How I Got My Neighbor to Stop Using Roundup & His Organic Weed Killer Alternative that Really Works

Source: GrowingYourGreens
John Cole
November 23, 2016

John from http://www.growingyourgreens.com/ shares with you how he got his neighbor to stop using roundup aka Glyphosate and how he made a recipe for a organic weed killer alternative that really works.

Roundup aka Glyphosate is said to be probably carcinogenic to humans. It is also damaging to the health of your soil, and poisonious to many plants. In this episode, you will discover a much safer, natural and organic alternative.

First, John will share with you some edible plants he plants on purpose in his garden that many may consider “weeds”. You will learn how some of these edible wild foods got a little out of control and started spreading out all over.

You will discover how John usually manages his weed issues. Next, you will learn about an organic and natural solution that costs a fraction of synthetic, chemical weed killers.

John will then head over to his neighbors house and share with you what his neighbor thinks of his garden.

Then Don, Johns neighbor will explain to you how to make a simple organic weed killer that can be made with some common ingredients that can be found at any grocery store.

Finally Don and John will talk a little about why its important to use less chemicals and how you can actually save money by becoming a producer in our society instead of a consumer.

After watching this episode, you will have a sure-fire way to kill weeds on your property by using a very simple, non-toxic spray that can be made from common items from a grocery store including: Vinegar, Sugar and Dish Detergent.

The shocking ingredients in flu vaccines

Vaccines

Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
November 14, 2016

The push for widespread flu vaccination is something that happens year after year. In fact, it seems as though the mainstream medical community is becoming even more demanding and aggressive about their vaccination agenda than ever before.

Just this past September, the CDC updated their flu vaccination guidelines so they could encourage people with egg allergies to get the flu vaccine. As many people are aware, in the past having an egg allergy exempted you from having to get the vaccine because this particular shot contains traces of eggs. Seems perfectly reasonable and logical, doesn’t it? Well, they’re throwing logic out the window with their new suggestions.

People with minor allergic reactions, like hives, are called upon to be vaccinated as usual, at any location of their choosing. For those with more severe reactions – like anaphylactic shock, which can kill you – it is suggested that they get vaccinated at their doctor’s office, a hospital or other medical facility. That way, when the person’s throat closes up, hopefully someone will be able to save their life. That seems perfectly reasonable to ask someone to do, don’t you think?

Apparently having a life-threatening food allergy is no longer enough to allow people to be remiss in their civic duty to be injected with harmful substances.

To be perfectly honest, for the average non-allergic person, eggs in the flu vaccine are really the least worrisome ingredient. There are things in vaccines many times more toxic than egg whites could ever hope to be.

Mercury, for example, is a toxic heavy metal. Despite industry claims that mercury is not used in vaccines, it still seems to have quite the presence. In 2014, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, revealed that laboratory testing showed quite a different story about the mercury content in flu shots. Using ICP-MS technology, Adams found that Fluval – a common flu shot – contained mercury at a level of 51 parts per million. The Health Ranger notes that this volume of mercury is more than 25,000 times higher than the maximum contaminant level of inorganic mercury allowed in drinking water, as per the standards set by the EPA.

Adams writes, “In fact, the concentration of mercury found in this GSK flu shot was 100 times higher than the highest level of mercury we’ve ever tested in contaminated fish.”

Sodium deoxycholate is another concerning ingredient that is also featured in many flu vaccines. This chemical is actually a water-soluble ionic detergent and bile salt, and it is also known to promote cell death. Sodium deoxycholate has been shown to weaken the blood-brain barrier, and subsequently lead to seizures. It’s thought that the chemical can also induce DNA damage. Synergistic toxicity has also been seen when combined with certain medications. Researchers from the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine found that the toxicity of sodium deoxycholate created an inflammatory response that persisted for 10 days following exposure.

Neomycin sulfate and polymyxin B are two antibiotic agents that are often featured in flu vaccines. Supposedly, these antibiotics are added to vaccines during manufacturing to prevent bacterial contamination. One would hope that the conditions under which an injected substance is created would be clean and sterile enough not to warrant the addition of antibiotics for “safety,” but apparently that may not be the case. Furthermore, given the growing concerns over antibiotic resistance in humans, it stands to reason that injecting antibiotics into uninfected individuals is probably not the best idea.

There are, of course, many other toxic aspects to flu vaccines. Some have alleged, for example that glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Roundup, may be present in a number of vaccines.

Vaccines are not what the mainstream medical world wants you to believe; they are filled with harmful chemicals that no person would willingly inject into their body. The prevalence of pro-vaccine science truly showcases the increasing need for independent science.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

CDC.gov

NaturalNews.com

PreventDisease.com

CHOP.edu

NaturalHealth365.com

Rense.com

Glyphosate – The unpopular truth exposed

Glyphosate

Source: NaturalNews.com
Jonathan Landsman
November 4, 2016

Although Americans only constitute 5 percent of the world’s population, we use a shocking 25 percent of the world’s supply of glyphosate – a toxic herbicide found in Roundup weed killer. According to Stephanie Seneff, PhD, this usage is exacting a terrible toll. In fact, Dr. Seneff identifies glyphosate as possibly the most important factor in the development of chronic diseases in Western society.

Discover the darkest (untold) truths about glyphosate and how this toxic herbicide ingredient actually causes chronic disease symptoms. On the next NaturalNews Talk Hour, Jonathan and Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at MIT and expert on environmental toxins, talk about how glyphosate alters our metabolism, damages our genetic expression and increases our risk of disease.

Glyphosate is creating a legacy of massive destruction

Autism rates are rising out of control. In the past five years, Dr. Seneff says she has seen the statistical likelihood of a child developing autism rise from 1 in 150 to 1 in 50 – and the worst is yet to come. By the year 2025, Seneff predicts, 1 out of 2 male children – or every other boy — will be diagnosed somewhere along the autism disorder spectrum, an almost unimaginable prospect.

And the blame for these soaring rates, she maintains, can be squarely placed on the legal use of glyphosate on our food crops. Dr. Seneff believes that glyphosate is the “missing link” in the rising autism rates due to its effect on certain biomarkers such as, disrupted gut bacteria, lower levels of serum sulfate, and deficiencies in essential amino acids and minerals within the body – all directly linked to glyphosate exposure.

Follow the money to see the corruption

Scientists for Monsanto – the most hated corporation in the world – insist that glyphosate is safe because it targets a metabolic system called the shikamate pathway – which humans and animals lack. Yet the trillions of beneficial bacteria in the human digestive tract do have this pathway – and disrupting it can have catastrophic consequences.

In truth: Glyphosate harms critical beneficial bacteria, causing an overgrowth of pathogens, which in turn produce toxic phenols that cause inflammation — an effect on the body that Dr. Seneff likens to that of a a “wrecking ball.”

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

More lawsuits against Monsanto stemming from cancer causing ingredients in its agriculture products

Monsanto
Source: NaturalNews.com
Ethan A. Huff
October 21, 2016

The makings of what could become the first successful class-action lawsuit against the world’s most evil corporation are giving a much-needed boost to the movement for clean food. Agri-giant Monsanto will soon face a barrage of lawsuits from a number of law firms over cancer-causing agents in its popular Roundup herbicide, which is reportedly making many people sick.

Two cases were recently filed in federal court in East St. Louis, and others are waiting in the wings to join them. Since the suits all claim the same thing – that glyphosate causes cancer – they may eventually be conjoined and filed as a class-action against the chemical behemoth, whose most popular herbicide was earlier this year declared by the World Health Organization (WHO) to cause cancer.

Since WHO released the findings through its International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a prestigious body made up of scientific experts from all around the world, Monsanto has been the subject of increasing scrutiny over its popular herbicide product, which has been sprayed to the tune of tens of billions of pounds globally since the product was first released commercially.

Monsanto claims that the IARC’s conclusion that glyphosate probably causes cancer is bunk, and that it’s been “thoroughly discredited and rejected by the rigorous scientific research of governmental authorities around the world.” But plaintiffs in the various cases, as well as legions of independent scientists, wholeheartedly disagree, citing evidence that glyphosate is responsible for causing a number of different cancers, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Class-action lawsuits make sense to consolidate laborious discovery process and help ensure victory

Since each individual case involving Roundup will be required to conduct extensive discovery concerning the safety, development and marketing of the herbicide going back to the mid-1970s, the plaintiffs in dozens of cases filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois are hoping to combine their efforts in order to increase their chances of success.

“Each Plaintiff will need to conduct the same complicated regulatory and scientific discovery (spanning over 40 years) to demonstrate that exposure to Roundup caused their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma,” a motion for the class-action states, as quoted by EcoWatch.

“To date, a few of the Roundup Cases have commenced discovery, but that discovery is being conducted under different, and sometimes conflicting, judicial constraints and orders. Centralizing these cases before one [Multidistrict Litigation] Judge to ensure that the discovery is done once for all claimants makes sense.”

The filing in Southern Illinois is strategic, as the midwestern state is the largest producer of soybeans, the vast majority of which are Roundup-Ready, genetically-modified (GM) soybeans manufactured by Monsanto. The Southern District of Illinois court is also located just 20 miles away from Monsanto’s St. Louis headquarters.

But the cases aren’t limited to just the Midwest. Lawsuits are springing up all across the country, as farmers and consumers alike report serious health effects from exposure to glyphosate and the foods upon which it’s being sprayed. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently filed a notice in the Federal Register concerning plans to have an eight-member scientific panel review IARC’s findings in order to reach a consensus.

Concerns over glyphosate’s continued use not only on GM crops but also on wheat as a pre-harvest desiccant have prompted many Americans to start growing their own food at home using tools like the Food Rising Mini-Farm Grow Box 2.0. Many others are taking the litigation route, as studies confirm that glyphosate is linked to causing breast cancer, endocrine disruption, cutaneous melanoma and many other forms of chronic disease.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:

MadisonRecord.com

EcoWatch.com

HuffingtonPost.com

Science.NaturalNews.com

General Mills sued for false use of ‘natural’ claim on Nature Valley Granola Bars, found to contain glyphosate

Glyphosate
Source: NaturalNews.com
David Gutierrez
August 31, 2016

General Mills is being sued for misleading use of the term “natural” on packages of Nature Valley granola bars, which have been shown to contain residues of the toxic herbicide glyphosate (Roundup).

The lawsuit, filed by Moms Across America, Beyond Pesticides and the Organic Consumers Association, alleges that consumers expect products labeled “natural” to be free of synthetic toxins. Yet the granola bars in question bear a label that reads “Made with 100% NATURAL whole grain OATS.”

“As a mother, when I read “100% Natural” I would expect that to mean no synthetic or toxic chemicals at all,” said Zen Honeycutt, executive director of Moms Across America. “Glyphosate is a toxic chemical that the EPA recognizes as a ‘reproductive effector’ which ‘can cause liver and kidney damage’ and ‘digestive effects.’ It is unacceptable that Nature Valley granola bars contain any amount of this chemical.”

Glyphosate not ‘natural’

For years, consumer groups have criticized the FDA for failing to define a clear standard for what constitutes a “natural” food or ingredient. To date, the FDA has only stated that a “natural” claim must be “truthful and not misleading.” The only ingredients that the FDA has prohibited are artificial colors, artificial flavors and the vaguely defined catchall “synthetic substances” – a category that does not even include major industrially manufactured chemicals such as high fructose corn syrup!

The FDA also prohibits the use of the term on ingredients other than “natural flavors” (which are themselves isolated chemicals extracted in labs).

Yet, according to a 2015 survey by Consumer Reports, 66 percent of consumers seek out products labeled “natural” because they believe these foods to be produced without pesticides (including herbicides), hormones, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or artificial ingredients of any kind.

“Food grown with dangerous pesticides like glyphosate isn’t natural,” said Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association. “Consumers understand this. That’s why sales of natural products are booming. Unfortunately, companies’ misleading claims trick consumers into buying just what they’re trying to avoid. This has to be stopped.”

A number of recent lawsuits have caused food companies to move away from the “natural” label, replacing it with terms such as “honest” and simple.” For example, General Mills itself agreed in a 2014 lawsuit settlement to stop using the term “100 percent natural” for Nature Valley granola bars that contain any of several highly processed ingredients, including high fructose corn syrup or maltodextrin.

Yet now the company has found a way around that agreement, labeling the oats – rather than the bars – as “100 percent natural.”

Levels high enough to poison kidneys, liver

The lawsuit charges that the oats used in Nature Valley granola bars cannot be considered 100 percent natural, because tests have shown that they contain residues from a toxic synthetic chemical, glyphosate. It also accuses General Mills of misleading consumers about glyphosate’s harmful effects.

“Glyphosate cannot be considered ‘natural’ because it is a toxic, synthetic herbicide,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “Identified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a carcinogen, it should not be allowed for use in food production, and certainly not in food with a label that suggests to consumers that the major ingredient – oats – is 100% natural.”

Glyphosate is one of world’s top selling herbicides. Its use has ballooned due to the widespread adoption of glyphosate-resistant GMOs, but it is also used on non-GMO crops, such as oats. Other than buying organic produce, one of the only ways to avoid glyphosate is to grow your own food at home.

Although the glyphosate levels found in the granola bars are “only” 0.45 parts per billion (ppb), well below the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) safe exposure threshold, studies have found that concentrations as low as 0.1 ppb can cause damage to the liver and kidneys. Glyphosate has also been linked to chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease, and to a wide range of other problems, including birth defects.

In a recent letter to the EPA, a group of leading scientists warmed that glyphosate also contributes to antibiotic resistance and causes devastation to soil and wildlife health.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:

FoodNavigator-USA.com

SustainablePulse.com

OrganicConsumers.org

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Sharp limits on glyphosate coming to Italy; meanwhile EPA wants to raise ‘acceptable’ exposure levels for Americans

Glyphosate

Source: NaturalNews.com
Daniel Barker
August 31, 2016

Italy’s Ministry of Health has imposed sweeping new restrictions on the use of the cancer-causing herbicide glyphosate, a move that represents one of the “largest bans on both consumer and agricultural use of the controversial substance.”

The new restrictions cover a wide range of applications, including the use of glyphosate near schools and other public areas where “vulnerable groups” such as children and the elderly risk being affected by exposure to the carcinogenic substance.

From Sustainable Pulse:

“The list of banned areas includes parks, gardens and courtyards, the edges of roads and railways, urban areas, sports fields and recreational areas, playgrounds and green areas within the school buildings, and areas adjacent to health facilities.

“In addition, the pre-harvest use of Glyphosate – a process known as desiccation – has been banned. The desiccation of crops by spraying glyphosate is a primary source for residual pesticide contamination at the consumer level. Finally, the non-agricultural use of glyphosate is banned on soils composed 80% or more of sand–a measure designed to protect groundwater from contamination.”

A brief history of Europe’s ‘Great Glyphosate Rebellion’

Italy has now become the second EU member state – along with Malta – to announce new restrictions inspired by the “Great Glyphosate Rebellion” that swept through the continent earlier this year, as the deadline for re-approval of the use of glyphosate approached.

A series of articles published by Sustainable Pulse throughout 2016 detail the birth and evolution of the Great Glyphosate Rebellion.

The next few paragraphs are a summary of the important developments:

Initially, the EU was set to vote in 2016 on the re-approval of glyphosate use until 2031, but when it became apparent that many member states would not vote in favor of the long-term extension, the vote was postponed until the end of an 18-month temporary license extension that was granted by the European Commission.

Public pressure played a great part in convincing member state leaders to oppose the long-term extension. More than 1.5 million European and international citizens signed a petition calling for a ban on glyphosate use (the number of signatures has now surpassed 2 million), and their voices were heard. In April, the European Parliament called for a ban on all private use of the substance, as well as a ban on using glyphosate around parks and playgrounds.

The proposed ban also included the prohibition of glyphosate spraying before harvest, and called for the “immediate disclosure of all scientific evidence used by the European Food Safety Authority to back up its claim that glyphosate is unlikely to cause harm.”

The European Commission twice failed in 2016 to secure enough support from member states to vote for long-term re-approval, which led to the 18-month temporary extension.

Now that the temporary extension is in place, and EU member states are beginning to impose nationwide glyphosate bans, the widespread use of the deadly chemical may be nearing an end in Europe.

That’s great news for European citizens who successfully banded together in opposition to the use of the controversial substance.

The disturbing contrast back home in the U.S.

Meanwhile in the United States, the situation is quite different. In 2013, the EPA quietly raised acceptable limits of glyphosate with almost no warning or debate, and the public took little notice.

The agency doubled the acceptable glyphosate residue levels of oilseed crops, including soybean, sesame and flax. The FDA also raised acceptable glyphosate residue levels of sweet potatoes and corn by 15 and 25 times the previous limits, respectively.

It’s a sad fact that Americans seem to care little about the widespread use of a cancer-causing chemical, while Europeans are uniting in great numbers to clean up their environment through meaningful bans and restrictions.

Of course, this is partly due to a failed and sold-out regulatory system that does virtually nothing to encourage public input and debate. However, ultimately it is our responsibility as citizens to unite and stand up in opposition to those who are poisoning our food and environment – while raking in billions of dollars in profits.

Ignorance is no longer an acceptable excuse.

Source: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

SustainablePulse.com

SustainablePulse.com

SustainablePulse.com

SustainablePulse.com

CommDigiNews.com

Hungary destroys GMO corn fields

GMO corn fields
Source:NaturalNews.com
Isabelle Z
August 31, 2016

Are you tired of GMOs working their way into so many of the foods you buy? Do you ever wish you could just burn down all the GMO crops out there so they can stop compromising our food supply for good? Some Hungarian officials did exactly that when they burned down 1,000 acres of maize in 2011.

The deputy state secretary of Hungary’s Ministry of Rural Development, Lajos Bognar, said at the time that the crops had been grown using genetically modified seeds. Since these seeds are banned in the country, the government decided that the best option was to destroy the crops. Bognar said that the maize had been plowed under, but its pollen had not spread. The farmers in question had mistakenly bought the seeds without realizing that they had been genetically modified.

Even though seed traders in the country are required to make sure their products do not contain GMOs, authorities say that they will continue to actively verify this. GMO seeds from Pioneer and Monsanto have been found mixed in with natural seeds, presumably accidentally. Hungary has burned down thousands of these illegal GM crops over the years. Fire is the best way to get rid of these crops, as it destroys their artificial DNA and stops it from working its way into non-GMO plants.

Hungary has taken a strong stance against GMOs. In fact, the country’s Constitution says:

Hungary shall promote the effective application of the right referred to in Paragraph (1) by an agriculture free of genetically modified organisms, by ensuring access to healthy food and drinking water, by organising safety at work and healthcare provision, by supporting sports and regular physical exercise, as well as by ensuring the protection of the environment.

Contrast this with America, where GMOs are not illegal, and there are no serious labeling requirements. Monsanto’s hold on the legal and political systems in our country is simply too strong, and they are not above discrediting scientists who reveal the dangers caused by their products.

In fact, America is increasingly standing out as being far too lenient in this matter. Russia has also banned all GMO crops, and a number of countries in Europe have banned the cultivation of Monsanto’s GM corn, including Switzerland, Italy, Poland, Austria, Germany, France, Greece, Luxembourg and Romania.

Plenty of reasons to avoid GMOs

Why would people in any of these countries want GMO food? One only needs to look at the results of the famous study by Gilles-Eric Seralini in which rats who drank amounts of Roundup that are legally allowed in our water supply noted a 200 to 300 percent increase in large tumors. In addition, those fed GM corn suffered severe damage to their organs, including their livers and kidneys. As many as half of the male rats and 70 percent of the female ones died prematurely after being fed Monsanto’s GM corn, NK603, which is found in many corn-based breakfast cereals, snack chips and tortillas.

When will America wake up?

Will our government ever adopt a similar stance to that of Hungary? This seems highly unlikely at the moment, so don’t expect to see GM crops throughout the nation being destroyed anytime soon. However, you can grow your own GMO-free food in the meantime, and be sure to spread the word to all you know about the dangers of these foods.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources include:

OurDailyIdeas.com

Newstarget.com

MyHealthyFeed.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

FarmToConsumer.org

Study: Glyphosate damages reproductive development in rats, increasing risk for cancer and infertility

Glyphosate
Source: NaturalNews.com
David Gutierrez
August 29, 2016

Glyphosate — the active ingredient of Monsanto’s blockbuster herbicide Roundup — may disrupt development of the uterus, leading to fertility problems and cancer, according to a study conducted by researchers from Argentina and published in the journal Toxicology.

Roundup is one of the most widely used herbicides on the planet. Its popularity has been almost entirely driven by the adoption of Monsanto-engineered genetically modified (GM) crops that are resistant to the chemical.

Argentina is the world’s leading user of glyphosate, largely due to its heavy planting of GM soybeans. Yet doctors and scientists have pointed to an alarming trend of high miscarriage rates in soybean growing areas. Meanwhile, local farmers have blamed herbicides including glyphosate for alarmingly high rates of mutations in farm animals, which quadrupled following a recent surge in GM soy cultivation.

May cause uterine cancer

In the new study, researchers injected newborn female rats with glyphosate for seven days following birth, at doses of 2 mg/kg of body weight — the same dose that US regulators have ruled is safe to consume daily over the course of a lifetime.

The researchers observed abnormal cell proliferation and structural changes to the uteri of the rats, as well as disruptions to the expression of proteins that play a role in uterine development. These changes occurred even though there were no signs of toxicity (acute or chronic) in the rats, and no changes in their weight relative to untreated rats.

The findings suggest that glyphosate may harm female fertility and lead to uterine cancer, the researchers concluded.

Notably, among the effects observed were disruptions to hormonal activity (endocrine disruption), supporting growing concern that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor. Significantly, many endocrine disruptors are more potent at very small concentrations (on the orders of parts per billion) than at the higher one typically tested by regulatory agencies.

The researchers note that they deliberately chose to use injected rather than oral glyphosate, even though oral administration is favored for pesticide and herbicide safety studies. That’s because the rats being studied were so young that they were only consuming their mothers’ milk, and there was no other way to give them the relevant doses. This decision was supported by scientists interviewed by The Ecologist; unfortunately, chemical-friendly regulators may use it as an excuse to ignore the study’s findings.

Roundup worse than glyphosate alone

Yet the new study is only one of many recent trials implicating glyphosate and Roundup in reproductive harm. Earlier this year, in a study published in Environmental Health, researchers from Kings College London found that ultra-low dose exposure to glyphosate — like humans might get from drinking water or from residue on their food — caused large-scale changes to the genome of rats. Some of these changes appear to be epigenetic — changes in gene expression that can be passed on to future generations.

The same researchers also successfully reverse-engineered the proprietary “inactive ingredients” of Roundup, and demonstrated that some of these may also have toxic effects. This is a highly significant finding, as most regulatory agencies simply presume that inactive ingredients are chemically neutral and therefore harmless.

But when it comes to Roundup, that consensus is starting to crack. Last year, an Australian study found that at levels commonly found in US and Australian drinking water, both Roundup and glyphosate alone caused endocrine disrupting effects, in part by killing off cells that produce the female hormone progesterone. That study actually found that Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate alone.

Also last year, the European Union Food Safety Authority (EFSA), while attempting to claim that glyphosate does not cause cancer, admitted that studies performed on Roundup have indeed suggested that the herbicide causes genetic damage. Thus, the EFSA said, Roundup is likely to lead to cancer.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:
www.theecologist.org
www.naturalnews.com
www.naturalnews.com
www.naturalnews.com

New GMOs Genetically Engineering Our World

soup sandwich copy
Source: FarmWars.Info
Barbara H. Peterson
April 27, 2016

Designer Species – Recreating the world in our own image…

The game is rigged. The fix is in. Has been for a while, we’ve just been bandied about and hoodwinked into thinking that we can change the fact that corporations in league with the corporate government really do not care about our health or our very existence other than our worth as worker bees and “consumers” of whatever garbage they want to put on our plates.

The “label it” campaign was a farce, ripe for deception. It did, however, prolong our hopes until a more deceptive form of genetic engineering would take the stage and flood the kitchen with manufactured food-like organisms that have been designed to fly completely under the radar and any phony labeling laws. Eat up, America. Just don’t ask what it is you are putting in your mouths.

The ‘New And Improved’ Genetic Engineering

What we have seen thus far in the field of genetic engineering has been just the awkward beginnings of a plan to re-engineer the world and all of its various organisms into a ‘new and improved’ version (didn’t they say that about the last con they were selling?), created in a lab and designed to replace all that is natural.

According to proponents of this scheme, the world and its life forms as they exist are inconvenient, imperfect, not acceptable, and drastically need revision in order to be sustainable, green, healthy, and oh yes, let’s not forget, able to ‘end hunger’ and ‘feed the world.’ Lies. All lies.

There is an exciting new player in the ever-expanding field of genome editing. In a study reported in the January 2013 issue of Science, two groups—Cong et al.1 and Mali et al.2—explored the limits and adaptability of a prokaryotic RNA-based system for mammalian genome-wide editing. This new method of genome engineering is derived from an adaptive immune system known as CRISPR (Clustered Regulatory Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) that bacteria and archaea use as a means to protect themselves against foreign invasive elements. These two studies show that the CRISPR system is an efficient method to alter mammalian genomes. At present, four types of discrete systems have been shown to generate, to different degrees of specificity and efficiency, genome-wide editing: three distinct protein-based nuclease systems,3,4,5 a chemical-based nuclease system,6 an adeno-associated virus (AAV)–based system,7 and now a protein RNA–based system.1,2

http://www.nature.com/mt/journal/v21/n4/full/mt201346a.html

Resistance Is (Almost) Futile – Monsanto Is Upgrading The Borg

The first step in flooding the world with this new RNA technology lies in pesticide sprays.

It’s called the “BioDirect” initiative and it will eliminate costly resistance to glyphosate, eradicate vexingly resilient insects with “biopesticides” and even modify the genetic code of a plant by simply spritzing it with an RNA-infused surfactant spray. The technology is called “RNA interference” (RNAi) and it heralds a brave new world of profitability for agrochemical corporations. It also opens a Pandora’s box full of as-yet unanswered ethical questions about genetic drift, patenting plants on the fly and, most ominously, whether RNAi can, should or will be weaponized like another Monsanto product — Agent Orange.

RNAi technology hijacks DNA’s messenger system — the ribonucleic acid (RNA) that carries out DNA’s instructions. In effect, RNAi sends human-made messages that can, in turn, alter or kill its target by scrambling cellular functions, turning off organs, dropping resistance to a herbicide (glyphosate) or altering the DNA’s command system to produce an artificial gene expression.

The real issue is whether the next best move after drenching the planet in pesticides is to then start pumping out RNAi biopesticides.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35517-monsanto-s-willing-executioners

RNAi pesticides appear to be next in line behind Roundup, which is coming under increased scrutiny ever since its main ingredient, Glyphosate, was declared a possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization.

Now, instead of conceding and working with nature, they are counterattacking with RNAi technology. Why? Because sales are flagging. The market is literally oversaturated with glyphosate. And Monsanto wants to extend the life and profitability of Roundup by knocking out resistance at the cellular level.

As a result, we face the unknown consequences of introducing a tidal wave of RNA into ecosystems that are not adapted to a sudden influx of genetic messages. Just think about that for a minute. Antonio Regalado pointed out in MIT Technology Review, “RNA may be natural … but introducing large amounts of targeted RNA molecules into the environment is not.”

The USDA and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have already signed off on RNAi apples engineered by a Canadian company and although Monsanto is still awaiting approval, a 2014 statement by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicates that their RNAi may already be baked into your cake…

…With Monsanto’s scientists pushing favourable papers at the EPA and with farmers who are supportive of agrochemical options clamouring for new GMO herbicide technology, it sure seems like resistance to their solution to glyphosate resistance is futile.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987530/while_we_all_fixate_on_glyphosate_monsanto_prepares_its_next_gm_trick_rna_pesticides.html

And the goal for Monsanto regarding these new pesticides? Not to provide an end-fix to the problem it created, but to prolong the life of the pesticide for added company profit. The company knows the effectiveness of any new creation will not last forever.

Robb Fraley, Monsanto’s chief technology officer, explained that RNAi was highly specific to the targeted pest. That requires added work on the front end to identify the genes for “interference.” Being specific won’t eliminate concerns with resistance, but should prolong the life of these pest control tools.

http://farmindustrynews.com/crop-protection/new-approach-pest-control

Regulations? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Regulations!

And the master plan is as it has always been – get the technology out there and into the public arena before any pesky regulatory committee needs to get paid off to pass flimsy regulations in favor of corporate interests. After all, any time you can save a buck, do so.

Nina Holland, researcher for Corporate Europe Observatory, says: “The biotech industry has waged an under-the-radar campaign to get new GM products absolved from GM regulation. The TTIP negotiations are seen by industry across the board and the US government as the perfect opportunity to block EU processes that are supposed to protect public health and the environment. The regulation of new GM techniques is a case in point.”

http://corporateeurope.org/pressreleases/2016/04/commission-fails-regulate-new-gmos-after-intense-us-lobbying

CRISPR-Cas9  – On To Editing Living Organisms With RNA Technology

Sprayable pesticides are just the first step. After all, who wouldn’t want a new and improved pesticide that you can simply spray on a plant and only certain plant pests bite the dust? And people will buy it hook, line and sinker. Just like they did the Roundup lie.

After that, it’s a case of ‘anything goes.’ RNA technology will be accepted. At least that is what the biotech industry is counting on. So, it’s on to crops. Why not? After all, it’s benign. Or so we think. We really don’t know, but a mere technicality such as that shouldn’t stand in the way of progress.

How will we deal with prospects for editing the genes of organisms in living environments?

In the realm of agriculture, that’s no longer hypothetical.

Since its 2013 demonstration as a genome editing tool in Arabidopsis and tobacco — two widely used laboratory plants — CRISPR has been road-tested in crops, including wheat, rice, soybeans, potatoes, sorghum, oranges and tomatoes. By the end of 2014, a flood of research into agricultural uses for CRISPR included a spectrum of applications, from boosting crop resistance to pests to reducing the toll of livestock disease.

http://ensia.com/voices/crispr-is-coming-to-agriculture-with-big-implications-for-food-farmers-consumers-and-nature/

What’s In Your Body?

But wait! It appears that some gene edited crops are already here, and using a different technique than CRISPR, totally unregulated, and flying completely under the radar.

Meanwhile, the first commercially available gene edited crop — produced using not CRISPR but another form of gene editing known as RTDS — has already appeared: an oilseed rape created by Cibus, a San Diego–based company. The rape has been altered for herbicide resistance, enabling farmers to spray their crop with weed killer. According to Nature, Cibus is marketing the product as non–genetically modified, since only a few snippets of the plant’s existing genes have been changed and “no gene has been inserted from a different kind of organism, nor even from another plant.” Even though RTDS is a different system than CRISPR, the similarities are sufficient enough that identical policy and regulatory questions apply to both.

http://ensia.com/voices/crispr-is-coming-to-agriculture-with-big-implications-for-food-farmers-consumers-and-nature/

Labeling makes no difference at all if that label does not reflect that any genetic engineering has taken place when in reality, it has. Just another sleight of hand by our corporate manipulators. Oh, they will get around to making some sort of regulatory statement sooner or later, but rest assured, whatever they decide, it won’t be in our best interests, but in the interests of corporate profit. And only until after the damage is done and we are well on our way to being saturated in the stuff.

Pesticides, Crops, Then Critters, Oh My!

Reports suggest that an entire barnyard of edited animals destined for industrial agriculture is rapidly filling the R&D pipeline. Recombinetics, a start-up firm, made headlines with hornless dairy cattle carrying a smidgen of genes from naturally smooth-headed beef cows. The company is now working on Brazilian beef cattle with larger muscles (for more meat, which may be more tender), while other firms are developing chickens that only produce female offspring (for egg-laying) and beef cattle that only produce males (for more efficient feed-to-meat conversion).

With respect to gene drives, while agriculture remains at the periphery thus far, researchers at Harvard’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering have outlined heady prospects. Gene drives could “pave the way toward sustainable agriculture,” they suggest, by reversing pesticide resistance in insects and herbicide resistance in weeds. Drive systems could also destroy or modify pesky plant pests and squelch populations of invasive species, such as rats and kudzu.

A CRISPR-tweaked farm system could have a smaller environmental footprint and even humanitarian benefits, if it means farmers don’t have to dehorn cattle or cull their male bulls.

As mentioned above, among the agricultural applications of CRISPR in the research pipeline are those that would alter the biology of insects and weeds — in some cases, editing genes to overcome resistance to pesticides and herbicides. CRISPR-assisted gene drive technology could propel such mutations through populations in the wild, creating the potential to modify entire plant or animal communities over just a few years.

http://ensia.com/voices/crispr-is-coming-to-agriculture-with-big-implications-for-food-farmers-consumers-and-nature/

Pave the way towards sustainable agriculture? Humane? Just who are they trying to kid? If Monsanto had not dowsed the world in deadly poisons, agriculture would be sustainable. Now that the ground has been poisoned, people are dying from cancer and all sorts of pesticide-induced illnesses, Monsanto and the biotech industry have the cojones to tell us that they will solve the problem by using a new and unproven gene editing technique to fix the problem created by them? Seriously? And not to mention that cows grow horns just like we grow feet. And hands. And noses. Horns are simply inconvenient for us. What’s next, beakless chickens? People with six hands so they can do more work for their employers? Humans are not exempt from the genetic mayhem by any means.

Chimeras Are Gestating on U.S. Research Farms

A radical new approach to generating human organs is to grow them inside pigs or sheep.

The experiments rely on a cutting-edge fusion of technologies, including recent breakthroughs in stem-cell biology and gene-editing techniques. By modifying genes, scientists can now easily change the DNA in pig or sheep embryos so that they are genetically incapable of forming a specific tissue. Then, by adding stem cells from a person, they hope the human cells will take over the job of forming the missing organ, which could then be harvested from the animal for use in a transplant operation.

“We can make an animal without a heart. We have engineered pigs that lack skeletal muscles and blood vessels,” says Daniel Garry, a cardiologist who leads a chimera project at the University of Minnesota. While such pigs aren’t viable, they can develop properly if a few cells are added from a normal pig embryo. Garry says he’s already melded two pigs in this way and recently won a $1.4 million grant from the U.S. Army, which funds some biomedical research, to try to grow human hearts in swine.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/545106/human-animal-chimeras-are-gestating-on-us-research-farms/

Do you really think that this will stop at human organs grown in pigs? Why not just create a ‘sustainable’ human? Maybe we can create one that doesn’t need to eat real food. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Mary Shelly’s “Frankenstein” was prophetic. We are being engineered. This experiment is being conducted in plain sight with the approval of your friendly corporate government. The tools for its implementation are most likely already on your plate, in your field, in your water supply, and are flooding your body as I type.

One thing is certain – no one knows where this will lead. If anyone says they do know the long term implications of tweaking nature to suit some phony scientist’s vision of a perfect genetically engineered world, that person is a liar.

And this is just the beginning…

Read More At: FarmWars.info

©2016 Barbara H. Peterson

Numbers Don’t Lie: Why Monsanto Might Be Facing Its Final Days


Source: UndergroundReporter.org
Christina Sarich
August 22, 2016

Share prices — plummeting. Royalties — cut. Consumer opinion — in the toilet. Governments — fed up. Monsanto’s earnings represent the writing on the wall, but the company’s glory days are nearing an end for many reasons ranging from farmer and consumer resistance to government crackdowns on GMO products and even Monsanto’s best-selling chemical product, glyphosate. Monsanto’s days are about as numbered as a fruit fly’s.

If we were to ascertain Monsanto’s financial health by their stock price alone, you could safely say that they are suffering. The company recently slashed its 2016 earnings forecast from the $5.10-$5.60 per share it had forecast in December, to $4.40-$5.10, claiming that the reduction was due to a lagging strength in the U.S. dollar — but there’s much more to the picture.

In numerous key markets, the company consistently rating among most hated in the world is taking major hits.

  • In India, Monsanto’s illegal introduction of GM Bt cotton is reaping some serious karma. The Ministry of Agriculture has accused Monsanto of price gouging and is reducing their ‘royalties’ by 70 percent. Monsanto has threatened to withdraw its GM crops from India, but the country hasn’t balked. Their reply? Monsanto is welcome to leave.”
  • In Mexico, a seven-year battle to save almost 60 varieties of heirloom corn — developed over 7,000 years by indigenous farmers — has just been won. This means Monsanto’s aim to wipe out the genetic diversity of a major food crop in the country has been thwarted by a Mexican federal appeals court.
  • As far as RoundUp, Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide, that’s in big trouble, too. The State of California’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has labeled the product as a probable carcinogen, and Monsanto has filed a lawsuit (thus far to no avail) to try to get rid of the classification. The World Health Organization’s recent finding that glyphosate is also ‘probably carcinogenic’ doesn’t help, and the E.U. just voted not to re-license RoundUp for sale in Europe.
  • Already more than half of E.U. countries have moved to bar GMO cultivation.
  • Russia has banned GMOs, and plans to become the largest exporter of organic products. That’s a huge market that Monsanto will not have access to.
  • The DARK Act (Deny Americans the Right to Know) was just denied on the Senate floor, meaning states will retain their right to establish mandatory GMO labeling laws.
  • McDonald’s and Wendy’s, as well as other major restaurant chains, are refusing to use Simplot’s GM potatoes and apples, even after the USDA approved them for sale — due to consumer concerns. Even baby food manufacturer, Gerber, is turning down GM ingredients.
  • China still allows some GM products, but they aren’t looking to approve any new GM seeds anytime soon, since they are seeking to develop their own biotechnology market. While this is unsettling, it still means that Monsanto is squeezed out of the international seed monopoly market.
  • Even though the agrichemical business lobby is the biggest lobbyist on the E.U.-U.S. trade deal, TTIP, Monsanto is losing its grip. Many fear TTIP would significantly water down E.U. chemical safety standards, including the precautionary principle.

According to Mike Mack, the former CEO of Swiss-based (and now Chinese-owned) Syngenta, biotech seeds have nearly saturated major markets where approved.

Furthermore, BASF, another German biotech and chemical giant, seems to realize that biotech seed markets are drying up. The company has pulled out of Europe completely and has closed several plants due to consumer and political resistance. Stefan Marcinowski, a member of BASF’s executive board said:

“We are convinced that plant biotechnology is a key technology for the 21st century. However, there is still a lack of acceptance for this technology in many parts of Europe — from the majority of consumers, farmers and politicians. Therefore, it does not make business sense to continue investing in products exclusively for cultivation in this market.”

It could be just a matter of months before Monsanto realizes their well-earned fate.

Read More At: UndergroundReporter.org


This article (Numbers Don’t Lie: Why Monsanto May Be Facing Its Final Days) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Christina Sarich and UndergroundReporter.org. If you spot a typo, please email the error and the name of the article to undergroundreporter2016@gmail.com. Image credit: Wikimedia/Rosalee Yagihara