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.
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 10, 2017
Remember the glorious promise of agribusiness in the 1950s? Or even more importantly, the glorious and breathtakingly exciting days of the Administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, when the doctrine of “substantial equivalence” signaled the glorious end to human hunger, vastly expanded crop yields, and other boons to human health? Remember all the confident and assured results of modern science? Remember how we were assured this was “the solution?”
Well, Mr. C.S., a regular reader here found an important article by F. William Engdahl, which points out yet another emerging trend in agriculture that we’re certain I.G. Farbensanto, and its new member-corporation, Bayer (of the real I.G. Farben-Carl Duisberg fame).
To set that emerging trend into context, let us recall that IG Farbensanto was quick to reassure the public that their corporate science was thorough and that there were no dangers to GMOs. Then the independent science began to come in, linking cancers in agricultural animal populations to GMO consumption. Then came the studies of human cancer-GMO correlations. Then came Russia’s ban on GMOS (the only sane country in the world, in my opinion, on this issue).
Oh but wait… even though those might be a risk in a certain segment of the population, we need GMOs nonetheless, because they dramatically increase crop field yields, and that will mean more food, and more poor people can be fed.
Of course, they weren’t telling us that Indian farmers were committing suicide because they could not afford to pay for the more expensive GMO seeds, and of course, more yield and more GMOs mean more money lining the pockets of IG Farbensanto and its shareholders.
But… woops!… then came studies about how, over time, yields in GMO fields actually decreased, while costs of maintaining production increased, relative to good ole mother nature and her natural seeds, which any one can plant without having to pay a royalty or license fee (mother nature’s seeds, you see, aren’t patented, and therefore IG Farbensanto can’t make money from them).
Well, you can add to the list the following:
Will Superweeds Choke GMO to a Timely Death in USA?
The problem is that Mother Nature can react faster than the Rockefailure interests can strategize its plots and cabals:
Now with ruthlessness against the crass violation of natural law that is inherent in the entire GMO eugenics experiment, nature is waging its own clever war on GMO crops in the USA. And make no mistake, the intent of the Rockefeller Foundation in funding the creation of GMO back in the 1970’s was and still is just that–eugenics.
It seems that the lies of Monsanto-Bayer, Dow-Dupont, ChemChina-Syngenta are coming back to haunt them. Far from their widely advertised claim that their patented GMO seeds need far less chemical weed-killers, USA farmers are finding out, over a period of years, that their crop acreages sprayed with ample doses of Roundup or other glyphosate-based weed-killers are fostering the growth of toxic Superweeds. Those superweeds are “glyphosate-resistant” meaning the Monsanto and other glyphosate weed-killers are useless. Farmers are forced to pour on other toxic weed-killer options to salvage their crops.
Three-quarters US prime Farmland
An alarming new study has just been published by the University of Illinois Plant Clinic highly relevant and highly ignored by mainstream irresponsible media. The study took some 593 field samples of approximately 2,000 waterhemp and palmer amaranth (pigweed) plants from ten farm states across the USA Midwest, the heartland of world agriculture, or at least until recently. They conducted careful testing and found the alarming results that across America’s farmbelt, 456 of the whole 593 field sites sampled showed Glyphosate Resistance – a total of 76.8%.
In other words, plant GMO seeds, and over time, your field will require more and more pesticides to deal with the super-resistant weeds. The bottom line: you have to love it, because in their greed and utter lack of respect for the principles of independent science, and for that matter, humanity itself, the GMO companies…
Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.
Source: TimesOfIndia.com
Subodh Varmal
December 17, 2016
NEW DELHI: Researchers have found that a large share of scientific studies on genetically modified (GM) crops were tainted by conflicts of interest, mostly because of having an employee of a GM producing company as one of the authors or having received funding from the company.
Out of the 579 published studies on GM crops that were analysed, about 40 per cent showed such conflict of interest, the researchers affiliated to France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) found. Their study is published in the journal PLOS ONE this week.
“We found that ties between researchers and the GM crop industry were common, with 40 per cent of the articles considered displaying conflicts of interest,” said the study.
They also discovered that studies with conflict of interest had much more likelihood of presenting a favourable outcome for GM crops compared to those with no conflict of interest.
“In particular, we found that, compared to the absence of COI (conflict of interest), the presence of a COI was associated with a 50 per cent higher frequency of outcomes favorable to the interests of the GM crop company,” the study said.
Common crops like corn, soybean etc. can be made resistant to certain pests by introducing genes from a bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis, hence the name ‘Bt’. Considerable research has been devoted to charting efficacy and durability of Bt crops.
Thomas Guillemaud, director of research at France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), told AFP that the team originally looked at 672 studies before narrowing down to the pool to 579 that showed clearly whether there was or was not a financial conflict of interest.
“Of this total, 404 were American studies and 83 were Chinese,” he said.
“The most important point was how we also showed there is a statistical link between the presence of conflicts of interest and a study that comes to a favorable conclusion for GMO crops,” Guillemaud said.
“When studies had a conflict of interest, this raised the likelihood 49 per cent that their conclusions would be favorable to GMO crops.”
“We thought we would find conflicts of interest, but we did not think we would find so many,” Guillemaud told AFP.
One limitation of the study was that it investigated only direct financial conflict of interest. As the authors point out in the study paper itself, “authors may have affiliations to GM crop companies of other types, such as being members of advisory boards, consultants, or co-holders of patents, and this could also have a significant impact on the outcomes of studies on GM crops.”
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.
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 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.
Sources:
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]
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.
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:
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
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Sources:
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.
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.
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.
Sources for this article include:
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
November 7, 2016
Ms. M.W. sent this article and I include it in this week’s blogs, reviews, and speculations because I found in it a small measure of hope. The story concerns GMOs, and The Ukraine:
Ukraine Parliament Committee Supports Stronger GM Crops Moratorium
What surprised me here is, of course, the history and relationships that emerged prior to and during the Maidan crisis and the US-sponsored overthrow of the legitimate government of The Ukraine and its replacement by the Proshenko crowd. Many people, however, may not recall that in the run-up to the crisis, various American “agribusiness” giants, like Mon(ster)santo, acquired ports rights on the Black Sea, and viewed The Ukraine – the traditional breadbasket of Europe – as a ripe new market to infuse with GMOs. From one point of view, the Ukrainian government could be viewed as the puppet and creature of the US State Department, of Darth Soros and his various NGOs(Non-Governmental Organizations), and the GMO giants.
Meanwhile, as we also know, across the border, Russia has all but banned GMOs completely in that country, and has become an agricultural exporter. I have called this “GMO geopolitics,” as various nations realize the value of the growing opposition to GMOs in various countries, and position themselves to meet and address that market need.
Well, The Ukraine now appears to be set to play some GMO politics of its own:
Despite massive pressure from U.S. multinational Monsanto and the Ukrainian Grain Association, Ukraine’s Parliamentary Committee on Agrarian Policy and Land Relations supported a new moratorium Monday on genetically modified (GM) crops until 2023.
Earlier in 2016, the Petro Poroshenko Bloc “Solidarity” MP, Mikola Lyushnyak entered a Bill to the Ukrainian Parliament to continue and strengthen the current moratorium on GM crops in the country.
“Why is the prohibition of GMOs so acutely on the agenda in society? Because so far there is no definitive scientific evidence proving the necessity of growing GM crops and also no evidence about the safety of GMOs or their usefulness to human health,” Lyushnyak stated.
“In Ukraine, which occupies a leading position in the agricultural sector, there is a good chance to become a GMO-free country… in the near future,” Lyushnyak concluded.
The Ukrainian Parliament will vote on the moratorium on a date which is yet to be announced. The strong Bill would ban the growing of genetically modified crops as well as production, processing, circulation, transit and import of GMOs capable of reproduction or transmission of hereditary factors.
And note, The Ukraine’s measure, according to the article, is being phrased precisely in terms of the global market, vs “pressures from (where else) Washington”:
Ukraine’s non-GMO corn varieties have also made it China’s No. 1 source, helping to turn the former Soviet breadbasket into a global player. The fear is that the growing GMO contamination levels will now endanger this new and growing market. (Emphasis added)
Note also that the argument of Mr. Lyushnyak, sponsor of the bill, is arguing that there is no evidence “proving the necessity of growing GM crops,” a new addition to the usual basket of arguments against GMOs, which tend to focus attention on the safety, rather than the necessity of growing them. The “necessity” argument was advanced usually in conjunction with “increased productivity” arguments and “feeding the hungry,” and thus Mr. Lyushnyak’s wording here is intriguing, for it suggests that perhaps he has followed recent Western studies, including some from American universities, which demonstrate falling per acre yields of GMOs over time, as compared to normal seeds, while costs actually rise over the long term. One important study that suggested these trends…
Continue Reading At: GizaDeathStar.com
_____________________________________________________________
Source: iHealthTube.com
October 30, 2016
Genetically modified foods haven’t been that long, relatively speaking. Do we really know the potential health effects after another generation or two is exposed to them? Jeffrey Smith says we’re already seeing health issues that are being caused by GMOs. And we’re seeing people reduce or eliminate these issues by taking out the GMNs. Learn how we know GMOs are already causing these health conditions.
TheBreakAway 