr. William Davis, author of the book Wheat Belly, Mr. Lewis said, “A wheat field often ripens unevenly, thus applying Roundup pre-harvest evens up the greener parts of the field with the more mature.” So, some farmers use Roundup later in the growth cycle so they can harvest their crops at the same time, even though it is not licensed for this purpose.

In a recent article, Sarah Pope — from The Healthy Home Economist — discusses the results of a 2013 study published in the journal Interdisciplinary Toxicology. The study revealed that as the amount of glyphosate being used on wheat crops has continued to increase, the incidence of Celiac disease and wheat intolerance has skyrocketed as well.

Since being introduced to wheat farmers in the early nineties, spraying conventional wheat crops with Roundup just before harvest has become an industry-wide practice. Figures from a 2012 assessment conducted by the United States Agricultural Department (USDA) have revealed that 99 percent of durm wheat, 97 percent of spring wheat and 61 percent of winter wheat crops are sprayed with Roundup just before harvesting.

Given that glyphosate — the main active ingredient in Roundup — is known for damaging several essential pathways for nutrient absorption and affecting the intestinal microbiome, is it really that surprising that these products are making people sick?

Because of Roundup’s immense presence in conventionally farmed wheat products, it would be best to avoid them all together. Instead, you should try natural, organic products such as those made with einkorn wheat. Einkorn wheat is low in gluten and has not been hybridized, making it a great choice for those who wish to avoid the pitfalls of conventional wheat.

Sources:

NaturalNews.com

TheHealthyHomeEconomist.com

Glyphosate herbicide disrupts the development of the uterus, affects female fertility

August 10, 2016 by Vicki Batts Leave a Comment

Glyphosate has already been labeled as “probably carcinogenic” by the World Health Organization. While many would consider this title alone to be damning enough, the evidence indicating the dangers of glyphosate continues to pile up.

A recent study conducted by researchers from Argentina found that glyphosate disrupted uterine development in female rats. What is most alarming is that these changes in development occurred with just seven days of exposure.

In just a week’s time, glyphosate elicited structural changes to the baby rats’ uteri, and also altered cellular proliferation. The expression of proteins involved in uterine development was also affected by exposure to the herbicide. In spite of these changes in development, no signs of chronic or acute toxicity were evident.

The findings of this study led the researchers to conclude that glyphosate exposure has the potential to negatively affect female fertility, and may also increase the risk of uterine cancer. The researchers also note that theirs is the first study to showcase glyphosate’s potential to disrupt endocrine function in newborn and adolescent rats.

It is important to also note that the researchers used amounts of glyphosate that were equivalent to the current United States reference dose, scaled to the individual weights of the rats. This means that the dose used on the rats was equivalent to what is currently permitted by our government, and even deemed safe for daily consumption.

Clearly, even when the dose of glyphosate is not causing toxicity, it can still cause other issues. This raises the question, “Is any amount of glyphosate actually safe?”

The answer is, probably not.

These are not the first hazardous effects of glyphosate to be seen and documented by science, and they surely will not be the last. Eco Watch has even gone so far as to create a list of some of the most pervasive diseases and conditions that have been attributed to glyphosate exposure.

Glyphosate’s capacity to disrupt thyroid hormones has been associated with an increased prevalence of ADHD in farming communities, for instance. Breast cancer, brain cancer and neurological conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, autism, ALS, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease can all be caused by glyphosate exposure. Liver disease, kidney disease, respiratory problems, reproductive issues and birth defects have also been associated with exposure to this toxic herbicide. Digestive issues such as Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, celiac disease and leaky gut syndrome have also been linked to glyphosate.

Eco Watch reports that Monsanto has falsified data on the safety of their product to protect their profit margins, and between the years of 1996 and 2011, managed to increase the use of herbicides by 527 million pounds – and that’s just in the United States.

Scientists continue to study and document the ill effects of glyphosate on both humans and the environment, and yet nothing is actually being done to stop its prevalence in our lives. Even as people protest and scientific data reveals its hazardous nature, Monsanto manages to remain unscathed and without scrutiny here in the USA. Glyphosate contaminates not just the food we eat, but the water we drink and the air we breathe, and it needs to be stopped.

Sources:

GMWatch.org

EcoWatch.com

Don’t believe the mainstream lies about GMO corn: it is INUNDATED with chemicals

August 3, 2016 by D. Samuelson Leave a Comment

Would you rather pluck and peel some juicy organic corn out of your backyard garden or grab a few ears of Cry1Ab, VIP3A, MON 810 and Genuity® SmartStax® RIB Complete® from your grocer’s produce aisle? Corn may look identical on the outside, but, there are worlds of differences in genetics invisible to the naked eye. Perhaps it’s time we remind ourselves of the dangers of GMO corn.

Nearly four years ago, an important report on the stark disparities between GMO corn and Non-GMO corn was crafted by the Minnesota researchers and soil biologists at ProfitproAG. They sent their findings to Canada’s De Dell Seed company, which was, at that time, the only Non GMO corn seed producer in Canada. Fortuitously, this research was shared publicly with Zen Honeycutt, the dynamic woman behind Moms Across America. Zen sounded the alarm. Natural News detailed the facts. . . when you bite into GMO corn, your body is not going to like what it gets:

“GMO corn contains about 19 times more glyphosate than is permitted as a maximum in drinking water by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and 130 times more glyphosate than has been found in tests to cause organ damage in animals.”

But that’s not all. How do you feel about eating formaldehyde? A few bites of GMO corn will serve it right up. No wonder squirrels, deer and even cattle, if offered a choice, won’t eat GMO corn. They can smell the formaldehyde. Dr. Don M. Huber, Emeritus Professor Plant Pathology, Purdue University has been sounding the GMO alarm for years. His research showed that GMO corn can contain 200 PPM formaldehyde. He has also discovered that cows can get sick if they ingest half that amount, or 97PPM.

Add this to those high levels of glyphosate, that ubiquitous endocrine disrupter and immobilizer/ killer of good bacteria and nutrients in the soil and in your gut. Of course GMO corn is inedible. It also showed extremely lower levels of life sustaining nutrients like boron, magnesium, manganese, calcium and potassium. Simple fact. Boycott GMO corn, and any other food made with genetic engineering, no matter how sophisticated the Crispr-Cas9 technology is supposed to make it.

This important report made it abundantly clear that Non-GMO corn is the only choice. Natural News concurred, reporting that the researchers discovered “non-GMO corn is 20 times richer in nutrition, energy and protein compared to GMO corn.”

Why then, for over two decades have the massive chemical agricultural complex repeated over and over that GMO and Non GMO products are “substantially equivalent?” Does this even appear to be a scientifically sound statement? Nope. It’s a phrase that only money could buy. And that’s exactly what happened. The true scientists at the FDA were compromised back in 1992. Read the sordid history in Steven Drucker’s book, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth. Or watch this Drucker interview with Dr. Mercola.

The chemical agricultural GMO complex, like all liars, repeat themselves with the hope that you’ll eventually believe their well worn phrases. GMO seed will yield more, use less pesticide and feed the world. Wrong on all counts.

When is a corn cob not a corn cob? When it’s a GMO corn cob. Squirrels and deer are more discerning than man. We can’t smell the difference, but we sure don’t have to buy it.

Sources:

Profitproag.net

Momsacrossamerica.com

Naturalnews.com

Wired.com

Science.naturalnews.com

Alteredgenestwistedtruth.com

Youtube.com

NYC parks and playgrounds covered in glyphosate, known to cause brain cancer in children

July 29, 2016 by Vicki Batts Leave a Comment

Getting kids to play outside is a concern virtually every modern parent has. After all, who wants to watch their children spend their lives glued to a TV set and a smart phone? A sedentary lifestyle is associated with many health risks, but unfortunately your favorite local park may not be a healthy choice either.

Many cities choose to keep their parks weed-free by applying hefty doses of herbicides like glyphosate. Thousands of gallons of these harmful poisons are sprayed onto the grass that children and pets love to play on. Many of these chemicals are linked to a variety of detrimental effects such as cancer, birth defects and neurological damage.

In New York City alone, local governments apply 100,000 pounds of herbicides to their green spaces each year. Natural News noted recently that a parks report revealed that workers applied herbicides 162,584 times in the year 2014. Doesn’t that seem like overkill?

The World Health Organization has already deemed glyphosate to be a potential carcinogen. Of course, Monsanto insists that this verdict is based on data that is “biased and inaccurate” – though this author is certain those words are more applicable to their own self-conducted studies. Regardless, scientists from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSSDR) have conducted their own research, and the results are irrefutable.

The ATSDR data confirms that glyphosate is toxic and causes cancer. Specifically, the researchers found that parental exposure to the herbicide resulted in an increased risk of brain cancer forming in future offspring. Parents that were exposed to the chemical up to two years prior to the birth of their children had kids that were twice as likely to develop brain cancer.

The ATSDR is part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services that specifically deals with illnesses caused by toxic substances. In other words, this was a study conducted by the government, and even they managed to figure out that glyphosate is indeed toxic.

The researchers also found that it didn’t matter which parent was exposed to the glyphosate. Exposure in either parent in the two years prior to conception still resulted in the same fate: an increased likelihood of their child developing cancer.

Due to the widespread use of glyphosate-based herbicides, remaining unexposed to this toxin can be extremely difficult. However, keeping to an organic diet and keeping products that contain this toxin out of your home can greatly reduce the amount of glyphosate you are exposed to. Taking supplements to support your health and immune system can also help maintain your well being.

Sources:

NaturalNews.com