News regarding the dangers of GMOs and biotech, and the advantages of organic sustainable agriculture.
Globalist Agriculture Cartel Pillages Ukraine as IMF and World Bank Wage War to Expand Monsanto’s GMO Empire
Is it possible that the conflict in Ukraine is really just a front for a Monsanto land grab? Before Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was forcibly removed from office, he had repeatedly rejected agreements and loan packages from international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, which padded their deals with conditions that included loosening regulations for Ukraine's agricultural sector.
PhD Plant Biologist Speaks Out Against GMOs
By training, I am a plant biologist. In the early 1990s I was busy making genetically modified plants (often called GMOs for Genetically Modified Organisms) as part of the research that led to my PhD. I was not, at the outset, concerned about the possible effects of GM plants on human health or the environment. I now believe, as a much more experienced scientist, that GMO crops still run far ahead of our understanding of their risks. I have become much more appreciative of the complexity of biological organisms and their capacity for benefits and harms. As a scientist I have become much more humble about the capacity of science to do more than scratch the surface in its understanding of the deep complexity and diversity of the natural world. To paraphrase a cliché, I more and more appreciate that as scientists we understand less and less. I have read numerous GMO risk assessment applications. These are the documents that governments rely on to ‘prove’ their safety. Though these documents are quite long and quite complex, their length is misleading in that they primarily ask (and answer) trivial questions. Furthermore, the experiments described within them are often very inadequate and sloppily executed. Scientific controls are often missing, procedures and reagents are badly described, and the results are often ambiguous or uninterpretable. I do not believe that this ambiguity and apparent incompetence is accidental. To any honest observer, reading these applications is bound to raise profound and disturbing questions: about the trustworthiness of the applicants and equally of the regulators. They are impossible to reconcile with a functional regulatory system capable of protecting the public.
Pastured Soy-free Chickens and Other Products Added to Glyphosate-tested Product Line
Tropical Traditions has added several products into their glyphosate-tested line of products. Late in 2014, when Tropical Traditions started to test some of their certified organic products for the presence of glyphosate, and found out much to their horror that many USDA certified organic products were contaminated with glyphosate, they also tested their certified organic poultry feed. Unfortunately, the level of glyphosate contamination was very high, much higher than any of the organic grains they had tested. So the search for glyphosate-tested feed that returned a zero result for glyphosate began. Due to the GMO contamination of USDA certified corn as well, it was determined to drop organic corn from the feed. It has now been replaced with milo (sorghum), a popular poultry feed ingredient in southern cultures. The Tropical Traditions Cocofeed is also soy-free, and includes coconut pulp. Tropical Traditions had to test each ingredient separately, and be sure that the test represented the entire batch from a specific harvest sourced back to the producers. This week (September 2015), pastured chickens raised on this glyphosate-tested feed are now available for purchase by the public.
California EPA Moves to Label Monsanto’s Roundup ‘Carcinogenic’
The California Environmental Protection Agency announced today that it plans to label glyphosate — the most widely used herbicide and main ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup — as a chemical "known to cause cancer." The World Health Organization's research arm also recently found that the chemical is probably carcinogenic to humans, and research has also linked glyphosate to the steep decline of monarch butterflies. And as we reported this week, scientists have increasingly raised new alarms about potential negative health impacts tied to Roundup, including a recent study suggesting that long-term exposure to tiny amounts of the chemical (thousands of times lower than what is allowed in drinking water in the US) could lead to liver and kidney problems.
New England Journal of Medicine Article Calls for GMO Labels on Foods
A Perspective article published in the New England Journal of Medicine calls for the labeling of genetically modified foods. "We believe the time has come to revisit the United States' reluctance to label GM foods," writes Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, co-author with Charles Benbrook, of the article entitled "GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health." The two write that such labeling "is essential for tracking emergence of novel food allergies and assessing effects of chemical herbicides applied to GM crops. It would respect the wishes of a growing number of consumers who insist they have a right to know what foods they are buying and how they were produced."
Germany Starts Move to Ban GMO Crops
Germany has initiated a move to stop the growing of genetically modified crops under new European Union rules, documents seen by Reuters showed on Monday. German Agriculture Minister Christian Schmidt has informed German state governments of his intention to tell the EU that Germany will make use of new "opt-out" rules to stop GMO crop cultivation even if varieties have been approved by the EU, a letter from the agriculture ministry seen by Reuters shows. A new EU law approved in March cleared the way for new GMO crops to be approved after years of previous deadlock. But the law also gave individual countries the right to opt out by banning GMO crops even after they have been approved as safe by the European Commission.
Science Is No Longer Truth: Death of Democracy and Knowledge
Our society is largely built on the idea that science can help us make good, solid decisions. But now we're facing a world so rife with problems caused by the very sciences that were supposed to keep us healthy, safe, and productive, it's quite clear that we're heading toward more than one proverbial brick wall. In a sense, the fundamental role of science itself has been hijacked for selfish gain. Looking back, you can now see that the preferred business model of an industry was created first, followed by "scientific evidence" that supports the established business model. When the science doesn’t support the company’s economic gains, it’s swept under the rug, even if people are dying and the planet is becoming irreparably poisoned as a result. Today we live in a world where chemical companies and biotech giants can easily buy and pay for their own research studies, as well as the lobbying to support whatever legislation they need passed in their favor. Conflicts of interest have become the norm within virtually all fields of science, which creates a completely unworkable – and dangerous – situation in the long run.
Citing GMO-Herbicide Link, Renowned Children’s Health Expert Calls For GMO Labeling
An article published today in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine by two of the nation’s most respected experts on pesticides and children’s environmental health calls for the Food and Drug Administration to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered (GMO) food. This comes after the House of Representatives passed a bill last month that would block states from enacting their own labeling laws and make it nearly impossible for the FDA ever to implement national mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. Titled “GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health,” the paper by Philip J. Landrigan, M.D. and Charles Benbrook, Ph.D. focuses on the widespread adoption of GMO crops across the U.S. and the resulting explosion in the use of toxic herbicides – some of them, like Monsanto’s glyphosate, linked to cancer – and argues that labeling these foods is a matter of protecting public health.
Glyphosate Herbicides are Toxic Below Regulatory Safety Limits
A new review of the scientific literature shows that glyphosate herbicides may be toxic below regulatory safety limits. Dr Robin Mesnage and co-authors examined a number of different types of toxic effects to arrive at their conclusions, including liver and kidney toxicity, neurotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, and teratogenicity (ability to cause birth defects). Unlike regulatory authorities, the researchers considered studies from the independent literature, as well as the few industry toxicity studies, conducted in support of regulatory approvals, that have been made public. They shared this approach of considering the entirety of the published literature with the World Health Organization’s cancer agency IARC, which recently concluded that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen. The new review shows that endocrine (hormone) disruptive effects can occur below the doses deemed not to cause any toxic effects in industry studies performed for regulatory approvals. Endocrine disruption may increase the risk of certain types of cancer. Yet regulatory studies do not test low dose exposures for endocrine disruptive effects.
Big Food Companies Spend Millions to Defeat GMO Labeling
Federal lobby disclosure forms from big food and biotechnology companies, and their trade groups opposed to mandatory GMO labeling reveal a surge in lobbying expenditures during the first half of 2015, according to a new analysis by EWG. A major reason for the explosion in lobbying money is the food industry’s support for the Deny Americans the Right to Know – or DARK – Act (H.R.1599), which the House passed last month by a vote of 275-150. The legislation blocks state GMO labeling laws, blocks state laws prohibiting “natural” claims on GMO foods, and makes it virtually impossible for FDA to create a mandatory national GMO labeling system. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents these and other food manufacturers, reported expenditures of $5.1 million that mentioned GMO labeling and hired 32 lobbyists exclusively to advocate for legislation to block state and federal GMO industry lobbying dwarfed expenditures reported by GMO labeling advocates, including EWG and Just Label It, which disclosed $2.5 million in the first two quarters of 2015, $2 million in all of 2014, and nearly $1 million in 2013. Since 2013, industry lobbyists have outspent GMO labeling advocates by 25-to-1. “The gap between the amount of money spent by Big Food and that spent by public interest groups is simply mind-boggling,” Foley said.
Defying Voters’ Wishes, House Passes the DARK Act
As we reported last week, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) introduced a bill that has been championed by the Monsantos of the world, not to mention the Big Food industry. The deceptively titled “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015” would preempt state efforts to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws with a completely voluntary standard. It would also block communities and states from banning the cultivation of GMO crops. Late last week, by a vote of 275 to 150, the DARK Act passed the House, and is now on it’s way to the Senate. While it still is unclear if the Senate will consider the DARK Act or take up a similar bill that is reportedly being written by Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND), any step forward for this bill is dangerous for the 93% of Americans who want to know what’s in their food.
Anti-GMO Labeling “DARK Act” on Fast Track to Approval
The industry-sponsored voluntary GMO labeling bill is heading for a floor vote in the House, and could be voted on any day now. If the DARK Act passes the House, its next stop would be the Senate. We reported in May that Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) is preparing his own—again, completely voluntary—GMO labeling bill. Whether the Senate will consider the House-approved DARK Act, or Hoeven’s bill when it’s ready, or neither, remains to be seen. New additions to the DARK Act also prevent local communities from banning GMO crops!
Glyphosate Damages DNA says Cancer Researcher
Prof Christopher Portier, one of the co-authors of the recent report by the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which determined that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen, said at a scientific briefing today, “Glyphosate is definitely genotoxic. There is no doubt in my mind.” “Genotoxic” means it damages DNA. It is widely believed by regulators that for genotoxic chemicals that are also carcinogenic, as glyphosate appears to be, there is no safe level of exposure.
First Glyphosate, Now Recently EPA-Approved 2,4-D Weed-Killer Also Linked to Cancer
The decision by an organization of the world’s leading cancer experts to classify the herbicide 2,4-D as a possible carcinogen underscores the risk posed by the U.S. government’s recent approval of 2,4-D for use on genetically engineered, or GMO, crops. 2,4-D is one of the two active ingredients in Enlist Duo, a toxic weed-killing cocktail marketed by Dow AgroSciences, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently approved for use in 15 states. The other herbicide in Enlist Duo is glyphosate, which the international cancer agency had previously classified as “probably carcinogenic.” Exposure to both chemicals has separately been linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Human Breast Milk Found Unsafe – High Levels of Glyphosate
The Green party made their warning after testing the breast milk of 16 women from a variety of German regions. Traces of glyphosate, a chemical used in weed-killers, amounting to between 0.210 and 0.432 nanograms per mililitre were recorded. In drinking water a quantity of no more than 0.100 nanograms of the substance is allowed. Irene Witte, professor of toxicology at the University of Oldenburg described the findings as “intolerable.” “I would never have guessed that the quantities are so high,” she said.
“DARK Act” Will Block States from Banning GMO Crops
Rep. Mike Pompeo’s voluntary GMO labeling bill has been amended to include another brazen giveaway to Big Food and the biotech industries. We’ve been closely monitoring the progress of the bill introduced by Rep. Pompeo (R-KS) and backed by industry. It’s titled, deceptively, the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015”—and the news hasn’t been good. A few weeks ago, we reported that a Senate version of Pompeo’s bill was in the works while the House bill continued to gain co-sponsors and bipartisan support. Worse, a new draft of the Pompeo bill doubles down in pandering to the Big Food and biotech industries. In this revision, states and localities would be prevented from banning GMO crops. That’s right—states would no longer have any oversight over genetically engineered crops! Over the last few weeks, the bill has been continuing to gain momentum. Hearings on the measure have been held in the Energy and Commerce and the Agricultural committees, and a “mark-up” session is expected to happen soon, bringing the bill even closer to a vote.
Federal Government Does not Want You to Know if Your Food has GMOs in it
A current proposed federal law on GMO food would prevent States from passing their own GMO laws on labeling GMO foods. This past week, Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group reported that Rep. Mike Pompeo's anti-GMO labeling bill, H.R. 1599, would also prevent companies from voluntarily labeling their products with non-GMO claims. Section 102 of Pompeo’s bill would make any non-GMO claim a violation of federal labeling law – unless the non-GMO claim was approved through a new certification program to be established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Under Pompeo’s bill, it could take the USDA at least a year, and more likely years to set up such a certification program. If you do not want the federal government forcing companies to stop voluntarily informing their consumers about whether or not their products have GMO ingredients in them, then urge your federal elected officials to oppose H.R. 1599 (and any Senate equivalent).
10,000 Sue Syngenta Over Unapproved GMO Corn Shipped to China – U.S. Farmers Lose $5 Billion in Sales
Town hall meetings have been taking place recently regarding corn litigation with the Syngenta company. The lawsuit is regarding claims that Syngenta sold genetically modified corn with a strain called MIR-162 to China without their approval of the modification. "The first shipment that tested positive for MIR-162," Hecker Law Group attorney Jacob Hecker said, "was destroyed by the Chinese in 2013. Afterwards all other shipments with trace amounts of the strain were sent back to where they came from." Due to the boycott, agriculture experts say the cost of the damages involved is in the range of $5 billion.
Supreme Court Rules Against USDA in Favor of Raisin Farmer and Property Rights
The U.S. Supreme Court today handed down their decision in USDA vs. Horne. They ruled against the USDA in favor of the Hornes, raisin farmers in California. The USDA set to make an example of the Hornes for opting out of the price-fixing scheme, slapping them with about $1 million in fines and threatening their small farm. The farmers sued, claiming that packaging and selling their raisins themselves rather than turning them over to the government pool made them “producers,” not “handlers,” and, therefore, not subject to the government rules. The 8-1 decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, with the court's more conservative justices in solid agreement. Roberts said the government violates citizens' rights when it seizes personal property -- say, a car -- as well as real property such as a house. While the government can regulate production in order to keep goods off the market, the chief justice said it cannot seize that property without compensation.
Glyphosate Cancer Cover-up: Control Animals in Studies Also Ate Glyphosate-Contaminated Food
Dr. Anthony Samsel was interviewed in 2015 by Tony Mitra, where he discussed certain documents he has in his possession from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that allegedly show Monsanto knew about research connecting glyphosate to cancer since the 1970s. In this follow-up interview, Dr. Samsel discusses how the rat chow used in the laboratory feeds he analyzed were all contaminated with glyphosate. This is significant, as it means standard rat chow used in scientific studies have probably been contaminated since they started using GMO feeds that had been sprayed with glyphosate.