#Vault7 Problem Reaction Solution – #NewWorldNextWeek

Source: TheCorbettReport
James Corbett
March 9, 2017

Welcome to New World Next Week – the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:

Story #1: CIA Can Hack Cars to Carry Out “Undetectable Assassinations” – Just Like Michael Hastings
http://bit.ly/2n892M6

Crashes of Convenience: Michael Hastings
http://bit.ly/2mDpjLq

“The Operators” pp. 64-65
http://bit.ly/2m0Uex8

Story #2: Why “More Than a Million Traders” Are Boycotting Coca-Cola, Pepsi In India
http://bit.ly/2mDudrG

Interview With Max Keiser On Coke Boycott
http://bit.ly/2mDtc2C

NWNW Flashback: Indian Rapper “Overwhelmed” by Success of Unilever Protest Song (Aug. 14, 2015)
http://bit.ly/2m15oBV

Story #3: 3D-Printed House Takes Less Than A Day To Build And Only Costs $10,000
http://bit.ly/2mDuniW

#GoodNewsNextWeek: Sharing Is Fundamental
http://bit.ly/2ml8UsJ

Horrifying: Toxic chemical in Pepsi known to cause DNA breaking, fragmentation

Image: Horrifying: Toxic chemical in Pepsi known to cause DNA breaking, fragmentation
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
February 22, 2017

High-fructose corn syrup is’t the only ingredient found in sodas that consumers should be concerned about. Pepsi and other sodas contain a toxic byproduct known as 4-Methylimidazole, or 4-MEI for short, that may be increasing your cancer risks.

Pepsi has come under fire for violations of California’s Proposition 65 in relation to 4-MEI. The Center for Environmental Health even filed a complaint against the beverage giant in 2013 due to their violations. Pepsi has since paid the organization some $385,000 and provided them with updates on product compliance, and a settlement was reached in 2015. Following that settlement, Pepsi “agreed to require its caramel coloring suppliers to meet certain 4-MEI levels in products shipped for sale to the United States, to ensure that the carcinogen’s levels will not exceed 100 parts per billion.”

As of 2016, a newer settlement will now be requiring Pepsi to apply the same product standards nationwide.

What is 4-MEI and why should it be regulated?

4-MEI is an impurity that is created during the manufacturing of caramel colors III and IV. The FDA maintains that they have “no reason to believe” that 4-MEI is carcinogenic. The agency is reportedly re-evaluating the public’s exposure to 4-MEI to ensure manufacturers are using it safely but is not currently recommending dietary changes.

This is rather perplexing because studies conducted by the federal government clearly showed that long-term exposure to 4-MEI increased the incidence of lung cancer in both male and female mice. The federal government’s findings even prompted the state of California to add 4-MEI to their Proposition 65 list of carcinogens. While there are no federal limits yet for 4-MEI, the state of California requires products that contain more than 29 micrograms (mcg) to be labeled.

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment chose 29 micrograms as the “cut off point” because they concluded that amounts at that level or above pose a one in 100,000 risk of cancer — meaning that being exposed to that amount daily for a lifetime will result in no more than one excess cancer case per 100,000 people.

Urvashi Rangan, Ph.D., toxicologist and executive director of Consumer Reports’ Food Safety & Sustainability Center, believes that this amount is too high. “It’s possible to get more than 29 micrograms of 4-MEI in one can of some of the drinks we tested. And even if your choice of soft drink contains half that amount, many people have more than one can per day.”

Rangan explains that because colorants are deliberately added to foods, they should pose a negligible risk, which is defined as no more than one excess case of cancer per one million people. To meet that level, the experts at Consumer Reports say that sodas need to contain no more than 3mcg of 4-MEI per can.

Research on 4-MEI in soda

In 2014, Consumer Reports led investigative research on the amount of 4-MEI found in a number of different sodas. Between April and September of 2013, they tested 81 samples of different soft drinks from five separate manufacturers. In December 2013, another 29 samples were collected from the same five manufacturers. All of the samples were purchased in the California or New York metropolitan areas.

What they found was shocking: there was a tremendous amount of disparity and inconsistency among the samples. Most notably, samples of regular Pepsi from the New York area gathered during the first round of testing was revealed to contain an astronomical average of 174 mcg of 4-MEI. During the second round, samples from the same area averaged  32 mcg. The researchers also found that in general, New York samples boasted much higher levels of 4-MEI than their Californian counterparts.

The findings prompted Consumer Reports to petition the FDA for 4-MEI regulation and labeling. “Europe has labeling requirements and consumers in the United States should have the right to make an informed choice about what they are drinking and eating,” said  Dr. Rangan.

Following the Consumer Reports 2014 study, researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center For A Livable Future conducted their own research, which was published in 2015. Their research estimated average exposure to 4-MEI and modeled the potential cancer burden owed to the ingredient. What they found was that between 44 and 58 percent of people over the age of 6 consumed at least one can of soda per day.

Their data showed that current average 4-MEI exposure from soft drinks poses a cancer risk that exceeds the accepted negligible risk of one extra case of cancer per one million people.

Senior study author, Keeve Nachman — also the director of the Food Production and Public Health Program at the center, and an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health — stated that their research indicated soft drink consumers were being exposed to an avoidable and unnecessary cancer risk thanks to an ingredient that is added for purely aesthetic purposes.

“This unnecessary exposure poses a threat to public health and raises questions about the continued use of caramel coloring in soda,” Nachman said.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

TheHeartySoul.com

FDA.gov

FoodNavigator-USA.com

OEHHA.CA.gov

ConsumerReports.org

Journals.PLOS.org

Hub.JHU.edu

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

Printable List Of Monsanto Owned “Food” Producers

 List Of Monsanto

Source: CSGlobe.com
August 18, 2016

Here is a printable list of companies owned by Monsanto that consumers should avoid if they are concerned about their health.

There are several reasons that people are opposed to Monsanto, but among the top two are their involvement with GMOs and their corruption of the U.S. government.

One of the more outrageous schemes they pulled off in recent years was to ensure the passing of the “Monsanto Protection Act” that essentially prevented courts from prosecuting Monsanto over GMO-related health issues and was allegedly partly written by the company itself. Though the Act was only in effect for six months, similar bills have been signed into law that protect companies over consumers.

As for GMOs, many studies have suggested that genetically-modified food products can drastically alter the health of consumers in a negative way.

The number of Americans with chronic illnesses has doubled since the mass production of GMOs began and animals given only a GMO diet have shown to develop organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. GMOs have also show to cross-pollinate and last forever, meaning that the number of non-GMO products is decreasing and could ruin the health of future generations.

Though many of the products below may not contain GMOs themselves, the objective of a product boycott is to lessen the profit for Monsanto to show them that consumers are rejecting their practices and that we will not stand for their pollution or corruption.

 List Of Monsanto 1

If you wish to print this list, simply click on the list and choose “Print” from your browser’s menu (or press CTRL+P/CMD+P).

Here is an additional list of 10 corporations that control almost everything you buy

 List Of Monsanto 2

Read More At: CSGlobe.com

The Golden Triangle

000009

Source: HendersonLeftHook.wordpress.com
Dean Henderson
August 9, 2016

(Excerpted from Chapter 2: Hong Kong Shanghaied: Big Oil & Their Bankers…)

Long before Roy Carlson’s Bank of America fronted the seed money to launch BCCI into the darker recesses of Pakistan, the Shah of Iran had been a major depositor at an equally nefarious bank based in Sydney, Australia, but with a far-flung network that spanned the globe.

As with his BCCI deposits, the Shah understood that his contributions Down Under were funding “black operations” for the CIA.  In fact, the Shah single-handedly bankrolled a very large chunk of the Vietnam War.

The Shah’s investment adviser was CIA agent Kent Crane.  Crane often flew from Tehran to Sydney with Rear Admiral Earl “Buddy” Yates.  Yates served as Chief of Policy and Planning for the entire Pacific Command during the Vietnam War.  He was a member of Naval Task Force-157 where he worked with Ted Shackley, Ed Wilson and the others who had set up shop in Tehran where they peddled arms to the Shah.  While Crane was flying petrodollars to Australia, Ed Wilson was flying the Shah’s deposits north to the Swiss branch of the same bank.  Just as Shackley & Company were arriving in Tehran, Yates jetted to Sydney to join the staff of Nugan Hand Bank.

Frank Nugan and Michael Hand founded Nugan Hand in 1969.  Nugan was a prominent Sydney businessman with all the right connections.  Hand was an American Green Beret and military intelligence officer who worked in Laos for Major General Richard Secord’s CIA opium courier Air America.  Ted Shackley and Tom Clines were the CIA’s top two officials in Laos at the time.  In 1976, Hand helped Secord, who was by then heading MAAG in Iran, to procure a spy vessel for the Iranian Navy.  Ten of the nineteen stockholders in Nugan Hand Bank worked with either Air America or Continental Services, a subsidiary of Continental Airlines and CIA contract airline in SE Asia.

Air America re-supplied the CIA-created Meo Army in Laos, which fought a proxy war for the US against the communist Pathet Lao, whom had overrun the Plain of Jars region in 1964.  Air America ferried weapons into remote Meo villages, then returned to its base at Long Tieng loaded with opium grown by the villagers.

Long Tieng was also the headquarters of General Vang Pao, who became the premier opium warlord in the Golden Triangle during the Vietnam War.  Later he would serve Chinese intelligence in the Balkanization of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.  By keeping these three nations in a permanent state of war both the Chinese and the Americans would benefit for many years.  Some speculate that this was a key feature of the détente signed by President Nixon and Chinese Premier Zhou En-lai, who had himself been the target of CIA assassination attempts after he helped organize the ground-breaking 1955 Bandung Conference of Third World leaders.

When the Pathet Lao prevailed, taking over the entire country of Laos, the CIA abruptly pulled out of the Plain of Jars, leaving tens of thousands of Meo villagers to be slaughtered, ala Kurdistan.  Buddy Yates of Nugan Hand Bank did manage to relocate 3,000 Meo to Grand Turk Island in the Caribbean.  But the relocation was hardly humanitarian in nature.  The CIA wanted a trained paramilitary force to guard the Turks & Caicos, which was to become an offshore banking center, an Enron partnership haven and an important transshipment point for Colombian cocaine.  In 1982 the Chief Minister of Turks & Caicos was arrested in Miami with two other key government officials on charges of conspiring to smuggle cocaine.

At Long Tieng CIA opium was transferred from Air America planes to Vang Pao’s private airline, Xieng Khouang Air Transport, which then flew the opium into the Laotian capital Vientiane.  Vang Pao’s airline was 100% funded by USAID.  Since 1959, the US had also been funding Laotian Cabinet Minister and outspoken right-wing General Phoumi Nosavan.  While Vang Pao handled the CIA’s Long Tieng opium, Nosavan and his partner, General Ouane Rattikone held a monopoly over the importation of Burmese Shan and Chinese Kuomintang opium into Laos.

The CIA had been meddling in Laos since the late 1950’s, first employing missionaries and Thai commandos to train and advise its surrogate Meo Army.  According to Edward Lansdale, former Kennedy Defense Department official, by 1959 the CIA had sent eight Green Beret units into Laos.  By 1963 a 100,000-man army had been assembled.

Highly decorated Green Beret Paul Withers said his most important task was to buy up the entire opium crop from certain villages in the region.  CIA operative Del Rosario worked for Continental Air Service.  He says that as late as 1971 Continental baggage coming out of Laos was marked either “rice” or “diverse”, the latter of which meant opium.  Rosario would get messages over the phone saying, “…the customer is here…keep an eye on the planes from Ban Houai Sai.  We’re sending some goods and somebody’s going to take care of it.  Nobody’s allowed to touch anything”.

The CIA set up a Special Operations Group (SOG) in Laos headed by Ted Shackley and Tom Clines.  SOG members included John Singlaub, Richard Secord, Watergate plumber Raphael Quintero, Nicaraguan contra handler Donald Gregg and a young Marine lieutenant named Oliver North.

SOG trained special Meo sparrow units which assassinated more than 100,000 civilians in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam between 1966 and 1975.  SOG was the key component of Operation Phoenix, which was directly supervised by CIA Director Bill Colby and William Sullivan, later US Ambassador to Iran.  Operation Phoenix was funded through Vang Pao, Nosavan and Rattakone heroin sales, as were many of the CIA’s endeavors overseen by Colby, who moonlighted as legal and political adviser for Nugan Hand Bank and was the bank’s “branch manager” in Panama City.

Miami mobster Santos Trafficante followed the Shackley Operation Mongoose crew to SE Asia.  When Vang Pao’s opium reached Vientiane, it would be delivered to heroin labs set up in that city.  General Phoumi Nosavan’s Burmese opium arrived at these same refineries, which were run by General Ouane Rattikone, but owned by a more familiar entity.

When the Pathet Lao took the capital city they found that by far the largest of these labs doubled as the national bottling plant for Pepsi Cola.  The plant’s construction had been paid for by US taxpayers under a USAID program. The lawyer who landed this corporate welfare package for Pepsi was soon-to-be-President Richard Nixon.

From Vientiane, the heroin moved down the Ho Chi Minh Trail, where, according to New York Times reports, US-allied South Vietnamese Special Forces picked it up and flew it to military bases in Saigon.

Heroin traffic intensified in 1963 following the CIA-sponsored assassination of Vietnamese President Ngo Dien Diem and his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu.  Orchestrated by CIA operative Lucien Conein, the coup gave rise to a new Opium Monopoly led by US puppets General Nguyen Ngoc Loan and Premier Nguyen Cao Ky.

Continue Reading At:HendersonLeftHook.wordpress.com

U.S. Consumers Organize Massive Boycott Against Food Companies Refusing To Label GMOs

GMO labeling

Source: NaturalNews.com
Ethan A. Huff
August 4, 2016

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is organizing a nationwide boycott of all the companies that have been fighting against legitimate labeling laws for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), and specifically those that favored the recently-passed S.764 legislation, a faux “labeling” scheme backed by Monsanto that further turns the lights out on labeling transparency.

The bill, which many are now referring to as the Monsanto “DARK” (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act 2.0, was signed into law by Barack Obama on July 29. It nullifies existing state-level labeling laws like those of Vermont that would have mandated printed labels for all food items containing GMOs, and replaces these laws with a nationwide QR barcode system that’s both confusing and discriminatory, not to mention completely ineffective.

Members of the powerful Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which represents some 300 junk food and pesticide companies, helped ensure a victory for S.764, despite tens of thousands of calls and comments of opposition from members of the public. In response, OCA is now calling on all Americans to stand up and say no more, by promising not to buy products from the companies working overtime to keep people in the dark about what they’re eating.

What OCA is asking people to do specifically is to look for the new “Smart Label” QR codes – or what it has dubbed the “Mark of Monsanto” – on food products and, if present, to avoid purchasing those products, as well as any other products sold by that particular brand. Instead, consumers should look for products that bear a Certified Organic and/or Non-GMO Project Verified seal. Of course, the surest way to ensure that your food is truly GMO-free is to grow it yourself.

The only exception to this are healthy and organic “cheater” brands owned by parent companies that have contributed financially or politically to stopping mandatory GMO labeling. The traitor brands that consumers should avoid supporting, followed by their parent company names and financial contributions to fight GMO labeling, include:

• IZZE, Naked Juice, Simply Frito-Lay, Starbucks Frappuccino (PepsiCo: $8.8 million)
• Honest Tea, Odwalla, Keurig / Green Mountain Coffee (Coca-Cola: $5.5 million)
• Gerber Organic, Sweet Leaf Tea (Nestle: $3 million)
• Boca Burgers, Green and Black’s (Kraft / Mondelez: $3.9 million)
• Annie’s, Cascadian Farm, Larabar, Muir Glen (General Mills: $3.6 million)
• Alexia, Pam organic cooking sprays (ConAgra Foods: $2.6 million)
• Bear Naked, Gardenburger, Kashi, Morningstar Farms (Kellogg’s: $1.9 million)
• R.W. Knudsen, Santa Cruz Organics, Smuckers Organics (Smuckers: $1.5 million)
• Dagoba (Hershey’s: $1.6 million)
• Earthgrains bread (Bimbo Bakeries: $1 million)
• Simply Asia, Thai Kitchen (McCormick: $500,000)
• Applegate Farms (Hormel: $500,000)

OCA calls Obama out for betraying Americans by signing S.764 into law

Ronnie Cummins, international director of OCA, has also called Obama out for failing to deliver on his promise on the campaign trail to label GMOs. He wrote in a scathing indictment:

“Despite hundreds of thousands of signatures, phone calls and emails to the White House, President Obama on Friday, July 29, signed into law S.764, a bill that preempts Vermont’s GMO labeling law. The bill allows corporations to hide information about GMOs behind confusing QR electronic barcodes that more than a third of Americans can’t even read because they don’t have smart phones or reliable internet service.”

“It’s incomprehensible that Obama, who on the campaign trail promised to label GMOs, and who issued an executive order directing Congress not to preempt state laws, succumbed to industry pressure to betrayed [sic] the 90 percent of Americans who want GMOs labeled.”

OCA has also released a smartphone app that will help you identify which brands and products to avoid. It’s called “Buycott,” and it’s available both for the Apple iPhone and Google Android platforms.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:

CommonDreams.org

Salsa3.SalsaLabs.com

OrganicConsumers.org

Pepsi To Reintroduce Noxious & Dangerous Chemical Aspartame To Drinks – Aspartame Is Known To Have LEAST 92 Potential Side Effects

[Editor’s Note]

To Read More On The Disturbing Issues Regarding Aspartame Please Read:

Breakaway Guide To Aspartame

Pepsi
Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D. Heyes
July 4, 2016

A year ago PepsiCo announced that it would be removing the controversial sweetener aspartame from its Diet Pepsi products, claiming that was the No. 1 request from customers. But now the company says it is putting the sweetener back in Diet Pepsi, allegedly because that’s what consumers want.

As reported by The Associated Press, aspartame-laced Diet Pepsi will be back on U.S. shelves soon after sales of the soft drink plummeted following the company’s reformulation. As AP noted further:

PepsiCo says it will offer “Diet Pepsi Classic Sweetener Blend” made with aspartame starting in September, in 12-ounce cans, 2-liter bottles and 20-ounce bottles. The move is intended to appease fans who don’t like the taste of the reformulated drink, which is made with the artificial sweetener sucralose.

PepsiCo Inc. did say, however, that the Diet Pepsi formula with sucralose – more commonly known by its brand name, Splenda – would remain the primary diet choice. Those cans will be silver, while “classic” Diet Pepsi with aspartame will come in a light blue can.

PepsiCo said because of the complaints it decided to switch formulas and remove the aspartame but the plan backfired, the company claims: Sales for Diet Pepsi fell 10.6 percent, according to an industry tracking trade magazine, Beverage Digest.

Some years ago Coca Cola tested ads defending aspartame and its safety. The company has also seen a decline in sales over the past year of 5.7 percent.

Part of the sales slump is that a) despite what these companies are hearing, more Americans are avoiding aspartame – and sugary soda altogether – because they are opting for healthier choices. In fact, sales have been slumping for several years now. We reported in March 2012 that, finally, the trend was going the right way and an increasing number of Americans were shunning sugary soft drinks, as indicated by falling sales.

We noted further that in all actuality, soda sales had already been dropping off for a number of years. But sales figures took a very dramatic hit in 2011 because millions more consumers were making smarter choices and putting healthier drinks in their bodies.

As for the dangers of aspartame, we have reported extensively on them as well:

Aspartame is converted by the body into a cancer-causing agent, formaldehyde:

Composed of three unique compounds, aspartame is a synergistically toxic chemical, meaning the sum of its individual parts is exponentially more toxic than each one by itself. And yet even in isolation, the three main constituents found in aspartame — aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol — are idiosyncratically toxic in their own right.

It can also cause obesity – even as a ‘diet’ substance – and metabolic syndrome:

Fake sweeteners, we noted, are generally seen as better alternatives to real sugar. But that is bogus as well. In fact, as the science becomes better known, more people are discovering that even sugar alternatives are responsible for weight gain and metabolic disorders like diabetes, when excessive amounts of “diet” sodas are drank.

In addition, many studies have indicated that chemical sweeteners like aspartame may even be more harmful that regular sugar because they lead to weight gain that is not tied to the intake of calories.

Aspartame was originally approved even though there was evidence that it was toxic:

Though it may be hard for you to believe, aspartame was not initially developed as an artificial sweetener. In fact, like other substances on the market, it was discovered by accident by scientists who were actually trying to develop an ulcer medication for G.D. Searle and Company (a Big Pharma absorbed by Monsanto in 1985).

After scientists found that the chemical was sweet, the company formally presented it to the Food and Drug Administration and it was eventually approved for commercial use.

The stuff is made from the feces of genetically modified E. coli bacteria:

Similar to the fermentation process, E. coli are modified with special genes that cause them to produce unnaturally high levels of a special enzyme that, as a byproduct, produces the phenylalanine needed for aspartame production.

It is also capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier, which could lead to permanent brain damage.

And now PepsiCo is putting it back into one of its products because the company believes that – and not overall slumping soda sales – is the reason why less of it is flying off store shelves.

The 9 Most Popular Foods, Drinks & ‘Medicines’ That Cause Chronic Disease By Destroying Good Gut Bacteria

[Editor’s Note]

For those wishing to know more about this abstruse subject, please read:

Gut & Psychology Syndrome – Natural Treatment For Autism, Dyspraxia, ADD, Dyslexia, ADHD, Depression, Schizophrenia by Dr. Natasha Campbell-Mcbride

Gut bacteria
Source: NaturalNews.com
S.D. Wells
June 29, 2016

Would you drive up to a gas station and purposely put diesel fuel in your new car, knowing that it would break down, possibly within days, even though diesel is still “fuel?” If your garden was growing beautiful, organic vegetables, and you woke up one morning and saw hundreds of little bugs crawling on your produce, but they hadn’t eaten it yet, would you spray everything with toxic bug killer, try to rinse it off afterwards, and then still eat it and feed it to your kids?

In the first example, once your car burns up the regular gas and starts using the diesel, the engine will shut down. Plus, the longer the wrong fuel stays in your car’s system, the more damage it does to the engine, the fuel system and the injectors. In the second example, the toxic bug-killer is going to soak into most of the food, especially anything leafy or of the “dirty dozen,” which have porous outer coverings; therefore, washing them off does virtually no good.

Common sense tells us that in either case, the wrong kind of fuel, or worse, food soaked in poison, breaks down your “motor” and weakens your entire system. The human body is not very different to a car’s motor. Even though we have cleansing organs made to filter toxins, they can only do so much work, and when they get overloaded, they too work less efficiently, and eventually, break down and stop working altogether. Lines get clogged, like your digestive tract, and fuel injectors inject the wrong fuel, like your heart sending less blood and oxygen to your extremities, and the body simply stops “firing on all cylinders.”

Good gut bacteria (flora) should outnumber bad gut bacteria 85 percent to 15 percent

If you don’t know it already, genetically engineered or genetically modified (GM) food means that the seeds, stems, leaves and produce all contain bug-killing and weed-killing genes so that corporations can try to increase their profits. You cannot wash these pesticides off. These genes continue doing their “work” in your body, in your gut, in your organs, in your heart, in your brain and in your digestive tract. For example, the BT corn genes are designed to dissolve the rootworm beetle’s insides, so that when they eat corn, they either die or cannot reproduce. These bad genes, namely insecticides and herbicides, do not simply disappear or become inactive when humans consume them. These toxic, genetically modified genes dissolve humans’ good gut bacteria, diluting immunity in what becomes a highly acidic environment.

Did you know that each of us has roughly 4 pounds of bacteria in our gut? That’s why they call it a “gut bomb,” when you eat a meal chock full of pesticides, including most gluten, processed sugar and hydrogenated GM oils, and you feel awful for 10 to 20 minutes, or even longer. Your gut and your central nervous system are thrown for a loop, trying to find the pathogens and poisons, all while your immune system is severely compromised, making it more susceptible to colds, viruses, bacteria and other infections – ones you may already have, that then take hold of you.

That’s why doctors often tell patients they may feel a “little sick” or “weak” after a flu shot or vaccine – because you (or your children or babies) have been injected with some of the most lethal neurotoxins on earth, including mercury, formaldehyde and weakened versions of the viruses you most want to avoid. At this time, your body scrambles for nutrients, most likely emptying your reserves, just to fight off these foreign bacteria and GM-derived chemicals and pathogens. Not one MD on the planet will be honest and tell the patient that vaccines severely compromise immunity, sometimes for life (as with many autism cases). Did you know that some autism cases recede when good gut bacteria is replenished and sustained?

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com

Big Food Is Still Fighting Vermont’s Genetically Modified Food Labeling Bill

The Biggest Food Fight Ever – 2 DARK ACTS Coming Up

image-apples-GMO-DARK-Act-735-350
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Christina Sarich
March 17, 2016

Vermont is a little state, but it could force some enormous decisions. Will the Big Food corporations have to label GMO packages for Vermont, whose population is smaller than Brooklyn’s? They will if the Senate votes against the ‘DARK’ (‘Deny Americans the Right to Know’) Act (H.R. 1599) introduced in 2015 by Rep. Mike Pompeo.

The DARK bill was moved to the Senate and referred to its Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry last year. It has not yet been brought up for a full Senate vote.

Meanwhile, companies like PepsiCo, and General Mills are making quite a stink about it. Vermont’s mandatory labeling law is set to go live on July 1, 2016, and Big Food doesn’t want that to happen.

Greed and dishonesty are rising in Big Food like never before. So much so in fact, that the industry will likely turn to tactics like money laundering and fraud, as they have before, to try to stop states like Vermont from deciding their own GMO fate.

Powerful organizations have heavily lobbied and spent eye-popping sums to fight state-by-state labeling mandates.

Big Food Industry Sued Vermont

The International Dairy Foods Association, the Snack and Food Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) all sued Vermont in federal court last year. (The GMA represents over 300 food and beverage titans such as ConAgra, Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Kellogg and Hershey.)

They want to stop the new law, claiming that the legislation “imposes burdensome new speech requirements” and violates the Constitution by “regulating nationwide distribution and labeling practices that facilitate interstate commerce.”

In 2015, a federal court dismissed an injunction that would have blocked Vermont’s GMO labeling law from taking effect. The GMA filed an appeal that’s still pending.

An internal document obtained from the GMA by researcher Michele Simon makes it clear that they planned to steamroll states’ GMO labeling rights at every turn. California’s Prop. 37 and Washington’s I-522 were already in their crosshairs before Vermont passed its mandatory labeling law.

HR 1599 is just one of the industry’s pieces of legislation trying to undo the democratic rights of states to mandate GMO labeling for their food.

New DARK Act Is a Major Threat to GMO Labeling

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), who made a big push for H.R. 1599, is a major recipient of agribusiness campaign funds. Roberts is also pushing a bill of his own. His S. 2609 forbids states from mandating GMO labeling. It’s now in the hands of the Senate, largely Democrats. who can pass it or fail it. Voting may be done as early as March 16.

Continue Reading At: NaturalSociety.com