Monsanto Announces Major Losses After Settling Environmental Lawsuit

Monsanto lost money this past quarter, but only part of that was due to environmental lawsuits. Do you think Monsanto will continue to lose money, as people reject GMOs in growing numbers or was this just a bad quarter? -LW

AFP Photo / Juliette Michel

AFP Photo / Juliette Michel

Biotech giant Monsanto announced major losses for their fourth quarter last week well below analysts’ expectations after spending millions settling an environmental suit.

The St. Louis, Missouri-headquartered company announced a loss of $156 million, or 31 cents per share, on Wednesday, 7 cents per share beyond what analysts surveyed by both Bloomberg and Zacks Investment Research had expected.

According to the Associated Press, Monsanto managed to take the biggest blow during the last quarter due to a one-time payment made to settle an environmental legal case and, had it not occurred, the company would have lost only 27 cents per share. As RT reported at the time, residents of a West Virginia town where Monsanto formerly operated a chemical plant have since July been able to receive free medical monitoring or have their property cleaned-up thanks to a settlement agreement valued at over $90 million.

Despite ongoing and international legal issues, however, Monsanto managed to see sales of its GMO products go up during the last four months, with company execs and analysts alike saying they’re optimistic about the coming year. Monsanto representatives said during a conference call that they’re confident earnings-per-share will double by 2019, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that lackluster results during the last quarter failed to raise alarm bells for analysts.

“We’re confident in our ability to deliver the targets we’ve set in both the near term and over the longer term,” Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant said in a statement. “In an industry that’s particularly near-term focused right now, there are few companies as well positioned to deliver strong growth today while significantly increasing investments to enable the continued delivery of a broad range of innovative solutions for tomorrow.”

“We think it is reasonable for management to be conservative at this early juncture in light of uncertainty within the agriculture industry with crop prices under pressure and farmer planting intentions unsure,” Edward Jones analyst Matt Arnold told the Post-Dispatch.

Absent more multi-million dollar settlements — and coupled with high expectations concerning new technology platforms, including a farm data business unit, the company said — Monsanto expects positive figures in the coming quarters. According to the Market Business News, net sales for Monsanto’s full year reached $15.9 billion, or 7 percent higher than the year prior: sales for GMO corn and GMO soybean were up by $ 12 million and $112 million, respectively, and net sales of the company’s Roundup herbicide totaled $1.25 billion, compared to $1 billion last year.

Monsanto executives are prepared for first quarter earnings in 2015 to be well below what they saw a year earlier, the AP reported, and expect a slump due to “reduced seed planting in key markets and other seasonal factors.” Otherwise, the company said it expects “strong double-digit to mid-teens earnings growth in fiscal year 2015 despite continued industry headwinds.”

Nevertheless, Monsanto might not sail through the coming quarters with ease given a mounting anti-GMO backlash across the world: three lawsuits were filed last week against competing agribusiness firm Syngenta over a genetically-modified seed variant it markets, and residents of Colorado are slated to vote next month on a measure that could impose new GMO-labeling laws in stores across the state.

Source.

Mayans Win Legal Battle to Ban GM Soya

First the corn, now the soybeans. Monsanto is SO off the planet!

From Facebook:

BREAKING NEWS: Mayans Win Legal Battle to Ban GMO Soy in Mexico’s Campeche Region. Following a ban on the cultivation of GMO corn in Mexico in 2013, the Campeche region of the country has now prohibited the growing of GMO Soybeans following a two year court battle.

GET OUT, MONSANTO!

Mar 13 2014

Following a ban on the cultivation of GM Maize in Mexico in 2013, the Campeche region of the country has now prohibited the growing of  GM Soybeans following a two year court battle.

bees mayans

The Second District Court in Campeche ruled this week in favor of three Mayan communities from the Hopelchén township who had taken on the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock , Rural Development, Fisheries and Food ( Sagarpa) and the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources ( SEMARNAT).

In a landmark ruling, the Court granted in favor of  the Pac -chen and Cancabchen communities in Hopelchén and determined that the effects of the ruling it applied to all municipalities affected by the permit for GM soybean cultivation in Campeche. Sagarpa now has an obligation to ensure that no GM Soybeans are planted in the state.

The problem began on June 6, 2012 , when the Sagarpa , with the support of SEMARNAT permitted the release of Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready GM Soybeans into the environment. The planting of 253 000 hectares was allowed in seven states of Mexico , including the municipalities of Campeche, Hopelchén , Tenabo , Calkiní , Escárcega , Carmen and Palisade .

In Campeche the Mayan authorities reacted angrily to the government authorization and Pac- Chen, Cancabchen and various associations of Campeche beekeepers decided to go to court to prevent the planting, because it affects the honey industry through GM ‘pollution of  production’, which has resulted in the closure of some of the beekeepers’ international markets.

The Mayan communities stated that the planting of GM Soybeans affected the traditional historical practices of the people (beekeeping) and that there was a violation of their right to a healthy environment through the overuse of herbicides and deforestation that GMOs encourage.

After nearly two years of litigation, the Second District Court  supported the indigenous communities’ claims.

In addition , the Directorate General of Environmental Impact and Risk of SEMARNAT , when giving the approval for the permit, was found to have violated the procedure laid down in its Rules of Procedure , by omitting three binding rulings Conabio , CONANP and INE, which advised against planting of genetically modified soy in marked polygons.
Source

Study: Monsanto’s Roundup Causes “gluten intolerance”

Thanks, Jon. I wonder what else will be revealed about our tainted food chain over time.

When I consider all the possible causes for our dog’s lymphoma, I can’t help but wonder if we inadvertently increased his toxic load when we—at the emphatic assurances of our landscaper that Roundup is safe and breaks down into inert, benign substances in the environment—used it to control the massive amounts of weeds that grow in our yard as a result of living in the open desert.

Fortunately, thanks to daily updates from Dr. Mercola I soon learned about the other side of Roundup and Monsanto, and began researching for myself. Knowing that Canada had banned Roundup years before was a big clue that it is probably NOT safe at all, and I stopped using it, but the harm may already have been done.  ~ BP

by Jon Rappoport

February 21, 2014

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

A recent study proposes that gluten intolerance and celiac disease are on the rise a result of glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide.

The National Library of Medicine states that celiac disease “damages the lining of the small intestine and prevents it from absorbing parts of food that are important for staying healthy. The damage is due to a reaction to eating gluten, which is found in wheat, barley, rye, and possibly oats.”

The study authors, Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff, have a different view. They point out that this rise in celiac disease parallels the increase in the use of Roundup, and the effects of glyphosate are those listed for celiac disease.

Here is the abstract of their study [Interdiscip Toxicol, 2013, Vol. 6 (4), 159-184]:

“Celiac disease, and, more generally, gluten intolerance, is a growing problem worldwide, but especially in North America and Europe, where an estimated 5% of the population now suffers from it.

“Symptoms include nausea, diarrhea, skin rashes, macrocytic anemia and depression.

“It is a multifactorial disease associated with numerous nutritional deficiencies as well as reproductive issues and increased risk to thyroid disease, kidney failure, and cancer.

“Here, we propose that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide, Roundup®, is the most important causal factor in this epidemic.

“Fish exposed to glyphosate develop digestive problems that are reminiscent of celiac disease. Celiac disease is associated with imbalances in gut bacteria that can be fully explained by the known effects of glyphosate on gut bacteria.

“Characteristics of celiac disease point to impairment in many cytochrome P450 enzymes, which are involved with detoxifying environmental toxins, activating vitamin D3, catabolizing vitamin A, and maintaining bile acid production and sulfate supplies to the gut.

“Glyphosate is known to inhibit cytochrome P450 enzymes. Deficiencies in iron, cobalt, molybdenum, copper, and other rare metals associated with celiac disease can be attributed to glyphosate’s strong ability to chelate these elements.

“Deficiencies in tryptophan, tyrosine, methionine, and selenomethionine associated with celiac disease match glyphosate’s known depletion of these amino acids.

“Celiac disease patients have an increased risk to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which has also been implicated in glyphosate exposure.

“Reproductive issues associated with celiac disease, such as infertility, miscarriages, and birth defects, can also be explained by glyphosate.

“Glyphosate residues in wheat and other crops are likely increasing recently due to the growing practice of crop desiccation [drying] just prior to the harvest. We argue that the practice of “ripening” sugar cane with glyphosate may explain the recent surge in kidney failure among agricultural workers in Central America. We conclude with a plea to governments to reconsider policies regarding the safety of glyphosate residues in foods.”

This study could change the way gluten intolerance and celiac disease are understood, and it adds to the growing body of evidence against Monsanto’s Roundup and those GMO crops which require Roundup as the herbicide of choice.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at  NoMoreFakeNews.com.

 Use this link to order Jon’s Matrix Collections:

New York Times Rejects Monsanto Science

Thanks, Patrick!

Now we’re getting somewhere!  I wonder if this had anything to do with the 9/11 billboard We, the People,  put in Times Square right in front of the NY Times building, asking them why they didn’t report the truth… 

Sometimes what we want comes in a different way than we expect.  ~ BP

This isn’t a leak. It isn’t a timid flow. It’s a flood.

I’m talking about about the criticism of Monsanto’s so-called science of genetically-engineered food.

For the past 20 years, independent researchers have been attacking Monsanto science in various ways, and finally the NY Times has joined the crowd.

But it’s the way Mark Bittman, lead food columnist for the Times magazine, does it that really crashes the whole GMO delusion. Writing in his April 2 column, “Why Do G.M.O.’s Need Protection?”, Bittman leads with this:

“Genetic engineering in agriculture has disappointed many people who once had hopes for it.”

As in: the party’s over, turn out the lights.

Bittman explains:

“…genetic engineering, or, more properly, transgenic engineering – in which a gene, usually from another species of plant, bacterium or animal, is inserted into a plant in the hope of positively changing its nature – has been disappointing.”

As if this weren’t enough, Bittman spells it out more specifically:

“In the nearly 20 years of applied use of G.E. in agriculture there have been two notable ‘successes,’ along with a few less notable ones. These are crops resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (Monsanto develops both the seeds and the herbicide to which they’re resistant) and crops that contain their own insecticide. The first have already failed, as so-called superweeds have developed resistance to Roundup, and the second are showing signs of failing, as insects are able to develop resistance to the inserted Bt toxin — originally a bacterial toxin — faster than new crop variations can be generated.”

Bittman goes on to write that superweed resistance was a foregone conclusion; scientists understood, from the earliest days of GMOs, that spraying generations of these weeds with Roundup would give us exactly what we have today: failure of the technology to prevent what it was designed to prevent. The weeds wouldn’t die out. They would retool and thrive.

“The result is that the biggest crisis in monocrop agriculture – something like 90 percent of all soybeans and 70 percent of corn is grown using Roundup Ready seed – lies in glyphosate’s inability to any longer provide total or even predictable control, because around a dozen weed species have developed resistance to it.” Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup.

Just as the weeds developed resistance and immunity to the herbicide, insects that were supposed to be killed by the toxin engineered into Monsanto’s BT crops are also surviving.

Five years ago, it would have been unthinkable that the NY Times would print such a complete rejection of GMO plant technology. Now, it’s “well, everybody knows.”

The Times sees no point in holding back any longer.

Of course, if it were a newspaper with any real courage, it would launch a whole series of front-page pieces on this enormous failure, and the gigantic fraud that lies behind it. Then the Times might actually see its readership improve.

The revelations will indict the corporation (Monsanto), its government partners, and the scientists who falsified and hid data.

Momentum is something its editors understand well enough. You set your hounds loose on a story, you send them out with a mandate to expose failure, fraud, and crime down to their roots, and you know that, in the ensuing months, formerly reticent researchers and corporate employees and government officials will appear out of the woodwork confessing their insider knowledge.

The story will deepen. It will take on new branches. The revelations will indict the corporation (Monsanto), its government partners, and the scientists who falsified and hid data.

FDA and USDA may take some fire

In this case, the FDA and the USDA will come in for major hits. They will backtrack and lie and mis-explain, for a while, and then, like buds in the spring, agency employees will emerge and admit the truth. These agencies were co-conspirators.

And once the story unravels far enough, the human health hazards and destruction wreaked by GMOs will take center stage. All the bland pronouncements about “nobody has gotten sick from GMOs” will evaporate in the wind.

It won’t simply be, “Well, we never tested health dangers adequately,” it’ll be, “We knew there was trouble from the get-go.”

Yes, the Times could make all this happen. But it won’t. There are two basic reasons. First, it considers Big Ag too big to fail. There is now so much acreage in America tied up in GMO crops that to reject the whole show would cause titanic eruptions on many levels.

And second, the Times is part of the very establishment that views the GMO industry as a way of bringing Globalism to fruition for the whole planet.

Source

 

Toxicology Expert Speaks Out About Roundup and Monsanto’s GMOs

I have no desire to preach to the choir, but if you know someone who is unaware or who doesn’t believe GMOs are a problem, you may want to share this great article from Dr. Mercola about the research that’s been done. Otherwise, I can only hope that the right people will land here and read this.

Wake up America. Too many people are still unaware of what genetically modified foods do to us and animals that we consume. And that’s not the whole story by any means.

Monsanto has and will NOT do ANYTHING that is of benefit to Humanity or our planet. They are destroying our food supply, entire ecosystems and US with them—intentionally.

If you’re getting your education from Monsanto or their affiliates and their convenient television and print ads, you have been brainwashed. Do you really think they will tell the truth if it means it would take money out of their pocket? What company that is still in business does that?

Tell the truth? Not on your life. Your life means nothing to them but dollar $ign$.

This subject needs top priority in society. Countries in Europe, South America and elsewhere have completely banned Monsanto products and GMOs from use. Some, like Hungary, have even ploughed under and burned entire fields of GMO crops to get rid of the poisonous organisms and seeds so they can’t reproduce and contaminate pure crops.

Canada banned Roundup years ago. What’s wrong with the USA??!!! The research speaks for itself! There is no excuse for not understanding the issues.

Americans need to wake up and get educated on this enough to realize they must contact their government representatives and let them know that if they support Monsanto and/or GMOs, they will be out of a job. It’s that simple.

Don’t wait for someone else to deal with the problem. If you do, YOU are part of the problem and you’re going to feel very foolish when you eventually learn the truth. “I DIDN’T KNOW” is not acceptable—not in the Information Age.

Have you never pondered why so many people are dying of cancer these days, when cancer was almost unheard of in your great-grandparents’ day? GMOs affect gene expression, for crying out loud!

Reminder: The government works for The People, not the other way around. State your demands and ensure they are met. That will get rid of the treasonous bastards who are selling out to rich companies like Monsanto who buy off politicians. 

Do you think Obama and his family eat GMO food? Hell to the no! They have their own gardens and eat organic food because they know GMOs are not only dangerous, but lethal.

So let’s get to it. Your education starts NOW.  ~ BP

 

 

Genetically Modified Foods Actually “Starve” You

By Dr. Mercola

Dr. Don Huber is likely the leading GMO expert in the world. He is an award-winning, internationally recognized scientist, and professor emeritus of plant pathology at Purdue University for the past 35 years.

His agriculture research is focused on the epidemiology and control of soil-borne plant pathogens, with specific emphasis on microbial ecology, cultural and biological controls, and the physiology of host-parasite relationships.

His research over the past few decades has led him to become very outspoken against genetically modified organisms (GMO) and genetically engineered (GE) foods and the use of Roundup in agriculture in general.

He’s really one of the best scientists we have in the GMO movement for documenting the dangers of genetically engineered foods.

“I appreciate the opportunity to share a little bit of my research and the research of many other scientists who are expressing concern; recognizing that we’ve missed the boat in much of this discussion and much of the process, because it’s really a food and health safety issue that we’re dealing with here,” he says.

Three Things You Need to Know About GMOs

There’s a lot of confusion about the basic validity of concerns about genetically engineered (GE) foods. Many have been deceived into thinking that there’s really no difference between GE foods and conventional fare, and all these worries are just paranoid fear-mongering.

According to Dr. Huber, the following three facts are some of the most important that everyone needs to understand about GMOs:

  1. Despite what the media and so-called “experts” proclaim, there are NO peer-reviewed scientific papers establishing the safety of GMO crops. According to Dr. Huber, so far, no one has been able to establish that there’s a safety factor to either the genetically engineered proteins (i.e. the foreign proteins produced by the genetically modified plant) or the chemicals we’re consuming in ever larger quantities as a result of the genetic engineering process.There are, however, both clinical and peer-reviewed scientific papers showing the hazards of GMO crops, including harmful secondary effects.

    “A group of us met with top USDA administrators. They assured us that they based all their decisions on peer-reviewed science. When we asked them if they would share any of that, they were unable to produce any,” he says.

  2. Epidemiological patterns show there’s an identical rise in over 30 human diseases correlated with our increased usage of glyphosate and the increased prevalence of genetically engineered proteins in our food.
  3. Genetically engineered foods, as well as conventional crops that are heavily sprayed with glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup), have lower nutrient density than organic foods. They also contain high amounts of pesticides with documented harmful health effects, along with novel, highly allergenic, proteins.

Little-Known Facts About Glyphosate

You can’t really discuss genetic engineering without also addressing the chemicals these plants are engineered to tolerate. About 85 percent of all genetically engineered plants are herbicide-tolerant—designed to tolerate very high levels of herbicides, glyphosate in particular. These are the so-called Roundup Ready crops.

It’s important to realize that glyphosate is not “just” an herbicide. As explained by Dr. Huber, it was first patented as a mineral chelator. It immobilizes nutrients, so they’re not physiologically available for your body.

“You may have the mineral [in the plant], but if it’s chelated with glyphosate, it’s not going to be available physiologically for you to use, so you’re just eating a piece of gravel,” Dr. Huber says.

Naturally, health effects are bound to occur if you’re consistently eating foods from which your body cannot extract critical nutrients and minerals. Mineral deficiencies can lead to developmental and mental health issues, for example. Glyphosate is also patented as an antibiotic—and a very effective one at that— against a large number of beneficial organisms. Unfortunately, like all antibiotics, it also kills vitally important beneficial soil bacteria and human gut bacteria.

“Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus faecalis—these are organisms that keep you healthy either by providing accessibility to the minerals in your food or producing many of the vitamins that you need for life. They’re also the natural biological defenses to keep Clostridium, Salmonella, and E.coli from developing in your system,” Dr. Huber explains.

“When you take the good bacteria out, then the bad bacteria fill that void, because there aren’t any voids in nature. We have all of these gut-related problems, whether it’s autism, leaky gut, C. difficile diarrhea, gluten intolerance, or any of the other problems. All of these diseases are an expression of disruption of that intestinal microflora that keeps you healthy.”

Glyphosate was first patented as a chelator in 1964 by Stauffer Chemical Co. It was patented by Monsanto and introduced as an herbicide in 1974. And then in 1996, Roundup Ready crops hit the market. There’s been a steep increase in the usage of Roundup since then, because you can apply it multiple times without damaging your crop. Making matters worse, they’re now also using glyphosate as a ripening agent—even for non-GMO crops. It’s applied right before harvest time to ripen off the crop.

“We have about a five-fold increase in glyphosate usage on many of our GMO crops. With the Roundup Ready-resistant weeds, we see that rate going up exponentially,” he says.

Did You Know? EPA Just Increased Allowable Limits of Glyphosate in Your Food

Despite well-understood health risks, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is repeatedly approached by agricultural and biotech companies asking for increased limits of this pernicious toxin in your food.

“The companies say we have to increase the amount of glyphosate that we can have in your food, so we can have a ‘safe’ product – not based on science but based on how much chemical is actually in our food!” Dr.Huber says.

On May 1, the EPA went ahead and doubled the amount of glyphosate allowed in food… Soybean oil may now contain as much as 40 parts per million (ppm) of glyphosate. Meanwhile, research by Dr. Monika Krueger at Leipzig University shows that a tenth of a part per million is all that it takes to kill your Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Enterococcus faecalis! So soybean oil is now allowed to contain a whopping 4,000 times the known limit at which it can impact your health.

Can GMOs Coexist with Conventional Crops?

On September 20, agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack announced that the Department of Agriculture (USDA) will soon publish a notice in the Federal Register asking for public comments on how agricultural coexistence in the US might be strengthened. At the time of this writing, the USDA has not yet published that notice, but you can search the Federal Register for the latest notices here.1

According to the media release:2

“The Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture recommended that USDA support agricultural coexistence by strengthening education and outreach on this vital issue… In response, with this notice, we are asking all those with a vested interest in coexistence to help us learn more about what coexistence means to them, how they are already contributing to it, and what more is needed to achieve coexistence. With this input, we can continue the dialogue begun by the AC21 group3 and find practical solutions that will help all sectors of American agriculture be successful.

… Coexistence is defined as the concurrent cultivation of crops produced through diverse agricultural systems including traditionally produced, organic, identity preserved, and genetically engineered crops. USDA supports all forms of agriculture and wants each sector to be as successful as possible providing products to markets in the United States and abroad.”

Vilsack wants comments… How about we start with the suggestion that “Biotech Government of the Year shouldn’t be running the show.” He says the USDA supports ALL agriculture, yet the USDA primarily subsidizes junk food crops—corn and soy—and cave in to the multi-million dollar lobbying of the biotech industry. Meanwhile, the USDA has all but wiped out raw milk, heritage hogs, and most small farmers. So, really, the only agriculture the USDA support is the chemical variety. When asked whether he believes that it’s ever appropriate or possible for GMOs to coexist with conventional and organic crops, Dr. Huber replies:

“We know how to get these genes in; we don’t know how to remove them,” he says. “I don’t see any opportunity for coexistence with the current technology that we have because of that promiscuous nature of the genes. If you have a gene that is spread by pollen, like Roundup Ready alfalfa, it’s just a matter of time before bees or the wind is going to transfer that particular pollen to every alfalfa crop that you’re going to grow. There’s a very high probability that you’re going to see that genetic component in it.”

The StarLink Case—Proof Positive GMOs Can’t ‘Coexist’ with Natural Plants

According to Dr. Huber, our knowledge of what we’re doing in the genetic engineering process is extremely limited. Contrary to popular belief, we’re still only in the initial stages of understanding what we’re doing in that whole process:

“We do know that it’s more like a virus infection than it is a breeding program. In other words, you’re throwing genes in, but you’re not moving all of the regulatory and control mechanisms with those genes so that they’re only going to function at a time when the plant needs it or under conditions when it needs it. It’s a flawed science to think that you have one gene or one little group of genes and it’s going to do this particular function and not the other things.”

Clearly, that’s not the general perception. Most people are still under the illusion that genetic engineering is a very precise approach. That’s certainly what the industry wants you to believe. But as Dr. Huber points out, we learned some very important facts from  sequencing of the human genome: There aren’t nearly enough genes to do all of the things we know are done within the human body.

This is related to the profoundly important relationships that epigenetics controls. We found out that a gene actually functions in relation to the environment and its relationship to other genes or other genetic components in that code. When you disrupt those relationships and the integrity of the genetic code, you end up with mutations and epigenetic effects that we’ve yet to explore.

“We know they occur because for every one of those successful expressions that you get from genetic engineering, you have over a million other things that take place that are negative,” he says. “We also have potentially negative [effects] with the one that succeeded in expressing a particular protein that you want for genetic engineering. But nobody even looks for all of those other epigenetic effects that occur.

One of the things that we do know, since we don’t have the regulatory genes that would normally be part of those components from a regular breeding program, is that the genes that are being inserted are extremely promiscuous. They’re not stable. They may stay in and be transferred through a regular breeding program after they’re introduced. But we know that they can be transferred to soil microorganisms when the stubble or the grain is digested and decomposed in the soil—or in your gut.”

In the latter case, your gut flora can then pick up those same genes, and can start producing those foreign proteins, which are extremely allergenic. A perfect example of this was the StarLink corn, which produced a protein that turned out to be very toxic to humans. StarLink was grown 10 years ago for a pharmaceutical process. It was pulled off the market when they realized it had escaped from its confines and had the ability to contaminate corn destined for food production.

We know that GE crops decimate agricultural variety—countless varieties have been wiped out in order to foster a few monocultures. Now, if GMOs are removed, will there really be less food variety?

This ridiculous concept was recently brought forth by Scientific American.4 The erroneous and illogical claims made in the editorial mirrors claims made by Monsanto—such as the idea that GMO labels could destroy the market for genetically engineered foods in a country where 70 percent of processed foods already contain them. This, they want you to believe, would result in “less variety and higher costs.” Look, we’re primarily talking about ingredients like corn syrup and soy! And food companies do not appear to have any major problems supplying Europe, where GMOs have to be labeled, with products that do not contain genetically engineered corn and soy.

It’s funny how times have changed at Scientific American, as they now tow the biotech line like a well greased PR firm. It wasn’t all that long ago that they had the right idea, questioning the logic and safety of restricting GE crop research to the seed companies that make them.5

Could YOU Be Altering Your OWN Genes When You Eat GMOs?

As discussed by Dr. Huber, research clearly shows that the novel proteins created in genetically engineered plants are highly allergenic, with the capability to promote diseases like cancer and liver or kidney failure. But Dr. Huber points out that there are other factors involved as well, which have some scientists concerned about the spread of those genes into the human gut… Not only do GMOs alter your intestinal microflora, but research shows that human cells are also able to transfer those novel genes, thereby affecting the human genome.

“Especially with generation two genetic engineering, called gene silencing—that section of the nucleic acid can actually be picked up or attached to your own genes, and then start shutting down your own physiology in that process… It’s well-documented in the scientific literature.”

Indeed, last year, University of Canterbury Professor Jack Heinemann released results from genetic research he conducted on this type of GE wheat, which showed without “any doubt” that molecules created in the wheat, which are intended to silence wheat genes to change its carbohydrate content, may match human genes and potentially silence them. If that’s not a concern, I don’t know what is! University Professor Judy Carman agreed with Heinemann’s analysis, stating in Digital Journal:6

“If this silences the same gene in us that it silences in the wheat — well, children who are born with this enzyme not working tend to die by the age of about five.”

Heinemann reported that his research revealed over 770 pages of potential matches between two GM genes in the wheat and the human genome. Over a dozen matches were “extensive and identical and sufficient to cause silencing in experimental systems,” he said. Experts warned that eating the wheat could lead to significant changes in the way glucose and carbohydrates are stored in the human body, which could be potentially deadly for children and lead to serious illness in adults.

Glyphosate—Another Culprit in Bee Die-Offs?

Glyphosate may also play a role in bee colony collapse disorder. As stated by Dr. Huber, there are three established characteristics of colony collapse disorder that suggests glyphosate may be (at least in part) responsible:

  1. The bees are mineral-deficient, especially in micronutrients
  2. There’s plenty of food present but they’re not able to utilize it or to digest it
  3. Dead bees are devoid of the Lactobacillus and the Bifidobacterium, which are components of their digestive system

The bees also become disoriented, suggesting endocrine hormone disruption. Neonicotinoid insecticides, which are endocrine hormone disruptors, have been demonstrated to make a bee disoriented and unable to find its way back to the hive. Glyphosate is also a very strong endocrine hormone disruptor.

Dr. Huber cites a study on glyphosate in drinking water at levels that are commonly found in US water systems, showing a 30 percent mortality in bees exposed to it. And that’s just from common levels of glyphosate in drinking water…

Glyphosate Is a Cumulative Chronic Toxin

Americans are in a tough spot right now, as there’s no telling which foods might contain genetically engineered ingredients tainted with high amounts of Roundup. Labeling would at least tell you that much, and give you the freedom to choose another product.

“A consumer needs to be very concerned. They need to be active in the labeling aspects,” Dr. Huber says. “They also need to be active in the requirement for safety studies. These haven’t been done. When the EPA employed the term ‘substantially equivalent,’ it gave the chemical companies essentially a waiver on doing any of the safety tests. The only thing that they’ve ever tested for is acute toxicity. Well, we know that glyphosate, for instance, isn’t an acute toxin. It’s a serious chronic toxin. That’s been well-established in peer-reviewed scientific articles. We have more of those coming along all the time. There is no question that it’s a chronic toxin.”

According to Dr. Huber, glyphosate at a mere 0.5 ppm is toxic to your endocrine hormone system, which includes your pituitary, thyroid, and reproductive hormones. Ten ppm is cytotoxic to kidney cells; one ppm is toxic to your liver, and 0.1-10 ppm are toxic to a whole series of human cellular functions or cells directly. Dr. Huber has even likened glyphosate to DDT in terms of toxicity. Consider that, and then consider that we are currently using some 880 million pounds—that’s nearly ONE BILLION pounds—of glyphosate annually on crops grown worldwide.

As Dr. Seneff and Samsel reveal in a recent study conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, glyphosate is probably the most harmful chronic toxin we’ve ever encountered, both in our environment and on our dinner plates. Their findings show that two of the key problems caused by glyphosate in the diet are nutritional deficiencies, and systemic toxicity.

“It’s just that you don’t get killed or die today from it; you have to suffer through the process of gluten intolerance, leaky gut, Crohn’s, Alzheimer’s, autism, or any of those diseases that are related to the health of your gut, which we’re seeing now on an epidemic scale in our society,” he says.

Why Is the USDA Ignoring This Health Threat?

Two years ago, in 2011, Dr. Huber wrote a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, informing him of many of the safety concerns surrounding genetically engineered crops, along with yet another groundbreaking finding that could spell absolute disaster for your entire food supply. He warned Vilsack about the emergence of a brand new electron microscope-sized organism associated with something called Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS) in soy.

It’s also found in a large variety of livestock given GE feed who experience both spontaneous abortions and infertility. This includes cattle, horses, sheep, pigs, and poultry. Might it affect humans in the same way? Dr. Huber urged the USDA to investigate the matter and suspend approval of GE alfalfa until proper studies have been completed.

“We know that all herbicides are chelators, mineral chelators. That’s how they compromise the plant’s physiology: they tie up a particular nutrient and shut down a physiologic pathway,” he says. “This wasn’t new from that standpoint. But the thing that was different [with glyphosate] was its biocidal effect. It’s not only a chelator, but it’s also a strong antibiotic to beneficial microorganisms. How do you compensate for that? How do you restore biological activities?

Much of my research, which was focused on glyphosate, was focused on the biology and restoration of those mineral nutrients. I served on the National Plant Disease Recovery Program. I was chairman at that time and also for the USDA. I’ve also served for 40 years on our various threat pathogens committees and recognized what the potential problems were with Roundup Ready alfalfa.”

The American Stock Growers’ Association also testified before Congress, saying that infertility was threatening the animal industry. Dr. Huber saw how all of these issues were connected—via genetically engineered crops and the application of glyphosate. He felt an obligation to alert the USDA secretary and to ask for his help in getting the research done before further jeopardizing not only our fourth most important crop, but also our entire animal production because of the prevalence of this new abortogenic entity, found in high concentrations in GE or high-glyphosate intense growth conditions.

His warnings were ignored, and GE alfalfa was deregulated that same year. Why is the USDA ignoring warnings from a scientist with 50 years of experience with plant pathology, soil-borne diseases, microbial ecology, and host-parasite relationships?

“A group of us met with the top administrators. I’ve never met with the secretary personally. But we did have the privilege of meeting and sharing our concerns and 130 or so peer-reviewed scientific articles that support our position with top administrators in USDA and some of the other agencies. They assured us that if we could do the work, they would be willing to look at it.

Well, they haven’t looked at any of the other peer-reviewed science… And the USDA scientists, who have a tremendous amount of knowledge on the impact of glyphosate, have all been muzzled. They’re not permitted to say anything about it. I got a phone call from one a few weeks ago. He said, ‘I’ll be retiring fairly soon. I plan on moving off and sharing that stage with you because I have a lot that I want to say. I just can’t say it right now.’”

GMOs Are Not the Solution to Feed a Burgeoning Population

There is simply no question and there is irrefutable evidence that genetic engineering is not the solution to feed a growing world population. Rather, it actually increases disease susceptibility of plants by impairing their immune response. It also reduces, not increases, yield potential. There’s never been a genetically engineered plant that increases the intrinsic yield of a plant. Improved plant yield is accomplished through traditional breeding programs that promote improved gene expression.

“We’re only expressing 25 or 30 percent of the genetic potential for yield in any of our crops now,” Dr. Huber says. “There’s tremendous potential there. It’s a matter of using that traditional breeding as we’ve done for many years and getting better expression – not throwing in additional genes to act like a virus and disrupt the integrity of the whole process that’s required for yield and quality.

We can increase all of the nutrient density with traditional breeding. In fact, the Brazilians are doing that. They’ve just released new varieties of soybean with higher vitamin A, and corn with higher vitamin A and vitamin C. We can do all of that with traditional breeding. We’ve been doing it for years. You don’t need to disrupt the genetic integrity and introduce all the collateral damage with its long-term effects.”

I can personally attest to this fact as well. High-performance agriculture is one of my new passions, so much so it’s turning into something of a second career—to learn and understand how to optimize plant growth and the environment. I’ve been applying what I’ve learned in my own garden for a few months now, and I’ve been able to personally witness the maximization of genetic potential that is possible. For example, by using compost tea and mineral amendments, the leaves on some plants, like my lime trees and oleanders, are literally 300 to 400 percent bigger than the typical leaf of these plants. It’s truly extraordinary! You wouldn’t even imagine that plants could grow that big.

Part of the problem is that we’ve gotten used to less than mediocrity, when it comes to plant performance. According to John Kempf,7 an Amish farmer and one of the leaders in the field of high-performance agriculture, farmers and food producers routinely harvest only about 10 to 15 percent of the inherent genetic capacity of any given crop. In a nutshell, the foundation of health – whether we’re talking about plants, soils, animals, or people – it really boils down to two things:

  1. Having adequate mineral nutrition, and
  2. Having that nutrition, in the case of plants, be supplied by an active soil microbial community, or having a strong soil biology

Genetically engineered crops decimate both. How could it possibly be the answer to rising food demands?

Join Us in Your Right to Know by Getting GMOs Labeled!

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. In the past few weeks, Connecticut and Maine have passed GMO-labeling bills, and 20 other states have pending legislation to label genetically engineered foods. So, now is the time to put the pedal to the metal and get labeling across the country—something 64 other countries already have.

I hope you will join us in this effort.

The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. Please help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for GMO labeling in other states by making a donation to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).

Donate Today!

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn’t have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let’s not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can.

  • No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
  • Sign up to learn more about how you can get involved by visiting Yeson522.com!
  • For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
  • Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.

Source

Frankenfood Update: Monsanto, Safeway, Farm Bill

Millions Against Monsanto: On the Road to Victory

“The harder they come, the harder they fall, one and all.”   ~ Jimmy Cliff

After a year of maximum profits, record stock prices, the defeat of a major GMO labeling campaign in California, pro-industry court decisions, and a formidable display of political power in Washington, D.C., the Biotech Bully from St. Louis now finds itself on the defensive.

It is no exaggeration to say that Monsanto has become the most hated corporation in the world.

Here’s just one reason Monsanto is in the hot seat. According to Green Medical News:

“ . . . “within the scientific community and educated public alike, there is a growing awareness that Roundup herbicide, and its primary ingredient glyphosate, is actually a broad spectrum biocide, in the etymological sense of the word: “bio” (life) and “cide” (kill) – that is, it broadly, without discrimination kills living things, not just plants.”

And there are so many more. Thanks to all of you, we’re making headway in the battle to reclaim our food system from the biotech bullies and Big Food. Let’s keep going by showing our support for I-522, Washington State’s GMO labeling initiative.

Read the essay

 

TRAITOR BOYCOTT

Safeway Plays Defense. Poorly.

Rebuttal Rule No. 1: Get your facts straight.

Last week we called for a boycott of Safeway’s O Organics™ brand products. Why? Because Safeway is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a trade group that donated $2 million to defeat California’s Prop 37 initiative to label GMOs last year, and is now the leading donor to the NO on I-522 campaign to defeat a similar initiative in Washington State.

Safeway fired back. First with a statement on its Facebook page, claiming the store “fully supports voluntary labeling of products that are GMO-free and we have not made any contributions to defeat any GMO labeling initiatives.” Of course Safeway understands that California’s Prop 37 and Washington’s I-522 both call for mandatory labeling of all GMO-tainted foods, not just “voluntary labeling of products that are GMO-free.”

Then there was this statement by Safeway spokesperson Sara Osborne, quoted in an article circulated by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services:

“The OCA’s information is incorrect. Safeway has never contributed to efforts to defeat GMO labeling initiatives,” Sara Osborne, a spokeswoman for Safeway, said in an email to The Chronicle.

We thought we were very clear. By supporting the GMA, Safeway surely is – as we said, indirectly – contributing to efforts to defeat GMO labeling. Maybe you can help us get the message across? That Safeway needs to stop supporting the GMA, which is donating millions to defeat GMO labeling?

Safeway operates 169 stores in 93 cities in Washington State. That’s a lot of sales of O Organics™ products in a state where the GMA has already donated nearly a half a million dollars to defeat a labeling law. We need to let Steve Frisby, President of Safeway’s Northwest Division know, that it’s unacceptable that Safeway continues to support the GMA. Until it stops, and until Safeway steps up to support I-522, we won’t be buying any of Safeway’s O Organics™ brand products.

Read last week’s press release

Read the McClatchy article

TAKE ACTION: Just Say ‘O No!’ to Safeway’s O Organics™ Brand!

Download your wallet-sized boycott guide

Download a poster-sized boycott guide

Sign the boycott pledge

Order printed copies of the boycott guide or poster

 

FARM BILL UPDATE

Back from the Dead. Worse than Ever.

Just when we thought the 2013 Farm Bill was dead. Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives surprised everyone by passing a last-minute House version of the Farm Bill. And it’s a doozy.

The House wants Congress to buy into a bill that has everything that Monsanto and corporate agribusiness wants. And not much of anything that America needs. Glaringly absent from the House version is the section that provides nutrition assistance to families. Because, well, you know, we shouldn’t be subsidizing food for hungry kids.

What did make it into the House version of the bill? Big subsidies for Big Ag, meaning lots of government cash for rich owners of mega-farms growing GMOs or torturing animals so we can have lots of antibiotic- and hormone-laced meat.

Here’s what else made it into the House version of the Farm Bill: The King Amendment. Introduced by the King of Animal Torture himself, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), the King amendment is an attempt to block modest animal welfare reforms. Like California’s voter-passed law that gives confined farm animals just enough space to stretch their limbs and turn around. But the King Amendment is written so broadly that some analysts say it might also block states from passing GMO labeling laws.

We have our own name for the King Amendment: The Monsanto & Animal Torture Protection Act. You might expect a Congressman from Iowa who gets money from Monsanto, the National Pork Producers Council and Coca-Cola to protect factory farms and GMOs. But does he really want to be known as an advocate of farm animal torture?

Where does the Farm Bill go from here? Leaders of the House and Senate are preparing to iron out the differences between their two versions, in the hope of passing a Farm Bill this year. King’s Monsanto & Animal Torture Protection Act isn’t in the Senate version. Let’s act now to keep it from becoming law!

Take Action: Stop the Monsanto & Animal Torture Protection Act!

Glyphosate Drives Breast Cancer, Study Warns, as Urine Tests Show Europeans have Weed Killer in Their Bodies

Canada banned Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide several years ago, thank goodness, but how long does it take to rid the environment and the bodies of pets and people of this lethal concoction? 

Clearly the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does NOT have our best interests in mind if they raised the allowable limits of glyphosate.  Even trace amounts in soil, water and food is dangerous.
Glyphosate Drives Breast Cancer Proliferation, Study Warns, as Urine Tests Show Europeans have this Weed Killer in Their Bodies

By Dr. Mercola

Disturbing discoveries relating to glyphosate—the active ingredient in Monsanto’s broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup—keep emerging. No less than two shocking discoveries recently went public on the same day…

Earlier this month, groundbreaking research was published detailing a newfound mechanism of harm of the chemical.

Now, testing shows that people in 18 countries across Europe have glyphosate in their bodies1, while yet another study reveals that the chemical has estrogenic properties and drive breast cancer proliferation in the parts-per-trillion range2. As reported by GreenMedinfo.com:

“Does this help explain the massive mammary tumors that the only long term animal feeding study on Roundup and GM corn ever performed recently found?”

Meanwhile, a new EU-US free trade agreement3,4 known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), has again cracked the door open for genetically engineered (GE) crops and foods into Europe.

This may effectively negate the hard work Europeans have done to limit the proliferation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their food supply, and with genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” crops and the food made from it come increased glyphosate exposure…

People Across Europe Test Positive for Glyphosate

A 2011 study detected glyphosate in 60-100 percent of all US air and rain samples, and last year another study revealed widespread glyphosate contamination in groundwater. When groundwater is used as a drinking water source, this contamination poses a risk to animals, plants and humans alike.

Now, the first-ever test for weed killer contamination in human bodies was commissioned by Friends of the Earth Europe5. Volunteers from 18 different countries provided urine samples.

Of the 182 urine samples tested, an average of 44 percent was found to contain glyphosate, although the proportion of contamination varied from country to country. All volunteers were city dwellers who had not handled or used glyphosate, and only one person per household was tested.

Macedonia and Bulgaria had the least number of positive tests (10 percent), while 90 percent of samples in Malta tested positive. Seventy percent of volunteers in Germany, UK and Poland had the weed killer in their bodies.

Can you even imagine what the results might be if similar testing was conducted in the US, considering the fact that Americans eat their own weight or more in genetically engineered foods6 each and every year—in large part because the US does not require GE foods to be labeled, so many are still completely in the dark about such stealth ingredients.

The fact that close to half of all people are testing positive for glyphosate (including countries that don’t even use it) is profoundly disturbing in light of the recent findings that this commonly used weed killer may be among the most important factors in the development of modern diseases, as the pathway by which glyphosate kills plants is the identical pathway found in animal and human gut bacteria.

According to Friends of the Earth Europe’s spokesperson Adrian Bebb7:

“Most people will be worried to discover they may have weed killer in their bodies. We tested people living in cities in 18 countries and found traces in every country. These results suggest we are being exposed to glyphosate in our everyday lives, yet we don’t know where it is coming from, how widespread it is in the environment, or what it is doing to our health.

Our testing highlights a serious lack of action by public authorities across Europe and indicates that this weed killer is being widely overused. Governments need to step-up their monitoring and bring in urgent measures to reduce its use. This includes rejecting any genetically modified crops that would increase the use of glyphosate.”

Glyphosate Found to Be Carcinogenic in Infinitesimal Amounts

The second study pertains to the carcinogenic nature of this popular weed killer. Contrary to Monsanto’s claims that Roundup is “minimally toxic” to animal and humans, along with claims of it being environmentally friendly and biodegradable—claims found to be false in the highest court of law—Roundup is quite the disaster… As reported by GreenMedinfo.com8:

“The study, titled, ‘Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors,’ compared the effect of glyphosate on hormone-dependent and hormone-independent breast cancer cell lines, finding that glyphosate stimulates hormone-dependent cancer cell lines in what the study authors describe as ‘low and environmentally relevant concentrations.'”

The researchers concluded that glyphosate is a xenoestrogen that is functionally similar to estradiol, the most potent human estrogen, and concentrations in the parts-per-trillion range had carcinogenic effects. Adding insult to injury—in light of the fact that more than 90 percent of soybeans grown in the US are genetically engineered (GE)—they also found that the phytoestrogen genistein, naturally found in soybeans, heightened the estrogenic effects when combined with glyphosate. According to the authors:

This study implied that the additive effect of glyphosate and genistein in postmenopausal women may induce cancer cell growth. In this present in vitro study, we showed an estrogenicity of pure glyphosate… Furthermore, this study demonstrated the additive estrogenic effects of glyphosate and genistein which implied that the use of glyphosate-contaminated soybean products as dietary supplements may pose a risk of breast cancer because of their potential additive estrogenicity.” [Emphasis mine]

Glyphosate Implicated as Driver of Modern Diseases

Another groundbreaking report, published earlier this month in the journal Entropy9, argues that glyphosate residues, found in most commonly consumed foods in the US, “enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease.” As explained by the authors, Dr. Stephanie Seneff and Anthony Samsel:

“Glyphosate’s claimed mechanism of action in plants is the disruption of the shikimate pathway… The currently accepted dogma is that glyphosate is not harmful to humans or to any mammals because the shikimate pathway is absent in all animals.

However, this pathway is present in gut bacteria, which play an important and heretofore largely overlooked role in human physiology through an integrated biosemiotic relationship with the human host. In addition to aiding digestion, the gut microbiota synthesize vitamins, detoxify xenobiotics, and participitate in immune system homeostasis and gastrointestinal tract permeability. Furthermore, dietary factors modulate the microbial composition of the gut.”

Remember, the bacteria in your body outnumber your cells by 10 to 1. For every cell in your body, you have 10 microbes of various kinds, and all of them have the shikimate pathway, so they will all respond to the presence of glyphosate! It causes extreme disruption of the microbe’s function and lifecycle; worse yet, glyphosate preferentially affects beneficial bacteria, allowing pathogens to overgrow. At that point, your body also has to contend with the toxins produced by the pathogens. Once the chronic inflammation sets in, you’re well on your way toward chronic and potentially debilitating disease. In a nutshell, Dr. Seneff has summarized the two key problems caused by glyphosate in the diet as:

  • Nutritional deficiencies
  • Systemic toxicity

She believes glyphosate is possibly the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies, including but not limited to:

Autism Gastrointestinal diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, chronic diarrhea, colitis and Crohn’s disease Obesity
Allergies Cardiovascular disease Depression
Cancer Infertility Alzheimer’s disease
Parkinson’s disease Multiple sclerosis ALS

Meanwhile, the EPA Raises Allowable Glyphosate Limits…

Just as more independent reports are emerging confirming the multivariate health hazards of glyphosate, the Environmental Protection Agency10 (EPA) is proposing to RAISE the allowed residue limits of glyphosate in food and feed crops11. The new allowable level of glyphosate in teff animal feed will be 100 parts per million (ppm). Allowed levels in some fruits and vegetables eaten by humans will also rise. Root and tuber vegetables, with the exception of sugar, will get one of the largest boosts, with allowable residue limits being raised from 0.2 ppm to 6.0 ppm. The new level for sweet potatoes will be 3 ppm.

This is unconscionable, considering the finding that glyphosate is carcinogenic in parts-per-TRILLION concentrations. Previous research by Professor Andres Carrasco documented malformations in frog and chicken embryos at just over 2 ppm glyphosate12.

Not surprisingly, Monsanto has petitioned and received approvals for increases in glyphosate residue levels for several crops. Clearly, they need allowable levels to be raised because farmers are increasingly forced to use more glyphosate due to glyphosate-resistant weed growth. The question is, how many of its citizens will the US government sacrifice in order for Monsanto to continue making money from its failing products?

Help Spread the Word, as Most Consumers Are Still Unaware of Risks from GMOs

The biotech industry, led by Monsanto, is increasing their propaganda efforts to sway opinion against the need to label genetically engineered foods. Many consumers are still in the dark about the very real risks that GE crops pose, both to the environment and human health. This is precisely what the biotech industry wants, even as increasing research demonstrates the many dangers associated with GE foods.

For example, one recent study found that rats fed a type of genetically engineered corn that is prevalent in the US food supply for two years developed massive mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage, and other serious health problems. This was at dietary amounts of about 10 percent. Does 10 percent or more of your diet consist of genetically engineered ingredients? Or are you like the average American who eats his or her own weight in genetically engineered foods each year?

If processed foods form the basis of your diet, then you’re likely in the latter category. Unfortunately, you can’t know for sure which items might contain GMOs since the US does not require genetically engineered foods to be labeled. With the latest revelations discussed above, the need for labeling couldn’t possibly be greater.

Last but not least, I would also encourage you to educate yourself a bit more on the topic of food sovereignty, and the critical nature of biodiversity for food sustainability and security. Because aside from the human health hazards associated with GE foods, seed patenting endangers the very future of life on Earth, as it destroys biodiversity and effectively prevents agricultural methods from flourishing that call for less, or no, agricultural chemicals.

An excellent resource is the free e-book, The Law of the Seed13; the result of a working group meeting of leading lawyers, scientists, and members of the International Commission on the Future of Food and Agriculture, including the tireless environmental activist Dr. Vandana Shiva14.

 

Read the rest of the article…