Mercola.com’s GMO Awareness Week: Top GMO Myths Exposed

Source: Mercola.com
Dr. Mercola
March 23, 2017

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/art… Genetic engineering is NOT the safe and beneficial technology that it is touted to be. Take action now, join Mercola.com’s GMO Awareness Week, and help spread the word about the health dangers of genetic engineering.

Advertisements

US Court of Appeals: States and counties can ban GMO crops despite federal laws

Image: US Court of Appeals: States and counties can ban GMO crops despite federal laws
Source: NaturalNews.com
S.D. Wells
December 12, 2016

The entire organic community of the United States just won a massive victory that many may not yet even realize. Even though the DARK Act was passed by Obama and some Senate goons to prohibit labeling of GMOs nationwide, the US Court of Appeals just passed a law that enables states and counties to completely ban genetically engineered crops from ever being planted in the first place. Think about that for a minute. You see, back in the year 2000, Monsanto undermined all US organic and conventional farming by claiming that manipulating genomic material of plants did not introduce dangerous bacteria or even plant “pests” into the equation, but their noxious “Frankenfoods” prove otherwise. So biotechnology giants figured a way to not have their cancer-causing, Alzheimer’s-causing, pesticide-laden plants classified as a risk to the environment or humans. But now, none of that really matters anymore.

Thanks to the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals and their recent interpretation of the Plant Protection Act, all U.S. states, counties, and local communities can actually ban (or regulate) the planting of any and all commercially-grown genetically engineered crops, no matter what the feds or Monsanto claims about GMO.

Neither the Plant Protection Act nor the DARK Act can stop states and counties from banning the planting of GMO crops

Farmers with seed sanctuaries around the country are celebrating this huge victory because they know exactly what it means. No farmer in America who has any lick of common sense wants genetically engineered seeds that contain pesticides in their genetic makeup. It’s bad enough that 90% of US corn, soy, sugar beets, alfalfa, and canola are GMO, we don’t need biotech corporations controlling all seeds and crops. This new court decision sets a precedent and puts in place a powerful fulcrum for stopping Monsanto and Bayer in their tracks, literally. If they can’t plant and grow their Frankenfoods on our soil, they can’t ruin the surrounding environment that’s full of natural, healthy life either.

The court recognized the potential destruction to the environment and farmers from the widespread planting of Franken-crops citing well-documented concerns, including adverse economic impacts caused by transgenic farming on non-GE crops.

The reduction of biodiversity cited by the US courts as reason to limit GE crop planting

The Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals also recognized that “the cultivation of GE crops also may raise environmental concerns, such as harm to beneficial plants and animals caused by the increased use of pesticides sometimes associated with testing and growing GE crops, the proliferation of ‘superweeds’ and other pests resistant to pesticides, and the reduction of biodiversity.”

The court continued to protect organic farming rights for states and local communities throughout the United States, saying: “The regulation of commercialized crops, both of GE and traditional varieties, remains within the authority of state and local governments.”

Though the legislature left “field trials” of GE crops up to the nefarious USDA, as long as local and state authorities stand up for their newly declared rights to ban the planting of GM crops on their land, the organic world and conservation groups in general have won the “war” for clean food. Much like the victory celebrated recently by Sonoma County, California, when voters approved a measure to prohibit GE crops from being planted in their county (The Sonoma County Transgenic Contamination Ordinance), local and organic growers and producers nationwide have reason now to celebrate having power and control to protect Mother Nature and human health in general.

Organic farmers and consumers nationwide may have lost the GMO-labeling battle, but we just won the war – the one that bans the planting of Franken-crops! Now, at the local, county and state level, farmers and consumers can support organic crops right down to the roots, and that’s even more important than labels. It’s time to make sure everything you buy is local or labeled “certified organic.” Let’s all work together to put the finishing touches on this clean food movement.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

EcoWatch.com

EcoWatch.com

SillySheeple.com

Survey Reveals Americans Don’t Trust Scientists on GMOs

GMO-apple-label-735-260
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Julie Fidler
December 8, 2016

A new survey from the Pew Research Center of 1,480 people shows that many Americans don’t trust GMOs, or scientists, for that matter. Well, people don’t really see the purported benefits of GMOs, at least. [1]

image-gmo-ps_2016-12-01_food-science_0-01

Generally speaking, Republicans and Democrats have some vastly different attitudes about climate change, but that’s not the case with genetically modified organisms. According to the poll, it didn’t seem to matter what political party respondents aligned themselves with, either. [2]

The authors of the report write:

“Roughly equal shares of Republicans (39%) and Democrats (40%) feel that genetically engineered foods are worse for people’s health. And, half of Republicans (50%) and 60% of Democrats have positive views about the health benefits of organic foods.”

When you write about stuff like GMOs for a living, you get to read all sorts of totally obnoxious sarcastic, snarky comments about how ignorant and uneducated you must be to be wary of GMOs – as if its wrong to be cautious. (Yes, nothing is more ridiculous than questioning food that is created in a lab.) Yet, Pew found that about 39% of respondents with postgraduate degrees felt that foods with GM ingredients are worse for health, while 32% of those with a high school diploma or less said the same.

Statistically significant? Nah. But it tickled me a little.

When asked to self-report their “scientific knowledge” as “high,” “medium,” or “low,” those in the “medium” category were the most likely to think GM crops are worse for health (47%), while those in the “high” category weren’t quite as worried about the potential health ramifications of GMOs (37%). Those with “low” scientific knowledge were the least concerned about the effects of GMOs (29%).

No, political lines didn’t seem to divide respondents’ opinions on GMOs, but interestingly enough, respondents were almost as likely to believe that a scientist’s own political leanings would influence his or her research as much as his or her concern for the public interest.

image-gmo-ps_2016-12-01_food-science_0-03

What’s more, a large percentage of respondents also believed that a scientist’s professional aspirations were equally likely to dictate research findings as actual evidence.

Pew says that, overall, Americans’ attitudes about food and health are not determined by politics or demographics. The researchers write:

“The divides over food do not fall along familiar political fault lines. Nor do they strongly tie to other common divisions such as education, income, geography, or having minor children. Rather, they tie to individual concerns and philosophies about the relationship between food and well-being.

One indicator of such philosophies is the degree of concern people have about the issue of GM foods. The minority of U.S. adults who care deeply about the issue of GM foods (16%) are much more likely than those with less concern about this issue to consider GM foods worse for health (75% vs. 17% of those with no or not too much concern about GM foods); they are also much more likely to consider organic produce healthier: 81% compared with 35% of those with no or not too much concern about GM foods.”

Here are a few more findings from the survey:

  • 48% said GM foods were no different from non-GMO foods.
  • 64% agreed that scientists understand the health effects of GM foods “fairly well” or “very well,” but 35% said scientists either don’t know much about the health effects or know nothing at all.
  • 16% of adults said they cared “a great deal” about GM foods, while 37% said they cared “some” about the issue. About 31% said they didn’t care too much and 15% didn’t care at all.
  • Younger adults were more likely to consider GM foods a health risk, with 48% of those 18 to 29 saying that GMOs are worse for health than non-GMOs compared with 29% of those 65 and older.

image-gmo-ps_2016-12-01_food-science_0-05

Don’t let anyone tell you you’re a dolt for being worried about genetically modified food!

Read More at: NaturalSociety.com

Sources:

[1] Vocativ

[2] Food Navigator

EPA just approved another toxic herbicide linked to infertility, birth defects and lung cancer in both humans and animals

Image: EPA just approved another toxic herbicide linked to infertility, birth defects and lung cancer in both humans and animals

Source: NaturalNews.com
Daniel Barker
December 7, 2016

The EPA has just approved the widespread use of a highly toxic herbicide called dicamba, a chemical which poses serious health risks to both animals and people. In doing so, the agency has turned its back on its legal obligation to assess any threat to endangered species, as well as its responsibility to protect human health.

Dicamba has been in use for years, and is an ingredient in more than 1,000 farming and gardening products. Under the EPA’s new guidelines, however, its use is expected to increase on a massive scale.

Dicamba use will increase current levels more than 20 times

The EPA approval covers the use of dicamba for spraying dicamba-resistant GMO cotton and soybean crops that were developed by (you probably already guessed it) Monsanto as an alternative to its glyphosate-resistant GM crops.

From The Daily Sheeple:

“Dicamba is part of Monsanto’s two-point plan: replace glyphosate (the main ingredient in the company’s best-selling RoundUp weed killer), as it increasingly comes under fire, and create public acceptance of the GM crops engineered to withstand dicamba.

“Monsanto’s own conservative estimates predict that dicamba use on soybeans will likely rise from around 233,000 pounds per year to 20.5 million pounds per year — and dicamba use on cotton could go from 364,000 pounds per year to 5.2 million pounds per year.”

Dicamba health risks

Like many other toxic herbicides, Dicamba can cause a range of serious negative health effects in both humans and animals. Dicamba exposure has been linked to lung cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, reproductive damage, birth defects and hormonal disruption.

Monsanto would like for people to believe that dicamba represents a safer alternative to glyphosate, but it is also a highly toxic herbicide that will have an as-yet unknown impact on the environment and human health when its use is so dramatically increased.

The danger posed to other crops by dicamba

Dicamba has recently been making headlines due to crop damage caused by drift. At least 10 states have reported widespread damage to thousands of acres of “non-target” crops, and in one case, a farmer was allegedly killed over a dicamba drift incident:

“Allegedly, a farmer on the Missouri-Arkansas border applied dicamba without a permit and caused significant damage to a neighboring farmer’s soy crop. An argument bubbled over, which led the shooting death of one farmer, and the arrest of the other.”

Much of the recent drift problem was caused by illegal spraying of dicamba, and Monsanto has been highly criticized for selling its dicamba-resistant seed before the EPA approved the herbicide for use.

This resulted in widespread illegal spraying and incidents of herbicide drift – one peach farmer in Missouri lost 30,000 trees. Drift damage from dicamba also affected watermelon, tomato, rice and many other crops as well as non-dicamba-resistant strains of soybean and cotton.

Monsanto’s new dicamba-based herbicide product – designed to work with its dicamba-resistant GM soybean and cotton seeds –  is theoretically formulated to minimize drift contamination, but some are highly skeptical about its true effectiveness, while others worry that many farmers will continue illegally using the old drift-prone dicamba products.

At any rate, the EPA’s approval means that tens of millions more pounds of carcinogenic poison will be dumped yearly into our soil, water and air as the result of a money-making scheme propagated by an evil monopoly bent on owning and genetically manipulating the world’s seed supply, while destroying biodiversity and marginalizing those who would rather rely on organic farming techniques.

Monsanto wins a major victory with the help of the EPA

It sounds like the plot of an improbable Hollywood disaster film, but it’s all too real. Monsanto – after losing much of its company’s stock value and being forced to lay off a sizable portion of its workforce in recent years – seems to be rebounding with new strategies to maintain its stranglehold on global agriculture and food production.

Of course, having the EPA in its pocket hasn’t hurt Monsanto’s cause, either. In the war against food freedom and biodiversity, it appears Monsanto has just won a decisive battle.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

TheDailySheeple.com

BiologicalDiversity.org

EcoWatch.com

Why do so many Americans continue to choose junk food over healthy food?

Image: Why do so many Americans continue to choose junk food over healthy food?

Source: NaturalNews.com
Isabelle Z.
December 6, 2016

Even though more people than ever are switching to organic food and other healthier choices, the American diet in general remains very unhealthy. With obesity and its related health problems reaching epidemic proportions, many people wonder why Americans continue to make such bad choices when it comes to food.

The problem cannot be blamed on a lack of information, especially not in the Internet Age. While some people still remain largely ignorant when it comes to the dangers of GMOs, for example, most people in the year 2016 realize that junk food is not good for their health.

Other people say that it’s a lack of money that drives people to make poor food choices, with people able to stretch their money a lot further on the McDonald’s $1 menu than in the organic section of a supermarket. This could be part of it, although other calculations have shown that the average amount of benefits provided by food stamps is sufficient for a healthy diet. Organic produce can also be grown at home cheaply, even without a yard.

Some say it’s because Americans are too busy working to make a wholesome meal from scratch, so they just grab whatever prepackaged foods they can find. While that might be true for some people, it doesn’t explain why someone in search of a snack would grab a bag of chips over a banana, solely in the interest of saving time.

Others posit that it’s largely an issue of taste, with people preferring the flavor of potato chips to that of spinach, for example. Again, it seems reasonable, but anyone who has ever taken a serious approach to a clean diet can tell you that there are many flavorful choices out there that do not put your health at risk.

Junk food is addictive, plain and simple

Nevertheless, the idea that it’s a matter of personal preference ties into one of the most compelling reasons people eat junk food: It is highly addictive from a scientific standpoint. In fact, a series of studies have shown that rats can become so addicted to a junk food diet that they would rather starve than eat healthy food, mimicking the addictive pattern that nutritionists see in humans who eat junk food despite knowing better.

Junk food is actually engineered to make people want more, which is why the Lay’s potato chip slogan promising that “No one can eat just one!” is so alarmingly accurate.

Junk food is engineered to trigger overeating

Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Tricked Us author, Michael Moss, says that Doritos and Coca-Cola are largely successful because of their complex formulas that taste very good but do not have one single prominent flavor that triggers the brain to stop eating.

Meanwhile, he says that Cheetos contain a remarkable number of attributes that make the brain crave more, not the least of which is their ability to melt in your mouth, which tricks your brain into thinking they don’t contain any calories and makes you want to keep eating them. Food companies employ teams of chemists, neuroscientists and physicists to get the ratio of sugar, salt and fat just right to keep people coming back for more.

A study from UNSW’s School of Medical Sciences found that feeding junk food to rats caused them to lose interest in novel foods, an effect that lasted even after being put back on a diet of healthy food. This could be one reason that people who eat a lot of junk food can’t get out of their rut – trying healthier alternatives no longer appeals to them, as they’ve lost their natural preference for variety.

Processed food also tends to contain a lot of sugar, even the savory choices. Americans eat 152 pounds of sugar every year on average. With sugar being eight times more addictive than cocaine, it’s easy to see why so many people are struggling to kick the habit.

As long as food companies keep pumping their foods with chemicals that keep people coming back for more, America’s junk food obsession is not going to go away.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources include:

TreeHugger.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Moms Speak Out About Genetically Modified Foods [GMOs]

Source: InstituteForResponsibleTechnology
November 23, 2016

No mother ever knowingly risks her child’s health. Hear what these mothers have to say about their experience with genetically modified foods.

Podesta email bombshell: Clinton campaign was heavily funded by Monsanto

Podesta emails

Source: NaturalNews.com
Ethan A. Huff
November 12, 2016

Julian Assange’s sacrificial effort to expose the vast corruption behind the Clinton Machine through his “WikiLeaks” releases, has done so much over the past year to change the course of both the nation and the world for the better – most notably with the recent election of outsider Donald J. Trump as America’s next president-elect. But what else do these WikiLeaks releases reveal that hasn’t been covered by the media, particularly with regards to food policy?

A simple search for the word “Monsanto” in The Podesta Emails batch of leaked email documents shows that the biotechnology giant is a close friend of Hillary Clinton and her family’s Clinton Foundation – big surprise, right? Dozens of emails and email chains speak about the world’s most evil corporation, several discussing its many contributions to what has now been exposed as a massive money-laundering “charity” scam that the Clintons used to line their own pockets.

Along with Goldman Sachs, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble and a multitude of other ill-regarded multinationals, Monsanto is exposed as being a longtime contributor to the Clinton Foundation, likely “scratching the back” of the organization with pay-to-play “donations” in exchange for political favors. This is, of course, what the Clinton Foundation is all about, we now know, which is why the Clinton campaign worked so hard during the final days of the election to keep all eyes distracted from WikiLeaks.

But these tactics ultimately failed, and what the public now has access to via WikiLeaks is incredibly telling as to the nature of Clinton’s relationship with Monsanto. While secretary of state, for instance, Hillary Clinton used her position to “target” nation states that hadn’t yet accepted Monsanto’s agenda. Countries that didn’t cooperate with the plan to adopt transgenic crop technology, it was revealed, were punished with economic and other forms of “retaliation.”

After word of all this broke headlines, Hillary Clinton earned herself the name “Bride of Frankenfood” for her now-exposed ties to the biotechnology industry, a position that way-back-when cost her in terms of public support. But what we now know from WikiLeaks is that Clinton’s handlers worked overtime to rebrand her as an opponent of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), a position that her primary opponent Bernie Sanders genuinely held, and that helped him tremendously in gaining grassroots support.

Hillary campaign tried to steal Bernie Sanders’ platform, emails reveal

Back in March, a peculiar email sent from Gary Hirschberg, chairman of the “Just Label It” GMO labeling campaign to John Podesta, campaign chairman of the Clinton campaign, exposes plans by insiders to rebrand Hillary as some type of hero for food freedom. Dated March 16, 2016, the email sent by Hirschberg, who also serves as chairman of the organic brand Stonyfield Farm, urges Podesta to have Hillary “weigh in” on the GMO issue “if we hope to tap the Bernie progressives’ enthusiasm after he concedes.”

Clinton’s attempt to ride on the coattails of Bernie’s legacy ultimately failed, but it wasn’t the only time that such a strategy was attempted. According to another email, the campaign also tried to brainstorm ways to rebrand Clinton as a dynamic candidate who demonstrated genuine human emotions, as opposed to the “overly programmed” liberal demagogue perception that dominated her previous run for the presidency.

All in all, 46 emails in The Podesta Emails archive make mention of Monsanto, and many others discuss biotechnology and other elements of the industrial agriculture system to which Hillary Clinton is bound in allegiance due to her strong financial connections with this industry. Now that she’s out of the running for president, though, the American people will hopefully no longer have to endure anymore of her lies.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:

WikiLeaks.org

Collective-Evolution.com

GlobalResearch.ca