Food Evolution Movie nothing but chemical industry PROPAGANDA to poison our food

Source: TheHealthRanger
Mike Adams
June 23, 2017

Pioneering food scientist and top selling author Mike Adams reveals why the new movie called “Food Evolution” is pure propaganda and disinformation from the chemical industry that poisons our food. Read more about the film at FoodEvolution.news.

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.

Dr. Mercola Interviews Ronnie Cummins About Genetically Modified Food [GMO] Awareness

Source: Mercola.com
Dr. Mercola
March 22, 2017

In this video, Dr.Joseph Mercola, natural health expert and Mercola.com founder, is joined with Ronnie Cummins, founder of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), in discussing the current state of the opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). To read other health articles, visit Mercola.com.

Whole Food’s promise to label everything with GMOs by 2018 is quickly approaching

Image: Whole Food’s promise to label everything with GMOs by 2018 is quickly approaching
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
March 21, 2017

As 2017 trudges on and 2018 grows ever-closer, inquiring minds want to know: will Whole Foods meet their promise of total and complete GMO labeling by next year? With tumbling sales and the closing of multiple stores, going back on their word is not something the food retailer can afford to do right now.

Four years ago, Whole Foods announced their plans to roll out GMO labels for all products that contain genetically modified ingredients. The grocery chain described their March 2013 decree as being the first time a grocery store would set a deadline for labeling GMO products. At the time, Whole Foods did not disclose what kind of labeling they intended to use.

On the Whole Foods website, the grocery chain states that they are “well on their way” to meeting their 2018 GMO labeling goal, and advertises that they have more than 30,000 organic and 13,500 Non-GMO Project-verified items in stores already. Whole Foods purports itself as a leader in the organic industry and claims to be one of the first retailers to pursue GMO transparency.

“At Whole Foods Market, we believe you have the right to know what’s in your food. So we’re the first national grocery chain committed to providing GMO (genetically modified organism) transparency for our customers,” states their web page.

The irony here, of course, is the fact that Whole Foods supported legislation that would dismantle state-level GMO labeling efforts, and replace them with at the federal level with fake GMO labels in the form of a QR code. Whole Foods Market CEO Walter Robb is on the record announcing his support of the phony Stabenow-Roberts bill. [RELATED: Read more about GMO labeling and legislation at GMO.news.]

Mike Adams reported that in this Aspen Institute video discussing the bill, Robb stated, “My view on the bill is that, and I’m pretty intimately aware of it, is that I think it’s an incredible thing that Sen. Stabenow has put together with Sen. Robert, when you take a look at the atmosphere up there on Capitol Hill, that this much was accomplished together [emphasis added].”

Robb went on to explain how he thought manufacturer choice in GMO labeling efforts was a great idea, and praised the compromise. But is it really a compromise when one has to use a QR code or call a 1-800 number to verify a product is GMO-free? It’s a deceptive compromise that will be cumbersome and confusing to consumers.

While Robb may be the co-CEO of a grocery chain, he is also quite the politician. Soon after the criticism of his support of the bill began rolling in, Robb made a statement on Facebook and authored a blog post in an attempt to explain away his approval of the bill. Naturally, the blog post was completed with a reminder of the company’s “transparency” and a few touches of self-aggrandizement for their efforts.

Robb has even reportedly called Vermont’s GMO labeling “too complex to follow.”

But, Whole Foods promise of GMO labeling hasn’t come to fruition quite yet — and there are lots of questions at hand. For example, will they be allowing their product manufacturers to opt for QR codes that cannot be read by humans and require a scanner? Or will they do the transparent thing and insist on a simple, easily understood label?

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

WholeFoodsMarket.com

DenverPost.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Superweeds Emerge & Target GMOs

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
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

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”.

Chicago gets its first organic fast-food chain

Image: Chicago gets its first organic fast-food chain

Source: NaturalNews.com
Daniel Barker
March 2, 2017

Fast food has an undeniable appeal, despite its unhealthy reputation – it’s convenient, cheap and satisfying, making it attractive on several levels. On the other hand, fast food products are notoriously packed with unhealthy ingredients: highly-processed mystery meats, GMO products, pesticide-laden produce and more.

But is it possible to offer a classic fast food menu consisting of burgers, fries and shakes, etc. using all-natural, organic ingredients – and without having to charge exorbitant prices?

Benjamin Brittsan and his wife Nicolette are betting on the concept by opening the nation’s first certified-organic drive-thru burger chain, called Nic’s Organic Fast Food.

The first restaurant will open in the Rolling Meadows suburb of Chicago this February, with plans to open 50 more Chicago-area locations before launching the chain nationwide – if all goes according to plan.

Nic’s first location is a refurbished Pizza Hut that will seat 60 people indoors in addition to its drive-thru. The restaurant features a mascot named Nic the Organic Farmer – a muscular, life-sized super-hero figure in overalls who is ready to “take back fast food from the clutches of pesticides.”

Brittsan stresses that his products are truly certified organic and not merely labeled as such.

From the Chicago Eater:

“The restaurant’s products have been certified organic by Quality Assurance International… Certification means the foods are free of pesticides and other chemicals. The certification is something that comes with standards and isn’t an empty buzz phrase like ‘all natural,’ said Benjamin Brittsan.”

For example, the beef used in Nic’s hamburgers is USDA-certified organic and free of chemicals, antibiotics or hormones. But the all-organic standard extends to everything on the menu at Nic’s, including the chicken nuggets (made from organic white meat), french fries and even the drinks, which include organic juices, sodas and coffees.

But don’t expect a lot of low-fat, vegan-leaning menu items at Nic’s. Sure, you can order a fresh green salad or a veggie burger, but the emphasis – as with any fast food restaurant worthy of the name – is on big, greasy beef hamburgers, chicken sandwiches, french fries and sodas.

There’s nothing particularly healthy about the BigNic Bacon Burger – two beef patties, two slices of cheese, smoked bacon and all the trimmings – but the important thing, according to Brittsan, is what it doesn’t contain.

“The organic lifestyle doesn’t mean you’re eating any healthier in terms of the food,” he said. “What you’re benefiting from is from what’s not in the food.”

The prices at Nic’s are around the same as popular burger chains such as In-N-Out Burger or Steak ‘n Shake, with burgers at around $5 and combos for under $8.

Whether or not Nic’s can compete with the big fast food chains remains to be seen, but there does seem to be a trend towards fast food that uses fresh, natural ingredients.

Meanwhile, sales at McDonald’s and some of the other mega chains are slowing down significantly and part of the reason is that Mickey D’s and others have been so slow in cleaning up their act, in terms of using quality ingredients.

In fact, one of the headlines in today’s news concerned recent testing of chicken used in Subway products revealing that it contained less than 50 percent chicken DNA. One can only imagine what the rest of the product consisted of…

There will probably always be a market for greasy cheeseburgers, french fries and milkshakes, but it may no longer be possible to use the most questionable ingredients imaginable and expect the public to buy it – especially when restaurants like Nic’s can offer products that satisfy those fast food cravings without having to poison your body with GMOs, pesticides, hormones, and antibiotics.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

Chicago.Eater.com

Chicago.Eater.com

NicsOrganicFastFood.com

WCPO.com

Nestle, Pepsi Fined for Concealing GMOs as Campbell Soup Announces Voluntary Label

Source: NationOfChange.org
Lorraine Chow
January 10, 2016

As the food fight over genetically modified food (GMOs) rages on in the U.S., six major food manufacturers—including Nestle, PepsiCo and Mexican baking company Grupo Bimbo—have been slapped with fines by the Brazilian Ministry of Justice for concealing the presence of GMOs in their products.

According to teleSUR, the respective companies are facing fines ranging from $277,400 to just over $1 million, amounting to $3 million in total.

The ministry’s decision came after a 2010 investigation carried out by Brazil’s Consumer Protection Agency, Senacon, which detected GMOs in various food products sold by the companies in Brazilian markets.

Senacon accused the companies of violating Brazilian consumer rights, including the right to information, freedom of choice and the right for protection against abusive corporate practices, teleSUR reported.

Since 2003, Brazilian law has required food products containing more than 1 percent of GMOs to carry a warning label—a yellow triangle with the letter “T” inside, standing for “transgenic.”

Brazilian Institute of Consumer Defense researcher Ana Paula Bortoletto praised the ministry’s decision to enforce GMO labels.

“The decision confirms the Ministry of Justice’s commitment to require all products that use genetically modified ingredients to include this information on their labels,” she said.

Although the ministry’s decision spells victory for Brazilian consumers demanding food transparency, the country’s relationship with GMOs has been fraught with contention in recent decades.

GMOs in the South American country were initially banned after the Institute of Consumer Defense won a lawsuit in 1998. In the ensuing years, however, black market GMO seeds spread widely into the agricultural space and ultimately forced the nation into adopting the technology in 2003. As Reuters described back in a 2005 report:

So sought after is the cost-cutting technology on the black market that over a third of Brazil’s massive soybean crop—the main farm export worth 10 percent of total trade revenues—is seen planted with pirated GMO seeds. And nearly all the country’s cotton seed has been contaminated by GMOs.

“There is strong demand, industrially and scientifically, for biotechnology in Brazil,” Jorge Guimaraes, president of Brazil’s CTNBio biotechnology regulator, told Reuters.

In 2003, faced with cracking down on the entire No.3 soy producing state of Rio Grande do Sul and thousands of other producers in other states, the government of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva after taking office opted to push for legalization and regulation of GMOs.

GMOs are now rampant in the country—Brazil is currently the second-largest grower of GMO crops in the world after the U.S. According to the Genetic Literacy Project, Brazil had 104 million acres of GMO crops in production in 2014, and “more than 93 percent of the country’s soybean crop is GM and almost 90 percent of the corn crop. GM cotton, more recently introduced, makes up 65.1 percent.”

While producers of bioengineered seeds tout its resistance to certain pathogens over organic seeds, as EcoWatch reported in 2014, Brazilian farmers found that “Bt corn” no longer repelled the destructive caterpillars it was genetically modified to protect against. In turn, farmers were forced to apply extra coats of insecticides, racking up additional environmental and financial costs.

The Association of Soybean and Corn Producers of the Mato Grosso region called on Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and Dow companies to offer solutions as well as compensate the farmers for their losses, who spent the equivalent of $54 per hectare to spray extra pesticides.

As for how the Brazilian public feels about GMOs, a 2014 study from the University of São Paulo suggests that despite the major presence of GMOs in the country, many consumers are skeptical of the food.

The authors of the study concluded that even after Brazil imposed the GMO label law, “the majority of Brazilians consumers still do not have a positive image of genetically modified foods, and do not consider it a buying option.”

The negative reputation of GMOs in Brazil could perhaps explain why Nestle, PepsiCo and the others decided to skirt the country’s label law.

Over in the U.S., one food company has decided to take the GMO label debate into their own hands. Campbell Soup Co., the world’s largest soup maker, has initiated plans to include a GMO label on its products.

Campbell is the first major food company to respond to growing calls for food transparency spurred by food safety advocates and concerned consumers, as well as states such as Vermont, Maine and Connecticut that have passed mandatory GMO labeling laws.

According to Just Label It, 89 percent of American voters are in support of mandatory GMO labeling.

The Camden, New Jersey company said in a statement that it will support federal legislation mandating all foods and beverages regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to be clearly labeled for GMOs.

Campbell “continues to oppose a patchwork of state-by-state labeling laws, which it believes are incomplete, impractical and create unnecessary confusion for customers,” according to the statement.

The company “continues to recognize that GMOs are safe, as the science indicates that foods derived from crops grown using genetically modified seeds are not nutritionally different from other foods.”

As EcoWatch exclusively reported, food industry groups have heavily lobbied politicians and spent millions in court to block states from mandating GMO labels.

In December, Congress decided not to include a policy rider in the federal omnibus spending bill that would have blocked states from implementing mandatory genetically engineered food labeling laws.

Read More At: NationOfChange.org

Will Superweeds Choke GMO To A Timely Death In The USA?

Will Superweeds Choke GMO to a Timely Death in USA?

Source: WilliamEngahl.com
F. William Engdahl
February 13, 2017

When we human beings become too self-destructive for our own well-bring and that of our Earth, sometimes nature takes control and does what we in our greed and stupidity refuse to do. The refusal of Governments around the world–with notable exceptions such as the GMO-free Russian Federation–to order an immediate global ban on planting of Genetically Manipulated Organisms, GMO, including for corn, for soybeans, for cotton to name just a few, along with an immediate ban on paired weed-killers such as Monsanto’s Roundup, is stupidity pure. The response of nature, however, may sound the death knell for American farmers’ use of GMO seeds more effectively than any labelling or WHO carcinogen warning. Superweeds are literally choking GMO plants to death across the US Midwest farm belt and that should send a very real signal that nature abhors GMOs and their toxic weed-killing chemicals

Since President George Herbert Walker Bush met with the directors of Monsanto in the White House in a closed-door 1992 meeting, American agriculture and the American people have been the experimental guinea pig for testing the effects of planting of GMO crops paired to specific toxic weed-killers.

G.H.W. Bush after the Monsanto powwow ordered US Government agencies to treat the untested GMO seeds and their paired weed-killer chemicals as “substantially equivalent” to non-GMO plants and not requiring extra government testing, one of the more lunatic decisions of a President who seems to have had a morbid affinity for lunatic decisions.

Today, a quarter century later, 96% or almost every ear of USA corn, and most every single soybean, 94%, planted today in the United States is GMO. Those GMO crops find their way into practically every store-bought food product agribusiness pushes on us today. Most of it is Monsanto GMO crops using, by mandatory contract agreement, Monsanto glyphosate-based Roundup weed killer. This is because at present the Monsanto GMO seeds are genetically-modified only to resist Monsanto Roundup weed-killer based on glyphosate. As well, some 90% of every cotton ball harvested in the United States is GMO, and sprayed too, with toxic glyphosate.

Nature revolts

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%.

The Illinois University study, which reportedly is going viral among US farmers through the Internet, showed that for four of the nation’s largest food producing GMO states, the following percent of fields had superweeds such as waterhemp or palmer amaranth that had developed resistance to glyphosate and most other major weed-killers.

In Illinois, 48% of the fields with superweed samples present tested positive for both glyphosate and PPO Inhibitors (sometimes called contact herbicides, another form of weed killer) resistance. That means the superweeds thrive despite herbicide doses. In Indiana it was 66.6% or two-thirds. In Iowa, where the pro-GMO Governor, Terry Branstad is awaiting Senate approval as new Trump Ambassador to China, the percent of fields resistant to the superweeds is a shocking 74.7%, or three-quarters. And in Missouri, home state to Monsanto, the figure is 81.8%. This is significant I would say.

The University of Illinois researchers note that, “Fields with plants that are positive for both glyphosate and PPO inhibitor resistance are of particular concern due to the limited possibilities for control of these weeds.

Pigweed

Many natural food eaters associate amaranth with highly nutritious grain varieties. The Palmer Amaranth or Palmer Pigweed as it is known to farmers, is not so nice. It is toxic to livestock, and Palmer amaranth is also a threat most specifically to the production of cotton and soybean crops

Beginning 2006 Palmer amaranth was first confirmed resistant to glyphosate in some southern states, some twelve years after the commercialization of GMO crops in the USA. It choked off growth of cotton GMO plants. Since then it has spread north as far as Illinois, spread by wind. Palmer pigweed is the most aggressive pigweed species in growth rate and in its “competitive” ability against other plants, typically growing from 3-5 inches a day and dwarfing the cotton. In 2014, North Dakota State University’s “ND Weed Control Guide” selected Amaranthus palmeri, as “weed-of-the-year.”

Pigweed or Amaranthus palmeri is now unaffected by normal weed-killers across the US Midwest

Waterhemp is an even more aggressive variety of pigweed. Tall waterhemp produces between 300,000 and 5,000,000 seeds per plant. Tall waterhemp also has a growth rate, 50%-70% greater than other annual weeds. Its stem can grow up to three feet long and it can reduce soybean yields as much as 44%.

Farmers returning to non-GMO crops

The good news in this chronicle of nature’s stubbornness against mans’ stupidity is that more and more USA farmers are deciding to abandon GMO crops and return to non-GMO conventional seeds. Bill Giles, an Illinois farmer using GMO seeds since 2009 is planning to return to conventional non-GMO crops. He told Sustainable Pulse, “GM crops are on the edge of failure in the US as farmers are asked to fork out more and more money on herbicides to try to control the superweeds. We simply can’t afford it! It is near the end of the road for these crops and many of my friends in the Midwest are on the edge of turning back to conventional farming methods.”

Man and nature need to restore the natural harmony of life and nowhere more urgently than in restoring a natural food chain free from test-tube machinations to produce monstrosities such as GMO corn or GMO salmon whose true effects on humans is entirely unknown.

Read More At: WilliamEngdahl.com
_____________________________________________
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

Why Is The Deadstream Media Ignoring These GMO Studies?


Source: ActivistPost.com
Derrick Broze
January 26, 2017

Despite new research indicating health concerns and conflicts of interest related to Genetically Modified foods, the corporate media has, once again, remained silent. 

In late December, a series of studies and news stories went largely unreported and ignored by the corporate, deadstream media. These reports covered blatant conflicts of interest between the biotechnology corporations promoting genetically modified or engineered products and the researchers and politicians guiding legal policy. There was also the issue of a new study that shows negative health affects with rats who ingest genetically engineered food.

This study, Effect of genetically modified corn on the jejunal mucosa of adult male albino rat, which was published in the journal Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology, showed that rats fed GM Bt corn MON810 suffered serious damage to the surface mucous membranes of the jejunum, an important part of the small intestine. The signs of damage were apparent after only 90 days, according to the researchers.

The study used Monsanto’s MON810: Ajeeb YG, a genetically modified version of Ajeeb,  a local species of corn grown in Egypt. The GM version was created by Monsanto for the Egyptian market. The rats who were on the GM corn  consumed MON810 corn as 30% of their diet. The control group had the same amount of non-GMO corn. The GM group experienced damage on the finger-like structures within the intestine known as villi. These villi are responsible for absorbing nutrients from food. The researchers found them to be distorted and flattened. They also found signs of inflammation, disturbed mucosal glands, and congested blood vessels.

“Consumption of GM-corn profoundly alters the jejunal histological [microscopic] structure,” the researchers concluded.

Despite this astounding study, there has been little to no mention of its conclusions in the independent or corporate media. The study alone is not hard evidence that the same results will be found in humans, or even necessarily that the genetically modified corn is the sole reason for the damage, but it does absolutely warrant further investigation. Especially in light of growing concern around conflicts of interest.

In late December, researchers with France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research announced stunning findings in their study of potential conflicts of interest within the biotechnology industry. Published in the journal PLOS One, the study found that nearly half of studies on genetically modified crops were found to have conflicts of interest. The study, Conflicts of Interest in GM Bt Crop Efficacy and Durability Studies, also concluded that GM studies with conflict of interest had an increased likelihood of drawing conclusions which favored genetically modified or engineered foods.

The researchers examined 579 published studies and found that around 40% showed at least one conflict of interest. In these cases the conflict was typically related to someone involved with the study also working as an employee of a GM company or had received funds directly from the company. Given that America is one of the world’s largest consumer of GM foods, it was not surprising to find that our of the 579 studies examined, 404 were American and 83 were Chinese.

“We thought we would find conflicts of interest, but we did not think we would find so many,” Thomas Guillemaud, director of research at France’s National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) told AFP.

The authors also admit that the study was limited in its scope.  “We used the addresses of authors to identify their affiliations, only one type of affiliation, that relating to employment, was considered,” the researcher wrote. “However, 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.”

Again, silence from the corporate media on these conflicts. It should also be noted that other than Activist Post reporting on this, the only other link came from the Times of India, an English language website for news in India. There was one story regarding conflicts of interest that made the deadstream.

In early December 2016, the New York Times released a report that was quickly forgotten or ignored by the masses. The article details how committees associated with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) were being questioned for their own conflicts of interest. The NAS provides policy guidance to the U.S. government. They distribute this guidance via written reports from scientific committees.

The NAS’s committee on biotechnology has recently been challenged regarding how its members are selected. According to the NY Times:

Critics say that several committee members have financial ties to biotech businesses that could color the panel’s report, expected to be published soon, potentially giving short shrift to health and environmental worries.

By the academies’ own account, two of the scientists already violate the group’s extensive conflict-of-interest policy. The National Academies play an outsize role in the debate because of their stature in the academic community and connections to the federal government.

The NAS is also the organization responsible for a May 2016 study which claimed to have completely debunked any environmental or health dangers related to genetically engineered foods. However, once again, conflict of interest was an issue. Following the NAS study, the environmental watchdog organization Food and Water Watch released their own report pointing to possible influence from the same organizations that stand to benefit from the growth of GM foods. The report, Under the Influence: The National Research Council and GMOs, looks at “far-reaching ties” between the National Research Council, its parent organization the NAS, and biotechnology companies and agricultural corporations.

Food and Water Watch claims that the NRC and NAS:

  • takes millions of dollars in funding from biotechnology companies
  • invites sponsors like Monsanto to sit on high-level boards overseeing the NRC’s work
  • invites industry-aligned, pro-GMO scientists to author NRC reports
  • draws scientific conclusions based on industry science
  • operates at times as a private contractor for corporate research

Food and Water Watch also points to the fact that Monsanto, DuPont and other agribusinesses that produce or support GMOs have donated millions of dollars into the NRC’s parent organization, the National Academy of Sciences. The report also alleges that corporate representatives participate in “high-level decision-making processes at the NRC, including sitting on the board that oversees the NRC’s work on GMOs.”

How are Americans supposed to trust the corporate media, the scientists promoting genetic engineering, and the political bodies if they are completely corrupt and wrapped in conflicts of interest? We can’t. Grow your own food and vacate the unsustainable food systems that promote genetic engineering, factory farming, and pesticide use.

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist and liberty activist. He is the Lead Investigative Reporter for ActivistPost.com and the founder of the TheConsciousResistance.com. Follow him on Twitter. Derrick is the author of three books: The Conscious Resistance: Reflections on Anarchy and Spirituality and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 1 and Finding Freedom in an Age of Confusion, Vol. 2

Derrick is available for interviews. Please contact Derrick@activistpost.com

This article may be freely reposted in part or in full with author attribution and source link.

Did Bayer AG Do A Sly Deal On Glyphosate With The European Union Commission?

Did Bayer AG do a Sly Deal on Glyphosate with EU Commission?

Source: WilliamEngdahl.com
F. William Engdahl
January 24, 2017

There is growing evidence that the EU Commission’s extraordinary ruling of June 29, 2016 granting the toxic weed-killing agent Glyphosate a reprieve of 18 months until December, 2017 was made in order to allow sufficient time for Bayer AG, the new owner of Monsanto since December time to bring its substitute weed-killer on the market once the merger is complete. The issue is highly controversial not the least owing to a determination from an agency of the Geneva WHO that glyphosate is a “probable carcinogen.” The EU Commission ignored that WHO determination, relied on a fraudullent German government safety assessment and ignored the will of a majority of EU Governments to give glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s world-leading weed-killer, Roundup, an artificial life extension.

Early in 2016, the EU Commission recommended re-approval for another 15-years of the license for the controversial glyphosate toxin, the most widely used weed-killer in the world, the main ingredient in Roundup of Monsanto. The Commission, a decidedly anti-democratic, non-elected body of faceless bureaucrats, declared then that their “yes” decision was based on the determination by the EU’s European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that there was no reason to believe glyphosate is a carcinogen. That all was before the decision by Germany’s Bayer AG to takeover Monsanto.

The snag in that early EU Commission decision to renew for another 15 years glyphosate lies in the fact that the EFSA refused to make open disclosure of the relevant health and safety studies EFSA claimed to rely on. Most alarming in that initial EU decision to renew was the fact that EFSA’s decision went totally against the 2015 determination by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate, was a “probable human carcinogen.” In lay terms that means odds greater than 50% are that it causes human cancers on exposure. Glyphosate presence has been tested in ordinary drinking water or in food crops sprayed with Roundup of other glyphosate-based weed-killers.

German Government Corrupt Science

EFSA based its initial early 2016 glyphosate renewal approval solely on a report by Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), which in turn took its decision from a clearly biased report by Monsanto and other agrochemical industry groups. Using the Monsanto-linked assessment for glyphosate, the German BfR went against the professional and highly-respected WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer, stating, again using Monsanto’s self-interested claim, that glyphosate was “unlikely” to pose a cancer risk. IARC used only data that was in the public domain, but the corrupt German BfR based its report on secret industry studies by Monsanto and other agrichemical firms that it refused to release to IARC or to the public

Public pressure, the objections of several EU states and an EU-wide petition signed by more than one million EU citizens demanding an end to glyphosate use as well as a letter of protest signed by almost one hundred leading scientists to EU Health and Food Safety Commissioner (also known as DG SANTE) Vytenis Andriukaitis, were ignored.

The fact that the member states of the EU were unable to reach a required Qualified Majority vote in favor of renewing glyphosate, allowed the decision, through an EU Commission technical loophole, to fall to the clearly biased Vytenis Andriukaitis.

To little surprise, Andriukaitis ruled to extend. Until now however, the bizarre aspect was that he stated a renewal for only 18 months and not the 15 years requested by Monsanto and approved by him only a few months before.

Bayer Swallows Monsanto

The EU Commission extrordinary ruling flew in the face of the widely-accepted and even EU law that requires decisions based on the “precautionary principle,” namely that when there is the slightest doubt about health risks of a crop or chemocal, err on the side of precaution and ban.

Notably, Andriukaitis’ ruling for limited renewal of glyphosate was made on June 29 just as the boards of the German pesticide giant, Bayer AG and Monsanto were finalizing weeks of discussion of a friendly $66 billion takeover of Monsanto to create the largest agribusiness leviathan on the planet, with an alarming 29 percent of the world’s seeds, most of the market share of GMO patented seeds, and 24 percent of its pesticides and agrichemicals.

To make the situation more alarming for those of us seeking a healthy diet, in 2016 a huge cartelization of world agrichemicals and GMO seed makers took place. In addition to the Bayer swallow of Monsanto, ChemChina, a China state chemical company bought the large Swiss GMO and pesticide company, Syngenta. And the two other US GMO and agrichemical giants, Dow Chemical and DuPont, have also merged in the past twelve months. The Swiss company fended off that offer only to agree later to a takeover by China’s state-owned ChemChina. The effect is that these now three giant behemoth companies control nearly 70 percent of the world’s pesticide market and 80 percent of the U.S. corn-seed market, most all the latter GMO seed.

Bayer Takes Liberty

At this point, since the WHO determination that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen,” glyphosate’s days were clearly numbered. Now once the technical corporate takeover by Bayer of Monsanto is completed, expected towards the end of this year, 2017, just as the renewal for glyphosate expires, Bayer AG plans to push its fast-growing substitute for glyphosate known by the trade name, Liberty and Basta, a so-called systemic Glufosinate weed-killer similar to glyphosate but without (so far) the WHO stigma of carcinogenic.

Moreover, since the Monsanto patent on glyphosate-based Roundup expired, other companies have been flooding the market globally with cheap substitutes. Three Chinese companies — Jiangsu Sevencontinent, Hebei Veyong, and Sichuan Lier — have been aggressively exporting glufosinate since 2015. Production of glufosinate on the other hand is far more limited allowing Bayer AG, minus Roundup, to emerge as the dominant weed-killer giant. Moreover, by offering to sell off its Roundup busiess, the new Bayer AG appears to be making a noble sacrifice in the interest of reducing anti-trust concerns.

There is no aspect of the Bayer AG takeover of Monsanto that is positive for the world. To mention “anti-trust” violations is putting it mildly. Government anti-trust, certainly in the agribusiness sector is a dead letter. True protection of consumer health and safety is a dead letter, certainly in Brussels. How the Trump Presidency and his Agriculture Secretary nominee, former Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue, weigh in on this will be more than interesting to see. After all, Bayer-Monsanto is not “America First,” but a German company.

Read More At: WilliamEngdahl.com
__________________________________________________

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”