ArchiveArchive
RoundUp-Lab-Rat

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

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!

study mice

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!

Read more at: NaturalBlaze.com

References:

[1] Harvard.edu

[2] EcoWatch.com

[3] GMO.news

[4] Elingreso.com

[5] EFSA.Europa.eu

Editorial-Use-Donald-Trump-Hat

Same USA Today that pushes vaccines, pesticides and GMOs says don’t vote for Trump

A recent article by the editorial board at USA Today has announced, for the first time in USA Today’s illustrious 34 year career as an unbiased purveyor of current events, that a presidential candidate is unfit for the job. The person whom this judgment has been passed on is none other than Donald Trump. This comes as little surprise to people who have read other articles by USA Today that clearly align the newspaper/site on the left side of most discussions, but just how much do their views on certain topics vary from that of Mr. Trump’s?

USA Today’s view on vaccinations is pretty clear. One query for “USA Today on vaccines” using any search engine, will bring up numerous articles that do little to decry vaccinations. Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s major concern remains with the possible correlation between vaccination and autism, which could also be linked to a deficiency in Vitamin C. This isn’t to say that he is against vaccinations.  In fact he believes in vaccinations, just not all at once. In the past he has tweeted that he feels spreading them over a period of time will result in a drop in the rate of autism. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, doesn’t believe the decision to vaccinate one’s child should lie with the individual at all, but should be mandated by the government.

In the case of genetically modified organisms, the USA Today editorial board again states with certainty that GMOs are simply not harmful to humans or other living organisms. They further feed this notion by stating that GMO labeling would result in less consumer purchases of products shown to have GMOs. While Donald Trump made his view of GMOs pretty well known after Ben Carson took the lead in Iowa polls, he is also not in favor of mandatory GMO labeling. It’s not surprising that Hillary Clinton also feels the same as the USA Today editorial board, and while she is for mandatory vaccinations despite parental concerns, she is also against mandatory labeling for products with genetically modified ingredients, also despite parental concerns.

Another recent article from USA Today seems to vindicate Mrs. Clinton’s questionable track record in showing that the lead investigator during the Whitewater investigation is now backing her for president. While Donald Trump has had a successful, albeit somewhat checkered, career in real estate, it does not have the tarnish of numerous mysterious deaths tied to it. Apparently a recent meeting with Clinton was impressive enough to Michael Chertoff that this seemed to escape his memory.

Sources:

USAToday.com

BusinessInsider.com

 

Sunset-Farm-Crops-Field

Human genes legally protected from patents, but why aren’t GMO plant genes protected?

In what was truly a miraculous ruling, the United States Supreme Court came to the unanimous conclusion that human genes cannot be patented. Among the many thousands of patents ruled invalid, Myriad Genetics’  patent on BRCA breast cancer genes was finally brought to an end. The company wanted royalties from anyone who researched or even detected the genes – something that is absolutely absurd. So much for wanting to actually cure cancer!

As Justice Clarence Thomas said, “Myriad did not create anything. To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention.”

Though the biotech industry pretended that these over-reaching patents somehow would spur more research and development, it is obvious that nothing could be further from the truth. Patenting human genes would only lead to further monopolization of the industry and bring any kind of advancement to a standstill. In fact, just their one single patent alone raised medical costs for patients and forced women to undergo the removal of their breasts and ovaries without sufficient evidence.

Despite Myriad Genetics’ desperate attempt to keep their patent alive, the Supreme Court held steady and actually did their job for once. The victory against corporate greed in this instance was surely a victory for humanity; in this day and age, one might even say it was unprecedented. How long has it been since the federal government put the people of the United States ahead of corporate interests?

Though the victory against corporations patenting human genes has been won, the fight against genetically-modified organisms and patenting of seeds continues to wage on.

You see, by denying Big Biotech the right to own and patent human genes, they are being denied the right to own parts of human beings across the globe. Should the same rule apply to seeds? Absolutely. As Seed Freedom points out, “A seed is not an invention. That is why patents on seeds are illegitimate. Even in a genetically engineered crop, the original seed come from farmers.”

When a seed becomes a crop, that crop will eventually sprout its own seeds. Those seeds, however, will not be identical to the seed that produced the parent crop. Even GMO seeds are not immune to this process. And before the days of lab-engineered plants, farmers used cross-breeding to naturally produce new species of a crop that would have more desirable traits, naturally, through the process of evolution.

Where are their patents on the plants that they spent decades cultivating? Big Biotech’s products are based on the hard work of those farmers, are they not? The seeds that started it all had to come from somewhere, and you can bet they came from a farmer, one way or another. Monsanto and their ilk certainly didn’t invent corn, or any of the other crops they like to play God with.

Seeds should only be owned by the farmers who have planted, cultivated and harvested those crops for generations. Corporate greed is what lies behind the patenting of seeds, and nothing more.

Sources:

NaturalNews.com

SeedFreedom.info

ScienceDaily.com

Business-Man-Holding-Globe-Business

Global depopulation ‘slow kill’ hinted at by common health symptoms

Modern man is nowhere near as robust as his predecessors were. It is true that with the advancements of modern medicine many of us are living long past the expiration dates of our ancestors, but are we truly healthier? Many of our afflictions are more modern ailments. On the surface, it may appear that it is just because we are living longer, or perhaps because modern medicine is more capable. But in all likelihood, the wealthy elite are actually fueling the rise of illness to keep the population under control.

There are a variety of health symptoms that point to a “slow kill” plan to moderate earth’s population. These are five of some of the most common health conditions that indicate these sinister motives are indeed a reality:

1. Low energy and chronic fatigue: Consistent, repeated exposure to pollution and chronic stress leave people exhausted and reliant on caffeine and other stimulants just to get by. When these factors are combined with being exposed to nearly-unavoidable EMF radiation, you can see where problems begin to arise, such as chronic fatigue and overall decreased vitality in the population.

2. Digestive disorders and poor gut health: Did you know that 80 percent of your immune system is in your gut? Attacking this essential system with toxins, pesticides, heavy metals and other hazardous ingredients in the food supply is an efficient way to target an entire population.

3. Dietary conditions: Obesity and diabetes are perhaps two of the most deadly conditions running rampant in our country, yet very few people take them seriously. What passes for food in America is truly despicable; it’s no wonder people are sick. The worst part is that real healing foods, herbs and plants are blackballed by the media and made illegal by the government!

4. Chemical imbalances: Some of the most common problems affecting people in the world today are depression, learning disabilities and poor concentration. The food supply contains many things known to trigger these issues, including artificial coloring. Poor nutrition is another major contributing factor, as accessibility to good quality nutritional foods continues to diminish.

5. Autism: The incidence of autism has increased by as much as 30-fold since the 1970’s. Despite media claims, there are many factors contributing to this vast increase. Vaccine safety is a controversial issue, as are the potential effects of GMOs, glyphosate and the host of other chemicals and toxins we are all exposed to every single day.

Sources:

NaturalNews.com

CDC.gov

School-Classroom-Learning-Chairs-Desks

Schools shamelessly promote GMOs, vaccines to children

Though disheartening, it is truly no surprise that Big Biotech has managed to introduce their propaganda into public school systems. Who better to prey upon than children? By forcing their agenda on young, impressionable minds, they can ensure a future where the safety of their products and practices goes unquestioned.

A screenshot from one student’s homework assignment revealed the question, “Are genetically modified foods safe to eat?”

As Natural News reports, the assignment also asked, “Do you hate going to the doctor for shots?” as well as, “What if you could eat a banana instead?” Natural News went on to report, “Through a process called genetic modification, scientists are creating foods that contain human vaccines as well as extra vitamins and minerals.”

So it would seem that in addition to brainwashing children, Big Biotech also wants to pick your child’s brain for product development. Pretty soon, school lunches might very well be accompanied by daily vaccines, in the form of a banana.

Also included in the worksheet is a lovely explanation about how scientists have made food “better” for us. Indeed, genetic modification is revered throughout the assignment, cited as being able to increase the positive traits within a food, while decreasing negative ones. This kind of thinking inherently assumes that nature can actually be “perfected” by human intervention somehow. The state that our planet is currently in should certainly suggest this ideation is not based on reality — human intervention has all but destroyed the earth.

There are severe environmental impacts associated with the cultivation of GMO crops. The use of destructive pesticides and herbicides, such as Roundup, is particularly concerning. The World Health Organization recently declared the main ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, a probably carcinogen.

GMOs in and of themselves may be toxic to the environment and surrounding organisms as well. Non-target creatures such as bees, butterflies and birds are often harmed by these GM crops and their chemical counterparts. The use of harsh herbicides and pesticides often result in the growth and spread of superbugs and superweeds that can withstand the chemical abuse. Concerns about GM crops’ effects on biodiversity are also well-founded. GM crops often replace heritage seeds and are planted in a mono-crop fashion. Mono-cropping leads to the destruction of what was once good soil, leaving it devoid of essential nutrients for plant life.

To put it simply, GMOs are really anything but safe for the planet. It is shameful that these ideas are being foisted upon children to further immoral, corporate agendas. The best way to rebel against Big Biotech is to begin growing your own organic food with natural, GMO-free seeds.

 

Sources:

NaturalNews.com

OneGreenPlanet.org