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

EPA just approved another toxic herbicide linked to infertility, birth defects and lung cancer in both humans and animals

December 6, 2016 by Daniel Barker Leave a Comment

The EPA has just approved the widespread use of a highly toxic herbicide called dicamba, a chemical which poses serious health risks to both animals and people. In doing so, the agency has turned its back on its legal obligation to assess any threat to endangered species, as well as its responsibility to protect human health.

Dicamba has been in use for years, and is an ingredient in more than 1,000 farming and gardening products. Under the EPA’s new guidelines, however, its use is expected to increase on a massive scale.

Dicamba use will increase current levels more than 20 times

The EPA approval covers the use of dicamba for spraying dicamba-resistant GMO cotton and soybean crops that were developed by (you probably already guessed it) Monsanto as an alternative to its glyphosate-resistant GM crops.

From The Daily Sheeple:

“Dicamba is part of Monsanto’s two-point plan: replace glyphosate (the main ingredient in the company’s best-selling RoundUp weed killer), as it increasingly comes under fire, and create public acceptance of the GM crops engineered to withstand dicamba.

“Monsanto’s own conservative estimates predict that dicamba use on soybeans will likely rise from around 233,000 pounds per year to 20.5 million pounds per year — and dicamba use on cotton could go from 364,000 pounds per year to 5.2 million pounds per year.”

Dicamba health risks

Like many other toxic herbicides, Dicamba can cause a range of serious negative health effects in both humans and animals. Dicamba exposure has been linked to lung cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, reproductive damage, birth defects and hormonal disruption.

Monsanto would like for people to believe that dicamba represents a safer alternative to glyphosate, but it is also a highly toxic herbicide that will have an as-yet unknown impact on the environment and human health when its use is so dramatically increased.

The danger posed to other crops by dicamba

Dicamba has recently been making headlines due to crop damage caused by drift. At least 10 states have reported widespread damage to thousands of acres of “non-target” crops, and in one case, a farmer was allegedly killed over a dicamba drift incident:

“Allegedly, a farmer on the Missouri-Arkansas border applied dicamba without a permit and caused significant damage to a neighboring farmer’s soy crop. An argument bubbled over, which led the shooting death of one farmer, and the arrest of the other.”

Much of the recent drift problem was caused by illegal spraying of dicamba, and Monsanto has been highly criticized for selling its dicamba-resistant seed before the EPA approved the herbicide for use.

This resulted in widespread illegal spraying and incidents of herbicide drift – one peach farmer in Missouri lost 30,000 trees. Drift damage from dicamba also affected watermelon, tomato, rice and many other crops as well as non-dicamba-resistant strains of soybean and cotton.

Monsanto’s new dicamba-based herbicide product – designed to work with its dicamba-resistant GM soybean and cotton seeds – is theoretically formulated to minimize drift contamination, but some are highly skeptical about its true effectiveness, while others worry that many farmers will continue illegally using the old drift-prone dicamba products.

At any rate, the EPA’s approval means that tens of millions more pounds of carcinogenic poison will be dumped yearly into our soil, water and air as the result of a money-making scheme propagated by an evil monopoly bent on owning and genetically manipulating the world’s seed supply, while destroying biodiversity and marginalizing those who would rather rely on organic farming techniques.

Monsanto wins a major victory with the help of the EPA

It sounds like the plot of an improbable Hollywood disaster film, but it’s all too real. Monsanto – after losing much of its company’s stock value and being forced to lay off a sizable portion of its workforce in recent years – seems to be rebounding with new strategies to maintain its stranglehold on global agriculture and food production.

Of course, having the EPA in its pocket hasn’t hurt Monsanto’s cause, either. In the war against food freedom and biodiversity, it appears Monsanto has just won a decisive battle.

Sources:

TheDailySheeple.com

BiologicalDiversity.org

EcoWatch.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

From Monsanto to the drone wars: What happened to all of the Obama promises of 2008?

August 4, 2016 by Mary Wilder Leave a Comment

Barack Obama is no stranger to unfulfilled promises.

His entire 2008 campaign was built around “change” and improving all of the country’s problems. Many of us actually bought into the president’s shtick until he was actually elected — then we realized we had all been played by yet another corrupt politician.

Around eight years ago, Barack Obama entered into office, promising all kinds of things to the American people. For supporters of natural health and food transparency, Obama’s stance on GMO labeling was a major selling point. He claimed that he wanted to, “Let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.”

At that point, there was no reason to not believe him, so many fell into the trap, as did those who believed that President Obama wouldn’t resort to drone warfare. As we now know, Obama has launched well over 500 drone missiles since he took office. To put it into perspective, George W. Bush launched 50. That’s a massive disparity — and Obama was supposed to be the peaceful, anti-war candidate!

It was also recently proven that Barack Obama had ties to Monsanto — going far out of his way to protect their interests — rendering his perceived beliefs regarding GMO labeling to be a complete lie. He was always in the pocket of the corrupt organization.

So what happened to all of these promises? Why aren’t the American people demanding that President Obama provide us with answers? He blatantly lied to us about a number of issues that he never truly cared about. He was merely pandering to a specific group of people in order to secure their vote.

We’ve gotten too complacent when it comes to accepting the corruption of politicians. It seems as though we’re more than happy to just deal with the fact that they’re deceitful liars who care more about reelection and furthering their reach of power than they do protecting American citizens and fighting for a more peaceful planet.

This year, we have to use our voices to demand more out of the leaders of our country. We cannot afford to continue to elect the same old guard of politicians year after year. That line of lazy thinking is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place. It’s important that we reject the establishment this year en route to some legitimate change.

Sources:

CBSNews.com

TheWeek.com

NaturalNews.com

EPA protected Monsanto’s corporate profits by hiding the truth about glyphosate and cancer for decades

August 4, 2016 by Vicki Batts Leave a Comment

Is it really possible that the EPA – which is supposed to stand for Environmental Protection Agency, by the way – actually hid the truth about the toxicity of one of Monsanto’s top-selling herbicides?

According to researcher and consultant, Dr. Anthony Samsel, the answer would be an unequivocal yes. Dr. Samsel claims to have gained possession of EPA documents that reveal the cancer-causing effects of glyphosate. In fact, Samsel states that these documents contain information tying glyphosate to cancer beginning in the 1970s.

Glyphosate is the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide known as Roundup, which is an extremely popular product that is used across the world in the cultivation of GM crops. Dr. Samsel has been researching the effects of glyphosate for many years, though he notes that much of his work has not been taken seriously and often dismissed.

Along with fellow researcher, Dr. Stephanie Seneff, Dr. Samsel has authored several studies on the potentially negative effects of glyphosate use. Though their work was previously unrecognized, many who initially dismissed their research are now beginning to pay more attention.

The World Health Organization has recently declared glyphosate a “probable carcinogen,” but Samsel maintains that there is no doubt about the product’s ability to cause cancer. Dr. Samsel states that studies conducted by Biodynamics, located in New Jersey, between the years of 1978 and 1980, clearly showed that even low doses of glyphosate could induce tumor growth in internal organs. These same studies were submitted to the EPA in 1981.

Despite the fact that these studies provided substantial evidence of glyphosate’s toxicity, the agency merely labeled the studies as “not significant.”

The evidence suggesting that the EPA has known about the dangers of glyphosate has only continued to grow. Just last year, it was reported that the agency knew about the product’s carcinogenic capacity a whopping 35 years ago. According to Sustainable Pulse, several archived and accessible memos from the EPA during the early 1980s indicate that glyphosate causes harm, especially to the kidneys. Though these studies on rats were conducted before the adoption of international test guidelines and GLP standards, the results are still quite disturbing. Every test group in a three-generation study that was treated with glyphosate had a higher incidence of tubular dilation than control subjects. Interstitial fibrosis was present in all of the treated groups of rats, as well. In 1981, the EPA refused to issue a NOEL (No observable adverse effect level) for glyphosate, and asked for more research. Naturally, Monsanto obliged their request and presented new evidence that minimized the harms associated with glyphosate in 1982 – at which point the EPA accepted the product as being unlikely to cause harm.

It is obvious that the EPA has known for a very long time that glyphosate is a cancer-causing toxin, and the mountain of evidence indicating the EPA’s corruption and lies will just continue to grow.

Sources:

NaturalNews.com

SustainablePulse.com

You are being Poisoned by thousands of Untested, Unmonitored Chemicals

July 26, 2016 by D. Samuelson Leave a Comment

True science is crystal clear when it comes to witnessing and documenting what actually happens to animals who eat genetically engineered (GE) feed. Numerous systems and organs are detrimentally affected – kidneys, intestines, stomachs, livers and reproduction abilities and more. This we know beyond a shadow of a doubt, as Global Research describes a letter that confirms these results. It was sent to the British Medical Journal by U.S. activist Rosemary Mason, with hopes to affect the outcome of the European Commission’s (EC) vote to relicense glyphosate. Ms. Mason, along with many activists, believe glyphosate must be banned. The EC paid little mind to the letter, or the facts, and in some instances the data from this letter was suppressed. On June 30th, the EC voted to renew the killer chemical for 18 months, according to Popularresitance.org.

What Mason sent is a treasure trove of independent scientific research revealing what happens to animals consuming genetically engineered (GE) feed.

Here are a few examples. Cows die in Germany after eating Sygenta’s GE corn. Piglets are marred by birth defect from GE soy in Denmark. Congenital malformations are discovered in Montana wildlife. The first long GE feeding study from the French team headed by Professor Giles Eric Seralini revealed “liver congestion, necrosis, severe kidney nephropathies and large palpable tumors,” in rats. Read the letter here. And be prepared to shift your spending and eating habits to purchase clean organic food.

What about people?

The Mason letter also shares the conclusions of researchers Anthony Samsel and MIT’s Stefanie Steneff who published a paper documenting glyphosate’s “pathway to destruction” in many modern diseases like autism, celiac, DNA damage and cancer. But you won’t hear about this in your agriculture classes at your Monsanto funded university research centers, your local farm and feed stores, farm bureaus, county extension offices or your nightly news and local newspapers. Instead, you’ll be peppered with disinformation about how GMOs can feed the world, use less pesticide or herbicide and provide more yield. And it’s perfectly safe, so no worries. The Federal Department of Agriculture (FDA) approved these novel foods back in the early 1990s without any long term tests on real living persons or animals.

In 1992, it was much more important to nurture Washington, D.C.’s new, competitive “biotechnology” export.

Remember Vice President Dan Quayle? He job was to ensure companies like Monsanto would not be “hampered by unnecessary regulation.” So today, as in 1992, the false science to push these foods began in earnest. The false science is illuminated by the language used to describe GE food. They said GMO food is “substantially equivalent” to regular food. Does that sound scientific to you? Yet that phrase is the pinnacle upon which all approvals were falsely devised. “Substantially equivalent” was and still is a touchstone for the powers who want you to continue to eat poison. And if they do this for GMOs with such force and fury, how many other chemicals and toxins are thrown in without our knowledge? Back in 2005, the Environmental Working Group discovered “an average of 200 chemicals and industrial pollutants in umbilical cord blood.” Imagine the load today.

When one are faced with overwhelming evidence that you, your children, animals, soil, water and food have been bombarded by thousands of untested and unregulated chemicals and that the information has been suppressed so more money can be made by agri-business conglomerates, like Monsanto, Dow Crop Sciences, Sygenta and others, it’s past time to consider making serious changes in what we buy and eat.

Spread the word. Boycott GMOs! Food should be our medicine, not our poison. Let’s grow our own!

Sources

Globalresearch.ca

Popularresistance.org

Rinf.com

Science.naturalnews.com

Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Usrtk.org

Ewg.org