Monsanto, DuPont Unleash Highly Toxic, Drift-Prone Dicamba Herbicide Endangering Public Health & North America’s Food Supply

Dicamba herbicide
L.J. Devon
July 13, 2016

Certain kinds of plant growth are becoming more invasive in farmers’ fields. These super weeds are resisting the increased use of glyphosate and other herbicides. It has been going on for awhile now. Nature is fighting back. Weeds are finding new ways to adapt and survive.

Take for instance, the garlic mustard plant (Alliaria petiolata), which has become increasingly invasive in the Midwest in recent years. It is now recommended that farmers fight back this plant with cold weather application of glyphosate. This strategy also kills many great herbs, such as shepherd’s-purse and common chickweed, to name a few.

As ecological diversity of plant life disappears and as super weeds take hold in the fields, biotech corporations have only one solution…

Abusive cycle continues with wide scale release of toxic dicamba herbicide

Corporations, like Monsanto and DuPont, believe the solution to the problems they create is to continue the abusive cycle of creating stronger herbicides – which only endanger public health, strip the soil of its minerals and nutrients, and kill off beneficial, native plant life.

How else would these biotech corporations continue to protect their monopoly on genetically modified seeds? How else would they continue to control farmers, agriculture, and the food supply?

Even though these corporations continue to destroy the environment and public health, regulators at the USDA continue to give Big Biotech the green light for unleashing new waves of highly toxic herbicides.

Like partners in crime, Monsanto, DuPont, and the USDA are coming together to unleash the highly toxic, drift prone dicamba herbicide for Monsanto’s new line of GM dicamba-tolerant soybean and cotton seeds.

Monsanto always has another “answer” for the problems they create. The USDA even admits that these new dicamba-tolerant seeds are “not likely to provide for agronomic sustainability” but they approved their commercial release anyway.

The USDA predicts that there will be an 88-fold increase in dicamaba spraying in the next year. To prepare for wide scale dicamaba sales, Monsanto has already asked the Environment Protection Agency to increase tolerance levels for dicamaba by 150-fold for use on cotton seed.

Dicamba is very drift prone, threatening organic farming and all broad leaf plants

Virtually all broadleaf plants, including fruits, nuts, vegetables, and non-GM commodity crops face certain eradication in the presence of dicamba. Not only does this herbicide drift after it is sprayed, but it also evaporates in the days and weeks after application, drifting for miles before destroying another person’s crops and plants. Dicamba is designed to disrupt the normal growth processes of plants through hormonal pathways.

Unleashing the new herbicide will have irreversible effects on native flora and fauna and will continue the chemical assault on human health. To make matters worse, dicamba has a bad reputation for drifting to neighboring fields and committing genetic damage to organic, non-GM crops. Organic farmers suffer crop losses because of herbicide drift. Herbicides like dicamba inadvertently yet predictably assault the property of organic farmers, hurting their yields and making it harder for them to keep their food free of toxins. Furthermore, organic farmers have no recourse in the courts because herbicide-doused, GM seeds are a protected, patented property. In fact, Monsanto has a sordid history of actually suing organic farmers, claiming that their GM technology is stolen when their GM seeds mate with plants from neighboring organic farms.

On top of all this, organic farms have to go through strict, expensive testing and validation to prove that their crops are indeed clean and free from biotech toxins. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t toxic GM food be placed under heavy scrutiny, labeled with warning stickers, and strictly sanctioned off so it won’t pollute real whole foods?

If herbicides and GM traits drift to organic fields, organic farmers should be able to sue Monsanto, not the other way around. Thankfully there are ways to grow clean food and protect it right at home, year round. These clean growing methods can and should be implemented on a large scale, but since the North American agricultural system is rigged and owned by the biotech industry, individuals will have to take matters into their own hands. Learning to grow your own food is a great way to make positive change happen, right at home.

Read More At:

Consumer Advocate Refutes Study Saying GMO Food Is Safe

Source: RT America
May 22, 2016

Consumption of genetically modified food has not harmed human health, according to a new UN report – criticized for its ties to industry. GMO crops are not increasing yields, the report said, but also show no major proof of environmental ruin. Jeffrey Smith, consumer advocate of the Institute for Responsible Technology, joins RT America’s Manila Chan and argues otherwise.

Dr. Mercola Interviews Ronnie Cummins On Genetically Modified Organisms [GMOs]… Natural health expert and founder Dr. Joseph Mercola interviews Ronnie Cummins, founder of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), about the battle for GMO Transparency.

Big Food Trickery? SmartLabels to Act as ‘Real’ GMO Labeling

But This Is Why It Doesn’t Work

Christina Sarich
February 3, 2016

Imagine strolling down your grocery store’s aisles, and you pick up a food that has been packaged with some deceptive labeling that says it is ‘all natural’ or ‘made with wholesome ingredients.’ You want to purchase only healthy, non-GMO food, along with countless others. But the labeling is unclear. This is exactly what the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association (GMA) wants consumers to feel – lost.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association is a trade association of the food industry, representing the world’s largest branded food, beverage and consumer product companies. It is also largely represents a group of food producers who are against GMO labeling, keep consumers in the dark about what’s in the food.

SmartLabel to Give Food Info, but Bypass GMO Labels

Though making a simple ‘verified, non-GMO’ label appear on every food package would cost about one cent for food manufacturers, they are instead counting on consumers to be too lazy, too busy, or too confused to scan a ‘smartlabel’ – one of the latest techniques used by the industrial agricultural paradigm and mega food companies who don’t want you to know that they are putting genetically modified ingredients in your food. Yeah, they want to incorporate it, but they expect everyone to go around scanning every product in a supermarket? I think not.

The GMA launched their new initiative aimed at “satisfying both consumers and food producers in the fight over whether to label foods with genetically modified ingredients,” but even with 30+ companies of literally thousands agreeing to participate in the SmartLabel initiative, you’ll have to have a smart phone and lots of extra time on your hands to figure out if you’re eating GMOs.

When a consumer scans the QR code on their smart phone, they will be taken to a ‘detailed product information page,’ through Google, Yahoo, or Bing, or be directed to the company’s website. You’ll have to do this for each and every product you are considering purchasing – or you can just purchase products that clearly say non-GMO verified. That is until the GMA finds a way to say that this label, already being used on thousands of products by companies who are not trying to dupe consumers, is somehow unfair. You know that’s coming next.

The idea wouldn’t be a bad one IF it were implemented in addition to GMO labeling and all the other information available on food products. But alas, that is not the case.

The GMA attests that all (30) of these SmartLabel landing pages will be organized in a similar format with a consistent look across products, but it is completely voluntary. By the end of 2017, 20,000 food products are expected to use the QR coding system, but if consumers keep voting with their wallets, about half of those companies will go belly up for trying to keep us from knowing when we are eating toxic food.

Continue Reading At: