mp_gmo-free

The GMO debate is over; GM crops must be immediately outlawed; Monsanto halted from threatening humanity

Friday, September 21, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles…)

(NaturalNews) The GMO debate is over. There is no longer any legitimate, scientific defense of growing GM crops for human consumption. The only people still clinging to the outmoded myth that "GMOs are safe" are scientific mercenaries with financial ties to Monsanto and the biotech industry.
GMOs are an anti-human technology. They threaten the continuation of life on our planet. They are a far worse threat than terrorism, or even the threat of nuclear war.
As a shocking new study has graphically shown,GMOs are the new thalidomide. When rats eat GM corn, they develop horrifying tumors. Seventy percent of females die prematurely, and virtually all of them suffer severe organ damage from consuming GMO. These are the scientific conclusions of the first truly "long-term" study ever conducted on GMO consumption in animals, and the findings are absolutely horrifying. (See pictures of rats with tumors, below.)
What this reveals is that genetic engineering turns FOOD into POISON.
Remember thalidomide? Babies being born with no arms and other heart-breaking deformities? Thalidomide was pushed as "scientific" and "FDA approved." The same lies are now being told about GMO: they’re safe. They’re nutritious. They will feed the world!
But the real science now coming out tells a different picture: GMOs may be creating an entire generation of cancer victims who have a frighteningly heightened risk of growing massive mammary gland tumors caused by the consumption of GM foods. We are witnessing what may turn out to be the worst and most costly blunder in the history of western science: the mass poisoning of billions of people with a toxic food crop that was never properly tested in the first place.
Remember: GMOs are an anti-human technology. And those who promote them are, by definition, enemies of humankind.

GMOs are unfit for human consumption

The evidence keeps emerging, day after day, that GMOs are absolutely and without question unfit for human consumption. France has already launched an investigation that may result in the nationbanning GM corn imports. It’s already illegal to grow genetically modified crops in France, but the nation still allows GMO imports, meaning France still allows its citizens to be poisoned by imported GM corn grown in America.
The GMO industry, not surprisingly, doesn’t want any independent research conducted on GMOs. They don’t want long-term feeding trials, and they most certainly do not want studies conducted by scientists they can’t control with financial ties.
What they want is to hide GMOs in products by making sure they’re not listed on the labels. Hence the biotech industry’s opposition to Proposition 37 (www.CArighttoknow.org).
The tactics of the biotech industry are:
• HIDE genetically modified ingredients in foods
• FALSIFY the research to claim GMOs are safe
• MANIPULATE the scientific debate by bribing scientists
• DENY DENY DENY just like Big Tobacco, DDT, thalidomide, Agent Orange and everything else that’s been killing us over the last century
Monsanto is now the No. 1 most hated corporation in America. The company’s nickname is MonSatan. It is the destructive force behind the lobbying of the USDA, FDA, scientists and politicians that have all betrayed the American people and given in to genetically modified seeds.
These seeds, some of which grow their own toxic pesticides right inside the grain, are a form ofchemical brutality against children and adults. This is "child abuse" at its worst. It’s an abuse of all humans. It is the most serious crime ever committed against nature and all of humankind.

Science for sale

That’s what you get with payola science… science "for sale" to wealthy corporations. Nearly all the studies that somehow conclude GMO are safe were paid for by the biotech industry. Every one of those studies is unreliable and most likely fraudulent. Every scientist that conducts "research" for Monsanto is almost certainly a sellout at minimum… and more likely a jackal operative working for an industry of death.
Corporate science is fraudulent science. When enough money is at stake, scientists can be bought off to even declare smoking cigarettes to be safe. And they did, throughout the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s. Some of those very same scientists are now working for the Monsantos of the world, peddling their scientific fraud to the highest bidder (which always happens to be a wealthy corporation).
There is no poison these scientists won’t promote as safe — even "good for you!" There is no limit to their evil. There are no ethics that guide their actions.
GMO-promoting scientists are the most despicable humanoid creatures to have ever walked the surface of this planet. To call them "human" is an insult to humanity. They are ANTI-human. They are demonic. They are forces of evil that walk among the rest of us, parading as authorities when in their hearts and souls they are actually corporate cowards and traitors to humankind. To pad their own pockets, they would put at risk the very future of sustainable life on our planet… and they do it consciously, insidiously. They feed on death, destruction, suffering and pain. They align with the biotech industry precisely because they know that no other industry is as steeped in pure evil as the biotech industry. GMO pushers will lie, cheat, steal, falsify and even mass-murder as many people as it takes to further their agenda of total global domination over the entire food supply… at ANY cost.
This is war at the genetic level. And this kind of war makes bullets, bombs and nukes look downright tame by comparison. Because the GMO war is based on self-replicating genetic pollution which has already been released into the environment; into the food supply; and into your body.
The hundreds of millions of consumers who eat GMO are being murdered right now, with every meal they consume… and they don’t even know it. GMO-pimping scientists are laughing at all the death they’re causing. They enjoy tricking people and watching them die because it makes their sick minds feel more powerful. These were the geeks in school who were bullied by the jocks. But now, with the power of genetic manipulation at their fingertips, they can invoke their hatred against all humankindand "bully" the entire world with hidden poisons in the food. That makes them smile. It’s the ultimate revenge against a world that mistreated them in their youth. Death to everyone!

Society must respond in defense of life on Earth

The sheer brutality of what the GMO industry has committed against us humanity screams out for a decisive response. It is impossible to overreact to this. No collective response goes too far when dealing with an industry that quite literally threatens the very basis of life on our planet.
To march government SWAT teams into the corporate headquarters of all GMO seed companies and shut down all operations at gunpoint would be a mild reaction — and fully justified. To indict all biotech CEOs, scientists, employees and P.R. flacks and charge them with conspiring to commit crimes against humanity would be a small but important step in protecting our collective futures. To disband all these corporations by government order have their assets seized and sold off to help fund reparations to the people they have harmed is but a tiny step needed in the defense of life.
The truth is that humanity will never be safe until GMO seed pushers and manufacturers are behind bars, locked away from society and denied the ability to ever threaten humanity again.
What the Nuremberg trials did to IG Farben and other Nazi war crimes corporations, our own government must now do to Monsanto and the biotech industry.
It is time for decisive intervention. Monsanto must be stopped by the will of the People. The mass poisoning of our families and children by an evil, destructive corporation that seeks to dominate the world food supply must be halted.
The GMO debate is over. The horrors are now being revealed. The truth can no longer be hidden, and the reaction from the public cannot be stopped.

Prediction: Activist attacks on GM seeds and the criminals who promote them

The era of GMO deception is history. A food revolution is upon us. And if governments will not halt the mass poisoning of our world by evil corporations, I have no doubt that the People will, by themselves, eventually invoke other necessary methods of halting this great evil.
I predict a future where — and for the record I DO NOT encourage this — shipments of GM seeds to farmers are raided and destroyed by activists. I predict Monsanto employees being publicly named and shamed on websites. I predict — but DO NOT CONDONE — scientists who conduct research for Monsanto being threatened, intimidated and even physically attacked. Again, for the record, I DO NOT IN ANY WAY condone such behavior, but I predict it will emerge as an inevitable reaction to the unfathomable evil being committed by the GMO industry and all its co-conspirators. The "Army of the 12 monkeys" may become reality. (See the sci-fi movie "12 monkeys" starring Brad Pitt and Bruce Willis.)
What we are fighting for here is the protection of our species. We are fighting for the sanctity of life on our planet. Those who threaten that life must be stopped from continuing to harm us. This evil must be put back in its box and prevented from ever threatening us again.
Even Congress is starting to state the obvious on how evil Monsanto really is. Just yesterday, Congressman Dennis Kucinich demanded GMO labeling in a powerful speech. Watch that at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J_YvtbSSqg
Also, watch this video of the French scientists discussing how GMOs and Roundup caused grotesque cancer tumors to grow in mice:

 

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037262_GMO_Monsanto_debate.html#ixzz277muCkln

******************************

France Launches Major Investigation Into GMOs Following Tumor Study

Anthony Gucciardi
Natural Society
September 20, 2012

Following the release of a peer-reviewed piece of research linking the consumption of Monsanto’s Roundup-containing GMO crops to tumors and organ damage, the French government is now calling for a health agency investigation. Seeking to analyze the research and potentially ask European authorities to protect human health and abandon the use of GMO crops, France’s Agriculture Minister and others are now sounding the alarm.

The study was the first to ever examine the true effects of lifelong GMO consumption in rats, and was dubbed”the most thorough research ever published into the health effects of GM food crops and the herbicide Roundup on rats.” Finding an onset of mass tumors and damage to the kidneys and liver, the study has serious implications as to what large-scale GMO consumption is doing to humans. Since a serious lack of serious information has surfaced on the long-term effects of GMO consumption, human consumption of GMOs itself is really a mad scientist experiment on a global scale.

It appears French officials understand the severity of the findings, with Agriculture Minister Stephane Le Foll and others now asking the National Agency for Health Safety to investigate further. Both Le Foll and Social Affairs Minister Marisol Touraine described the decision in a joint statement:

“Depending on ANSES’ opinion, the government will urge the European authorities to take all necessary measures to protect human and animal health,” they said.

The duo went on to highlight how the decision could go as far as generating an emergency suspension of Monsanto’s modified corn known as NK603 (maize) throughout Europe:

“(The measures) could go as far as invoking emergency suspension of imports of NK603corn to Europe pending a re-examination of this product on the basis of enhanced assessment methods.”

France just days ago decided to maintain a ban on Monsanto’s GMO MON810 maize despite massive political pressure. The country has been at the forefront in the fight against Monsanto as other nations either fold or directly empower Monsanto’s genetic crusade. Wikileaks cables revealed back in 2007, for example, that Monsanto controls most if not all US diplomats and other key players that are set to increase Monsanto’s grasp on the world’s agricultural industry.

New GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow tumors, 70% of females die early

Mike Adams
naturalnews.com
September 19, 2012

Eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto’s Roundup chemical fertilizer caused rats to develop horrifying tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death. That’s the conclusion of a shocking new study that looked at the long-term effects of consuming Monsanto’s genetically modified corn.

The study has been deemed “the most thorough research ever published into the health effects of GM food crops and the herbicide Roundup on rats.” News of the horrifying findings is spreading like wildfire across the internet, with even the mainstream media seemingly in shock over the photos of rats with multiple grotesque tumors… tumors so large the rats even had difficulty breathing in some cases. GMOs may be the new thalidomide.

“Monsanto Roundup weedkiller and GM maize implicated in ‘shocking’ new cancer study” wrote The Grocery, a popular UK publication. (http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/technology-and-supply-chain/monsant…)

It reported, “Scientists found that rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, developed mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females.”

The Daily Mail reported, “Fresh row over GM foods as French study claims rats fed the controversial crops suffered tumors.” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Fresh-fears-GM…)

It goes on to say: “The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group.”

The study, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, was the first ever study to examine the long-term (lifetime) effects of eating GMOs. You may find yourself thinking it is absolutely astonishing that no such studies were ever conducted before GM corn was approved for widespread use by the USDA and FDA, but such is the power of corporate lobbying and corporate greed.

The study was published in The Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal and was just presented at a news conference in London.

Findings from the study

Here are some of the shocking findings from the study:

• Up to 50% of males and 70% of females suffered premature death.

• Rats that drank trace amounts of Roundup (at levels legally allowed in the water supply) had a 200% to 300% increase in large tumors.

• Rats fed GM corn and traces of Roundup suffered severe organic damage including liver damage and kidney damage.

• The study fed these rats NK603, the Monsanto variety of GM corn that’s grown across North America and widely fed to animals and humans. This is the same corn that’s in your corn-based breakfast cereal, corn tortillas and corn snack chips.

The Daily Mail is reporting on some of the reaction to the findings:

France’s Jose Bove, vice-chairman of the European Parliament’s commission for agriculture and known as a fierce opponent of GM, called for an immediate suspension of all EU cultivation and import authorisations of GM crops. ‘This study finally shows we are right and that it is urgent to quickly review all GMO evaluation processes,’ he said in a statement. ‘National and European food security agencies must carry out new studies financed by public funding to guarantee healthy food for European consumers.’(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2205509/Fresh-fears-GM…)

Read the study abstract

The study is entitled, “A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health.” Read the abstract here:
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

That abstract include this text. Note: “hepatorenal toxicity” means toxic to the liver.

Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded.

Here are some quotes from the researchers:

“This research shows an extraordinary number of tumors developing earlier and more aggressively – particularly in female animals. I am shocked by the extreme negative health impacts.” – Dr Michael Antoniou, molecular biologist, King’s College London.

“We can expect that the consumption of GM maize and the herbicide Roundup, impacts seriously on human health.” – Dr Antoniou.

“This is the first time that a long-term animal feeding trial has examined the impact of feeding GM corn or the herbicide Roundup, or a combination of both and the results are extremely serious. In the male rats, there was liver and kidney disorders, including tumors and even more worryingly, in the female rats, there were mammary tumors at a level which is extremely concerning; up to 80 percent of the female rats had mammary tumors by the end of the trial.” – Patrick Holden, Director, Sustainable Food Trust.

**************************************

Monsanto

Monsanto, pesticide companies have now spent more than $19 million to kill Prop. 37

Friday, September 21, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

790(NaturalNews) The latest campaign finance disclosure records released by California’s Secretary of State reveal that the most evil corporation in the world, Monsanto, has forked over another $2.89 million to kill Proposition 37, the historic bill that, if passed, will require genetically-modified (GM) foods and food ingredients to be labeled at the retail level in California.
Combined with its other recent contributions of more than $4.2 million (http://www.naturalnews.com), Monsanto has now officially shelled out a total ofmore than $7.1 million to prevent consumers from knowing the truth about what is really contained in the foods they buy.
Along with Monsanto’s latest contributions were similar contributions by the other five of the "Big Six" pesticide firms — DuPont, Bayer, Dow, BASF, and Syngenta — which together gave more than $2.6 million to the No on 37 campaign as part of their most recent contributions. To date, the "Big Six" have collectively contributed nearly $20 million to keep Californians in the dark about GMOs.
"Monsanto wants to buy this election so they can keep hiding what’s really in our food," said Gary Ruskin, campaign manager for Yes on Prop. 37, about Monsanto’s efforts to stamp out the potential for mandating food transparency. "(But) they are on the losing side of history. Californians want the right to know what’s in our food, and we will win it."

Most of the funding for ‘No on 37’ is coming from GMO companies not even located in California

Interestingly, none of the "Big Six" pesticide companies are even located in California, which just goes to show how far-reaching the scope of Prop. 37 will be once it is passed. Only one of the top ten antagonists in the fight for honesty in food labeling, Nestle USA, is based out of California, and even this company has its roots overseas in Switzerland.
Below is a list of the top ten contributors to the No on 37 campaign, which is trying to stop GMO labeling in California:

1) Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO, $7,100,500
2) E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., Washington, DC, $4,900,000
3) BASF Plant Science, Research Triangle Park, NC, $2,000,000
4) Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC, $2,000,000
5) Dow Agrosciences LLC, Indianapolis, IN, $2,000,000
6) PepsiCo, Inc., Purchase, NY, $1,716,300
7) Nestle USA, Inc., Glendale, CA, $1,169,400
8) Coca-Cola North America, Atlanta, GA, $1,164,400
9) ConAgra Foods, Omaha, NE, $1,076,700
10) Syngenta Corporation, Washington, DC, $1,000,000


As you will notice, every single one of these companies has a critical stake in making sure that you do not know what is in the food you eat, because every single one of these companies eitherproduces GMOs or uses GMOs in their product formulations.
If GMO labeling is mandated in California, the "Big Six" will lose significant market share as many large food companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi will have to either reformulate their products to exclude GMOs, or risk losing much of their customer base by labeling GMOs, which Monsanto admitted many years ago is akin to putting "a skull and crossbones" on the food label. (http://www.naturalnews.com/035578_Monsanto_petition_biotechnology.html)
And since large food conglomerates distribute their offerings nationwide, mandatory labeling in California, the world’s eighth largest economy, will cause sweeping changes across the country as well. This is why it is crucial for Californians get out to the polls on November 6 and vote YES on Prop. 37.
You can learn more about the Yes on Prop. 37 campaign by visiting:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037273_Proposition_37_Monsanto_corporations.html#ixzz277m5hg8Z

***********************************

GMO

"Genetic Roulette" documentary shatters the myth of GMO safety — for a few days only, watch it for free

Friday, September 21, 2012 by: Carolanne Wright

(NaturalNews) According to the new documentaryGenetic Roulette, "…physicians and scientists have uncovered a grave trend. The same serious health problems found in lab animals, livestock, and pets that have been fed GM foods are now on the rise in the US population. And when people and animals stop eating genetically modified organisms (GMOs), their health improved." Information is power. For a limited time, this important documentary can be viewed online without cost.
In the wake of the startling findings that GM corn causes massive tumors, liver damage and shortened life spans in rats (www.naturalnews.com/037249_GMO_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html), it is vital now more than ever to educate friends and family about the dangers of GM food. Genetic Roulette couldn’t have arrived at a better time. A production of the Institute for Responsible Technology, Genetic Roulette features interviews with farmers, scientists, physicians, educators and chefs who explore the dangers of genetically engineered food. The film is by Jefferey Smith, author of The Seeds of Deception, and seeks to expose "the unintended but real health consequences of genetically engineering our food," said promoter Rodney Robinson. The documentary covers everything from the basic defining criteria of genetically modified organisms to California Ballot Initiative 37. Genetic Roulette also examines the significant connection between GM food and the rise of birth defects, autism, allergies and intestinal damage. The documentary can be viewed for free until September 22, 2012 at:www.responsibletechnology.org

FDA ignores the dangers of genetically modified organisms

The history of genetically modified organisms is tainted with all kinds of corruption and fraud. TheAmerican Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) stated in 2009 that, "several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with genetically modified (GM) food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system." These findings led the AAEM to ask physicians to "educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible." Yet the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claimed they were unaware of any information that genetically modified food was substantially different from conventionally grown food — thereby GM food did not need testing and was safe to eat. The truth of the matter is that scientists did in fact repeatedly warn the FDA about the health and environmental dangers of GMOs. Due to political and financial interests, these red flags were ignored by the US government.
Stop the madness. In the rallying words of activist Tanya Sitton, M.S., "…take this opportunity to aggravate the biotechnology megacoporations pinning their hopes on an uninformed and apathetic public: watch, learn, reflect, and share!"
Sources for this article include:
"Shocking findings in new GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow horrifying tumors, 70% of females die early" Mike Adams, Natural News, Wednesday, September 19, 2012. Retrieved on September 19, 2012 from: http://www.naturalnews.com
"’Genetic Roulette’ examines GMO food" The Davis Enterprise, Wednesday, September 19, 2012. Retrieved on September 19, 2012 from: http://www.davisenterprise.com
"Genetic Roulette Movie Review" Moms for Safe Food, September 9, 2012. Retrieved on September 19, 2012 from: http://momsforsafefood.net/2012/09/09/genetic-roulette-movie-review/
"Genetically Modified Foods" American Academy of Environmental Medicine. Retrieved on September 19, 2012 from: http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
"Quotable quotes from scientists and other folks on the dangers of genetically engineered foods and crops" Organic Consumers Association. Retrieved on September 19, 2012 from:http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/sciquotes.htm
"New Documentary ‘Genetic Roulette’ Indicts GMO Agriculture: This Week Only, Watch Free Online!" Tanya Sitton. Eat Drink Better. Retrieved on September 19, 2012 from: http://eatdrinkbetter.com
http://www.responsibletechnology.org
About the author:
Carolanne enthusiastically believes if we want to see change in the world, we need to be the change. As a nutritionist, natural foods chef and wellness coach, Carolanne has encouraged others to embrace a healthy lifestyle of organic living, gratefulness and joyful orientation for over 13 years. Through her website www.Thrive-Living.net she looks forward to connecting with other like-minded people from around the world who share a similar vision.
Read her other articles on Natural News here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/Author1183.html

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037272_Genetic_Roulette_movie_GMO.html#ixzz277o6EXc0

****************************************

  • gm dangers

    Genetically modified foods…
    Are they safe?

    The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) doesn’t think so. The Academy reported that “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM asked physicians to advise patients to avoid GM foods.

    Before the FDA decided to allow GMOs into food without labeling, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored.

    gmo danger2

    Since then, findings include:
    • Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants
    • Mice eating GM corn for the long term had fewer, and smaller, babies
    • More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, and were smaller
    • Testicle cells of mice and rats on a GM soy change significantly
    • By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies
    • Rodents fed GM corn and soy showed immune system responses and signs of toxicity
    • Cooked GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen
    • Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced
    • The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may lead to cancer.
    • Studies showed organ lesions, altered liver and pancreas cells, changed enzyme levels, etc.

    Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us. This could mean:

    • If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics
    • If the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.

    Although no studies have evaluated if antibiotic or Bt-toxin genes transfer, that is one of the key problems. The safety assessments are too superficial to even identify most of the potential dangers from GMOs. See our Health Risks brochure and State of the Sciencereport for more details and citations.

    Recent health studies provide growing evidence of harm from GMOs:
    GM Corn Damages Liver and Kidneys
    Meat Raised on GM Feed is Different
    Roundup Could Cause Birth Defects
    Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility

THE CAMPAIGN FOR HEALTHIER EATING IN AMERICA
Our goal is to stop the genetic engineering of our food supply.

Campaign for Healthier Eating in America

Although the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may be one of the most dangerous health and environmental problems we face, it can be one of the easiest of the battles to win. The key is found in the tipping point, whereby a small number of individuals can move the market, forcing GMOs out of our nation’s food supply.

Even a small percentage of shoppers avoiding genetically modified (GM) brands is enough to trigger an industry-wide cleanout. It’s been done before! The Europe Union reached a consumer- driven tipping point in April 1999 and within a single week, virtually all major manufacturers publicly committed to stop using GM ingredients in their European brands. This has kept GMOs out of food in the EU, in spite of government approvals. Similarly, consumer concern about possible links to cancer forced Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, Dannon, Yoplait and most of the 100 top US dairies to remove products from cows treated with genetically modified recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST).

It’s time to turn GMOs into a marketing liability and reach the tipping point against all GM ingredients.

Our Campaign For Healthier Eating in America educates the public about the documented health risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with our GMO Health Risks brochure and provides a simple way for shoppers to find healthier non-GMO choices at the market with our Non-GMO Shopping Guide.
Already, 87 million consumers in the United States believe that genetically modified (GM) foods aren’t safe and 159 million say they would avoid GMOs if given a choice. Biotech companies knew this, which is why they went to such great lengths to avoid having them labeled. By educating health-conscious shoppers about GM food dangers and providing clear choices, brands without GM ingredients will have the clear advantage. As millions switch to healthier brand choices based on GMO content, it is just a matter of time before the food industry responds.

The critical number to reach the tipping point in the US could be as little as 5% – 15 million people or 5.6 million US households—simply switching brands to avoid GMOs as they shop. In 2009 Non-GMO labels became the fastest growing store label. And, everyday, more people are getting the facts, joining the Campaign, and buying Non-GMO. We’ve created the Non-GMO Shopping Guide online and the “ShopNoGMO” iPhone App free at the iTunes App store. Retail stores nationwide are displaying our Non-GMO Education Centers filled with books, DVDs, and free brochures that drive home the message that “Healthy eating starts with no GMOs.”

Doctors say no GMOs

Our Campaign has reached out nationwide to health conscious Consumers, Parents, Schools, Chefs, Healthcare Practitioners, Environmental and Faith-based Groups, and Food Manufacturers who are receptive to our message. Each of these groups alone is potentially large enough to achieve the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs in our entire US food supply. We welcome you (and your organization) to join us; we have a wide range of campaign materials on this website to help you efforts.
Our Action Tool Kit will lead you through the steps you can take to engage your community, helping build the Campaign’s momentum by focusing the purchasing power of health-conscious shoppers like yourself.

Together, we can reach the tipping point and push GMOs out of the entire food supply, protecting our health and the health of future generationsStop GMOs

    GMOS are  Dynamite

  • If you have never heard about genetically modified organisms(GMOs), you may not know that they may be one of the most dangerous health and environmental problems we face. Animal studies show GMOs cause immune and insulin problems,organ damage, gastrointestinal dysfunction, accelerated aging, and higher death rates. Those risks have lead The American Academy of Environmental Medicine to ask physicians to advise all patients to avoid GM foods.

    The Campaign’s goal is push GMOs out of the entire food supply, protecting our health and the health of future generations.

    The key is creating a tipping point where a sufficient number of shoppers in the US avoid GM ingredients, and force major food companies to stop using them. We’ve already seen a tipping point in the use of genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST) in the U.S. Consumer concerns forced Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, Dannon, Yoplait and most of the 100 top US dairies to remove products from cows treated with rbGH or rbST.It’s time to turn GMOs into a marketing liability and reach the tipping point against all GM ingredients.

    Help Push GMOs Out of the Food Supply

    Buy Non-GMO
    Start eating healthier now! Use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to eliminate GMOs from your diet. Buy non-GMO and organic food products and ask your local store managers to carry non-GMO products.

    Campaign for Healthier Eating in America

    Join the Campaign!
    Become a member (it’s free!)…and be a part of the Non-GMO tipping point. Keep current on the issues with our e-newsletter Spilling the Beans.

    Educate Yourself
    Get the Facts…about the health risks of GMOs and how to avoid them. Quickly become an “expert” on GMOs by using the information provided here.

    Involve Others by Taking Local Action
    Spread the Word…to friends and family members. Help others learn how to avoid GMOS.

    Group of young people learning about GMOs on the Computer

    Engage Your Community
    Use the Campaign materials and Action Tool Kits at our website to engage your community and create a buzz on this issue:

    • Send this information through your social media networks
    • Distribute Non-GMO educational materials at events
    • Organize a house party to show one of our DVDs
    • Inspire restaurants to offer non-GM food
    • Get other organizations involved
    • Meet with others to form a local action group

    By working together, we can reach the tipping point of consumer rejection and Make It Happen!
    Questions? Click here to contact us.

    Remember to Sign the Petition to President Obama for meaningful GMO labeling!

****************************************

Now the TRUTH about the worst of the worst of the
offending GMO Corporate Conglomerate’s and also the world leader In GMO Production

MONSANTO

10 things monsanto bab

Who and What Is the Monsanto Chemical Corporation?

Thursday, April 24, 2008 by: Jo Hartley

(NaturalNews) Who and what is the Monsanto Corporation? The Monsanto Chemical Company has a diverse and interesting history. Monsanto is the leading chemical producer for agricultural products. They manufacture the best-selling herbicide RoundUp (as well as other herbicides). They are also the producer of leading seed brands such as DEKALB and Asgrow and they are heavily involved in providing farmers and seed companies with the necessary biotechnology for insect protection and herbicide tolerance.
Monsanto is the creator and distributor of Bovine Growth Hormone (BST). They also have a long history with the soft drink industry in the manufacturing of both saccharin and aspartame (NutraSweet).
Monsanto was established in 1901 in St. Louis, MO. How exactly has Monsanto spent its 100+ years in business and what are some of the more notable facets of its world influence? Let’s find out.
Founder John Francis Queeny spent 30 years in the pharmaceutical industry before the inception of Monsanto. While still an employee of Meyer Brothers Drug Company, he depleted his entire savings and borrowed from a Chicago soft drink supplier to form a new company to produce products for the food and pharmaceutical industry. The new company was named for his wife, whose maiden name was Olga Monsanto. Monsanto was born on November 29, 1901.
In 1902, Monsanto’s first product was none other than saccharin. Between the years of 1903 and 1905 their entire saccharin production was shipped to a growing soft drink company based in Georgia called Coca-Cola. In 1904 Monsanto introduced caffeine and vanillin to the growing soft drink industry.
By 1915, Monsanto sales hit the one million mark. Approximately two years later Monsanto began producing aspirin. Monsanto was the top aspirin producer in the U.S. until the 1980s.
In 1917, the first suit over the safety of saccharin was filed by the U.S. Government. This case was filed at Monsanto’s request as a test case and was dismissed in 1925. In 1981, the safety of saccharin was again challenged. No conclusive scientific evidence was ever presented, however, so in 2001 the warning label was removed from products.
In 1985, G.D. Searle & Company bought Monsanto. At this point Monsanto became even more involved in pharmaceuticals and the sweetener industry. In addition, NutraSweet was acquired by Monsanto.
World War II was the catalyst to a new partnership between Monsanto and the U.S. Government. Monsanto became involved in research for the Manhattan Project which led to the world’s first nuclear bombs. Until the late 1980s, Monsanto also operated the Mound Laboratory (a nuclear facility) on behalf of the Federal Government.
By 1955, Monsanto had branched out in the petroleum business. They acquired Lion Oil essentially to provide themselves with petrochemical materials. With the acquisition of Lion Oil, Monsanto was also introduced into the fertilizer business. This brought them the industries of hydrocarbon technology, oil and gas reserves, as well as retail gasoline businesses. They sold their service stations and refineries in 1972.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Monsanto was the leading producer of Agent Orange (containing the chemicaldioxin) for the U.S. Military in Vietnam. Between the years of 1962 and 1970, the U.S. military sprayed 72 million liters of Agent Orange on over one million Vietnam civilians and over 100,000 U.S. troops. Within ten years of the end of the war, 9,170 veterans had filed claims for disabilities believed to be caused by Agent Orange.
In 1977, Monsanto entered a joint petrochemical venture with Conoco Oil Company. They were bought out at a later time and they utilized the profit to acquire a pharmaceutical company. By this time, G.D. Searle & Co was successful in getting the U.S. FDA to approve aspartame (NutraSweet) for a second time. In 2000, Monsanto sold its sweetener business (including NutraSweet) for a tidy sum of $440 million.
By the late 1990s, Monsanto turned its focus to agriculture and started buying seed companies and genetic laboratories. In December 1999, Monsanto and Pharmicia & UpJohn announced an impending merger. Upon the completed merger in March 2000, the new company Pharmicia Corporation was created. The agricultural portion of the corporation has retained the Monsanto name.
What does the future hold for Monsanto? They have formed a wheat industry advisory committee to provide advice and support for the best way to incorporate biotechnology into the wheat industry. They are also marketing the drug L-DOPA (used to treat Parkinson’s). They have also placed the first U.S. corporate order to GM for pickup trucks that use ethanol-based E85 fuel. This is part of a larger move on their part to focus new research toward the use of bioenergy resources. They are also currently involved in the current controversy involving recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone and the labeling of U.S. milk.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/023094_Monsanto_WHO_industry.html#ixzz278WY9Lei

********************************

175846_115239628551258_100001956649154_114068_3571842_o

Monsanto: The world’s poster child for corporate manipulation and deceit

Friday, July 30, 2010 by: Jeffrey M. Smith

(NaturalNews) At a biotech industry conference in January 1999, a representative from Arthur Anderson, LLP explained how they had helped Monsanto design their strategic plan. First, his team asked Monsanto executives what their ideal future looked like in 15 to 20 years. The executives described a world with 100 percent of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented. Anderson consultants then worked backwards from that goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with the steps and procedures needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in which natural seeds were virtually extinct.
This was a bold new direction for Monsanto, which needed a big change to distance them from a controversial past. As a chemical company, they had polluted the landscape with some of the most poisonous substances ever produced, contaminated virtually every human and animal on earth, and got fined and convicted of deception and wrongdoing. According to a former Monsanto vice president, "We were despised by our customers."
So they redefined themselves as a "life sciences" company, and then proceeded to pollute the landscape with toxic herbicide, contaminate the gene pool for all future generations with genetically modified plants, and get fined and convicted of deception and wrongdoing. Monsanto’s chief European spokesman admitted in 1999, "Everybody over here hates us." Now the rest of the world is catching on.

"Saving the world," and other lies

Monsanto’s public relations story about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are largely based on five concepts.

1. GMOs are needed to feed the world.
2. GMOs have been thoroughly tested and proven safe.
3. GMOs increase yield.
4. GMOs reduce the use of agricultural chemicals.
5. GMOs can be contained, and therefore coexist with non-GM crops.

All five are pure myths — blatant falsehoods about the nature and benefit of this infant technology. The experience of former Monsanto employee Kirk Azevedo helps expose the first two lies, and provides some insight into the nature of the people working at the company.
In 1996, Monsanto recruited young Kirk Azevedo to sell their genetically engineered cotton. Azevedo accepted their offer not because of the pay increase, but due to the writings of Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro. Shapiro had painted a picture of feeding the world and cleaning up the environment with his company’s new technology. When he visited Monsanto’s St. Louis headquarters for new employee training, Azevedo shared his enthusiasm for Shapiro’s vision during a meeting. When the session ended, a company vice president pulled him aside and set him straight. "Wait a second," he told Azevedo. "What Robert Shapiro says is one thing. But what we do is something else. We are here to make money. He is the front man who tells a story. We don’t even understand what he is saying." Azevedo realized he was working for "just another profit-oriented company," and all the glowing words about helping the planet were just a front.
A few months later he got another shock. A company scientist told him that Roundup Ready cotton plants contained new, unintended proteins that had resulted from the gene insertion process. No safety studies had been conducted on the proteins, none were planned, and the cotton plants, which were part of field trials near his home, were being fed to cattle. Azevedo "was afraid at that time that some of these proteins may be toxic."
He asked the PhD in charge of the test plot to destroy the cotton rather than feed it to cattle, arguing that until the protein had been evaluated, the cows’ milk or meat could be harmful. The scientist refused. Azevedo approached everyone on his team at Monsanto to raise concerns about the unknown protein, but no one was interested. "I was somewhat ostracized," he said. "Once I started questioning things, people wanted to keep their distance from me. . . . Anything that interfered with advancing the commercialization of this technology was going to be pushed aside." Azevedo decided to leave Monsanto. He said, "I’m not going to be part of this disaster."

 

361025pc1

Monsanto’s toxic past

Azevedo got a small taste of Monsanto’s character. A verdict in a lawsuit a few years later made it more explicit. On February 22, 2002, Monsanto was found guilty for poisoning the town of Anniston, Alabama with their PCB factory and covering it up for decades. They were convicted of negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass, and outrage. According to Alabama law, to be guilty of outrage typically requires conduct "so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society."(1)
The $700 million fine imposed on Monsanto was on behalf of the Anniston residents, whose blood levels of Monsanto’s toxic PCBs were hundreds or thousands of times the average. This disease-producing chemical, used as coolants and lubricants for over 50 years, are now virtually omnipresent in the blood and tissues of humans and wildlife around the globe. Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group says that based on Monsanto documents made public during a trial, the company "knew the truth from the very beginning. They lied about it. They hid the truth from their neighbors." One Monsanto memo explains their justification: "We can’t afford to lose one dollar of business." Welcome to the world of Monsanto.

Infiltrating the minds and offices of the government

To get their genetically modified products approved, Monsanto has coerced, infiltrated, and paid off government officials around the globe. In Indonesia, Monsanto gave bribes and questionable payments to at least 140 officials, attempting to get their genetically modified (GM) cotton accepted.(2) In 1998, six Canadian government scientists testified before the Senate that they were being pressured by superiors to approve rbGH, that documents were stolen from a locked file cabinet in a government office, and that Monsanto offered them a bribe of $1-2 million to pass the drug without further tests. In India, one official tampered with the report on Bt cotton to increase the yield figures to favor Monsanto.(3) And Monsanto seems to have planted their own people in key government positions in India, Brazil, Europe, and worldwide.
Monsanto’s GM seeds were also illegally smuggled into countries like Brazil and Paraguay, before GMOs were approved. Roberto Franco, Paraguay’s Deputy Agriculture Ministry, tactfully admits, "It is possible that [Monsanto], let’s say, promoted its varieties and its seeds" before they were approved. "We had to authorize GMO seeds because they had already entered our country in an, let’s say, unorthodox way."
In the US, Monsanto’s people regularly infiltrate upper echelons of government, and the company offers prominent positions to officials when they leave public service. This revolving door has included key people in the White House, regulatory agencies, even the Supreme Court. Monsanto also had George Bush Senior on their side, as evidenced by footage of Vice President Bush at Monsanto’s facility offering help to get their products through government bureaucracy. He says, "Call me. We’re in the ‘de-reg’ business. Maybe we can help."
Monsanto’s influence continued into the Clinton administration. Dan Glickman, then Secretary of Agriculture, says, "there was a general feeling in agro-business and inside our government in the US that if you weren’t marching lock-step forward in favor of rapid approvals of biotech products, rapid approvals of GMO crops, then somehow, you were anti-science and anti-progress." Glickman summarized the mindset in the government as follows:
"What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good, and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. Without thinking, we had basically taken this issue as a trade issue and they, whoever ‘they’ were, wanted to keep our product out of their market. And they were foolish, or stupid, and didn’t have an effective regulatory system. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of the issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches."(4)
He admits, "when I opened my mouth in the Clinton Administration [about the lax regulations on GMOs], I got slapped around a little bit."

Hijacking the FDA to promote GMOs

In the US, new food additives must undergo extensive testing, including long-term animal feeding studies.(5) There is an exception, however, for substances that are deemed "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS). GRAS status allows a product to be commercialized without any additional testing. According to US law, to be considered GRAS the substance must be the subject of a substantial amount of peer-reviewed published studies (or equivalent) and there must be overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that the product is safe. GM foods had neither. Nonetheless, in a precedent-setting move that some experts contend was illegal, in 1992 the FDA declared that GM crops are GRAS as long as their producers say they are. Thus, the FDA does not require any safety evaluations or labels whatsoever. A company can even introduce a GM food to the market without telling the agency.
Such a lenient approach to GM crops was largely the result of Monsanto’s legendary influence over the US government. According to the New York Times, "What Monsanto wished for from Washington, Monsanto and, by extension, the biotechnology industry got. . . . When the company abruptly decided that it needed to throw off the regulations and speed its foods to market, the White House quickly ushered through an unusually generous policy of self-policing." According to Dr. Henry Miller, who had a leading role in biotechnology issues at the FDA from 1979 to 1994, "In this area, the U.S. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do."
The person who oversaw the development of the FDA’s GMO policy was their Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Michael Taylor, whose position had been created especially for him in 1991. Prior to that, Taylor was an outside attorney for both Monsanto and the Food Biotechnology Council. After working at the FDA, he became Monsanto’s vice president. He’s now back at the FDA, as the US food safety czar.

Food-Chain-by-Monsanto-300x261

Covering up health dangers

The policy Taylor oversaw in 1992 needed to create the impression that unintended effects from GM crops were not an issue. Otherwise their GRAS status would be undermined. But internal memos made public from a lawsuit showed that the overwhelming consensus among the agency scientists was that GM crops can have unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. Various departments and experts spelled these out in detail, listing allergies, toxins, nutritional effects, and new diseases as potential problems. They had urged superiors to require long-term safety studies.(6) In spite of the warnings, according to public interest attorney Steven Druker who studied the FDA’s internal files, "References to the unintended negative effects of bioengineering were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement (over the protests of agency scientists)."(7)
FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl wrote about the policy, "What has happened to the scientific elements of this document? Without a sound scientific base to rest on, this becomes a broad, general, ‘What do I have to do to avoid trouble’-type document. . . . It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects."(8)
The FDA scientists’ concerns were not only ignored, their very existence was denied. Consider the private memo summarizing opinions at the FDA, which stated, "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks."(9) Contrast that with the official policy statement issued by Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney: "The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."(10) On the basis of this false statement, the FDA does not require GM food safety testing.

Fake safety assessments

Monsanto participates in a voluntary consultation process with the FDA that is derided by critics as a meaningless exercise. Monsanto submits whatever information it chooses, and the FDA does not conduct or commission any studies of its own. Former EPA scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman, who analyzed FDA review records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, says the FDA consultation process "misses obvious errors in company-submitted data summaries, provides insufficient testing guidance, and does not require sufficiently detailed data to enable the FDA to assure that GE crops are safe to eat."(11)
But that is not the point of the exercise. The FDA doesn’t actually approve the crops or declare them safe. That is Monsanto’s job! At the end of the consultation, the FDA issues a letter stating:
"Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that corn products derived from this new variety are not materially different in composition, safety, and other relevant parameters from corn currently on the market, and that the genetically modified corn does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA. . . . As you are aware, it is Monsanto’s responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are safe, wholesome and in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements."(12)
The National Academy of Sciences and even the pro-GM Royal Society of London(13) describe the US system as inadequate and flawed. The editor of the prestigious journal Lancet said, "It is astounding that the US Food and Drug Administration has not changed their stance on genetically modified food adopted in 1992. . . . Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health."(14)
One obvious reason for the inflexibility of the FDA is that they are officially charged with both regulating biotech products and promoting them — a clear conflict. That is also why the FDA does not require mandatory labeling of GM foods. They ignore the desires of 90 percent of American citizens in order to support the economic interests of Monsanto and the four other GM food companies.

 

monsanto  murderes

Monsanto’s studies are secret, inadequate, and flawed

The unpublished industry studies submitted to regulators are typically kept secret based on the claim that it is "confidential business information." The Royal Society of Canada is one of many organizations that condemn this practice. Their Expert Panel called for "completely transparent" submissions, "open to full review by scientific peers" They wrote, "Peer review and independent corroboration of research findings are axioms of the scientific method, and part of the very meaning of the objectivity and neutrality of science."(15)
Whenever Monsanto’s private submissions are made public through lawsuits or Freedom of Information Act Requests, it becomes clear why they benefit from secrecy. The quality of their research is often miserable, and would never stand up to peer-review. In December 2009, for example, a team of independent researchers published a study analyzing the raw data from three Monsanto rat studies. When they used proper statistical methods, they found that the three varieties of GM corn caused toxicity in the liver and kidneys, as well as significant changes in other organs.(16) Monsanto’s studies, of course, had claimed that the research showed no problems. The regulators had believed Monsanto, and the corn is already in our food supply.

Monsanto rigs research to miss dangers

Monsanto has plenty of experience cooking the books of their research and hiding the hazards. They manufactured the infamous Agent Orange, for example, the cancer and birth-defect causing defoliant sprayed over Vietnam. It contaminated more than three million civilians and servicemen. But according to William Sanjour, who led the Toxic Waste Division of the Environmental Protection Agency, "thousands of veterans were disallowed benefits" because "Monsanto studies showed that dioxin [the main ingredient in Agent Orange] was not a human carcinogen." But his EPA colleague discovered that Monsanto had allegedly falsified the data in their studies. Sanjour says, "If they were done correctly, [the studies] would have reached just the opposite result."
Here are examples of tinkering with the truth about Monsanto’s GM products:
• When dairy farmers inject cows with genetically modified bovine growth hormone (rbGH), more bovine growth hormone ends up in the milk. To allay fears, the FDA claimed that pasteurization destroys 90 percent of the hormone. In reality, the researchers of this drug (then owned by Monsanto) pasteurized the milk 120 times longer than normal. But they only destroyed 19 percent. So they spiked the milk with a huge amount of extra growth hormone and then repeated the long pasteurization. Only under these artificial conditions were they able to destroy 90 percent.
• To demonstrate that rbGH injections didn’t interfere with cows’ fertility, Monsanto appears to have secretly added cows to their study that were pregnant BEFORE injection.
• FDA Veterinarian Richard Burroughs said that Monsanto researchers dropped sick cows from studies, to make the drug appear safer.
• Richard Burroughs ordered more tests on rbGH than the industry wanted and was told by superiors he was slowing down the approval. He was fired and his tests canceled. The remaining whistle-blowers in the FDA had to write an anonymous letter to Congress, complaining of fraud and conflict of interest in the agency. They complained of one FDA scientist who arbitrarily increased the allowable levels of antibiotics in milk 100-fold, in order to facilitate the approval of rbGH. She had just become the head of an FDA department that was evaluating the research that she had recently done while an employee of Monsanto.
• Another former Monsanto scientist said that after company scientists conducted safety studies on bovine growth hormone, all three refused to drink any more milk, unless it was organic and therefore not treated with the drug. They feared the substantial increase of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) in the drugged milk. IGF-1 is a significant risk factor for cancer.
• When independent researchers published a study in July 1999 showing that Monsanto’s GM soy contains 12-14 percent less cancer-fighting phytoestrogens, Monsanto responded with its own study, concluding that soy’s phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even carry out a statistical analysis. Researchers failed to disclose, however, that they had instructed the laboratory to use an obsolete method of detection — one that had been prone to highly variable results.
• To prove that GM protein breaks down quickly during simulated digestion, Monsanto uses thousands of times the amount of digestive enzymes and a much stronger acid than what the World Health Organization recommends.
• Monsanto told government regulators that the GM protein produced in their high-lysine GM corn was safe for humans, because it is also found in soil. They claimed that since people consume small residues of soil on fruits and vegetables, the protein has a safe history as part of the human diet. The actual amount of the GM corn protein an average US citizen would consume, however, if all their corn were Monsanto’s variety, would be "about 30 billion to four trillion times" the amount normally consumed in soil residues. For equivalent exposure, people would have to eat as much as 22,000 pounds of soilevery second of every day.
• Monsanto’s high-lysine corn also had unusual levels of several nutritional components, such as protein and fiber. Instead of comparing it to normal corn, which would have revealed this significant disparity, Monsanto compared their GM corn to obscure corn varieties that were also far outside the normal range on precisely these values. On this basis, Monsanto could claim that there were no statistically significant differences in their GM corn content.
Methods used by Monsanto to hide problems are varied and plentiful. For example, researchers:
• Use animals with varied starting weights, to hinder the detection of food-related changes;
• Keep feeding studies short, to miss long-term impacts;
• Test Roundup Ready soybeans that have never been sprayed with Roundup — as they always are in real world conditions;
• Avoid feeding animals the GM crop, but instead give them a single dose of GM protein produced from GM bacteria;
• Use too few subjects to obtain statistical significance;
• Use poor or inappropriate statistical methods, or fail to even mention statistical methods, or include essential data; and
• Employ insensitive detection techniques — doomed to fail.
Monsanto’s 1996 Journal of Nutrition study, which was their cornerstone article for "proving" that GM soy was safe, provides plenty of examples of masterfully rigged methods.
• Researchers tested GM soy on mature animals, not the more sensitive young ones. GMO safety expert Arpad Pusztai says the older animals "would have to be emaciated or poisoned to show anything."
• Organs were never weighed.
• The GM soy was diluted up to 12 times which, according to an expert review, "would probably ensure that any possible undesirable GM effects did not occur."
• The amount of protein in the feed was "artificially too high," which would mask negative impacts of the soy.
• Samples were pooled from different locations and conditions, making it nearly impossible for compositional differences to be statistically significant.
• Data from the only side-by-side comparison was removed from the study and never published. When it was later recovered, it revealed that Monsanto’s GM soy had significantly lower levels of important constituents (e.g. protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid) and that toasted GM soy meal had nearly twice the amount of a lectin — which interferes with the body’s ability to assimilate nutrients. Moreover, the amount of trypsin inhibitor, a known soy allergen, was as much as seven times higher in cooked GM soy compared to a cooked non-GM control. Monsanto named their study, "The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans."
A paper published in Nutrition and Health analyzed all peer-reviewed feeding studies on GM foods as of 2003. It came as no surprise that Monsanto’s Journal of Nutrition study, along with the other four peer-reviewed animal feeding studies that were "performed more or less in collaboration with private companies," reported no negative effects of the GM diet. "On the other hand," they wrote, "adverse effects were reported (but not explained) in [the five] independent studies." They added, "It is remarkable that these effects have all been observed after feeding for only 10 to 14 days."(18)
A former Monsanto scientist recalls how colleagues were trying to rewrite a GM animal feeding study, to hide the ill-effects. But sometimes when study results are unmistakably damaging, Monsanto just plain lies. Monsanto’s study on Roundup, for example, showed that 28 days after application, only 2 percent of their herbicide had broken down. They nonetheless advertised the weed killer as "biodegradable," "leaves the soil clean," and "respects the environment." These statements were declared false and illegal by judges in both the US and France. The company was forced to remove "biodegradable" from the label and pay a fine.

 

evil-corporations-copy

Monsanto attacks labeling, local democracy, and news coverage

• On July 3, 2003, Monsanto sued Oakhurst dairy because their labels stated, "Our Farmers’ Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones." Oakhurst eventually settled with Monsanto, agreeing to include a sentence on their cartons saying that according to the FDA no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbGH-treated and non-rbGH-treated cows. The statement is not true. FDA scientists had acknowledged the increase of IGF-1, bovine growth hormone, antibiotics, and pus, in milk from treated cows. Nonetheless, the misleading sentence had been written years earlier by the FDA’s deputy commissioner of policy, Michael Taylor, the one who was formerly Monsanto’s outside attorney and later their vice president.
• Monsanto’s public relations firm created a group called the Dairy Coalition, which pressured editors of the USA Today, Boston Globe, New York Times and others, to limit negative coverage of rbGH.
• A Monsanto attorney wrote a letter to Fox TV, promising dire consequences if the station aired a four-part exposé on rbGH. The show was ultimately canceled.
• A book critical of Monsanto’s GM foods was three days away from being published. A threatening letter from Monsanto’s attorney forced the small publisher to cancel publication.
• 14,000 copies of Ecologist magazine dedicated to exposing Monsanto were shredded by the printer due to fears of a lawsuit.
• After a ballot initiative in California established Mendocino County as a GM-free zone — where planting GMOs is illegal, Monsanto and others organized to push through laws in 14 states that make it illegal for cities and counties to declare similar zones.

Monsanto’s promises of riches come up short

Biotech advocates have wooed politicians, claiming that their new technology is the path to riches for their city, state, or nation. "This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable," said Joseph Cortright, an Oregon economist who co-wrote a report on the subject. "This is a bad-idea virus that has swept through governors, mayors and economic development officials."(19) Indeed, The Wall Street Journal observed, "Not only has the biotech industry yielded negative financial returns for decades, it generally digs its hole deeper every year."(20) The Associated Press says it "remains a money-losing, niche industry."(21)
Nowhere in the biotech world is the bad-idea virus more toxic than in its application to GM plants. Not only does the technology under-deliver, it consistently burdens governments and entire sectors with losses and problems.
Under the first Bush administration, for example, the White House’s elite Council on Competitiveness chose to fast track GM food in hopes that it would strengthen the economy and make American products more competitive overseas. The opposite ensued. US corn exports to Europe were virtually eliminated, down by 99.4 percent. The American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) calculated that the introduction of GM corn caused a drop in corn prices by 13 to 20 percent.(22) Their CEO said, "The ACGA believes an explanation is owed to the thousands of American farmers who were told to trust this technology, yet now see their prices fall to historically low levels while other countries exploit US vulnerability and pick off our export customers one by one."(23) US soy sales also plummeted due to GM content.
According to Charles Benbrook, PhD, former executive director of the National Academy of Sciences’ Board on Agriculture, the closed markets and slashed prices forced the federal government to pay an additional $3 to $5 billion every year.(24) He says growers have only been kept afloat by the huge jump in subsidies.(25)
Instead of withdrawing support for failed GM crops, the US government has been convinced by Monsanto and others that the key to success is to force open foreign markets to GMOs. But many nations are also reeling under the false promise of GMOs.

Canola crashes on GM

When Canada became the only major producer to adopt GM canola in 1996, it led to a disaster. The premium-paying EU market, which took about one-third of Canada’s canola exports in 1994 and one-fourth in 1995, stopped all imports from Canada by 1998. The GM canola was diverted to the low-priced Chinese market. Not only did Canadian canola prices fall to a record low,(26) Canada even lost their EU honey exports due to the GM pollen contamination.
Australia benefited significantly from Canada’s folly. By 2006, the EU was buying 38 percent of Australia’s canola exports.(27) Nonetheless, Monsanto’s people in Australia claimed that GM canola was the way to get more competitive. They told farmers that Roundup Ready canola would yield up to 30 percent more. But when an investigator looked at the best trial yields on Monsanto’s web site, it was 17 percent below the national average canola yield. When that was publicized, the figures quickly disappeared from the Monsanto’s site. Two Aussie states did allow GM canola and sure enough, they are suffering from loss of foreign markets.
In Australia and elsewhere, the non-GMO farmers also suffer. Market prices drop, and farmers spend more to set up segregation systems, GMO testing, buffer zones, and separate storage and shipping channels to try to hold onto non-GMO markets. Even then, they risk contamination and lost premiums.

Monsanto-41377

GM farmers don’t earn or produce more

Monsanto has been quite successful in convincing farmers that GM crops are the ticket to greater yields and higher profits. You still hear that rhetoric at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). But a 2006 USDA report "could not find positive financial impacts in either the field-level nor the whole-farm analysis" for adoption of Bt corn and Roundup Ready soybeans. They said, "Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of [GM] crops when farmfinancial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative."(28)
Similarly, the Canadian National Farmers Union (NFU) flatly states, "The claim that GM seeds make our farms more profitable is false."(29) Net farm incomes in Canada plummeted since the introduction of GM canola, with the last five years being the worst in Canada’s history.
In spite of numerous advertising claims that GM crops increase yield, the average GM crop from Monsanto reduces yield. This was confirmed by the most comprehensive evaluation on the subject, conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2009. Called Failure to Yield, the report demonstrated that in spite of years of trying, GM crops return fewer bushels than their non-GM counterparts. Even the 2006 USDA report stated that "currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential of a hybrid variety. . . . In fact, yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars."(30)
US farmers had expected higher yields with Roundup Ready soybeans, but independent studies confirm a yield loss of 4 to 11percent.(31) Brazilian soybean yields are also down since Roundup Ready varieties were introduced.(32) In Canada, a study showed a 7.5 percent lower yield with Roundup Ready canola.(33)
The Canadian National Farmers Union (NFU) observed, "Corporate and government managers have spent millions trying to convince farmers and other citizens of the benefits of genetically-modified (GM) crops. But this huge public relations effort has failed to obscure the truth: GM crops do not deliver the promised benefits; they create numerous problems, costs, and risks. . . . It would be too generous even to call GM crops a solution in search of a problem: These crops have failed to provide significant solutions."(34)

Herbicide use rising due to GMOs

Monsanto bragged that their Roundup Ready technology would reduce herbicide, but at the same time they were building new Roundup factories to meet their anticipated increase in demand. They got it. According to USDA data, the amount of herbicide used in the US increased by 382.6 million pounds over 13 years. Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans accounted for 92 percent of the total increase. Due to the proliferation of Roundup resistant weeds, herbicide use is accelerating rapidly. From 2007 to 2008, herbicide used on GM herbicide tolerant crops skyrocketed by 31.4 percent.(35) Furthermore, as weeds fail to respond to Roundup, farmers also rely on more toxic pesticides such as the highly poisonous 2,4-D.

Contamination happens

In spite of Monsanto’s assurances that it wouldn’t be a problem, contamination has been a consistent and often overwhelming hardship for seed dealers, farmers, manufacturers, even entire food sectors. The biotech industry recommends buffer zones between fields, but these have not been competent to protect non-GM, organic, or wild plants from GMOs. A UK study showed canola cross-pollination occurring as far as 26 km away.(36)
But pollination is just one of several ways that contamination happens. There is also seed movement by weather and insects, crop mixing during harvest, transport, and storage, and very often, human error. The contamination is North America is so great, it is difficult for farmers to secure pure non-GM seed. In Canada, a study found 32 of 33 certified non-GM canola seeds were contaminated.(37) Most of the non-GM soy, corn, and canola seeds tested in the US also contained GMOs.(38)
Contamination can be very expensive. StarLink corn — unapproved for human consumption — ended up the US food supply in 2000 and resulted in an estimated price tag of $1 billion. The final cost of GM rice contamination in the US in 2006 could be even higher.

Deadly deception in India

Monsanto ran a poster series called, "TRUE STORIES OF FARMERS WHO HAVE SOWN BT COTTON." One featured a farmer who claimed great benefits, but when investigators tracked him down, he turned out to be a cigarette salesman, not a farmer. Another poster claimed yields by the pictured farmer that were four times what he actually achieved. One poster showed a farmer standing next to a tractor, suggesting that sales of Bt cotton allowed him to buy it. But the farmer was never told what the photo was to be used for, and said that with the yields from Bt, "I would not be able to buy even two tractor tires."
In addition to posters, Monsanto’s cotton marketers used dancing girls, famous Bollywood actors, even religious leaders to pitch their products. Some newspaper ads looked like a news stories and featured relatives of seed salesmen claiming to be happy with Bt. Sometimes free pesticides were given away with the seeds, and some farmers who helped with publicity got free seeds.
Scientists published a study claiming that Monsanto’s cotton increased yields in India by 70 to 80 percent. But they used only field trial data provided to them by Monsanto. Actual yields turn out to be quite different:
India News(39) reported studies showing a loss of about 18 percent.
• An independent study in Andhra Pradesh "done on [a] season-long basis continuously for three years in 87 villages" showed that growing Bt cotton cost 12 percent more, yielded 8.3 percent less, and the returns over three years were 60 percent less.(40)
• Another report identified a yield loss in the Warangal district of 30 to 60 percent. The official report, however, was tampered with. The local Deputy Director of Agriculture confirmed on Feb. 1, 2005 that the yield figures had been secretly increased to 2.7 times higher than what farms reported. Once the state of Andhra Pradesh tallied all the actual yields, they demanded approximately $10 million USD from Monsanto to compensate farmers for losses. Monsanto refused.
In sharp contrast to the independent research done by agronomists, Monsanto commissioned studies to be done by market research agencies. One, for example, claimed four times the actual reduction in pesticide use, 12 times the actual yield, and 100 times the actual profit.(41)
In Andhra Pradesh, where 71 percent of farmers who used Bt cotton ended up with financial losses, farmers attacked the seed dealer’s office and even "tied up Mahyco Monsanto representatives in their villages," until the police rescued them.(42)
In spite of great losses and unreliable yields, Monsanto has skillfully eliminated the availability of non-GM cotton seeds in many regions throughout India, forcing farmers to buy their varieties.
Farmers borrow heavily and at high interest rates to pay four times the price for the GM varieties, along with the chemicals needed to grow them. When Bt cotton performs poorly and can’t even pay back the debt, desperate farmers resort to suicide, often drinking unused pesticides. In one region, more than three Bt cotton farmers take their own lives each day. The UK Daily Mail estimates that the total number of Bt cotton-related suicides in India is a staggering 125,000.

bonfire2-s

Doctors orders: no genetically modified food

A greater tragedy may be the harm from the dangerous GM foods produced by Monsanto. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has called on all physicians to prescribe dietswithout GM foods to all patients.(43) They called for a moratorium on GMOs, long-term independent studies, and labeling. They stated, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation…"
Former AAEM President Dr. Jennifer Armstrong says, "Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions." Renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava believes that GMOs are a major contributor to the deteriorating health in America.

Pregnant women and babies at great risk

GM foods are particularly dangerous for pregnant moms and children. After GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died — compared to 10 percent deaths among controls fed natural soy.(44) GM-fed babies were smaller, and possibly infertile.(45)
Testicles of rats fed GM soy changed from the normal pink to dark blue.(46) Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.(47) Embryos of GM soy-fed parent mice had changed DNA.(48) And mice fed GM corn had fewer, and smaller, babies.(49)
In Haryana, India, most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had reproductive complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, and infertility; many calves died. About two dozen US farmers said thousands of pigs became sterile from certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile.(50)
In the US, incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.

Food that produces poison

Monsanto’s GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce a built-in pesticide called Bt-toxin — produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis. When bugs bite the plant, poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Organic farmers and others use natural Bt bacteria spray for insect control, so Monsanto claims that Bt-toxin must be safe.
The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic,(51) has properties of an allergen, and cannot be washed off the plant.
Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural spray can be harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in Washington and Vancouver, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms.(52)(53) The same symptoms are now reported by farm workers from handling Bt cotton throughout India.(54)

death by baby rats from GMO soy

GMOs provoke immune reactions

GMO safety expert Arpad Pusztai says changes in immune status are "a consistent feature of all the [animal] studies."(55) From Monsanto’s own research to government funded trials, rodents fed Bt corn had significant immune reactions.(56)(57)
Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent. Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says "I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it."
GM soy and corn contain new proteins with allergenic properties,(58) and GM soy has up to seven times more of a known soy allergen.(59) Perhaps the US epidemic of food llergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

Animals dying in large numbers

In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Investigators said preliminary evidence "strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin."(60) In one small study, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died; those fed natural plants remained healthy.
In an Andhra Pradesh village, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On Jan. 3, 2008, 13 buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All died within three days.(61) Monsanto’s Bt corn is also implicated in the deaths horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in the Philippines.(62)
Lab studies of GM crops by other companies also show mortalities. Twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; seven of 40 rats fed a GM tomato died within two weeks.(63) And a farmer in Germany says his cows died after exclusively eating Syngenta’s GM corn.

GMOs remain inside of us

The only published human feeding study revealed that even after we stop eating GMOs, harmful GM proteins may be produced continuously inside of us; genes inserted into Monsanto’s GM soy transfer into bacteria inside our intestines and continue to function.(64) If Bt genes also transfer, eating corn chips might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.

Hidden dangers

Biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute says, "If there are problems [with GMOs], we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop." In the nine years after GM crops were introduced in 1996, Americans with three or more chronic diseases jumped from 7 percent to 13 percent.(65) But without any human clinical trials or post marketing surveillance, we may never know if GMOs are a contributor.

Un-recallable contamination

In spite of the enormous health dangers, the environmental impacts may be worse still. That is because we don’t have a technology to fully clean up the contaminated gene pool. The self-propagating genetic pollution released into the environment from Monsanto’s crops can outlast the effects of climate change and nuclear waste.

anna

Replacing nature: "Nothing shall be eaten that we don’t own"

As Monsanto has moved forward with its master plan to replace nature, they have led the charge in buying up seed businesses and are now the world’s largest. At least 200 independent seed companies have disappeared over 13 years, non-GMO seed availability is dwindling, and Monsanto is jacking up their seed prices dramatically. Corn is up more than 30 percent and soy nearly 25 percent, over 2008 prices.(66)
An Associated Press exposé (67) reveals how Monsanto’s onerous contracts allowed them to manipulate, then dominate, the seed industry using unprecedented legal restrictions. One contract provision, for example, "prevented bidding wars" and "likely helped Monsanto buy 24 independent seed companies throughout the Farm Belt over the last few years: that corn seed agreement says that if a smaller company changes ownership, its inventory with Monsanto’s traits ‘shall be destroyed immediately.’"
With that restriction in place, the seed companies couldn’t even think of selling to a company other than Monsanto. According to attorney David Boies, who represents DuPont — owner of Pioneer Seeds: "If the independent seed company is losing their license and has to destroy their seeds, they’re not going to have anything, in effect, to sell," Boies said. "It requires them to destroy things — destroy things they paid for — if they go competitive. That’s exactly the kind of restriction on competitive choice that the antitrust laws outlaw." Boies was a prosecutor on the antitrust case against Microsoft. He is now working with DuPont in their civil antitrust lawsuit against Monsanto.
Monsanto also has the right to cancel deals and wipe out the inventory of a business if the confidentiality clauses are violated:
"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable,’ said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades."
Monsanto also controls and manipulates farmers through onerous contracts. Troy Roush, for example, is one of hundreds accused by Monsanto of illegally saving their seeds. The company requires farmers to sign a contract that they will not save and replant GM seeds from their harvest. That way Monsanto can sell its seeds — at a premium — each season.
Although Roush maintains his innocence, he was forced to settle with Monsanto after two and a half years of court battles. He says his "family was just destroyed [from] the stress involved." Many farmers are afraid, according to Roush, because Monsanto has "created a little industry that serves no other purpose than to wreck farmers’ lives." Monsanto has collected an estimated $200 million from farmers thus far.
Roush says, "They are in the process of owning food, all food." Paraguayan farmer Jorge Galeano says, "Its objective is to control all of the world’s food production." Renowned Indian physicist and community organizer Vandana Shiva says, "If they control seed, they control food; they know it, it’s strategic. It’s more powerful than bombs; it’s more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world."
Our food security lies in diversity — both biodiversity, and diversity of owners and interests. Any single company that consolidates ownership of seeds, and therefore power over the food supply, is a dangerous threat. Of all the corporations in the world, however, the one we should trust the least is Monsanto. With them at the helm, the impact could be cataclysmic.
To learn more about the health dangers of GMOs, and what you can do to help end the genetic engineering of our food supply, visit www.ResponsibleTechnology.org.
To learn how to choose healthier non-GMO brands, visit www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.

About the author

International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey Smith is the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified (GM) foods. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the world’s bestselling and #1 rated book on the topic. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, provides overwhelming evidence that GMOs are unsafe and should never have been introduced. Mr. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, whose Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to create the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs, forcing them out of our food supply. Watch the free online video today, for the big picture.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/029325_Monsanto_deception.html#ixzz278X1hrvY

**********************************

bill_gates_raw_milk_monsanto

Monsanto nation: Exposing Monsanto’s minions

Wednesday, February 09, 2011 by: Ronnie Cummins

(NaturalNews) My expose last week, The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto: What Now?(http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22449.cfm) has ignited a long-overdue debate on how to stop Monsanto’s earth killing, market-monopolizing, climate-destabilizing rampage.
Should we basically resign ourselves to the fact that the Biotech Bully of St. Louis controls the dynamics of the marketplace and public policy? Should we seek some kind of practical compromise or "coexistence" between organics and genetically modified organisms (GMOs)? Should we focus our efforts on crop pollution compensation and "controlled deregulation" of genetically engineered (GE) crops, rather than campaign for an outright ban, or mandatory labeling and safety-testing? Should we prepare ourselves for a future farm landscape where the U.S.’s 23 million acres of alfalfa, the nation’s fourth largest crop, (93 percent of which are currently not sprayed with toxic herbicides), including organic alfalfa, are sprayed with Roundup and/or genetically polluted with Monsanto’s mutant genes?
Or should we stand up and say "Hell no" to Monsanto and the Obama Administration? Should we stop all the talk about coexistence between organics and GMOs; unite Millions Against Monsanto, mobilize like never before at the grassroots; put enormous pressure on the nation’s grocers to truthfully label the thousands of so-called conventional or "natural" foods containing or produced with GMOs; and then slowly but surely drive GMOs from the market?
Of course "coexistence" and "controlled deregulation" are now irrelevant in regard to Monsanto’s herbicide-resistant alfalfa. Just after my essay was posted last week, the White House gave marching orders to the USDA to allow Monsanto and its minions to plant GE Roundup-resistant alfalfa on millions of acres, from sea to shining sea, with no restrictions whatsoever.
"Bill Tomson and Scott Kilman of the Wall Street Journal reported that Vilsack’s rejection of a compromise proposal – partial deregulation, which was vehemently opposed by biotech companies and only tepidly accepted by non-GE interests – was the result of an Obama administration review of ‘burdensome’ regulations."
"Sources familiar with the negotiations at USDA, who preferred to remain anonymous, told Food Safety News they believe the White House asked Vilsack to drop proposed regulations so the administration would appear more friendly to big business," said Helena Bottemiller of Food Safety News
This post-holiday gift to Monsanto from the White House is ominous. After the deliberate contamination of 20 million acres of U.S. alfalfa, we can then expect Monsanto and corporate agribusiness to call for GMOs to be allowed under the National Organic Standards. But of course let us hope we get another temporary reprieve from the same federal judge in California who halted the planting of GE alfalfa previously, since the USDA has still failed to demonstrate in their current Environmental Impact Statement that Monsanto’s alfalfa is safe for the environment.

 

282643_135763599843399_100002292788597_252115_4909813_n

Organic Infighting

Whole Foods and others spent a lot of time this week on their blogs and on the Internet attacking me and the Organic Consumers Association for supposedly mischaracterizing their position on "coexistence" with Monsanto. In an internal company memorandum, marked "For Internal Use Only – Do Not Distribute" January 30, 2011, Whole Foods execs basically told their employees that the OCA is spreading lies to "uniformed consumers" in exchange for money and publicity. Quoting directly from the WFM company memo:
"Why is the OCA spreading misinformation? That’s a hard question for us to answer. Perhaps because we don’t share their narrow view of what it means to support organics, or perhaps because we do not support them with donations. Either way, it’s a shame that an organization that claims to "campaign for health, justice and sustainability" can’t simply tell the truth. This just confuses consumers. Despite all their noise, no industry leaders listen to the OCA – but uninformed consumers might. Their fear-mongering tactics, combined with the OCA’s lack of transparency about its funding sources, underscore the fact that it is neither credible nor trustworthy. We can only assume their activities are intended for further fund-raising. "
After bashing the OCA, Whole Foods then goes on to admit that WFM stores are filled with conventional and "natural" products that are contaminated with GMOs (they neglect to mention to their staff that these conventional and "natural" products make up approximately two-thirds of WFM’s total sales). Again quoting directly:
"The reality is that no grocery store in the United States, no matter what size or type of business, can claim they are GE-free. While we have been and will continue to be staunch supporters of non-GE foods, we are not going to mislead our customers with an inaccurate claim (and you should question anyone who does). Here’s why: the pervasive planting of GE crops in the U.S. and their subsequent use in our national food supply. [Ninety-three percent] of soy, 86% of corn, 93% of cotton, and 93% of canola seed planted in the U.S. in 2010 were genetically engineered. Since these crops are commonly present in a wide variety of foods, a GE-free store is currently not possible in the U.S. (unless the store sells only organic foods.)"
But of course we are not asking WFM to lie to or "mislead" their customers, to claim that all their products are GMO-free, or to sell only organically certified foods. On the contrary, we are simply asking them to abandon the "business as usual" industry practice of remaining silent on the scope and degree of contamination in the billions of dollars of non-organic food they are selling to unwitting consumers every year. What we are asking is that WFM ethically lead the way – in what is now a very unethical marketplace – by admitting publicly (not just in an internal memo) that a major portion of the non-organic foods they are selling (especially processed foods and animal products) are contaminated with GMOs. Then we want them to take the next step and announce that they will start labeling these GMOand/or CAFO foods truthfully, meanwhile pressuring their non-organic food suppliers to either reformulate products with non-GMO ingredients or start making the transition to organic.
Let us hope that WFM eventually does the right thing. It’s unlikely WFM will adopt Truth-in-Labeling unless they get a massive amount of pressure from their customers, workers, and natural food competitors. But if we can build a grassroots movement strong enough to convince WFM and other natural food stores to adopt Truth-in-Labeling practices, there will be enormous pressure in the marketplace for other larger supermarket chains to follow suit. However, if WFM and other grocery stores refuse to voluntarily label GMO and CAFO products, OCA is prepared to mobilize nationwide to press for mandatory labeling ordinances at the city, county, and state level.
To sign up as a grassroots coordinator for OCA’s Millions Against Monsanto and Factory Farms Truth-in-Labeling Campaign go to: http://organicconsumers.org/oca-volunteer/.

Beyond Organic Infighting

The good news this week is that WFM, Organic Valley, Stonyfield, the National Coop Grocers Association and the Organic Trade Association have been making strong statements about fighting against GMOs. In a lengthy telephone conversation two days ago with Organic Valley CEO George Sieman, George told me how angry he was at me and the OCA, but he also said that Organic Valley was going to step up the fight against Monsanto. I said I was glad to hear this. I told him that OCA was going to do the same. I told him that our Millions Against Monsanto Truth-in-Labeling campaign is already attracting thousands of volunteers all across the USA and that we weren’t going to give up until grocery stores, natural food stores, and co-ops start labeling conventional and "natural" products containing GMOs or coming from CAFOs.
We’ll certainly see Organic Valley and the rest of the organic industry’s pledge to fight GMOs put to the test in the near future, when the USDA unleashes genetically engineered sugar beets for nationwide planting. But given the need for a united front, OCA would like to stress that Whole Foods Market is not the enemy. Wal-Mart and Monsanto are the enemy. Stonyfield Farm is not the enemy. The Biotechnology Industry Association, Archer Daniels Midland, and Cargill are the enemy. Organic Valley is not the enemy. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, Kraft and Dean Foods are the enemy. OCA wants the organic community to unite our forces, cut the B.S. about "coexistence," and move forward with an aggressive campaign to drive GMOs and CAFOs off the market.

 

16

Monsanto’s Minions: The White House, Congress, and the Mass Media

The United States is rapidly devolving into what can only be described as a Monsanto Nation. Despite Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton’s) campaign operatives in 2008 publicly stating that Obama supported mandatory labels for GMOs, we haven’t heard a word from the White House on this topic since Inauguration Day. Michele Obama broke ground for an organic garden at the White House in early 2009, but after protests from the pesticide and biotech industry, the forbidden "O" (organic) word was dropped from White House PR. Since day one, the Obama Administration has mouthed biotech propaganda, claiming, with no scientific justification whatsoever, that biotech crops can feed the world and enable farmers to increase production in the new era of climate change and extreme weather.
Like Obama’s campaign promises to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; like his promises to bring out-of-control banksters and oil companies under control; like his promises to drastically reduce greenhouse gas pollution and create millions of green jobs; Obama has not come though on his 2008 campaign promise to label GMOs. His unilateral approval of Monsanto’s genetically engineered alfalfa, overruling the federal courts, scientists, and the organic community, offers the final proof: don’t hold your breath for this man to do anything that might offend Monsanto or Corporate America.
Obama’s Administration, like the Bush and Clinton Administrations before him, has become a literal "revolving door" for Monsanto operatives. President Obama stated on the campaign trail in 2007-2008 that agribusiness cannot be trusted with the regulatory powers of government.
But, starting with his choice for USDA Secretary, the pro-biotech former governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack, President Obama has let Monsanto and the biotech industry know they’ll have plenty of friends and supporters within his administration. President Obama has taken his team of food and farming leaders directly from the biotech companies and their lobbying, research, and philanthropic arms:
Michael Taylor, former Monsanto Vice President, is now the FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods. Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto-funded Danforth Plant Science Center, is now the director of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Islam Siddiqui, Vice President of the Monsanto and Dupont-funded pesticide-promoting lobbying group, CropLife, is now the Agriculture Negotiator for the U.S. Trade Representative. Rajiv Shah former agricultural-development director for the pro-biotech Gates Foundation (a frequent Monsanto partner), served as Obama’s USDA Under-Secretary for Research Education and Economics and Chief Scientist and is now head of USAID. Elena Kagan, who, as President Obama’s Solicitor General, took Monsanto’s side against organic farmers in the Roundup Ready alfalfa case, is now on the Supreme Court. Ramona Romero, corporate counsel to DuPont, has been nominated by President Obama to serve as General Counsel for the USDA.
Of course, America’s indentured Congress is no better than the White House when it comes to promoting sane and sustainable public policy. According to Food and Water Watch, Monsanto and the biotech industry have spent more than half a billion dollars ($547 million) lobbying Congress since 1999. Big Biotech’s lobby expenditures have accelerated since Obama’s election in 2008. In 2009 alone Monsanto and the biotech lobby spent $71 million. Last year Monsanto’s minions included over a dozen lobbying firms, as well as their own in-house lobbyists.
America’s bought-and-sold mass media have likewise joined the ranks of Monsanto’s minions. Do a Google search on a topic like citizens’ rights to know whether our food has been genetically engineered or not, or on the hazards of GMOs and their companion pesticide Roundup, and you’ll find very little in the mass media. However, do a Google search on the supposed benefits of Monsanto’s GMOs, and you’ll find more articles in the daily press than you would ever want to read.
Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) recently introduced a bill in Congress calling for mandatory labeling and safety testing for GMOs, don’t hold your breath for Congress to take a stand for truth-in-labeling and consumers’ right to know what’s in their food. In a decade of Congressional lobbying, the OCA has never seen more than 24 out of 435 Congressional Representatives co-sponsor one of Kucinich’s GMO labeling bills. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the outrageous "Citizens United" case gave big corporations like Monsanto the right to spend unlimited amounts of money (and remain anonymous, as they do so) to buy elections, our chances of passing federal GMO labeling laws against the wishes of Monsanto and Food Inc. are all but non-existent. Keep in mind that one of the decisive Supreme Court swing votes in the "Citizen’s United’ case was cast by the infamous Justice Clarence Thomas, former General Counsel for Monsanto.
To maneuver around Monsanto’s minions in Washington we need to shift our focus and go local. We’ve got to concentrate our forces where our leverage and power lie – in the marketplace at the retail level. We need to pressure retail food stores to voluntarily label their products, while on the legislative front we must organize a broad coalition to pass mandatory GMO (and CAFO) labeling laws, at the city, county, and state levels. And while we’re doing this we need to join forces with the growing national movement to get corporate money out of politics and the media and to take away the fictitious "corporate personhood" (i.e. the legal right of corporations to have all the rights of human citizens, without the responsibility, obligations, and liability of real persons) of Monsanto and the corporate elite.

Monsanto_550x440

Monsanto’s Minions: Frankenfarmers in the Fields

The unfortunate bottom line is that most of the North American farmers who have planted Monsanto’s Roundup-resistant or Bt-spliced crops (soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets, or alfalfa) are either brain-washed, intimidated (Monsanto has often contaminated non-GMO farmers crops and then threatened to sue them for "intellectual property violations" if they didn’t sign a contract to buy GMO seeds and sign a confidentiality contract to never talk to the media), or ethically challenged. These "commodity farmers," who receive billions of dollars a year in taxpayer subsidies to plant their Frankencrops and spray their toxic chemicals and fertilizers, don’t seem to give a damn about the human health hazards of chemical, energy, and GMO-intensive agriculture; the cruelty, disease and filth of factory farms or CAFOs (Confined Animal Feedlot Operations); or the damage they are causing to the soil, water, and climate. Likewise they have expressed little or no concern over the fact that they are polluting the land and the crops of organic and non-GMO farmers.
Unfortunately, these Frankenfarmers, Monsanto’s minions, have now been allowed to plant GMO crops on 150 million acres, approximately one-third of all USA cropland. With GE alfalfa they’ll be planting millions of acres more.
The time has come to move beyond polite debate with America’s Frankenfarmers, and their powerful front groups such as the American Farm Bureau, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association. "Coexistence" is a joke when you are dealing with indentured minions whose only ethical guideline is making money. When I asked a French organic farmer a few years ago what he thought about the idea of coexistence with GE crops and farmers, he laughed. "If my neighbor dared to plant Monsanto’s GM crops, I’d hop on my tractor and plow them up." Thousands of European farmers and organic activists have indeed uprooted test plots of GMOs over the past decade. Unfortunately if you get caught destroying Frankencrops in the USA, you’ll likely be branded a terrorist and sent to prison.
Apart from direct action, it’s time to start suing, not just Monsanto and the other biotech bullies, but the Frankenfarmers themselves. Attorneys have pointed out to me that the legal precedent of "Toxic Trespass" is firmly established in American case law. If a farmer carelessly or deliberately sprays pesticides or herbicides on his or her property, and this toxic chemical strays or "trespasses" and causes damage to a neighbor’s property, the injured party can sue the "toxic trespasser" and collect significant damages. It’s time for America’s organic and non-GMO farmers to get off their knees and fight, both in the courts and in the court of public opinion. The Biotech Empire of Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Bayer, BASF, and Syngenta will collapse if its Frankenfarmers are threatened with billions of dollars in toxic trespass damages.

Monsanto’s Minions: Retail Grocery Stores, Factory Farms, Restaurants, and Garden Supply Stores

It’s important to understand where GMOs are sold or consumed, and who’s selling them. Twenty-five percent of GMOs end up in non-labeled, non-organic processed food, the so-called conventional or "natural" foods sold in grocery stores or restaurants; while the remaining 75 percent are forced-fed to animals on non-organic farms, factory farms, or CAFOs; or else sold internationally, often without the informed consent of overseas consumers. This means we need to identify and boycott, not only so-called conventional or "natural" foods containing soy, soy lecithin, corn, corn sweetener, canola, cottonseed oil, and sugar beet sweetener, but all non-organic meat, dairy, and eggs that come from factory farms or CAFOs. Once Truth-in-Labeling practices are implemented it will be relatively easy for consumers to identify and avoid products that are labeled "May Contain GMOs" or "CAFO."
Although most of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide sales are directly to farmers, a considerable amount of Roundup is sold in garden supply stores, supplying backyard gardeners, landscapers, and golf courses. Municipal and state governments also spray Roundup in parks and along roadways, while the DEA sprays large amounts of Roundup in rural villages in Colombia and the Andes, part of the insane and murderous War on Drugs.

Monsanto’s Minions: Consumers

Millions of health, climate, and environmental-minded consumers are starting to realize that we must vote with our consumer food dollars if we want health, justice, and sustainability. Unfortunately, millions of others are still mindlessly consuming and over consuming processed foods, junk foods, and cheap, contaminated meat and animal products. The only guaranteed way to avoid GMOs completely is to buy organic foods or to grow your own, and stay away from restaurants (unless they are organic) and fast food outlets. Otherwise, if you are contemplating the purchase of a conventional or "natural" food check the ingredients panel carefully. Avoid all non-organic products that contain soy, soy lecithin, corn, corn sweetener, canola, cottonseed oil, and sugar beet sweetener.

mam2-140w

Millions Against Monsanto

We must draw hope from the fact that Monsanto is not invincible. After 16 years of non-stop biotech bullying and force-feeding Genetically Engineered or Modified (GE or GM) crops to farm animals and "Frankenfoods" to unwitting consumers, Monsanto has a big problem, or rather several big problems. A growing number of published scientific studies indicate that GE foods pose serious human health threats. Federal judges are finally starting to acknowledge what organic farmers and consumers have said all along: uncontrollable and unpredictable GMO crops such as alfalfa and sugar beets spread their mutant genes onto organic farms and into non-GMO varieties and plant relatives, and should be halted.
Monsanto’s Roundup, the agro-toxic companion herbicide for millions of acres of GM soybeans, corn, cotton, alfalfa, canola, and sugar beets, is losing market share. Its overuse has spawned a new generation of superweeds that can only be killed with super-toxic herbicides such as 2,4, D and paraquat. Moreover, patented "Roundup Ready" crops require massive amounts of climate destabilizing nitrate fertilizer. Compounding Monsanto’s damage to the environment and climate, rampant Roundup use is literally killing the soil, destroying essential soil microorganisms, degrading the living soil’s ability to capture and sequester CO2, and spreading deadly plant diseases.
In just one year, Monsanto has moved from being Forbes’ "Company of the Year" to the Worst Stock of the Year. The Biotech Bully of St. Louis has become one of the most hated corporations on Earth.
The biotech bullies and the Farm Bureau have joined hands with the Obama Administration to force controversial Fankencrops like alfalfa onto the market. But as African-American revolutionary Huey Newton pointed out in the late 1960’s, "The Power of the People is greater than the Man’s technology." Join us as we take on Monsanto and their Minions. Our life and our children’s "right to a future" depend upon the outcome of this monumental battle.
Please sign up now as a volunteer grassroots coordinator for OCA’s Millions Against Monsanto and Factory Farms Truth-in-Labeling Campaign: http://organicconsumers.org/oca-volunteer/

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031263_Monsanto_organic_consumers.html#ixzz278Xa0aus

**********************************

Monsanto: History of Contamination and Cover-up

Friday, May 16, 2008 by: Barbara L. Minton

do_seed_companies_control_gm_crop_research_1

(NaturalNews) The new Monsanto has clearly come to dominate the American food chain with its genetically modified (GM) seeds. It’s a master at enforcing its 674 biotechnology patents, using tyrannical and ruthless tactics against small farmers. This new Monsanto has also moved into the production of milk with it artificial growth hormones, seeking to dominate the dairy industry as effectively as it has the seed business. Has this new corporate image made us forget about the old Monsanto’s decades long history of scorched earth and toxic contamination?
An article in the May, 2008 edition of Vanity Fairchronicles the history of Monsanto from its beginnings to its efforts to shed itself of the image of toxic environmental and human threat.
A short history
Monsanto was founded in 1901 by John Francis Queeny who had an idea to make money manufacturing saccharin, an artificial sweetener then imported from Germany. He called his company Monsanto Chemical Works. The German cartel then controlling the market for saccharin tried to force Queeny out of business, but his persistence and the loyalty of one steady customer, Coca-Cola, kept the company going. Vanillin, caffeine, sedative drugs, laxatives and aspirin had been added to the arsenal of products when supplies were cut off from Europe during World War I, forcing Monsanto to manufacture its own, and positioning it as a leading force in the American chemical industry.
In the 1920’s, Queeny’s son took over and built Monsanto into a global powerhouse, extending into the production of an astounding array of plastic, rubber and vinyl goods, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.
In the 1970’s Monsanto moved into biotechnology. By 1982 it had become the first to genetically modify a plant cell, making it possible to introduce virtually any gene into plant cells to improve crop productivity. According to Vanity Fair writers Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, Monsanto sought to portray GM seeds as a panacea for alleviating poverty and feeding the hungry.
During the late 1990’s, Monsanto spun off its chemical and fibers businesses into a new company called Solutia. It then reincorporated itself and emerged as an agricultural company.
Company literature refers to Monsanto as a "relatively new company" with the primary goal of helping "farmers around the world in their mission to feed, clothe and fuel" the planet. The listed corporate milestones are from the recent era. There is no mention of the old Monsanto’s potential responsibility for more than 50 Environmental Protection Agency Superfund sites. And it does not mention that the reason for the formation of Solutia was to channel the bulk of the mounting chemical lawsuits and liabilities into the spun off company, keeping the new Monsanto name tarnish-free.
But keeping the new corporate image polished may be a tough task. For many years Monsanto produced two of the most toxic substances ever known –- polychlorinated biphenyls, known as PCBs, and dioxin. Several court proceedings regarding these substances remain unresolved.
Toxic storm
In the town of Nitro, West Virginia, Monsanto operated a chemical plant from 1929 to 1995, making an herbicide that had dioxin as a by-product. The name dioxin refers to a group of highly toxic chemicals that have been linked to heart and liver disease, human reproductive disorders, and developmental problems. Dioxin persists in the environment and accumulates in the body, even in small amounts. In 2001, the U.S. government listed dioxin as a "known human carcinogen".
In 1949, at the Nitro plant, a pressure valve blew on a container of this herbicide, producing a plume of vapor and white smoke that drifted out over the town. Residue coated the interior of buildings and those inside them with a fine black powder. Within days, workers experienced skin eruptions, and many were diagnosed with chloracne, a long lasting and disfiguring condition. Others felt intense pains in their chest, legs and trunk. A medical report from the time said the explosion "caused a systemic intoxication in the workers involving most major organ systems." Doctors detected a strong odor coming from the patients they described as men "excreting a foreign chemical through their skins".

Monsanto__Take_your_Poison__D_by_Rasa13

 

Monsanto downplayed the incident, saying that the contaminant was "fairly slow acting" and only an irritant to the skin.
Meanwhile, the Nitro plant continued to produce herbicides, In the 1960’s it manufactured Agent Orange, the powerful herbicide used by the U.S. military to defoliate jungles during the Vietnam War, and which became the focus of lawsuits by veterans contending they had been harmed by exposure to the chemical. Agent Orange also created dioxin as a by-product.
At the Nitro plant, dioxin waste went into landfills, storm drains, streams, sewers, into bags with the herbicide, and then the waste was burned out into the air. Dioxin from the plant can still be found in nearby streams, rivers, and fish. Residents have sued Monsanto and Solutia for damages, but Monsanto claims "the allegations are without merit" and promises to vigorously defend itself. The suit may drag on for years. Monsanto has the resources to wait; plaintiffs usually don’t.
Poisoned earth
From 1929 to 1971, the Anniston, Alabama plant produced PCBs as industrial coolants and insulating fluids for transformers and other electrical equipment. PCBs became central to American industries as lubricants, hydraulic fluids, and sealants. PCBs are highly toxic members of a family of chemicals that mimic hormones, and have been linked to damage in the liver and nervous system, as well as immune, endocrine and reproductive disorders. The Environmental Protective Agency (EPA), and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, part of Health and Human Services, classify PCBs as "probably carcinogens".
Today, after tons of contaminated soil have been removed in an effort to reclaim the Anniston site, the area around the old Monsanto plant continues to be one of the most polluted spots in the U.S. While the plant was in production, excess PCBs were dumped in a nearby open-pit landfill or allowed to flow off the property with storm water. Some were poured directly into a creek running alongside the plant and emptying into a larger stream. PCBs are contained in private lawns fertilized with soil from the plant.
The people of Anniston have breathed air, planted gardens, drunk from wells, fished in rivers, and swum in creeks contaminated with PCBs without knowing the danger. As public awareness grew in the 1990’s, health authorities found elevated levels of PCBs in houses, yards, streams, fields, fish –- and people. The cleanup is now underway, and will take years, but once PCB is absorbed into human tissue, it is there forever.
Monsanto closed its PBC plant in Wales in 1977. In recent years, residents of Groesfaen, in southern Wales, have noticed vile odors emanating from an old quarry outside their village. As it turns out, Monsanto dumped thousands of tons of waste from its nearby PCB plant into the quarry. British authorities have identified the site as one of the most contaminated places in Britain.
What did Monsanto know about the potential dangers of the chemicals it manufactured? Information from court records indicates Monsanto knew quite a lot. The evidence that Monsanto refused to face questions about the toxicity of PBCs is clear.
In 1956, the company tried to sell its PCB containing hydraulic fluid, Pydraul 150, to the navy. Monsanto supplied the navy with test results from the product, but the navy decided to do its own testing. As a result, navy officials informed Monsanto that they would not buy the product, saying that "application of Pydraul 150 caused death in all of the rabbits tested" and indicated "definite liver damage". According to an internal Monsanto memo divulged during a court proceeding, "no matter how we discussed the situation, it was impossible to change their thinking that Pydraul 150 is just too toxic for use in submarines", stated Monsanto’s medical director.
In 1966, a biologist conducting studies for Monsanto in streams near the Anniston plant submerged test fish. He reported to Monsanto that, "All 25 fish lost equilibrium and turned on their sides in 10 seconds and all were dead in 3 ½ minutes."

Monsanto

The company swung into action to limit the PR damage when the Food and Drug Administration found high levels of PCBs in fish near the Anniston plant in 1970. An internal memo entitled "Confidential –- F.Y.I. and Destroy" from a Monsanto official, reviewed steps to limit disclosure of the information. One aspect of the strategy was to get public officials to fight Monsanto’s battle: "Joe Crockett, Secretary of the Alabama Water Improvement Commission will try to handle the problem quietly without release of the information to the public at this time," according to the memo.
The plant manager of Monsanto’s Anniston site "convinced" a reporter for The Anniston Star that there was nothing to worry about. An internal memo from Monsanto’s headquarters in St. Louis, summarized the story that subsequently appeared in the newspaper: "Quoting both plant management and the Alabama Water Improvement Commissions, the feature emphasized the PCB problem was relatively new, was being solved by Monsanto and, at this point, was no cause for public alarm."
The real truth is that there was huge cause for public alarm for the harm done to the public by Monsanto. But that was the old Monsanto, not today’s shiny new Monsanto. Today’s Monsanto says it can be trusted –- that its biotech crops are "as wholesome, nutritious and safe as conventional crop", and that the milk produced from cows injected with its artificial growth hormones is identical to the milk from untreated cows.

About the author

Barbara is a school psychologist, a published author in the area of personal finance, a breast cancer survivor using "alternative" treatments, a born existentialist, and a student of nature and all things natural.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/023254_Monsanto_PCB_toxic.html#ixzz278YLZnJV

********************************

food

Monsanto Nation: Taking Down Goliath

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 by: Ronnie Cummins

(NaturalNews) "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it." – Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, quoted in the Kansas City Star, March 7, 1994
After two decades of biotech bullying and force-feeding unlabeled and hazardous genetically engineered (GE) foods to animals and humans — aided and abetted by the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations — it’s time to move beyond defensive measures and go on the offensive. With organic farming, climate stability, and public health under the gun of the gene engineers and their partners in crime, it’s time to do more than complain. With over 1/3 of U.S. cropland already contaminated with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), with mounting scientific evidence that GMOs cause cancer, birth defects, and serious food allergies
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/
and with new biotech mutants like alfalfa, lawn grass, ethanol-ready corn, 2,4 D-resistant crops, and genetically engineered trees and animals in the pipeline http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/
time is running out.
Living in Monsanto Nation there can be no such thing as "coexistence." It is impossible to coexist with a reckless industry that endangers public health, bribes public officials, corrupts scientists, manipulates the media, destroys biodiversity, kills the soil, pollutes the environment, tortures and poisons animals, destabilizes the climate, and economically enslaves the world’s 1.5 billion seed-saving small farmers. It’s time to take down the Biotech Behemoth, before the living web of biodiversity is terminated.
But, to bring down Goliath and build an organic future, we need to be strategic, as well as bold. We must take the time to carefully analyze our strengths and weaknesses and critique our previous efforts. Then we must prepare to concentrate our forces where our adversary is weak, like a chess master, moving the field of battle from Monsanto’s currently impregnable territory into more favorable terrain. Given the near-dictatorial control of Monsanto, the Farm Bureau, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association over the Congress, the White House, regulatory agencies, and state legislators, we have no choice in the present moment but to revert to "asymmetrical" guerrilla tactics, to seek out the Achilles heel or fundamental weakness of the biotech industry.

millions-against-monsanto-unlabeled-gmos

Consumers Right to Know: Monsanto’s Achilles Heel

The Achilles heel of Monsanto and the biotech industry is consumers’ right to know. If GE-tainted foods are labeled in supermarkets and natural food stores, a massive rejection of chemical and GMO foods will take place, transforming the marketplace and supercharging the organic and local foods revolution. The biotech industry has been aware of their tremendous vulnerability in the United States ever since Monsanto forced their controversial recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone on the market in February 1994. In the wake of nationwide "Frankenfood" protests and milk dumps, industry made sure that no federal labeling or safety testing would be required. As the biotechnocrats understand full well, mandatory GE food labels will cripple the industry: consumers will not buy gene-altered foods, farmers will not plant them, restaurants and food processors will avoid them, and grocery stores will not sell them. How can we be certain about this? By looking at the experience of the European Union, the largest agricultural market in the world. In the EU there are almost no genetically engineered crops under cultivation or GE consumer food products on supermarket shelves. And why is this? Not because GE crops are automatically banned in Europe. But rather because under EU law, all foods containing genetically engineered ingredients must be labeled.
European consumers have the freedom to choose or not to choose GE foods; while farmers, food processors, and retailers have (at least legally) the right to lace foods with GMOs, as long as these gene-altered are safety-tested and labeled. Of course the EU food industry understands that consumers, for the most part, do not want to consume GE foods. European farmers and food companies, even junk food purveyors like McDonald’s and Wal-Mart, understand quite well the concept expressed by the Monsanto executive quoted above: "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."
The biotech and food industry are acutely conscious of the fact that North American consumers, like their European counterparts, are wary and suspicious of GMO foods. Even without a PhD, consumers understand you don’t want your food safety or environmental sustainability decisions to be made by out-of-control chemical companies like Monsanto, Dow, or DuPont–the same people who brought you toxic pesticides and industrial chemicals, Agent Orange, carcinogenic food additives, PCBs, and now global warming. Industry leaders are definitely aware of the fact that every poll over the last 20 years has shown that 85-95% of American consumers want mandatory labels on genetically engineered foods. Why do consumers want labels? So that we can avoid buying these mutant foods, gene-spliced with viruses, bacteria, antibiotic- resistant marker genes and foreign DNA. Gene-altered foods have absolutely no benefits for consumers or the environment, only hazards. This is why Monsanto and their friends in the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations have prevented consumer GMO truth-in-labeling laws from ever getting a public discussion, much less coming to a vote, in Congress.
Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) perennially introduces a bill in Congress calling for mandatory labeling and safety testing for GE foods, don’t hold your breath for Congress to take a stand for truth-in-labeling. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the so-called "Citizens United" case gave big corporations, millionaires, and billionaires the right to spend unlimited amounts of money (and remain anonymous, as they do so) to buy media coverage and elections, our chances of passing federal GMO labeling laws against the wishes of Monsanto and Food Inc. are all but non-existent.
Perfectly dramatizing the "Revolving Door" between Monsanto and the Federal Government, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, formerly chief counsel for Monsanto, delivered one of the decisive votes in the Citizens United case, in effect giving Monsanto and other biotech bullies the right to buy the votes it needs in the U.S. Congress.
With biotech and industrial agriculture’s big money controlling Congress, the White House, and the corporate mass media, we have little choice but to shift our focus and our campaigning to more favorable terrain: the state level and the marketplace.
Besides boycotting non-organic foods likely containing GMOs (even those marketed as "natural") and demanding that natural food stores adopt truth-in-labeling practices, we’ve got to push for mandatory GE food labeling laws in the legislatures of those few remaining states like Vermont where Monsanto and corporate agribusiness do not yet have total control. Of the 18 states where GE food labeling legislation has been introduced over the past two years, only in Vermont does our side seem to have the votes to push labeling through, as well as a Governor who will not cave in to Monsanto.

prop 37 poster companies to boycott

State Ballot Initiatives: Monsanto and Biotech’s Greatest Weakness

Although passing a mandatory GE foods labeling law in Vermont is a distinct possibility, and something we should all support, the most promising strategy for restoring consumers’ right to know lies in utilizing one of the most important remaining tools of direct citizen democracy, state ballot initiatives. A state ballot initiative is a means by which a petition signed by a certain minimum number of registered voters can bring about a public vote on a proposed statute or constitutional amendment, in our case a law requiring mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. Ballot initiatives are also called, depending on the state, "popular initiatives," "voter initiatives," "citizen initiatives" or just "initiatives."
Twenty-four states, mainly west of the Mississippi, allow ballot initiatives. Each state has its own requirements for how many signatures are required, how many days can be spent collecting the signatures, and when petitions must be turned in. States also vary on the average amount of money spent by initiative committees to support or oppose ballot measures.http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_23568.cfm
The essential advantage of state ballot initiatives is that they enable the grassroots (in our case the 85-95% of consumers who want labels on GE-tainted foods) to bypass corrupt politicians, industry lobbyists, and special interest legislative practices. In addition, the very strategic point to keep in mind is that it will not be necessary to pass GMO labeling ballot initiatives in all 24 of these states. In fact passage in just one large state, for example California, where there is tremendous opposition to GE foods as well as a multi-billion dollar organic food industry, will likely have the same impact as a national labeling law.
If Vermont passes a state labeling law though its legislature in 2011, or California voters put a GMO labeling initiative on the ballot in 2012 and pass it, the biotech and food industry will face an intractable dilemma. Will they dare put labels on their branded food products in just one or two states, admitting these products contain genetically engineered ingredients, while still withholding label information in the other states? The answer is very likely no. Withholding important and controversial information in some states, while providing it to consumers in other states, would be a public relations disaster.
A clear precedent for this situation was established in California in 1986 when voters passed, over the strenuous opposition of industry, a ballot initiative called Proposition 65, which required consumer products with potential cancer-causing ingredient to bear warning labels. Rather than label their products sold in California as likely carcinogenic, most companies reformulated their product ingredients so as to avoid warning labels altogether, and they did this on a national scale, not just in California.
This same scenario will likely unfold if California voters pass a ballot initiative in 2012 requiring labels on food containing genetically engineered ingredients. Can you imagine Kellogg’s selling Corn Flakes breakfast cereal in California with a label that admits it contains genetically engineered corn? Or labeling their corn flakes as GE in California, but not divulging this same fact to consumers in the other 49 states or Canada? Of course not. How about Kraft Boca Burgers admitting that their soybean ingredients are genetically modified? How about the entire non-organic food industry (including many so-called "natural" brands) admitting that 75% of their products are GE-tainted? Once food manufacturers and supermarkets are forced to come clean and label genetically engineered products, they will likely remove all GE ingredients, to avoid the "skull and crossbones" effect, just like the food industry in the EU has done. In the wake of this development American farmers will convert millions of acres of GE crops to non-GMO or organic varieties.
The biotechnocrats and their allies have indeed used their vast resources to buy off Congress, the White House, and most state legislatures with campaign contributions. Monsanto, DuPont, and other corporate giants have used their enormous clout to send their lawyers and scientists through the revolving door into jobs as government regulators. Biotech’s financial power has polluted state and federal governments, along with trade associations, universities, research institutions, philanthropic organizations, and media outlets.
But there are two things Monsanto’s money can’t buy: Our trust, and our votes.

SUPPORTERS vs OPPONENT

of PROP 37

prop37 supporters forprop37 opponents to

Notice the opponent funding PROP37 far out numbers that of the supporter

OPPONENT are all LARGE Corporation and all used the poison GMO’s in there products meaning there out to help slow murder you and your loved ones Wake up AMERICA –Canada – World

These corporation must be  boycotted Immediately by you and me and everyone globally

Polls Show Consumers Overwhelmingly Support GE Food Labels

Poll after poll has shown that most consumers want to know whether their food includes engineered ingredients.
The results of a recent MSNBC poll that posed the question, "Do you believe genetically modified foods should be labeled?" indicate that nearly all Americans believe that foods made with genetically modified organisms should indeed be labeled.
Of the more than 45,000 people who participated in the poll, over 96% answered "Yes. It’s an ethical issue — consumers should be informed so they can make a choice."
It’s not news that most Americans support labeling of GMO foods. Since genetically modified foods were first introduced in mid-1990s, scores of public opinion polls have shown that the vast majority of consumers want mandatory labeling of all genetically modified foods. These include recent polls by CBS News/New York Times, NPR/Thomson Reuters and the Consumers Union. Unfortunately Congress and the White House have ignored these polls, accepting instead the claims of lobbyists and indentured scientists that genetically engineered foods are perfectly safe, and that uninformed and scientifically illiterate Americans must not be given the choice to buy or not to not GMOs, because they will reject them.
Monsanto spent more than $1 million on the 2010 election cycle, splitting its contributions evenly between state and federal candidates. It spends much more on lobbying — more than $8 million in each of the last three years. Monsanto’s money has bought it influence and allowed it to move its lawyers and scientists through the revolving door into roles within the regulatory agencies. The USDA, FDA and State Department are full of appointees with connections to Monsanto. Monsanto’s efforts have successfully stifled attempts in Congress and state legislatures to pass GMO labeling legislation.

prop37-targetted-300x240

The Slingshot that Can Bring Down Goliath

The most important advantage or weapon in a ballot initiative (or in a grassroots legislative lobbying campaign) is to have the overwhelming support of the people, especially registered voters. As poll after poll has shown, 85-95% of Americans support mandatory GE food labels. No matter how much money Monsanto and their allies spend to defeat a ballot initiative, it is very difficult to turn back overwhelming public sentiment. Monsanto has become one of the most hated corporations on earth.
The second requirement for a successful ballot initiative is to have the active support of a massive grassroots movement, like the growing anti-GE food movement and OCA’s Millions Against Monsanto campaign. This grassroots movement can gather petition signatures, mobilize public opinion, and get out the vote. No matter how much money Monsanto and their allies spend, it will be very difficult to defeat a volunteer grassroots army of organic consumers who enjoy the massive support of the public.
The third prerequisite for victory is to have the ability to raise significant sums of money. Not only do we have millions of organic consumers in the U.S. who are passionately opposed to GMOs, and willing to donate to a labeling campaign, but we also have a rapidly growing $30 billion organic food industry that depends upon keeping GMO contamination out of the organic sector. We probably won’t be able to raise enough money to outspend Monsanto, the Farm Bureau, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, but we can raise enough money to defend our popular position and maintain majority support.
Just like everything in U.S. politics, ballot initiatives have a price tag.
According to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center:
* "The chances of victory are directly correlated with the amount of money raised and are almost always proportional to the amount of money the opposition spends."
* "People power is equally important to factor in. Particularly for Citizen-based ballot initiative efforts, it is imperative to have people on the ground across the state that are connected and invested in the initiative."

Biotechnology or BioDemocracy?

Restoring consumers’ right to know and driving genetically engineered foods off supermarket shelves are not going to solve all of the life and death issues that are currently staring us in the face: the climate crisis, endless wars, economic depression, corporate control over government, and the health crisis. But cutting Monsanto and the biotechnocrats down to size and restoring consumer choice are a good first step to move us toward sustainability and a healthy food and farming system. Just as important, in political terms, by defeating the Biotech Bullies and indentured politicians we can begin to restore the tattered self-confidence of the American body politic. A resounding victory by the organic community and OCA’s Millions Against Monsanto campaign will prove to ourselves and the currently demoralized public that we can indeed take back control over the institutions and public policies that determine our daily lives. Now is the time to move forward.
To support or join up with the Millions Against Monsanto Campaign, go to:http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033155_Monsanto_Goliath.html#ixzz278ZsP0lO

**********************************

Monsanto’s Top 7 Lies About GMO Labeling and Proposition 37

Mike Barrett
NaturalSociety
August 24, 2012

388144_10151059411199934_227510195_n

Due to the near future voting on November 6, 2012 for California’s Proposition 37, there has been a lot of heat going back and forth concerning GMO foods. Up until now, 10′s of million of dollars have been funneled into the opposing side of the bill, with biotechnology giant Monsanto dishing out a whopping $4.2 million alone. Monsanto has even recently published a page on their site titled ”Taking a Stand: Proposition 37, The California Labeling Proposal,” where the GMO giant attempts to logically explain why it is against GMO labeling. Needless to say, the post reeks of false and misleading statements, and oftentimes downright deception. Here are the top 7 lies Monsanto wants you to believe regarding GMO labeling and Prop 37.

prop37

Monsanto’s Top 7 Lies

1. The bill ”would require a warning label on food products.”

GMO foods will not require a warning label (although they ought to!) Actually, foods made with GMOs would say ”partially produced with genetic engineering” or “may be partially produced with genetic engineering,” – not a warning label, but a clear warning sign to those of us who want to avoid GMOs. The whole idea of the GMO labeling bill is to make consumers aware of what they are consuming, not to bash GMOs on every label. We have a right to know.

2. ”The safety and benefits of these ingredients are well established.”

This may be the most comical statements of all. While no long-term studies portray the dangers or benefits of GMOs, countless studies using a ‘shorter’ time interval show not only how GMOs are a danger to humans, but also the environment and the biosphere. One study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences shows that GMO corn and other GM food is indeed contributing to the obesity epidemic and causing organ disruption.

Through the mass genetic modification of nature via GMO crops, animals, biopesticides, and the mutated insects that are created as a result, mega biotechnology corporations are threatening the overall genetic integrity of the environment as well as all of humankind. This is just one reason that GMO crops are continuously banned around the world in nations such as France, Peru, Hungary, and Poland.

Proposition-37

3. “FDA says that such labeling would be inherently misleading to consumers.”

While the FDA may think that labeling GMO foods would be misleading, in reality the exact opposite is true. Most consumers are in the dark when it comes to GMOs residing in their purchased foods. Foods being sold that contain hidden GMOs is much more misleading than letting the consumer be aware.

The FDA may call it ‘misleading’ since ‘GMOs are safe,’ but research shows that this is far from the truth.

4. “The American Medical Association just re-affirmed that there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.”

Although true, the American Medical Association also recently called for mandatory premarket safety studies for GMOs – a decision virtually polar opposite of the above quote. It seems that the AMA is being inconsistent no matter which view is taken. Here is a quote from Consumers Union recently noted in its reaction to AMA’s announcement:

“The AMA’s stance on mandatory labeling isn’t consistent with its support for mandatory pre-market safety assessments. If unexpected adverse health effects, such as an allergic reaction, happen as a result of GE, then labeling could perhaps be the only way to determine that the GE process was linked to the adverse health effect.”

yes-37-label-gmos

5. ”…the main proponents of Proposition 37 are special interest groups and individuals opposed to food biotechnology who are not necessarily engaged in the production of our nation’s food supply.”

Not engaged int he production of our nation’s food supply? Countless farmers, food producers, and consumers who are engaging with their hard-earned dollar support Proposition 37. In fact, many farmers have taken legal action against Monsanto in the past for widespread genetic contamination.

Here is a growing list of endorsements for the GMO labeling bill.

6. ”The California proposal would serve the purposes of a few special interest groups at the expense of the majority of consumers.”

Monsanto says “at the expense of the majority of consumers.” Maybe the biotech giant isn’t away that GMO labeling is so desired that the pro-labeling side has a 3-to-1 advantage, based on recent polls. The majority of consumers actually want GMO foods to be labeled. It is no secret that government organizations such as the FDA and USDA are in bed with Monsanto, but this is a decision for the people – not any government organizations.

It has also been revealed that Monsanto has control of virtually all U.S. diplomats, and the company has even used its massive influence to force other nations to accept their genetically modified crops through economic threats and political pressure.

7. ”Consumers have broad food choices today, but could be denied these choices if Prop 37 prevails.”

There is absolutely no reason to think that because of Proposition 37, food choices would become more limited. Actually, the bill would add value to the purchase by consumers, as no one would need to ‘eat in the dark’ and unknowingly consume GMOs.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/monsantos-top-7-lies-about-gmo-labeling-and-proposition-37/#ixzz278i4ubDa

*****************************

Monsanto

Monsanto, pesticide companies have now spent more than $19 million to kill Prop. 37

Friday, September 21, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The latest campaign finance disclosure records released by California’s Secretary of State reveal that the most evil corporation in the world, Monsanto, has forked over another $2.89 million to kill Proposition 37, the historic bill that, if passed, will require genetically-modified (GM) foods and food ingredients to be labeled at the retail level in California.
Combined with its other recent contributions of more than $4.2 million (http://www.naturalnews.com), Monsanto has now officially shelled out a total ofmore than $7.1 million to prevent consumers from knowing the truth about what is really contained in the foods they buy.
Along with Monsanto’s latest contributions were similar contributions by the other five of the "Big Six" pesticide firms — DuPont, Bayer, Dow, BASF, and Syngenta — which together gave more than $2.6 million to the No on 37 campaign as part of their most recent contributions. To date, the "Big Six" have collectively contributed nearly $20 million to keep Californians in the dark about GMOs.
"Monsanto wants to buy this election so they can keep hiding what’s really in our food," said Gary Ruskin, campaign manager for Yes on Prop. 37, about Monsanto’s efforts to stamp out the potential for mandating food transparency. "(But) they are on the losing side of history. Californians want the right to know what’s in our food, and we will win it."

Most of the funding for ‘No on 37’ is coming from GMO companies not even located in California

Interestingly, none of the "Big Six" pesticide companies are even located in California, which just goes to show how far-reaching the scope of Prop. 37 will be once it is passed. Only one of the top ten antagonists in the fight for honesty in food labeling, Nestle USA, is based out of California, and even this company has its roots overseas in Switzerland.
Below is a list of the top ten contributors to the No on 37 campaign, which is trying to stop GMO labeling in California:
1) Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO, $7,100,500
2) E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., Washington, DC, $4,900,000
3) BASF Plant Science, Research Triangle Park, NC, $2,000,000
4) Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC, $2,000,000
5) Dow Agrosciences LLC, Indianapolis, IN, $2,000,000
6) PepsiCo, Inc., Purchase, NY, $1,716,300
7) Nestle USA, Inc., Glendale, CA, $1,169,400
8) Coca-Cola North America, Atlanta, GA, $1,164,400
9) ConAgra Foods, Omaha, NE, $1,076,700
10) Syngenta Corporation, Washington, DC, $1,000,000

As you will notice, every single one of these companies has a critical stake in making sure that you do not know what is in the food you eat, because every single one of these companies eitherproduces GMOs or uses GMOs in their product formulations.
If GMO labeling is mandated in California, the "Big Six" will lose significant market share as many large food companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi will have to either reformulate their products to exclude GMOs, or risk losing much of their customer base by labeling GMOs, which Monsanto admitted many years ago is akin to putting "a skull and crossbones" on the food label. (http://www.naturalnews.com/035578_Monsanto_petition_biotechnology.html)
And since large food conglomerates distribute their offerings nationwide, mandatory labeling in California, the world’s eighth largest economy, will cause sweeping changes across the country as well. This is why it is crucial for Californians get out to the polls on November 6 and vote YES on Prop. 37.
You can learn more about the Yes on Prop. 37 campaign by visiting:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037273_Proposition_37_Monsanto_corporations.html#ixzz2792CWmzw

*******************************

FDA Deletes 1 Million Signatures for GMO Labeling Campaign

Mike Barrett
NaturalSociety
March 30, 2012

 

While the Food and Drug Administration has seemingly reached the limit for unbelievable behavior, the company’s decisions continue to astound and appall consumers and health activists alike. In the agency’s latest decision, undoubtedly amazing thousands of individuals yet again, the FDA virtually erased 1 million signatures and comments on the ‘Just Label It’ campaign calling for the labeling of genetically modified foods.

FDA Deletes 1 Million Signatures for GMO Labeling Campaign

The ‘Just Label It” campaign has gotten more signatures than any campaign in history for the labeling of genetically modified foods. Since October of 2011, the campaign has received over 900,000 signatures, with 55 politicians joining in on the movement. So what’s the problem here?

Evidently, the FDA counts the amount of signatures not by how many people signed, but how many different individual letters are brought to it. To the FDA, even tens of thousands of signatures presented on a single petition are counted as – you guessed it – a single comment. This is how, despite over a million supporters being gathered by the petition, the FDA concluded a count of only 394.

“This is an election year and there are more than a million people who say this is important to them. This petition has nothing to do with whether or not genetically modified foods are dangerous. We don’t label dangerous foods, we take them off the shelves. This petition is about a the citizens’ right to know what they are eating and whether or not these foods represent a novel change.” said Andrew Kimbrell an attorney for the Center for Food Safety, one of the partner groups on the Just Label It campaign.

justlabelitinfographic FDA Deletes 1 Million Signatures for GMO Labeling Campaign

The argument as to whether genetically modified foods are dangerous is a whole discussion on its own, but for the FDA to completely sidestep away from the labeling of GM foods is completely and utterly irresponsible. Consumers have every right to know what they are consuming. Needless to say, biotechology giant Monsanto is against GMO labeling, claiming that it would mislead consumers since GMOs are ‘perfectly safe’. Of course there is plenty of evidence proving that GMOs are not completely safe, and how they affect life in the long-term is questionable to say the least. Either way, there is enough controversy surrounding the issue which is cause for alarm for millions of people, and Monsanto’s opinion on GMOs safety is a sorry excuse for not labeling foods as GM. Is the FDA avoiding such an issue because so many ties exist between genetically modified makers like Monsanto and the agency?

The bottom line is that you have the right to know what is in your food, and what your food IS. Denying that right, whether it be by the essential deletion of millions of signatures on a petition, or by ignoring the voices of thousands of people on the street, is taking power away from the people.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/fda-deletes-1-million-signatures-for-gmo-labeling-campaign/#ixzz278xWrePK

*****************************************

Obama Promised GMO Labeling in 2007

Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety
October 15, 2011

gmoappleinject1 210x131 Obama Promised GMO Labeling in 2007

According to a poll conducted by Reuters Thompson, more than 90% of Americans feel that products containing GMOs should be labeled.  Back in 2007, Obama pulled the support of GMO activists by promising to push for proper labeling of GMO food items, stating that he would push to “let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.” Of course the promise was not fulfilled, as 4 years later in 2011 GMO foods are still not properly labeled. In fact, products containing the Non-GMO label have actually been found to contain GMOs.

 

Not only has Obama been completely silent on the GMO labeling issue despite his bold statements, but so has the FDA — the very organization in charge of ensuring the ‘health’ of United States consumers. An organization that has caused even more harm, however, is the USDA. The USDA has been approving the production of many new genetically modified crops, including the highly-controversial genetically modified alfalfa. Despite the warnings of scientists and health activists over the dangers of genetically modified crops on human health and the environment, the USDA has continually supported biotech corporation Monsanto over the American public.

GMOs rambunctiously approved by the FDA and USDA, despite known dangers

Despite acknowledging the fact that these crops lead to herbicide-resistant weeds, the USDA assures consumers that these DNA-altering crops are safe for consumption.

As the FDA and USDA continually approve genetically modified creations such as AquaAdvantage salmon without proper labeling, it becomes necessary for consumers to take action. Major ‘health’ food stores like Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s still offer products that contain GMOs that are either not labeled at all, or deceptively so. Slogans like ‘All Natural’ mean virtually nothing when it comes to GMOs and other toxic ingredients, tricking shoppers into thinking they are avoiding these health sinks.

Tell Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s to label their GMO products and stop deceiving customers. It seems that it will be health-conscious activists, not Obama, who will ”let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.”

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/obama-promised-gmo-labeling-in-2007/#ixzz278y7PrWl

*************************************