[Ron_Paul_2012]

keep government OUT OF BUSINESS and let Monsanto do whatever they want you LIBERAL SCUMBAGS

America was meant to have a FREE MARKET and NOT BE A PLACE WHERE THE GOVERNMENT CAN TELL COMPANIES WHAT TO DO

you liberal idiots MAKE ME SICK

LONG LIVE MONSANTO, liberals suck it

Hey dumb dumb. This is not a left/right issue! I am a Libertarian. However, being a Libertarian does not mean living in a lawless society. It does not mean that Corporations or individuals can run amuck and do whatever the hell they want if it harms people. Oh and nice avatar Plucky. You were obviously abused when you were younger & have self esteem issues. You may like to be abused by Monsanto and think that you deserve to have your food altered in a way that has been proven to give lab rats cancer. But as for the rest of us. When Corporations f+ck with us. We f+ck them back! Quit playing the role of a Stockholm Syndrome victim! Get some self esteem and help humanity defeat this out of control Corporation!

[Ron_Paul_2012]

Just when you thought the world couldn't get any crazier, Dwight posts Thom Hartmann videos...

Monsanto f+cking with the food supply is not a left/right issue. Everyone hates those mother f+ckers!

[Ron_Paul_2012]

What would be even more ironic would be if I posted clips of Stossel shilling for agribusiness as a rebuttal to Dwight posting a Hartmann clip.

Both of you guys need to get out of the left/right paradigm. Neither party gives a sh!t about their constituents!

[DwightShrute]

these guys die we all die.

[DwightShrute]

...

[DwightShrute]

....

[DwightShrute]

....

[DwightShrute]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03...comes-to-food/

Farewell to gluten free: Why we are so easily fooled by pseudoscience and marketing gimmicks when it comes to food

Republish Reprint




Joseph Brean | March 28, 2014 4:40 PM ET
More from Joseph Brean | @JosephBrean

Chris Roussakis/National PostThe rise of gluten-free was “a function of people wanting simple solutions to complex problems,” Dr. Yoni Freedhoff says.

• Twitter
• Google+
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Comments
• More

Gluten gives fresh bread its pull and chew. A complex protein, it is to baked goods as tannin is to wine, more a feel than a flavour, but a key part of the sensory magic. It makes cereals satisfying, pasta al dente and crackers crisp. Bagels bounce on springs of gluten.
But gluten has lately acquired a famously bad reputation among trend-savvy nutritionistas, who blame it for everything from irritable bowels and autoimmune disorders to bloating and lethargy, even diabetes, depression, autism and schizophrenia. A whole industry has risen up to capitalize on its wholesale rejection, in which gluten-free foods are often sold at a massive mark-up over “regular” products.

But cracks are appearing, not so much in the medical science, which for the truly gluten-intolerant has made major strides in lockstep with the trend, but in gluten as the pop cultural food obsession du jour.
From nearly nothing a decade ago, by 2012, the Canadian gluten-free market was worth nearly half a billion dollars. But a forecast by industry watcher Packaged Facts suggests the market has now “peaked.”
Growth has slowed, early adopters have made most of the profit they will ever make, and if you missed the train three years ago, there is no sense trying to jump on now as it slows down. As one report for the pizza industry put it, “If the decision is made to enter the trend either: Prepare to downsize production as the trend downsizes to the appropriate audience … [and] have a fast-acting exit strategy.”
How we got here is a familiar story, said Yoni Freedhoff, an Ottawa doctor specializing in nutrition and obesity, and it reflects a modern dietary “guruism” characterized by fundamentalist claims and aggressive zealotry.
Helped along by the messianic testimonials of self-help pseudoscience and blatantly misleading advertising, “gluten free” appears to be on track to become the latest health food megatrend to collapse under the weight of time and common sense, like the low-carbohydrate Atkins diet, and the mantra of “no saturated fats,” recently undermined by a broad scientific review.
“Oh my gosh, has [gluten free] ever taken off in the last few years. … It’s pretty amazing how as a society we’re going back to basics,” said Kathy Smart, a nutritionist/chef and advocate of a gluten-free diet who did a cooking show and has been on the Dr. Oz Show. She also has celiac disease, so her motivation is medical as much as nutritional.
In this sense, she is unusual.
Related

• Banned — milk, yogurt, chocolate, cheese, eggs: Father says school’s list of allergenic foods makes preparing lunch impossible
• Gluten free craze growing: Only 1% of Canadians are celiacs, but nine million people are on restricted diet, industry expert claims
• Removing saturated fats from diets has made heart disease risk higher, not lower: U.K. cardiology expert
• What grains and gluten mean (or don’t mean) for weight loss

As a shortcut to health for the busy modern eater who does not have celiac disease, the rise of gluten free was “a function of people wanting simple solutions to complex problems. That’s just human nature. It’s not laziness,” said Dr. Freedhoff. “It’s fitting into the desire for ease: ease of thought and ease of implementation.”
As an eliminationist strategy, “gluten free” is the flip side of the nutrient fetish, in which substances are added, rather than subtracted, on much the same grounds, notably Omega 3s, polyphenols, amino acids, electrolytes and amino acids.
The problem is that, as Dr. Freedhoff has found, when you try to tell people they are fooling themselves by, for example, buying bread with “vegetables” in it (as per a current marketing campaign), or that Omega 3s don’t make their eggs any healthier, they react as if a foundational belief has been threatened, not just a dietary preference.

“People treat food like religion, it’s really strange. I can’t think of many other areas of life where there’s so much personal passion. If you believe and buy into one of these particular styles of eating, often you end up becoming very zealous in your description of same, and your preaching of same, and you want everybody else to do what you’re doing,” he said. “People really want to be right when it comes to the way we eat.”
On this view, we are not too far away from answering the door to evangelical nutritionists, asking us if we have heard the good news. And woe betide the unfortunate skeptic who points out the absence of proof.
Other interpretations can be put on the numbers, however.
“Is it a fad, or is it that there’s an epidemic?” said Margaret Dron, organizer of the Gluten Free Expo, a popular national trade show in that offers everything from basic gluten-free flours and baked goods to imported African tribal products, curry spices, sausages, gourmet camelina cooking oil, chocolate flavours “that represent the seven main chakras in the body,” even cosmetics. (Glutinous rice is so called because it is gluey, not because it has a lot of gluten.)
She said 91% of attendees go for medical reasons, which is a curious number, given that maybe one person in 200 has celiac disease. Many others, it seems, have a tendency to see food as either poison or medicine.
In the products at the expo, which include meats, there is an obvious overlap with organic, natural, pesticide-free, non-genetically modified foods. Gluten free, in this sense, is almost a proxy for “natural.”

‘People treat food like religion, it’s really strange’

Ms. Smart agrees it has taken on more than its literal meaning, and people are seeing it as meaning “healthier.”
“What I’m seeing in the industry is people will automatically assume gluten free is better for me,” Ms. Smart said.
The effects of such misinformed zealotry can be damaging, as in the “no saturated fats” message, which was over-simplified, and drove people from animal fats to processed flours and sugars. In breakfast terms, this is like switching from bacon and eggs to Cap’n Crunch.
But the impulse to medicalize food choices, to couch them in the concepts of science is an old one. As the Belgian food historian Peter Scholliers put it in a recent scholarly paper: “Media attention about acute food crises strikes the public’s imagination, leading to vehement sentiments of insecurity, anguish and occasionally panic. These sentiments, in turn, lead to eating behaviour that involves (rather harmless) vivacious food sensitivity (e.g., search for organic, authentic and light foods), as well as to (very harmful) binge eating, obesity and anorexia.”
Kaz Ehara for the National PostThe “no saturated fats” message was over-simplified and drove people from animal fats to processed flours and sugars.



Food and nutrition is a problem for many people in many ways, both in quality and quantity, but public discussion of these problems is often hyperbolic and over-simplified to slogans, from fear-mongering to dubious remedies, in which food is both problem and solution, deeply moral, infused with scientific controversy, and rarely just lunch.
Thanks to such books as Wheat Belly and The Gluten Syndrome, not to mention celebrity endorsements from Hollywood types and even tennis star Novak Djokovic, gluten free has become a cure-all, an escape hatch from the rampant pessimism.
“It’s an easy thing to latch onto as something to do to combat all of the awfulness that the alarm bells keep saying exists,” said Dr. Freedhoff. “Ultimately, we’re stuck with the the unfortunate and inconvenient truth that healthy living requires effort and there is no one simplified solution.”

‘Is it a fad, or is it that there’s an epidemic?’

It was not always this way, and it is only recently that people with celiac disease, or gluten-sensitive enteropathy, have become the darlings of popular nutrition. Once they were barely acknowledged, rarely diagnosed and poorly served at the supermarket, never mind the restaurant.
The legal literature, especially in tax court where celiac disease is frequently acknowledged as imposing a greater financial burden, is full of stories of dire medical hardship, even a woman who would get violently ill from the merest taste of grain. This financial problem only gets worse as gluten free becomes a mark of healthy luxury, and thus more expensive.
Others include a dispute over a Canadian Food Inspection Agency investigation of a (possibly, not quite) “gluten free” food wholesaler, and a divorce in which father was less diligent than mother in respecting their celiac daughter’s gluten-free diet.
From the fringes to the mainstream, like all trends, gluten has caught on, taken off, and is now starting to lose its street cred. Once a medical cure, it has become a lifestyle, a puff phrase, an advertising gimmick, a clueless self-deprivation of the perpetually cleansing, epitomized in the nutritional absurdity of the bunless burger.
Matthew Stockman/Getty ImagesTennis star Novak Djokovic is a proponent of gluten free.



Often this is how restaurants nod to the glutenophobic customer, by adapting a traditional item, or making pasta or bread out of unusual grains.
Some have taken it to new gourmet heights, revealing the potential of unusual ingredients in baking, leaving flour behind and never looking back. Ms. Smart, for example, makes a pie crust out of ground almonds and coconut oil, and a tourtiere with chickpea flour. But for the true celiac, avoiding gluten is a supermarket challenge, once spoiled by lack of choice, now spoiled by rising prices.
Like many gluten-free proponents, Ms. Smart favourably cites a review article in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 — long before the trend took off — that listed 55 diseases linked to gluten, including migraines, dementia, arthritis, even schizophrenia, which is famously mysterious.
There is also talk about a link to autism, another baffling human condition, which links the gluten-free trend to the far kookier world of anti-vaccine fear-mongering.
Part of the popularity of gluten free is an almost nostalgic desire for simplicity in the face of unprecedented food options, a wish that can be spoiled when big business gets involved.
“I believe that we should have never started tampering with our food,” Ms. Smart said. “When you start tampering with your foods, strange things do happen.”

But part of it is just basic cultural evolution, as trends come and go, bringing a grain of truth amid the chaff of marketing, but leaving the “problem” of nutrition unsolved, and just as complex as ever.
As Dr. Freedhoff put it: “Any time a box needs to convince you the contents are healthful, they’re probably not.”
National Post

[DwightShrute]

The Most Hard-Hitting GMO Report Ever Aired By The Mainstream Media

November 7, 2013 by Joe Martino.

During what is possibly the most hard-hitting GMO report ever aired by mainstream media, Max Goldberg states: “No long-term studies have ever been done on humans, but when you look at the studies that have been done on animals, it’s pretty appalling. You’re talking about liver damage and kidney damage and when they fed it to hamsters, the third generation of hamsters weren’t able to produce babies, so there’s real safety issues.” While to alternative news reporters and readers this might not be new information, it is rare that the mainstream media has covered the topic with such openness. The hard-hitting discussion between Carol Alt and Max Goldberg aired on FOX’s ‘A Healthy You’ program. Is this another positive step forward in raising awareness about the dangers of GMOs? Certainly. Goldberg’s statements refer to a 2007 study published in the journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Technology that revealed that rats who were fed Monsanto’s MON863 corn for more than 90 days began to show “signs of toxicity” in the liver and kidneys.[1] While it is never certain that what happens in an animal study will happen to humans, rats and humans have a very high number of similarities in biology which is why they are so often used in studies. While it is my opinion that the ethics of such studies are not sound, it is clear to see why they are used. Another study that reveals the dangers of GMO’s was published in 2010 by Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov. The study tested the effects of Monsanto’s genetically modified soy on hamsters. The study monitored three generations of hamsters over a two year period and found that third generation hamsters not only lost the ability to reproduce, but even began growing hair inside their mouths. [2] We know for certain that GMO’s have dangerous side effects on animals and we do know that there has not been substantial analysis done on GMO’s to determine their safety for humans. It only seems natural that we would stop the production of GMO’s and instead employ smarter agricultural practices instead of modifying nature in dangerous ways. At the very least, it should be mandatory that every GMO product be labelled so consumers can clearly see what they are buying.

“The real big issue in our country Carol, is that genetically modified food’s are not labeled, so people do not know that they are eating genetically modified foods. Over 60 countries around the world require GMOs to be labeled but the US does not,” Goldberg added. “And why is that? According to the Food & Water Watch, the Ag-Bio tech industry, which owns all these GMOs, has spent $572 million on campaign contributions and lobbying to make sure that they don’t get labeled.”

[rkelly110]

Hey Dwight. Any info on seeds or plants we might buy at the store for our gardens?

[DwightShrute]

Hey Dwight. Any info on seeds or plants we might buy at the store for our gardens?

good question. I read a little about it and its scary http://www.culinate.com/user/KAB/blo..._organic_seeds

Monsanto owns something like 90-95% of the seed companies out there. So the company might not be selling genetically engineered seeds, the money is still going into the pockets of Monsanto http://www.urbanorganicgardener.com/...non-gmo-seeds/

google: gmo free seeds for sale, and you will get a lot of info

facebook: https://www.facebook.com/notes/saving-us-all/a-list-of-gmo-and-non-gmo-seed-companies/334086699976625

GROW ORGANIC

[DwightShrute]

It’s Official – Russia Completely Bans GMOs

April 15, 2014 by Arjun Walia. 28 Comments.
Select Language​▼

Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev recently announced that Russia will no longer import GMO products, stating that the nation has enough space, and enough resources to produce organic food.

If the Americans like to eat GMO products, let them eat it then. We don’t need to do that; we have enough space and opportunities to produce organic food.” – Medvedev

Russia has been considering joining the long list (and continually growing) of anti-GMO countries for quite some time now. It does so after a group of Russian scientists urged the government to consider at least a 10-year moratorium on GMOs to thoroughly study their influence on human health.

“It is necessary to ban GMOs, to impose moratorium (on) it for 10 years. While GMOs will be prohibited, we can plan experiments, tests, or maybe even new methods of research could be developed. It has been proven that not only in Russia, but also in many other countries in the world, GMOs are dangerous. Methods of obtaining the GMOs are not perfect, therefore, at this stage, all GMOs are dangerous. Consumption and use of GMOs obtained in such way can lead to tumors, cancers and obesity among animals. Bio-technologies certainly should be developed, but GMOs should be stopped. We should stop it from spreading. ” – Irina Ermakova,VP of Russia’s National Association for Genetic Safety

(RIA Novosti/Ekaterina Shtukina)

A number of scientists worldwide have clearly outlined the potential dangers associated with consuming GMOs. I recently published an article titled “10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health,” you can read that in full here. These are just a select few out of hundreds of studies that are now available in the public domain, it seems that they continue to surface year after year. Russia completely banning GMOs, such a large, developed nation is a big step forward in creating more awareness with regards to GMOs. Ask yourself, why have so many nations banned GMOs and the pesticides that go with them? It’s because evidence points to the fact that they are not safe, they are young, and we just don’t know enough about them to safely consume them. They just aren’t necessary, so why produce them? Within the past few years, awareness regarding GMOs has skyrocketed. Activism has played a large role in waking up a large portion of Earths population with regards to GMOs. People are starting to ask questions and seek answers. In doing so, we are all coming to the same conclusion as Russia recently came to. In February, the State Duma introduced a bill banning the cultivation of GMO food products. President Putin ordered that Russian citizens be protected from GMOs. The States Agricultural Committee has supported the ban recommendation from the Russian parliament, and the resolution will come into full effect in July 2014. This just goes to show what we can do when we come together and demand change and share information on a global scale. Change is happening, and we are waking up to new concepts of our reality every day. GMOs are only the beginning, we have many things to rid our planet of that do not resonate with us and are clearly unnecessary. We are all starting to see through the false justifications for the necessity of GMOs, no longer are we so easily persuaded, no longer do we believe everything we hear and everything we’re presented with. Lets keep it going! For more CE articles on GMOs, click here. For more CE articles on glyphosate, click here. Sources:
http://rt.com/news/russia-import-gmo-products-621/
http://rt.com/news/gmo-ban-russian-scientists-293/
http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/gmo-.../en/28934.html

[rkelly110]

Thanks for the info.

[dante1]

If that's how you interpreted what I said there, then you don't have enough sense to pour piss out of a boot good buddy.

Right, I mentioned this right from the start, and it certainly is a left/right issue. All of the real action against GMO is happening on the left. In fact the D governor of Vermont just passed some legislation about labeling. It might be overturned we will see. Of course this is a very liberal issue, some on the right hanging on but not many. My God you need to fight Monsanto and huge business that is not a right type of thing for any of if you have read AR she defends business like a good right winger should be doing. You don't see too many of the real right wingers mentioning this. Just the guys who are not real sharp.

The irony of this entire argument is Dwightie might very well end up being right on this issue. Well it will be the first time in his life he was on the right side of a political argument. Maybe 20 years from now GMO will be considered dangerous, right now the jury is still out. But, I would not be surprised if the very left wing wins this argument when the dust settles. Hey, name a settled argument that they lost, just one. Go ahead I dare you. lol

And I really haven't been paying attention but what does gluten free have to do with any of this? That is a basically settled discussion.

[dante1]

Isn't it a little funny and ironic that a few of the extreme righties in this forum take this side on GMO's? Think about this for a minute, every political philosophical argument that they make goes right down the toilet on this issue. What do they want? Well obviously at this stage of the game you need strong government regulations on this stuff? Is that a left wing idea or not? Consumer action will certainly not be enough because that has passed a long time ago. The only real remedy is the government sticking their nose in and that is right wing????? I think not. Or maybe they cherry pick issues, not sure. Do some research people.

Those extreme left wing communists in Vermont, and the Ben and Jerry people my God what is wrong with those people. So the first state is Vermont, tell me when do you think a state like oh lets say Miss, or Okl or any of the other conservative states, when do you think they will join this argument. Tell you what you will not see any of those states on the band wagon for years if this movement gains any traction it will be in liberal states not conservative states, especially bread basket states.

[DwightShrute]

imagine that

[itchypickle]

Dwight what part of the GMO industry are you the most troubled by? Its a complex debate..I've realized that as I've started talking to a few farmers and ranchers.

Are you opposed to the seed patent part that leads to the profits and monopolizing?

use of any genetic altering of foods?

[DwightShrute]

Dwight what part of the GMO industry are you the most troubled by? Its a complex debate..I've realized that as I've started talking to a few farmers and ranchers.

Are you opposed to the seed patent part that leads to the profits and monopolizing?

use of any genetic altering of foods?

I think the first 2 videos in this thread say it better than I possibly can? Did you take a few minutes to watch them?

These seeds are filled with poison so bugs won't eat the plants and if bugs eat the plants, they will die. I am no scientist but that can't be good for anyone. Except those that make the shit. I ask myself, why is Monsanto protected by the Feds from any law suits? Why?

[itchypickle]

I think the first 2 videos in this thread say it better than I possibly can? Did you take a few minutes to watch them?

These seeds are filled with poison so bugs won't eat the plants and if bugs eat the plants, they will die. I am no scientist but that can't be good for anyone. Except those that make the shit. I ask myself, why is Monsanto protected by the Feds from any law suits? Why?

Yessir I watched them. I was just curious on what parts of the issue you were most focused. Like I said above, its pretty complex. I asked that question you posed awhile back to some agribusiness buddies - the answer I got and then asked around after that (always best to double verify things in my view to get a better range of expertise) was yes pesticides and chemicals are used....literally hundreds of types...but formulated where only toxic/poison to bugs/plants/humans not just across the board dangers. Basically certain things sprayed on a plant is great for the plant...wouldn't kill a bird or a person or an ant but if a specific insect grubs on it...its legs and belly up.

I've gotten interested in all the flowchart branches of GMOs - cause/effect. Considerations of population and land usage for yields, nutritional deficiencies addressed, pesticides in general, and the simple onto complex manipulations of foods where there can be just one aspect changed all the way to changing color pigments, reproductions or damn near cloning.

When it all boils down, at least for me so far, is that 'GMOs' have been used for decades and there has never been one official death said to be caused directly by it even with all the videos of the shriveled rats in labs and so forth - which I'm assuming is like any science, you test and test til you get the right combo and then you use the right formula. International and U.S. numbers all listed over 6 TRILLION meals eaten by people to date as of the report on GMO included meals and nobody has died yet. Thats a pretty good track record. In context, guess it's like the guns kill people not people kill people argument....if I eat a tone of sugary foods I'll get diabetes and then sick from that or eat all vegan or some crash diet and miss out on nutrients needed to survive and then I'll be screwed there (rickets and old salty sea types comes to mind)...the answer to that comment I got when chatting with an 'all vegan, all organic natural earth' advocate was "well its simple, just supplement for it with a multivitamin or meal replacement protein powder" which confused me because I had to ask...aren't gummy multivitamins and pills...also protein powders....aren't they made in a lab or factory somewhere too? thereby defeating the purpose of avoiding lab made foods?

[DwightShrute]

why are so many countries banning GMO's and the seeds used? Where there is smoke there's fire. There have been many findings actually that have linked gmo's to things like gluten allergies and sicknesses due to long and short term intake of gmo's. You will see more and more as time goes on. One day, there will be a need to create another GMO to try and fix all the damage they are doing today. That means more money for someone.

Why is Monsanto protected against legal action by the US government?

Monsanto scientists won't even drink or let their own family drink milk from US cows because of the injected hormones they are continuously poisoned with. Monsanto and the US government will pretend that the world would starve without gmo's but facts say that there is more than enough food produced every year to feed the planet even with several billion more inhabiting Earth.

Why is Monsanto protected against legal action by the US government?

Here's is what I believe. I believe that Monsanto is similar to the FDA (the largest drug dealer in the world). Monsanto and the GMO's they are producing and poisoning people will continuously make people ill every year. And every few years when the body cannot handle the increased poisons, new illnesses will develop. That is where new drugs will need to be invented to cure these gmo illnesses. Its a vicious cycle of lies and deceit to make a selected few, and their shareholders, billions and billions.

Create a problem, exempt the company from any legal action, fix the problem.



Why is Monsanto protected against legal action by the US government?

[DwightShrute]

GMO's Explained-Part 1

photo credit: beforeitsnews.com

We've been hearing so much about GMOs, but even I didn't understand the enormity of the situation with it until I took the time to sit down and research for hours on end, all about GMO's. Here I've compiled some info for anyone interested.

The Gist of it: GMO's are Genetically Modified Organisms. Basically scientists playing God with plant seeds, salmon, and random animals and insects. They take genes from different species and fuse them together into a genetically created seed to bring out certain traits. GMO's are proven to cause tumors, infertility, and a array of allergies and diseases. Our current food source (85% of all food) we buy are all GMO, and right now there is a fight all through the world to stop Monsanto (head corporation in all this) and to label GMO's. More than 60 countries have banned GMO's (and some are labeling them) allowing consumers to choose, but the US and Canada are enjoying the profits too much to care about our health. They refuse to label the packages as GMO. How to stop them? Buy organic, spread the word, grow your own garden, buy from local farmers markets.

Why?: Proponents for Monsanto and GMO foods are saying that we're under pressure to meet the food supply demands and that we're going to face starvation in the coming years. The GM crops don't produce a higher yield. Yet, the bee populations that control pollination and food growth are dying out because of the use of synthetic plants and chemicals. If bees become extinct man has only 4 years to live. This isn't about the lack of food, the underlying problem is corruption and who's profiting from health problems.

Watch this Video: If a 14 year old girl can get it, so can you. Her parents must be so proud of her. I can only hope my girls will be as informed, outspoken, and passionate about something so important.



The Long Story: Watch this Video to get the details from the experts, scientists, and political proponents on the history of Monsanto, scientific facts, and horrifying threats to our health. If you don't have the time then fast forward to look at visual proof at 26:50, 28:40, 30:22, 37:04. If you're musically inclined, forward to 1:16:25 lol.

[itchypickle]

why are so many countries banning GMO's and the seeds used? Where there is smoke there's fire. There have been many findings actually that have linked gmo's to things like gluten allergies and sicknesses due to long and short term intake of gmo's. You will see more and more as time goes on. One day, there will be a need to create another GMO to try and fix all the damage they are doing today. That means more money for someone.

Why is Monsanto protected against legal action by the US government?

Monsanto scientists won't even drink or let their own family drink milk from US cows because of the injected hormones they are continuously poisoned with. Monsanto and the US government will pretend that the world would starve without gmo's but facts say that there is more than enough food produced every year to feed the planet even with several billion more inhabiting Earth.

Why is Monsanto protected against legal action by the US government?

Here's is what I believe. I believe that Monsanto is similar to the FDA (the largest drug dealer in the world). Monsanto and the GMO's they are poisoning people with will continuously make people ill every year. And every few years when the body cannot handle the increased poisons, new illnesses will develop. That is where new drugs will be invented to cure these gmo illnesses. Its a vicious cycle of lies and deceit to make a selected few and their shareholders billions.

Create a problem, exempt the company from any legal action, fix the problem.

Why is Monsanto protected against legal action by the US government?

I don't eat dairy if I can avoid it...U.S. or otherwise so maybe I'll not die not for the poisons you mention but just the sugars and such. I'm not saying I agree with all the farm practices...if I'm ever shown a direct cause..not just a link...I'll jump but otherwise it's fads like anything else over time. Even setting monsanto aside, we can't eat or breath or touch things on earth without 'chemicals and poisons' really. It's like bleach and ammonia - if I rinse my toilet with bleach for the clean whiteness its all good but if I add in a shot of ammonia for the smell that chemical combo is dangerous and toxic right? Now If I wipe a surface down with ammonia vs drink it straight into my system....which is safe and which is dangerous? See my thought process here...'chemcals' are in everything but its the way in which they are used or ingested that I think too many people are looking past. Tap water and bottled water we need to survive - ever see a water treatment plant in a field? when you shitt and flush its recycled and the chemicals are added to kill the bacteria and then when you turn on the faucet, voila clean shitt water in the glass.....and great if you drink 'crystal bottle water' instead you still have to take a bath and shower and shave and brush your teeth right? Branch off from there - shaving cream rubbed in your pores and toothpaste in your mouth..read those labels - chemicals and more chemicals.

I'm with you on the FDA. Yes they have there good points but as a whole - the trend in a pill for everything as a cure is ridiculous. I'm thankful for Aleve and cold meds but I can do without the aderal and pain killers. Allegra for allergies and of course the penis pills and this sick recent flow of 'past menopause vagina cream for better feeling sexual activity' commercials I keep seeing now...gross.

ANd by the way yep I'm onto their charade of accepting a patent - allowing the pharma company to unload all the product it can to get the $$ before allowing the generics to hit the markets..the comes the roll out for the side effect pill....patented again, profit and repeat.

[itchypickle]

I see the rats above - mentioned that one in previous post earlier....about the Bt toxin right?

[DwightShrute]

I don't eat dairy if I can avoid it...U.S. or otherwise so maybe I'll not die not for the poisons you mention but just the sugars and such. I'm not saying I agree with all the farm practices...if I'm ever shown a direct cause..not just a link...I'll jump but otherwise it's fads like anything else over time. Even setting monsanto aside, we can't eat or breath or touch things on earth without 'chemicals and poisons' really. It's like bleach and ammonia - if I rinse my toilet with bleach for the clean whiteness its all good but if I add in a shot of ammonia for the smell that chemical combo is dangerous and toxic right? Now If I wipe a surface down with ammonia vs drink it straight into my system....which is safe and which is dangerous? See my thought process here...'chemcals' are in everything but its the way in which they are used or ingested that I think too many people are looking past. Tap water and bottled water we need to survive - ever see a water treatment plant in a field? when you shitt and flush its recycled and the chemicals are added to kill the bacteria and then when you turn on the faucet, voila clean shitt water in the glass.....and great if you drink 'crystal bottle water' instead you still have to take a bath and shower and shave and brush your teeth right? Branch off from there - shaving cream rubbed in your pores and toothpaste in your mouth..read those labels - chemicals and more chemicals.

I'm with you on the FDA. Yes they have there good points but as a whole - the trend in a pill for everything as a cure is ridiculous. I'm thankful for Aleve and cold meds but I can do without the aderal and pain killers. Allegra for allergies and of course the penis pills and this sick recent flow of 'past menopause vagina cream for better feeling sexual activity' commercials I keep seeing now...gross.

ANd by the way yep I'm onto their charade of accepting a patent - allowing the pharma company to unload all the product it can to get the $$ before allowing the generics to hit the markets..the comes the roll out for the side effect pill....patented again, profit and repeat.

all I and millions are asking is to label whether a product has gmo's. Its not proven safe. Far from it.

Smoke if you want IP. They never put warnings on cigarettes initially and now they do. Drink if you want. Do drugs if you want. Eat sugar in buckets full if you wish. Have your 32 oz colas. I don't care. Its your life and I will never preach as to how you should live your life. You can't get away from every harmful thing out there but you can limit a lot of them.

Label if it contains GMO's and let me decide. That is all I want. So should you and everyone else.

also, Why is Monsanto protected against legal action by the US government?

[itchypickle]

all I and millions are asking is to label whether a product has gmo's. Its not proven safe. Far from it.

Smoke if you want IP. They never put warnings on cigarettes initially and now they do. Drink if you want. Do drugs if you want. Eat sugar in buckets full if you wish. Have your 32 oz colas. I don't care. Its your life and I will never preach as to how you should live your life. You can't get away from every harmful thing out there but you can limit a lot of them.

Label if it contains GMO's and let me decide. That is all I want. So should you and everyone else.

also, Why is Monsanto protected against legal action by the US government?

I'm not saying I'm against the labeling - just think it has to be accurate and not speculative before its mandated especially since the supply chain from farm to table or factory to table has so many moving parts...probably the reason for the legal protection against lawsuits. Anti-GMO groups could shut down sales of products by suspending sales during litigation effectively winning the battle through bankrupting the supply chain even if after its over the science says GMOs aren't what was said by the groups. Ironically I'm eating a certified Non GMO bar from Natures Bakery brand as I type this .

Just feel like it needs to be accurate before there is a govt mandate passed to force the issue - scaring off business if its not a real threat to the person is all I'm saying. For all the added costs to the restaurants to put calorie counts on menus across the nation - no reduction in consumption has been found. Whole Foods has said they won't sell Monsanto GMOs...Wal mart has said they will not ban them....let the people and the market decide. I get your point..I do...I wish companies would label the front of processed food boxes to explain that a 70 calorie pack of fruit snacks isn't the same as a 70 calorie serving of strawberries - the power/nutrition per calorie is different and yet we know they both contain sugar which is a known killer right? It's just too difficult an issue to mandate since the term 'GMO" is so broad...have been around for decades and not just monsanto. Pesticides...you realize the EPA regulates and labels household cleaning products as pesticides on their approved for use lists? What would it do to Clorox if they were mandated to put a skull/bones label on all 409 kitchen bottles that said "contains pesticides"?

[DwightShrute]

ok, re the last point about Clorox .... I don't eat it. You shouldn't either. I use limes mostly for removing stains on white clothes and it works great. Also baking soda and hydrogen peroxide work great. Yes I use clorox sometimes.

Cucumbers work great for cleaning windows

10 uses for CUCUMBERS… Who knew?!

Sometimes we just want to share interesting stuff with you. Below are 10 cool things the Glow staff have been discussing lately that cucumbers can do. You really will be surprised!


1. Fat busting + Wrinkle Releasing: The photochemical in cucumbers makes the collagen in your skin tighten. That’s why people are always seen in movies and such w/cucumbers on their eyes. You can also rub a cucumber on a problematic spot of cellulite or some wrinkles and it will lessen the visibility of the problem spots.

2. Headaches + Hangovers:Exhausted from work or momming it? Maybe had one too many glasses of wine? Eat half of a cucumber before bed to replenish the nutrients missing in your body (cucumbers are high in B vitamins, sugar, and electrolytes = things that help you avoid headaches and hangovers!).

3. Crayon or Pen Whoopsies: Rub an unpeeled cucumber over the crayon on a wall (you can’t keep your eyes on the kids ALL the time!) or if you made a pen mistake.

4. Bad Breath Be Gone: Hold a slice of cucumber on the roof of your mouth with your tongue for 30 seconds. The photochemical kills the bacteria that causes bad breath. At Glow Med Spa, we love to put Cucumber in our purified water – tastes good, too!

5. Energy Boost: If you’re feeling tired in the afternoon, don’t give Starbucks your five bucks. Instead, grab a cucumber. There are just enough carbohydrates and B vitamins to give you a longer-lasting and healthier boost of energy than soda, coffee, or those health hazard energy drinks.

6. Shoe Polish: Rub a slice of cucumber on your shoe. Shine + water repellant = awesome, quick and cheap!

7. Pest Free Garden: Place a small pie tin with 3 slices of cucumbers in your garden. The chemicals in the cucumber have a reaction that pests hate. You won’t smell it, but it will drive them from your garden all year long. Replace them periodically.

8. Sunburn: Cucumber, like aloe, soothes skin and especially sunburn. We know you ALWAYS use sunscreen and won’t ever get burnt (right?!?!), but just in case.

9. Blood Pressure + Cholesterol: Have high blood pressure? Add cucumbers to your daily diet. There is also ongoing research into the use of cucumbers for lowering cholesterol.

10. Bye Bye Constipation: The seeds of a cucumber = diuretic. If you’re constipated, try eating a cucumber. Better yet, just add some cucumbers to your daily diet (ex: cucumber & cream cheese sandwiches, cucumber with a little salt – like a pickle!, extra cucumber in your tabouli, toss a cucumber on your salad, etc…. YUMMY!).

enjoy your Non GMO bar from Natures Bakery !! Avoid buying anything that has GMO's and let's put the most evil corporation in the world out of business .. Monsanto!

[DwightShrute]

Why is Monsanto protected against legal action by the US government?

this will help you understand




The Unhealthy Truth: How Our Food Is Making Us Sick and What We Can Do About It

Is Robyn O'Brien on your radar yet? She should be. In addition to being one of our "Real Food" heroes here at eatlocalgrown.com, Robyn O'Brien is a former food industry analyst, strategist, author and mother of four. Robyn's website goes on to say--

Robyn brings insight and detailed analysis to her research into the impact that the global food system is having on our health. Since giving her first TEDx talk in which she discusses research she conducted six years ago, the World Health Organization now reports that the U.S. ranks 7th out of almost 200 countries worldwide in cancer rates due to the remarkable efforts to reduce tobacco use in our country.
And she firmly believe that while we can't change the beginning of our stories, we can change the end. And hope is the knowledge that change is possible, even when it seems hard to imagine.

Why are Food Allergies Among Children on the Rise?





In an article the New York Times ran on Mrs. O'Brien, she makes it quite clear that our food supply is being manipulated with additives, genetic modification, hormones and herbicides, causing increases in allergies, autism and other disorders in children. We agree wholeheartedly.

Record numbers of parents are heading to doctors concerned that their children are allergic to a long list of foods. States are passing laws requiring schools to have policies protecting children with food allergies. But no one knows why the number of allergies seems to be on the rise, or even if they are rising as fast as some believe.
Ms. O’Brien and leading allergy researchers agree that few reliable studies on food allergies exist. The best estimates suggest that 4 to 8 percent of young children suffer from them, though the reactions tend to grow less serious and less frequent as children grow older.

Learn more about The AllergyKids Foundation that Robyn Started...





Robyn started the AllergyKids Foundation to restore the health of our children and the integrity of our food supply.
Our goal is simple and straightforward: we want to protect the American children from the additives now found in our food supply – additives not used in children’s foods in other developed countries. In our efforts to achieve this, the AllergyKids Foundation works to:

1. Inspire choices that enhance the quality of life, improve nutrition and create change in the health of our children, schools and communities.
2. Inform parents and caregivers about food grown without the use of synthetic additives, artificial growth hormones and pesticides.
3. Address the increasing prevalence of synthetic additives, artificial growth hormones, antibiotics and genetically engineered allergens and proteins now found in the U.S. food supply and its impact on the health of our families.
4. Provide materials and resources to help individuals and families reduce their exposure to additives in their diets.
5. Cultivate team building and grassroots movements that drive change in our schools, communities, organizations, and federal food policy.

Our mission is a mighty one, but we believe that our children deserve nothing less. And while they may only represent 30% of our population, they are 100% of our future, and we can accomplish so much together.

[itchypickle]

Dwight - From what I've learned asking around to some of the guys here over the weekend in 'big agra' the legal protection isn't an exemption from punishment as much as it is a follow on from a 2010 supreme court ruling. And the piece signed by Obama had more to do with helping out his lobbyist friends than to cover up an evil plot by Monsanto or any other group. Apparently first year in office he appointed the former VP from Monsanto into his FDA dept...kinda like the revolving door of Goldman Sachs into Treasury, Monsanto into farming interests. But as far as proven damages from GMO's...Monsanto can still be held liable in a suit but the current wording is in place just to make sure that a competitor doesn't file suit and suspend the food pipelines and tie up resources in court for years just trying to gain market share in the space.

[DwightShrute]

Geneticist David Suzuki Says Humans “Are Part Of A Massive Experiment”

---

We are doing our part to try and spread the word about GMOs, (genetically modified organisms) but we’re not the only ones. Multiple public figures, scientists and researchers have been speaking out about GMOs for a number of years. For example, not long ago a former Canadian Government Scientist at Agriculture Canada, Dr. Thierry Vrain (one of many) spoke out against GMOs. Another prominent public figure, Geneticist David Suzuki has been a long time advocate against GMOs, and has been speaking out about how they can be hazardous to human health as well as the environment. Below, I’ve provided a video example of Suzuki explaining why he feels the way he does about GMOs. Public figures with a wide audience can have a great impact on the consciousness of the masses, they are great ‘tools’ for waking more people up to the reality that GMOs can be harmful to human health as well as the environment. It’s time to pay attention, do your own research and to question what you’ve been told. We can no longer trust branches of the government that deal with food and health, we must not take their word for it, it’s better if you actually look into it yourself rather than blindly believing what your are told.It doesn’t seem to be much of a debate anymore, it’s clear that GMOs can indeed be harmful to human health. There is a reason why a majority of countries around the world have permanently banned GMOs, so what’s taking North America so long? One reason might be the fact that biotech corporations like Monsanto seem to be above the government and influence policy, but thankfully these things are changing. Big Island, Hawaii has recently banned all GMO products and bio-tech company products. Various bills calling for moratoria on GE food include Vermont, North Dakota, Boulder, Colorado, San Francisco and more.This large movement against GMOs is not based on belief, multiple researchers and scientists all around the world have shown that GMOs can be harmful. Here is a study that shows how Bt toxins found in Monsanto crops can be damaging to red blood cells, and potentially cause leukemia. Here is another one that shows how GMO animal feed caused severe stomach inflammation and enlarged uteri in pigs. There have been multiple studies linking GMOs to cancer, and a range of other diseases. Scientists all over the world have come together to show their support for the ban of GMOs.Along with GMOs come the pesticides, which have been linked to cancer, parkinson’s, autism and alzheimer’s, to name a few.As you can see, alternative media outlets are not the only ones doing their research. Most who investigate this topic, and do the research for themselves will come to the same conclusions. This is what David Suzuki and many others have done as well.

By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment.The FDA has said that genetically modified organisms are not much different from regular food, so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this, geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it horizontally into a totally unrelated species. Now David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot and exchange genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other without regard to the biological constraints. It’s very very bad science, we assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically, applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion.

Below is an article written by David Suzuki and Faisal Moola. At the beginning concerns with the 210 release of the super-genetically modified corn called ‘SmartStax,’ are mentioned which has now shown to be harmful to human health and banned all over the world. This article was written in 2009, but still has some good information.By David Suzuki with Faisal MoolaIn gearing up for the 2010 release of its super-genetically modified corn called ‘SmartStax’, agricultural-biotechnology giant Monsanto is using an advertising slogan that asks, ‘Wouldn’t it be better?’ But can we do better than nature, which has taken millennia to develop the plants we use for food?We don’t really know. And that in itself is a problem. The corn, developed by Monsanto with Dow AgroSciences, “stacks” eight genetically engineered traits, six that allow it to ward off insects and two to make it resistant to weed-killing chemicals, many of which are also trademarked by Monsanto. It’s the first time a genetically engineered (GE) product has been marketed with more than three traits.Canada approved the corn without assessing it for human health or environmental risk, claiming that the eight traits have already been cleared in other crop seeds — even though international food-safety guidelines that Canada helped develop state that stacked traits should be subject to a full safety assessment as they can lead to unintended consequences.One problem is that we don’t know the unintended consequences of genetically engineered or genetically modified (GM) foods. Scientists may share consensus about issues like human-caused global warming, but they don’t have the same level of certainty about the effects of genetically modified organisms on environmental and human health!A review of the science conducted under the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development in 2008 concluded that “there are a limited number of properly designed and independently peer-reviewed studies on human health” and that this and other observations “create concern about the adequacy of testing methodologies for commercial GM plants.”Some have argued that we’ve been eating GM foods for years with few observable negative consequences, but as we’ve seen with things like trans fats, if often takes a while for us to recognize the health impacts. With GM foods, concerns have been raised about possible effects on stomach bacteria and resistance to antibiotics, as well as their role in allergic reactions. We also need to understand more about their impact on other plants and animals.Of course, these aren’t the only issues with GM crops. Allowing agro-chemical companies to create GM seeds with few restrictions means these companies could soon have a monopoly over agricultural production. And by introducing SmartStax, we are giving agro-chemical companies the green light not just to sell and expand the use of their “super crops” but also to sell and expand the use of the pesticides these crops are designed to resist.A continued reliance on these crops could also reduce the variety of foods available, as well as the nutritive value of the foods themselves.There’s also a reason nature produces a variety of any kind of plant species. It ensures that if disease or insects attack a plant, other plant varieties will survive and evolve in its place. This is called biodiversity.Because we aren’t certain about the effects of GMOs, we must consider one of the guiding principles in science, the precautionary principle. Under this principle, if a policy or action could harm human health or the environment, we must not proceed until we know for sure what the impact will be. And it is up to those proposing the action or policy to prove that it is not harmful.That’s not to say that research into altering the genes in plants that we use for food should be banned or that GM foods might not someday be part of the solution to our food needs. We live in an age when our technologies allow us to “bypass” the many steps taken by nature over millennia to create food crops to now produce “super crops” that are meant to keep up with an ever-changing human-centred environment.A rapidly growing human population and deteriorating health of our planet because of climate change and a rising number of natural catastrophes, among other threats, are driving the way we target our efforts and funding in plant, agricultural, and food sciences, often resulting in new GM foods.But we need more thorough scientific study on the impacts of such crops on our environment and our health, through proper peer-reviewing and unbiased processes. We must also demand that our governments become more transparent when it comes to monitoring new GM crops that will eventually find their ways in our bellies through the food chain.Sources:http://davidsuzuki.org/blogs/science...ng-food-crops/

[DwightShrute]

5 Myths That GMO Companies Want You To Believe

April 27, 2014 by Arjun Walia.

A few years ago GMOs weren’t even on the radar, today, GMOs and the pesticides that accompany them have been completely banned in numerous countries all over the world. I’ve mentioned this in my other GMO articles before, but I will mention it again, when it comes to GMOs, we really have no idea what the long term effects will be on the public. The very first commercial sale of GMOs was only twenty years ago in the year 1994. There is no possible way that our health authorities can test all possible combinations on a large enough population, over a long enough period of time to be able to say with certainty that they are completely harmless. I also think it’s important to note that biotech corporations have been caught lying before. They’ve recently been caught using deceptive semantics of pesticide formulations and their regulations. A new study recently published in the journal Biomedical Research International shows how roundup herbicide is 125 more toxic than regulators claimed. You can read more about thathere.

Myth #1: No One Has Ever Proven That GMOs Are Harmful To People

This is probably the most common argument I see against GMOs. If GMOs were completely safe, they wouldn’t be banned from multiple countries around the globe. Russia was the latest country to do so after government scientists told the parliament that they’re not safe to consume. You can read more about that here.Monsanto has stated time and time and time again that GMOs have never been proven to harm people. The reality is, there is a plethora of research (independent, peer-reviewed studies and more) that clearly indicate that GMOs should not be approved safe to consume. Further testing is required, and we just don’t know enough about them yet.GMOs have been linked to tumors, premature death, organ failure, gastric lesions, liver damage, kidney damage, sever allergic reactions, and more. We recently published a study titled 10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health, you can access those studies and read about them HERE. You can also find links to more studies here.

Myth #2: GMO Crops Are The Only Way To Solve World Hunger

This is also a very common argument amongst GMO proponents. These activists claim that without GMOs, world hunger will continue claiming the lives of millions of people over the next ten years.The amount of money we spend in one day alone on war and defence could feed the entire planet for an entire year, to say we don’t have the resources and money to feed the world is ridiculous. That being said, money should never come in the way of necessity, it just doesn’t have to be this way. Our potential as one human race is far greater than what we’ve created for ourselves so far.Sustainable agricultural practices could be set up all over the world. GMO farming is not really sustainable and this has been demonstrated time and time again. One example is in India, where Monsanto’s insect-repellent Bt cotton wreaked havoc on the country’s farmers. Those seeds cost twice as much as conventional ones and required greater inputs of water and expensive herbicides and pesticides. As a result, thousands of Indian farmers committed suicide.The Union of Concerned Scientists reminds us that GM crops are not guaranteed, as promised by company advertising. They still fail to produce promised yields, and farmers are not permitted to save seeds due to the company’s patent. As a result, entire communities can be pushed to the brink of starvation.Every person on the planet can feed themselves with just 100 square feet of well managed land. In 2008, the UN Conference of Trade and development supported organics, saying that organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and is more likely to be sustainable in the long term. You can read that full reportHERE.Below, international activist and scientist Dr. Vandana Shiva explains in two minutes how GMOs are a threat to biodiversity and farmers’ livelihoods. World hunger and poverty are a justification for GMOs just as 9/11 was a justification for the invasion of Iraq.



Myth #3: GMOs Need Less Pesticide Spraying


A new study from the U.S. Geological Survey, titled “Pesticides in Mississippi Air and Rain: A Comparison Between 1995 and 2007,” reveals that Roundup herbicide (aka glyphosate) and its toxic degradation byproduct AMPA were found in over 75% of the air and rain samples tested from Mississippi in 2007. Researchers weren’t surprised given the fact that 2 million kilograms of glyphosate were applied statewide in 2007. You can read this full study HERE. Sri Lanka recently had to ban Monsanto herbicide citing a link to deadly kidney disease, you can read about that HERE.Not long ago, the EPA raised their allowable concentrations of Monsanto’s glyphosate on food crops, HERE. Significant concentrations of Glyphosate have also been found in the urine of people across Europe, HERE. A new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.Both reports focus on “superweeds.” It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able to withstand increasing amounts – and often different forms – of herbicide.At the center of debate is the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in MonsantoMON +2.23%‘s Round Up. Food & Water Watch found that the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012.” Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.You can read more CE articles on glyphosate and roundup herbicide HERE.Other organizations concur and even the mainstream media has been forced to report that pesticide and herbicide usage is on the rise. Check out these recent articles from Huffington Post and Reuters for more information.

Myth #4: GMO Technology is Comparable to The Cross-Breeding That our Ancestors Did To Create Hardier Versions of Heritage Crops.


This also isn’t true, what our ancestors did and what we are doing is completely different. Cross-pollination of different varieties of the same plant species is what responsible farmers do, this can also occur naturally. Genetically modifying seeds is a whole different ballgame, geneticist David Suzuki explains it well.“By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment.”“The FDA has said that genetically modified organisms are not much different from regular food, so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this, geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it horizontally into a totally unrelated species. Now David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot and exchange genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other without regard to the biological constraints. It’s very very bad science, we assume that the principles governing the inheritance of genes vertically, applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion.” (source)With GMO seeds, crossing goes far beyond the bounds of nature, into completely unknown realms of biology that we know nothing about. For example, Monsanto has crossed genetic material from a bacteria known as Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) with corn. The goal was to create a pest-resistant plant, this means that any pests attempting to eat the corn plant will die since the pesticide is part of every cell of the plant. Basically, if you eat this corn you are eating pesticides.Myth

#5: The FDA and the USDA allow GMO’s, They Must Be Safe To Consume

Organizations like the FDA, the EPA, and the USDA all receive their power and influence from the mere fact that the public believes that their number one priority is the health and safety of the citizens they are supposed to be serving. All of the agencies vow that they are there to protect the public on their websites:The FDA:

FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring that foods (except for meat from livestock, poultry and some egg products which are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture) are safe, wholesome, sanitary and properly labeled; ensuring that human and veterinary drugs, and vaccines and other biological products and medical devices intended for human use are safe and effective.

The Vision Statement of the USDA:

To expand economic opportunity through innovation, helping rural America to thrive; to promote agriculture production sustainability that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed others throughout the world; and to preserve and conserve our Nation’s natural resources through restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working lands.

The EPA:

The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment. EPA’s purpose is to ensure that all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work…

The reality: All of the above is just feel-good, warm and fuzzy rhetoric. Perhaps there are employees that truly believe in what they’re doing, but the leadership is as sickeningly tainted as Bt Corn. With all that’s been revealed over the past few years, it’s very clear that these corporations do not have our best interests at heart.There seems to be a revolving door.

• Michael Taylor: VP of Monsanto > Deputy Commissioner of the FDA
• Roger Beachy: Director of the Danforth Plant Science Center (paid for by Monsanto) >director of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture
• Elena Kagan: Obama Solicitor General (when she famously took Monsanto’s side against organic farmers in the Roundup Ready Alfalfa case) > US Supreme Court justice.
• Clarence Thomas: General Counsel for Monsanto > US Supreme Court justice.
• Margaret Miller: Monsanto supervisor > Deputy Director of Human Food Safety
• Donald Rumsfield: Board of Directors for Monsanto’s Searle Pharmaceuticals > US Secretary of Defense
• Ann Veneman: Monsanto Board of Directors > US Secretary of Agriculture
• Linda Fisher: Assistant Administrator at the EPA >VP of Monsanto > Deputy Administrator of the EPA
• Dr. Michael A.Friedman: Deputy Commissioner of the FDA > Senior VP of Monsanto

Make no mistake, the commissioners, directors, and secretaries of these agencies are put in place for a reason. If the FDA, USDA, or the EPA approve something, you might want to view it with more suspicion than acceptance. If they can say that radiation and pesticides are acceptable in your food, but that raw milk isn’t acceptable for consumption… there’s something incredibly wrong here.The paragraph (above) for this final myth was taken from eatlocalgrown.com. You can view more myths by visiting that site. The first four myths and the information that accompany them were written by me. Thanks for reading.

[DwightShrute]

Christina Sarich - Natural Society – EWG | It’s sad when one of the biggest ‘super powers’ can’t even export a quintessentially American food to another country because it is too toxic to eat. But apples treated with diphenylamine (DPA), a substance which keeps them from turning brown for months at a time when they are kept in storage, is now a sore spot for importers of American apples. DPA isn’t harmful all by itself, but it breaks down into carcinogogenic elements. It’s been used since 1962, but was banned in the European Union in 2012 since producers couldn’t answer inquiries about its safety.

European food safety regulators wanted more information on it, but none could be summoned. The apple industry simply responded with one study “that detected three unknown chemicals on DPA-treated apples, but it could not determine if any of these chemicals, apparently formed when the DPA broke down, were nitrosamines.” British scientists, John Barnes and Peter Magee, in 1956, reported that dimethylnitrosamine produced liver tumors in rats, and later went on to test other nitrosamines and N-nitroso compounds. They found that the compounds caused all kinds of problems, including liver cancer, lung cancer, and even botulism.
“Nitrosamines occur commonly because their chemical precursors–amines and nitrosating agents–occur commonly, and the chemical reaction for nitrosamine formation is quite facile. Research on the prevention or reduction of nitrosamine formation has been productive, and most of the items shown in the table contain considerably lower amounts of nitrosamines than they did a few decades ago.”
No wonder European officials were concerned. In 2012, they slashed the allowable levels of DPA on apples to 0.1 parts per million, but now they don’t want those gleaming, spot-free apples normally seen on super market shelves in the States, at all. DPA residues were found on over 80 samples taken from US imports, with an average reading of 0.42 parts per million, well above their ‘allowable’ level.
Funny then, how the U.S. EPA Office of Pesticides tasked with reviewing all pesticides and chemicals on our agricultural produce told the EWG that they had no idea their was a ban on DPA. The EPA then had the nerve to tell the EWG that they had no intention of reviewing DPA safety standards, in light of European’s refusal to eat our poisoned fruit. Reminds you of the Snow White fairy tale, doesn’t it. Here, little lady, eat the fruit. The Europeans said no thanks, and the rest of us would be better off getting our apples from a bunch of cutely named dwarves.

Read more at http://higherperspective.com/2014/06...807XYiFYJJt.99

[DwightShrute]

Here's a must watch documentary about for anyone that wants to learn more about Monsanto and the horrors they are committing to our planet, health and money:

[DwightShrute]

Monsanto Begins Compensating Victims Of Dioxin Exposure

http://covvha.net/

Residents of a West Virginia town that formerly hosted a Monsanto factory that produced noxious, cancer-causing chemicals can begin receiving assistance promised through a 2012, multi-million-dollar settlement.


A long-promised claims office finally opened up on First Avenue in Nitro, WV on Tuesday this week, meaning residents there will now be able to drop by five-days a week through October 31 in order to learn about what kind of coverage they are eligible to receive.
Monsanto, a major biotech corporation and the world’s largest seed producer, shut down their Nitro plan in 2004. Decades beforehand, however, the company produced the Vietnam War-era herbicide Agent Orange at the facility. Dioxin, a chemical by-product of the weed killer, was later linked to causing cancer and other serious health problems in those exposed to it.
In lieu of going to trial over the contamination, the biotech company agreed in 2012 to spend millions of dollars on a program that for the next three decades will assist residents of Nitro impacted by the plant.
West Virginia’s State Journal reported this week that anyone who lived, worked or attended school in areas impacted by the dioxin contamination can now show up at the claims office and register in order to formally express their interest in receiving free medical monitoring or have their property cleaned-up.
Under the terms of the settlement, Monsanto agreed to pay $84 million on the 30-year monitoring program, according to the State Journal — $21 million towards initial testing, and $63 million if dioxin test results suggests more should be done. Additionally, the company pledged $9 million towards property clean-up efforts to be undertaken at cites still contaminated. According to a 2013 report in the West Virginia Gazette, Monsanto planned on cleaning upwards of 4,500 homes in the area that were contaminated with dioxin dust. That procedure, the paper reported at the time, was expected to include vacuuming carpets, rugs and accessible horizontal surfaces with High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filter vacuums, wet cleaning floors, floor vents, tops of doors and window moldings, interior window sills, ceiling fans, light fixtures and radiators.
Thomas V. Flaherty, the court-appointed administrator of the class action settlement, told the paper that the opening of the claims office means that millions of dollars can soon go towards “medical examinations and property cleanup services to people and property affected the production of ‘dioxin’ at the Nitro Monsanto plant.” In order to be eligible, claims filers must be able to show that they worked, lived or studied near Nitro between 1948 and 2010.
“We are pleased to resolve this matter and end any concerns about historic operations at the Nitro plant,” Scott Partridge, Monsanto counsel, said in a statementwhen the settlement was first reached in 2012.
Meanwhile, a recent study has suggested that Roundup, a Monsanto-made herbicide used to treat the company’s GMO crops, may be linked to a fatal kidney disease. The study, published earlier this year in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, concluded that Roundup’s key ingredient, glyphosate, becomes highly toxic to the kidneys when mixed withor metals like arsenic and cadmium that often exist naturally in the soil. RT reported at the time that glyphosate was patented as a herbicide by Monsanto in the early 1970s, and has since been used to treat crops around the world, albeit with allegedly adverse reactions.
Originally Posted From RT http://rt.com/usa/171312-monsanto-ni...lement-office/

[scumbag]

Like what Hartmann has to say on GMO?

You should hear him talk about Reagan, GWB and their moronic policies.

you'd probably have a stroke from information overload.

[DwightShrute]

...