News regarding the dangers of GMOs and biotech, and the advantages of organic sustainable agriculture.
Internal Monsanto documents released by attorneys leading US cancer litigation show that the company launched a concerted campaign to force the retraction of a study that revealed toxic effects of Roundup. The documents also show that the editor of the journal that first published the study entered into a contract with Monsanto in the period shortly before the retraction campaign began. The study, led by Prof GE Séralini, showed that very low doses of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide had toxic effects on rats over a long-term period, including serious liver and kidney damage. Additional observations of increased tumour rates in treated rats would need to be confirmed in a larger-scale carcinogenicity study. The newly released documents show that throughout the retraction campaign, Monsanto tried to cover its tracks to hide its involvement. Instead Monsanto scientist David Saltmiras admitted to orchestrating a “third party expert” campaign in which scientists who were apparently independent of Monsanto would bombard the editor-in-chief of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), A. Wallace Hayes, with letters demanding that he retract the study.
Earlier this year (March 2017) we reported how the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture issued "cease and desist" orders to a few small-scale Amish egg farmers in Wisconsin who have been shipping soy-free cage-free eggs to customers across the U.S. for over 7 years. The main complaint from the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture was that they were shipping the eggs to the consumers unrefrigerated. It was discovered that the complaint did not originate from any customers, but from the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). CDFA had previously seized shipments of these farm eggs back in 2012, and were apparently upset that they were coming into California unrefrigerated. The farmers and representatives from Tropical Traditions/Healthy Traditions worked with the Wisconsin regulators, who responded appropriately and allowed the farmers to continue shipping their eggs. They met with the farmers, and the farmers agreed to make some minor adjustments to comply with Wisconsin State regulations. However, California CDFA was not through. Even though there is no record of any customer complaint about the Wisconsin eggs, they used a Dog Team to sniff out a consumer box of eggs at a FedEx facility and destroy them. Does CDFA have the right to search and destroy private property in a FedEx facility? Will they also begin searching automobiles and other vehicles entering the state of California for food that does not meet their regulatory standards? Is this a good use of taxpayer funds?
In the global debate over neonicotinoid pesticides, the company that makes most of them has relied on one primary argument to defend its product: The evidence that these chemicals, commonly called "neonics," are harmful to bees has been gathered in artificial conditions, force-feeding bees in the laboratory, rather than in the real world of farm fields. That company, Bayer, states on its website that "no adverse effects to bee colonies were ever observed in field studies at field-realistic exposure conditions." Bayer will have a harder time making that argument after today. This week, the prestigious journal Science reveals results from the biggest field study ever conducted of bees and neonics.
A new report by the toxicologist Dr Peter Clausing shows that the EU authorities violated their own rules and disregarded evidence that glyphosate is carcinogenic to reach a conclusion that the chemical does not cause cancer. The EU authorities reached the conclusion that glyphosate is not carcinogenic by disregarding and brushing aside evidence of cancers in experimental animals and by violating directives and guidelines that are supposed to guide their work, according to a new report by the German toxicologist Dr Peter Clausing. The report shows for the first time that glyphosate should have been classified as a carcinogen according to the current EU standards. This would mean an automatic ban under EU pesticides legislation. However, the EU authorities disregarded and breached these standards, enabling them to reach a conclusion that the chemical is not carcinogenic.
If you've never heard about ketamine, you're not alone. Scores of people had never heard the word until Bloomberg broke the story June 22, 2017, revealing that ketamine had shown up in Sanderson Farms' so-called "100 percent natural" chicken. Some who've heard of ketamine may include veterinarians, psychiatrists and people in the club scene who like to walk on the edgy (read: sketchy) side, as ketamine is known for delivering hallucinogenic effects. Testing also revealed other, and some even worse substances, and consumer advocacy groups don't intend to sit still for it. In fact, a new lawsuit has been initiated by consumer advocacy groups due to the company's use of the word "natural" in its advertising. Bloomberg explains: "The consumer groups contend that Sanderson Farms 'doses its chickens' but don't explain why. Ketamine might be used to sedate the animals during transport or before slaughter. The consumer groups want Sanderson to concede it violated false advertising laws and pay for a corrective ad campaign." As Drug.com explains, ketamine (pronounced kee'-ta-meen) is an anesthesia that "works in the brain to inhibit painful sensations." It's prescribed by psychiatrists for depressed patients and by dentists as an anesthetic. Do you want this drug present in your "natural" chicken?
True organic grass fed milk has been repeatedly shown to be higher in many nutrients, including vitamin E, beta-carotene and beneficial conjugated linoleic acid, but some organic dairies are nothing more than concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in disguise, selling milk for higher prices while not actually giving you anything that is substantially different from non-organic milk.
Food Freedom Laws Needed to Rebuild Economic Prosperity – Reestablish Relationships between Local Food Producers and Local Consumers
Those of us who seek to restore the old-fashioned practices of food production and distribution in our local communities are concerned about food safety. We are not anti-regulation – we are instead pro-common-sense when it comes to food that is produced and sold locally. We are simply seeking to restore a way of life that has successfully promoted economic vitality, physical health, and a sense of community and belonging that used to characterize America. Such a way of life has been stripped away by mega size grocery stores, corporate dominated agriculture and food processing, and by over-reaching food regulations. The combined effect of these factors is destroying small locally owned businesses and small family farms. These destructive forces are crawling through our country, and are destroying the fabric of community life. The adoption of food freedom laws are one of the positive steps that we can take to rebuild economic prosperity, and reestablish personal relationships between local food producers and local food consumers. This article will examine the food freedom movement and will consider whether the allegations of corporate interests are valid. Should we be free to buy and sell food directly from our neighbors, or will such practices kill us? I am not being overly dramatic with my language here. Allegations against local food freedom advocates are highly charged with emotional rhetoric, and warn of unescapable illness and death.
A new study published in Nature Methods has found that the genome editing technology CRISPR introduced hundreds of unintended mutations into the genome of mice. In the study, the researchers sequenced the entire genome of mice that had undergone CRISPR gene editing to correct a genetic defect. They looked for all mutations, including those that only altered a single nucleotide (DNA base unit). They found that the genomes of two independent gene therapy recipients had sustained more than 1,500 single-nucleotide mutations and more than 100 larger deletions and insertions. None of these DNA mutations were predicted by the computer algorithms (software packages) that are widely used by researchers to screen the genome (the total DNA base unit sequence) of an organism to look for potential off-target effects. While this study was conducted in the arena of gene therapy, it has clear implications for the regulation of food plants and animals derived from CRISPR and other genome editing techniques.
Nevada has made a legal statement many are calling “revolutionary.” It defied the USA federal ban of industrial hemp agriculture with Nevada governor Brian Sandoval’s signing into law SB 396, which was passed overwhelmingly in both the Nevada State Assembly and Senate. This allows Nevada to raise hemp for commercial use, not merely for research, within its borders. Hemp and marijuana are of the same species. They are related. According to George Blankenbaker, president of Realhemp, Inc, hemp is the most misunderstood and underappreciated crop there is in the world. The apparent confusion between marijuana or cannabis and hemp has made growing industrial hemp without THC illegal in the USA only. This demonstrates the incredible nonsensical irony of reluctantly allowing hemp imports from China, Canada, and parts of Europe and elsewhere to be sold anywhere in the USA, but banning them from being grown commercially in the United States.
On Monday, June 12th at 9:00 a.m. CT, 38+ leading experts will teach you how to become free of supermarkets and drugstores! Watch 100% online from the comfort of home as 38+ real people “living it” reveal their best secrets for growing all your own food and medicine. And be empowered with the practical skills you need to feed and heal your family!