[video=youtube;b5OOOIKtj8w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 5OOOIKtj8w[/video]
Jun 05 2013
The Little Known Toxic Travesty Of Anniston, Alabama
By Amanda Beland, HoneyColony
Choccolocco Creek is known for its easy whitewater rafting, one of the world’s first hydroelectric dams, and a local resident who donned a cow skull and scared the hell out of passersby on nearby roads. It’s less known for being a toxic waterway that turned fish into something much scarier than a half-man/half-cow. In 1993, a local fisherman caught a severely deformed largemouth bass from Choccolocco Creek, and the truth finally burst into view: For more than 30 years, Monsanto—the world’s largest biotech corporation—had been slowly and consciously poisoning the people of Anniston, Alabama.
From the ’40s to ’70s, Monsanto knowingly dumped millions of pounds of the now-banned industrial chemical polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into the town’s landfill and creek. PCBs have been shown to cause cancer in animals and humans, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a frequently fatal form of cancer. Some employees suspected danger as early as the 1950s, yet company management did nothing in response to their concerns. In 1966, Monsanto managers discovered that fish submerged in the Choccolocco turned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurting blood and shedding skin as if dunked into boiling water. They told no one.
Three years later, they found fish in another nearby creek with 7,500 times the legal PCB levels. However, they concluded that there was no point in “going to expensive extremes in limiting discharges.” In 1975, yet another company study found that PCBs caused tumors in rats. Managers ordered the report’s conclusion changed from “slightly tumorigenic” to “does not appear to be carcinogenic.” In 2003, Monsanto finally confessed and agreed to pay $700 million to more than 20,000 residents in the first civil suit of its kind. Thousands of pages of Monsanto documents—many marked “CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy”—proved that, for decades, the corporate giant concealed what it did and what it knew.“ This is a classic case of corporate abuse as well as a violation of public trust,” says Jay Feldman, executive director of the health and environmental group Beyond Pesticides. “Even as the signs piled up of its dangers and adverse effects, the company continued to ignore the warnings.”
While Monsanto employees kept this dirty secret, the residents of Anniston had no idea how prevalent this pollutant chemical was becoming in their daily lives. For years, they drank and swam in toxic ponds, cultivated vegetables from chemically saturated soil, and even ate the tainted soil, a practice known as pica. For instance, Shannon Jeffries, a former resident of Anniston, only found about the poison water lawsuit after her husband asked why so many people in her family were deformed or had died of cancer.“It didn’t seem odd for me to know many people with various forms of cancer,” Jeffries said. “I didn’t make the connection about this aunt or this uncle having this weird disease, or this person having this funky eye condition. I was innocent I guess, sheltered, scared to ask. Who knows?”
Jeffries herself was born with a severe form of scoliosis that led to excruciating pain and surgeries throughout her youth and adulthood. While still in utero in the late ’60s, her mother spent the better part of her pregnancy with her belly submerged in the same creek where tons of toxic chemicals were being dumped. Even though PCBs have now been banned, it’s clear that they have long-term impacts on our health.“There’s a range of adverse impacts that run the gamut of both chronic and acute health effects,” Feldman adds. “The concern historically has been that it’s an organic pollutant and carcinogen in both animals and humans. The company should have known this was harmful, and I believe they did.”
According to Feldman, Monsanto isn’t alone in this. From his experience, there is almost always collusion between government and corporations where companies hide behind laws of government regulation and scientific debate. Monsanto, the same company that brought us Agent Orange and DDT, stopped making PCBs in 1977, two years before a nationwide ban took effect. Today, however, they are the leaders in manufacturing genetically modified organisms, claiming that this technology will reduce soil erosion and pesticide use, decrease our dependency on fossil fuels, slow climate change, and other grandiose positive effects on the environment. But instead, Feldman says, the opposite is happening, and Monsanto continues to do nothing about it.“All of the promises we have been made with this technology have really failed us,” he adds. “All of their assumptions are wrong.”
Currently, 70 percent of foods grown in the United States contain genetically modified ingredients, but there is no way for consumers to know because businesses are not required to identify them on the label.Hopefully we don’t have to wait for the day that people start turning belly-up, spurting blood, and shedding skin to get the answers we deserve.[/FONT][/LEFT]
[FONT=inherit][FONT=verdana]Monsanto creating new Wheat Technology Center in Idaho[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][FONT=inherit]By SEAN ELLIS
[FONT=inherit]FILER, Idaho -- Monsanto will create a new Wheat Technology Center in the Twin Falls area dedicated to supporting the development of best-in-class wheat varieties to help farmers increase their productivity.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]"Monsanto's continued commitment to wheat is front and center in southcentral Idaho," said Idaho Wheat Commission Commissioner Bill Flory. "It's a major commitment on the part of Monsanto. Wheat is their new frontier."
[FONT=inherit]The facility will serve as Monsanto's core wheat breeding research and development facility and the company plans to have 24 research positions housed there.
[/FONT][FONT=inherit]IWC commissioners were notified of the plan June 3 and responded favorably.
[FONT=inherit]"That sounds really good. That's a great opportunity for Idaho," said IWC commissioner Gordon Gallup.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]"It's wonderful news for Idaho. It shows an investment in the state's wheat industry by one of the largest agricultural companies in the world," said IWC Executive Director Blaine Jacobson.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]But the announcement was also welcomed by the wheat industry outside of Idaho because it signals a major commitment by Monsanto to research and develop improved wheat varieties.
[FONT=inherit]In a letter to Idaho wheat commissioners announcing the plan, a top company official said wheat is a "compelling opportunity for Monsanto to apply our technology expertise in a global crop that can benefit from innovation."[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]"The opportunity to expand our testing network will enhance our ability to bring the best wheat varieties to farmers in Idaho and around the world," states the letter from Trent Clark, Monsanto's public and government affairs director.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]Monsanto has wheat breeding efforts in various regions throughout the United States and will relocate all of them to the new facility, said Monsanto Wheat Breeding Lead Kristin Schneider.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]Monsanto officials also announced the company will establish wheat regional breeding testing sites in key locations around the country. Schneider said specific locations are currently being evaluated.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]"Wheat is a global crop that's hungry for innovation," Schneider said. "The opportunity to centralize our wheat breeding efforts, add additional capabilities and positions and expand our breeding testing network will enhance our ability to bring the best wheat varieties to farmers."[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]Monsanto's plans came as welcome news to the industry, said Steve Mercer, director of communications for U.S. Wheat Associates.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]"We're encouraged by this," he said.
[FONT=inherit]The new technology center will be co-located at Monsanto's current vegetable research facility in Filer.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]"Twin Falls is located in a mild, irrigated, high-yielding environment, which is an ideal location to house our core wheat breeding efforts," Schneider said.[/FONT]
Monsanto And USDA: Destroying American Agriculture One Crop At A Time
[FONT=Helvetica Neue][FONT=verdana]Posted on June 8, 2013 by Brett Wilcox[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana]U.S. wheat farmers are holding Monsanto responsible for creating and patenting a product that is so toxic to farmers’ financial health that its mere presence on a single U.S. farm results in consumer rejection and consequent decreased value for all wheat on every farm in the U.S.A.
What product could possibly produce such devastating financial losses? Monsanto’s Roundup resistant, genetically modified wheat.
Naturally, Monsanto sees itself as the victim in this outrageous situation, even suggesting that villainous souls may have intentionally planted Monsanto patented wheat to “sabotage” Monsanto.
There’s frightening irony in the fact that Monsanto created genetically modified wheat with the intent of selling it to farmers, and after that same wheat shows up in a farmer’s field, Monsanto suggests that saboteurs are out to destroy Monsanto.
This isn’t the first time farmers have had to bear the cost of irresponsible biotechnology giants.
“The 2000 release of Aventis SA’s StarLink corn cost as much as $288 million in lost revenue and a yearlong drop in the grain’s price, according to a 2008 report by the Government Accountability Office. The 2006 release of Bayer AG’s Liberty Link rice cost as much as $1.29 billion in lost exports, food recalls and other expenses, the GAO said, citing an environmental advocacy group. Bayer in 2011 agreed to pay $750 million to about 11,000 U.S. rice farmers who sued the company.”
Once again, there is frightening irony in Monsanto’s demeaning use of the phrase “tractor-chasing lawyers” to describe farmers who seek legitimate compensation due to real financial losses farmers have and will experience due to Monsanto’s unwanted transgenic wheat.
Dr. Mercola states, “Monsanto employs an arsenal of private investigators and agents who secretly videotape farmers, snatch crop samples from their land and even fly helicopters overhead to spy — all to catch farmers saving or sharing seeds. As of 2005 Monsanto had 75 employees and a $10-million budget solely to investigate and prosecute farmers for patent infringement.”
Some of the farmers Monsanto sues for patent violation didn’t want and didn’t buy Monsanto seeds at all. Rather, Monsanto’s seed or pollen contaminated their farms. That fact doesn’t deter Monsanto from suing these farmers.
Suing farmers is a lucrative revenue source for Monsanto. As of November 28, 2012, Monsanto has raked in $23,675,820.99 from farmers. But that figure doesn’t include Monsanto’s gains from confidential, out-of-court settlements. According to Center For Food Safety, “Farmers have paid Monsanto an estimated $85,653,601 to $160,594,230 in settlements of these seed piracy matters.”
In light of Monsanto’s allegation of potential “sabotage” in the case of their genetically modified wheat, one has to wonder how they came up with such an idea. Do Monsanto investigators spread Monsanto seeds while trespassing on farmers’ property? Do Monsanto investigators get paid on commission? Do they earn a percentage on court victories?
There’s more irony in the fact that while Monsanto claims no responsibility for the Monsanto wheat found in Oregon, Monsanto is currently conducting open-field GM wheat testing in Hawaii and North Dakota.
Of course that means Monsanto is actively planning to unleash yet another version or versions of GM wheat—wheat that will once again result in lost market share for U.S. farmers.
And Monsanto will do it with the blessing of the USDA. Considering the fact that the USDA’s mission includes promoting American agriculture, isn’t it ironic the USDA continues to approve genetically modified crops that destroy American agriculture?
Virtually no one wants biotech seeds or food and absolutely no one needs biotech seeds or foods, but Monsanto doesn’t care what people want or need. Monsanto will use any and all methods to muscle and money their way into governments, fields, and foods.
They will even use war to their advantage. Since the U.S.A. “liberated” Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s oppressive regime, the “liberators” gave “free” genetically modified seeds–including wheat–to Iraqi farmers, locking the farmers into perpetual Monsanto serfdom.
Monsanto has always used their patented seeds to their legal and financial advantage while shirking responsibility for the immense damage that results from their patented seeds and poisons.
It’s long past time for Monsanto to stop profiting from genetic contamination. It’s time for Monsanto to pay in full for the devastating losses farmers experience due to Monsanto’s unwanted and—in the case of wheat—illegal genetically modified products.
Good for the two or three farmers who are suing Monsanto. But it will take far more than two or three to make a difference. Five million Brazilian farmers have sued Monsanto, and yet Monsanto continues to cram its unwanted products down the throats of the world.
Of course, there’s nothing ironic about any of this; it’s just business as usual at Monsanto.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana]Kosher Certification Bans All GMO Ingredients[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana]One group after another is denouncing the genetically modified poison on grocery store shelves, adding to the chorus of voices demanding real untainted food.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana]Natural Food Certifiers has announced today that any food product that contains GMOs is no longer eligible to be certified as kosher under their “Apple K” kosher certification program.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana]A press release stated:
“NFC was very proud to introduce the first “Natural Only” kosher supervision,” said NFC Director Rabbi Reuven Flamer. “It’s a logical application of our principle, ‘Start Naturally. Stay that Way.’ Therefore, the Natural Apple K cannot be placed on a product that contains GMOs,” Flamer explained.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana]“While according to the strict letter of Kosher food law a GMO food ingredient is not prohibited, in our view it is not natural. Additionally, there is a Torah (religious)-based law to ‘guard your health’. GMOs are the number-one growing concern among health-conscious consumers and for businesses in the natural and organic food market, as well as in the conventional food industry,” said Rabbi Flamer.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana]“Recent studies show that GMOs may cause various kinds of health problems from digestive disturbances to food allergies, and that GMOs require more herbicides, which is really the opposite reason why GMOs were touted to be so environmentally helpful in the first place,” Rabbi Flamer added. “For all of the many reasons that GMOs raise a red flag, consumers simply don’t want them in their foods, and our clients want to accommodate their customers.”
[FONT=verdana]Over the next 12 months, the company will phase out the certification of any product that contains GMO ingredients, and will no longer accept applications for certification of products that contain GMOs.
[FONT=verdana]NFC has numerous natural food certification programs, including USDA Organic certification, Kosher certification (under the “Apple K” label), Vegan certification, and Gluten Guard, a gluten-free assurance program.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana]Each product submitted by a manufacturer for approval is carefully analyzed. The press release explains the process for all of the certification categories. ”The process may include, but is not limited to, a request and review of the ingredient deck including country of origin and certificate of analysis, product testing, as well as inspection of manufacturing facilities.”
[FONT=verdana]Whether or not your faith requires you to follow the Kosher food laws, this news should be celebrated by anyone who hopes to see the demise of Monsanto and the products created by their mad scientists. While countries across the world are banning GMOs, the wheels are moving slowly in North America to even have GMOs labeled so that consumers can make an informed decision. To have a large demographic refuse to allow genetically modified material in their food is yet another volley against the corruption that is evident in the unholy alliance of the FDA and Monsanto.[/FONT]
Target To Launch Organic 'Simply Balanced' Brand
06/07/13 12:21 PM ET EDT
[FONT=verdana]NEW YORK -- Target Corp. is planning a new organic and natural store brand as it works to rev up its grocery business.
The big-box retailer said the new brand, called Simply Balanced, will start with drinks and snacks like corn chips on Sunday. The line is an outgrowth of similar products within its existing Archer Farms store brand, which is positioned as a premium alternative to national name brands.
Amanda Irish, senior director of Target's store brands, said the new line is in response to the growing popularity of organic foods. Although they still account for less than 10 percent of overall grocery sales, she said organic foods are growing at twice the rate of conventional groceries.
As such, the Minneapolis-based company also plans to announce next week that it will boost its organic food selection by 25 percent by 2017.
The rollout also reflects a broader push by supermarkets and big-box retailers to improve the image of their store brands. Store brands usually carry fatter profit margins for retailers than name brands and help lure shoppers with exclusive offerings to fend off competition.
Supermarkets aren't just focusing on cheaper prices when it comes to store brands, either. Many now have tiered store brands, with a line intended as a cheaper alternative, as well as more premium lines that compete with or seek to be better than those made by companies such as Kraft Foods and General Mills.
In addition to Archer Farms, for example, Target also offers a store brand called Market Pantry that is about 10 to 30 percent cheaper than national name brands.
The new Simply Balanced line, which will eventually include about 250 products over the next five months, will be priced more in line with Archer Farms and national brands.
About half the items in the line are organic and three-quarters of it is free of genetically modified ingredients. Target says it will eliminate all genetically modified ingredients from the line by the end of 2014.
Groceries tend to have lower profit margins for Target than other parts of its business. But the retailer has nevertheless been touting its groceries in recent years as a way to attract more shoppers and become a "one-stop" shopping destination.
Last year, groceries and pet supplies accounted for 20 percent of Target's overall sales. That's up from 16 percent in 2009.[/FONT]
Look out Monsanto: The Global Food Movement Is Rising
[FONT=Segoe UI] [FONT=Segoe UI]By Fritz Kreiss [FONT=Segoe UI]|[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=Segoe UI]June 9, 2013[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana]The book Harvesting Justice isn’t just a look at the world’s most exciting food justice groups—it’s also a knockout organizing tool.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]by Daniel Moss
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=Segoe UI]A group of Rarámuri Indians from Bocoyna Municipality, who marched into the governor’s palace in 2008 to demand that genetically modified corn not contaminate their native seeds. Photo by David Lauer.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]Chewing on a mouthful of locally grown lettuce, I wondered if the claims I’d heard about the global food-justice movement were true. Was there a line to follow, however crooked, between my purchase of these greens, land reformin Brazil andopposition to genetically modified seeds in California. Or was it all just empty calories?
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Segoe UI]Reading about how people transform the way they farm and eat makes you want to cook up your own plans with your neighbors.
[/FONT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=Segoe UI]
[/FONT][FONT=Segoe UI]As a somewhat conscientious consumer and occasional Taco Bell boycotter, I’ve hoped that the movement was real. But it hasn’t always been easy to perceive the connection between marching for improved farmworker rights, signing a petition against factory feedlots, and cooking up beets from a CSA (that is, community supported agriculture, which usually comes in the form a box of assorted veggies delivered to people who contribute to a local farm’s financial well-being).[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]Those connections form a tight weave in the new book, Harvesting Justice: Transforming Food, Land, and Agriculture in the Americas. Using “food sovereignty” as the secret sauce, the book sautés the individual ingredients of sister movements into a coherent, flavorful whole.
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=Segoe UI]Young Rarámuri women select corn for next year´s seed after a farmer-to-farmer workshop on seed selection in the community of Rekusachi, Chihuahua. Photo by David Lauer.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]The book was created for the U.S. Food Sovereignty Alliance—a network of organizations allied with La Via Campesina, which advocates for culturally appropriate (think tortillas in Mexico instead of bread), ecologically sound (no GMOs), and small-farmer friendly food systems.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]The book’s authors, Tory Field and Beverly Bell, do a lot more with food than just write about it. Field is a farmer who co-manages the Next Barn Over Farm, a CSA program in western Massachusetts. Bell has worked for decades with small farmer organizations in Haiti, including those who set fire toagricultural aid after the 2010 earthquake. The farmers didn’t see the donated seeds as aid, but as a Monsanto “trojan horse” undermining their control over their own food.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]Both authors are also members of Other Worlds, an organization that educates the public about citizen movements and builds community alternatives to corporate globalization. Introducing us to farmers speaking in their own voices, they describe how fighting the dominance of agribusiness and relocalizing the food system are indeed two sides of the same coin.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]The book merges five years of field research and interviews, and describes more than 100 case studies of advocacy campaigns and alternative food systems in the United States and around the world. The authors interview New Mexican farmer and teacher Miguel Santistevan, who insists that “We don’t like the way the food system treats the earth and its negative health effects on the people, [and] we are working to actualize an alternative.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]They introduce us to Rosnel Jean-Baptiste of Heads Together Small Peasant Farmers of Haiti (Tèt Kole Ti Peyizan Ayisyen), who says, “It’s not houses that are going to rebuild Haiti, it’s investing in the agriculture sector.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]And they encourage consumer action through the words of Ben Burkett, president of the National Family Farm Coaltion. “No matter what us farmers plant, the consumer’s got to change the system, ” Burkett says. “As long as they don’t complain, there’s no need even talking about it. The marketplace dictates.”
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=Segoe UI]A group of Haitian peasants meets to discuss strategies for rebuilding agriculture after the earthquake of 2010. Photo by Roberto (Bear) Guerra.[/FONT]
Designed for use as an organizing tool
[FONT=Segoe UI]Accompanying the book is a curriculum of teaching exercises called “Sowing Seeds,” intended for use in community and academic settings. The curriculum is dizzyingly comprehensive, a kind of “best of” in food systems education culled from sister organizations.[/FONT][INDENT][FONT=Segoe UI]The book connects the dots between community groups doing related work and breaks up any sense of going it alone.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]Have you ever wondered how many tons of tomatoes a picker needs to pick each day to earn minimum wage, or what the salary of David Novak—the CEO of the company that owns Taco Bell—would add up to in tons of tomatoes at the same rate? It’s all in here. Consumer, producer, and retailer perspectives are all explored through engaging exercises. Suggested workshop formats may come in handy if you are an educator or organizer.
You may want to nudge your local bookseller to carry Harvesting Justice. I’m guessing they won’t be sorry. It’s not only highly readable but may catalyze actions such as getting local food into school lunches. The stunning photos serve up inspiration to get off your duff and transform the local food system.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]Because it provides that kind of inspiration, this is the kind of book that your local food co-op, farmer’s market, or anti-hunger organization might consider using as a study guide. It can help connect the dots between community groups doing related work and break up any sense of going it alone. The appendix fills nearly fifteen pages, introducing us to groups like theFood Chain Workers Alliance, First Nations Native Agriculture and Food Systems Initiative, and the Honduran Garifuna organization. While these organizations are scattered around the planet, they form the foundation of a localized, alternative food system.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI]Reading about how people transform the way they farm and eat makes you want to reach for a big soup pot, cut up some onions, and cook up your own plans with your neighbors. Harvesting Justice gives you more than the recommended dose of civic engagement.[/FONT]
Ninety percent of U.S. tobacco is GMO; hey smokers, you're smoking pesticide!
Monday, June 10, 2013 by: S. D. Wells
Smoke herbicide and pesticide all day and what do you get? You get a recurring hangover that seemingly needs a new blast of nicotine to quell or "dissipate," but in actuality, the only thing the nicotine does is stave off the headache, the nervousness, the anxiety, the "chemical hangover," and after 30 to 40 minutes, it kicks in again, that feeling of angst, of unnecessary worry, and you need another fix. What is the TRUE driving force of the cigarette addiction? Could it possibly be that the 4,000-plus chemicals, which are comprised of pesticide and different super strength herbicides, cause a "hangover" which beckons for relief?
GMO tobacco means that scientists in labs are injecting or infusing the genes of bacteria from the DNA of other living things into the seeds of the tobacco plant. GMO tobacco also means that pesticide and herbicide are inside the tobacco plant, and that farmers who use GM pesticides are spraying up to TEN TIMES MORE RoundUp and other poisons on the crop, adding exponentially to the toxicity of the smoker's nightmare, where these bug and weed killers are mixed with bacteria in the lungs, the heart and the brain, compounding the inability of the pack-a-day smoker to ever quit the habit. (https://www.naturalnews.com/039233_tobac ... ettes.html)
Let's examine what is occurring every time someone smokes a genetically modified cigarette. When the cigarette burns at 1700-degrees Fahrenheit during the inhale, the pesticide is mixed with ammonia-treated nicotine, and creates a chemical cocktail for the central nervous system to engage. The vicious cycle deepens. (https://www.naturalnews.com/036175_smoki ... gover.html)
Killing beetles, weeds, worms and humans for profit
The entire genetically modified (GM) tobacco industry, otherwise known as "Big Tobacco," wants the BUD WORMS AND HORN WORMS dead. It's as simple as that! Their ultimate goal is making more money using biotech "engineering," all at the cost of human health. You see, by digesting bacteria and "biochems," which destroy the digestive tracts and the reproductive abilities of insects, worms, beetles and the like, humans are destroying their same genes. In America, it's legal to "slow kill" people, by manufacturing and selling carcinogens, especially when those consumers "know" there is a risk. But who REALLY knows the risk, because if you don't understand GMO, you have no clue the extent and depth of that risk, hence the junk science of bad food and tobacco addictions. Long term problems have now become SHORT TERM health destruction problems. Think about genetically modified corn, soy, cottonseed, beets and canola as you read the following about tobacco pests and GM pest fighting chemicals:
The tobacco budworm (Heliothis virescens): A devastating insect pest of tobacco and cotton, the budworm is an inch and a half long, pale green in color and has pale stripes. The female moths lay their eggs in the bud of tobacco plants and the tiny larvae begin feeding in the unfolded leaflets of the plants, which leaves the plants ragged looking. Once these caterpillars burrow deep into protective foliage, insecticide sprays don't reach them, plus, once the budworm matures, it becomes resistant to most insecticides anyway. This is why the giant agricultural biotech firm Monsanto creates genetically modified plants, my friends, to kill the pests from the inside out. This translates into irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and leaky gut syndrome for humans. This is digestion and lung destruction. This is prostate and bladder cancer. These mutations are birth defects being generated in food and tobacco. See how quickly it all adds up? And what do the killers recommend you use for your own garden pests? They say use more chemicals that cause cancer, like bleach, cascade, Bayer's "suspend," do it yourself pro-grade, "RoundUp," Royal pest control and "Miracle Grow." (https://www.ehow.com/info_7920787_insect ... worms.html). And what is prescribed later for pesticide disease (cancer)? Chemotherapy. Chemo is just more chemicals for that chemically driven disease.
The tobacco hornworm (Manduca sexta): The hornworm is one of the largest insects that damages tobacco. The larvae are greenish in color with white bars on their sides and a reddish horn projecting from the back end. They reach three to four inches in length and are such ravenous feeders that they may completely defoliate plants if not controlled.
The aphid (Myzus persicae): Aphids vary in color from light green to yellow or almost black. Two "tail pipes" or cornicles project from their rear end. Aphids damage tobacco by sucking plant juices from the leaves which causes them to curl. As they feed, they excrete honeydew that supports fungus growth, which gives the tobacco a black sooty appearance. This can result in an uneven curing of the whole tobacco harvest. This is why Biotech develops fungicides - to destroy bugs and fungi, but that can also destroy human gut flora (good bacteria, proteins, enzymes, etc). This digestive destruction feeds cancer. Don't smoke fungicide and don't eat it, if you value your life.
The tobacco wireworm (Conoderus vespertinus): These pests occur throughout the south and can be the predominant species in any field. When full grown the larvae are an inch long and are yellow-brown in color. Tobacco wireworms are hard, shiny and look just like a short piece of wire - hence their name. Wireworms feed on the roots or underground stems of tobacco plants, which often destroys the rest. (https://wiki.bugwood.org/Archive:SEIPM/Tobacco_Insects)
Farmers could use diatomaceous earth to kill these pests, if they only knew about it! Instead, humans are smoking insect and weed killer. When we use pesticides on our lawns or gardens, we're careful to avoid direct contact whenever possible, and we certainly wouldn't knowingly breathe pesticides into our lungs, but that's exactly what smokers do every time they take a puff!
Researchers at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, Colorado, have identified three previously undetected pesticides in cigarette smoke: (https://www.livescience.com/4083-pestici ... smoke.html)
Flumetralin: known to be toxic to humans and is carcinogenic. Flumetralin is an endocrine disruptor and is banned in Europe for use on tobacco. They must not want deformed children and their citizens dying of cancer there.
Pendimethalin: another endocrine disrupter which targets the thyroid specifically. Pendimethalin is carcinogenic and toxic to humans.
Trifluralin: also an endocrine disrupter, toxic to humans and carcinogenic, affecting glands and hormones in the worst ways, hence breast and prostate cancer.
These are approved for use by the EPA, claiming, "No information exists for long-term low-level inhalation exposures to these compounds," yeah, except ALL THE HUMANS DYING OF CANCER. They are living and dying proof that smoking herbicides and pesticides rips apart your insides.
As everyone here knows GMO suck. As anything that is driven with the idea of profits over morals was the birth of our fuber food. There was a man who predicted this and solved the issues, in the 80's, long before GMO was an issue. He is amazing at all his research and development, BUT just like T. Leary, he was chased away to another country where he continues to make you tube videos on sound resonances and cell changes. (Dan Winter) Search Youtube for more info. Im so happy this article ( https://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/0 ... ncies.html ) just hit the head lines for people to read about. We are advancing in evolution. Thank you all for the positive vibes.
Nestle’s Wet Dream: They Mark Up Water 53 MILLION Percent
[FONT=Segoe UI] [FONT=Segoe UI]By Fritz Kreiss [FONT=Segoe UI]|[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=Segoe UI]June 10, 2013[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=verdana]The directors of Nestle must be breathing a sigh of relief as the world targets Monsanto with a barrage of negative publicity, global protests, and grassroots campaigns. While we’re all distracted by Monsanto’s GMO corruption of the food supply, Nestle is taking steps to profit off of the natural world with patents on breast milk and medicinal plants, and the privatization of water,and giving the seed company a run for its title as The Most Evil Corporation in the World.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Between corporate demons like Nestle and Monsanto, the very right to life itself is becoming a commodity with a price tag as access to food and water become a privilege only available to those who have the means to pay for it.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]The potential death toll would be astonishing. Is that the point? A team effort in which the elite make money hand over fist, massive depopulation, and indentured servitude in exchange for the right to eat and drink?[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Monsanto and Nestle are firmly on the same team - Nestle donated over $1 million to the campaign against GMO labeling in California and their CEO has claimed that in 15 years of consumption, no one was every harmed by eating GMOs.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]While the world’s attention has been on Monsanto’s corruption of the food supply, Nestle has been quietly draining water sources around the globe and marking it up a mind-blowing 53,908,255%, while the rest of us must deal with droughts, regulations on wells and rainwater, and rising prices.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]The Nestle website touts the slogan: Good Food, Good Life is the promise we commit to, everyday, everywhere – to enhance lives, throughout life, with good food and beverages. Somehow, it seems that mission statement must have gotten lost in the interoffice email system, because Nestle executives don’t seem to have received that message.
[FONT=verdana]The Global Water Grab[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Nestle has virtually taken over the water supplies in parts of South Africa, Ethiopia, and Pakistan, leaving residents of those countries to sicken and die from what remains. Nestle has been deaf to pleas from affected villagers for access to clean water.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Perhaps that is because of their corporate belief that water is a commodity, not a basic human right.
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Natural Society’s Anthony Gucciardi wrote:
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Segoe UI][INDENT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]
“Is water a free and basic human right, or should all the water on the planet belong to major corporations and be treated as a product? Should the poor who cannot afford to pay these said corporations suffer from starvation due to their lack of financial wealth? According to the former CEO and now Chairman of the largest food product manufacturer in the world, corporations should own every drop of water on the planet — and you’re not getting any unless you pay up.”
[/FONT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Gucciardi is referring to a video from 2005 that recently surfaced and went viral. In the video, Nestle’s loathsome head exec, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe had these outrageous comments about the right to water.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Segoe UI][INDENT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]
“Water is of course the most important raw material we have today in the world. It’s a question of whether we should privatise the normal water supply for the population. And there are two different opinions on the matter.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]The one opinion, which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs [NGOs = Non-Government Organizations], who bang on about declaring water being a public right. That means as a human being you should have a right to water. That’s an extreme solution.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]And the other view says that water is a foodstuff like any other and like any other foodstuff it should have a market value.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Personally, I believe it’s better to give food stuff a value so we are all aware that it has its price and then that one should take specific measures for the part of the population that has no access to this water and there are many different possibilities there.”
[/FONT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]How benevolent of Nestle to make sure that we, the peons, realize that water has value. How rational that he believes all human beings having a right to water is “an extreme solution.” Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, a Bilderberg group attendee, quite clearly seems to have some classic psychological issues. Sociopathy is a mental health condition in which a person has a long-term pattern of manipulating, exploiting, or violating the rights of others, sounds a bit like certain corporations we know, doesn’t it?[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]All over the world, Nestle has been draining the water from financially beleaguered regions.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Segoe UI][INDENT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]
The technique Nestlé uses is this: Find an economically weak region, buy up the land surrounding the water source and grease the political wheels by making a proposal the residents can’t possibly refuse. How can depressed regions resist new jobs and added local revenue? But, the revenue generated by these regions natural resource by and large goes to a corporation headquartered in Lake Geneva, Switzerland. And if the financial incentives aren’t enough to assuage concerned citizens, Nestlé’s more than happy to battle it out in court.
[/FONT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Just so that’s clear, they find places that are already struggling with poverty. Then, they make the poverty worse by damaging watersheds and wetlands, siphoning off hundreds of millions of gallons annually, and leaving the fields barren and dry. This isn’t something that is just happening in Third World countries. They’ve done it in our own backyards. Here are just a few examples of communities pillaged by Nestle:[/FONT][/FONT]
- [FONT=verdana]Denver, Colorado[/FONT]
- [FONT=verdana]Sacramento, California[/FONT]
- [FONT=verdana]Fryeburg, Maine[/FONT]
- [FONT=verdana]Mecosta, Michigan[/FONT]
The Council of Canadians, along with several regional conservation groups, has appealed the ministry’s decision to an environmental tribunal.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]“We find it very troubling that the Ontario government has settled with Nestle,” Council of Canadians chair Maude Barlow said in a statement. “Ontario must prioritize communities’ right to water above a private company’s thirst for profit. Our government must think about water availability for our grand children, great grand children and beyond.”[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]“Under its current permit,Nestlé pays $3.71 for every million litres of water it pumps from the local watershed, which it then packages in single-use plastic bottles and sells back to the public for as much as $2 million,” the Council says.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]But a Nestle spokesman told The Huffington Post Canada that the drought restrictions were only put in place due to an “administrative misunderstanding,” and mandatory rules were never the intent.
[/FONT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Let me repeat the most important sentence in that quote.
[FONT=verdana]Nestlé pays $3.71 for every million litres of water it pumps from the local watershed, which it then packages in single-use plastic bottles and sells back to the public for as much as $2 million.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]$3.71 turns into $2,000,000.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]A mark-up of 53,908,255%. I checked it HERE just to make sure.
[FONT=verdana]Nestle gets a free ride while water regulations abound for the rest of us.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]While Nestle has free rein to tap into water supplies across the country, the rest of us are losing access to water at an exponential rate. New laws are springing up that could tax people for theusage of well waterand that disallow the collection of rainwater. That’s right – Nestle can take 1.1 million liters per month – but you can’t have a rain barrel in your backyard for your garden.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]By specifically outlining the management of all natural resources, it disallows the use of them for any but the 1% in power, effectively keeping people from farming, fishing, mining or otherwise harvesting the innate supplies provided by their environments.
[FONT=verdana]Nestle has many other appalling practices[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]The unsavory practices of Nestle don’t end with water. They have spread their unethical tentacles throughout every faction of the business, despite their misleading PR campaign promoting a wholesome, community-oriented image.
[FONT=verdana]Nestle wages war against breastfeeding.[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Nestle is the number one producer of baby formula in the world. (Formula is an $11.5 billion dollar industry.) The company has received sharp criticism for its inroads into third world countries, where they have created massive demand for baby formula in a place where the poverty is so intense that mere survival is a struggle. Presented with the idea that formula was healthier for their babies than breast milk, the destitute mothers began watering down the formula and, as a result, millions of infants around the globe died of malnutrition.
[FONT=Segoe UI][INDENT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]A New York Times’ article on the scandal said one Jamaican family’s income “averaged only $7 a week,” leading the mother to dilute the water with as much as three times the recommended amount of water so she could feed two children.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][INDENT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]“The results can be seen in the clinics and hospitals, the slums and graveyards of the Third World,” said War on Want. “Children whose bodies have wasted away until all that is left is a big head on top of the shriveled body of an old man.”[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][INDENT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]In the Times, United States Agency for International Development official, Dr. Stephen Joseph, blamed reliance on baby formula for a million infant deaths every year through malnutrition and diarrheal diseases. [/FONT][/FONT][/INDENT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Nestle’s war on breastfeeding didn’t stop there, however. Patent US 8012509 B2 for compounds in human breast milk was granted to Nestle in 2011. “The ownership and monopolization of human milk components has been declared by various institutions and corporations from medical universities such as John Hopkins and Baylor College of Medicine, to infant formula companies such as Nestle and Wyeth, to biotech companies such as Agennix, and even including the US Government as represented by the Department of Health.” In addition, as with the majority of baby formula manufacturers out there they have been primarily using Monsanto’s Bt soy and other GMO and artificial ingredients to make their concoctions instead of sticking with more natural and healthier options that are readily available. They have recently removed GMOs from formula in some small markets such as South Africa, but only under a large amount of pressure from the public.
[FONT=verdana]Nestle is trying to patent the healing powers of the fennel flower:
[/FONT][FONT=Segoe UI][INDENT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]In a paper published last year, Nestlé scientists claimed to “discover” what much of the world has known for millennia: that nigella sativa extract could be used for “nutritional interventions in humans with food allergy”.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]But instead of creating an artificial substitute, or fighting to make sure the remedy was widely available, Nestlé is attempting to create a nigella sativa monopoly and gain the ability to sue anyone using it without Nestlé’s permission. Nestlé has filed patent applications — which are currently pending — around the world.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Prior to Nestlé’s outlandish patent claim, researchers in developing nations such as Egypt and Pakistan had already published studies on the same curative powers Nestlé is claiming as its own. And Nestlé has done this before — in 2011, it tried to claim credit for using cow’s milk as a laxative, despite the fact that such knowledge had been in Indian medical texts for a thousand years.
[/FONT][FONT=verdana]Nestle performs cruel and unnecessary tests on animals in order to add health claims to their Nestea beverages.[/FONT]
- [INDENT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Mice bred to suffer from brain dysfunction and rapid aging were fed tea extracts and then locked in a dark chamber, where they received painful electric shocks to their feet. The mice were then killed.[/FONT][/FONT]
- [INDENT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Mice bred to suffer from muscle degeneration were fed tea components, after which experimenters cut open the animals’ leg muscles and then decapitated them.[/FONT][/FONT]
- [INDENT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Experimenters injected toxic chemicals into mice to destroy insulin-producing cells, causing the animals to develop diabetes. After this cruel procedure, the mice were force-fed tea extracts and then killed.[/FONT][/FONT]
- [INDENT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]After causing rats to suffer from high levels of fat and cholesterol in their bloodstreams, experimenters shoved tubes down the animals’ throats to force them to consume tea ingredients. The rats were then killed and dissected.[/FONT][/FONT][/INDENT]
Nestle chocolate comes from slave labor, and the slaves include children.
[FONT=verdana]Confectionary News reports that Nestle’s executive vice president, Jose Lopez, was asked how long the company had been using child labor. His reply was, “For as long as we’ve been using cocoa.”[/FONT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]But don’t worry – they promised to do better.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Segoe UI][INDENT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]
A report of the Washington-based civil society organisation Fair Labor Association (FLA) has shown that child labour is still widespread on Ivory Coast cocoa farms supplying Nestlé. It was the first time that a multinational chocolate producer had allowed its procurement system to be completely traced and assessed.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]The study had found numerous violations of internal work rules and children’s rights. The most common tasks carried out by children on cocoa farms are filling plastic bags for nurseries, breaking up pods and transporting plants, according to the FLA. Under local law, carrying heavy loads is one of the worst forms of child labour, and the use of machetes and knives to break pods is a hazardous task. The report also found rampant injuries, mainly with machetes that slice into the children’s legs as they harvest the cocoa pods, as well as both adults and children working long hours without pay. Nestlé has announced to improve its monitoring mechanisms in its cooperatives.
[/FONT][FONT=verdana]The Resistance Against Nestle[/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Much like the global resistance against Monsanto, the resistance against Nestle is rooted in alternative and social media. The sharing of information about their unethical practices can help to take them down.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]A global boycott of Nestle began in the US in 1977 in response to their aggressive marketing of baby formula, particularly in poverty-stricken Third World countries. The boycott is still active in 2013, and is administrated by the International Nestlé Boycott Committeeand the UK group Baby Milk Action.
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Another such movement is the website Stop Nestle Waters. The site was created to help defend small communities against Nestle. On their homepage, they explain why they have targeted the company:[/FONT][/FONT]
- [INDENT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Because Nestle’s predatory tactics in rural communities divide small towns and pit residents against each other.[/FONT][/FONT]
- [INDENT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Because Nestle reaps huge profits from the water they extract from rural communities – which are left to deal with the damage to watersheds, increases in pollution and the loss of their quiet rural lifestyle[/FONT][/FONT]
- [INDENT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Because Nestle has a pattern of bludgeoning small communities and opponents with lawsuits and interfering in local elections to gain control of local water supplies.[/FONT][/FONT]
- [INDENT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Because the environmental consequences of bottled water on our atmosphere, watersheds and landfills are simply too big to ignore.
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]Corporate Accountability International has named Nestle as a nominee in this year’s Corporate Hall of Shame, in unethical company with the likes of Monsanto, Walmart, and Bank of America. Nestle was nominate “for undermining the human right to water and aggressively expanding water bottling operations over the objection of communities globally.” (You can cast your vote HERE)[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=Segoe UI]
China destroys multiple shipments of GM corn from US
Monday, June 10, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
Several large shipments of genetically-modified (GM) corn and corn seeds originating from the U.S. have been destroyed by the Chinese government after being discovered by import officials at numerous locations across the country. At least three shipments of GM corn detected at the Wanzai Port in Zhuhai City near Macau were reportedly destroyed after being successfully intercepted by government officials, while another 21 cartons of GM corn seeds weighing more than 250 pounds were destroyed in the northern Chinese city of Harbin.
According to Chinese law, any import containing GMOs must be accompanied by the appropriate environmental and food safety tests conducted by Chinese institutions, not the biotechnology industry. This data is first submitted to the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture for review, and next passed on to the National Biosafety Committee for further review. If said data is eventually deemed adequate and meets strict guidelines, the corresponding shipment will be issued an appropriate safety certificate verifying its integrity and permitting its import.
But none of this was done for any of the GM corn, which had been shipped directly into China by an unnamed U.S. biotechnology company (the name of which you can probably guess). This company apparently tried to bypass Chinese law and sneak its toxic crops and seeds into the country without proper government oversight, which is technically an international human rights violation, knowing that these genetic poisons would likely be rejected if they had to go through the normal import process for GMOs.
"The deeply pro-GMO old government would not have made such a thing public," said a local Chinese citizen about the new Chinese government's swift action in dealing with the offending imports. "It would have secretly returned the shipments, or in most cases it would not even have inspected shipments that could contain GM ingredients."
You can read the entire legal framework for GMO imports into China here:
[FONT=Segoe UI]China now surpassing US in protecting food supply against genetic contamination
You know the integrity of the American food supply has reached an all-time low when even China is rejecting its offerings. The rest of the world has basically had enough of all this genetic vandalism of food, and yet America continues to take first place in agricultural stupidity, propagating deadly genetic poisons as is they were food - food that virtually nobody else on the planet is willing to eat anymore besides Americans, by the way.
America had better shape up now and begin ending the reign of GMO tyranny within its own borders, or else it will continue to remain the agricultural black sheep, and the embarrassment of the developed world. GMOs are not safe, they are not beneficial, and their only purpose economically is to fill the coffers of those running the industrial agribusiness scam. Worse, GMOs are poisoning humanity on a monumental scale, to the point where future generations may not even be able to have children due to GMO-induced sterility.
"[T]he new government's decisive move to destroy the illegal GMOs is 'progressive, encouraging, and satisfying'," adds GMWatch.org, quoting the words of an insider the site has dubbed Mr. Li. "He regards it as a sign that [the Chinese government] is keeping its promise to work for the people and the nation."
[h=1][FONT=verdana]GMO feed turns pig stomachs to mush! Shocking photos reveal severe damage caused by GM soy and corn[/FONT][/h]
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
If you have stomach problems or gastrointestinal problems, a new study led by Dr. Judy Carman may help explain why: pigs fed a diet of genetically engineered soy and corn showed a 267% increase in severe stomach inflammation compared to those fed non-GMO diets. In males, the difference was even more pronounced: a 400% increase. (For the record, most autistic children are males, and nearly all of them have severe intestinal inflammation.)
The study was conducted on 168 young pigs on an authentic farm environment and was carried out over a 23-week period by eight researchers across Australia and the USA. The lead researcher, Dr. Judy Carman, is from the Institute of Health and Environmental Research in Kensington Park, Australia. The study has now been published in the Journal of Organic Systems, a peer-reviewed science journal.
The study is the first to show what appears to be a direct connection between the ingestion of GMO animal feed and measurable damage to the stomachs of those animals. Tests also showed abnormally high uterine weights of animals fed the GMO diets, raising further questions about the possibility of GMOs causing reproductive organ damage.
Proponents of corporate-dominated GMO plant science quickly attacked the study, announcing that in their own minds, there is no such thing as any evidence linking GMOs to biological harm in any animals whatsoever. And they are determined to continue to believe that, even if it means selectively ignoring the increasingly profound and undeniable tidal wave of scientific studies that repeatedly show GMOs to be linked with severe organ damage, cancer tumors and premature death.
[h=1]"Adverse effects... toxic effects... clear evidence"[/h]The study was jointly announced by GM Watch and Sustainable Pulse.
Lead author of the study Dr. Judy Carman stated, "We found these adverse effects when we fed the animals a mixture of crops containing three GM genes and the GM proteins that these genes produce. Yet no food regulator anywhere in the world requires a safety assessment for the possible toxic effects of mixtures. Our results provide clear evidence that regulators need to safety assess GM crops containing mixtures of GM genes, regardless of whether those genes occur in the one GM plant or in a mixture of GM plants eaten in the same meal, even if regulators have already assessed GM plants containing single GM genes in the mixture."
The following photo shows one of the pig intestines fed a non-GMO diet vs. a pig intestine fed a GMO diet. As you can see from the photo, the pig fed the GMO diet suffered severe inflammation of the stomach:
A scientific study published last year concluded that eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide was linked with rats developing shockingly large tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death.
That study was also criticized by corporate GMO trolls who argued that scientists should not show pictures of rats with large cancer tumors caused by GMOs because the pictures scare consumers into being afraid of GMOs.
That study also found that rats fed GM corn suffered severe kidney damage as well as shockingly high rates of premature death.
[h=1]Why weren't these studies done before GMOs were unleashed into the global food supply?[/h]The GMO biotech industry was able to escape any meaningful regulation of GMOs in the United States by (ridiculously) claiming GMOs were substantially no different from non-genetically engineered crops. "They're all the same!" we were told. And the USDA bought it.
So how did Monsanto patent its GM corn, then? You're not supposed to be able to patent something unless it's uniquely different. Thus, the very fact that Monsanto has acquired patents on its GMO crop varieties is proof that the company itself believes its seeds are different.
And what's different about Monsanto's GM corn? It produces a deadly insecticide grown right into every kernel. That insecticide, of course, is what kills insects that try to eat the crop. And how does it kill those insects? It fatally damages their digestive systems. That same insecticide stays inside the corn even as the crop is turned into animal feed... or corn chip snacks... or flaked corn breakfast cereal.
[h=1]GMOs are unfit for human consumption[/h]This pig stomach inflammation study suddenly provides yet more credible evidence that GMOs are unfit for human consumption and may be causing severe damage to the digestive systems of both humans and mammals.
Naturally, the GMO industry and all its paid online trolls, on-the-take "scientists" and multi-million dollar P.R. machine will try to viciously attack this study from every angle. They absolutely hate real science when that science calls into question their poisonous, deadly seeds and genetic pollution.
That's why you won't read this news anywhere in the mainstream media -- the same media that utterly discredited itself a few weeks ago when it pretended the hugely successful global March Against Monsanto never even took place.
NOTE TO THE SELLOUT CORPORATE MEDIA: You have zero credibility remaining. Virtually no one believes what you print. Everyone knows you have sold out your editorial agenda to Big Pharma, Monsanto, weapons manufacturers and the surveillance state. The reason why alternative media like GM Watch and Natural News is rising while your own numbers keep plummeting is because we print the real news that really matters on liberty, food freedom, farm freedom, health freedom and self-reliance. Maybe if you stopped intentionally lying to your readers on a daily basis while censoring important news on grassroots liberty, you might see some readers return to your publication...
Maine group loses suit against Monsanto over seeds
Jim Gerritsen is owner of Wood Prairie Farm in Bridgewater and president of the Washington, Maine-based Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, which was lead plaintiff in the case against Monsanto
By Carey Gillam, Reuters
Posted June 11, 2013, at 6:56 a.m.
Last modified June 11, 2013, at 1:30 p.m.
[LEFT][FONT=georgia][FONT=verdana]Monsanto Co. on Monday won another round in a legal battle with U.S. organic growers as an appeals court threw out the growers’ efforts to stop the company from suing farmers if traces of its patented biotech genes are found in crops. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=georgia][FONT=verdana]The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a previous ruling that found organic growers had no reason to try to block Monsanto from suing them as the company had pledged it would not take them to court if biotech crops accidentally mix in with organics. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=georgia][FONT=verdana]The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, which is based in Washington, Maine, was lead plaintiff in the case.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=georgia][FONT=verdana]Organic farmers and others have worried for years that they will be sued by Monsanto for patent infringement if their crops get contaminated with Monsanto biotech crops. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=georgia][FONT=verdana]In its ruling Monday, the appellate court said the organic growers must rely on Monsanto assurances on the company’s website that it will not sue them so long as the mix is very slight.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=georgia][FONT=verdana]“Monsanto’s binding representations remove any risk of suit against the appellants as users or sellers of trace amounts (less than one percent) of modified seed,” the court stated in its ruling.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=georgia][FONT=verdana]Jim Gerritsen, owner of Wood Prairie Farm in Bridgewater, Maine, and president of the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, in a statement viewed the court’s decision as a partial victory. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=georgia][FONT=verdana]“Even though we’re disappointed with the court’s ruling not to hear our case, we’re encouraged by the court’s determination that Monsanto does not have the right to sue farmers for trace contamination,” Gerritsen said. “However, the farmers went to court seeking justice not only about contamination, but also the larger question of the validity of Monsanto’s patents. Justice has not been served.”[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=georgia][FONT=verdana]Monsanto officials applauded the ruling. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=georgia][FONT=verdana]“The assertion that Monsanto would pursue patent infringement against farmers that have no interest in using the company’s patented seed technology was hypothetical from the outset,” the company said in a statement issued Monday. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=georgia][FONT=verdana]Monsanto has developed a reputation for zealously defending patents on its genetically altered crops, which include patented “Roundup Ready” soybeans, corn and cotton, genetically altered to tolerate treatments of its Roundup weedkiller.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=georgia][FONT=verdana]The crops are widely used in the United States and Latin America. It has proven difficult to keep the genetic alteration from contaminating non-biotech crops, as recently occurred in a wheat field in the U.S. state of Oregon.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=georgia][FONT=verdana]The group of more than 50 organic farmers and seed dealers sued Monsanto in March 2011 seeking to prohibit Monsanto from suing them if their seed and crops become contaminated.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=georgia][FONT=verdana]Monsanto officials specifically refused to sign a covenant stating it would not sue the growers, but the court said the website statement was sufficient and would be binding. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=georgia][FONT=verdana]Andrew Kimbrell, a lawyer with the Center for Food Safety, which joined as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the decision made no sense. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=georgia][FONT=verdana]“It is a very bizarre ruling that relies on a paragraph on a website,” he said. “It is a very real threat to American farmers. This is definitely appealable.”
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=georgia][FONT=verdana]In its ruling Monday, the court noted that records indicate a large majority of conventional seed samples have become contaminated by Monsanto’s Roundup resistance trait. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=georgia][FONT=verdana]Monsanto filed 144 patent-infringement lawsuits against farmers between 1997 and April 2010, and won judgments against farmers it said made use of its seed without paying required royalties. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=georgia][FONT=verdana]Many U.S. farmers have said their fields were inadvertently contaminated with Monsanto’s biotech seeds without their knowledge. The issue has been a topic of concern for not only farmers, but also companies that clean and handle seed.[/FONT][/FONT][/LEFT]
FDA Approves First GMO Flu Vaccine Containing Reprogrammed Insect Virus
[FONT=inherit][FONT=inherit]Posted on [/FONT]June 11, 2013[FONT=inherit] [FONT=inherit]by [/FONT][FONT=inherit]Soren Dreier [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=inherit]Author: Jonathan Benson[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][FONT=inherit]A new vaccine for influenza has hit the market, and it is the first ever to contain genetically-modified (GM) proteins derived from insect cells.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]According to reports, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the vaccine, known as Flublok, which contains recombinant DNA technology and an insect virus known as baculovirus that is purported to help facilitate the more rapid production of vaccines.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]According to Flublok’s package insert, the vaccine is trivalent, which means it contains GM proteins from three different flu strains.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]The vaccine’s manufacturer, Protein Sciences Corporation (PSC), explains that Flublok is produced by extracting cells from the fall armyworm, a type of caterpillar, and genetically altering them to produce large amounts of hemagglutinin, a flu virus protein that enables the flu virus itself to enter the body quickly.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]So rather than have to produce vaccines the “traditional” way using egg cultures, vaccine manufacturers will now have the ability to rapidly produce large batches of flu virus protein using GMOs, which is sure to increase profits for the vaccine industry.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]But it is also sure to lead to all sorts of serious side effects, including the deadly nerve disease Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GSB), which is listed on the shot as a potential side effect.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]“If Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) has occurred within six weeks of receipt of a prior influenza vaccine, the decision to give Flublock should be based on careful consideration of the potential benefits and risks,” explains a section of the vaccine’s literature entitled “Warnings and Precautions.”[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]Other potential side effects include allergic reactions, respiratory infections, headaches, fatigue, altered immunocompetence, rhinorrhea, and myalgia.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]According to clinical data provided by PSC in Flublok’s package insert, two study participants actually died during trials of the vaccine. But the company still insists Flublok is safe and effective, and that it is about 45 percent effective against all strains of influenza in circulation, rather than just one or two strains.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]FDA also approves flu vaccine containing dog kidney cells[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]Back in November, the FDA also approved a new flu vaccine known as Flucelvax that is actually made using dog kidney cells.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]A product of pharmaceutical giant Novartis, Flucelvax also does away with the egg cultures, and can similarly be produced much more rapidly than traditional flu vaccines, which means vaccine companies can have it ready and waiting should the federal government declare a pandemic.[/FONT][/FONT]
Like Flublok, Flucelvax was made possible because of a $1 billion, taxpayer-funded grant given by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the vaccine industry back in 2006 to develop new manufacturing methods for vaccines. The ultimate goal is to be able to quickly manufacture hundreds of millions of vaccines for rapid distribution. Meanwhile, there are reportedly two other GMO flu vaccines currently under development. One of them, which is being produced by Novavax, will utilize “bits of genetic material grown in caterpillar cells called ‘virus-like particles’ that mimic a flu virus,” according to Reuters.
https://www.change.org/petitions/stand-w ... age_notice
https://www.change.org/petitions/stand-w ... age_notice[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;Utl5et9ExMg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... tl5et9ExMg#![/video]
I personally know of at least a few anti-Monsanto, anti-GMO protesters who will ensure that this shit is burnt in the fields should they plant these seeds in our land, an action which I support 100%! It is the only way to stop the destruction of the biodiversity and all life on this planet.
The crops they are trying to bring over here are GMO soy and corn.
TROUBLE IN PARADISE: BELIZE DESTROYS UNAUTHORIZED GMO SOYBEAN CROP
[FONT=inherit]Posted by: Daisy Luther | on June 12, 2013
[FONT=inherit]There’s been trouble in the tropical paradise of Belize.
[FONT=inherit]Despite the fact that the federal government of Belize has banned all GMO seeds from the country’s borders, a field of GMO soybeans was found growing in the northern portion of the country. (Two weeks ago, an errant field of unapproved GMO wheat was discovered in Oregon – these examples make it clear that Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry have no regard for the regulations that disallowed these crops to be planted.)[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]This discovery in Belize comes, rather ironically, just months after a very successful national awareness campaign called ”GMO Awareness Month”.
GMO Awareness Month was conducted in response to a recent push by the newly-formed Belize Grain Growers Association to gain Government approval for the importation of GMO corn seed. This GMO v.s. NON-GMO conflict pits the Mennonite and other commercial grain farmers against the cultural natives, the Maya, who first brought corn to the world. Throughout the entire month of March, members of the social network Facebook group Belizeans Against GMOs (BAGMO), now numbering over 1,700, orchestrated a GMO educational campaign which included weekly full-page educational advertorials and letters-to-the-editor in the national Amandala newspaper. (These can be reviewed at: (https://www.belizeansagainstgmo.info/index.html). BAGMO members not only appeared on Belizean TV/radio talk shows but they also promoted a GMO writing contest with cash prizes for students in secondary schools throughout Belize. (press release)
[FONT=inherit]The lovely Central American country is a popular eco-tourism destination, and perhaps this is the reason that they are so environmentally conscious. The government of Belize appears to be adamant about keeping GMO crops out of the country. The following press release was issued by the Government of Belize Press Office on June 7.[/FONT]
“On May 24, 2013 the Plant Health Department of the Belize Agricultural Health Authority (BAHA) discovered suspected genetically modified soybean seeds in Northern Belize. As a result, samples of the suspected soybean seeds were submitted to BAHA’s Plant Health Diagnostics Laboratory in Central Farm for GMO screening. The screening tests were conducted on May 28 and all the samples tested positive indicating that the seeds were genetically modified.[/FONT][FONT=inherit]A further set of samples were then sent to Eurofins Genescan Laboratories in the United States on May 30 for a confirmatory test using Polymerase Chain Reaction or PCR technology. On June 5th, BAHA received results of the confirmatory test, which verified the results of previous tests conducted by BAHA on the soybean seeds.[/FONT][FONT=inherit]Since the sowing of GMO seeds is prohibited in Belize, BAHA has placed the seeds under quarantine, and will render the seeds non-viable by milling. The milled soybean seeds will be used for the production of animal feed which contains genetically modified soybeans. Belize currently imports animal feeds which contains genetically modified soybeans.” (source)
[FONT=inherit](Author’s note: Although the government of Belize is to be sincerely applauded for supporting the ban on GMO seeds, feeding livestock GMO crops is dubious because it still introduces the genetically modified material into the food chain.)[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]Back in 2011, outrage in Belize resulted in the public burning of GMO corn seeds. BAGMO wrote, “Central America is the birth place of corn. Belize is known for its magnificent biodiversity, astounding natural resources, and tremendous cultural heritage. The introduction of genetically modified corn would negatively affect biodiversity, natural resources and the cultural heritage of the Maya.”
[video=youtube;zMHKL84G5MQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMHKL84G ... r_embedded[/video]
[LEFT][FONT=inherit]Thus far Belize has been steadfast in the fight against GMO crops. They don’t want corn fields that require Kevlar tires on the vehicles to drive through them scattered in amongst the ancient ruins and rain forests of their pristine environment.[/FONT][FONT=inherit]This find, along with the unapproved GMO wheat that made it’s appearance in Oregon, makes it very clear that Monsanto and their ilk have no interest in respecting the wishes and regulations of the nations who have banned their biotech corruptions or in waiting for approval from their yes-men in government agencies.. They are breaching the gates by throwing around money, hiring disinformation agents, and when all else fails, arrogantly disregarding the laws and having their seeds planted anyway.[/FONT][/LEFT]
[FONT=inherit]In Belize, the fight against GMOs in paradise goes on. Denise Frank, the spokesperson for BAGMO, requests support.”BAGMO members ask the rest of the world to stand with them in solidarity in their efforts to keep Belize GMO-free and to help fight this recent criminal action to the fullest extent of the law. https://www.facebook.com/groups/bagmo/”
City of North Vancouver votes unanimously to become a GE Free zone
[FONT=inherit][FONT=inherit]Posted on[/FONT] [FONT=inherit]June 11, 2013[/FONT] [FONT=inherit][FONT=inherit]by[/FONT] [FONT=inherit]GE Free BC[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=inherit]
[FONT=inherit]This evening the City of North Vancouver became the 2nd Vancouver municipality, and the 62nd municipality in the Province, to become a GE Free zone.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]Councillors who were originally doubtful changed their mind during the meeting after a number of community members made forceful presentations about the importance of this issue.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]Congratulations to all the campaigners who worked on this, the next piece in the puzzle to making the whole of BC GE Free.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]A GE Free BC is possible. Please donate to our campaigns from this blog (scroll down to the donate button on the right hand side of the page) – we are 100% volunteer so all your funds go to the campaign.[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit]Get in touch at [email protected] if you want to get involved in a campaign in your community.[/FONT]
Taken from: https://www.cban.ca/Resources/Topics/GE- ... rket/Apple
The small BC company called Okanagan Specialty Fruits is asking Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to approve a GM “non-browning” apple. The U.S. government could approve the GM apple soon. Contamination from GM apples threatens the future of our apples, and the farmers who grow them.
Take Action in BC During the Election
In BC, April 13 - May 14, 2013: Ask your candidates in the provincial election what their position is on the GM apple. Ask this question in all-candidate debates and make your concerns know. The new BC government needs to take action to protect BC apple growers from the GM apple.Click here for more information about what you can ask your candidates and updates in the BC campaign.
- Write to your provincial agriculture minister and ask them to take action to protect the apple growers in your area from the GM apple.
- Write or call your federal Member of Parliament. You can look up their contacts using your postal code at www.parl.gc.ca
- Consumers don’t want the GM apple.
- BC apple growers have already rejected the GM apple.
- Contamination from GM apples is a risk to Canadian apple producers.
- Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are using public funds to review a GM apple no one wants.
- The government has not consulted with farmers and consumers and does not consider economic or social concerns before it approves a new GM crop.
The GM “non-browning” apple is engineered to keep from going brown after being cut. This apple is designed for fast food companies and food processing companies. The technology was developed in Australia and licensed by the small BC company called Okanagan Specialty Fruits.
Okanagan Specialty Fruits asked for approval in the US in March 2010 and has just asked for approval in Canada. The GM apple has not yet been approved anywhere in the world.
The company wants approval to use of the GM trait in Golden Delicious and Granny Smith apples but they say they want to also engineer Gala and Fuji apples.
69% of Canadians oppose the GM apple! See the consumer survey commissioned by the BC Fruit Growers Association and the Quebec Apple Producers Association, July 3, 2012.
Press Release, August 14, 2012: GM Apple Jeopardizes Okanagan’s Reputation, say local groups
Letter from Okanagan groups to Okanagan Specialty Fruits
How is the apple engineered?
The company has silenced a gene in the apple that controls browning by inserting a range of genetic sequences - Modified apple DNA is inserted along with genetic sequences from at least three different species:
- A regulatory gene switch from a plant virus (Cauliflower Mosaic virus promoter: CaMV 35S);
- A terminator sequence from a bacterium (Agrobacterium tumefaciens taken from its Nopaline synthase gene: nos);
- An antibiotic resistance marker gene from a bacterium (Streptomyces kanamyceticus), here the nptII gene (which confers resistance to the antibiotic kanamycin).
In 2001, BC apple growers stopped the GM apple from being field tested in Canada. The federal government agricultural station in Summerland in the Okanagan valley, an important fruit growing area, was preparing to start field trials but BC growers who were concerned about contamination stopped these field trials from happening. As a consequence, the company has tested all their apple trees in the U.S.
In September 2011, CBAN and organizations from across BC organized a series of public events to discuss genetic engineering. At an event in Keremeos, Lee McFadyen of Mariposa Organic Farm and the Live Earth Organic Growers Association pointed out that there are already several varieties of apple that are slow to brown. On the GM apple, orchardist Andrea Turner of the Similkameen Okanagan Organic Producers Association said, “The tree fruit industry cannot afford anything silly like that”. Read the concerns of the Similkameen Okanagan Organic Treefruit Growers Association, BC.
The U.S. Apple Association "does not support the approval of this product" and says "Consumers like their apples and are not calling for these new “nonbrowning” cultivars." https://www.usapple.org/consumers/all-ab ... nformation
"Apples are healthy and nutritious they way they are. Browning is a natural process that results from exposure to oxygen. There are already naturally low-browning apples in the marketplace. In addition if you just put some vitamin C fortified apple juice on sliced or cut apples it will also prevent browning." - Mark Gedris, Director of Membership & Communications for U.S. Apple Association
U.S. Approves a Label for Meat From Animals Fed a Diet Free of Gene-Modified Products
By STEPHANIE STROM
Published: June 20, 2013
The Agriculture Department has approved a label for meat and liquid egg products that includes a claim about the absence of genetically engineered products.
It is the first time that the department, which regulates meat and poultry processing, has approved a non-G.M.O. label claim, which attests that meat certified by the Non-GMO Project came from animals that never ate feed containing genetically engineered ingredients like corn, soy and alfalfa.
The U.S.D.A.’s Food Safety Inspection Service “allows companies to demonstrate on their labels that they meet a third-party certifying organization’s standards, provided that the third-party organization and the company can show that the claims are truthful, accurate and not misleading,” Cathy Cochran, a U.S.D.A. spokeswoman, said in a statement.
Ms. Cochran said the approval for labeling meats did not signal “any new policy regarding non-G.E. or non-G.M.O. products.”
Labeling foods to indicate the absence or presence of genetically engineered ingredients is one of the most contentious issues in the food business today, with about two dozen states mulling labeling requirements and the biotech industry fighting back with intense lobbying.
More and more companies, however, are voluntarily labeling their products, including most recently Chipotle, the thriving restaurant chain, which now points out items containing genetically engineered ingredients on its online menu.
Meat from animals that eat non-G.M.O. feed, like certified organic meats, is highly prized by some consumers, but claims made by meat labels must be approved by the U.S.D.A. When a new company called Mindful Meats submitted a label last fall that included the Non-GMO Project’s certification seal, the department rejected it.
“It turned out that the U.S.D.A.’s Food Safety Inspection Service had not yet created a rule for handling non-G.M.O. claims for meat and poultry products, so they just denied us,” said Claire Herminjard, founder and chief executive ofMindful Meats, which makes meat products from organic dairy cows.
Ms. Herminjard learned that two other companies, Hidden Villa Ranch, and Pitman Farms, which produces Mary’s Chicken, also wanted to put a non-G.M.O. label on their products, so they banded together to petition the U.S.D.A.
The U.S.D.A. vetted the Non-GMO Project’s standards, requirements and auditing processes before giving its approval. “It has to approve every single label that goes out into commerce, but this sets a precedent for other meat and poultry companies that want to label this way,” Ms. Herminjard said.
Monsanto Protection Act Could Be Repealed Soon
May 22, 2013 at 11:00 am
The Monsanto Protection Act signed into law earlier this year caused such an outrage that people around the world are planning to protest the biotech company later this month. Now a United States Senator is expected to try and repeal that law after mounting pressure.
The notorious ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ rider stuffed into the non-related Senate spending bill may soon be repealed thanks to the massive amounts of activism and outrage that have now amounted into a legislative charge towards action. Action that has turned into legislation progress through Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, who has announced an amendment that would remove Section 735 (the Monsanto Protection Act as its known) from the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 Senate spending bill.
Act Gives Monsanto Power Over Government
The rider, which almost managed to slip incognito and pass by the alarm system of the alternative media, grants GMO juggernaut Monsanto full immunity from federal courts in the event that one of its genetically modified creations is found to be causing damage to health or the environment. Essentially, it grants Monsanto power over the United States federal government. Thankfully, I was able to get on the subject through news tips and covered the Monsanto Protection Act all the way up until the bill containing it was signed into law by Obama.
Ultimately, as the Monsanto Protection Act became more a hot issue, we had an increasing amount of publicity — but the Senate vote came just too quickly for the attention to put a halt on the rider. But even after its passing, sources like Russia Today, NaturalNews, Infowars, and myself here at NaturalSociety were sounding the alarm big time. Enough so that it even led to an apology from the top Senator who actually ended up approving the bill containing the rider.
Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland actually went and released a statement apologizing for allowing the Monsanto Protection Act through and vowing to fight against GMOs and Monsanto. Ultimately, multiple Senators had entered damage control after the jig was up. That is besides Senator Roy Blunt from Missouri, who actually worked with Monsanto (as in he let them write it while he received funding) on the Monsanto Protection Act rider. A rider he says is perfectly reasonable. After all, why not give Monsanto full immunity from the legal system the rest of us are subject to?
Even Obama was getting blasted on his Facebook page following the approval of the Monsanto Protection Act, with the majority of comments coming into his page criticizing his signature on the bill that contained the rider.
Thanks to this activism, it looks like the Monsanto Protection Act may soon be repealed after this new bill hits Washington. This time, we will have plenty of time to let the Senators know that they are voting against the public if they choose to side with Monsanto. And with such a specific agenda for this bill, I see it doing well in the Senate.
[FONT=verdana]Thursday, 20 June 2013 15:18
Puerto Rico Senate Fights Back Against Monsanto GMO and Toxic Research on Island
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
The Puerto Rico Senate agricultural committee is attempting to regulate experimentation with GMO seeds, specifically due to Monsanto research facilities located on the island. According to the website Corpwatch,however, Monsanto wouldn't even send a representative to testify at a hearing about GMO research and its potential dangers.
As CorpWatch reports:
Puerto Rico has ... been a major location for the development of genetically modified crops since 1987, conducting open air field tests on corn and soy, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data. Crops developed on the island and other Monsanto research locations have a number of unusual properties – some are resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide or any herbicide with glyphosate as active ingredient. Others secrete an insecticidal toxin called Bt and there are even combination strains that combine both these traits.
[Agricultural] Committee chair senator Ramón Ruiz-Nieves of the Popular Democratic Party told the media that he intends to summon Monsanto again, insisting that the company should be regulated locally since it receives substantial local and U.S. government subsidies for its activities in Puerto Rico, and is registered with the local Agriculture Department as a bona fide farmer.
This is not the first time local officials have targeted Monsanto. On April 22, senators María de Lourdes Santiago of the Puerto Rico Independence Party, and Larry Seilhamer of the New Progressive Party, introduced Senate Bill 524, which would mandate the labeling of foods with genetically modified contentsold on the island. The Senate Health Committee is expected to hold hearings on this bill later this year.
Monsanto has also been embroiled in a legal controversy over the fact it plants crops on 1,500 acres, despite the fact that Puerto Rico's 1952 constitution prohibits agricultural landholdings larger than 500 acres. In May, Puerto Rico Agriculture Secretary Myrna Comas, a well known food security scholar, referred this matter to the Puerto Rico Justice Department, requesting a legal opinion.
"It is our duty to monitor the food health of our people. If we are given evidence regarding some effect on the island we'll take it into consideration," Comas said in a radio interview.
Because of Puerto Rico's Commenwealth status, the question of the island's senate's jurisdiction has been raised by Monsanto. The GMO behemoth, with a history of toxic chemicals for agriculture and other uses (DDTs, PPCs and Agent Orange among many), contends that Puerto Rico cannot pass restrictive GMO laws that supercede extremely lax federal legislation and regulation.
The battle with Monsanto to rein in GMO research on the island was featured in an article in the widely-read Puerto Rican newspaper, El Nuevo Día (The New Day). In a June 11th report on the paper's Internet site, Gerardo Cordero writes (translation by google and BuzzFlash at Truthout):
International environmentalists question genetic manipulation by Monsanto, as well as the use of certain pesticides described as highly harmful. In some jurisdictions these environmentalists have led protests that have resulted in a temporary blockade of Monsanto operations.
Senate Bill 624 proposes the creation of a Seed Certification Program, within the Department of Agriculture. The measure recommended the creation of a Board of seeds and the issuance of licenses as part of the regulation of their production and sale.
Senator Nieves Ruiz, author of the bill, argued at the hearing about the importance of ensuring genetic purity of seeds that are grown in Puerto Rico and said the move would promote food security guarantees for the people.
Among Monsanto's arguments for refusing to offer testimony to the Puerto Rican senate committee is that it doesn't grow GMO agricultural products for consumption on the island; it just creates the Frankenstein seeds there through research.
Given the aggressive efforts of the commonwealth agricultural committee, one can hope that it will inspire obsequious congressional lawmakers and administration regulators to stop letting Monsanto pretty much write its own ticket on the mainland.
But then again, that would mean there would have to be a law that congress and the White House cannot be bought with campaign contributions.
And that doesn't appear anywhere on the horizon because the companies that own the politicians aren't going to let it happen.
[FONT=verdana]University of Canterbury Researchers: GM is a Failing Biotechnology[/FONT]
June 20, 2013 in Sustainable Agriculture, by Admin[/FONT][FONT=Open Sans][CENTER][FONT=verdana]
University of Canterbury researchers have found that the biotechnologies used in north American staple crop production are lowering yields and increasing pesticide use compared to western Europe.
A conspicuous difference is the adoption of genetically modified/engineered (GM) seed in North America, and the use of non-GM seed in Europe.
The team, led by UC Professor Jack Heinemann, analysed data on agricultural productivity in north America and Western Europe over the last 50 years.
Read The Full Paper Here
The Western Europe and North America make good comparisons because these regions are highly similar in types of crops they grow, latitude, and access to biotechnology, mechanisation and educated farmers.
The findings have been published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability.
“We found that the combination of non-GM seed and management practices used by western Europe is increasing corn yields faster than the use of the GM-led packages chosen by the US.
“Our research showed rapeseed (canola) yields increasing faster in Europe without GM than in the GM-led package chosen by Canada and decreasing chemical herbicide and even larger declines in insecticide use without sacrificing yield gains, while chemical herbicide use in the US has increased with GM seed.
“Europe has learned to grow more food per hectare and use fewer chemicals in the process. The American choices in biotechnology are causing it to fall behind Europe in productivity and sustainability.
“The question we are asking is, should New Zealand follow the US and adopt GM-led biotechnology or follow the high performance agriculture demonstrated by Europe?
“We found that US yield in non-GM wheat is also falling further behind Europe, demonstrating that American choices in biotechnology penalise both GM and non-GM crop types relative to Europe.
“Agriculture responds to commercial and legislative incentive systems. These take the form of subsidies, intellectual property rights instruments, tax incentives, trade promotions and regulation. The incentive systems in North America are leading to a reliance on GM seeds and management practices that are inferior to those being adopted under the incentive systems in Europe.
“The decrease in annual variation in yield suggests that Europe has a superior combination of seed and crop management technology and is better suited to withstand weather variations. This is important because annual variations cause price speculations that can drive hundreds of millions of people into food poverty.
“We need more than agriculture; we need agricultures – a diversity of practices for growing and making food that GM does not support; we need systems that are useful, not just profit-making biotechnologies – we need systems that provide a resilient supply to feed the world well,” Professor Heinemann says.[/FONT]
[h=1]Genetically-modified eggplant found to be unsafe for human consumption, environment[/h]
Friday, June 21, 2013 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer
Field trials of genetically-modified (GM) Bt eggplant, also known as Bt talong, have officially ceased in the Philippines following a major ruling by the nation's Court of Appeals. Representing a massive victory for food sovereignty, the Court found that Bt talong is a monumental threat to both environmental and human health, and has subsequently ordered that all existing plantings of Bt talong in test fields be immediately destroyed and blocked from further propagation.
Like in many other nations across the globe, the biotechnology industry has been craftily trying to sneak its genetic poisons into the Philippines under the guise of improving crop yields, reducing chemical use, and yada yada ad nauseum - all the typical industry propaganda and lies used to convince the more gullible among us that GMOs are some kind of food production miracle. But the Philippines is not buying all the hype. And unlike the U.S., the southeast Asian country is taking a bold stand against a technology that has never been proven safe or beneficial in any way.
According to the non-profit advocacy group Greenpeace, which has been working on behalf of humanity to stem the tide of GMO onslaught all around the world, the Court recently issued a "Write of Kalikasan," which basically means that all field trials of Bt eggplant in the Philippines must stop. The Court also ordered that the biotechnology aggressors "permanently cease and desist" from conducting further trials, as well as "protect, preserve, rehabilitate and restore" all the land they have destroyed in the process.
"The field trials of Bt talong involve the willful and deliberate alteration of the genetic traits of a living element of the ecosystem and the relationship of living organisms that depend on each other for their survival," states the ruling. "Consequently, the field trials ... could not be declared by this Court as safe [for] human health and our ecology, [since they are] an alteration of an otherwise natural state of affairs in our ecology."
[h=1]Philippines light years ahead of US in adopting precautionary principle, protecting its people and food supply from corporate takeover[/h]Everything about this common-sense decision by the Filipino justice system makes perfect sense - GMOs definitively spread their poisonous traits throughout the entire ecosystem, contaminating other crops along the way, and thus have no place in agriculture, period. But sadly, such common sense no longer exists in the U.S., where corporate greed and fundamental corruption have essentially placed profits before people in every aspect of life.
"We commend the Court of Appeals for living up to its constitutionally-mandated role as protector of constitutional rights," said Greenpeace Southeast Asia Sustainable Agriculture Campaigner Daniel Ocampo about the Philippines rejecting GMOs. "This landmark decision reflects that there are indeed flaws and lapses in the current regulatory process for Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) such as Bt eggplant which exposes our environment and health to unknown long-term consequences and does not establish their safety in any way."
Meanwhile, millions of acres of uncontested GMO crops in the U.S. continue to ravage both human and environmental health while the hordes of mindless puppets in the U.S. Congress ignore the issue or even pretend that GMOs are not an issue. But this new American pastime of greed and denial about reality will not last forever, as nature will eventually catch up and extinguish this agricultural scourge with "superweeds," "superbugs," and disease - that is if the American people do not take action first to forcibly cleanse their nation of GMOs. The question is, what will it take for the people to wake up and take action?
[h=1][FONT=verdana]Peru first country in Americas to ban GMOs[/FONT][/h][FONT=verdana]May 8, 2013 at 8:32 am
Peru is the first country in the Americas to ban genetically modified foods, putting its food policy closer to that of Europe, than the United States or many of its South American neighbors.
Peru has successfully implemented a 10-year moratorium on GMOs while extensive, long-term safety tests are conducted.
It’s also the only country in the Americas to put a 10-year ban on genetically modified food, with a law that was first introduced in 2011, and went into effect at the end of last year. Its basic intention, say Schiaffino and others, is to protect Peru’s biodiversity, as well as the practices that have kept it intact for so long.
“In the end, it’s not a law that’s ‘against’ anything,” says Antonietta Gutierrez, a biologist at Peru’s National Agrarian University. “This is a law in favor of biosecurity. The idea is that there should be a responsible way of using technology, so that it helps us develop resources – and at the same time, doesn’t destroy what we already have.”
“There aren’t yet long term studies of GMOs,” says Gutierrez in a spartan concrete and linoleum lab just outside the capital. “You can’t measure their real effects in five, 10, or even 20 years. It takes more time to observe those effects, especially when we’re talking about entire ecosystems.”
Peru’s new law puts its food policy closer to that of Europe, than to that of the United States or many of its South American neighbors. While genetically modified species can still be tested in controlled lab settings, as of December 2012, they can’t be planted or set free, and GMO seeds are barred from entering the country. Both activists and many scientists consider this a coup.
GMOs produced outside the country, however, are still present in products sold in supermarkets. A law requiring products containing GMOs to be labeled was passed in 2011 – but terms and regulations were never set. According to a study done by the Peruvian Association of Consumers and Users, of 13 basic products bought and tested for the presence of GMOs, 10 tested positive.
Activists say this is all the start of a long fight.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana]What's really behind the ingredient 'Natural Flavors?'[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana]What does the term "natural flavors" really mean? Could it be that the term "natural flavors" includes genetically modified, pesticide-laden food? There are also plenty of "food products" on the shelves that read "all natural" on the label, but they still contain large amounts of synthetic, laboratory-concocted food agents, many of which cause diseases and disorders. So how much more confusing can it get to simply shop for food that doesn't kill you slowly?
Exactly who makes the rules about terms put on labels? You better hope it doesn't all fall in the hands of the FDA, the same organization responsible for allowing genetically modified food to exist and be sold completely undercover ever since its inception. And does natural flavoring include the migraine headache monster monosodium glutamate? Also, can "natural flavoring" include bugs that are ground up to turn your food into some "happy" colors that help you celebrate some birthday or big event? One final question: could "natural flavoring" mean the food contains meat, even though it's a vegetarian or vegan product?
Maybe "natural flavoring" means it's not natural at all, instead, some food scientists were paid millions to create un-natural, immune system "crippling" foods, drinks, candies and medicine, just to make some extra money off of your sickness. There's a point where conspiracy theory bleeds over into the real world of unnatural food and medicine, where paranoia of cancer scams and epidemics spill over into actual statistics (United States), the ones which include every other man and every third women in the most "powerful country in the world."[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana]MSG, Aspartame and bugs in your food are all considered "natural flavors" and "natural colors"
Do you know what autolyzed yeast extract really is? It's MSG. Do you know what hydrolyzed soy protein (also MSG) does to your body? Have you thought about eating some beetles lately, or do you only do that when you have cupcakes, popsicles, birthday cake and cough medicine?
Has your doctor discussed with you the fact that your ingestion of artificial sweeteners may be the main cause of your muscle aches, headaches, irritable bowels and even fibromyalgia? Do allopathic doctors, surgeons and oncologists in America have to take even one single class in college on nutrition? No, they don't. What about continuing education to keep up with the latest food toxins? Nope!
Who regulates whether or not something qualifies as a "natural flavor?" Who does inspections at factories and laboratories, or is that left up to the manufacturer, much like the way it's up to vaccine manufacturers to report adverse effects? When the police themselves are crooks, there's no "policing" of the crimes they are committing. In fact, the whole differentiation of GMO & artificial from Natural & Organic has become a murky mess. The line of distinction between foods labeled "all natural" and cancer causing food is not only blurred, it barely exists.
First of all, regulations for the word "natural" only apply to flavors; anywhere else you find it on food packaging means absolutely nothing regarding quality. Secondly, the FDA definition of "natural flavors" and "natural flavoring" allows for the substance to be extracted from plant or animal "matter." So when you buy something that's organic, vegetarian, or vegan, and it has "natural flavoring," you could be eating a pig, cow, turkey, chicken, or lamb which was shot up with growth hormones, fed GMO pesticide-laden corn and grain - probably mixed with other animals of it's same breed, then shot up with antibiotics due to infections and diseases from living in confined quarters on slats covered in feces.
[/FONT][FONT=verdana]Your enemy wears a friendly mask
Gary Reineccius, a professor in the Department of Food Science & Nutrition at the University of Minnesota has a tricky explanation for all you researchers. He convinces you to think more about the practical difference between "natural flavoring" and artificial flavoring, which is an angle that might make you think he's looking out for your best interest, but then he contends that the "flavorist" creating any artificial flavoring could never achieve the same "desired flavor," and therefore, if a consumer "purchases an apple beverage that contains an artificial flavor, he/she will ingest the same primary chemicals that he/she would take in if he/she had chosen a naturally flavored apple beverage. What a complete farce!
Of course, this makes no sense at all, but it's one of those resources out there to throw consumers off track who have the energy and the "gumption" to look up the difference online. Mr. Reineccius, the illustrious professor, goes on to tell you more lies. Next he informs you that, "Artificial flavorings are simpler in composition and potentially safer because only safety-tested components are utilized." Really, so where are all the great results from the GMO tests they've run on humans?
MSG is the grim reaper of food additives
Monosodium Glutamate is a neurotoxin that can be legally hidden from you and/or be labeled "natural flavors" in the ingredients list. MSG is not a natural flavor - in fact, it can cause brain lesions, neuro-endocrine disorders, and neurodegenerative disease in humans, but you won't hear any doctors of Western Medicine mentioning that at your next extreme migraine emergency visit. There are more than 25 names for MSG, so sometimes you find it spread out a little, just in case the manufacturer gets "checked out" by anyone other than the FDA.
The FDA does not require that any source of MSG be identified. This means that the FDA code does not require that "constituents" of an ingredient be disclosed to the consumer. Yet in hundreds of studies around the world, scientists are creating obese mice using MSG because it triples the amount of insulin the pancreas creates, causing rats (and perhaps humans) to become obese. This is what the FDA calls natural. There's even a name for the fat rodents that eat this "Natural Flavor" additive: they're called "MSG-Treated Rats."
Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an addictive substance. Since its introduction into the American food supply 50 years ago, MSG has been added in larger and larger doses to processed meals, soups, chips, and fast foods. The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food.
[/FONT][FONT=verdana]"Food Q&A: Just what is ‘natural’ flavoring?"[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana]Q: Could you tell me the latest about "natural flavor," which now seems to be not just in savories, such as soups and salad dressings, but in everything from unsalted butter to organic yogurt? My understanding is that it is a sludge of beef byproduct, high in free glutamic acid, a cousin to MSG, and that it adds flavor — and perhaps a bit of a mad cow — to everything we eat. I avoid it like the plague, but it's getting harder and harder. Is it legal in organic products? Many thanks.
— Mary R
[FONT=Georgia][FONT=verdana]A: We’ve all heard of products being labeled “artificially flavored” or “naturally flavored,” but I’m glad you are curious as to what exactly “natural flavor” means, because even with all the regulations and new organic certifications it’s a confusing and misleading mess![/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][FONT=verdana]The definition of natural flavor under the Code of Federal Regulations is: “the essential oil, oleoresin, essence or extractive, protein hydrolysate, distillate, or any product of roasting, heating or enzymolysis, which contains the flavoring constituents derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof, whose significant function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional” (21CFR101.22).
[FONT=Georgia][FONT=verdana]Certainly a mouthful!
[FONT=Georgia][FONT=verdana]In other words, it could include beef by-products, but not necessarily.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][FONT=verdana]Any other added flavor therefore is artificial. (For the record, any monosodium glutamate, or MSG, used to flavor food must be declared on the label as such). Both artificial and natural flavors are made by “flavorists” in a laboratory by blending either “natural” chemicals or “synthetic” chemicals to create flavorings.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][FONT=verdana]Gary Reineccius, a professor in the department of food science and nutrition at the University of Minnesota, says that the distinction between natural and artificial flavorings is based on the source of these often identical chemicals. In fact, he says, “artificial flavorings are simpler in composition and potentially safer because only safety-tested components are utilized.
[FONT=Georgia][FONT=verdana]“Another difference,” says Reineccius, “is cost. The search for natural sources of chemicals often requires that a manufacturer go to great lengths to obtain a given chemical…. This natural chemical is identical to the version made in an organic chemist’s laboratory, yet it is much more expensive than the synthetic alternative.”[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][FONT=verdana]End result: We shoppers wind up paying the price for natural flavorings, and according to Reineccius, these are in fact no better in quality, nor are they safer, than their cost-effective artificial counterparts.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][FONT=verdana]So what about the flavorings used in organic foods? Foods certified by the National Organic Program (NOP) must be grown and processed using organic farming methods without synthetic pesticides, bioengineered genes, petroleum-based fertilizers and sewage sludge-based fertilizers. Organic livestock cannot be fed antibiotics or growth hormones. The term "organic" is not synonymous with "natural." The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) defines “natural” as “a product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed (a process which does not fundamentally alter the raw product) may be labeled natural.” Most foods labeled natural, including its flavorings, are not subject to government controls beyond the regulations and heath codes.
[FONT=Georgia][FONT=verdana]The NOP food labeling standards (effective October of 2002) include a National List of Allowed Synthetic and Prohibited Substances. This list has a section on allowed non-synthetic substances, some with restrictions (205.605(a)) for products labeled “organic” or “made with organic ingredients.” Four categories of organic labels were approved by the USDA, based on the percentage of organic content: 100% Organic, Organic, Made with Organic Ingredients, and Less than 70% Organic. Natural flavors, then, can be considered NOP compliant as “organic” when used under the 95% rule (flavorings constitute 5% or less of total ingredients and meet that meet the appropriate requirements) if their organic counterparts are not available. “Made with organic ingredients” can be used on any product with at least 70% organically produced ingredients.”[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia][FONT=verdana]According to the National List, under section 7CFR205.605(a)(9), non-agricultural, non-organic substances are allowed as ingredients that can be labeled as “organic” or “made with organic,” including “flavors, non-synthetic sources only, and must not be produced using synthetic solvents and carrier systems or any artificial preservative.” Other non-synthetic ingredients allowed in this section include: acids such as microbiologically-produced citric acid, dairy cultures, certain enzymes and non-synthetic yeast that is not grown on petrochemical substrates and sulfite waste liquor.
[FONT=Georgia][FONT=verdana]So, the bottom line is that you have to read those labels carefully. “Natural” might not be so natural, and that even some organic foods might contain some of these “natural flavors.” There are still many grey areas for consumers and producers alike.
[FONT=Georgia][FONT=verdana]Research is being done and attempts are being made to produce more organic flavorings, but the process is slow. We as consumers need to be more aware of what ingredients go into our foods and also demand that the government sticks to its responsibility to regulate these ingredients and make sure that the information is discloses on EVERY label.[/FONT][/FONT]
It is too long to copy and paste so please click on the link to read the rest.
Dark History of the Monsanto Corporation
[FONT=verdana]Monsanto is the world’s leading producer of the herbicide “Roundup”, as well as producing 90% of the world’s genetically modified (GMO) seeds.Over Monsanto’s 110-year history (1901-2013), Monsanto Co (MON.N), the world’s largest seed company, has evolved from primarily an industrial chemical concern into a pure agricultural products company. MON profited $2 billion dollars in 2009, but their record profits fell to only $1 billion in 2010 after activists exposed Monsanto for doing terribly evil acts like suing good farmers and feeding uranium to pregnant women. Below is a timeline of Monsanto’s dark history.Monsanto, best know today for its agricultural biotechnology GMO products, has a long and dirty history of polluting this country and others with some of the most toxic compounds known to humankind. From PCBs to Agent Orange to Roundup, we have many reasons to question the motives of this evil corporation that claims to be working to reduce environmental destruction and feed the world with its genetically engineered GMO food crops. Monsanto has been repeatedly fined and ruled against for, among many things: mislabeling containers of Roundup, failing to report health data to EPA, plus chemical spills and improper chemical deposition.[/FONT][FONT=Segoe UI][FONT=verdana]The name Monsanto has since, for many around the world, come to symbolize the greed, arrogance, scandal and hardball business practices of many multinational corporations. A couple of historical factoids not generally known: Monsanto was heavily involved during WWII in the creation of the first nuclear bomb for the Manhattan Project via its facilities in Dayton Ohio and called the Dayton Project headed by Charlie Thomas, Director of Monsanto’s Central Research Department (and later Monsanto President) and it operated a nuclear facility for the federal government in Miamisburg, also in Ohio, called the Mound Project until the 80s.[/FONT][/FONT]
Birds, Bees, and Aquatic Life Threatened by Gross Underestimate of Toxicity of World's Most Widely Used Pesticide
(Washington, D.C. March 19, 2013) As part of a study on impacts from the world’s most widely used class of insecticides, nicotine-like chemicals called neonicotinoids, American Bird Conservancy (ABC) has called for a ban on their use as seed treatments and for the suspension of all applications pending an independent review of the products’ effects on birds, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife.
“It is clear that these chemicals have the potential to affect entire food chains. The environmental persistence of the neonicotinoids, their propensity for runoff and for groundwater infiltration, and their cumulative and largely irreversible mode of action in invertebrates raise significant environmental concerns,” said Cynthia Palmer, co-author of the report and Pesticides Program Manager for ABC, one of the nation’s leading bird conservation organizations.
ABC commissioned world renowned environmental toxicologist Dr. Pierre Mineau to conduct the research. The 100-page report, “The Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds,” reviews 200 studies on neonicotinoids including industry research obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act. The report evaluates the toxicological risk to birds and aquatic systems and includes extensive comparisons with the older pesticides that the neonicotinoids have replaced. The assessment concludes that the neonicotinoids are lethal to birds and to the aquatic systems on which they depend.
“A single corn kernel coated with a neonicotinoid can kill a songbird,” Palmer said. “Even a tiny grain of wheat or canola treated with the oldest neonicotinoid -- called imidacloprid -- can fatally poison a bird. And as little as 1/10th of a neonicotinoid-coated corn seed per day during egg-laying season is all that is needed to affect reproduction.”
The new report concludes that neonicotinoid contamination levels in both surface- and ground water in the United States and around the world are already beyond the threshold found to kill many aquatic invertebrates. Data on surface water contamination from surveys to date, most notably from California and from the Canadian Prairies, indicate that concentrations of several of the neonicotinoid insecticides are high enough to be causing impacts in aquatic food chains. Data from other jurisdictions such as the Netherlands show even higher levels of contamination.
The report also identifies procedural deficiencies in how the US Environmental Protection Agency assesses aquatic impacts. “EPA risk assessments have greatly underestimated this risk, using scientifically unsound, outdated methodology that has more to do with a game of chance than with a rigorous scientific process,” the report says.
First introduced in the 1990s in response to widespread pest resistance and health concerns linked to older pesticides, the neonicotinoid insecticides quickly became top sellers in global pesticide markets. Now the most widely-used insecticides in the world, it is difficult to find pest control commodities that do not contain one or several of the neonicotinoid insecticides. California alone has registered nearly 300 neonicotinoid products.
EPA scientists have repeatedly documented serious concerns about the persistence, mobility and toxicity of the products, and yet the Agency continues to grant registrations allowing the chemicals to be used for an ever-widening range of crops and non-agricultural use sites.
EPA and other regulatory agencies worldwide have underestimated the toxicity of these compounds to birds partly because the risk assessment methods fail to account sufficiently for interspecies variation in toxicity. For example, risk assessments underestimate acute risk by up to 10 fold for bird species beyond mallard ducks and bobwhites, the two usual test species. As for aquatic invertebrates, EPA has underestimated the toxicity of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid by over an order of magnitude because of the Agency’s failure to consider data from the peer-reviewed literature. EPA has grossly underestimated the toxicity of the other neonicotinoids as well, in part due to the Agency’s reliance on their standard test species, Daphnia magna, a freshwater flea which happens to be uniquely insensitive to neonicotinoids.
Given that a single neonicotinoid-coated seed can kill a bird, it is also important that seeds marketed for home bird feeders remain free of these chemical treatments. In response to sporadic wild bird seed contamination incidents, ABC has monitored bird seed sold by Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes and Target. To date, ABC’s independent bird-seed testing efforts have focused on older products such as the organophosphorous and carbamate pesticides. The neonicotinoids are a candidate for future testing.
The report also charges that there is no readily available biomarker for neonicotinoids as there is for cholinesterase inhibitors such as the organophosphorous pesticides.
“It is astonishing that EPA would allow a pesticide to be used in hundreds of products without ever requiring the registrant to develop the tools needed to diagnose poisoned wildlife. It would be relatively simple to create a binding assay for the neural receptor which is affected by this class of insecticides,” said Dr. Mineau. The ABC report calls on EPA to require that registrants of acutely toxic pesticides develop the tools necessary to diagnose poisoned birds and other wildlife.
Neonicotinoids’ toxicity to bees and other insects has brought them the most attention thus far and has dominated recent concerns of regulatory institutions worldwide. The serious risk to bees should not be understated, as one-third of the U.S. diet depends on these insect pollinators. The ABC assessment makes clear, however, that the potential environmental impacts of neonicotinoids go well beyond bees. The report urges EPA to expand its registration review of neonicotinoids to include birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife.
©Copyright 2010American Bird Conservancy