Category Archives: Economy

Is Your Food Sourced from the Plant Equivalent of AIDS?

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Genetic selec­tion to improve crops began when people invented farming, but most of this inheritance cannot be patented, and is therefore useless as a source of profit. Using genetic engineering (GE) to modify crops is radically different than time tested traditional hybridization techniques and offers inviolate proprietary control.

One of the two traits that accounts for practically all of the genetically modified (GM) crops grown in the world today gives plants resistance to glyphosate (a chemical used in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, among others).

Dr. Don Huber, a plant pathologist of 50 years standing has determined that extensive use of these toxic herbicides has caused a novel organism to appear.

Last year he wrote a letter to the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, in which he explained that this new infectious agent had been discovered — one that is “widespread, very seri­ous, and in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn.”  He made an appeal for funds to continue the research, and asked that the approval of genetically engineered alfalfa be delayed until more research could be completed.

His appeal fell on deaf ears and GE alfalfa was subsequently approved, despite vigorous opposition by the organic community.

After Dr. Huber’s letter was leaked, Acres Magazine interviewed him about the contents of his letter and the dangers of glyphosate. It’s the best interview I have seen on this topic and I strongly recommend reading in its entirety.

It highlights the connection between genetically engineered foods and glyphosate, which blocks nutrient access rather than killing the plant more directly like the pesticides of the past. Genetically engineered crops drive the sale and use of glyphosate, and glyphosate is now wreaking absolute havoc on our environment, and, possibly, on us…

You Can Make a MAJOR Difference In Making Choice Possible and Labeling GMOs.

Before I continue, I want to bring your attention to an issue of great importance, and that is the California ballot initiative to mandate labeling of genetically engineered foods. We only have a few short months left to shift the tide of genetically engineered foods and out-of-control glyphosate use in the US, and we need your help.

This concerns all Americans, not just Californians, because a win for the California Initiative would most likely have the same impact as a national law, due to the size of their market. The initiative has already collected the 800,000 signatures needed to get the Act on this year’s ballot.

Now it’s time to campaign, and the Initiative needs both volunteers and funds to stand a chance against the deep pockets of the biotech industry that does NOT want a labeling requirement for their wares.

I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can:

  • If you live in California and want to get involved, please contact LabelGMOs.org. Pamm Larry will go through all volunteer requests to put you into a position that is suitable for you, based on your stated interests and location.
  • No matter where you live, please help spread the word in your personal networks, on Facebook, and Twitter. For help with the messaging, please seeLabelGMOs.org’s “Spread the Word!” page.
  • Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort, either through the LabelGMOs.org, or the Organic Consumers Fund.

How Does Glyphosate Work?

According to Dr. Huber, glyphosate differs from other herbicides in a number of ways. While most herbicides act as mineral chelators, meaning they immobilize certain nutrients, thereby killing the plant, glyphosate differs from other chelators in that it chelates several different mineral nutrients required for proper plant health. This is what is meant by it being “non-specific, broad-based” herbicide. It can limit uptake of a variety of nutrients by as much as 70 percent. As a result, the nutritional content of genetically engineered (GE) plants is also profoundly compromised.

Another difference is that it does not affect the primary mechanism that causes death; rather it just turns off the plant’s self-defense mechanism, allowing soil-borne fungi to kill the weed. While soil-borne fungi are always present, the destruction of the plant’s “immune system” allows the fungi to kill it in mere days.

“When they use the glyphosate-tolerant technology, they insert another gene that keeps that plant’s defense mechanism going somewhat so you can put the glyphosate directly on the crop plant without having it killed.

But the technology doesn’t do anything to the glyphosate, which is still tying up mineral nutrients,” Dr. Huber explains in the featured article.”Anytime you put the gene in, you reduce the nutrient efficiency of the plant, though not to the point that it destroys the ability of the plant to survive. [But] it does leave it physiologically impaired… It’s not quite analogous, but you could say that what you’re doing with glyphosate is you’re giving the plant a bad case of AIDS. You’ve shut down the immune system, or the defense system.”

Glyphosate is Also a Potent Biocide that Alters Soil Conditions

Another factor that sets glyphosate apart is its biocide activity. It stimulates some soil organisms while being quite toxic to others. Overall, its presence disturbs the natural balance of soil microbe and alters the soil biology, creating “super-pathogens” that can be very harmful. This also translates to greater danger for animals and humans who consume affected crops. For example, toxic botulism is now becoming a more common cause of death in dairy cows whereas such deaths used to be extremely rare. The reason it didn’t occur before was because beneficial organisms served as natural controls to keep the Clostridium botulinum in check. Without them, the Clostridium botulinum is allowed to proliferate in the animal’s intestines and produce lethal amounts of toxins.

According to Dr. Huber, there’s currently enough residual glyphosate in animal feed and food to make an otherwise benign organism lethal… and it may already be rearing its ugly head.

The new-to-science organism Dr. Huber warned Secretary Vilsack about is primarily found in genetically engineered corn and soybeans, and it’s been clearly established that it causes not only sudden death in plants, but also infertility and miscarriage in cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, and poultry. Could it be affecting humans as well? After all, we have seen an increase in infertility in the past 10 years, since genetically engineered foods were first introduced.

Dr. Huber believes this harmful organism is the result of a change in plant and soil conditions that has granted a pre-existing pathogen the ability to cause harm in ways it was never before capable of. According to Huber:

“Any time you have a single gene in so many different crops, especially a gene that impacts the normal resistance and defense mechanism in the plant, and you spread that same vulnerability across so many plants, you should anticipate a high level of vulnerability. I think that’s what we’re seeing.”

Statistics Indicate Increased Plant Stress…

While some critics refuse to accept that sudden plant death and animal miscarriages are occurring, Dr. Huber points out that the statistics should speak for themselves. In the featured article he states:

“It isn’t a universal phenomenon, just as most disease outbreaks can be limited. I think the criticism goes against the statistics though. If you look at the USDA’s anticipated yield on corn that they put out in August, and then subtract the actual yields reported in January, you come up with almost a billion bushels less, even though we had near ideal conditions for harvest. Where did those billion bushels go? All you have to do to document that there was a short crop last year is look at the price.

We’re no longer talking about $3 per bushel of corn; we’re talking about $6 per bushel. That’s not from increased ethanol use, that’s from a major shortage in the crop produced. How do you get soybeans from $5 to $12? You have a short crop, because you have an inelastic supply/demand relationship in agriculture.”

Why Genetically Engineering Perennial Alfalfa May Be a Disaster

As mentioned earlier, genetically engineered alfalfa was approved late last year. There’s reason to believe that this decision could be particularly devastating not just for the environment in general, but for organic farming in particular, including organic animal products as dried alfalfa is a common addition to the feed during winter months. In the featured article, Dr. Huber explains why allowing for the genetic alteration of alfalfa might be so devastating:

“A perennial crop like alfalfa can be very susceptible to a closely related common soilborne bacterium to Goss’ wilt. If the technology nullifies resistance to this bacterial disease like it can for corn, and it is compatible with the new organism, then you have a situation where you can compromise the crop totally because you don’t have any way to get it out.

With an annual crop like corn or soybean… it [is] a matter of just going back to our old genetics and eliminating those with the gene from the breeding program. [But] once you have it implanted in the plant though, there’s no way to get it out. With a perennial, insect-pollinated plant, I don’t know of any way to eliminate it once it’s distributed throughout an area…”

Genetic engineering of plants—the act of altering plant traits by inserting foreign genes—makes it very difficult to revert back to the way things were… It’s a lot easier to put DNA in than it is to get it back out once it’s growing in our fields. Furthermore, each genetic alteration stresses the plant. This is referred to as the “yield-drag aspect.” Dr. Huber believes there may be ways to genetically improve crops, but inserting genetic material in multiple species of plants to impart the same resistance (in this case, resistance to glyphosate, or so-called Roundup Ready crops), significantly increases the vulnerability of the plants.

Are Genetically Engineered Foods Safe for Human Consumption?

Independent research has repeatedly found significant problems with both genetically engineered foods. Dr. Huber gives another telling example in the featured interview, in which he states:

“The Indian Supreme Court recently actually insisted on an outside laboratory to do the toxicology analysis for Bt eggplant. The independent laboratory—I believe the one they selected was in New Zealand—stated essentially that the data presented for deregulation of that crop didn’t meet international standards for toxicological studies, and that their independent toxicological research found that it wasn’t safe for human consumption.”

Bt crops are genetically engineered not to withstand glyphosate, like the Roundup Ready crops are, but rather they’re designed to create their own internal pesticide—Bt toxin—which ruptures the bellies of the bugs that eat it… Bt toxin has now been detected in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn babies, indicating that this genetic feature is transferred into the system of those who eat such crops.

As if that’s not enough, research data also shows that even low levels of glyphosate are very toxic to liver, kidney, and testicular cells, and to your endocrine system. Still, despite mounting evidence, agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) refuses to act to protect the health of Americans by revealing which foods contain genetically engineered ingredients.

FDA Eliminates 1 Million Signatures for GMO Labeling on ‘Technical’ Reasons

Mandatory labeling may be the only way to stop the proliferation of genetically engineered foods in the U.S., but simple petitions will likely fail. We strongly support state initiatives, such as California’s ballot initiative to get mandatory labeling for genetically engineered foods sold in their state. A recent story highlights why state initiatives in particular are so vitally important.

It’s a brazen example of how the FDA completely ignores the people it’s supposed to listen to and protect… The agency actually decided to eliminate and disregard over a million U.S. citizens’ signatures and comments collected by the Just Label It campaign. Organizers of the campaign said they gathered more than one million signatures of people who want to know what’s in the foods they’re eating. But the whole effort ended up being for naught as the FDA declared that signatures on form letters don’t count.

According to the Chicago Tribune:

“The agency says that if 35,000 people, for instance, sign their name to the same form letter it only counts as one person or “comment.” And if tens of thousands sign a petition, they are only counted as one “comment,” too.”

Therefore, under the FDA counting method, the one million signatures whittled down to a measly 394 people asking for labeling… The FDA says it’s still considering the issue, and that they would let the Just Label It group know if, and when, they make a decision on whether they would mandate labeling of genetically engineered foods.

Proof Positive that GMO Labeling WILL Change the Food Industry

Many don’t fully appreciate the strategy of seeking to have genetically engineered foods labeled in California. The belief is that large companies would refuse to have dual labeling; one for California and another for the rest of the country. It would be very expensive and a logistical nightmare. So rather than have two labels, they would simply not carry the product, especially if the new label would be the equivalent of a skull and crossbones. This is why we are so committed to this initiative as victory here will likely eliminate genetically engineered foods in the US.

Powerful confirmation of this belief occurred in early 2012 when both Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo Inc. chose to alter one of their soda ingredients as a result of California’s labeling requirements for carcinogensvi:

“Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. are changing the way they make the caramel coloring used in their sodas as a result of a California law that mandates drinks containing a certain level of carcinogens bear a cancer warning label. The companies said the changes will be expanded nationally to streamline their manufacturing processes. They’ve already been made for drinks sold in California.”

This is a PERFECT example of the national impact a California labeling mandate can, and no doubt WILL, have. While California is the only state requiring the label to state that the product contains the offending ingredient, these companies are switching their formula for the entire US market, rather than have two different labels. According to USA Today:

“A representative for Coca-Cola, Diana Garza Ciarlante, said the company directed its caramel suppliers to modify their manufacturing processes to reduce the levels of the chemical 4-methylimidazole, which can be formed during the cooking process and as a result may be found in trace amounts in many foods. “While we believe that there is no public health risk that justifies any such change, we did ask our caramel suppliers to take this step so that our products would not be subject to the requirement of a scientifically unfounded warning,” Garza-Giarlante said in an email.”

Learn More about Genetically Engineered Foods

Due to lack of labeling, many Americans are still unfamiliar with what genetically engineered foods are. We have a plan to change that, and I urge you to participate and to continue learning more about genetically engineered foods and helping your friends and family do the same.

To start, please print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. You can also download a free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

Your BEST strategy, however, is to simply buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, (as these do not permit genetically engineered ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the genetically engineered organisms (GMOs) you’re exposed to are via processed foods, so by cooking from scratch with whole foods, you can be sure you’re not inadvertently consuming something laced with altered ingredients. When you do purchase processed food, avoid products containing anything related to corn or soy that are not 100 percent organic, as any foods containing these two non-organic ingredients are virtually guaranteed to contain genetically engineered ingredients, as well as toxic herbicide residues.

To learn more about genetically engineered foods, I highly recommend the following films and lectures:

  • Hidden Dangers in Kid’s Meals
  • Your Milk on Drugs – Just Say No!
  • Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Something Historical is About to Happen – But Your Participation is Critical

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Mayday! Mayday!

I’m pleased to announce that the Money Bomb Against Monsanto has been officially launched!

Yes, it is official.

Volunteers and staff from the California Right to Know Campaign are submitting nearly 1 million signed petitions from registered voters across the state of California to county officials, to place Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act on the Ballot for November 6.

Starting May 1, and extending through May 26, a broad coalition of farmers, health groups, and organic food manufacturers, will attempt to raise one million dollars (i.e. “The Money Bomb”). Donations can be made online, via regular snail mail, and over the phone. All donations will support state GMO-labeling campaigns and their defense from biotech bully lawsuits.

The Right to Know Gentically Engineered Food Act

This Act will require food manufacturers to identify genetically engineered ingredients on the labels of foods sold in California.

When California voters pass this ballot initiative, the Label Genetically Engineered Food Act will also not allow the common practice of mislabeling genetically engineered foods as “natural” or “all natural.” It’s imperative to understand why this initiative is so important and how it can affect all Americans, regardless of where you live.

California has the eighth largest economy in the world, so passing a labeling law for genetically engineered foods in California can have the same impact as passing a federal law.

Large food companies are unlikely to accept having dual labeling; one for California and another for the rest of the country. It would be an expensive logistical nightmare, not to mention a massive PR problem.

To avoid the dual labeling, many would likely opt to not include using any genetically engineered ingredients in their product, especially if the new label would be the equivalent of a skull and crossbones. Those who opt not to replace GE ingredients from the get-go will likely find themselves unable to sell their products, as a majority of consumers reportedly will not buy foods once they know they’re genetically engineered. Unable to sell their products, such companies will eventually be forced to stop contaminating our food with genetically engineered ingredients, or risk going out of business.

This is what happened in Europe and over 40 countries around the world. It can happen in the U.S. This is why we can’t leave California to battle the biotech giants on their own. They need your help! Donating funds to this campaign may be the best money you’ll spend all year to safeguard your health, and the health of your children.

Do you know which foods are genetically engineered when you go grocery shopping for your family? Wouldn’t you want to know? Genetically engineered foods have been on the market since 1996. It’s time they tell us what’s in the food we’re eating on a daily basis. Making a generous donation to this campaign is the best chance every American has at this point to make that happen!

The Proverbial David versus Goliath

Naturally, the biotech industry is not about to let this pass without a fight. Monsanto, the Farm Bureau, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, along with corporate agribusiness, are all raising millions of dollars to spread their propaganda in an effort to defeat the California Ballot Initiative, just like they did a decade ago in Oregon. At that time, a cabal of corporate giants, including Monsanto and DuPont, calling themselves The Coalition Against the Costly Labeling Law, outspent the pro-labeling group 30-1, and successfully defeated the labeling initiative by scaring voters into believing that labeling genetically engineered foods was unnecessary and would raise food prices.

They did it again in Washington state last month, where campaign contributions to three of the eight politicians on the Senate Agriculture Committee—Democrat Brian Hatfield, and Republicans Jim Honeyford and Mark Schoesler—guaranteed the bill’s demise in committee. Right now, the biotech industry is also working to defeat similar GE labeling bills in Vermont, Hawaii, Connecticut, and other states. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Monsanto spent $8 million on their lobbying efforts in 2010 alone, and gave more than $400,000 in political contributions. Monsanto also spent $120 million on advertising, to convince consumers that genetically engineered foods are safe – despite the overwhelming scientific evidence showing otherwise.

Let’s send them a message, loud and clear: We have the right to know what they put into our food!

You can do so by making a donation right now. The money will be used to counter the industry propaganda so that we can win this ballot.

We’re Dropping the Money Bomb!

About twenty years ago, the FDA decided to deny consumers the right to know whether their food was genetically altered or not. This shameful regulation was spearheaded by Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto lawyer who transferred into the offices of the FDA. Taylor is not the only ex-Monsanto employee that ended up in a position of power within the US federal government and its regulatory agencies, and this is precisely why previous efforts to get genetically engineered foods labeled have been blocked.

Not so this time!

Ballot Initiatives like the one in California is one way for citizens to take back control from compromised politicians and government officials and bypass them entirely. To sweeten the deal further, a group of “Right to Know” public interest organizations and organic companies have pledged to match the first million dollars raised in this nationwide “Drop the Money Bomb on Monsanto Campaign.”

So click here, and help us raise 1 million dollars to win this historic campaign! These “Right to Know” groups include:

  • The Organic Consumers Association
  • Mercola.com
  • Food Democracy Now
  • Nature’s Path
  • Lundberg Family Farms
  • Eden Foods, and
  • The Organic Consumers Fund

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

GMO Alert: Top 10 Genetically Modified Foods to Avoid Eating

Posted on by
Reply

By: Aurora Geib
Source: NaturalNews.com

There is a conspiracy of selling out happening in America. Politics and personal interest it would seem determine government policies over and above health and safety issues. When President Obama appointed Michael Taylor in 2009 as senior adviser for the FDA, a fierce protest ensued from consumer groups and environmentalists. Why? Taylor used to be vice president for Monsanto, a multinational interested in marketing genetically modified (GM) food. It was during his term that GMO’s were approved in the US without undergoing tests to determine if they were safe for human consumption.

The danger of GMO’s

The question of whether or not genetically modified foods (GMO’s) are safe for human consumption is an ongoing debate that does not seem to see any resolution except in the arena of public opinion. Due to lack of labeling, Americans are still left at a loss as to whether or not what is on the table is genetically modified. This lack of information makes the avoiding and tracking of GM foods an exercise in futility. Below are just some of the food products popularly identified to be genetically modified:

1.Corn - Corn has been modified to create its own insecticide. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared that tons of genetically modified corn has been introduced for human consumption. Monsanto has revealed that half of the US’s sweet corn farms are planted with genetically modified seed. Mice fed with GM corn were discovered to have smaller offspring and fertility problems.

2.Soy - Soy has also been genetically modified to resist herbicides. Soy products include soy flour, tofu, soy beverages, soybean oil and other products that may include pastries, baked products and edible oil. Hamsters fed with GM soy were unable to have offspring and suffered a high mortality rate.

3.Cotton - Like corn and soy, cotton has been designed to resist pesticides. It is considered food because its oil can be consumed. Its introduction in Chinese agriculture has produced a chemical that kills cotton bollworm, reducing the incidences of pests not only in cotton crops but also in neighboring fields of soybeans and corn. Incidentally, thousands of Indian farmers suffered severe rashes upon exposure to BT cotton.

4.Papaya - The virus-resistant variety of papaya was commercially introduced in Hawaii in 1999. Transgenic papayas comprised three-fourths of the total Hawaiian papaya crop. Monsanto bestowed upon Tamil Nadu Agricultural University in Coimbatore technology for developing papaya resistant to the ringspot virus in India.

5.Rice - This staple food from South East Asia has now been genetically modified to contain a high amount of vitamin A. Allegedly, there are reports of rice varieties containing human genes to be grown in the US. The rice will create human proteins useful for dealing with infant diarrhea in the 3rd world. China Daily, an online journal, reported potential serious public health and environment problems with genetically modified rice considering its tendency to cause allergic reactions with the concurrent possibility of gene transfers.

6.Tomatoes - Tomatoes have now been genetically engineered for longer shelf life, preventing them from easily rotting and degrading. In a test conducted to determine the safety of GM tomatoes, some animal subjects died within a few weeks after consuming GM tomatoes.

7.Rapeseed - In Canada, this crop was renamed canola to differentiate it from non-edible rapeseed. Food stuff produced from rapeseed includes rapeseed oi (canola oil) l used to process cooking oil and margarine. Honey can also be produced from GM rapeseed. German food surveillance authorities discovered as much as a third of the total pollen present in Canadian honey may be from GM pollen. In fact, some honey products from Canada were also discovered to have pollen from GM rapeseed.

8.Dairy products - It has been discovered that 22 percent of cows in the U.S. were injected with recombinant (genetically modified) bovine growth hormone (rbGH). This Monsanto created hormone artificially forces cows to increase their milk production by 15 percent. Milk from cows treated with this milk inducing hormone contains increased levels of IGF-1 (insulin growth factors-1). Humans also have IGF-1 in their system. Scientists have expressed concerns that increased levels of IGF-1 in humans have been associated with colon and breast cancer.

9.Potatoes - Mice fed with potatoes engineered with Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki Cry 1 were found to have toxins in their system. Despite claims to the contrary, this shows that Cry1 toxin was stable in the mouse gut. When the health risks were revealed, it sparked a debate.

10.Peas - Peas that have been genetically modified have been found to cause immune responses in mice and possibly even in humans. A gene from kidney beans was inserted into the peas creating a protein that functions as a pesticide.

The GMO link to strange disease

As early as 2008, NaturalNews.com reported about a condition called Morgellon’s disease. The article went on to report the symptoms of the disease as follows: crawling, stinging, biting and crawling sensations; threads or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; granules, lesions. Some patients report fatigue, short term memory loss, mental confusion, joint pain and changes in vision. Furthermore, there have been reports of substantial morbidity and social dysfunction leading to a dip in work productivity, job loss, total disability, divorce, loss of child custody and home abandonment.

Prior to its reporting, the condition was dismissed as a hoax, but upon further investigation, the evidence pointed out that the disease was real and may be related to genetically modified food.

Despite this link being established, the CDC declared Morgellon’s disease of unknown origin. Worse, the medical community could not offer any information to the public regarding a cause for the symptoms.

When a research study was conducted on fiber samples taken from Morgellons patients, it was discovered that the fiber samples of all the patients looked remarkable similar. And yet, it did not seem to match any common environmental fiber. When the fiber was broken down, and it’s DNA extracted, it was discovered to belong to a fungus. Even more surprising was the finding that the fibers contained Agrobacterium, a genus gram-negative bacteria with the capacity of transforming plant, animal and even human cells.

Morgellon’s disease is not the only condition associated with genetically modified foods. A growing body of evidence has shown that it may cause allergies, immune reactions, liver problems, sterility and even death. Moreover, based on the only human feeding experiment conducted on genetically modified food, it was established that genetic material in genetically modified food product can transfer into the DNA of intestinal bacteria and still continue to thrive.

Heeding the warning

Time and again, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has warned that GMOs pose a serious threat to health, and it is no accident that there can be a correlation between it and adverse health effects. In fact, the AAEM has advised doctors to tell their patients to avoid GMOs as the introduction of GMOs into the current food supply has correlated with an alarming rise in chronic diseases and food allergies.

This should come as no surprise. More than 30 years ago a food supplement called L-trytophan killed 100 people and affected 5,000 to 10,000 more. The cause was narrowed down to the genetic engineering process used in its production. If the symptoms had not had three simultaneous characteristics – namely, they were unique, acute and fast-acting – the disease could never have been identified.

If science could assure us with certainty that serious consequences do not wait for us at the end of the line, it might be to our best interest to let this opportunity pass. Progressive thinking in terms of profit is certainly not wrong. But to brush off precaution on the convenient argument that there is not enough evidence to prove that GM food is indeed harmful is sheer irresponsibility. It certainly is a lame excuse to offer in the event that GM foods are indeed proven to contain health hazards

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Colony Collapse Disorder in Bees Triggered not just by Pesticides, but also by GMO High-Fructose Corn Syrup

Posted on by
Reply

By: Jonathan Benson
Source: NaturalNews.com

Studies linking neonicotinoid pesticides to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), a condition in which entire bee colonies suddenly disappear or die, have been gaining national attention in recent months as they continue to flood scientific journals. But one area that has been largely overlooked is the role high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) plays in killing off bees, as the vast majority of it comes from genetically-modified (GM), pesticide treated corn crops.

Chensheng Lu, Kenneth M. Warchol, and Richard A. Callahan from the Department of Environmental Healthat theHarvard School of Public Health examined the effects of imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid pesticide, on bee colonies as part of a recent review. Part of this research involved using HFCS that had been derived from corn crops treated with imidacloprid, for which the pesticide ended up getting into the end product.

For their study, the team created four honey bee sites with five honey bee hives each, for a total of 20 hives, with each site containing four imidacloprid hives and a control hive. Among the 16 hives treated with imidacloprid, varying amounts of the pesticide were used in order to gain a proper assessment of how, and at what levels, it affects bees.

In the end, the team discovered that the vast majority — 94 percent — of hives treated with imidacloprid ended up dying off as a result of what appeared to be CCD, even when very minute levels of the pesticide were added. And a key culprit in this die-off was imidacloprid-tainted HFCS, which served as the delivery system for this toxic chemical.

“Data from this in situ study provide convincing evidence that exposure to sub-lethal levels of imidacloprid in HFCS causes honey bees to exhibit symptoms consistent to CCD 23 weeks post imidacloprid dosing,” wrote the authors. “15 or 16 imidacloprid-treated hives (94%) were dead across four apiaries 23 weeks post imidacloprid dosing.”

You can review the study for yourself at:
http://www.bouldercountybeekeepers.org

Most commercial honey comes from bees fed chemical-laden HFCS

HFCS is commonly fed to many commercial bees today, which is why more than 75 percent of the so-called “honey” sold on store shelves is nothing more than HFCS. And since the GM corn crops from which the vast majority of HFCS is derived have been treated with imidacloprid and other pesticides, it is hardly surprising that these chemicals end up in commercial bee feed.

France actually banned the use of imidacloprid on sunflowers and sweet corn back in 1999 and 2003, respectively, after more than one third of its bees died (http://www.guardian.co.uk). And yet the pesticide continues to be used in the U.S., despite the fact that it was never even lawfully approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Ron Paul admits in speech to public that the FDA And Big Pharma ‘are in bed together’

Posted on by
Reply

By: NaturalNews
Source: NaturalNews.com

Ron Paul makes a groundbreaking admission to the public on tape – that the FDA and Big Pharma are indeed “in bed together,” both building up their monopolies and only interested in making more money. The Republican presidential candidate confirms that the corrupt corporations are running the show, that the FDA is doing more harm than good and many other eye-opening admittances.

Watch the video yourself at:
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=E422FE9A5D1E2C455393C681BB0E1D80

Ron Paul: It never works that way. You know, your safety and your drugs, for instance, it sounds like a reasonable thing. You want safety in your drugs. But the FDA and the drug companies are in bed together and they squeeze out competitions and build up their monopolies and they love government medicine because they make more money. The insurance companies and the drug companies, whether it’s Democrats or Republicans reforming the medical care system, these corporations run the show. You know, they support it, it’s because the government doesn’t take it over. It’s the corporations that end up taking over. So, it’s well intended but I think it always backfires on us and that the people we’re wanting to regulate end up writing their own regulations.

Reporter: So in that particular case would the reasonable alternative being no FDA?

Ron Paul: I think so because, I don’t think, I think they’ve done more harm than good because sometimes it might take them 25 years to allow a good drug to come onto the marketplace and the rules and regulations inhibits the options of the physician to use drugs for anything other than not approved by the FDA, which means it slows up research and the cost goes up and then when it’s approved by the FDA, guess what happens? If you’re on the inside track of that- I’m the FDA- today I approve this drug, tomorrow, their drug company’s value, their stock goes up fifty fold. Just because a bureaucrat made this decision. So, it’s a protection of the corporation is basically what it is. People weren’t dying from bad drugs before we had the FDA. I mean, it just didn’t happen. There’d be other agencies that would do this. There’d be no reason to assume that all of a sudden, the drug companies have it in their interest to give you a bad drug.

Reporter: Well, I’m not sure what fits in there and it’s hard to prove a negative, but are you assuming that there are no bad drugs

Ron Paul: There’s plenty of bad drugs, and the FDA’s permitted a lot of them to get on the market, too. I mean bad drugs on the market now. Did you ever see a PDR? They’re about that big and about half of them are useless. But if it’s FDA approved- and what does the FDA do when it comes to alternative or natural products? The FDA and the drug industry keeps them off the market. A natural drug product, alternative health care, freedom of choice, it is obstructed from those making those free choices. So it’s there to protect the drug industry. They very often do exactly the opposite. I believe in free choice on picking alternative care rather than having it licensed through the FDA and these drug approvals. It delays, it costs so many- this is one reason why drug costs are so high, because it goes through years and years and years of litigation and getting approval, and that’s a source of making drug costs much higher in cost.

Reporter: So how did we get to this mess? Let’s just stick with FDA or go with Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but how is it that this body of burdensome regulations was allowed to develop? Is it parts of the private sector finding ways to protect themselves or what?

Ron Paul: I don’t know, I haven’t done a detailed history of exactly this but my assumption would be that it’d be a lot of well noted people saying, well, we need these regulations to help the people and protect the people. But those individuals and the companies that are involved immediately leap to it and take over and find out how they can keep out their competition. What industry it is, whether it’s the housing industry, housing insurance, it’s always to squeeze the little guy out and protect the big industries. Competition serves the competitor who is trying to compete with big industry, and I don’t like to see government protecting big industries and big corporations.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Hold On to Your Luggage – Shocking JFK Airport Scandal Reveals over 200 Baggage Thefts a Day

Posted on by
Reply

By: J. D. Heyes
Source: NaturalNews.com

Thinking of flying out of John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) in New York City anytime soon? If so, you may want to just take a carry-on, because luggage theft there is rampant.

In fact, authorities say passengers are losing about 200 bags per day at the busy international hub – and with them jewelry, cash, electronics and other valuables.

Local reports said the thefts are inside jobs. Worse, authorities know that and still theft of bags continues to be rampant.

One flyer, Rita Lamberg, walked out of JFK with an empty jewelry box and pictures of the watches, rings, necklaces and other fashion items that were worth about $160,000 – all stolen from her bag.

“I am so sick. This is a lifetime, a lifetime of my savings,” she told a local CBS News affiliate.

So many bags, so many opportunities to steal

Unfortunately, she’s not alone. Police say the thefts are increasing at an alarming rate. They say those looking to rip you off include baggage handlers, jetway workers and even security personnel.

“The belly of the airplane has become like a flea market for airport employees. They go in there and go through all the luggage unencumbered, unchecked,” JFK International security lawyer Kenneth Mollins told the affiliate.

Mollins is currently helping Lambert and others try to get back their belongings. So is retired NYPD detective Frank Shea, who’s been hired by other passengers who’ve been ripped off. Both men say the theft problem at JFK has approached nightmarish proportions.

“What we’re seeing out there is that really anything that isn’t nailed down is being stolen and for that matter I would caution, some day, if there weren’t tires missing from an aircraft,” Shea said.

Yes, profiling does happen

How is it that thieves are so successful? Easy. Authorities say they engage in baggage profiling. It’s how they determine which baggage contains the biggest scores.

Thieves look for expensive luggage. They also look for where the traveler is coming from; if they are coming from ritzy parts of the city, for instance, their bags are more likely going to be targeted.

Authorities say the profiling takes place where the luggage meets the plane. “It’s really occurring on the tarmac or as it’s being loaded onto the aircraft,” said Shea. Once the goods are discovered, thieves know how to make off with them as well.

“Sometimes they get loaded into the back of one of the vehicles out at the airport. They’re searched through. They can be discarded as rubbish. Other times they are leaving the airport grounds,” Shea said.

Put another way, the thieves are stealing the bags but passengers never find that out. Instead, the airline is telling them their luggage was somehow lost in transit.

Says Mollins: “The airlines don’t want to report these thefts because it’s bad for business.”

Indeed.

Where’s the FAA?

It’s also bad for business because the thefts have led to an increase in expenses borne by the airline. “Fares go up clearly because of this. It’s a cost of doing business. They pay out and they hide the fact that these items are stolen,” said Mollins.

And passengers, for the most part, have no idea this is occurring.

For its part, the NYC Port Authority (PA) – which owns JFK – said airport workers are fingerprinted and given background checks through the FBI database. In addition, the PA said it would be installing more cameras around the airport, to keep an eye on workers and security officials.

Others say that’s not enough. They are calling on the Federal Aviation Administration to implement rules that would require airlines to do more, like tighten operating standards and procedures and require airlines to install cameras in cargo holds.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Do You Have ANY Idea How Absurd U.S. Farm Subsidies Are?

Posted on by
Reply

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

If you’re like many Americans, when you think of farm subsidies you think of rolling green pastures, fields of golden wheat and corn, and a hillside full of cattle peacefully meandering through the grass.

The farmer, a “salt of the earth” type with weathered skin, depends on his farm subsidy to keep food on his table and, more importantly, to keep his farm afloat, allowing for the rest of the population to put food on their tables too.

This is how it should be — but this is not reality.

Millionaires Receive the Majority of Farm Subsidies

A more accurate picture, as summarized concisely in the Organic Consumers Association video above, is this: those “real” farmers, the ones who truly need it, receive only a few thousand dollars a year, maybe less, while the rest serves to line the pockets of the millionaire “farmers” who own massive factory farms and who have probably rarely spent a day with their hands in the dirt.

According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), between 1995 and 2010:

  • 10 percent of farmers collected 74 percent of all subsidies, amounting to nearly $166 billion over 16 years
  • 62 percent of U.S. farmers did not collect subsidy payments
  • The bottom 80 percent of recipients averaged just $587 a year

Now, if you look at the leading recipients of commodity subsidies, you’ll see the highest earners received payments numbering in the hundreds of millions from 1995-2010 for the top three! Unfortunately, the USDA is far from transparent with their subsidy data, and EWG was not able to track down who is actually receiving this money, as recipients of payments made through most cooperatives, and the amounts, have not been made public.

However, as EWG explained, it is clear that many of the recipients are not exactly losing their shirts over a dip in market prices for grain: As critics have put it, this is essentially giving “welfare to millionaires.”

” … despite lawmakers’ boasts of enacting major reforms in the 2008 farm bill, the new data clearly show that wealthy absentee land owners and mega farms awash in record income are once again the main beneficiaries of federal farm programs – while struggling family farmers go begging.

And once again, the database shows that many farm subsidy recipients get those fat government checks at addresses in New York City, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles – not exactly farm country, and a far cry from the programs’ original intent. … The database revealed, for example, that Florida real estate developer Maurice Wilder, reportedly worth $500 million, was pulling in almost $1 million a year in farm subsidies for corn farms he owns in several states.”

And Then There are the Recipients Who are Not Even Farmers at All …

The absurdity of federal farm subsidies gets worse still, as even non-farmers who moved into residential areas that once were farmland have received farm subsidy payments from the government, as have wealthy farmers who have received annual payments even when they are no longer growing the subsidized crop.

In 2008, the “actively engaged” rule was put forth specifically to nip this type of fraud in the bud. As its name implies, only those who are “actively engaged” in farming are supposed to be receiving the subsidies. But, alas, when EWG released its updated database in 2011, they found no changes to the status quo:

“Despite this rule, subsidies still line the pockets of absentee land owners and investors living in every major American city. In 2010, 7,767 residents of just five Texas cities – Lubbock, Amarillo, Austin, San Angelo and Corpus Christi – collected $61,748,945 in taxpayer-funded subsidies. Residents of Lubbock booked $24,839,154 in payments, putting it at the top of cities with 100,000+ populations that are home to farm subsidy recipients. The phenomenon of urban residents receiving federal farm payments remains widespread and coast-to-coast.”

Mega-Farms Receive Fixed Annual Cash Payments, Whether They Need Them or Not

You may also be surprised to learn that while farm subsidies initially were created to protect staple crops during times of war, reduce crop surpluses and provide monetary support to farmers when crop prices fell, today mega-farms receive subsidies whether they need them or not.

The transition away from a needs-based system came in 1996, when lawmakers developed a “market transition” payment system for farmers. The idea was to phase out the subsidies over a seven-year transition period, during which farmers would receive an annual fixed cash payment based upon the number of acres on the farm (these direct payments were given as long as the land was not developed — even if nothing was planted).

Of course, this ensures that the largest farms also receive the largest payments, and contrary to its original intent, the payments have not declined annually nor has the program gone away. It still exists today. EWG reported:

“Farm programs turned into a cash crop for big agribusinesses, which co-opted federal policy and turned it into a perennial giveaway that disproportionately benefits large landowners and wealthy farm operations. And that remains the reality today.

The industrial agriculture lobby has been defending the controversial “direct payment” form of taxpayer-funded subsidies ever since they were first authorized. These fixed, automatic checks go out every year to the largest growers of commodity crops, such as corn and cotton, whether farmers need them or not and despite the fact that farm household income has eclipsed average U.S. household income. Farm income for the largest operations, in particular, has soared sky high.”

Subsidies Support Junk Food Diets, Chronic Disease and Environmentally Devastating CAFOs

The farm subsidy program is upside down not only in which farmers it chooses to support, but also in which foods it funds. Have you ever noticed that it’s often cheaper to buy a loaf of bread than a pound of broccoli or even a pound of ground beef than a similar amount of green peppers? Or have you wondered how you can get a value meal at numerous fast-food restaurants for far less money than it takes to purchase foods to make a healthy meal, such as organic chicken and fresh veggies, for your family at home?

Perhaps this disparity has struck you as odd. After all, what makes vegetables more expensive than bread or meat? It’s clearly nothing inherent to their growing requirements. Instead, it’s the direct result of government farm subsidies, which favor the very foods you should eat less of if you want to stay healthy.

The top four most heavily subsidized foods? Corn, wheat, soybeans and rice.

By subsidizing these, particularly corn and soy, the U.S. government is actively supporting a diet that consists of these grains in their processed form, namely high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), soybean oil, and grain-fed cattle – all of which are now well-known contributors to obesity and chronic diseases.

Many of these subsidized grain crops are also used for animal feed, animals raised on confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). As it stands, 2 percent of U.S. livestock facilities produce 40 percent of farm animals, and these large, corporate-owned CAFOs have been highly promoted as the best way to produce food for the masses (beef is also the seventh most heavily subsidized food). In reality, it has lead to an abundance of cheap food, but not without serious consequences:

  • Loss of water quality through nitrogen and phosphorus contamination in rivers, streams and ground water (which contributes to “dramatic shifts in aquatic ecosystems and hypoxic zones”)
  • Agricultural pesticide contamination to streams, ground water and wells, and safety concerns to agricultural workers who use them
  • A decline in nutrient density of 43 garden crops (primarily vegetables, which suggests “possible tradeoffs between yield and nutrient content)
  • Large emission of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide
  • Negative impact on soil quality through such factors as erosion, compaction, pesticide application and excessive fertilization

A classic video on the U.S. government’s fatally flawed agricultural subsidy programs, and how they affect your nutritional choices and health, is “How to Get Fat Without Really Trying” with Peter Jennings. Although it’s several years old and Peter has passed away, the video still speaks the truth because virtually nothing has changed. If anything, the situation has actually worsened.

Help Prompt Change by Supporting Small Organic Farmers

It may be tempting to buy the cheap foods that the government is “paying you” to eat … but this choice will come back to haunt you in the form of health problems and increased medical bills later on. Try as they may, industry lobbyists still cannot force you to buy subsidized junk foods and foods raised in unhealthy “agribusiness” conditions. The choice is entirely yours, and consumer demand will always win eventually, so the more you demand healthy, unadulterated foods, the more they must produce, one way or another.

I strongly encourage you to support small family farms in your area, especially those that are embracing organic and traditional farming practices. These are the real farmers who need your support, and who are growing food that will nurture your health instead of harm it.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Paint-on Solar Cells? How Your House’s Next Coat of Paint Could Become a Power Generator

Posted on by

By: Jonathan Benson
Source: NaturalNews.com

Generating a sizable amount of renewable energy to power your home appliances and light fixtures could soon be as simple as giving your house a new coat of paint. Researchers from the University of Notre Dame in Indiana have come up with a novel new type of “solar paint” that utilizes nanoparticles to generate electricity without the need for traditional, silicon-based solar cells or expensive equipment.

Prashant Kamat, John A. Zahm Professor of Science in Chemistry and Biochemistry and an investigator in Notre Dame’s Center for Nano Science and Technology (NDnano), and his team successfully developed a water and alcohol based paint compound they say could change the future of home energy generation. The paint contains electricity-generating titanium dioxide particles coated in either cadmium sulfide or cadmium selenide. When this solution is applied onto a conductive, transparent surface, it generates electricity.

“By incorporating power-producing nanoparticles, called quantum dots, into a spreadable compound, we’ve made a one-coat solar paint that can be applied to any conductive surface without special equipment,” said Kamat about the paint, which he and his team have dubbed “Sun-Believable.” “If we can improve the efficiency somewhat, we may be able to make a real difference in meeting energy needs in the future.”

At this point, Kamat explains that his team’s solar paint falls somewhat short in the efficiency department, at least when compared to current solar panel technology. Instead of generating at the common ten-to-fifteen percent efficiency rate, solar paint has only been able to generate at about a one percent efficiency rate. But because the paint is far less expensive to produce than solar panels and has a lot of room for future improvements, it may soon become a viable form of energy generation that practically anyone could afford.

Published in the journal ACS Nano, Kamat and his team’s current research on solar paint is just the beginning. The group plans to improve the paint’s energy efficiency rate, and also develop an even more stable paint compound that will apply better to conductive surfaces. The US Department of Energy’s Office of Basic Energy Sciences is funding the research.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

German Village Generates 321 Percent More Renewable Energy Than it Needs, Earns Millions Selling it Back to National Power Grid

Posted on by

By: Ethan A. Huff
Source: NaturalNews.com

Developing a renewable energy system that creates energy independence and even a considerable new source of revenue is not some sort of sci-fi pipe dream. BioCycle reports that the German village of Wildpoldsried, population 2,600, has had such incredible success in building its renewable energy system. Wildpoldsried generates 321 percent more renewable energy than it uses, and it now sells the excess back to the national power grid for roughly $5.7 million in additional revenue every single year.

By utilizing a unique combination of solar panels, “biogas” generators, natural wastewater treatment plants, and wind turbines, Wildpoldsried has effectively eliminated its need to be attached to a centralized power grid, and created a thriving renewable energy sector in the town that is self-sustaining and abundantly beneficial for the local economy, the environment, and the public.

You can view some amazing pictures of the Wildpoldsried village at: (http://inhabitat.com/german-village…).

Possessing admirable vision for the town and strong motivation to see the project as a whole succeed, Mayor Arno Zengerie has led the way for many years in making Wildpoldsried’s energy independence efforts a success. As far back as 1997, the village has been investing in building and promoting new industries, maintaining a strong local economy, generating new forms of revenue, and ultimately staying out of debt. And the best way it saw fit to accomplish much of this was through the implementation of self-sustaining, renewable energy technologies.

Not only did Wildpoldsried successfully reduce the amount of time expected to generate the necessary funds to build local treasures like a sports hall, theater stage, pub, and retirement home with the revenue generated by its thriving renewable energy sector — the village has already successfully built nine community buildings, with more on the way — but it also achieved all this and more without going into debt.

“We often spend a lot of time talking to our visitors about how to motivate the village council (and Mayor) to start thinking differently,” said Mayor Zengerle, who now gives talks around the world about the successes of his award-winning village. “We show them a best practices model in motion and many see the benefits immediately. From the tour we give, our guests understand how well things can operate when you have the enthusiasm and conviction of the people.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Turmoil of World Economy – A Blessing In Disguise?

Posted on by

By Andreas Moritz

In the recent months I have literally received hundreds of emails which have requested that I speak or write about the current state of our economy. I was particularly asked what my opinion is about acquiring precious metals and living independently of the grid. Regarding the latter, I have personally taken steps to be energy-independent by installing solar panels. We also have our own water source and grow our own foods; and for the winter months we use a small greenhouse to provide some essential foods. Being a vegan/vegetarian, this makes it easy to be nearly self-sufficient with regard to food.

If at all possible, I recommend that people move away from areas of high or dense population to more rural areas where they have access to arable land and clean, natural water. If that’s not possible, try to find a small piece of land where you can grow your own food. Many people now convert their lawn into a vibrant vegetable garden.

Many years ago, I had predicted the emergence of what I call the ‘spiritual economy,’ which is to evolve from the ashes of our current, purely materialistic economy. I perceive the massive decline of our economy and the imminent collapse of the hollow values that uphold it (largely debt-based) as an inevitable step to birth the new, love-based, life-promoting economy where everyone will benefit from the generated waves of prosperity, not just a select few.

We are collectively transitioning out of an unsustainable state of existence where we rely on things like fiat paper money that is being printed faster than we can think; medications that are designed to make us sicker by the minute, so that we will spend more money on trying to regain our health; foods that are nutritionally worthless and make us crave and overeat them even more; water that is poisoned by the super-toxin fluoride, hormones, plastic particles and radiation from dumped nuclear waste material. We irradiate our food with microwaves and our brains with radio waves emitted from cell phones and other high tech devices. We stop talking to each other because it is more fun to send text messages, day and night, and to be entertained by video games and an endless number of TV programs.

We let ourselves be hired for pay and then pay part of what we have earned to a hired organization called the ‘government’ that somehow has assumed the role of dictating how we can and cannot live our lives. This government is allowed to use our money to run a Ponzi scheme that accrues a tremendous amount of debt that can never be repaid. To keep the scam going, the masses are forced by law to pay into it (taxation) without getting much in return, except a progressive destruction of the economy, the bankrupting of the housing market, an ever-expanding sickness industry that promises cures but kills more people each year than those who die from all other causes of death combined, and endless wars that have nothing to do with protecting us against an invading enemy, except to provide or secure access to foreign oil, gas, water and other natural resources that make the most wealthy even wealthier.

Our planet and her inhabitants are at the brink of extinction. What politicians and economists refer to as healthy economic growth is now fiction. Huge amounts of fiat money are being moved from one hand to another, from one organization or company to another, from one country to another, but all this just means that someone gets wealthier while another becomes poorer. A truly health economy benefits everyone, not just a selected few.

Today’s so-called ‘economic growth’ is now largely based on fixing problems. For example, the sickness industry is undergoing a massive growth that funnels vast amounts of money into the hands of a few corporate giants while impoverishing those who happen to fall ill. Health insurance premiums go up as more people get sick. Drug companies make sure to produce medicines that don’t cure anyone, but just suppress symptoms of disease for a little while; their continued prosperity depend on a steadily increasing number of repeat customers. Insurance companies thrive in times of calamities. More people sign up for flood and wind insurance after they see others’ homes being destroyed by floods, hurricanes and tornadoes.

Food shortages are increasing and food prices are rising. The rest of the foods that don’t go up in price are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer’s money. Massive bailouts of failing banks that make money off others in distress are further eroding the value of the currency and, therefore, the economy. Clever Wall Street investors spend a lot of money to make a lot more money, all out of thin air. But someone is going to lose whatever they win. Taking the entire economy into consideration, there is no real benefit in shifting wealth from one entity to another.

Creating poverty, which sows the seeds of crime, is a very lucrative business that serves ‘economic growth’. We spend billions of dollars each year on incarcerating people and keeping them there. It costs $40,000 – $60,000per year just to house and feed one prison inmate. In the US, we have over 2,000,000 prisoners. That’s a staggering $80,000,000,000 being ‘invested’ in the economy. In addition, the US has spent $1.2 trillion on wars since 2001, money that could have easily eradicated the most severe poverty on the entire planet.

Economic growth that is measured by how much money is being spent on creating or maintaining social-economic problems is economic regression, not economic progress. And there is a natural limit to such economic regression. The gap between the rich and poor widens by the minute and it a just a matter of time before the masses will revolt to assure their own survival and that of their families. The more we waste our energy and resources on controlling or fixing problems, the more likely we will have to face even more of them. As the old saying goes, like attracts like. We can forget about reaching the end of the current recession so that everything can go back to ‘normal’. What’s considered normal is not good enough anymore. Humankind deserves to move on.

The imminent collapse of the world economy is but a necessary, albeit painful, step toward restoring a sense of value and humaneness in our world affairs. We are not here to compete with one another, but to work together through service and sharing our gifts and resources. An economy that is based on competition is destined to destroy itself. Enriching ourselves at the cost of others is a recipe for disaster. Greed interferes with the delicate balance that exists between the energies of giving and receiving, or supply and demand.

To make it through the transition from the current state of economy to the next, we need to cycle back to the more stable and reliable currency backup system that has been in place for hundreds of years. This proven system was abandoned many years ago in order to funnel massive wealth into the hands of a few, while impoverishing the rest of us through massive debt creation. People who are in debt are obviously indebted to those who so generously offer them a loan. You relinquish control over your life when you accumulate debt. Now that the masses are spending more money than they own, almost the entire country is enslaved and controlled by those few who issue the debt (loans against interest) and own it.

Precious metals should have remained the backbone of all currencies and economies. Once this backbone was broken, the monetary system became subject to the massive manipulation and chaos that we are now faced with. President John F. Kennedy attempted to steer the US back to self-autonomy by abandoning the Federal Reserve and taking over the printing and circulation of gold-backed currency. His assassination quickly put a stop to it. Today, the trillions-and-growing national debt makes it impossible to salvage the economy. Bailouts of banks and large corporations merely postpone the inevitable economic bankruptcy and make it more traumatic, if dire, for everyone involved.

For the new economy to emerge, the old economy must be dismantled and decentralized. Every person must be able to create her or his own small economy for a balanced exchange of real goods, services and values to take place in our communities and worldwide. The old barter system, where something of true value was exchanged for something else that had value, must be reinstated in order to achieve decentralization and put an end to the power of those who control the money.

In truth, no one has power over us unless we allow it. We need to know that we do have choices, however difficult a situation may seem. Insurmountable difficulties have a great purpose; they force us to change course. For example, more and college graduates who are unable to get work in the cities are moving to rural areas where they either find work at existing food farms or lease a small piece of land where they can grow their own food. Many of them are now making a very good living of selling fresh foods to the local communities and they actually feel very good about what they do. Growing and sharing food is a time-tested recipe for happiness and peace of mind.

Paper money has no more value than the paper it is printed on, and it is subject to devaluation when more of it is printed or circulated. Thus, selling debt is a quick way to destroy the value of economies. Zimbabwe is very good example of a dysfunctional economy, and we are following in her footsteps. The greediness that fuels Ponzi schemes, such as the privately run Federal Reserve banking conglomerate, is endless. But without our participation in their gambling house, they cannot last long.

Instead of fighting the current system and blaming others for the now self-destructive economy, we can all step out of it and dismantle the very foundation of the debt-based economy. One simple piece of advice can go a long way, and it goes like this: don’t spend money you don’t have. If you have extra money, don’t spend it all, but create a nest egg that consists of gold and/or silver. By doing so, you literally own something of lasting value that is inflation proof.

It is not important how much worth precious metals have in comparison with the US dollar, for instance. The same silver coin that bought you a gallon of gas 40 years ago will still buy you a gallon of gas today or 10 years from now, if we still have gas by then. Precious metals cannot be devalued. If you decide to own gold or silver, I recommend keeping it rather than buying more fiat money as its ‘value’ increases. The more people who follow this advice, the faster and more smoothly the inevitable collapse of the debt-based economy can occur.

The collapse of the current economy is a prerequisite for the love-based, spiritual economy to emerge, just like the blossoms of an apple tree must die to give way to producing the life-giving fruits. The principles that have run our economies so far are outdated. Corruption is rampant. As the old proverb goes, we need a new seed in order to yield a new crop.

At a time when money determines everything that has some value, we can no longer expect to evolve in a meaningful way. Catastrophes like those we have witnessed or experienced in recent months, weeks and days serve as reminders that our material possessions and jobs can vanish at a moment’s notice. We are also learning that by destroying our natural environment, we are also destroying our livelihoods. When love becomes the measure of value, not money, economic hardship will vanish and the environment will be treasured and respected.

Making money, alone, does not create lasting happiness and love, but love and happiness can certainly bring about lasting abundance in life. We have now reached the extreme of the pendulum of superficiality and the pendulum must swing back to fathom the depth of our spiritual essence.Although acquiring precious metals helps to bring about this transition, this should only be a means to achieve an end.

——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page

Food Sovereignty Movement Goes Global

Posted on by

Source: Positivenews.org.uk

An increasing number of grassroots groups across the planet are promoting a new framework to radically alter the way we produce and distribute food.

Uniting behind the banner of ‘food sovereignty’, people are working not just for access to food – as described by the concept of food security – but for communities to have the right to democratically define their own food and agricultural systems without harming other people or the environment.

A declaration laying out the aspirations and needs of those who produce, distribute and consume food, has been signed by more than 500 representatives from more than 80 countries, including umbrella groups such as La Via Campesina who represent 200 million small-scale farmers and peasants internationally.

Born out of the first Food Sovereignty Forum in Mali, Africa in 2007, the Declaration of Nyéléni states that it is farmers and citizens who need to be at the heart of food systems and policies, rather than the demands of the markets or corporations.

What food sovereignty looks like on the ground is unique to each place, as cultural and ecological diversity are celebrated.

“Whether we try to grow our own food, run a local food scheme, campaign against genetic engineering or for access to land or better conditions for farm labourers, people around the globe are working on food sovereignty in a million different ways,” says Tomas Remiarz, a trustee of the Permaculture Association in the UK, who recently encouraged members to vote for the association to sign the Nyéléni Declaration.

Tomas attended the first European Forum for Food Sovereignty, which took place in Krems, Austria this summer. There he joined more than 400 people from 34 countries – from Turkish trade unionists to Swiss land activists.

“The question that brought us together was: How can we, the people of Europe, feed ourselves without destroying other people’s opportunities to feed themselves?” says Tomas.

The seeds for establishing a working understanding of what food sovereignty means in the UK are still being sown and many look to peasant organisations in the global south who have paved the way in taking action.

War on Want, an NGO fighting poverty in developing countries, together with the All Parliamentary Group on Agro-ecology, organised a Food Sovereignty Day at the House of Commons this October. Speakers were invited from Brazil, Nigeria, Cuba, Mozambique and Sri Lanka to inspire those in the UK to build a movement to reclaim our food system.

Luis Machanga, from the National Peasants’ Union of Mozambique described the current food system as being “like a strait jacket” whereas food sovereignty “is a liberation.”

This liberating framework has often been used in international development contexts but now land and food activists in the UK are recognising the power of the principles. With such a vibrant community food movement and an ever rising interest in ‘growing your own’, food sovereignty adds a positive political edge that encourages anyone concerned with their food to consider the context of how it was produced.

Young people are also at the forefront of developing food sovereignty, with groups such as Reclaim the Fields challenging inequalities in land distribution in the UK. Their desire for a food system no longer dominated by multinational corporations or a handful of retailers is escalating, while people across Europe are working to access land and grow food for their communities.

Groups ranging from development charities to Transition Town organisations are now planning a UK food sovereignty forum for 2012, which will create a space to explore how we can determine our own food systems that can make local, ethically and ecologically produced food the default way we nourish our communities at home.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Food For Thought – The Meat Production Process Is So Wasteful And Costly

Posted on by

By Andreas Moritz 

According to Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer, we would have enough food for the entire developing world if we ate half as much meat. Reducing meat production by merely 10 percent could release enough grain and other natural foods to feed 60 million people! Albert Einstein had this to say about vegetarianism: “Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chance for survival on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.” He predicted that producing and eating so much meat would literally kill us and our environment. Leo Tolstoy stated, “Vegetarianism is the taproot of humanitarianism.”

The world’s output of meat increased fivefold in the second half of the 20th century. Given the current trend, by 2050, the increases in meat production will have reached a point where we could feed 4 billion extra people with the plant food that is now being used to raise cattle. Only 10 percent of the protein and calories we feed to our livestock are recovered in the meat we eat. In the case of the United States, for the 20 million tons of humanly edible and nutritious protein that is fed to livestock yearly (apart from the waste products and drugs), only about 2 million tons of meat protein are obtained; and out of that amount, less than 27 percent can be utilized by the human body. If you are concerned about the world’s survival, consider the following statistics:

One acre of grain produces 5 times more protein than an acre of pasture set aside for meat production. An acre of beans or peas produces 10 times more protein and an acre of spinach 28 times more protein. Almost all land can be used for growing some crop or another.

One portion of meat contains only 20 grams of protein, whereas a typical 100-gram portion of beans yields 35 grams of protein. The meat, however, costs about 20 times more than the beans do. Being a vegetarian saves not only lives, but also money.

The food energy supplied by meat production uses 10 times more fossil fuel than the food energy supplied by plant production. Given the current shortage of fossil fuels on the planet, meat production may soon become unaffordable.

The world’s livestock now produces at least 10 percent of all the greenhouse gases. In other words, emissions from livestock have become a significant source of atmospheric methane. As of 1990, domestic animals currently account for about 15 percent of the annual anthropogenic methane emissions, and the number has been steadily increasing ever since.

85 percent of the topsoil lost in the USA each year is directly associated with the raising of livestock. In this way, 4 million acres of cropland is destroyed every year. In the same way, precious rain forests have had to give way to satisfy the demand for more meat in the world.

To grow one pound of wheat requires only 60 pounds of water, whereas the production of one pound of meat requires a staggering 50,000 pounds of water. To produce one pound of chicken, 1,800 pounds of water are needed. Large chicken slaughtering plants, in fact, expend up to 100 million gallons of water daily, enough to supply a city of 25,000 people!

According to research published in Chemical & Engineering News, Vol. 85, No. 15, April 9, 2007: 34-35, roxarsone, an arsenic-based additive used in most chicken feed, could pose health risks to humans. Roxasone is used to promote growth, kill parasites and improve the color of chicken meat. Under certain conditions, which can occur within live chickens or on farm land, this compound converts into more toxic forms of inorganic arsenic. This form of arsenic has been linked to bladder, lung, skin, kidney and colon cancers, and low-level exposure can lead to partial paralysis and diabetes. Of course, arsenic is also a deadly poison. Over 70 percent of the 9 billion broiler chickens produced annually in the United States are fed roxarsone.

The meat production process is so wasteful and costly that, in order to survive, the meat industry needs hundreds of millions of dollars in tax subsidies every year. You never pay only for the meat you eat; the subsidies come out of your pocket. In 1977, the governments of Western Europe spent almost half a billion dollars purchasing farmers’ overproduction of meat and additional millions to store it. This trend has not been different in the United States and is worsening each year. All this is precious money lost, thereby heavily burdening every national economy. In this sense, meat consumption is directly impoverishing the wealthy nations.

Any wars fought in the future will revolve about energy, food and water, all three of which are heavily wasted through meat production. The worldwide increase of meat consumption is driving the world closer and closer to the brink of international conflict.

——————————
This is an excerpt from my book TIMELESS SECRETS OF HEALTH & REJUVENATION

——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyperlink back to the web page

Change money, change the world

Posted on by



Source: Positivenews.org.uk

A simple reform to the way money is created would end the debt crisis, reduce poverty and reinvigorate the economy, say campaigners.

Positive Money, a not-for-profit research and campaign group, believes it has identified the core problem behind the ongoing economic crisis, as well as the solution. The issue, the group says, is the way in which money is created.

The Bank Charter Act 1844 made it illegal for anyone but the Bank of England to print and issue notes in England and Wales. However, following deregulations, the advance of computer technology and the law not being updated, it became possible for banks to create digital money – numbers in an account – in the form of loans, overdrafts and other credit.

According to Positive Money, by creating a digital loan, at the same time the bank is creating a deposit in the borrower’s account, which means it is creating money that did not previously exist.

Josh Ryan-Collins, senior researcher at nef (the New Economics Foundation), said it is a myth that banks are just intermediaries. “In the UK there is no compulsory deposits reserve ratio,” he said, meaning that banks do not need savers’ money held in reserve in order to lend money to borrowers.

Positive Money reports that of all the money in existence in the UK, 97% is now digital with only 3% being cash currency.

Established in 2010, the group is calling for the right to ‘print’ digital money to be allocated exclusively to the Bank of England. Positive Money has created draft legislation for this purpose, which it says is “watertight and substantial” and if put in place would ensure the banking system works in the best interests of society.

Under its proposals, an independent, transparent body such as the Monetary Policy Committee would decide how much new money is created, with parliament deciding how it is spent.

At a conference in London, organised by Positive Money on 29 October 2011, the group’s founder, Ben Dyson, suggested that two ways in which new money could be effectively allocated are to cover a cancellation of VAT and a rise in the income tax threshold – measures that he believes would benefit high street businesses and people on lower incomes. “It would stimulate the economy at the bottom,” he said.

Positive Money is also advising that banks should separate current accounts, where deposits would be kept safe, from investment accounts where customers would understand there is a risk. Banks should also tell people how they will use their customers’ money, the group believes.

Members of the public gathered at the London conference to hear economists, ex-financial traders, MPs, campaigners and entrepreneurs discuss the proposals.

Speaking at the event, Steve Baker MP referred to the way banks control money as “thin air credit creation,” adding that we need “a paradigm shift in economics.” He praised Positive Money’s proposals, believing they transcend political preferences. “I have optimism and can see things going in this direction,” he said.

Ben Dyson revealed that in his opinion, Baker is one of only a handful of MPs who understand how money is actually created. “Authorities, MPs, journalists, the public and people at the treasury don’t understand this process,” he said. “We have a fully privatised money system.”

Dyson continued by stating that what he considered productive lending – to businesses providing goods and services and creating jobs – represents only eight percent of bank lending, whereas the remaining 92% goes to property and financial speculation.

By diverting new money to the productive high street economy, rather than the banks lending it out as debt, poverty would reduce, he said, while falling debt would also mean better equality as less money would be redistributed from the poor to the rich by payment of interest.

Also speaking at the event, Michael Meacher MP said: “The control of the money supply should be brought back into the public domain,” adding that he believed this will be “the single most important issue at the next election.”

Joining Steve Baker MP, a Conservative, in expressing optimism, the Labour MP praised Positive Money as “saying something of enormous overriding importance for this country.”

Following extensive research, Positive Money is concentrating on raising awareness. It offers a range of simple, short videos on its website, detailing how the banking system works as well as explaining its suggested reforms. With a growing online membership, the organisation is holding campaign ‘meet-ups’ across the UK, with 30 having taken place to date.

To view the original article click here.
To reprint this article, visit the source website for reprinting guidelines

Consider Investing in Agriculture and God’s Money, Not Paper Currency

Posted on by

Consider Investing in Agriculture and God’s Money, not Paper Currency

 Here in America, many people have these retirement plans that the government made it very, very attractive, give me the money, put it in those plans, social security, Y2K, 401(k) plans, sep irus, these are plans that allow people to deposit them, but they are not allowed to touch the money unless they pay a fine and then on top of it, they have to pay taxes for it, so, they are punished if they use the money and withdraw it. So, not many people would do that because it is saying ‘well, maybe, it is going all get better again and I am safe!’, but many older folks now, they find that the value of their money that they had to put aside to retire later in life is becoming devalued. The value of the dollar, is becoming less day after day and so, by the time they becoming retired and they rely on the retirement funds, there is so little left because it is eroded.

So if you are going in a direction where, the Ponzi scheme, that includes the federal reserves keeps printing more and more money, circulating more money, pumping in more money in the large corporations, bailing them out that, the value of the dollar gets so watered down that, the little people that have retirement plans are losing out on it. So by the time they are ready for retirement, they cannot retire, and they have to get another job. If you go round into the local supermarket stores here or smaller stores or larger stores like Lowes or Home Depot, you will find so many retired people doing sort of the simplest jobs there and they cannot afford to retire anymore.

So now we have an entire group of people that had planned to enjoy their lives, they are now going back and joining the workforce. So there is a definite crisis here that has to escalate to a complete collapse, so that we can start afresh and we need to start afresh on a different basis. The old basis is obsolete, t does not work anymore, an economy that is based on lending out debt and selling debt to others and they sell it to again others, that is no longer working and it will not work in the future and once the collapse has occurred, you cannot start with that. You have to start on a real value system where some one has something to offer and someone has something else to offer and there will be an equal and fair exchange of those services or goods. And many people are going back to farming. There are lots of young people who realize that if there is nothing else that the future holds for me, I can still have my little piece of land, that is where I am investing my money, something that I can live through this crisis, then that is definitely something to consider.

In terms of investments, gold and silver and precious metals as they call it “god’s money”, that is something you would recommend people consider? no?

Oh absolutely, because it is the closest to real value there is. Obviously, it is more valuable to be able to grow your own food, to have something to eat when there is another great depression. So those people who have food for themselves or even some extra food for someone else, so that there can be then an exchange and that could be a real business for people. But, the gold and silver are the closest to that because, they have time and time again served as a backdrop, as a anchor system, as a reference for value. Like a silver coin that gave you, forty years ago, a gallon of gas, will still give you, if you have that coin or you still own it or you acquired a new one, that will still give you a gallon of gas today, even if a dollar has been devalued hundreds and hundreds of percent over the last forty years, so it does not lose its value. Gold and silver will not lose any value and therefore it is something that during the transition period is a very,  very good investment to acquire.

——————————
You may share or republish this article provided you clearly mention the name of Andreas Moritz and paste a hyper link back to the web page