The Toxin So Dangerous It’s Causing Catastrophic Birth Defects

Posted on May 16, 2012 by andreas m

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Roundup Ready soy is now being cultivated on a massive scale across the globe, along with the exponentially increasing use of the herbicide Roundup. Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” soy beans are genetically modified to survive otherwise lethal doses of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the company’s herbicide Roundup.

It’s a win-win for Monsanto. But it’s a loss for just about everyone else.

One of the countries most affected by genetically engineered soy is Argentina, whose population is being sickened by massive spraying of herbicides across the country’s Pampas (the country’s “fertile plain”).

Argentina’s Pampas used to be dotted with dairy and vegetable farms, but now, large-scale soybean monoculture blankets most of their cultivated land, making them especially susceptible to the damaging effects of genetically engineered soy. The impact can be better appreciated by considering the following statistics:

Soy is the main income source for landowners and the state—soybeans are considered a “gold mine” by Argentinians; soy exports generate 16,000 million dollars a year
The area cultivated with soy has reached 19 million hectares, representing 56 percent of Argentina’s cultivated land
98 percent of Argentina’s soybean production is genetically modified.
190 million liters of glyphosate (the active agent in Roundup) are sprayed in Argentina annually, which is leading to not only illness among the population but to widespread deforestation, as trees are among the victims these herbicides leave in their wake of destruction.

Soya burgers are a staple of today’s Argentinian diet. Argentinian children were consuming so much genetically engineered soy that they began developing breasts from the estrogenic effects, before authorities stepped in with warnings. Studies also strongly suggest that the glyphosate that these crops are doused with can cause cancer and birth deformities; both of which are occurring at increasing rates in areas where spraying is done. Sterility and miscarriages are also increasing. Experts warn that in 10 to 15 years, rates of cancer, infertility and endocrine dysfunction could reach catastrophic levels in Argentina. But few people are listening.

“It’s Food for Today, Hunger and Cancer for Tomorrow”

The immediate symptoms are always the same for Argentinian bystanders in the spray zone: dizziness, allergic reactions and itching, mouth swelling, and general malaise that’s similar to the feeling of coming down with the flu. People are warned to stay inside when spraying is underway, but they report getting sick in spite of this confinement.

When those affected visit their physicians, they’re told it’s “all in their heads.” Authorities also turn a deaf ear—as does the government when it’s presented with scientific evidence of the dangerous effects of Monsanto’s products for their people and environment. Fortunately, increasing numbers of scientists are now starting to speak out. For example, the engineers’ school in Santiago del Estero announced that chemicals are causing 100 babies to be born with deformities every year. One of the most influential studies was conducted by one of Argentina’s leading scientists, Andres Carrasco, who works in Argentina’s Ministry of Science.

Andrés Carrasco Attacked for Exposing the Truth

Embryonic specialist Andres Carrasco decided to investigate the health effects of glyphosate for himself after hearing so many reports by desperate peasant and indigenous communities who were suffering from exposure to toxic herbicides. According to Dr. Carrasco, his studies show glyphosate exposure can cause defects in the brain, intestines, and hearts of amphibian fetuses, and these results can be applied to humans. Moreover, the amount of Roundup used on genetically engineered soy fields was as much as 1,500 times greater than that which created the defects.

According to an article in Grain, the biotech industry “mounted an unprecedented attack on Carrasco, ridiculing his research and even issuing personal threats.” In addition, four men arrived unannounced at his laboratory and were extremely aggressive, attempting to interrogate Carrasco and obtain details of his study.

“It was a violent, disproportionate, dirty reaction,” he said. “I hadn’t even discovered anything new, only confirmed conclusions that others had reached.”

The conclusions to which Carrasco is referring are those from independent researchers who have found strong evidence glyphosatecauses the following:

Carrasco’s and others’ work point to the fact that the public, in Argentina and elsewhere, is being subject to a massive biological experiment involving the effects of genetic manipulation of the food supply. Genetically engineered food products have NEVER been tested for safety—so the long-term effects are largely unknown. The warnings science has provided demand a thorough investigation into just how much glyphosate human beings and animals can safely ingest. At present, no such investigation has taken place, and most regulatory agencies choose instead to rely in industry studies claiming glyphosate is safe.

Roundup has been shown to be lethal to amphibians. Are we next? Where is the tipping point for the human race? How much more can we tolerate in the adulteration of our food supply?

Why We MUST Insist on Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

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 require labeling for genetically engineered foods sold in their state.

Many don’t fully appreciate the strategy of seeking to have genetically engineered foods labeled in California. The belief is that large food companies would refuse to have dual labeling; one for California and another for the rest of the country. It would be very expensive, not to mention a logistical nightmare. To avoid the dual labeling, many would likely opt to not use genetically engineered ingredients in their 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 most genetically engineered foods from 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 carcinogens:

“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 law 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 modified 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 virtuallyguaranteed 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:

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

Turning plastic into oil would eliminate plastic waste and stick it to greedy oil companies

Posted on May 12, 2012 by andreas m

By: Sarka-Jonae Miller
Source: NaturalNews.com

Only around 7 percent of plastic waste in the United States gets recycled, estimates the Environmental Protection Agency. Several attempts at turning plastic into oil have been made in the past with not much success, but a new start-up company based in New York has a real solution for transforming recyclable plastic into gas. With gas prices at an all-time high, people need to make a bigger push for alternatives to oil. The company, JBI Inc., invented an innovative machine for turning plastic into oil that could make dependency on foreign oil a thing of the past.

JBI is run by a man named John Bordynuik in Niagara Falls. Bordynuik recently found a way for converting plastic into oil that unlike attempts by past companies makes a product with equal quality to standardized fuel. Many people are skeptical of using alternatives to oil because of reduced quality, but Bordynuik’s machine turns plastic waste into oil as good as anything people buy, yet is significantly cheaper.

Bordynuik refers to his creation as the Plastic-Eating Monster. The machine melts all types of recyclable plastic and then rearranges the hydrocarbon chains in the plastic to transform it into No. 6 fuel. Recyclable plastic includes things like empty bottles, plastic shopping bags and plastic containers. JBI can produce a few thousand gallons of oil made from plastic waste every day. Bordynuik’s process for turning plastic into oil makes a barrel of oil for around $10. JBI then sells the oil for about $100.

The dream of turning plastic into oil

Converting plastic into oil has been a dream of many companies for years, but often produced a dirty, low-quality product that was unable to replace the fuel used in cars and major machinery. However, Bordynuik’s Plastic-Eating Monster is not the only such machine designed for turning plastic into oil. Last year, a businessman in Alaska named Bernie Karl made news for using his own plastic waste transforming machine.

Karl owns a company called K&K Recycling and Chena Hot Springs Resort in Fairbanks. The business began stockpiling discarded recyclable plastic, which caught the attention of locals who had no idea what the purpose of keeping plastic was. Karl surprised many when started using a Japanese machine capable of turning plastic into oil. The machine takes anything from styrofoam to plastic bags and melts them down in a vat heated to 800 degrees, turning the plastic into gas. The machine then sends the gas into a water container for cooling, which turns the gas into fuel. The resulting product is not high quality, but it may be good enough for use in machines like space heaters, which is quite useful in places like Alaska.

Environmental impact of converting plastic into oil vs. using alternatives to oil

Supporting alternatives to oil like making electric cars or using solar and wind power are still better for the environment. Even though Bordynuik’s method of converting plastic into oil could put the 93 percent of recyclable plastic sitting in landfills to good use, oil is still a fossil fuel and as such creates pollution. However with major advances in hybrid cars, making a cheaper alternative to expensive fuel out of plastic waste is still a step in the right direction.

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

One man creates 1,360 acre forest

Posted on May 12, 2012 by andreas m

By: Jordan and Kyla
Source: NaturalNews.com

Have you ever heard the saying “you have the power to make a difference”? Well, the following demonstrates how one person has proven this. Over 30 years ago, a young teenager by the name of Jadav “Molai” Payeng had an idea to turn a barren sandbar into a thriving oasis. With this vision in mind, he began planting seeds in this very same sandbar near his birth place of Assam, India. Soon thereafter, Payeng moved to the area in pursuit of fulfilling his dream of one day creating a forest out of land that was left for waste.

Fostering a dream

Over the next several years, Payeng spent many of his hours planting seeds, tending to the land and nurturing the growth. After 30 years of dedication, his hard work had finally been rewarded. Not only has Payeng successfully transformed an area that was once considered by many, including the forest department, to be unsuited for planting, but he actually created a 1,360 acre forest. Can you imagine that!

How it all began

The Times India recently sat down with Payeng to discover how his lifelong project had all started.

“It all started way back in 1979 when floods washed a large number of snakes ashore on the sandbar. One day, after the waters had receded, Payeng, only 16 then, found the place dotted with the dead reptiles. That was the turning point of his life.”

“The snakes died in the heat, without any tree cover. I sat down and wept over their lifeless forms. It was carnage. I alerted the forest department and asked them if they could grow trees there. They said nothing would grow there. Instead, they asked me to try growing bamboo. It was painful, but I did it. There was nobody to help me. Nobody was interested,” says Payeng, now 47.

Creating an ecosystem

Guided by instincts, and convinced by will and reason to pursue his goal, Payeng had created not only a forest, but an ecosystem covered with lush greenery which now houses several animal species, including numerous birds, deers, rhinos, tigers, and elephants. The once deserted sandbars of Assam India are now a thriving ecosystem all thanks to the selfless efforts of a young man.

The area known today as the Molai woods is an example of compassion and dedication to all living things. Jadav “Molai” Payeng is considered by many today as a hero, even by the local forestry officials.

“We’re amazed at Payeng,” says Assistant Conservator of Forests, Gunin Saikia. “He has been at it for 30 years. Had he been in any other country, he would have been made a hero.”

Our goals may not be accomplished immediately, but if we allow time to nurture our actions, they have the potential to grow, and even flourish into beautiful manifestations. Always remember that our actions, no matter how small they may appear, make a difference in the world. Never cease believing in yourself and one another

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

Is Your Food Sourced from the Plant Equivalent of AIDS?

Posted on May 2, 2012 by andreas m

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.

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:

Learn More about Genetically Engineered Foods

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 May 1, 2012 by andreas m

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 May 1, 2012 by andreas m

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

Albuquerque, NM, 32nd Largest US City, Ends Water Fluoridation

Posted on May 1, 2012 by andreas m

By: Ethan A. Huff
Source: NaturalNews.com

A major health victory has been achieved in New Mexico where officials in the state’s largest city, Albuquerque, have made the historic decision to stop artificially fluoridating the municipal water supply. This means that more than half a million local residents will no longer be forcibly medicated with a toxic byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer manufacturing industry, and the city itself will save hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars a year in the process.

KOB News 4 in Albuquerque reports that, after much deliberation, officials from the Albuquerque Water Authority decided that it is no longer necessary to fluoridate the city’s water supply. Since some naturally-occurring fluoride is already present in the Albuquerque water supply, the city will instead “err on the side of caution,” to quote the words of the Water Authority‘s David Morris.

And why, exactly, is the city employing “caution” in the matter? First, the fluoride that continues to be added to many water supplies across America is not actually fluoride at all. It is either sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate, or fluorosilicic acid, all of which are highly-toxic, industrial waste byproducts with no scientifically demonstrable health benefits.

In fact, these poser fluoride compounds have been shown in many recent studies to cause severe health problems, including tooth decay. Synthetic fluorides are also responsible for causing developmental problems in children, brain damage, lowered IQ, thyroid disorders, bone damage, hormone disruption and cancer (http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-dangers/health/index.aspx).

According to Shane Ellison, M. Sc., also known as The People’s Chemist, fluoride directly attacks the structural integrity of the body, including collagen, a vital protein in the body that composes connective tissues like tendons, bones, cartilage, blood vessels, and even gut lining. Fluoride has also been shown to be mutagenic, which means it damages DNA and can lead to the development of cancer.

The foundation of oral health is not found in ingesting fluoride, in other words, but rather in maintaining optimal nutrition and oral health. Avoiding refined carbohydrates like processed sugars and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), for instance, which easily ferment in the mouth and cause tooth decay, is a practical, sensical way to stave off cavities.

Regular consumption of raw, grass-fed butter and dairy products can also help prevent the development of cavities, according to research conducted by the late Weston Price, a dentist whose nutritional protocols have helped many people improve their health and mitigate disease.

You can proactively help to get fluoride removed from your own town or city by learning more about fluoride, and using this information to educate your friends, neighbors, and local officials about its many dangers:
http://www.fluoridealert.org

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

The Deadly Poison Lurking in your Car’s Air Bags

Posted on April 29, 2012 by andreas m

By: Tony Isaacs
Source: NaturalNews.com

Automobile airbags, which have been mandatory in the United States and other countries for almost two decades, have long been touted as life savers. What hasn’t been widely told is that every air bag in every vehicle is a potential death trap and a growing danger to the environment due to a chemical compound used to inflate airbags which is every bit as toxic as sodium cyanide. That deadly compound is sodium azide.

Sodium azide (NaN3) is a highly volatile and highly poisonous compound which is used to inflate airbags when a collision causes the sodium azide to violently explode and inflate the airbags. However, even in minute amounts it can kill everything from bacteria and fungi to animals and humans. The presence of the deadly compound represents a serious threat to vehicle occupants, rescuers and others who might come into contact with it as well as an increasing threat to the environment.

Ingesting or absorbing as little as 50 milligrams (less than two-thousandths of an ounce) can cause the average adult to collapse into a coma-like state within five minutes. Blood pressure will drop and the heart will go into tachycardia. Ingestion of only a few grams can result in death in as little as 30 minutes.

Studies dating as far back as 1970 show that sodium azide kills or degrades the seeds of many plants at 10 parts per million in the soil. At 200 ppm, it not only sterilizes the soil – but also changes soil chemistry and kills all soil bacteria and fungi.

The increasing threat to humans and the environment from sodium azide

Little is presently known about the environmental effects of sodium azide. However, what is known is that sodium azide is water-soluble and that spills could possibly migrate into the water table via sewers, streams, lakes, and groundwater systems.

When wet, sodium azide produces hydrazoic acid – a volatile compound which also represents a potential threat to vehicle occupants, rescuers, recovery agents and even sanitation workers and others that may come in contact with the acid or hydrazoic acid gas. Additionally, scrapped airbags sit like environmental time bombs in the myriad of automobile salvage yards that we see in most communities.

On March 26, 2005 at a national meeting of the American Chemical Society in San Francisco, atmospheric scientist Eric A. Betterton of the University of Arizona stated that “scientists really don’t know where or how all this sodium azide will inevitably wreak greatest environmental havoc”.

“Given the huge surge in production, there exists a greatly increased potential for significant accidental spills and subsequent human and environmental exposure to this material.”

Although sodium azide is already used in many industrial products, such as explosives, detonators, anticorrosion solutions, broad-spectrum biocides and airline safety chutes, with the advancement of passive vehicle safety systems a much larger threat to our environment has emerged over the last 15 years. Much of that threat is likely to come from automobile salvage yards where automobiles are crushed and taken apart with little or no regard for the potential dangers lurking in airbags. The vast majority of vehicles with airbags remain on the road today. The more that huge fleet of vehicles ages, the greater the risk becomes of harmful exposures to humans and the environment.

As Betterton stated, the increased demand for airbags and the aging vehicle fleets over the next few decades will result in amounts of sodium azide which “will greatly exceed the approximated 5 million kilograms (11 million pounds) that has already been incorporated into airbag inflators in the United States alone.”

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

The Tragic Mistake That Now Threatens 1 Out of Every 3 Bites You Eat

Posted on April 27, 2012 by andreas m

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Honey bees are the angels of agriculture, but they’re disappearing at a startling rate in a mysterious phenomenon dubbed Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).

Since 2007, North American honey bees are literally disappearing without a trace. There are no massive dead bee bodies appearing in or around the hives—the bees are simply GONE, bewildering beekeepers and scientists alike.

In fact, serious honey bee die-offs have been occurring around the world for the past decade. The U.S. and the U.K. both reported losing a third of their honey bees in 2010.

Italy lost half of theirs.

The die-offs have spread to China and India, in addition to many other countries. Environmental scientists are concerned that CCD reflects a far more serious problem than pollination—that it’s an ominous sign of severe environmental crisis.

Bees provide pollination for crops, orchards and flowers, and make honey and wax for cosmetics, food and medicine. One of every three bites of food you eat depends on the honey bee. They pollinate at least 130 different crops in the U.S. alone, including fruits, vegetables and tree nuts.

Without honey bees, farmers would have to resort to pollinating their crops by hand.

According to a recent British report, replacing the pollination of food crops that bees do for free with hand pollination would cost the UK £1.8 billion per year. In the words of Michael Pollan:

“CCD is one of the signs–the unmistakable signs—that our food system is unsustainable… It’s destroying the conditions upon which it depends. It has internal contradictions that will lead to breakdown.”

The documentary film “Vanishing of the Bees” takes a piercing investigative look at the economic, political and ecological implications of the worldwide disappearance of the honey bee. Directors George Langworthy and Maryam Henein tell the story of Colony Collapse Disorder, as well as suggesting a platform of solutions. I strongly encourage you to watch this important film, which is being offered here in its entirety, FREE for a limited time.

Busy as a Bee

Honey bees represent one of the matriarchies of the insect kingdom. Colonies consist of one queen, lots and lots of male worker bees and a few male drones. Ninety-five percent of the worker bees are female. A healthy hive is occupied by a collection of overlapping generations. Tasks are divvied up according to age and colony needs via a very intricate system of communication:

Younger worker bees (nurse bees) tend to the queen and the baby bees.
Older worker bees forage for food and water for the colony, convert nectar into honey, construct wax cells and clean the cells, and guard the hive from invaders. Worker bees develop stingers to defend the eggs lain by the queen.
Drones have only one purpose—to mate with the queen. In fact, the queen will leave her hive only once in her lifetime, in order to mate with several drones and store up enough sperm to last the rest of her life.

Pollination is dependent on insects and the wind, and bees play an essential role. As they buzz around in flight, their hair develops static electricity. When a bee lands on a flower, this static charge attracts pollen to the bee like a magnet. Honey bees from one hive can visit more than 100,000 flowers in a single day—those bees really ARE busy!

Why are We Losing Our Bees?

Scientists have investigated a number of factors to help explain CCD and have offered a variety of explanations. The primary theory seems to be that Colony Collapse Disorder is caused by a variety of imbalances in the environment, secondary to current agricultural and industrial practices.

Bees are sensitive to the constant flood of manmade chemicals into their system, especially pesticides, many of which accumulate over time. Honey bee colonies are further stressed by the “factory farming” style of beekeeping employed by the commercial bee industry. They are being raised using unnatural practices, artificially inseminated, and fed cheap sugary nectar substitutes instead of their natural food.

It should be noted that the theory of cell phones causing the disappearance of bees has largely been dismissed. This theory reportedly originated from the misinterpretation of a German study, and then spread like wildfire.

Queens are “Knocked Out and Knocked Up”

In nature, queen bees live for up to five years, but workers and drones live for only a few weeks or months. Large commercial bee farms routinely kill the queen bee after only a few months by pinching off her head, and then replace her with a younger, artificially raised queen. In the film, it is suggested that artificial queen breeding is one of the primary factors causing the demise of the colonies.

Organic beekeepers say that artificial insemination is also to blame. The queen is “knocked out and knocked up.” She is sedated with carbon dioxide and inseminated with semen from male drones, selected for traits, which narrows the gene pool.

The other problem is bee nutrition—or the lack thereof—in the commercial bee industry. Honey, which the bees make from natural rich plant nectar, is taken away from the hives and replaced with sugar syrup, which is completely lacking in nutrition.

All of these practices stress the honeybees’ immune system. Weakened colonies are further stressed by being shipped across country or overseas, multiple times, to pollinate commercial crops—a practice which is unsustainable but made necessary due to dwindling local bee populations. Honeybee colonies are further damaged when they live near areas sprayed with pesticides and planted with GMcrops, like Monsanto corn and soy. There is a great deal of evidence that the newer, systemic insecticides are fueling a virtual bee holocaust.

Are Bees Victims of the Agrichemical Industry?

The newer systemic insecticides, known as neonicotinoids, have become the fastest growing insecticides in the world. Two prominent examples, Imidacloprid and Clothianidin, are used as seed treatments in hundreds of crops. Virtually all of today’s genetically engineered Bt corn is treated with neonicotinoids.

Bee colonies began disappearing in the U.S. shortly after the EPA allowed these new insecticides on the market. Even the EPA itself admits that “pesticide poisoning” is a likely cause of bee colony collapse.

These insecticides are highly toxic to bees because they are systemic, water soluble, and very pervasive. They get into the soil and groundwater where they can accumulate and remain for many years and present long-term toxicity to the hive. They enter the vascular system of the plant and are carried to all parts of it, as well as to the pollen and nectar. Neonicotinoids affect insects’ central nervous systems in ways that are cumulative and irreversible. Even minute amounts can have profound effects over time. And the little bees are being exposed over and over again as pesticides become more necessary due to monoculture.

Monoculture is the growing of just one type of crop on a massive scale and is another variable contributing to CCD as there is no such thing as monoculture in nature!

Farmers used to be diversified… cows, pigs, chickens, and vegetables could be found on every farm. But today, fields of corn and soy stretch for hundreds of miles. Commercial bee farmers are no exception and have fallen prey to this agricultural model. Pests LOVE monoculture, so massive quantities of pesticides are required to crash the pest party. Beekeepers used to move beehives away from spray zones, but now this is nearly impossible. The chemicals seep into waterways, air, soil, and are incorporated into the plant itself, from the seed on up, as well as into adjacent fields.

Hives Now Show Increased Levels of Pesticide Contamination

A Purdue University studyfound multiple sources of pesticide exposure for honey bees living near agricultural fields, including high levels of Clothianidin in agricultural machinery exhaust, in the soil of unplanted fields near those planted with Bt corn, and on dandelions growing in those fields. The chemicals were also found in dead bees near hive entrances and in pollen stored in the hives.

ABC News reports:

“According to the new study, neonicotinoid insecticides ‘are among the most widely used in the world, popular because they kill insects by paralyzing nerves but have lower toxicity for other animals.’ Beekeepers immediately observed an increase in die-offs right around the time of corn planting using this particular kind of insecticide.”

Jim Frazier from Penn State sampled hives from across the U.S. and found an average six pesticides in each hive, with one hive testing positive for 31 different pesticides, some of which are of the systemic varieties.

But how do we determine if it’s the pesticides that are leading to CCD?

What makes it so tricky is that bees can display NO symptoms for many months after small pesticide exposures—sub-lethal exposures are hard to detect, in bees as in humans and other animals. Adverse consequences appear much later, making it difficult to connect the dots.

One of the observed effects of these insecticides is weakening of the bee’s immune system.

Forager bees bring pesticide-laden pollen back to the hive, where it’s consumed by all of the bees. Six months later, their immune systems fail, and they fall prey to natural bee infections, such as parasites, mites, viruses, fungi and bacteria. Indeed, pathogens such as Varroa mites, Nosema, fungaland bacterial infections, and Israeli acute paralysis virus(IAPV) are found in large amounts in honey bee hives on the verge of collapse. In addition to immune dysfunction and opportunistic diseases, the honey bees also appear to suffer from neurological problems, disorientation, and impaired navigation.

A bee can’t survive for more than 24 hours if she becomes disoriented and unable to find her way back to the hive.

Even our butterfliesare suffering at the hands of “pestitution”… to borrow the documentary’s clever pun. A decline in the North American monarch butterfly population has been linked to increased plantings of herbicide-tolerant GM crops, and overuse of the herbicide glyphosate, which is the key chemical in Monsanto’s Roundup. Glyphosate is killing milkweed plants, upon which monarchs rely for habitat and food.

Pesticides Cause Bees to Lose their Way…

A recent article in Science Newshighlights the findings of two new bee studies, which found that even when the neonicotinoids don’t kill the bees, they tend to lead to “delayed downturns in bee royalty and a subtle erosion of workforces.”

“To simulate pesticide exposures that bumblebees might encounter when a field of canola blooms, entomologist Dave Goulson, of the University of Stirling in Scotland, and his colleagues fed 50 Bombus terrestris lab colonies nonfatal doses of the pesticide imidacloprid. After two weeks of eating spiked pollen and sugar water, bees were set outside and allowed to forage around the Stirling campus at will. By season’s end, the pesticide-dosed colonies were an average of 8 percent to 12 percent smaller than 25 unexposed neighbor colonies,” Science News reports. “More noticeably, the contaminated colonies managed to produce only about two young queens each. The other colonies averaged about 14.”

Of course, Bayer CropScience, which markets imidacloprid, tries to downplay such findings. Ecotoxicologist David Fischer of Bayer CropScience pointed out that earlier research didn’t find a decline in young queens, Science News reports. However, those earlier studies were done on constrained rather than free-flying bees, and Goulson reportedly replied to Fisher’s objection by pointing out that “navigation isn’t important when you live in a box.”

Blamed for Bee Collapse, Monsanto Buys Leading Bee Research Firm

Genetic engineering of crops has also been blamed for dwindling bee populations. Monsanto, which is the leader in this type of biotechnology is likely none too pleased about the accusations, which, if found to be truthful through the dedicated application of research into the mystery, stands to lose just about everything—both their genetically engineered crop seeds and the pesticides/herbicides to go with them. It appears Monsanto has taken a proactive stance to the problem and is getting more involved—by purchasing one of the leading bee research firms… A recent Activist Post article reports:

“Recently banned from Poland with one of the primary reasons being that the company’s genetically modified corn may be devastating the dying bee population, it is evident that Monsanto is under serious fire for their role in the downfall of the vital insects. It is therefore quite apparent why Monsanto bought one of the largest bee research firms on the planet.

It can be found in public company reports hosted on mainstream media that Monsanto scooped up the Beeologics firm back in September, 2011. During this time the correlation between Monsanto’s GM crops and the bee decline was not explored in the mainstream, and in fact it was hardly touched upon until Polish officials addressed the serious concern amid the monumental ban.

Owning a major organization that focuses heavily on the bee collapse and is recognized by the USDA for their mission statement of “restoring bee health and protecting the future of insect pollination” could be very advantageous for Monsanto. In fact, Beelogics’ company information states that the primary goal of the firm is to study the very collapse disorder that is thought to be a result — at least in part — of Monsanto’s own creations.”

It’ll be interesting to see the results emerging from Beeologics in the future, with regards to Monsanto products and their impact on bee populations, now that Monsanto owns it lock stock and barrel…

Honey: Nectar of the Gods

Honey gathering has been a human tradition since Paleolithic times. Honey bees came to North America during the 17th Century alongside migrating humans, and have been an integral part of American culture ever since. Pure, natural, unfiltered raw honey has an abundance of medicinal and nutritional uses, including the following:

Honey’s healing powers come from components such as:

Glucose oxidase: This is an enzyme that breaks down glucose and generates hydrogen peroxide, which has antimicrobial properties
Methylglyoxal or MGO: This powerful antibacterial compound is only found in certain natural honeys (highest in Manuka honey, which is made by bees that feed off the flowers of the Manuka bush, a medicinal plant native to New Zealand)
Bee Defensin 1:An antimicrobial peptide (AMP); this special protein is found in royal jelly (the food made especially for queen bee larvae)

Other identified AMPs in honey, such as apidaecin, may be able to prevent bacteria from defending themselves and seem to help modulate your immune system. However, in order to reap these health benefits, you must be eating the right kind of honey. Look for raw, unfiltered organic honey, and be extremely careful about what passes for “honey” on big box store shelves.

Precautionary Note…

Although raw honey is loaded with all of the benefits described above, you still must exercise caution in how much you consume because it’s about 70 percent fructose. Fructose is fructose, and if you’re challenged with insulin resistance, you will not likely do well eating large quantities of honey. Please also note that honey should not be given to children under one year of age. Infants less than 12 months old are at risk for infant botulism from eating honey that contains Clostridium botulinum spores, and in a baby, this can result in nervous system damage or even death. These spores do not affect older children and adults.

Are You Eating Funny Honey?

Fake honey is unfortunately common in this era of food manipulation and control. Some Chinese brokers sell a mixture of sugar water, malt sweeteners, corn or rice syrup, jaggery, barley malt sweetener or other additives, and label it as “honey”. Nearly all of this fake honey is made in China.

A good deal of this “funny honey” is also tainted with illegal antibiotics, including chloramphenicol, which can cause DNA damage and cancer, and heavy metals such as lead.

A recent report by Food Safety Newsreveals just how often they get away with this trickery. More than 75 percent of the honey on American supermarket shelves may be ultra-processed—to the point that all inherent medicinal properties are completely gone—and then smuggled into the country by the barrel drum. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) states that any product that’s been ultra-filtered and no longer contains pollen is NOT honey. In their investigation, Food Safety News discovered the following:

76 percent of honey samples bought at grocery stores (such as TOP Food, Safeway, QFC, Kroger, Harris Teeter, etc.) were absent of pollen
77 percent of the honey from big box stores (like Costco, Sam’s Club, Walmart, and Target) were absent of pollen
100 percent of the honey sampled from drug stores (like Walgreens, Rite-Aid, and CVS Pharmacy) were absent of pollen

The good news is, all of the samples from farmers markets, co-ops, and natural stores like Trader Joe’s had the full, proper compliment of pollen, as did organic brands from common grocery stores. But fake honey—the sorry substitute that it is—might be the ONLY thing even remotely resembling honey that you’ll be able to get if we don’t find a way to save our honey bees from total global collapse.

The Buzz about Organic Beekeeping

One way to make sure your honey is high quality and contains the full compliment of natural health benefits is to obtain it from organic beekeepers, preferably local ones. Supporting organic beekeepers will also increase healthy bee colonies, which are so crucial to our food supply.

Organic beekeepers take a far different approach to beekeeping than large migratory operations. They don’t feed their bees the sugar syrups and artificial pollen substitutes typically used in commercial bee operations, and they avoid chemical pesticides. They have fewer hives, and they don’t truck their bees around for pollination.

Several countries have banned many systemic insecticides, including France, Italy, Germany, and Slovenia. Most European nations place safety as the highest priority. When there is evidence of an environmental problem, they take the chemical off the market. Not so in America, where government regulators are in the grips of the agrichemical industry, and “pestitution” remains legal.

But there is some good news. One of America’s most effective environmental action groups, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), has come to the aid of our honey bees. NRDC sued EPA in federal court about improper approval of a certain systemic pesticide—and won. They stopped the retail sale of Bayer’s toxic Movento^xiiias of January 2010. As these damaging chemicals are eliminated, there is hope for honey bee recovery. In France, honey bee populations bounced back just one year after these products were banned from the marketplace.

What You Can Do

Vanishing of the Bees recommends four actions you can take to help preserve our honey bees:

Support organic farmers and shop at local farmer’s markets as often as possible. You can “vote with your fork” three times a day.
Cut the use of toxic chemicals in your house and on your lawn, and use organic pest control.
Better yet, get rid of your lawn altogether and plant a garden. Lawns offer very little benefit for the environment. Both flower and vegetable gardens provide good honey bee habitats.
Become an amateur beekeeper. Having a hive in your garden requires only about an hour of your time per week, benefits your local ecosystem, and you can enjoy your own honey!

If you are interested in more information about bee preservation, the following organizations are a good place to start.

Pesticide Action Network Bee Campaign
The Foundation for the Preservation of Honey Bees
American Beekeeping Federation
Help the Honey Bees

To Bee or Not to Bee…

Honey bee sanctuaries are springing up everywhere, as the award-winning documentary “Queen of the Sun” portrays. Many city dwellers are now becoming backyard beekeepers. Perhaps CCD is a blessing in disguise in that it’s brought bees to the forefront of our awareness and sparked a renewed interest in organic beekeeping. Increased numbers of amateur beekeepers are bringing these fuzzy pollinators into their own neighborhoods. More cities are changing ordinances that formerly prevented beekeeping inside city limits—including New York City.

For more information about raising bees, consult The Practical Beekeeperand the Yahoo group “Organic Beekeepers.”

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

Roundup Herbicide can alter Morphology of Animals – New Study

Posted on April 24, 2012 by andreas m

By: Jonathan Benson
Source: NaturalNews.com

Exposure among amphibians and other vertebrate animals to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide has been shown, for the very first time, to actually induce physical changes to the shapes of these animals’ bodies. Published in the journal Ecological Applications, the new study reveals once again the incredible hormone-altering power of Roundup, and how even minute exposure to this highly-toxic chemical brew can have disastrous health consequences.

In their natural environment, tadpoles, which are just amphibians in the larval stage of their life cycle, have a natural ability to detect the presence of predators and respond accordingly. In order to avoid insect predators, for instance, tadpoles can actually develop deeper or longer tails in order to swim away from them faster, which helps ensure their survival (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10862727).

But it appears as though Roundup, which has already been shown in other studies to be highly pervasive throughout the environment, induces these very same physical changes. And when exposed to both Roundup and natural predators, tadpoles will develop grossly large tails that are much larger than normal, which is likely the result of both the tadpoles’ detection of Roundup, and Roundup’s ability to chemically-induce hormonal changes.

“What shocked us was that the Roundup induced the same changes,” said Rick Relyea, a professor of biological sciences at the University of Pittsburgh‘s (Pitt) Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences and director of Pitt’s Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology, referring to changes in the tadpoles’ tails that caused them to actually become twice as large as normal.

“This discovery highlights the fact that pesticides [...] can have unintended consequences for species that are not the pesticides’ target. [W]e are learning that [pesticides and herbicides] can have a wide range of surprising effects by altering how hormones work in the bodies of animals.”

For his study, Relyea examined how tadpoles living in water tanks respond to varying exposures of Roundup, as well as to predators. And his findings revealed that Roundup visibly alters tadpoles’ stress hormones, which appears to coincide with an earlier study that revealed Roundup-induced hormonal changes in humans.

Meanwhile, more than a dozen Argentinian farmers have filed a lawsuit against Monsanto, creator of Roundup, and several tobacco companies for allegedly knowingly poisoning them with Roundup and other pesticide and herbicide chemicals. According to the filing, Monsanto’s pesticides and herbicides caused the farmers’ children to be born with “devastating birth defects” (http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/10/45469.htm)

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 April 23, 2012 by andreas m

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

Study: EPA-approved GMO Insecticide Responsible for Killing Off Bees, Contaminating Entire Food Chain

Posted on April 20, 2012 by andreas m

By: Jonathan Benson
Source: NaturalNews.com

Early last year, leaked documents obtained by a Colorado beekeeper exposed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‘s (EPA) illegitimate approval of clothianidin, a highly-toxic pesticide manufactured by Bayer CropScience that the regulatory agency knew was capable of killing off bees. Now, a new study out of Purdue University in Indiana has not only confirmed, once again, that clothianidin is killing off bees, but also that clothianidin’s toxicity is systemic throughout the entire food chain, which could one day lead to the catastrophic destruction of the food supply.

The study, which was published in the online journal PLoS ONE, investigated the various methods and routes by which a class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids, which includes clothianidin, are harming honey bees. They discovered that both clothianidin and thiamethoxam, another component of neonicotinoid insecticides, persist in “extremely high levels” in planter exhaust material produced during the planting of crops treated with these insecticides, which runs contrary to industry claims that the chemicals biodegrade and are not a threat.

The research team also found neonicotinoid compounds in soil, including in fields where the chemicals were not even sprayed, as well as on various plants and flowers visited by bees. Based on their analysis, the researchers involved with the study determined that bees actively transfer contaminated pollen from primarily neonicotinoid-treated corn crops, and bring it back to their hives. The bees also transfer neonicotinoid compounds to other plants and crops not treated with the chemicals, which shows just how persistent these chemicals truly are in the environment.

You can read the entire report for yourself at the following link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250423/?tool=pubmed

“This research should nail the coffin lid shut on clothianidin,” said Laurel Hopwood, chairwoman of the Sierra Club‘sGenetic Engineering Action Team, who is petitioning the EPA to finally ban these chemicals after years of needless delay. “Despite numerous attempts by the beekeeping industry and conservation organizations to persuade the EPA to ban clothianidin, the EPA has failed to protect the food supply for the American people.”

Without bees, which are now dying off at an alarming rate due to exposure to clothianidin and various other insecticides and fungicides, one third or more of the food supply will be destroyed, including at least 100 varieties of fruits and vegetables that rely on bees for pollination. This is why Dr. Neil Carman, Ph.D., scientific advisor to Sierra Club, has put out a call for the EPA to immediately ban the use of clothianidin and the other neonicotinoid insecticides for the sake of protecting the food supply from irreversible destruction.

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

Why is this Organic Food Stuffed With Toxic Solvents?

Posted on April 11, 2012 by andreas m

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Last December, the U.S. National Organic Standards Board, an expert panel that advise the USDA Secretary on organic matters, narrowly approved Martek Biosciences Corporation’s petition to allow the use of their genetically modified soil fungus and algae as nutritional supplements in organic food.

The product is an omega 3/omega-6 oil (DHA/ARA) synthesized from fermented algae and soil fungus.

The oil is extracted from this biomass using hexane, a neurotoxic byproduct of gasoline refinement that is specifically banned in organics.

The Cornucopia Institute investigated Martek’s patent and safety filings at the FDA, and discovered that the product also contains synthetic chemicals, stabilizers, carriers, and some of the ingredients are also genetically modified.

(As it turns out, some of their products were developed by Monsanto before Martek bought the technical rights.)

Martek’s formulated oils are added to “organic” milk, infant formula, and a number of different foods. After a formal legal complaint, the USDA announced in 2010 that it had “inappropriately” allowed Martek oils to be included in organic foods.

But enforcement of their removal was delayed for 18 months in an apparent effort to permit corporate lobbyists to petition for review and legal inclusion in organic food. According to the Conucopia Institute:

“Although Martek told the board that they would discontinue the use of the controversial neurotoxic solvent n-hexane for DHA/ARA processing, they did not disclose what other synthetic solvents would be substituted. Federal organic standards prohibit the use of all synthetic/petrochemical solvents”.

How Did Unapproved Ingredients Make it into Baby Food?

It is distressing to see that chemical additives have skirted USDA approval and made their way into infant formulas—some of which even bear the USDA Organic Seal! This confirms that even organic certification is NOT watertight, and you, the consumer, will need to stay on your toes.

Martek’s DHA and ARA products are synthetic attempts at omega-3 fats that have been in the U.S. marketplace since 2002, and in organic products since 2006. They are chemically extracted from certain types of algae and fungi that have never before been part of the human diet, and have never been approved by the USDA. Yet they have made their way into your baby’s bottle.

In fact, it is unlikely that the production process of these agents has been examined at all—and for good reason. The Cornucopia Institute has uncovered an entire list of questions regarding the source, processing, and other ingredients used in the manufacturing of Martek’s DHA and ARA, any one of which could result in a ban from their use in certified organic products.

GMOs, Lies, and Petrochemicals

For starters, Martek’s synthetic oils are extracted using a toxic petrochemical solvent called hexane—a process that’s just about as NON-organic as you can get. Hexane extraction is widely used in the production of oils, such as fatty acids and vegetable oils, but is banned in organic produce because it’s a non-organic material.

So what’s their loophole?

Martek Biosciences was able to dodge the ban on hexane-extraction by claiming USDA does not consider omega-3 and omega-6 fats to be “agricultural ingredients.” Therefore, they argue, the ban against hexane extraction does not apply. The USDA helped them out by classifying those oils as “necessary vitamins and minerals,” which are exempt from the hexane ban. But hexane-extraction is just the tip of the iceberg. Other questionable manufacturing practices and misleading statements by Martek include:

Undisclosed synthetic ingredients, prohibited for use in organics (including the sugar alcohol mannitol, modified starch, glucose syrup solids, and “other” undisclosed ingredients)
Microencapsulation of the powder and nanotechnology, which are prohibited under organic laws
Use of volatile synthetic solvents, besides hexane (such as isopropyl alcohol)
Recombinant DNA techniques and other forms of genetic modification of organisms; mutagenesis; use of GMO corn as a fermentation medium
Heavily processed ingredients that are far from “natural”

Your Body Knows These “Nutrients” are Fake

Although DHA and ARA from real foods are indeed important nutrients, the synthetic versions are not even remotely the same. They are foreign to your body, and to your infant’s body, which is why many babies are having terrible adverse reactions. Naturally derivedomega-3 fats have important benefits to your baby’s eyes and brain. Martek has manipulated this fact into a clever marketing ploy that convinces mothers that this artificial concoction is as good for their babies as breast milk.

But there is no scientific evidence to substantiate Martek’s health claims. Martek claims that their formula is “proven in independent clinical studies to enhance mental development.” According to the Cornucopia Institute, this claim is based on one single study involving just 19 infants. Martek neglects to mention the numerous other clinical studies that fail to show any advantage in brain development.

The Perfect Formula for Diarrhea, Vomiting and Gastrointestinal Pain

The Cornucopia Institute has compiled a summary of hundreds of adverse reports submitted to the FDA about possible intolerance to DHA/ARA-supplemented infant formula. Of those reports, 98 are said to be “confidently linked” to intolerance to the DHA/ARA oils. Many hundreds more are highly suspect. The reported gastrointestinal symptoms include:

Severe gas
Diarrhea and vomiting
Gastric reflux
Constipation and bowel obstruction
Agitation, fussiness, crying, and severe distress

The adverse reaction reports filed with the FDA represent only the tip of the iceberg, as most parents are unaware that Martek’s additives may be the cause of their infants’ problems. Some parents and their babies have endured these symptoms for weeks or months before identifying the cause, believing it was simply colic or unexplained fussiness.

A few companies have made a conscious decision to not use Martek’s additives in their baby food products, in order to protect the organic integrity of their foods. Cornucopia has published a list of “USDA Organic” products containing Martek’s additives. Shockingly, ALL organic infant formulas with the exception of ONE (Baby’s Only Organic) contain Martek’s DHA! Some baby foods also contain it, so it’s a good idea to get in the habit of reading ALL of your labels.

Beware of Other Known Contaminants in Infant Formula

Your child is perhaps never more vulnerable than in the first few months of life, when his or her fragile body is still rapidly developing. Pound for pound, infants experience greater exposure to chemicals than adults, and have immature and porous blood-brain barriers, which allow greater chemical exposures to reach their developing brains.

It is best to avoid infant formulas whenever possible. Breastfeeding is best. Infant formulas have been found to be contaminated with a variety of problematic chemicals, including:

Perchlorates (a component of rocket fuel)
Melamine
Advanced glycoprotein end products (AGEs)

Please avoid feeding your baby soy based formula due to dangerously high concentrations of manganese and estrogenic compounds, among other problems. Most infant formulas also contain far too much sugar. The most recent contaminant found in infant formula (as well as food and commercial juices) is arsenic. This is particularly worrisome for babies because they are especially vulnerable to arsenic’s toxic effects.

Is there Arsenic in Your Baby Formula?

Researchers at Dartmouth College warned that there is an “urgent need” for regulatory limits on arsenic in food products after levels in two infant formulas were found to be up to six times the U.S. federal limit for drinking water.There are currently NO regulations for arsenic levels in foods or juices.

The arsenic in infant formulas is thought to come from the brown rice syrup used to sweeten some formulas. Rice is a plant that is very efficient at taking up arsenic from the soil, regardless of whether or not it’s grown organically.

You Can Avoid All of These Problems by Breastfeeding

Breastfeeding offers a list of life-long health benefits for both mom and baby, making it the best food you can give to your baby by far.

Many are aware that breast milk contains antibodies, or immune molecules, that are transferred to the baby, giving her immunities to illnesses that the mother is immune to. The converse is also true — if your newborn is exposed to a germ, she will transfer it back to the mother while nursing. The mother’s body will then make antibodies to that particular germ and transfer them back to the baby at the next feeding.

So it’s not just a matter of vitamins, minerals, proteins and fats that makes breast milk far superior to formula. In fact, breast milk also contains substances that may significantly enhance your baby’s gut and support the healthy development of her entire nervous system.

If you are unable to breastfeed, you may want to consider the option of purchasing human breast milk, which is becoming a hot commodity online. Nursing women are now earning up to $1,200 a month from selling their extra milk to other families, many of whom are pairing up online via Craigslist and other classified sites. This trend harkens back to ancient times when wet nurses (women who breastfeed babies other than their own) were used for a variety of purposes. For more about this option and some cautions, please refer to this article on the sale of breast milk.

Is the U.S. Becoming a “Dumping Ground” for Substandard Products?

Food in the European Union (EU) seems to be getting safer^v, while American food may be becoming more dangerous. The EU has been progressively tightening their standards, while the U.S. has been loosening theirs. Consider herbicides, for example.

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the U.S. and is the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, which is causing incredible damage to our environment. As a result of Monsanto’s lobbying, a U.S. regulation passed in 2011 increased the tolerance for residues of the herbicide glyphosate on corn. The tolerance is even higher than the one allowed by international standards. The Codex Alimentarius Commission^vi has established a maximum residue level for glyphosate on corn at 5 parts per million, but the U.S. regulation now allows 13 parts per million.

The EU herbicide/pesticide legislation is probably the strictest in the world, a testament to their commitment to consumer protection. Besides limiting these chemicals, they ban genetically engineered foods and the hormone rBGH, whereas the U.S. continues to allow them. Many more such examples can be found.

As the European Union and other nations have begun to tighten their environmental standards, manufacturers have begun to use America as a dumping ground for consumer goods that fail to meet other nations’ standards for toxic chemical content. Manufacturers ship wood, toys, electronics, pesticides and cosmetics to the U.S. containing substances that are banned or restricted elsewhere, because they raise the risk of cancer or cause reproductive or neurological damage.

Think about all of the dangerous and poor quality products we’re importing from China that make the news now on a regular basis. Unlike the European Union, which uses a “precautionary principle” that prescribes protective steps whenever there is scientific evidence of risks to public health or the environment, the U.S. EPA relies on voluntary steps from the industries themselves. This model of consumer protection has unfortunately been swallowed up by corporate corruption. If the government is unable to provide the oversight needed to ensure public safety, then it’s up to YOU, the consumer, to protect yourself.

What You Can Do

The Cornucopia Institute has posted an Action Alert in the form of a proxy letter you can sign and mail off today. They will hand-carry your letters to the USDA spring meeting to protect organic products from synthetic additives. You can print out this proxy letter here.

Signed proxy letters should be mailed to:

The Cornucopia Institute
PO Box 126
Cornucopia, Wisconsin 54827

Also consider including a donation check with your letter, to support the invaluable work the Cornucopia Institute performs to protect your and your family’s right to clean, wholesome, truly organic food. As of right now, there does not appear to be any additional benefit to contacting your congressman, but if the need arises, Cornucopia will notify all their members and subscribers with the information.

I can’t encourage you enough to participate in this process. It’s important to recognize that you CAN make a difference! Always remember that collectively, we have the most effective power in the marketplace that can exceed the power of these multibillion dollar, multinational corporations. We can vote with our pocket books. But we also need to make our voices heard; we have to let these agencies know that we are watching, we’re paying attention, and we’re not going to allow this immoral, if not downright illegal, industrial favoritism to continue.

Until American consumers are willing to vote LOUDLY and CLEARLY with their checkbooks by refusing to purchase cheap products created under poor standards of safety, we will continue to be suckers for substandard and even dangerous products that can compromise our health, along with the health of future generations.

So think carefully before you purchase your products! The real cost of “cheap products” comes in the price you pay for your long-term health.

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

The “Massive Con” Causing a Suicide Every 30 Minutes

Posted on April 11, 2012 by andreas m

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

It’s been called the “largest wave of recorded suicides in human history.”

Indian farmers have been robbed of their livelihoods, causing them to take their own lives in despair.

Over the past 16 years, it is estimated that more than a quarter of a million Indian farmers have committed suicide.

Who is responsible for this tragedy?

The most obvious culprits are global corporations like Monsanto, Cargill and Syngenta and the genetically engineered seed they have forced upon farmers worldwide.

None are hit harder than those in India, where socioeconomic and environmental factors have magnified the impact, making it almost impossible for these farmers to survive.

In fact, genetically engineered seeds are so fundamental to the problem that it’s been termed “GM Genocide.”

The rate of Indian farmer suicides has greatly increased since the introduction of Bt cotton in 2002.

This is not a pleasant subject to read about, but it is a necessary one… one that can help you understand why it’s so important to continue fighting seed monopolies with ever-increased resolve.

I experienced the Indian farmers’ plight firsthand while spending two weeks in India, where I saw for myself the devastating effects of GM seed upon the lives and livelihoods of these rural farmers.

I worked closely with Organic India, a company helping more than 150,000 farmers change back to time-honored methods of producing high quality plants and herbs. If you have any doubts about the dire global implications of GM crops, the plight of these farmers should put those doubts to rest.

A Farmer Commits Suicide by Pesticide Every 30 Minutes in India

The statistics are staggering. According to a publication from the New York University School of Law, in 2009 alone (the most recent year for which official figures are available) 17,638 Indian farmers committed suicide—that’s one farmer every 30 minutes. A great number of those affected are cash crop farmers, and cotton farmers in particular.

Cotton exemplifies India’s general shift toward cash crop cultivation, a shift that has contributed significantly to farmer vulnerability. The cotton industry, like other cash crops in India, has been dominated by foreign mega-corporations that promote genetically modified seeds and exert increasing control over the entire agricultural industry. Most farmer suicides are a direct result of overwhelming indebtedness. And the suicide numbers may be grossly underestimated.

According to the authors of the NYU report:

“While striking on their own, these figures considerably underestimate the actual number of farmer suicides taking place. Women, for example, are often excluded from farmer suicide statistics because most do not have title to land—a common prerequisite for being recognized as a farmer in official statistics and programs.”

The general trend over time is increasing suicides, despite the generally decreasing numbers of Indians performing farming each year, which makes the statistics even starker: It’s estimated that more than 250,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide so far. But this problem is not limited to India, as the suicide rate for farmers is higher worldwide than for the non-farming population.

In the Midwestern U.S., suicide rates among male farmers are twice that of the overall population. In Britain, one farmer commits suicide every week.

For every Indian farmer who takes his own life, a family is hounded by the debt he leaves behind, typically resulting in children dropping out of school to become farmhands, and surviving family members themselves frequently committing suicide out of hopelessness and despair. The Indian government’s response to the crisis—largely in the form of limited debt relief and compensation programs—has failed to address the magnitude and scope of the problem or its underlying causes.

India’s “Suicide Belt”

India is an agrarian country, populated by 1.1 billion people, about 60 percent of whom are directly or indirectly dependent on agriculture. Two-thirds of farmer suicides occur in five Indian states/territories, which has come to be known as India’s “Suicide Belt”: Maharastra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Chattisgarh. The worst area is Maharastra. In 2007, there were 4,238 farmer suicides in this state alone, accounting for one fourth of the total farmer suicides in India that year. These territories represent zones of highly diversified, commercialized agriculture where cash crops dominate—especially Bt cotton, grown from Monsanto’s genetically modified cotton seed. So, what is it about genetically engineered seed that is so damaging for Indian farmers?

Genetically Engineered Seeds Spell Global Disaster

There are four primary factors directly related to the use of genetically engineered seed that contribute heavily to this grim situation:

Compared to traditional seed, genetically engineered seeds are very expensive and have to be repurchased every planting season
Genetically engineered crops require much more water to grow, have much higher requirements for fertilizer and pesticide, in spite of Monsanto’s claims to the contrary and, in spite of their cost to farmers, provide NO increased yield

While companies like Monsanto have plenty of blood on their hands, additional social, economic and environmental factors make matters worse for these small rural farms:

The “Green Revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s has funneled money toward the middle class and away from the farming/peasant classes
Rising prices for seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, and other farm supplies, along with falling prices for farm commodities, are forcing farmers to take out high-interest loans from opportunistic moneylenders
A trend from polyculture farming (diverse crops) to monoculture farming (primarily cotton) has depleted the soil and increased crop infestation by opportunistic pests
Limited water supplies, periodic drought, decreased monsoonal rainfall, and poor access to irrigation
Dishonest, predatory salesmen; lack of government support; and grossly inadequate government relief programs

Green Revolution Not Kind to Small Indian Farmers

The introduction of hybrid seeds marked the beginning of the current issues plaguing Indian farmers today. Prior to the 1960s and 1970s, Indian farmers grew diverse food crops, but that all changed with the Green Revolution as modern machinery, chemical pesticides and fertilizers, and hybrid seeds were introduced from the West. Most farmers in India now plant cash crops for export, rather than rice, legumes, millet, and other foods for local consumption.

And in India, cotton is king.

In 1998, under the World Bank’s new lending policies, India opened its seed sector to international agribusiness, forcing small cotton farms to compete with giant cotton plantations in the West. Companies like Monsanto promoted their new hybrid seed technology. However, it was soon discovered that the new high-tech cotton required more water and more chemicals to grow. This was not good for small Indian farmers, for whom both money and water were, and still are, in short supply.

Seeds of Evil

In 2002, Monsanto “came to the rescue” with the introduction of even higher-tech seeds: genetically engineered Bt cotton. The company claimed that these miracle seeds were a dream come true for farmers everywhere—more pest resistant, higher yields, etc. Bt cotton contains a bacteria gene, an insecticide that repels bollworm, cotton’s most voracious parasite.

But this genetically engineered cotton actually required far MORE water and far MORE pesticides than hybrid or traditional cotton!

These seeds were heavily marketed in India, using film stars and even religious deities to lure farmers in. And they came with a steep price tag—they are four to 10 times more expensive than hybrid seeds. Prior to hybrids, farmers were able to harvest their own seeds from each crop, to be planted next season. However, many genetically engineered seeds contain “terminator technology,” meaning they have been genetically modified so that the resulting crops don’t produce viable seeds of their own. Therefore, new seeds must be purchased every year from big seed companies, at the same punitive prices.

Bt Cotton is a Debt Trap

Bt cotton requires more pesticide sprayings than indigenous cotton—MANY times more. Bt cotton has created new resistant pests, and to control these, farmers must use 13 times more pesticides than they were using prior to its introduction. Rates of infestation by aphids, thrips, jassids, and other pests have risen since Bt cotton’s introduction.

Meanwhile, yields for Bt cotton are disappointingly low. Monsanto claims Bt cotton will yield 1500 kg per year, but farmers have gotten only 300 to 400 kg per year, average. High costs and unreliable output make GM cotton a debt trap. According to Voltairenet.org:

“When Monsanto first introduced Bt cotton in 2002, the farmers lost one billion rupees due to crop failure. Instead of 1,500 kilos per acre as promised by the company, the harvest was as low as 200 kilos per acre. Instead of incomes of 10,000 rupees an acre, farmers ran into losses of 6,400 rupees an acre… Poor peasants of the South cannot survive seed monopolies. The crisis of suicides shows how the survival of small farmers is incompatible with the seed monopolies of global corporations.”

This has all been amplified by the dramatic fall in cotton prices as a result of the WTO’s free trade policies, which make cotton farming financially unsustainable. Foreign agricultural subsidies have driven down the price of crops on the global market, and unsubsidized Indian farmers can’t compete.

In 1994, one pound of raw cotton fetched $1.10. In 2006, that same pound brought in a meager 54 cents. A study carried out by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE) shows that due to falling farm prices, Indian peasants are losing $26 billion annually.

Add to All of That a Water Shortage

Bt cotton requires irrigation, which only 10 percent of Indian farmers have. The other 90 percent depend on monsoonal rainfall, and in drought years, they risk losing their crops, their financial investment, and even their land.

Droughts are becoming more frequent due to the changing climate. Rains have largely failed for the past several years, and many genetically engineered crops have simply withered and died, leaving the farmers with crippling debts and no means of paying them off.

One study showed that, although most Bt cotton seed packets carry the information that they are “best grown in irrigated conditions” (in fine print), NONE of the homes of suicided farmers had irrigated land. These farmers aren’t educated about what it takes to make these seeds grow and the potential risk for total crop failure. And many farmers are completely illiterate and sign on the dotted lines without the benefit of reading, much less understanding, a contract.

And a Banking Shortage…

Another factor contributing to the problem is that farmers no longer have access to good loans. Thousands of rural bank branches have shut down since 1993, redirecting their lending away from farmers and toward elite city dwellers in Mumbai and Delhi, where high-tech growth and technology is booming. Lacking the financial means to pay for high-tech seeds and chemicals, about 80 percent of Indian farmers can borrow only from private moneylenders, who charge exorbitant interest rates. In order to obtain these loans, they must put up their land as collateral. When their crops fail, they lose everything and become servants to the moneylenders.

Many seed dealers operate like America’s infamous subprime mortgage lenders.

India has an army of salesmen out selling farm products to farmers who can’t afford them. A famer is manipulated into the deal with high-pressure sales tactics, and then borrows from a moneylender to do the deal. When his harvests fail, he has no choice other than to borrow even more. This marks the beginning of a downward spiral of indebtedness and despair. After crops fail and moneylenders hover like buzzards over their decimated fields, many farmers take their lives by ingesting the very pesticides they went into debt to purchase, suffering slow, agonizing deaths.

India’s Farmers are Abandoned and Forgotten by their Government

The Indian government used to have agricultural extensions to help farmers, but those days are gone. Farmers now have no one to turn to for advice, except for predatory seed salesmen who don’t have the farmers’ best interests in mind. The Indian farmers have lost faith in their government, and who could blame them?

The government’s priority is clearly India’s new urban high-tech based economy. Corrupt officials are disinterested in protecting farmers, and little money is spent on infrastructure, in spite of the fact that 70 percent of Indians live in rural areas. Until the government begins to address irrigation, rural credit, and regulation of the business practices of multinational corporations, the farmer suicide crisis will unfortunately continue.

Genetic Engineering Brings Magnitude 10 Dangers

Genetically tinkering with the human food supply… what could possibly go wrong? Plenty, as it turns out. The potential dangers of genetically engineered food run the gamut, including:

Contamination of organic crop varieties
Development of herbicide-resistant super weeds
Organ disruption, cancer, and increased rate of miscarriage and infertility in animals raised on genetically engineered feed
Air and rain samples contaminated with glyphosate, and waterways in agricultural areas contaminated with a genetically engineered bug-killing protein
A brand new organism related specifically to genetically engineered crops, found to be responsible for disease and sudden death in both plants and mammals

The Importance of Buying Organic Cotton

A few Indian farmers have decided to switch to growing organic cotton. There are numerous advantages, of course, from the standpoint of health—but there are also financial advantages. A minimum price for organic cotton is guaranteed. And the cost of growing organic cotton declines over time as the ecosystem regains its balance.

Organic cotton fields may harbor a few bollworms, but you’ll also find plenty of helpful insects, such as ladybugs, and birds that help keep pests under control. Organic farmers make their own insecticides from a renewable mixture of cow dung, cow urine, and butter, and compost fertilizers as well.

You Can Help the Indian Farmers’ Plight

Monsanto has been ruthless in their drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops, and it gives us a very clear picture of what could be in store for the rest of the world’s small farmers if GM seed conglomerates are allowed to continue. This is why it’s so important to vote with your pocket book, being vigilant about not purchasing GM foods.

I have visited thousands of Indian farmers who’ve escaped the clutches of Monsanto, thanks to the efforts of Organic India that has taught them how to grow crops organically. Organic India has also constructed a number of hospitals and clinics to serve these farmers, which has helped tremendously in restoring their dignity.

Your best strategy, to help both yourself and small organic farmers everywhere, is to 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 crops 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 genetically engineered 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.

You may also find this Non-GMO Shopping Guide helpful, 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. To learn more, I highly recommend the following films and lectures:

The Future of Food
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

The Dramatic New Rule Change for Genetically Engineered Foods

Posted on April 10, 2012 by andreas m

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Under new U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules, Monsanto and other biotech companies that create genetically modified (GM) crops will get speedier regulatory reviews of their genetically engineered food products.

The new rules will cut the time needed to approve biotech crops in half—from an average of three years, to about 13 months for new versions of already existing crop technologies, and about 16 months for brand new technologies.

The U.S. Congress is also helping out by increasing the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 2012 budget for biotech regulation from $13 million to $18 million.

One way the USDA plans to speed up approvals is by asking for public comments as soon as a petition for the deregulation of a biotech crop is filed, rather than waiting until the end of the review.

However, according to Bloomberg:

“The Center for Food Safety, a Washington-based non-profit group that has successfully challenged approvals of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar-beet and alfalfa crops, said the rule change is aimed at preventing opponents of modified crops from voicing criticism of the agency’s methods.

“They are trying to work the system so they can dismiss public comments more quickly and easily in order to speed things up,” Bill Freese, a policy analyst at the group, said in a telephone interview.

”It’s a rubber-stamp system. A real regulatory system will occasionally reject something.”"

Monsanto Will Also Conduct Its Own Environmental Impact Studies…

As if that’s not enough, let’s not forget that the USDA also created a two-year long pilot program last year, which allows biotech companies like Monsanto to conduct their own environmental assessments.

This decision opens the door for massive conflicts of interest, because if history has shown us anything, it’s that industries CANNOT police themselves. The end result is always the same—corporate vested interests win every time. This is exactly why we need independent agencies to do safety reviews.

Unfortunately, the U.S. government and our regulatory agencies are FILLED with former Monsanto employees, which is likely why all federal actions relating to genetically engineered foods are so illogical and downright foolhardy.

Take Michael Taylor for example. He was the vice president of public policy and a chief lobbyist at Monsanto, and he’s now the deputy commissioner for foods at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)! According to Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology, Taylor oversaw the creation of GMO policy, which may help explain why genetically engineered foods do not have to be labeled in the U.S.

According to Jeffrey Smith:

“If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto’s attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto’s vice president and chief lobbyist.”

Once you realize just how many of Monsanto’s employees have shifted into positions of power within the federal government, it suddenly becomes a lot easier to understand why they appear to so callously ignore public safety and turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to any and all evidence of harm linked to Monsanto’s products.

Monsanto Accused in Suit Tied to Agent Orange

Granting speedier approvals and allowing biotech companies to do their own safety reviews becomes even more ludicrous when you consider the poor safety record of companies such as Monsanto. Most recently, in the town of Nitro, West Virginia, tens of thousands of people filed a class-action lawsuit against Monsanto, accusing the company of spreading toxic substances, primarily carcinogenic dioxins, all over the city for two decades. The Monsanto chemical plant in Nitro produced the herbicide 2,4,5-T; a component of Agent Orange, the extremely toxic herbicide used to defoliate jungles during the Vietnam War. Agent Orange is known to cause cancer, birth defects in children of exposed victims, leukemia, liver disease, heart disease, Parkinson’s Disease, diabetes and chloracne.

The suit claims poisonous residues from the chemical have polluted the area, putting residents’ health and the environment at serious risk. According to the Republic Broadcasting Network:

“Monsanto is alleged to have burned dioxin waste in open pits, spewing dioxin and its ash into the air and polluting land … The EPA recommended that Monsanto be criminally investigated for fraud in covering-up dioxin contamination in its products, including 2,4,5-T herbicide. Monsanto failed to report contamination, substituted false information to show no contamination or sent in ‘doctored’ samples of their products devoid of dioxin to government regulators.”

Monsanto has tentatively agreed to a $93 million settlement with some of the residents. The settlement would include $21 million for medical testing, $63 million for additional screening, and $9 million for the cleanup of 4,500 homes.

Why We MUST Insist on Mandatory Labeling of GM Foods

Mandatory labeling may be the only way to stop the proliferation of GM foods in the U.S. It is primarily due to lack of labeling that many Americans are still unfamiliar with what GM foods are, and that they’re eating them on a daily basis. We have a plan to change that, and I urge you to participate and to continue learning more about GM 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 GM ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers.

The majority of the GMO’s 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 GM 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 GM 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

Take Action to Support ‘Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act’

Posted on April 5, 2012 by andreas m

By: Jonathan Benson
Source: NaturalNews.com

Every year for at least the last decade, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh.) has stood up for health freedom by introducing the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act before the U.S. Congress, only to witness it later die in committee. And once again, Rep. Kucinich has introduced the bill in the current congressional session, this time as H.R. 3553, with 21 co-sponsors thus far — and your help is needed to finally get this legislation acknowledged and passed into law.

More Americans than ever are waking up to the presence of genetically-modified organisms (GMO) in the foods they eat, which means momentum is strong to pass legislation at the national level requiring their proper labeling. After all, more than 90 percent of individuals polled in numerous surveys have indicated that labeling GMOs is essential in a free society.

But as it stands, the federal government is stonewalling all efforts, both public and private, to implement food transparency. It also continues to ignore all independent science on the matter, which shows conclusively that GMOs are not the same as natural foods, and that they are responsible for causing a host of illnesses in humans, and colossal environmental damage.

“Gen-M, ‘Generation Monsanto,’ the first generation of humans force-fed genetically modified foods, hasn’t reached reproductive age yet (they were born in the late 1990s),” says a new Organic Consumers Association (OCA) Action Alert. “But, if a critical mass of animal feeding studies are any indication, the millennial generation, reared on Food Inc.’s unlabeled ‘Frankenfoods’ can look forward to a long-term epidemic of cancer, food allergies, sterility, learning disabilities, and birth defects.”

In California, Washington, and about a dozen other states there are currently efforts underway to pass GMO labeling laws statewide, which is a great start. But the federal government, controlled largely by pharmaceutical and biotechnology interests, refuses to require mandatory labeling, let alone require proper safety testing for GMOs before approving them.

But the issue is not going away anytime soon, and eventually a critical mass of awareness about GMOs and the immense damage they are causing to humans and the environment will spur a political and agricultural revolution. So our elected officials had better listen up now and take action before the people decide to take action for them.

Be sure to ask your representatives to cosponsor H.R. 3553:
http://capwiz.com/grassrootsnetroots/issues/alert/?alertid=58123521

You can view H.R. 3553 at:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3553/show

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

USDA Green-Lights field trials of Monsanto Drought-Resistant Corn after Admitting it Performs No Better than Natural Corn

Posted on March 27, 2012 by andreas m

By: Ethan A. Huff
Source: NaturalNews.com

The U.S. Department of Agriculture‘s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) does not even pretend to legitimately evaluate genetically-modified organisms (GMO) before approving them anymore, having recently green-lighted approval for a new variety of “drought-resistant” GM corn produced by Monsanto that admittedly grows no better under drought conditions than natural varieties do.

According to the Washington Post, APHIS fast-tracked the corn, known as MON87460, without ever conducting an appropriate environmental risk analysis on the crop’s efficacy, which includes determining whether or not the crop is even safe for humans or the environment. In fact, in accordance with the Obama Administration’s new hands-off approach to regulating GMOs, APHIS decided to actually approve MON87460 even after a cursory evaluation of the data exposed it as a complete failure.

“The reduced yield [trait] does not exceed the natural variation observed in regionally-adapted varieties of conventional corn,” wrote the USDA in an earlier report on the crop published last fall. “Equally comparable varieties produced through conventional breeding techniques are readily available in irrigated corn production regions”.

MON87460 is the first GMO to be approved with resistance to drought, as opposed to a pesticide or herbicide. And even though many drought-adaptive varieties of natural or hybrid corn already exist, Monsanto is pushing MON87460 on farmers all across the Midwest, and primarily in the Western plains where drought conditions are still severe, with promises that it will translate into increased yields.

Based on its initial findings, however, as well as the fact that GM crops are known to contaminate nearby conventional and organic crops, APHIS should have wholly rejected MON87460 and told Monsanto to hit the road. Instead, thanks to embedded special interests throughout the USDA and the highest levels of the federal government, this former regulatory body has become nothing more than a bureaucratic rubber stamp for the biotechnology industry.

“[Bio]technology has been spectacularly unsuccessful at delivering complex traits such as drought tolerance, which involve multiple genes and complex interaction with the plant’s environment,” wrote Dr. Helen Wallace, director of GeneWatch U.K., in a piece last year on so-called drought-tolerant GM crops. “Meanwhile, conventional breeding and new techniques such as marker-assisted selection — which uses knowledge of the plant’s genome to inform breeding, without engineering the plant, have produced a long string of successes.”

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

The Worst of Both Worlds — Genetically Engineered Goats to Produce New Vaccine

Posted on March 26, 2012 by andreas m

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Goats are being genetically engineered to become “pharm animals” that carry vaccines in their milk.

Current experiments being conducted by researchers from Texas A&M are geared toward producing an “edible” malaria vaccine, with the ultimate goal being that children drinking the milk will become vaccinated in the process.

While claiming that bioengineered animals could be “life-savers” for people in third-world countries, the researchers ignore the glaring issue that such biotechnology often produces unknown, and unintended, health consequences that prove tragic for individuals and the environment.

Vaccines in Your Milk?

Transmogrifying farm animals into “pharm” animals to act as living and breathing pharmaceutical factories is not new.

In 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first drug produced by livestock that had been bioengineered to express a human gene.

In that case, the protein was extracted from the milk of genetically engineered (GE) goats.

In the latest instance, researchers introduced DNA coding for the malaria parasite into the goat genome linked to milk production.

The DNA is supposed to “switch on” only in the mammary gland when the goat produces milk.

As we’ve seen in the past with genetically modified plants, genetically engineered vaccine-producing animals might enter the food supply unexpectedly — exposing unintended recipients to the vaccine. Or the animals might escape and breed with others, passing these bioengineered genes on with unpredictable consequences. Even the technology itself is risky at best, because when animals are exposed to foreign DNA, literally anything can happen.

Take, for instance, milk from cows treated with a synthetic, genetically engineered growth hormone called rBGH. rBGH milk differs from natural milk nutritionally, pharmacologically, immunologically, and hormonally, and along with causing health problems in the cows, it is linked to cancer in humans. What does ingesting the DNA from the malaria parasite in your milk cause? No one knows.

Vaccine Makers See Dollar Signs When They See Third-World Countries

Malaria is caused by a parasite of the species Plasmodium, which is spread from person to person by infected mosquitoes. Every year, it results in about 1 million deaths, the majority of which are in third-world countries. We are certainly in need of a solution, and while it sounds good in theory that a child could be protected from malaria just by drinking a glass of milk, remember that vaccines often weaken and confuse children’s immune systems, which ultimately increases their susceptibility to the very infectious diseases vaccines are designed to prevent.

The most vulnerable of the world’s children are those in the poorest countries where death and disease is often a result of malnutrition, and where children are often battling some sort of infection 200 days out of the year. Vaccines can be devastating to these already immunosuppressed children, as well as to adults.

However, emerging vaccine markets like third-world countries will soon outgrow developed markets by hundreds of billions of dollars. Emerging markets are areas of the world that are beginning to show promise as a profitable venture for many products, including vaccines. And emerging markets – primarily in developing countries in Southeast and Central Asia, and Africa – have been on vaccine makers’ radar for quite some time.

Giving Immune-Compromised Children Vaccines May Create Illness, Not Cure It

One reason that vaccine makers are interested in these parts of the world is that that’s where most of the world’s deaths from major infectious diseases occur. The only problem has been that, until recently, making vaccines for undeveloped countries with no money to pay for them, was not exactly a profitable goal for vaccine makers.

Concerned that developed countries would have little or no resources for addressing serious infectious diseases if vaccine makers continued their pull-out, the World Health Organization and the G8 – the top developed countries in the world – responded with a plan for inducing vaccine companies to stay in the business.

That plan was called Advance Market Commitments (AMCs). Under AMCs, developed countries make legal, binding agreements to purchase vaccines that are needed in low-income countries. The purchase guarantees a bottom line for the manufacturers. In return, the manufacturers promise to sell those vaccines at reduced prices in the countries where they are most needed.

Unfortunately, legally binding, advance market commitments to purchase vaccines that are mostly needed in third world countries could backfire on developed countries that don’t need – or want – certain vaccines. Malaria is one of the top neglected diseases that world health leaders want to address with AMCs, so the GM vaccine-producing goat milk might already be on their radar.

The ability to resist diseases like malaria requires a strong immune system, and for that, you require good nutrition, clean drinking water, and sanitation. If we want to help people in other countries to lower their malaria rates, it would be wise to focus on these basics first. In order to eradicate infectious disease from a nation, you have to first address compromised immune systems. If you hit immune suppressed children with a potent, adjuvant-loaded vaccine, you’re far more likely to create new disease, not eradicate it.

It’s similar to the corporations seeking to plant genetically modified golden rice in the developing world to purportedly alleviate vitamin A deficiency. What people in the developing world need to receive ample dietary vitamin A are the basics like access to a diverse range of nutritious foods — including animal products like eggs, cheese and meat and vegetables such as dark leafy greens and sweet potatoes. This is the type of diet that is attained from biodiverse farming — the opposite of what will occur if golden rice is planted on a large scale. So in the end it appears the golden rice will do little to improve vitamin A levels in the poor — and may actually make vitamin A deficiency worse.

Fertility Problems, DNA Damage Among the Serious Health Problems Linked to GM Foods

The vaccine-producing GM goats are a double-edged sword because while no one knows for sure what consuming GM vaccine-containing milk will do to humans, there’s very convincing evidence that genetically modified foods spell nothing but trouble for your health.

In one review of genetically modified organisms (GMO) — an analysis of 19 animal studies – it was revealed that nearly 10 percent of blood, urine, organ and other parameters tested were significantly influenced by GMOs, with the liver and kidneys faring the worst.

In the only human feeding study ever published on genetically modified foods, seven volunteers ate Roundup-ready soybeans. These are soybeans that have herbicide-resistant genes inserted into them in order to survive being sprayed with otherwise deadly doses of Roundup herbicide. In three of the seven volunteers, the gene inserted into the soy transferred into the DNA of their intestinal bacteria, and continued to function long after they stopped eating the GM soy!

So, exposing children in third world countries to these potential risks needs to be carefully considered before a malaria vaccine is distributed in GM milk especially when there are other innovative ways of fighting malaria available. In addition, Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology, has documented at least 65 serious health risks from GM products of all kinds. Among them:

Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce
Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells
The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning
Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties
Investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products

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

Chemtrails: An Exposé

Posted on March 23, 2012 by andreas m

By: NowWhatRTheyUp2
Source: YouTube.com

This short video exposes every organization that pays for CHEMTRAILS, showering deadly toxins like aluminum oxides and barium on the unsuspecting population:

These are the currently used aircraft employed to do the dirty job:
http://weathermodification.com/aircraft.php

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

Monsanto’s Roundup threatens stability of global food supply

Posted on March 20, 2012 by andreas m

By: Anthony Gucciardi
Source: NaturalNews.com

Monsanto’s reckless disregard for public health and the agricultural stability of the planet may be even more significant than previously thought. A shocking new report reveals how Monsanto’s Roundup is actually threatening the crop-yielding potential of the entire biosphere. The report reveals that glyphosate, which was developed by Monsanto in the early 1970s and is the active ingredient in its patented herbicide Roundup, may be irreversibly devastating the microbiodiversity of the soil – compromising the health of the entire planet, as a result.

New research published in the journal Current Microbiology highlights the extent to which glyphosate is altering, and in some cases destroying, the very microorganisms upon which the health of the soil, and – amazingly – the benefits of raw and fermented foods as a whole, depend. Concerningly, certain beneficial strains of bacteria used as food-starters in cultures for raw yogurt, such as Lactobacillus cremoris, have entirely disappeared from certain geographic regions where traditionally they were found in plenty. The study reports that the death and growth inhibition of selected food microorganisms was observed in concentrations of Roundup that are lower than are recommended in agricultural practice.

This means that farmers who are increasingly using larger and larger concentrations of Roundup and similar glyphosate-based herbicide formulations to countermand the increasingly resistant super weeds GM agriculture has spawned, are not only damaging the immediate health of the soil, but subsequent yields of indispensable food-starter microorganisms, as well as the microbes that ensure the overall fertility of the soil for producing crops well into the future.

Monsanto’s Roundup assaults the planetary biosphere

Microorganisms are responsible for much more than just the health content of raw and fermented foods. The most numerous inhabitants in the web of life, microorganisms participate quite literally “at the root” of the nitrogen, phosphate, oxygen and carbon cycles, and are therefore indispensable for the health of the entire biosphere. Astoundingly, there are an estimated 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (6 x 10 to the 30th power) bacterial cells on the planet, and these soil microrganisms represent about 50 percent of the the total biodiversity in terms of numbers of species.

As Roundup usage threatens these soil microrganisms, including fungi and the mycellium (technically the largest organism in the world), it could lead to devastating implications. Compromising the health of the mycellium, in particular, may cause serious harm to the planet. According to prominent mycologist Paul Stamets, mycellium may actually act as a ‘network’ within the biosphere, acting as the Earth’s ‘natural internet’ in which virtually all organisms may rely upon. It has been recognized throughout the ages that all life depends on the soil. Without healthy soil, the health of the entire planet is at risk.

Charles E. Kelogg was one individual who stated such in the USDA yearbook back in 1939. Kelogg said:

“Essentially, all life depends upon the soil … There can be no life without soil and no soil without life; they have evolved together.”

Franklin Delano Roosevelt also voiced similar concerns, warning:

“The nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself.”

Based on an ever-increasing body of scientific evidence showing glyphosate biodegrades slowly, sinks down through the topsoil where it accumulates in the groundwater (source for natural drinking water, e.g. aquifers, springs), and is found in nearly all air and rain samples tested in the US, it is safe to say that Monsanto’s best-selling Roundup is one of the greatest threats to human and environmental health ever created.

As the USDA continues to sit back and allow Monsanto to threaten the environmental stability of the planet, it becomes more apparent that the USDA and Monsanto are gladly willing to exchange the future of the planet and its inhabitants for short term gain. In fact, the USDA has even given Monsanto’s latest GMO crops speedier approval in order to secure the company’s profits, ignoring the numerous known harmful effects of Monsanto’s past creations, e.g. Agent Orange, Aspartame, DDT.

The known effects of Roundup

The negative effects of Monsanto’s Roundup on human health and the environment have been firmly established by numerous scientific studies and large-scale investigations, with scientists even linking the best-selling herbicide to conditions like infertility and cancer due to its genotoxic (DNA damaging) nature. Amazingly, even when diluted by 99.8 percent (450-fold lower dilutions than used in agricultural applications), Roundup still exhibits serious genotoxic characteristics and is harmful to the integrity of human DNA. Meanwhile, this carcinogenic herbicide product is used nationwide by unsuspecting homeowners and agricultural workers. According to the United States Geological Survey, 176 million lbs of glyphosate were used in the U.S. in 2007.

Outside of the public health realm, Roundup’s startling environmental havoc is perhaps an even greater cause for concern. Despite being created to fend off weeds, Roundup is actually spawning resistant superweeds across millions of hectares (one hectare is 10,000 square metres), bankrupting farmers and destroying crop land. These resistant weeds currently cover over 4.5 million hectares in the United States alone, though experts estimate the world-wide land coverage to have reached at least 120 million hectares by 2010. The onset of superweeds is being increasingly documented in Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Europe and South Africa.

The research is clear: Roundup is not only harming human health and damaging farmland, it is threatening the very biosphere itself by destroying microbial biodiversity, with the future agricultural stability of the planet, i.e. the ability to produce food through monoculturing, at serious risk of collapsing.

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

Bill Gates: One of the World’s Most Destructive Do-Gooders?

Posted on March 19, 2012 by andreas m

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Above, ABC’s “Nightline,” Bill Weir talks with Microsoft founder Bill Gates about his charitable endeavors.

Gates’ latest plan is to try to end world hunger by growing more genetically modified (GM) crops.

He’s already invested $27 million into Monsanto Company—leading some countries to reject his charity due to the high risks, such as:

New disease vectors
Mutated pesticide-resistant insects
Resistant “superweeds”
Contamination of surrounding non-GM crops

We already know how deeply entrenched the U.S. government has become with Monsanto.

For a visual illustration of their ‘revolving-door-relationship’ with the governmental regulatory agencies, see the graph toward the bottom of this article.

It is this type of government infiltration that allowed genetically engineered alfalfa to be approved without any restrictions at all, despite the protests of the organic community and public comments from a quarter of a million concerned citizens.

In Bill Gates, Monsanto also has one of the wealthiest and most influential “philanthropists” supporting their agenda and spreading misleading propaganda about their products.

In recent years, it has become disappointingly clear that Gates may be leading the pack as one of the most destructive “do-gooders” on the planet… His views on what is required to make a difference in poverty- and disease-stricken third world nations are short-sighted and misinformed at best. A recent article in the Seattle Times joins me in arguing that Bill Gates’ support of genetically modified (GM) crops as a solution for world hunger is based on unsound science. A team of 900 scientists funded by the World Bank and United Nations, investigated the matter over the course of three years, and determined that the use of GM crops is simply NOT a meaningful solution to the complex situation of world hunger.

Instead, the scientists suggested that “agro-ecological” methods would provide the most viable means to ensure global food security, including the use of traditional seed varieties and local farming practices already adapted to the local ecology.

“Philanthropy is the Enemy of Justice”

In a recent article with the same headline, “Philanthropy is the Enemy of Justice”, Robert Newman criticizes the choice of Bill Gates as the designated “voice” of the world’s poor at the World Economic Forum, held in January.

“Am I saying that philanthropy has never done good? No, it has achieved many wonderful things… But beware the havoc that power without oversight and democratic control can wreak,” Newman writes.

“The biotech agriculture that Lord Sainsbury was unable to push through democratically he can now implement unilaterally, through his Gatsby Foundation. We are told that Gatsby’s biotech project aims to provide food security for the global south. But if you listen to southern groups such as the Karnataka State Farmers of India, food security is precisely the reason they campaign against GM, because biotech crops are monocrops which are more vulnerable to disease and so need lashings of petrochemical pesticides, insecticides and fungicides – none of them cheap – and whose ruinous costs will rise with the price of oil, bankrupting small family farms first. Crop diseases mutate, meanwhile, and all the chemical inputs in the world can’t stop disease wiping out whole harvests of genetically engineered single strands.

Both the Gatsby and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundations are keen to get deeper into agriculture, especially in Africa. But top-down nostrums for the rural poor don’t end well.”

I agree. Donating patented seeds, which takes away the farmers’ sovereignty, is not the way to save the third-world poor. As reported by Netline last year, Monsanto and other biotech companies have collaborated with the Gates Foundation via the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to promote the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa. The Gates Foundation has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to AGRA, and in 2006 Robert Horsch was hired for the AGRA project. Horsch was a Monsanto executive for 25 years. In a nutshell, the project may be sold under the banner of altruism and ‘sustainability’, but in reality it’s anything but. It’s just a multi-billion dollar enterprise to transform Africa into a GM-crop-friendly continent.

Conflicts of Interest Abound

Gates’ philanthropic methods came under scrutiny back in August 2010, when it was discovered that The Gates Foundation had purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock; dramatically increasing its previous holdings—and hence its financial conflicts of interest—in the biotech firm. AGRA-Watch commented on the ties stating:

“The Foundation’s direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels,” said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering.

“First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation’s heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests.”

It would be naive to think that all these philanthropic collaborations are designed to solve any problem besides how to help Monsanto monopolize the world’s food supply with expensive patented GM seeds, and the herbicides to go with them.

In the interview above, Gates claims the seeds would be donated to the impoverished areas in question. But seriously, how long would the seeds remain free? There’s rarely such a thing as a free lunch anymore, and it appears highly unlikely that Monsanto is poised to “feed Africa” indefinitely… And since you cannot save Monsanto’s seeds from year to year, they will literally own the areas and the people they temporarily donate their seeds to. And once you own the rights to all the food grown around the globe, you literally rule the world.

That appears to be the goal. And only sane, rational, thinking people can stop them. It’s really too bad that Gates has signed up as a lackey for “the Dark Side,” as it were, instead of using his unfathomable wealth to really create positive, sustainable change.

It’s an undisputed fact at this point that the introduction of genetically engineered crops lead to diminished biodiversity, which is the direct opposite of what the world needs. Truly, in order to save the planet and ourselves, small-scale organic and sustainable farming must not only prevail but flourish, and GM crops do not help, but rather threaten their existence. Seeds have always been sold and swapped freely between farmers, preserving biodiversity, and without that basis, you cannot have food sovereignty. And with fewer farmers, “feeding the hungry with GM crops” is nothing but a pipe dream.

Both Genetically Engineered Seeds and Herbicides Pose Risks to Environment and Human Health

Besides the threat to the environment and to agricultural practices, GM crops also bring a whole host of health concerns; not just from the GM seeds, but also from the herbicide used: Monsanto’s Roundup. It’s the world’s best-selling herbicide, which is designed to be partnered with genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” crops.

According to a shocking report, regulators were aware as early as 1980 that glyphosate, the active chemical ingredient of Roundup, caused birth defects in lab animals. However, the information was not made public. Instead, regulators misled the public about glyphosate’s safety, and with the introduction of Roundup Ready crops, the use of Roundup has skyrocketed.

According to Monsanto. NO:

“Dr. Andres Carrasco, a lead embryologist at the University of Bueno Aires Medical School and the Argentinean national research council, discovered that glyphosate-based herbicides like Monsanto’s Roundup formula caused deformations in chicken embryos that resembled the kind of birth defects which where reported in areas like La Leonesa, where big agribusinesses depend on glyphosate to treat genetically engineered crops.”

Golden Rice: a “Trojan Horse”

The idea that you can end world hunger with genetically engineered crops is simply not very well thought through. Last summer, I reported on The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s donation of $20 million toward the development of so-called “golden rice”—yet another untested GM crop that risks bringing economic and ecological disaster. Golden rice has been genetically engineered to produce beta-carotene, which your body can convert to vitamin A. It’s been promoted as a way to alleviate vitamin A deficiency, which is common in developing countries where people don’t have regular access to beta-carotene-rich foods, like vegetables and fruits.

However, while this sounds all well and good in theory, the reality of a beta-carotene producing rice may not be all it’s cracked up to be. According to Food Freedom:

“Golden rice is a Trojan horse for pushing through GE-friendly biosafety regulations under the guise of humanitarian aid. Once in place, these regulations open the door for the biotech industry to bring in commercial, patented GE crops; USAID and Monsanto accomplished exactly this in Kenya with their sweet potato project.”

It may be easier to see why so many people question this kind of philanthropy once you understand a bit more about the product itself, and why it likely cannot ever live up to its own hype. In this case, your body can only convert beta-carotene to vitamin A under certain conditions. Specifically, beta-carotene is fat-soluble, which means dietary fat is required for your body to convert it into vitamin A. But many people in developing countries eat very low-fat diets, as they simply do not have access to animal foods or other fat on a regular basis. Furthermore, malnourished people might not be able to convert beta carotene to vitamin A efficiently, so taken as a whole, the actual usefulness of golden rice is debatable.

The soundness of the idea becomes even more questionable when you consider the unrealistic amounts of rice you’d have to consume each day to obtain the recommended amount of vitamin A. As stated in a golden rice case study from Iowa State University:

“Even if golden rice is successfully introduced … a woman would need to eat 16 lbs. of cooked rice every day in order to get sufficient Vitamin A, if golden rice were her only source of the nutrient. A child would need 12 lbs.” [Emphasis mine]

What people in the developing world need in order to receive ample dietary vitamin A is access to a diverse range of nutritious foods — including animal products like eggs, cheese and meat and vegetables such as dark leafy greens and sweet potatoes. This is the type of diet that is attained from biodiverse farming — the opposite of what will occur if GM crops like golden rice get planted on a large scale.

Learn More about Genetically Engineered Foods

Many Americans are still unfamiliar with what GE foods are, which is understandable when you consider that these foods do not need to be labeled in the U.S. We have a plan to change that, and I urge you to participate, and to continue learning more about genetically engineered foods and associated risks, and help your friends and family do the same.

An even better strategy is to simply buy USDA 100% Organic products whenever possible, (as these do not permit GM ingredients) or buy whole fresh produce and meat from local farmers. The majority of the GMO’s (genetically modified organism) 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 GM 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 GM foods, I highly recommend number of great films and lectures available, including:

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

Does Monsanto “Own” the U.S. Government?

Is sure seems like it at times. Genetically engineered seeds are now banned in Hungary, as they are in several other European countries, such as Germany and Ireland. Peru is also following the precautionary principle, and has even passed a law that bans genetically modified ingredients within the nation for 10 years.

In the U.S., however, the opposite to consumer protection is taking place, with certain states actually passing legislation that protects the use of GM seeds and allows for unabated expansion! To date, 14 states have passed such legislation and Michigan’s Sen. Bill 777, if passed, would make that 15.

The Michigan bill would prevent anti-GMO laws and would remove “any authority local governments may have to adopt and enforce ordinances that prohibit or regulate the labeling, sale, storage, transportation, distribution, use, or planting of agricultural, vegetable, flower or forest tree seeds.” Bills like these are obviously music to Monsanto’s ears, which spends millions of dollars lobbying the U.S. government at the federal level for favorable legislation that supports the spread of their toxic products. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, Monsanto spent $1.4 million on lobbying the federal government — a drop from the year before, when they spent $2.5 million during the same quarter.

If we all had several million to spend on lobbying efforts, the world would undoubtedly be a very different place… If you aren’t familiar with the power of lobbying please view the recent 60 minutes expansion on it, which is one of the best 60 Minute episodes I have seen in 40 years.

Not only that, but once you realize just how many of Monsanto’s employees have simply shifted into positions of power within the federal government, it suddenly becomes easy to understand how this biotech giant has managed to so successfully undermine common sense within the U.S. government.

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

Denying Chemtrails is Dangerous for your Health

Posted on March 18, 2012 by andreas m

By: Paul Fassa
Source: NaturalNews.com

Statistical evidence shows that lung issues such as asthma and COPD have risen considerably over the past two decades. While there may be a few factors behind this, hardly anyone includes chemtrails as one of them.

Scientists and governments have allowed some “limited hangouts” (partial disclosures) on chemtrails or stratospheric geo-engineering, framing it as “experimental.” They openly discuss geo-engineering as “potential” solutions for weather control and protection against global warming.

Apparently, they’ve been doing a lot of open “experimenting” since the early 1990s. They don’t really have to deny much. There’s plenty of denial from those on the ground who don’t look up to see anything different. Or upon noticing chemtrails, they will argue that they are contrails.

There are even internet pages devoted to “scientifically” debunking chemtrails as erroneous conspiracy theories, similar to “Quackwatch” sites that go after medical practitioners who successfully treat disease without drugs.

The obvious differences between chemtrails and contrails

Contrails appear from aircraft propulsion systems of all types at stratospheric altitudes, 30,000 to 40,000 feet up. They are exhaust vapors that become ice crystals in high altitude, low pressure frigid air.

Contrails are harmless and dissipate quickly. They don’t linger. They usually extend from 20 to 50 plane lengths behind the aircraft. They are very white and somewhat thinly textured. Sometimes high altitude planes can be seen as silver specks without any trail at all. Chemtrails, however, are very different.

Chemtrails often extend from one horizon to the other. They tend to be thicker and wider than contrails, and their white plumes can be tainted with slight discolorations. Chemtrails linger for hours or whole days.

They tend to fan out and mingle with themselves or actual clouds, forming larger clouds or a haze that covers the sky. At higher ground levels, they can be observed drifting downward to earth.

Their paths do not correspond with normal commercial airline flight paths. They often turn around and continue their smoky plumes. Sometimes they will create grid patterns or Xs. See examples here (http://youtu.be/eEFITGpXwZk).

Do you recall meeting other aircraft while on a commercial flight, and deviating from the prescribed route to doodle in the sky with the other planes? Of course not. Chemtrails are usually emitted by non-commercial planes.

Back on the ground

Several sky watchers throughout the world have had residue samples analyzed after collecting them in water containers, air traps, and on shrubbery twigs.They have all come up with two common elements: barium and aluminum.

Barium is very toxic. Reportedly, it was sprayed from aircraft during Gulf War I to weaken the enemy on the ground. Some consider barium salts more toxic than lead. It affects the lungs directly.

Aluminum is a toxin that leads to dementia and neurological diseases. The nasal passages and lungs enable aluminum to have easy entry into our blood streams and affect tissues, including the heart and brain.

Even if not breathed in to cause immediate respiratory and other long term health problems, these two metals are absorbed into drinking water and crop soils. Interestingly, Monsanto has recently genetically engineered an aluminum resistant gene that can be inserted into crop seeds.

A pathogen has been found in some chemtrail analyses. Mycoplasma Fermetens Incognitus, which was observed to be in half the Gulf War Syndrome victims by Dr.Garth Nicholson.

The first thing to do is take time to observe and recognize the differences in aircraft trails. Research more while detoxing metals regularly. Then get involved on some level to help curb chemtrail activities.

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

The “Safe” Garden Product that Can Destroy Your DNA

Posted on March 18, 2012 by andreas m

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Have you ever used Roundup to kill weeds in your lawn or garden?

As the most widely used herbicide in the United States, there’s a good chance you have.

In fact, millions of pounds are used every year on U.S. gardens, lawns and, extensively on farms growing genetically modified (GM) “Roundup Ready” crops.

You may forget about the herbicide soon after you spray it — and may never give it a second thought when consuming corn chips or countless processed foods that contain GM Roundup Ready corn and soy — but it doesn’t just magically disappear.

Instead, new research is showing that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, is contaminating everything from food and air to groundwater and even human beings.

Glyphosate Now Detected in Human Urine

Research in the German journal Ithaca revealed significant concentrations of glyphosate in the urine samples of city dwellers.

The chemical is used not only for food production, but also is often sprayed onto railway lines, urban pavements and roadsides.

The article revealed that study participants had concentrations of glyphosate that were 5 to 20 times the limit for drinking water!

This is an alarming finding because glyphosate is easily one of the world’s most overlooked poisons. Research published in 2010 showed that the chemical, which works by inhibiting an enzyme called EPSP synthase that is necessary for plants to grow, causes birth defects in frogs and chicken embryos at far lower levels than used in agricultural and garden applications.

The malformations primarily affected the:

Skull
Face
Midline and developing brain
Spinal cord

Quite shockingly, the amount of glyphosate residue you can be exposed to through food is remarkably high, in terms of being close to the maximum residue limit (MRL) allowed. According to a report in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, the highest MRL for glyphosate in food and feed products in the EU is 20 mg/kg. GM soybeans have been found to contain residue levels as high as 17 mg/kg, and malformations in frog and chicken embryos occurred at 2.03 mg/kg!

That’s 10 times lower than the MRL.

Other independent scientific research has also found that glyphosate has the potential to cause grave health damage, including a 2009 study that tested formulations of Roundup that were highly diluted (up to 100,000 times or more) on human cells, and even then the cells died within 24 hours!

The researchers hailed a warning cry that still has not been heard by regulators around the world, who continue to allow massive amounts of Roundup to be sprayed into the environment:

” … the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death around residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from [Roundup] formulation-treated crops.”

Not to mention, when applied to crops glyphosate becomes systemic throughout the plant, so it cannot be washed off. And once you eat this crop, the glyphosate ends up in your gut where it can decimate your beneficial bacteria. This can wreak havoc with your health as 80 percent of your immune system resides in your gut (GALT – Gut Associated Lymph Tissue) and is dependent on a healthy ratio of good and bad bacteria! Separate research has also uncovered the following effects from glyphosate:

What Happened to Monsanto’s Claims That Roundup is “Biodegradable” and “Environmentally Friendly”?

It is apparent the chemical is not only persisting in the environment, it’s persisting at alarmingly high levels, despite Monsanto’s claims to the contrary. (In 2009, a French court upheld two earlier convictions against Monsanto for false advertising.)

The overall quantity of glyphosate in the environment has been difficult to analyze due to its physicochemical properties, such as its relatively low molecular weight and low organic solvent solubility. Furthermore, since the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) stopped updating its pesticide use database in 2008, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to estimate how much glyphosate is actually used in the US, but the following 2006-2007 market usage estimates were reported by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2011:

Agricultural market used 180 to 185 million pounds of glyphosate
Home and garden market: 5 to 8 million pounds
Industry, commerce and government: 13 to 15 million pounds

It’s safe to say that usage has increased steadily since these estimates were made, rising right along with the acreage of GM crops. And now the environment and our bodies are paying the price.

One recent study used a magnetic particle immunoassay to test for the presence of glyphosate in roughly 140 samples of groundwater from Catalonia, Spain. The analysis found that glyphosate was present above the limit of quantification in 41 percent of the samples. Of course, because groundwater is used as a drinking water source, this contamination poses a risk to animals, plants and humans alike.

The chemical was also detected in 60 to 100 percent of all air and rain samples tested during two growing seasons in Mississippi and Iowa, which lends further credence to the fact that Roundup does not readily break down in the environment, but rather is lingering all around us. Along with the potential implications for human and animal health, the chemical is also linked to a number of devastating environmental consequences, including Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a serious plant disease, and the creation of superweeds.

Today there are more than 750 products in the United States that contain glyphosate, and the problems to human health and the environment are only slated to get worse if drastic changes are not made in the massive use of Roundup herbicide across the United States.

You Can Help Curb the Use of Glyphosate by Avoiding GMOs

It’s important to avoid the use of Roundup on your lawn and garden, but on a larger scale the best way to fight back against this chemical is by boycotting the GM crops that were developed for its use. Several organizations, including Mercola.com, the Organic Consumers Association, the Institute for Responsible Technology, and the Environmental Working Group, are working to generate a tipping point of consumer rejection to make GMOs a thing of the past.

Here’s how you can get involved:

If you live in California and are willing to attend a short training session and then start collecting petition signatures (you will be part of a team of 2-4 people) for the California Ballot Initiative, sign up here. (For more information see: The California Ballot Initiative: Taking Down Monsanto.) Also remember to share this information with family and friends in California!
Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort
Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.

In the meantime, the simplest way to avoid GM foods is to buy whole, certified organic foods. By definition, foods that are certified organic must never intentionally use GM organisms, must be produced without artificial pesticides and fertilizers and come from an animal reared without the routine use of antibiotics, growth promoters or other drugs. Additionally, grass-fed beef will not have been fed GM corn feed, although now that GM alfalfa is approved, grass-fed will not always mean GMO free.

You can also look for foods that are ”non-GMO verified” by the Non-GMO Project.

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

Do This – or You Could Soon be Eating an “Agent Orange” for Dinner

Posted on March 18, 2012 by andreas m

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Mark Kastel, founder of the farm policy research group Cornucopia, is deeply dedicated to making sure we have high-quality food and that we’re not being deceived about what we’re eating.

Here, we discuss Agent Orange, and one of its active ingredients, which is now creeping into our food supply.

As described by Kastel, Cornucopia’s mission is:

“To empower farmers, consumers, and wholesale buyers with information, so that they can make good, discerning purchasing decisions in the marketplace.

Among other things, we act as an organic industry watchdog to preserve the integrity and authenticity of the organic label and products to make sure that it remains to be a true marketplace alternative for people who want safer and more nutritious food.”

Agent Orange Ingredient Headed Toward Your Plate?

To most people, “Agent Orange” is synonymous with the Vietnam war.

Many veterans suffered permanent side effects from their exposure to this potent defoliant, and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese children have been born with serious birth defects as a result of its use during the war.

Now, one of the active ingredients in Agent Orange, 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), a broadleaf herbicide, may be introduced directly into our food supply, because weeds are becoming increasingly resistant to Monsanto’s broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup, which is used in massive quantities on all genetically engineered Roundup Ready crops. It’s estimated that more than 130 types of weeds spanning 40 U.S. states are now herbicide-resistant, and they’re showing no signs of stopping. In fact, the situation is getting progressively worse.

“Agent Orange was an herbicide used to defoliate the jungles in Vietnam and South East Asia, which also include a myriad of other incredibly toxic chemicals that we know had profound deleterious effect on the health of the indigenous people who lived in South East Asia and to our veterans who served there,” Kastel says. Now we see one of these ingredients, 2,4-D, introduced [into our food supply] because the Dow Company… is introducing a new genetically engineered corn plant that “will be resistant to 2,4-D.”

Yes, Dow AgroSciences (a subsidiary of Dow Chemicals), which was one of the original manufacturers of Agent Orange, has developed a new generation of genetically modified (GM) crops called “Enlist”, designed to resist not just one, but THREE different herbicides: glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup), glufosinate, and 2,4-D, in the same way that Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready crops are resistant to glyphosate.

After a mere 15 years’ worth of consistent use on Roundup Ready crops, vast areas are now overrun with glyphosate-resistant superweeds that can’t be destroyed. What makes them think triple-resistant crops are going to be any better, or produce different end results?

Why “Agent Orange”-Resistant Crops are a BAD Idea

Interestingly enough, the use of 2,4-D is not new, as it is actually one of the most widely used herbicides in the world. What is new is that once staple crops like soy and corn that are engineered to be resistant to 2,4-D begin to flourish, the herbicide will be applied to U.S. farm land on an unprecedented scale — not unlike its indiscriminate application during Vietnam.

There are also some other unanswered questions relating to this new breed of 2,4-D-resistant crops.

“The curious part about this – we had to do some research to understand, and I don’t know if we fully understand it yet – is that corn is naturally resistant to 2,4-D, and that 2,4-D has been used as a corn herbicide, a post-emergent herbicide for decades,” Kastel says.

“This is legal, perfectly legal; even though we know that there are profound negative impacts to human health, and that this chemical residue ends up in our food system, in our soil and water, and ends up creating serious occupational exposures and risks for the people who produce our food; it’s still licensed by the EPA and approved for use by the USDA on our food crops.

The curious part is, if corn is already resistant to 2,4-D, why are they injecting that genetically engineered cultivar?

The answer seems to be that there might be some incremental level of benefit in that. Right now there are application windows, certain times during crop growth, that it would probably not kill the plant but stunt its growth. [With approval] the restrictions on the spraying will be relieved.

If this takes off—if Dow can convince agronomists, extension services, extension agents, universities (where they spend a lot of money), and farmers that this is a better seed with a potential for higher yields, we’re going to see really large increases in the application of 2,4-D in our countryside.”

Of course, the whole point of engineering resistance to an herbicide within a plant is so that you can “carpet bomb” an entire field, leaving only your GM crop standing. If 2,4-D resistant crops receive approval and eventually replace Monsanto’s failing Roundup-resistant crops as Dow intends, it is likely that billions of pounds of 2,4-D will be needed, on top of the already insane levels of Roundup being used (1.6 billion lbs were used in 2007 in the US alone!).

2,4-D—Do You Really Want to Feed this to Your Kids?

Ironically, while Dow’s new crops would seriously escalate the use of 2,4-D, Monsanto is currently facing a class-action lawsuit involving another Agent Orange ingredient: 2,4,5-T. The suit alleges that homes and schools near one of its 2,4,5-T chemical plants are now contaminated with cancer-causing dioxin, a byproduct of the manufacturing process.

This should be a wake-up call to those considering widespread application of any toxic Agent Orange ingredient.

And let’s be clear. The EPA acknowledges that 2,4-D is far from a benign chemical.

Researchers have linked it to increased cancer risks, especially soft tissue sarcoma and malignant lymphoma. No less than four American studies have found an association between chlorophenoxy herbicide use (such as 2,4-D) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. EPA researchers have also discovered higher rates of birth defects in countries with high rates of 2,4-D application to farm fields. In fact, birth defects were 60 to 90 percent more likely in such countries, and birth defects were also found to peak in babies conceived in the spring, when fields were being sprayed the most. The most common birth defects included defects of the respiratory and circulatory systems, and musculoskeletal defects such as clubfoot, fused digits and extra digits.

If that’s not bad enough, consider this EPA summary of 2,4-D:

“Health effects of chronic or acute 2,4-D exposure reported for adults included blood, liver, and kidney toxicity. Specific effects included a reduction in hemoglobin and red blood cell numbers, decreased liver enzyme activity, and increased kidney weight. Acute exposure can result in skin and eye irritation. Acute exposure to very high concentrations of 2,4-D can cause the following clinical symptoms: stupor; coma; coughing; burning sensations in lungs; loss of muscular coordination; nausea; vomiting; or dizziness.

Experimental animal studies of chronic oral exposure have reported adverse effects on the eye, thyroid, kidney, adrenals, adrenals, and ovaries/testes. In addition, some experimental animal studies have reported teratogenic effects (birth defects) at high doses, including increased fetal death, urinary tract malformation, and extra ribs.

When adult female experimental animals were exposed to 2,4-D during their pregnancy and lactation periods, their exposed offspring exhibited neurological effects, including delayed neurobehavioral development and changes in several neurotransmitter levels or binding activities and ganglioside levels in the brain. Delayed neurobehavioral development was manifested as delays in acquisition of certain motor skills such as the righting reflex.”

The EASIEST Way to Protect the Health of Your Family…

So, what can you do to protect your health and the health of your family from the ever growing threats posed by genetically engineered foods and mounting herbicide use? Kastel says it well:

“Don’t panic. Go organic.”

Yes, it’s getting increasingly difficult to keep tabs of what’s being added to the food supply, and trying to keep track of everything to avoid can be a daunting task. It’s much easier to simply switch to organic foods; bypassing all the concerns about processed food ingredients, chemical residues on conventionally-grown fresh produce, and the multi-layered hazards related to genetically engineered foods, whether fresh or processed.

By definition, foods that are certified organic must never intentionally use GM organisms, must be produced without artificial pesticides and fertilizers and come from an animal reared without the routine use of antibiotics, growth promoters or other drugs. Additionally, grass-fed beef will not have been fed GM corn feed, although now that GM alfalfa is approved, grass-fed will not always mean GMO free.

“There aren’t that many things that we can totally take control over in terms of our health and our future health and the health of our offspring, but pure food and pure water is one of those,” Kastel says.

“We know that there has been peer-reviewed research that indicates a demonstratively lower level of any kind of contamination in organic food… Peer-reviewed literature clearly illustrates its nutritional superiority. On a micro basis, we need to protect ourselves and our families. It really contributes to the richness and quality of life, because organic food tastes better. And in terms of an investment, what could be a better investment than the health and well-being of your family?

We should also become politically involved, because what’s so insidious is that these novel genes permeate our environment. They can even contaminate organic food. We need to be activists.”

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

The Potato Project — Why Organic is Important

Posted on March 10, 2012 by andreas m

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

A third-grader demonstrates clearly what happens when your food is poisoned with chemicals.

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

Six Steps to Create your own Organic Permaculture Garden

Posted on March 4, 2012 by andreas m

By: Tara Green
Source: NaturalNews.com

Organic gardening avoids the use of chemicals to make plants grow or protect them from insects, relying instead on natural gardening principles used for thousands of years. Permaculture organic gardening goes a step further and also emphasizes growing plants sustainably, working with rather than against the grain of the natural environment. Permaculture organic gardening is growing in popularity as more people realize that it offers an inexpensive and relatively low-maintenance way to grow their own fruits, vegetables, herbs and flowers.

Choosing a location

Observe your property at different times of day. Consider which areas receive the most sun, which are in shade for much of the day. Depending on where you live, if sunshine is a scarce commodity, you will want to expose plants to receive as much as possible. On the other hand, in desert regions, you will not want your plants to be in the area most likely to be parched by sun exposure. Also think protecting your garden from the paths where strong winds tend to blow through your property. Even a small property will have microclimates — notice these and plant accordingly to give different plants either more sun or more shade according to their preference.

Selecting plants

Avoid disease-prone plants which require time-consuming chores such as spraying and pruning by the gardener. Select plants which will thrive in your area rather than those which will require extra labor on your part to protect them from the environment. As far as possible, select plants which serve multiple purposes, such as fruit trees which will put forth blossoms in one season, fruit to pick in another, and provide shade for when you want to sit and enjoy your garden’s natural beauty. Native plants are also more likely to attract local pollinators such as bees, and to draw butterflies so that your garden contains even more natural beauty.

Making a home for your plants

Raised beds require less physical effort on the part of the gardener and also benefit plants, providing better air circulation, more protection from spring chills and improved usage of water. Raised beds also mean a small permaculture garden is an option even for apartment dwellers and others with little available space since you can rely on containers and vertical gardening principles.

Feeding your plants

One of the key concepts of permaculture organic gardening is to avoid waste. Having a garden gives you a means of re-using natural waste such as eggshells, apple cores, coffee grinds as well as yard waste which many people throw away. You can either purchase or make a compost bin to turn this organic material into gardening gold which can be used to help your plants grow.

Watering your plants

Modern gardeners who do not follow sustainability principles tend to draw heavily on piped-in water resources, often using hoses and sprinklers to make plants which require abundant water grow in a desert climate. Permaculture organic gardening tries to use natural water as much as possible, maximizing the use of groundwater and rainwater. Rain barrels allow you to collect rainfall and extend its use over longer periods of time.

Protecting plants from pests

Eschewing the use of chemicals does not have to mean a garden full of pests. You can use companion gardening principles, growing plants which deter pests near those which attract them. There is also a natural synergy between some plants which means planting them near each other increases your yield. Also, just as some herbs have a medicinal effect on human health, they also offer benefits to plants which grow near them. For more information about companion planting, visit
http://www.appropedia.org/CCAT_companion_planting
and
http://www.gardeningknowhow.com

If you have space and live in an area where it is permissible to keep poultry, chickens can make a wonderful addition to a permaculture garden. If they are permitted free-range for most of the day, they will consume many pests. Chicken manure also contributes beneficial nitrogen to the soil of your garden.

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

Study: Roundup Diluted by 99.8 Percent still Destroys Human DNA

Posted on March 3, 2012 by andreas m

By: Ethan A. Huff
Source: NaturalNews.com

A new study published in the journal Archives of Toxicology proves once again that there really is no safe level of exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide formula for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). According to the new findings, Roundup, which is applied by the tens of thousands of tons a year all around the world, is still toxic to human DNA even when diluted to a mere 0.02 percent of the dilution amount at which it is currently applied to GM food crops.

Numerous studies have already identified the fact that Roundup causes DNA damage, not to mention endocrine disruption and cancer. But this new study, which originates out of the Medical University of Vienna, is one of the first to illustrate Roundup’s toxicity at such drastically diluted levels, which is a direct contradiction of the agri-giant’s talking points about the supposed safety of Roundup.

“Comparisons with results of earlier studies with lymphocytes and cells from internal organs indicate that epithelial cells are more susceptible to the cytotoxic effects and DNA-damaging properties of the herbicide and its formulation,” wrote the authors in their abstract.

“Since we found genotoxic (DNA damaging) effects after short exposure to concentrations that correspond to a 450-fold dilution of spraying used in agriculture, our findings indicate that inhalation may cause DNA damage in exposed individuals.”

Interestingly, it is not so much just the glyphosate ingredient in Roundup that is extremely poisonous, as much as it is this chemical’s amplified toxicity in the presence of other additives in the formula. Polyoxyethyleneamine, for instance, a surfactant that facilitates glyphosate’s absorption into cells, has been found to significantly increase Roundup’s synergistic toxicity in humans.

Despite Monsanto’s claims to the contrary, Roundup is clearly an exceptionally toxic chemical that has no legitimate place in agriculture. According to data compiled by GreenMedInfo.com, Roundup is linked to causing Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, imbalanced hormones in children, DNA damage, low testosterone, endocrine disruption, liver cancer, meningitis, infertility, skin cancer, kidney damage, and even uranium poisoning.

Environmentally, Roundup is a pervasive threat to air, water, and particularly groundwater and drinking supplies, as studies have shown that it does not effectively biodegrade after being sprayed. Back in the fall, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released data showing that air and water all across America’s “bread belt,” where much of our nation’s food is grown, is highly contaminated with glyphosate.

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

Sidestep These Veggies – Even if They’re Organic

Posted on February 9, 2012 by andreas m

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

Videos like the two featured above have started making the rounds online, raising questions about what exactly that plastic-looking “peel” found on some fresh produce might be.

Let me preface this article by saying that I do not have the answer, but I will present a couple of theories here.

Fruits and vegetables—apparently even organically-grown varieties—may have cow-, pig-, and chicken collagen coatings on them rather than wax, as well as a number of other unsavory ingredients.

Wax was first applied to the skins of fruits and vegetables for longer shelf life hundreds of years ago.

Today, that tradition is being carried on with a new generation of chemicals and compounds I’d rather NOT have on my fresh produce…

Modified Atmospheric Packaging

While I normally do not feature blog posts, this instance is a rare exception, as I thought this Reality Blog report contained quite a bit of worth-while details. In response to one of the videos above, this blogger dug up information about so-called ‘modified atmosphere packaging’ that could offer one potential explanation for the bizarre plastic-like coating found on lettuce:

“… [M]odified atmosphere packaging (MAP) … involves either actively or passively controlling or modifying the atmosphere surrounding the product within a package made of various types and/or combinations of films … Edible films may consist of four basic materials: lipids, resins, polysaccharides and proteins … The most common plasticizer used to cast edible films is food-grade polyethylene glycol, which is used to reduce film brittleness … Gelatin is … extracted from the boiled crushed bones, connective tissues, organs and some intestines of animals such as domesticated cattle, chicken, and pigs.”

So, could that rubbery peel be a form of sprayed-on MAP, designed to prolong shelf life of fresh produce? As detailed by Reality Blog, this certainly seems like one reasonable conclusion.

Edible “Invisible Packaging” is More Common than You Might Think

According to the FDA, modified atmosphere packaging (MAP), which includes so-called “smart” and “edible” types of packaging, has made great strides over the past decade or so, and has “greatly improved the quality and shelf-stability” of otherwise highly perishable produce. This type of packaging can be either “active” or “passive.”

The FDA explains:

“Active modification occurs by the displacement of gases in the package, which are then replaced by a desired mixture of gases, while passive modification occurs when the product is packaged using a selected film type, and a desired atmosphere develops naturally as a consequence of the products’ respiration and the diffusion of gases through the film. … Reducing the rate of respiration by limiting O₂ (dioxygen) prolongs the shelf life of fruits and vegetables by delaying the oxidative breakdown of the complex substrates which make up the product. Also, O₂ concentrations below 8% reduce the production of ethylene, a key component of the ripening and maturation process.” [Emphasis mine]

Essentially, by spraying a substance on the fresh produce, which forms a thin film, oxygen levels can be limited, which slows down the ripening process. So what might this “edible” film substance be comprised of? The list of potential ingredients is a long one, and will vary from product to product, but can be generally divided into four basic materials:

Lipids (waxes, oils, stearic acid)
Resins (such as shellac and wood rosin)
Polysaccharides (such as cellulose, pectin, starch, carrageenan, and chitosan)
Proteins (such as casein, soy, and corn-zein)

Common additives to these base materials include:

Plasticizers (such as polyethylene glycol, glycerol, and “other cross-linking agents”)
Antimicrobials
Antioxidants
Texturizers (to customize the film for the particular product)

The FDA’s web page on MAP’s offers one fairly detailed example of a concoction used on tomatoes to successfully extend their shelf life: Most of us are used to thinking about pesticide residues when purchasing fresh fruits and vegetables, but few probably consider that ON TOP of that, there’s an additional layer of miscellaneous resins and plasticizers…

“Park and others (1994) reported the successful application of a corn-zein film to extend the shelf life of tomatoes. Color change, loss of firmness, and weight loss during storage were delayed, and shelf life was extended by 6 days in comparison to untreated tomatoes. The corn-zein product used in the above study was a commercial product that was brushed onto the tomatoes, and consisted of 54 grams of corn-zein, 14 grams of glycerine, and 1 gram of citric acid dissolved in 260 grams of ethanol.”

Is it Safe to Eat?

Edible coatings probably won’t kill you, but if you have a choice, why would you opt to eat fruits and vegetables that have been coated in a rubbery film? And, these types of coatings DO present a very real potential health hazard. The FDA openly admits that edible coatings have been associated with a number of problems:

“For example, modification of the internal gas composition of the product due to high CO₂ and low O₂ can cause problems such as anaerobic fermentation of apples and bananas, rapid weight loss of tomatoes, elevated levels of core flush for apples, rapid decay in cucumbers, and so on,” the FDA states.

Furthermore:

“… [A]t extremely low O₂ levels (that is, <1%), anaerobic respiration can occur, resulting in tissue destruction and the production of substances that contribute to off-flavors and off-odors, as well as the potential for growth of foodborne pathogens such as Clostridium botulinum.”

This may help explain why fresh produce has managed to be the source of several outbreaks of food poisoning in the past several years. To combat the growth of foodborne pathogens, antimicrobial agents are added, such as:

“…metal ions supported in zeolite, isothiocyanate in cyclodextrin with cobalt ion, chitosan, allyl isothiocyanate, silver-based fungicide, quaternary ammonium salt, organic monoglycerides, copper and zinc, benzoic acid, sodium benzoate, sorbic acid and potassium sorbate and propionic acid. Researchers are also currently looking at the use of nisin, a bacteriocin, in coatings to suppress L. monocytogenes, as well as other bacteriocins for the control of C. botulinum. Successful applications of this technology have been demonstrated using sodium caseinate/stearic acid to coat peeled carrots and caseinate/acetylated monoglyceride to coat celery sticks.”

The “Epidermal Peel” Theory

Another theory floating about is that this coating isn’t really a coating at all, but rather an entirely natural occurrence, referred to as “epidermal peel,” caused by cold weather. Lettuces in particular appear to be affected in this way when exposed to frost conditions. Epidermal peel can be likened to “chapped lips,” in that the outer layer of a leaf will get damaged by freezing temperatures, causing a layer to peel away from the leaf. This peeling is typically considered unsightly, and harvesters will typically remove as many of the affected leaves as possible.

But while it sounds like what we’re seeing in the featured videos could be epidermal peeling, is it really?

Unfortunately, I’ve not been able to find any kind of visual example of this naturally-occurring epidermal peeling to compare it with what we’re seeing in the videos. In one 2011 Produce Report, the damage is described as follows, which leads me to think that what these consumers found is NOT epidermal peeling, but rather some form of MAP coating:

“Freezing causes blisters to form on the frost affected areas of Iceberg and Romaine lettuce. These blisters pop and then peel as the plant continues to grow. The epidermal peel discolors and eventually leads to decay. Harvest crews work at a reduced pace to remove all affected leaves before packing. The result is smaller heads, lighter weights and pale color.”

How Can You Avoid Produce Coated in “Edible Plastic”?

Whatever the truth is with regards to the featured videos, one thing is for sure: MAP films are definitely being used on fresh produce, both conventional and organically-grown. Once you understand the reason WHY fresh foods are coated, the answer to how to avoid them becomes rather self-evident… Fresh fruits and vegetables of all kinds are “preserved” in this way in order to remain sellable even after lengthy transportation.

If you buy your produce from a local farm, they naturally will not need to process any of their foods in such a manner. This is yet another great reason to buy locally-farmed foods, even if it’s not certified organic—although that would certainly be ideal. Still, fresh, non-coated/non-treated vegetables that have been grown conventionally will likely be healthier for you than wilted organic veggies from across the world, coated with plasticizers to keep them looking fresh…

Eight Guidelines for REAL Healthful Food

In your search for healthy food to feed your family, here is what to look for, whether you’re at the grocery store or farmers’ market. Foods that meet these standards will almost always be a wise choice:

Grown without pesticides and chemical fertilizers (organic foods fit this description, but so do some non-organic foods)
Not genetically modified
Contains no added growth hormones, antibiotics, or other drugs
Does not contain artificial anything, nor any preservatives (for fresh produce, you can now add the presence of MAP coatings or ‘edible packaging’)
Fresh (if you have to choose between wilted organic produce or fresh conventional produce, the latter may be the better option)
Did not come from a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO, a.k.a. factory farm)
Grown with the laws of nature in mind (meaning animals are fed their native diets, not a mix of grains and animal byproducts, and have free-range access to the outdoors)
Grown in a sustainable way (using minimal amounts of water, protecting the soil from burnout, and turning animal wastes into natural fertilizers instead of environmental pollutants)

Grow Your Own

Dr. Mercola's own garden

Here is my raised vegetable bed where I have planted two types of kale, collards greens, parsley and a variety of lettuces. Just planted it two weeks ago but should be able to start harvesting very soon. You can see my black composter directly below the second palm on the left. This is where I recycle the pulp from my veggies and other compostable food wastes that would normally go to the landfill.

Starting your own garden is another option. It may sound intimidating, but really all you need is a small plot of land (or several containers), some healthy soil, and the will to do it. Naturally, I encourage you to use only organic gardening methods. Once you get used to it, organic gardening is just as easy as conventional. For instance, you can make a homemade garden spray that will discourage most pests by combining mashed garlic paste with a little cayenne pepper or horseradish. Add a small amount to a gallon jug of water and let it sit for a day or two, shaking it occasionally. Just spray a small amount onto a few leaves first to make sure it’s not so strong that it will burn them.

If you’re not sure where to begin, Better Homes & Gardens has a free All-American Vegetable Garden Plan that can be put into a 6×6 area. It’s a great starting point for beginners. For more tips, the following Web sites offer helpful advice and guidelines for the organic gardener:

OrganicGardening.com
BeyondPesticides.org

Where to Find Locally-Grown Foods

If eating locally is new to you, rest assured that you can find a source near you, regardless of whether you’re in a remote or rural area or a big city. Here’s a list of helpful resources:

For a listing of national farmer’s markets, see this link.
Another great web site is www.localharvest.org. There you can find farmers’ markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
Subscribe to a community supported agriculture program (CSA). Some are seasonal while others are year round programs. Once you subscribe, many will drop affordable, high quality locally-grown produce right at your door step. To find a CSA near you, go to the USDA’s website where you can search by city, state, or zip code.
Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
FoodRoutes. Their “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSA’s, and markets near you.
For an even more comprehensive list of CSA’s and a host of other sustainable agriculture programs, check out this link to mySustainable Agriculture page.

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

Don’t Eat it: Linked to Cancer and Gets into Your Blood

Posted on February 8, 2012 by andreas m

By: Dr. Mercola
Source: Mercola.com

In November 2011, about 250 Boulder County residents attended a public meeting to discuss the planting of GM (genetically modified) crops on county-owned land.

Their turnout, together with an anti-GMO (genetically modified organism) recommendation from the county’s Food and Agriculture Policy Council, led county officials to vote for a phase out of genetically engineered crops on open space.

This is a powerful testimony to the influence residents can have on their local regulations when they stand together for a cause; you, too, can work toward enacting such a phase out in your area as well.

Boulder Residents, County Officials Say “No” to GMOs

Boulder’s Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee voted 5-4 in support of the Food and Agriculture Policy Council’s recommendation to phase out the planting of GM crops on the county’s open space.

Currently, about 16,000 acres of county-owned land are planted with genetically engineered corn; the new rule will mean these crops will be transitioned out in favor of traditional GMO-free farming practices.

The area has been a hot-spot for GMO debate since 2009, when local farmers wanted to plant genetically engineered sugar beets in the county.

Following public outcry, County commissioners delayed the farmers’ request. Since then, a local survey showed that 56 percent of Boulder County residents supported a ban on GM crops, and now their voices have been heard. As reported by the Boulder Daily Camera, Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee member John Nibarger said:

“There’s the voters’ side of this, and there’s the farmers’ side of this … I think we heard rather strongly … (that a lot of voters) don’t want to see GM crops.”

Americans Already Eating GM Foods, While Other Countries Have Banned Them

GM corn, soybeans, canola, and sugar beets have made their way into approximately 80 percent of current U.S. processed grocery store items, now that up to 90 percent of several U.S. grown crops are grown with genetically engineered seed. So if you live in the United States, you have most certainly already been exposed to GM foods — most likely a lot of them.

This is why Boulder’s move to phase out GM crops is such a breath of fresh air, as finally a governing body in the United States is stepping up to protect its residents from this massive, uncontrolled experiment — a move that has already taken place in other parts of the world, and in four counties in California and a city in Maine.

Genetically engineered seeds are banned in Hungary, as they are in several other European countries, such as Germany and Ireland. Peru is also following the precautionary principle, and has even passed a law that bans genetically modified ingredients within the nation for 10 years.

The issue of protecting farmland from invading GMOs is a serious one, so much so that Hungary recently destroyed nearly 1,000 acres of corn crops because they were found to be mistakenly grown with GM seeds. The discovery that the farmland was planted with GM seeds came when the season was already underway, so the harvest was completely lost.

What would prompt the Hungarian government to take such a drastic step?

Perhaps it is the fact that GM crops simply cannot be contained, and inevitably will contaminate the environment with GM DNA. Or it could be that they do not want superweeds, triggered by the overuse of Roundup herbicide on GM Roundup Ready crops, overtaking their farmland the way they are now doing in the United States. Then again, it could be the unknown threats to human health — and the fact that new research shows toxins from GM crops are now appearing in human blood – that made them think twice.

The other, and more serious issue, is the hidden one. Nearly all GM crops are designed with genes to resist a potent herbicide called Round Up or glyphosate. The newest science is showing that glyphosate is actually FAR more dangerous than people realize. It just is not widely appreciated yet, and the U.S. is spreading massive amounts of it every year. The consequences of this chemical abuse will have profoundly devastating consequences and the longer we wait to remove this toxin the worse it will be.

Either way, they, and a growing number of people around the world, are clearly well educated about the dangers of GM foods … which is a lesson the U.S. government still needs to learn.

Genetically Engineered “Pesticide” Toxin Now Found in Human Blood

Upwards of 65 percent of U.S. corn crops contain a special gene added that allows them to produce an insecticide. This way, when bugs attempt to eat the corn they’re killed right away (specifically their stomach is split open) because the plant contains an invisible, built-in pesticide shield.

The particular gene added to most corn crops is a type of Bt-toxin — produced from Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria. Genetic engineers remove the gene that produces the Bt in bacteria and insert it into the DNA of corn (and cotton) plants. They claim that Bt-toxin is quickly destroyed in human stomachs — and even if it survived, it won’t cause reactions in humans or mammals …

But studies are now showing that this is not the case, as Bt toxin is readily passing into the human bloodstream and animal studies have already shown that Bt-toxin does cause health effects in animals, including potentially humans. As Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, wrote:

“Mice fed natural Bt-toxin showed significant immune responses and caused them to become sensitive to other formerly harmless compounds. This suggests that Bt-toxin might make a person allergic to a wide range of substances. Farm workers and others have also had reactions to natural Bt-toxin, and authorities acknowledge that “People with compromised immune systems or preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt.”

In fact, when natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions—mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms. Six people had to go to the emergency room.

… The Bt-toxin produced in the GM plants is probably more dangerous than in its natural spray form. In the plants, the toxin is about 3,000-5,000 times more concentrated than the spray, it doesn’t wash off the plants like the spray does, and it is designed to be more toxic than the natural version. In fact, the GM toxin has properties of known allergens and fails all three GM allergy tests recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others.”

It’s reasons such as this why the precautionary principle should absolutely be used in regard to exposing humans and the environment to GM crops. Unfortunately, it appears Cry1Ab, a specific type of Bt toxin from GM corn, is already quite prevalent in humans; upon testing 69 pregnant and non-pregnant women who were eating a typical Canadian diet (which included foods such as GM soy, corn and potatoes), researchers found Bt toxin in:

93 percent of maternal blood samples
80 percent of fetal blood samples
67 percent of non-pregnant women blood samples

Other potential dangers have also been uncovered, including:

Intense Lobbying Efforts Aim to Keep Americans in the Dark about GM Foods

The food and agriculture biotechnology industry has spent more than $572 million in campaign contributions and lobbying expendituresin just over a decade, according to an analysis by Food & Water Watch. Key among the goals of this intense lobbying effort is to prevent GM food labeling and keep Americans in the dark about the contents of their food. The analysis states:

“The food and agriculture biotechnology industry has been flexing its financial political muscle to ease the regulatory oversight of genetically modified foods. Lobbying efforts for some of these firms and groups have included approval of cloned food and genetically engineered food, animals and livestock.

Companies are also fighting to eliminate or prevent labeling on genetically modified foods in the United States and preventing other countries from regulating genetically modified foods. These efforts have dovetailed with lobbying to tighten intellectual property law protections over patented seeds and animals in attempts to further benefit the biotech industry.”

Over 95 percent of Americans polled said they think GM foods should require a label, stating it’s an ethical issue and consumers should be able to make an informed choice.

Like Europeans, Americans are suspicious of GM foods, and a large part of why many continue to buy them is because they are unaware that they’re already in the food. A prominent GM food label would be a death sentence to U.S. GM crops, which are right now enjoying a free for all when it comes to entering the food market.

Industry lobbying is clearly working, as to date biotech companies have evaded mandatory labeling laws (although a new California initiative may change all of that). They also succeeded in getting GM alfalfa approved, which quite literally threatens the entire organic industry.

A large part of the problem, and one of the reasons why the United States has not taken a precautionary stance the way other countries have, is that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are heavily influenced by biotech giant Monsanto. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, Monsanto spent $1.4 million on lobbying the federal government– and this was a drop from a year earlier, when they spent $2.5 million during the same quarter.

The FDA, the USDA, and the U.S. Trade Representative all have a special set of revolving doors leading straight to Monsanto, which has allowed this transnational giant to gain phenomenal authority and influence, as well as get their genetically engineered crops planted on the lion’s share of U.S. farmland.

However, just as changes in Boulder could prove to be a tipping point that begins a trend toward eliminating GM crops from American soil, a 2012 ballot initiative has been launched in California, which will require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods and food ingredients — also an important step toward ultimately eliminating these toxic foods from the market.

You Can Join the Fight Against GMOs

The people of Boulder County have made it clear that they will not tolerate GM crops on their local land; now you, too, can let your opinion be heard. Several organizations, including Mercola.com, the Organic Consumers Association, the Institute for Responsible Technology, and the Environmental Working Group, are working to generate a tipping point of consumer rejection to make GMOs a thing of the past.

Here’s how you can get involved:

If you live in California and are willing to attend a short training session and then start collecting petition signatures (you will be part of a team of 2-4 people) for the California Ballot Initiative, sign up here. (For more information see: The California Ballot Initiative: Taking Down Monsanto.) Also remember to share this information with family and friends in California!
Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort
Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the California Ballot. It may be the only chance we have to label genetically engineered foods.
Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
For timely updates, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter
Look for in-depth coverage of the issue at the Institute for Responsible Technology, subscribe to Spilling the Beans, and check out their Facebook or Twitter.
You can also join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or Twitter

You can also look for foods that are ”non-GMO verified” by the Non-GMO Project.

Important Action Item: Support California’s Ballot Initiative to Label GMO’s!

In 2007, then-Presidential candidate Obama promised to “immediately” require GM labeling if elected. So far, nothing of the sort has transpired.

Fortunately, 24 US states have (as part of their state governance) something called the Initiative Process, where residents can bring to ballot any law they want enacted, as long as it has sufficient support. California has been busy organizing just such a ballot initiative to get mandatory labeling for genetically engineered foods sold in their state. The proposed law will be on the ballot for 2012.

Michigan and Washington are also starting similar campaigns.

Since California is the 8th largest economy in the world, a win for the California Initiative would be a huge step forward, and would affect ingredients and labeling nation-wide. Last month, a coalition of consumer, public health and environmental organizations, food companies, and individuals submitted the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act to the State Attorney General. Now, they need 800,000 signatures to get the Act on next year’s ballot.

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

If you live in California, volunteer to gather petition signatures. If you live outside of California, please donate to help support this Initiative and spread the word to everyone you know in California. Be assured that what happens in California will affect the remainder of the U.S., so please support this important state initiative, even if you do not live there!

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

New scientific study links bee deaths to pesticides

Posted on January 19, 2012 by andreas m

By: Tara Green
Source: NaturalNews.com

A new study by Purdue University scientists seems to confirm what environmentalists have long suspected — that the massive bee die-offs known as Colony Collapse Disorder are linked to pesticides. Specifically, researchers are pointing to a category of pesticide marketed by the German chemical company Bayer.

Multiple methods of poisoning bees

The Purdue research indicates bee deaths are connected to neonicotinoid pesticides, which use a synthetic derivative of nicotine. These chemicals are applied as a coating to corn and soybean seeds prior to planting. They are then absorbed by the plant’s vascular system and expressed through pollen and nectar. Farmers have planted millions of acres of farmland with neonic-treated seeds since 2003.

Bayer has defended its pesticide in the past against charges of contributing to bee die-offs. The company says that bees do not forage much on corn pollen and therefore only trace amounts of neonic-laced pollen will return to hives. The multinational chemical corporation claims the tiny doses of the pesticide bees come into contact with cannot have an impact on hive health. So far, the EPA has supported Bayer’s claims.

The Purdue study, however, shows that Bayer’s products are far more lethal to bees than the company wants regulatory agencies and farmers to believe. The researchers found that, contrary to Bayer’s claim, “maize pollen was frequently collected by foraging honey bees while it was available: maize pollen comprised over 50% of the pollen collected by bees, by volume, in 10 of 20 samples.”

The scientists also identified unsuspected methods by which bees are exposed to the pesticide. Mechanical seed planters blow off a powdery waste as they move through fields. This talc prevents the polymers used to bind the chemicals to the seeds from clogging up seed coating machine and the seed planters. But this exhaust is dangerous to bees. The talc can contain up to 700,000 times the bee’s lethal dosage of neonicotinoid so that foraging bees coming into contact with it are killed. These initial population losses begin to weaken the hives.

As the talc exhaust settles on nearby plants and into the soil, there is a long-term danger to bees. Dandelions near treated crop fields can harbor the poison. Bees gather nectar and pollen from the yellow flowers will bring the neonicotinoids back to the hive. Although these small levels of the pesticide do not kill the bees, their immune systems become compromised, leaving hives vulnerable to other threats. Also, developing bees are affected by exposure to pesticides through stored pollen. The cascading effects of sub-lethal doses can potentially devastate an entire hive. Scientists found neonicotinoid pesticides in every sample of dead and dying bees as well as in pollen the bees collected and brought back to the hives.

Money before honey

US regulatory agencies follow a policy of relying on manufacturer data to determine the safety of a substance. Although a leaked document in 2010 revealed that EPA scientists found Bayer’s research on its neonic pesticides to be suspect, the agency has not acted to stop the sale of these products.

Bayer has profited to the tune of over one billion dollars from its two neonic products imidacloprid and clothianidin. Given Bayer’s deep pockets, it seems unlikely the feds will take action any time in the near future — particularly in a presidential election year. This means Colony Collapse Disorder is likely to continue to devastate bee populations, leaving reverberating effects on the environment for generations to come.

After this type of insecticides were banned in France and Germany, bee populations began to rise again. If you want to join with other citizens in urging decisionmakers to ban bee-killing pesticides, you can sign a petition here:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/save_the_bees/?cl=914333688&v=8201

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 January 4, 2012 by andreas m

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

The Detrimental Effects of Daylight Saving Time, and What You Can Do to Minimize Them

Posted on November 9, 2011 by admin

By Andreas Moritz

Hi, this is a very good question about daylight savings time and the question is “Does daylight savings time affect our health and wellbeing?”

And in fact, it does. There are studies to show that there is a higher incidence of depression and cardiovascular episodes such as heart attack during the time of changing into daylight savings or going back to standard time.

This practice of changing time has been practiced basically for a hundred years on this recently developed world and mostly in North American, and some South American countries, as well as most European countries. Now the problem with time change is that for one thing we don’t really to save much energy. It has been estimated that on average a household saves about four dollars in one year simply because of making these time adjustments.

The problem, however, is that productivity drops dramatically during and around the times of the changes, which amounts to a loss of 400 million US dollars per year. So it doesn’t really make sense form the energy point of view, we don’t save much energy costs and we lose a lot of productivity due to fatigue that arises during this time.

The other problem is that because of the hormones in our system, in our body, are closely interconnected with the circadian rhythm. That means the movement of the earth around the sun and these rhythms have very powerful influences on most essential, most effective and powerful hormones in our body, such as serotonin which is light-sensitive and melatonin which is dark-sensitive.

When we experience a shortage of light because of time changes or we have too much light and we are not experiencing enough darkness, then either way this can cause major physiological changes which can have damaging effects on our body, for example, if a normal, during the standard time, the winter period when the melatonin secretion which is a hormone produced in the pineal gland is secreted at 9:30 in the evening which is typical, then if you have let’s say, a different time introduced into your schedule such as suddenly the time during the adjusted time period is now 10:30 for the melatonin cycle to begin, then that can interfere with your sleeping habits, you may not get good quality sleep because you are going to bed an hour later than you are supposed to go to sleep in order to maximize the full secretion of melatonin.

Melatonin is a very powerful hormone that regulates the thyroid, and through the thyroid, all the other endocrine glands and hormones. So when you start interfering with the thyroid hormone and the other hormones in the body, a lot of undesirable changes can happen in the body.

This can effectively also lead in the long term to serotonin deficiency which goes along with happiness, and when you become deficient in serotonin, the end result is that you are depressed or you become sad, or you become just unhappy in some ways that leads to other problems, making mistakes, and not having the enthusiasm and the joy, not digesting food properly. We know that serotonin regulates most of the digestive functions because it’s well known that most serotonin is actually produced in the digestive system to regulate the digestive secretions and if your melatonin drops below normal because you are going to bed an hour later than you are supposed to go to bed, then the next day you don’t secrete enough serotonin to digest your food well, and so this can cause a number of issues, not just with regard to digestive functions but because of a lot of undigested food curing in the digestive tract. This can interfere with the absorption of nutrients, your energy levels may drop, and your brain may not get enough nutrients or glucose as a result.

These are subtle changes that sort of… if it happens every year, year after year, that you may have a chronic illness or issue that can… that otherwise never would have happened if you don’t have to follow these time changes.

Now we are not complete victims in all of that. We can make changes and there are a number of them that can get you through these time changes or shifts, these are natural shifts in a sort of more relaxed manner, and one of them is that it has been know that light therapy… looking at certain kinds of lights or lamps that emit light effectively… that they can, in fact, reduce the adjustment period, the length of having to adjust to the new cycles, for example this is a light that can do that and you can find these on amazon.com. They are pretty useful also for people who have jet lag that have traveled a long way and they, like… to another country and then they come back and they are jet-lagged and this reduces the length of time you are experiencing the jet lag, so light therapy is definitely very good. SAD, which is Seasonal Affective Disorder, which is more prevalent in countries that don’t have enough sun exposure, it’s a very, very useful tool to keep the balance.

Then another thing that has been found to be beneficial is during the times of time changes to socialize with other people, spend time with your friends, with children playing, this has also shown benefit, and to benefit the serotonin production which is the happiness hormone, so anything that makes you happy also allows you to adjust better.

Another good way to get over this period more easily and effectively is exercising. So, it’s important to do that anyway, but during this time even more so, and this will help to once again make create balance to the serotonin – melatonin hormonal changes.

And also a person who has a full body massage that has been shown simply by activating certain receptors on the surface of the skin that are related to serotonin production, that will also benefit greatly when you go through that.

Another way is when you, when there is a shortage of time, and let’s say, when you enter the summer period and the daylight savings time, and you have an hour’s less sleep, that’s the time to somehow, for at least like a week, still try to get your eight hours of sleep instead of the seven hours that you may have given yourself simply by once again going to bed a little earlier and maybe sleeping a little longer, so that you do get your eight hours of sleep, and that has also been shown to be of great benefit.

So having said that, I think that there are certain things that we can do, sometimes we can also exert pressure on the governance and some have listened, some have discovered that it’s actually a great loss to go through these changes, some states in United States like Arizona and Hawaii, they don’t have daylight savings time, and they are little smarter than the rest of us, and there are some countries that also resist doing that. It has particularly with the modern communication systems being so fast and the countries being so interconnected, it has created a big, big problem and lots of expenditures simply by constantly having to adjust the different devices, computers, twice a year, which is a great problem now with inter-country communications. Some countries, they start daylight savings time early, and some start it later and this is a real nuisance for many countries.

So letting your government, your representatives know that there is now a great deal of evidence, you can do a Google search you will find a lot of evidence to show that daylight savings time is not really saving us very much, except perhaps being in the daylight a little longer during the summer period, but apart from that, there is really no other benefit from following such a time schedule.

Thanks for listening and have a wonderful beautifully sun-filled day.

——————————
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