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.
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.
August 9, 2016
Nobody even thinks about it; certain foods are being genetically modified that even health nuts aren’t considering. Consider coconuts: There are more than 50 million tons of coconuts grown and produced every year, and 80 percent of them come from the Philippines, India, Thailand and Indonesia. Could many of those coconuts be absorbing cancer-causing radiation from the leaking Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan? How often do you check the country of origin when you buy coconut water? Well, that’s just the beginning of your search for toxins now, because it’s getting scary fast.
Biotechnology firms have already begun to work their evil in laboratories to create agronomic traits for coconuts so that they are resistant to insect pests, particularly the larvae of moths and butterflies. Right now, in Vietnam, genetically modified coconuts are being rolled out to change the characteristics of the composition of the fatty acids (the oil). Not only are field trials underway, but somehow, GM coconuts have found their way into American foods, including dessert items.
Research projects are claiming that the genetically mutated coconuts are limited to the laboratory and greenhouses, but that’s a big lie. One dessert called flan, which is sold in America, lists the genetically modified coconut right on the label, and says the product is made in Bedford, Illinois. So how’s that a field trial? That’s a pretty big field – it must stretch from Vietnam to Illinois, right across the ocean! The product is Raymundo’s Homestyle Classics Caramel Flan. The ingredients list on the front of the product lists milk, water, sugar, modified food starch, eggs, corn syrup, and “coconut produced with genetic engineering.”
So, certain coconuts now contain toxins that kill moths and butterflies, and surely the science journals will tout it, celebrating “science!” and how profits and production are now increased for the starving masses, who otherwise wouldn’t be able to find or afford anymore coconuts. Sure. And when the great flood, or drought, or tsunami hits the world, everyone will be saved by GM foods, supposedly, and everyone will also be dying of cancer and dementia, like those “pesky” bugs that eat “our” coconuts.
You see, biotechnology corporations are doing everything they can to ruin the best, healthiest foods on the planet. Coconuts provide an excellent source of good fat, and the oil is known to prevent Alzheimer’s disease. Along with organic olive oil and avocado oil, coconut oil is one of the last pristine, clean oils fueling longevity. Coconut fat is found in chocolates and chocolate coatings. The water contains many vitamins, and makes a great substitute for drinking water where countries like the USA pollute the tap water with fluoride.
Coconut is also a constituent of cosmetics, such as in soaps, shampoos, creams and body oils. How soon will GM coconuts become the norm, like GM corn, GM soy, GM canola and GM cottonseed? If you don’t read the labels on every single food, beverage, medicine and personal care product you buy and use right now, you had better start. Even your desserts should be made with quality, non-radioactive, non-GM ingredients. If you consume toxic insecticide and carcinogenic herbicide day in and day out, don’t exclaim “why me?” if a doctor diagnoses you with cancer. More than 95 percent of cancer cases are totally preventable. Check that flan and that coconut water for the words “genetically modified” or “genetically engineered.” This is no science to brag about. There’s good science and there’s bad science. Know the difference!
Sources for this article include:
June 15, 2016
The list of countries refusing Monsanto’s genetically-modified crops continues to grow. Highlighting the world divide on the issue, Brazil recently refused all U.S.-grown GM crops. While we are continually force-fed genetically modified foods — since they are in approximately 80 percent of all packaged, conventional foods in grocery stores in America — other countries are refusing to import them, grow them, or sell them within their borders.
As more nations pass laws that impose trade regulations on genetically modified goods, despite World Trade Organization back room deals, Monsanto and their cut-outs opt for ever-more devious strategies to insinuate their wares onto the world.
Despite this, as a Bloomberg article points out, “In recent years, some of the largest commodity trading companies have refused to take certain GMO crops from farmers because the seeds used hadn’t received a full array of global approvals, something that can lead to holdups at ports or even the rejection of entire cargoes.”
For example, Brazil.
In this instance, it is Brazil’s chicken farmers who won’t feed their birds GM corn; but there are other countries opting out of GM crops, too.
Ironically, Brazil is the the second largest producer of GM crops in the world after the U.S., and grows 29 varieties of GM corn, so they are likely pulling rank for trade rather than hoping to save their population’s health — but at least the chicken farmers see the detriment from using GM corn.
This doesn’t mean that a resistance in Brazil isn’t growing as well. Female Members of the Landless Worker’s Movement (MST) broke into a São Paulo State lab and destroyed millions of samples of GM prototypes not long ago that contained a carcinogenic pesticide.
There is a good reason for banning GM crops, even if they are only meant for livestock to consume. A new Seralini study says that the very first GM crop, introduced way back in 1996, was highly toxic to farm animals over the long-term.
Seralini highlights problems such as “partial paralysis (paresis) accompanied by great fatigue, and problems in the kidneys and mucosal membranes in the animals, followed by death in 10% of cases,” all from feeding the animals GM crops like corn, soy, and alfalfa. Not surprisingly, he finds that GM maize (like Monsanto’s highly touted Bt variety) are the most toxic of all.
June 6, 2016
A study published in 2004 received an award from the British Food Journal (BFJ) as the “most outstanding paper” of the year has been exposed as a total fraud. Authored by biotech hack Shane Morris, the study, entitled Agronomic and consumer considerations for Bt and conventional sweet-corn, used deceptive and undisclosed methods to sway buyers toward genetically-modified (GM) sweet corn seeds, only to later claim that consumers voluntarily chose the “frankenseeds” over the natural ones.
Known today as the “wormy corn” scandal, the original publishing of the paper back in 2003 was met with outrage after it was determined that Morris, who at the time was employed by the government agency Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, intentionally manipulated the views of his participants to achieve a predetermined study outcome. According to the public investigations group Powerbase, Morris and his co-authors posted whiteboard signage above natural sweet corn seed bins at a farm store that swayed farmers toward the GMO seeds.
The question “Would you eat wormy sweet corn?” was positioned directly above the non-GMO seed bin, followed by a detailed listing of all the pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, and fertilizers that would need to be applied to this non-GMO seed. These warnings, which were not disclosed in the study, unfairly pointed shoppers toward the “quality” GMO seed been where over 50 percent of participants ended up pulling their seed.
Based on this fraud, Morris and his team were able to make the claim that GMO corn seed is preferred by a majority of farmers, a spurious conclusion that has ever since been a self-fulfilling prophecy within the general farming community. It wasn’t until Toronto Star reporter Stuart Laidlaw uncovered the use of the signs that this failed study was finally exposed as industry propaganda.
“The case is a flagrant fraud,” stated Dr. Richard Jennings, a lecturer on scientific practice at Cambridge University. “It was a sin of omission by failing to divulge information which quite clearly should have been disclosed.”
When news of the fraudulent study went public, many people demanded that it be immediately retracted. New Scientist ran a full expose in 2006 demanding that BFJ take responsibility for failing the scientific community by publishing the study. The Canadian government even tried to distance itself from Morris, claiming that he wasn’t their employee at the time the study was conducted.
When this failed to spark action at BFJ, 40 scientists, including leading experts in the fields of science policy and research ethics, as well as two members of Parliament, issued an open letter in 2008 to the editor and editorial board of the journal calling for the study’s retraction. These experts hailed from the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Norway, France, Italy, Brazil, Indonesia, and Japan.
This letter, which openly called the paper a “disgraceful incident,” coincided with a fruitless attempt by Morris to sue his exposers for alleged libel. Morris attempted at the time to shut down both GMWatch and GM-Free Ireland for criticizing his immoral actions. He also tried to sue Tim Lambert, a computer scientist from the University of New South Wales, who was the first to prove the legitimacy of the deceptive signage.
“Shane Morris must be fairly desperate to create such melodramatic lies seven years after the fact,” stated Michael Khoo, a Greenpeace campaigner who Morris had irrationally accused of tampering with the whiteboard signs during the course of the study. “If any of these things had actually happened, wouldn’t he have been the first to call the police or tell the press?”
March 29, 2016
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has opened the door for farmers to plant MON87419, a new strain of genetically modified (GM) corn created by Monsanto to tolerate the weed killers dicamba and glufosinate without government oversight. The move will likely increase spraying of the herbicides.
Like earlier strains of GMO corn, MON87419 is designed to withstand being coated in toxic chemicals that wipe out weeds and other plant life on farm fields. The deregulation was announced by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service last Monday. 
The USDA deregulated the strain of corn after Monsanto petitioned the agency in August 2015. The move comes despite 2 dozen unfavorable statements received during the USDA’s public comment period. The consumer rights nonprofit organization Food & Water Watch was one such commenter. The group expressed concern that allowing the proliferation of such herb-resistant crops could “lead to an increase in dicamba use, which will spur the evolution of dicamba-resistant weeds and the abandonment of conservation tillage practices.”
Another commenter included The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, which said:
“Without a coordinated and thorough evaluation of the full technology package, and a meaningful analysis of impacts, adding yet another new crop/herbicide package will continue adding to the existing harmful effects on herbicides on ecological systems, human health, and farmers’ livelihoods through herbicide drift and nontarget crop losses; the widespread increase in herbicide-resistant weeds; and environmental and public health impact.”
The coalition called for an environmental impact statement (EIS) to determine what sort of environmental damage the GMO corn strain might cause. 
Monsanto is seeking to use dicamba to diversify and provide long-term growth, as generic products are seriously threatening sales of its blockbuster herbicide, Roundup. Farmers are also looking for alternatives to the toxic, glyphosate-containing product now that weeds are becoming resistant to it. 
According to the Save Our Crops Coalition, dicamba was “designed to eliminate broadleaf weeds, the use of these herbicides has the harmful side effect of injuring broadleaf crops, like soybeans, tomatoes, grapes, green beans, peas, cucumbers, squash, melons, pumpkins, and other fruits and vegetables. In addition, herbicide application inconsistent with label directions can harm corn production.”
March 20, 2016
County staff in Colorado’s Boulder County have been directed to draft a plan to rid county-owned land of genetically modified crops in the relatively near future. The directive was given recently (March 2016) by the Board of County Commissioners in the best interest of their people.
Under the current county cropland policy, adopted in 2011, tenant farmers are allowed to grow certain varieties of GM sugar beets and corn. But groups challenging the safety and health impacts of GM crops are eager to see them phased out. Advocates of non-GM agriculture fear that human health and the water, soil, and environment in general are negatively affected by growing biotech’s seed.
Conventional farmers currently growing GMOs on county-owned land argue that GM crops are safe They even claim that growing GM crops allows them to reduce the amount of water and pesticides they use. These are the same claims that the biotech industry has made.
No formal vote was taken, but the discussion by the Board of County Commissioners indicated that a plan for eliminating GMO crops would be supported by at least two of the three commissioners, Deb Gardner and Elise Jones.
Jones said the nearly 1,180 total acres of leased land could see GMOs phased out over a three-to-five-year period.
Ethan A. Huff
February 25, 2016
Absent even a shred of science-based evidence showing it to be safe, a new variety of genetically modified (GM) pharmaceutical “corn” awaits its planting somewhere in Central California, where authorities have agreed to allow a San Luis Obispo-based biotechnology company to grow it in the open air without any safety testing.
A clear act of ecoterrorism against the local agriculture system, the Applied Biotechnology Institute’s (ABI) expected planting of GM corn near Lockwood has generated a chorus of outrage within the local community. Like every other GMO in existence, ABI’s GM corn, which produces an enzyme known as trypsin that is found naturally in animals, has the potential to contaminate nearby crops and unleash an agricultural apocalypse.
There is so much opposition to the crop that ABI has decided to plant it in secret at an undisclosed location, where those with enough bravery to uproot or otherwise destroy it won’t have the chance. And the county’s agricultural advisory committee sees nothing wrong with the effort, which it speciously likens to growing natural corn.
February 19, 2016
Studies have conclusively proven that the popular herbicide Roundup causes birth defects, and an increasingly robust body of data linking the toxic chemical to cancer is also emerging. One of the most disturbing findings of this research is that the chemical may be carcinogenic in doses up to 4,000 times lower than what people may be exposed to during normal use of the chemical.
These findings have serious implications for those living near agricultural fields or in other areas with Roundup spraying.
Roundup is the trade name of Monsanto’s blockbuster herbicide glyphosate. It is one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, in large part because Monsanto has engineered genetically modified (GM) varieties of alfalfa, canola, corn, cotton, soy and sugar beets to resist the chemical concoction. This has led to a surge in Roundup spraying on agricultural fields worldwide.
Some of the earliest evidence of Roundup’s connection to cancer came from the “Soy Republic,” a region of several South American countries that now has 125 million acres devoted to GM soy production. Doctors in these regions have noticed such a sharp uptick in cancer cases since GMO cultivation took off that they have formed an organization, Doctors of Fumigated Towns, and held a conference in 2010. Studies have now confirmed what these doctors long suspected: Towns with more Roundup spraying have higher cancer rates.
“The change in how agriculture is produced has brought, frankly, a change in the profile of diseases,” said Argentinean pediatrician Medardo Avila Vazquez, who specializes in environmental health. “We’ve gone from a pretty healthy population to one with a high rate of cancer, birth defects and illnesses seldom seen before.”
Perhaps the most damning verdict for Monsanto came in April 2014, when the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a review of 25 years worth of research into pesticides and a type of cancer called and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The study found that organo-phosphorus herbicides, including Roundup, were associated with a higher cancer risk. A 2009 study in the United States also found a doubled risk of brain cancer in children whose parents were exposed to Roundup up to two years prior to the child’s birth.
Because correlational studies cannot prove causation, scientists have conducted numerous studies to see if Roundup does indeed produce the cellular and genetic changes that lead to cancer. The evidence is clear: It does.
Numerous studies have confirmed that Roundup causes DNA damage in a wide variety of animal species. Other studies have shown that human cells exposed to Roundup turn cancerous.
February 15, 2016
Russia’s food safety regulator Rosselkhoznadzor just announced a complete ban starting February 15 on all US corn and soy imports. This is a huge blow to organic and GM farmers alike, though the ban will be instated due to genetically modified crop and microbial contamination.
Though the total exports to Russia from the US are small in comparison to soybean exports, totaling over $156 million in recent years, with Russia importing only 4,742 metric tons of U.S. corn, the ban will still hurt US farmers.
Assistant Director of the Rosselkhoznadzor, Alexey Alekseenko said:
“Restrictions will be imposed on imports starting from February 15. They (the US) have to establish a system to ensure safety of products imported to Russia.”
China has issued similar bans in the past due to GM contamination, and only recently did an “about face” on the issue. US corn exports to the country recently dropped by 85% after a report detailing GM contamination was released.
Putin recently said that Russians need to be protected from GM crops. The food latest ban follows that credo. According to the regulator, the corn imported from the US is often infected with dry rot of maize. In addition, according to the Russian watchdog, corn can be used for transgenic crops in Russia. The potential damage from import and spread of quarantinable objects on the territory of Russia is estimated at 10-15 bln rubles ($126 mln-189 mln) annually.
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
February 3, 2016
The new year has also started with a bang on the GMO issue, and one of them concerns this story from RT, shared by Mr. G.B. Before we get to that, I want to recall a theory or hypothesis that I have been advancing over the past few years on this site in connection to the GMO issue, namely, that it would become a hot geopolitical issue, and that the BRICSA nations would lead the charge. On this prediction, we might put this one in the “half hit” column, for it appears that Russia is willing to do so. There were first the stories intimating that Russia was reconsidering the whole issue of GMOs. Then came those stories over the last two years that bans were being contemplated for indigenous Russian agriculture. Then came the bans, accompanied by stories that the Russian government wanted to sponsor long term scientific studies of their effectiveness, and human and environmental impact studies that were genuinely inter-generational. Last year, Russian Federation President Putin weighed in during his “state of the union” message to include mention of GMOs.
Now according to RT, Russia is considering a ban on American (note, American, and not all, GMO soybeans and corn):