Major Investigation Into GMOs Following Tumor Study – The GMO debate is over; GM crops must be immediately outlawed; Monsanto halted from threatening humanity PART 3

 

Americans Waking Up to the Dangers of GMO Foods

Infowars.com
October 2, 2012

Dr. Peter Glidden, host of GCN’s “Fire Your MD Now,” joined Alex Sunday to break down the dangerous health effects of eating genetically modified foods.

Dr. Glidden shines light on the corporations fighting proposition 37, California’s GMO labeling measure, and purposes a better, alternative choice the government hopes to keep you in the dark about.

Romney’s first project with Bain in 1977: Help propel

Monsanto

S. D. Wells
Natural News
September 26, 2012

One year before Mitt Romney began working on the Bain & Company project to rebuild “Monsanto” and cast their new image and focus on agriculture biotechnology, Congress passed a bill banning PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl), an odorless, tasteless, clear liquid known to cause cancer that was the “bread and butter” of Monsanto’s profits. Monsanto was already branded and plaguedwith the label of having created the “Agent Orange” contaminated dioxins used in Vietnam. Now Monsanto would need a big save, financially and reputation-wise, so they could fool the public with their new image and a new “frontier,” while secretly polluting and genetically modifying American agriculture with the new faceless poison known as Roundup.

Romney knew his first job at Bain was to propel an evil company that was on the brink of failure. He knew Monsanto’s previous reputation and about all the litigation. Romney also knew he would be rewarded financially in the biggest way if he could pull the whole thing off, and he did. Romney changed Monsanto’s image over the years, from a scandal ridden chemical giant to a seemingly “prestigious” Agri-business firm. (http://dprogram.net)

Fresh out of Harvard in 1977, Romney basically lead Monsanto down an unethical but highly lucrative path, helping sweep the PCB and dioxin scandals under the rug, since that negative public perception was crippling the company. Romney and Bain recommended to Monsanto that they focus the business on genetically engineered crops and RoundUp, the massively profitable weed killer. Monsanto finished developing and patenting the glyphosate molecule and has marketed Roundup ever since. (http://naturalsociety.com)

But it wasn’t a “pretty” road to this infamous success for Romney. Monsanto was still bombarded with an onslaught of litigation throughout Romney’s years at Bain, including a $180 million settlement covering the claims of over 50,000 troops that got cancer from hiking over and through Agent Orange in the burned up jungles of Vietnam. Agent Orange is on record to have contaminated a total of 10 million Vietnamese and American people, including children and babies. This was by far the largest chemical warfare operation in human history up until now, when Monsanto’s RoundUp laced GMO vegetables like corn and soy have begun a cancer inducing genocide which could easily surpass the damage done in the Vietnam jungles just 50 years ago. (http://naturalsociety.com)

Romney would later use his Monsanto “payback money” and power to become the “private equity king,” mowing down companies and robbing workers of their retirement savings. (http://dprogram.net) This is how Romney created jobs back then, and GMO is how he will create jobs and promote disease if he wins the presidency of the United States. Big Pharma, of course, is behind it all, because when people eat GM vegetables and get cancer, Big Pharma and the chemo scam make billions, if not trillions.

 

Romney has already chosen his biotech partners in crime

One of Mitt’s advisory co-chairs was a key speaker at the ‘Biotechnology Industry Organization‘ and said, “It is vital for the United States and other countries to support science-based standards and systems that will bring agricultural biotechnology products to the market to meet this demand.” It’s not hard to guess who will make up Romney’s cabinet if he wins. But the most disappointing part of the upcoming election isn’t the fact that Mitt Romney, the “Savior of Monsanto” is running for president, it’s the fact that Obama already supports GMO and has the former vice president of Monsanto running the FDA right now. America has everyone believing they have a choice, voting between good and bad, or good and not so good, but really, the choice is that you can vote yes for Obama GMO or yes for Romney GMO. President Obama and Mitt Romney both support human beings eating RoundUp pesticide regularly and without any labeling on the foods. Just to let you know. There’s definitely a “War on Cancer” in effect, but it’s a war to promote cancer, to make sure more people eat CANCER-CAUSING AGENTS, ones that are made by the same company that created the AGENT ORANGE nightmare. (http://www.naturalnews.com)

 

No matter what the TWO PARTY SYSTEM says, they support GMO

Back in 2008, Obama promised his supporters he would be on their side when it comes to knowing what they are eating, and in a campaign speech he stated, “We’ll let folks know whether their food has been genetically modified because Americans should know what they’re buying.”(http://spreadlibertynews.com)

Today, Monsanto (the seed police) and similar unethical chemical giants loom over ALL FARMERS AND ALL FOOD, and a global cancer epidemic is imminent. Monsanto survived its near collapse thanks to Mitt Romney, and Monsanto thrives today thanks to George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Soon, if enough Supreme Court Justices side with the biotech industry, the U.S. government will have complete reign over the food industry. (http://www.naturalnews.com/034847_Michael_Taylor_Monsanto_FDA.html)

Question: Why doesn’t either candidate for president mention nutrition at all? Shouldn’t we be praisingNutritional Science like we do NASA? Is the GMO shame too heavy? When the next bailout comes, will Monsanto get a big cut? After all, their lobbyists are like a “Super PAC” of ONE PERCENTERS. If only we could see how much their offshore accounts inflate after elections. Make no mistake, the current handful of “running” politicians want GMO to rule over all farms in the United States.

 

Don’t give in; you can set the precedent in November!

You have real choices. You can eat only organic food. You can write your “anti-GMO” congressmen like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, who support efforts to not only label GM food, but ban it altogether. You can help end this hostile takeover of the food supply. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J_YvtbSSqg) We, the organic people, can win this “election,” and the precedent can be set in California in November, and then eventually all over the United States. (http://www.naturalnews.com)

Vietnam may have been the largest chemical warfare operation in human history, but at least this time the people have a choice, because instead of being drafted and hiking through the toxic “cancer machine” in a war, humans can simply educate themselves about contaminated dioxins in genetically modified foods and not eat them. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfFSS1vLcXA&feature=related)

Sources for this article include:

http://naturalsociety.com

http://dprogram.net

http://www.alternet.org

http://spreadlibertynews.com

http://dprogram.net

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J_YvtbSSqg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfFSS1vLcXA&feature=related

http://www.naturalnews.com/034847_Michael_Taylor_Monsanto_FDA.html

http://www.naturalnews.com

Russia suspends import and use of American GM

corn after study revealed cancer risk 

• The European Food Safety Authority orders review in to the research, conducted at a French university
• Russia’s decision could be followed by other nations
• Experts at the University of Caen conducted an experiment running for the full lives of rats – two years
• The findings found raised levels of breast cancer, liver and kidney damage
• The same trials also found minuscule amounts of a commonly used weedkiller, Roundup
• Both the GM corn and Roundup are the creation of US biotech company Monsanto

By SEAN POULTER

PUBLISHED: 16:15 GMT, 25 September 2012 | UPDATED: 06:57 GMT, 26 September 2012

Russia has suspended the import and use of an American GM corn following a study suggesting a link to breast cancer and organ damage.

Separately, the European Food Safety Authority(EFSA), has ordered its own review in to the research, which was conducted at a French university.

The decision by Russia could be followed by other nations in what would be a severe blow to the take-up of the controversial technology.

Cancer risk? A farmer shows two corncobs of genetically engineered corn by U.S. company Monsanto, right, and two normal corncobs from Germany, left

Historically, biotech companies have proved the safety of GM crops based on trials involving feeding rats for a period of 90 days.

However, experts at the University of Caen conducted an experiment running for the full lives of rats – two years.

The findings, which were peer reviewed by independent experts before being published in a respected scientific journal, found raised levels of breast cancer, liver and kidney damage.

The same trials also found evidence that consumption of minuscule amounts of a commonly used weedkiller, Roundup, was associated with a raised risk of cancer.

Both the GM corn, which carries the name NK603, and Roundup are the creation of US biotech company Monsanto.

The decision by the Russians to suspend authorisation for the American GM corn threatens to trigger a transatlantic commercial and diplomatic row.

Contentious: A combine harvests corn in a field near Coy, Arkansas. The decision by the Russians to suspend authorisation for the American GM corn threatens to trigger a transatlantic commercial and diplomatic row

Russia’s consumer rights watchdog, Rospotrebnadzor, said today that it has suspended the import and use of the Monsanto GM corn.

Rospotrebnadzor said the country’s Institute of Nutrition has been asked to assess the validity of the study.

It has also contacted the European Commission’s Directorate General for Health & Consumers to ask for the EU’s position on the corn’s safety.

Consumer scepticism in the UK and Europe means GM corn is not on supermarket shelves here, however it is fed to farm animals, including hens, pigs and dairy cows.

Important: In the USA, and much of Europe, corn is used to make an array of food products including cornflakes (picture posed by model)

Last week Monsanto said it did not think the French study would affect its license to export the NK603 to Europe but would wait to hear from EFSA.

The company said: ‘Based on our initial review, we do not believe the study presents information that would justify any change in EFSA’s views on the safety of genetically modified corn products or alter their approval status for genetically modified imports.’

The biotech industry and university researchers involved in GM research have mounted a major PR campaign over the last year to win over sceptical consumers.

In the past week, pro-GM scientists have been lining up to undermine the French experiments and criticise the way they were conducted.

However, a number of independent academics have praised the French team’s work, describing it as the most thorough and extensive feeding trials involving GM to date.

Mustafa Djamgoz, the Professor of Cancer Biology, at Imperial College, London, said the findings relating to eating GM corn were a ‘surprise’.

Prof Djamgoz, who describes himself as a neutral on GM, said: ‘The results are significant. The experiments are, more or less, the best of their kind to date.’

However, he said that it is now important to ensure they are repeated with more animals by independent laboratories to confirm the outcome.

‘We are not scaremongering here. More research, including a repetition of this particular study are warranted,’ he said.

The professor said it will take two to three years to get a definitive answer.

Frankenscientists announce mutant GMO cows to

produce ‘engineered’ milk for human babies

Mike Adams
Natural News
Oct 2, 2012

The world of genetic engineering has fallen even further into the surreal with the announcement that New Zealand “scientists” have unveiled a genetically modified mutant cloned cow which they say produces a reduced-allergen milk for consumption by human babies. This is being reported by the BBC and elsewhere.

Horrifyingly, these Frankenscientists cloned a cow and then altered the embryo using RNA interference. After gestation, the mutant GMO cow was born without a tail! But these scientists say that’s no problem, and that the mutation of having no tail couldn’t possibly be related to anything they did with the cow’s DNA.

I’m not making this up. This is the insanity of the quack science world in which we now live.

Milk causes allergies primarily because of pasteurization

The entire project is a fool’s errand to begin with since the reason most humans are allergic to cow’s milk is because of pasteurization which destroys lactase enzymes. RAW MILK is far easier to digest, but of course raw milk has been all but criminalized in America, where the FDA along with Ventura County and LA County in California actually stage armed raids on raw milk distribution centers and throw people in jail. James Stewart, for example, remains in jail this very day for the “crime” of being involved in raw milk. Sign the petition HERE to demand freedom for James.

So while criminalizing fresh milk and pushing an inferior, dead, pasteurized milk that causes allergies in those who drink it, the corrupt food system in America is almost certain to embrace mutant genetically modified cloned cow’s milk and call it “safe” for infants!

Never mind the fact that the genetically altered milk produced by this cow had “double the concentrations of caseins,” as The Guardian is reporting.

Oh, and by the way, the milk being produced by this mutant, cloned, tail-less GMO cow is of course 100% driven by artificial hormones! As the BBC reports:

“It has not yet become pregnant and produced milk normally so the scientists used hormones to jump-start milk production.”

How to make a mutant GM cow and tell your friends you’re a mad scientist

This story gets even more disturbing. Take a look at how this cow was produced! According to The Guardian:

To make Daisy [the cow], scientists took a cow skin cell and genetically modified it to produce molecules that block the manufacture of BLG protein. The nucleus of this cell was then transferred into a cow egg that had its own nucleus removed.

The reconstituted egg was grown in the lab until it formed what is called a blastocyst, a ball of around 100 cells, and then transplanted into the womb of a foster cow.

The cloning technique is not efficient. Of around 100 blastocysts the scientists implanted into cows, more than half of the pregnancies failed early on, and only one live calf, Daisy, was born.

And even that calf was a mutant calf, born without a tail, rendering the whole thing a horrifying example of genetic mutilation.

STOP the genetic mutilation of animals and humans

These outrageous experiments on animals are rightly called “genetic mutilation.” These animals are being mutilated. Ninety-nine percent of them DIE before they’re even born, and the ones that somehow manage to be born are mutants.

This research is a dangerous journey into the horrors of “unanticipated consequences.” And to think… these Frankenscientists want human babies to drink this milk! It must be great for babies!

So let me get this straight: It’s illegal in America to milk a cow, sell that fresh milk to a neighbor and have their baby drink fresh milk with all the digestive enzymes intact. But it’s perfectly acceptable in our world to engineer mutant cloned genetically modified cows to produce hormone-induced, artificially-engineered milk that will be fed en masse to human babies?

What’s wrong with this picture?

Humanity is risking a genetic apocalypse

This has got to stop, friends. The mad GMO scientists are operating in gross violation of natural law. They are playing genetic roulette with Mother Nature. They’re fumbling in the dark with dangerous tools, like children with suitcase nukes and a happy red button that seems inviting to just push and see what happens.

Our modern-day human civilization has neither the ethical foundation nor the wisdom to pursue such technologies. Altering the digital code for the expression of life is not something to be pursued under the crude selfishness of corporate greed, nor the wild fantasies of naive scientists who relish in playing “what if” experiments with all remaining life on our planet.

These experiments on animals — and crops — are worse than foolish. They are inherently evil… even demented. Just because we know how to alter DNA doesn’t mean we have the wisdom to understand the consequences of doing so. Yet in the race for the next biological profit machine — a cow, a crop, or even a pharmaceutical — caution is thrown out the window and replaced by pure mindless greed.

With the GM crops, the GM wheat that alters human liver function, the GM corn that causes cancer tumors, the GM cows and the GM seeds being carelessly strewn about, we are risking a genetic apocalypse that could destroy humanity in a cosmic blink of an eye.

No one knows what happens when the genetic engineering of mutant chimera animals get unleashed across the land. Nobody really knows the long-term effects of genetic pollution. Nobody even knows the long-term effects of humans eating GM crops!

So it’s all a grand, malicious, conceited genetic experiment being carried out on us all: our bodies, our children, our lands, our animals, our crops and our planet.

The GM “scientists” are risking EVERYTHING. And they do so blindly, while mutilating animals and calling it “progress.”

It is disgusting. It is an abomination. I pray for the sake of humanity that all genetic engineering activity in our planet is halted by any means necessary.

We are floating through space, my friends, on a blue ball of water inhabited by fools who call themselves “scientists.”

They risk everything. And there is no backup plan.

Spread the word. SHARE this story. STOP the genetic mutilation of animals. HALT GMO crops and save our planet from the risk of total disaster.

 

Whole Foods Censors GMO Expose

Undercover video investigating admitted presence of GMOs at Whole Foods stores is pulled from You Tube

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
October 2, 2012

A controversial video of an undercover investigation into the presence of GMO foods at the “organic” grocery leader Whole Foods Market has been pulled from You Tube just days after its release sparked a reaction throughout the health conscious blogosphere and alternative media.

A ‘sting’ video released by Organic Spies featuring covert footage alleges that Whole Foods wasdeceiving its customers by touting organic foods and a corporate ideal set against GMOs while simultaneously selling a large portion of products that contain widely prevalent GMO ingredients. On-camera statements of numerous Whole Foods employees in the Los Angeles area underscores the fact that its employees are ignorant of the presence of GMO foods on store shelves, leaving the average customer even more so in the dark.

Now that original video– linked here– which was posted 6 days ago and which had well over 100,000 views, was removed from You Tube, due to alleged violations of its Terms of Service. Typically, this indicates a 3rd party complaint, though You Tube no longer automatically informs users of the identities of parties who make claims against videos, so the role of Whole Foods here is not clear.

However, Whole Foods officially responded to the video in their blog, admitting that some products in their store indeed contain GMO ingredients. It promises, therefore, to better inform their employees of this fact:

“The YouTube video showing our store Team Members giving conflicting responses to a question about GMOs reminds us that while we try to keep all our 70,000 Team Members up-to-speed on the latest information, clearly we need to do more. Some products in our stores DO contain GMOs – just like any other food store in the country, due to the pervasiveness of GMOs…”

Whole Foods also emphasized their support for California’s Prop 37, which would mandate the labeling of GMOs, after coming under criticism for not donating financially to the ballot measure to counter the heavy lobbying against the measure by the biotech industry and their allies.

Whole Foods states that their officially policy does not allow financial backing for such political measures, yet its top executives have donated to numerous telling campaigns. So what gives?

Co-founder and CEO John Mackey donated to Mitt Romney, who helped promote Monsanto’s entry into biotechnology, while co-CEO Walter Robb donated to Barack Obama, who has appointed numerous Monsanto lobbyists to his administration, as well as Christie Vilsack, the wife of USDA chief Tom Vilsack, who as an Iowan politician, has bent over backward for biotech, GMOs, cloning and even the open-air growing of pharmaceutical crops. As head of agriculture, Vilsack served as a go between to negotiate acceptance of GM alfalfa (a major food crop for livestock), meeting with Monsanto and top emissaries of the organic market, namely Whole Foods Market, Stonyfield Farm and Organic Valley. The perceived caving of these organic players has drawn serious criticism throughout the Internet.

Evidence that major advocates for organic foods are ultimately serving the interests of genetic engineering is sad, particularly at a time when Monsanto and other biotech giants threaten to saturate the world market with dangerous GMO foods that remain unlabeled and yet have been found to contribute to cancerous tumors and other devastating health effects in lab rats fed Monsanto’s GM corn.

Here is a mirror of the pulled video, still up at the time of publishing:

 

Is there anything there not

trying to Genetically Modify

WHAT’S NEXT???

GE Fish

http://www.cban.ca/Resources/Topics/GE-Fish

December 16, 2011: ISA virus confirmed in AquaBounty’s genetically-engineered salmon: A 2009 memo from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) entered into evidence at Canada’s federal Cohen Inquiry into the collapse of Fraser River sockeye Thursday reveals that salmon at the AquaBounty facility in Price Edward Island have tested positive for the Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA) virus. Click here to watch Catherine Stewart of Living Oceans Society talk about what this means.

October 11, 2011 – Press Release : U.S. Rubber-Stamp of GM Fish Imminent? U.S. approval would trigger corporate plans to produce genetically modified salmon eggs in Canada, but Environment Canada remains silent

Canada and the US could soon approve a genetically modified (GM or genetically engineered, GE) Atlantic salmon – the first-ever GM food animal in the world. The small U.S. company AquaBounty has asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve their plan to produce GM salmon eggs on PEI, to grow-out in Panama and sell to U.S. consumers. The company has plans to expand production across the world though they have not specified these plans to the U.S. FDA.

 

Take Action

1. Write to the Minister of Environment instantly by clicking here: Halt any environmental assessment of GE fish! Why won’t Environment Canada even tell Canadians if it has started an assessment?
2. Write to the Minister of Health today, to stop the GM fish and the GM pig called "Enviropig". Health Canada is already considering a request to approve the GM pig (from the University of Guelph) for eating in Canada and the company AquaBounty says it will soon ask for approval for its GM salmon.
3. Organizations can still sign on to the statement opposing GE salmon!: No GE Research, Production, Consumption in, and Export from, Canada. We invite environmental, conservation, health, consumer, and public interest groups, industry associations, and aboriginal peoples’ organizations in Canada to sign the following statement of opposition to genetically engineered (GE) fish. Sign on here.
4. Print and distribute this flyer – raise awareness in your community.

 

U.S. company AquaBounty is seeking approval for its genetically engineered Atlantic salmon. The company claims the salmon grow to market-size twice as fast as other farmed salmon. The salmon are engineered with a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon and genetic material from ocean pout (an eel-like creature).

A summary of AquaBounty’s environmental assessment released by the US Food and Drug Administration on September 3, 2010, revealed that the company is not requesting approval to produce the GE Atlantic salmon in the US but intends instead to produce all the GE salmon eggs on Prince Edward Island, then ship the eggs to Panama for growing-out and processing, for export into the US consumer market as “table-ready” fish. The company is assuming it will be granted approval by Environment Canada to produce GE salmon eggs on PEI. AquaBounty says it is now preparing to also ask Health Canada to approve the GE salmon for human consumption here.

House of Commons Motion: October 2011 – Mr. Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately: (a) provide greater regulatory clarity by identifying which government departments are responsible for the regulation of genetically modified salmon and other transgenic aquatic organisms; (b) prevent the introduction into the Canadian food system of genetically modified salmon destined for human consumption until further scientific studies are concluded by the relevant departments to determine the impact of genetically modified salmon on human health and on the health of marine species, ecosystems and habitats; and (c) direct the departments responsible for the regulation of genetically modified salmon to establish a practice of notifying the Canadian public of all requests and approvals and of any information and findings regarding genetically modified salmon and salmon eggs.

Background Information

October 2010, Article,"Biotech Gets Fishy with GE Salmon" Common Ground Magazine, Lucy Sharratt, CBAN.

What is the GM Salmon?

The U.S. company AquaBounty is asking the U.S. to approve its genetically engineered (GE, also called genetically modified or GM) Atlantic salmon for human consumption and says it will soon ask for approval in Canada. The company claims its “AquAdvantage” salmon grow to market-size twice as fast as other farmed salmon. That’s because the Atlantic salmon are engineered with a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon and genetic material from ocean pout (an eel-like creature).

The GM Salmon is from Canada

AquaBounty is headquartered in the US but the GM salmon is based on a gene construct patented by two Canadian university professors. The company also has research facilities in Prince Edward Island where it grows GM fish for experimentation and testing. The company recently revealed that it is not actually asking for approval to grow the fish in the US but plans to produce all of the GM salmon eggs on PEI, ship the eggs to Panama for growing out and processing, and then sell “table-ready” GM salmon into the US consumer market.AquaBounty does not yet have permission from Environment Canada to commercially produce its GM salmon eggs at its PEI facility. Environment Canada refuses to disclose if the department is already assessing a request from AquaBounty.

No One Wants GM Fish

The aquaculture industry does not support the commercialization of GM fish and has stated that there is no market demand.

Will GM Salmon Be On Our Plate Soon?

AquaBounty said it is asking Health Canada to approve the GM salmon for eating in Canada. This process could happen quickly, especially if the US government approves the fish. Health Canada refuses to tell the public if they are already looking at a request to approve GM salmon for eating in Canada.

After 10 years, the US government could be close to approving the GM salmon. In late 2010, the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the final stages of its process to approve the GM salmon, and made the preliminary conclusion that the GE salmon is safe for to eat and does not pose a risk to the environment. But FDA meetings in September 2010 did not conclude with a recommendation to approve the salmon. Instead, the FDA’s own committee members voiced serious concerns about the quality of the data and the risks.

The first GM Food Animal in the World?

The GM fish was in a race with the GM pig called “Enviropig” to become the first genetically engineered animal in our food system but the campaign led by the Canadian Biotechnology stopped the GM pig in March 2012. Will the GM salmon be the first GM food animal approved in the world?

Environmental Risks

Atlantic salmon are farmed in both the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean. The escape of farmed fish from either marine net pens or hatcheries is serious, reoccurring pollution that threatens species. For example, mature escaped Atlantic salmon have been recorded in streams in B.C..

To try to avoid a full review of these risks, AquaBounty is only seeking permission to raise the fish in a land-based facility in a “remote highland area” of Panama – even though they say they want to raise the fish in the U.S. and other countries. The company also says that all the fish will be sterile females, but admits they can only guarantee 95% of the salmon will be unable to reproduce.

Any risk of GM Atlantic salmon escaping into the wild is unacceptable, especially when Atlantic salmon are already in danger of disappearing.

Also, GM salmon could put even more pressure on marine ecosystems. The fast-growing GM salmon could consume up to five times more food than other farmed salmon – because salmon are carnivorous they actually eat large amounts of wild-harvested fish like anchovies and sardines, caught just to feed them.

Health Risks and Bad Science

Critics have long warned that the process of genetic engineering itself could possibly result in increased allergenicity and AquaBounty’s own data point to this potential in their GM salmon.

Dr. Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumers Union US, says, “The FDA is relying on woefully inadequate data. There is sloppy science, small sample sizes, and questionable practices.” For example, the company used insensitive tests to try and measure the levels of growth hormone in the GM salmon and the levels of IGF-1, a hormone linked to a number of cancers.

Latest News

January 15, 2011: PEI groups met with Premier Ghiz and the PEI Minister of the Environment and secured a pledge that the Premier will seek information from Environment Canada. Environment Canada is currently refusing to disclose any information about a possible risk assessment to allow the production of GE salmon eggs on PEI. Read the story: PEI groups meet with Premier and secure pledge on GE fish.

December 6, 2010 Press Release: Groups Oppose Genetically Engineered Salmon: Demand Immediate Disclosure from Environment Canada

Sixty fisheries and oceans conservation, environmental and social justice groups revealed today that Environment Canada refuses to confirm or deny if the department has already started a secret 120-day risk assessment to approve genetically engineered (GE, also called genetically modified or GM) salmon egg production on Prince Edward Island. The groups today also released a joint statement of “categorical objection” to the raising of GE fish and fish eggs. Click here to see the statement opposing GE fish and the list of 60 groups signed so far.

November 22, 2010: Press release: PEI Groups request Premier Ghiz to press Environment Canada for disclosure on GE Salmon

Letter from Groups to PEI Premier

October 27, 2010: Newly Disclosed Government Documents Conclude GE Salmon Pose A Critical Threat To Marine Environments – Expert fisheries agencies prohibit growing engineered salmon in open-water net pens under the Endangered Species Act.

September 21, 2010 – Press Statement: Groups in the US and Canada urge the FDA to heed yesterday’s warnings by scientists regarding the safety of genetically engineered salmon and reject company’s request for approval — Yesterday the FDA’s Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee finished two days of public hearings in Maryland on the safety of genetically engineered (GE) salmon: "The committee could not avoid pointing to serious problems with the science. The FDA cannot approve the GE salmon after the committee has raised so many questions about its safety," said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. Many committee members raised serious concerns about the safety of the GE salmon and questions about the quality of the data used by the FDA to come to its initial conclusion that the GE fish is safe. The FDA will now consider the concerns raised by the committee before making a final decision to approve or reject the GE fish, or call for more studies. The FDA has agreed to a public comment period on an environmental assessment.

September 20, 2010 – Press Release: Critics slam “sloppy science” on GE Fish at FDA hearings: FDA overlooked evidence of allergy potential and accepted deficient data say groups

September 16, 2010 – Press Release: PEI Groups Denounce Plans for Local GE Salmon Production: PEI representative to attend US hearings on GE fish safety

September 8, 2010 – Press Release:As U.S. Decision on GE Fish Nears Final Stage, Company Reveals Plan to Produce GE Salmon Eggs in Canada

September 3, 2010: FDA releases documents for the first time prior to public meetings September 19-21:

• Environmental Assessment for "AquAdvantage" Salmon
• Briefing Packet: Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee

August 27, 2010 – Joint Press Statement: Coalition Demands FDA Deny Approval of Controversial GE Fish: FDA Considers Approval of GE Salmon–the First GE Food Animal–Yet Fails to Inform the Public of Environmental and Economic Risks.

More Information

Canadian regulation: Canadian regulators are not prepared to evaluate GE fish properly. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) abandoned its work to develop regulations specific to GE fish. Because DFO could not figure out how to regulate GE fish (Transgenic Aquatic Organisms), they have passed the task to Environment Canada under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Health Canada will evaluate the safety of GE fish for human consumption under the existing Novel Foods regulations. Health Canada is still developing particular guidelines for evaluating safety under these existing regulations.

Status of Wild Atlantic Salmon

Populations of wild Atlantic Salmon have declined for years, with numbers of Atlantic salmon in Canada dropping from approximately 18 million in 1975 to 625,000 in 2008, according to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). While Atlantic salmon can be found in Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada, Iceland Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, France, Spain, and the United States, many traditional salmon runs are now reduced or extinct. In 2009, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) listed all populations of wild Atlantic salmon as a “High Priority Candidate” in danger of disappearing from Canada. In years prior to this, Lake Ontario populations were listed as “Extirpated” and Inner Bay of Fundy (iBoF) populations as “Endangered”. Commercial fisheries for wild Atlantic salmon were closed in 1985. Recreational fisheries, First Nations and Labrador Resident fisheries of large Atlantic salmon are allowed but restricted in Canada.

Atlantic salmon are farmed in Atlantic Canada but also in the Pacific Ocean, primarily in Chile and along the West Coast of Canada and the U.S..

Background on the company AquaBounty

In 2004, AquaBounty Farms was renamed as AquaBounty Technologies Inc. Corporate Headquarters are based in Waltham, Massachusetts, while the AquaBounty Pacific subsidiary is located in San Diego, California. AquaBounty has a Canadian subsidiary based in St John’s, Newfoundland. AquaBounty maintains a research and development facility in Bay Fortune, Prince Edward Island.

The original research conducted on antifreeze (promoter) proteins was patented by two University professors, Dr. Garth Fletcher from Memorial University Newfoundland and Dr. Choy Hew of the University of Toronto, as their “invention”. Dr. Fletcher became Co-Founder, Director, and Corporate Vice President of A/F Protein Inc., and President of A/F Protein Canada Inc – he is still Professor Emeritus at the Ocean Sciences Centre of Memorial University of Newfoundland.

In January 2010, the federal government granted public funds to AquaBounty for research that can be applied to their GE salmon. The company was given $2.9 million from the Atlantic Innovation Fund to “improve the culture of reproductively sterile Atlantic salmon” with the objective of “the safe commercial launch of triploid salmon with Atlantic Canada identified as the source for associated commercial benefits, and worldwide distribution of the product.”

Stop Enviropig™

The genetically modified (GM or genetically engineered) pig called “Enviropig” has been shut down thanks to CBAN and your action. Thanks to your support and actions we have stopped the GM Pig!

June 22, 2012 – Press Release:GM “Enviropigs” Meet Dead End: Remaining GM pigs euthanized at the University of Guelph

April 2, 2012 – Press Release: Genetically Modified Pig Shelved

The hog industry group Ontario Pork has stopped funding the GM pig research at the University of Guelph. The university has now closed down its active research and ended its breeding program of GM pigs. The pig was engineered with genetic material from a mouse to reduce phosphorous in its feces and could have become the first GM food animal approved in the world.

Lucy Sharrat, CBAN Coordinator and Paul Slomp, Youth Vice-President, National Farmers Union speak at a Press Conference April 2, 2012 breaking the news of the end of the GM pig. Click here to watch the Press Conference on YouTube.

April 3, 2012"I had the feeling in seven or eight or nine years that transgenic animals probably would be acceptable. But I was wrong. It’s time to stop the program until the rest of the world catches up" – Dr. Cecil Forsberg, "inventor" of Enviropig. Read the full New York Times article.

Analysis

Circulate the full CBAN email "GM Pigs Shut Down: Major victory in the struggle against genetic engineering" April 2, 2012

This victory comes at a critical moment

The first GM food animal could still be introduced in North America if we do not stop the small U.S. company AquaBounty from getting approval for its GM Atlantic salmon. Just like the GM pig, the GM salmon is designed to support factory farming. It is not wanted by consumers or the aquaculture industry. If a GM fish is introduced, it will also be harder for us to stop other GM foods, crops and animals.

There are key fights before us in Canada. We can still stop GM alfalfa – a crop that was introduced in the U.S. but not yet in Canada. We need to stop GM alfalfa to protect organic food and family farms that are at the frontlines of GM resistance in North America and are central to the economic revival of our farm sector.

Corporations are seeking to genetically engineer staple crops such as wheat and rice but they are meeting formidable global resistance.

Our victory over the GM “Enviropig” shows that Canadians are prepared to fight genetically engineered food, crops and animals – and we will win. We can stop genetic engineering. We are already succeeding.

Your actions worked!

You can help us build our movement – join us now! Donate today.

Summary

The goal of the GM Enviropig™ was to provide intensive livestock operations (factory farms) with a product to reduce the amount of polluting phosphorous they produce. Phosphorous from animal manure is a nutrient for plants that becomes a pollutant if there is too much of it for crops to absorb, and the excess runs off into streams and lakes.

There are already many solutions to this problem including reducing the number of pigs raised in one place, changing feed ingredients, trucking liquid manure longer distances, dry composting manure, or expanding the area of land for spreading manure. Additionally, there is already the cost-effective, simple technological fix of a phytase supplement that can be added to hog feed.

Click here to view CBAN outline the arguments against Enviropig.

Enviropig™ is genetically engineered to produce the enzymephytase in its salivary glands to enable more effective digestion of phytate, the from of phosphorus found in pig feed ingredients like corn and soybeans. Scientists inserted a transgene sequence that includes an E-coli bacteria phytase gene and a mouse promoter gene sequence.

In February 2010, Environment Canada granted approval to the University of Guelph for the reproduction and exportation of Enviropig™. Health Canada could approve Enviropig™ for human consumption at any time.

Background Information

Report:"Enviropig: Genetically Engineering Pigs to Support Industrial Hog Production"

Click on the below questions to get information:

• What is Enviropig™?
• Is Enviropig™ An Environmental Solution?
• Who "Created" and Owns Enviropig™?
• Is Enviropig™ Safe?
• When will Enviropig™ be on the market?
• Do Farmers Need Enviropig™?
• Full HTML background information.

Article: "Enviropig™: A piggy you hope to never meet at the market", Common Ground magazine, by Lucy Sharratt, June 2010.

More Information

February 9, 2011 – Press Release : Rally to Stop University of Guelph’s Genetically Modified Pig: Students, Farmers and Consumers Join Together

October 7, 2010 – Lucy Sharratt, CBAN Coordinator, and Sean McGivern, Regional Coordinator of the National Farmers Union Ontario debated Rich Moccia VP Research, University of Guelph and Dr. Cecil Forsberg, University of Guelph "creator" of Enviropig.Check out the University of Guelph and CBAN: Answers to questions that we ran out of time to address at the debate "Enviropig: Helpful or Harmful?", hosted by the Critical Knowledge Collective at the University of Guelph.

Lucy Sharratt, CBAN Coordinator with Sean McGivern, Regional Coordinator of National Farmers Union Ontario debating Rich Moccia VP Research, University of Guelph and Dr. Cecil Forsberg, University of Guelph "creator" of Enviropig, October 7 2010, University of Guelph.

March 2010: The National Farmers Union of Ontario passed a resolution against Enviropig at their March 20, 2010 AGM:"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the NFU oppose the commercial production of the Enviropig in Canada and request that Ontario Pork and OMAFRA withdraw support for the Enviro Pig and U of Guelph shut down the project immediately. Further, that NFU-O request that these financial resources be redirected to research that fits the real needs of hog producers in Ontario and Canada." Read the full resolution here.

See the University of Guelph’s Enviropig homepage

Livestock breeding in the hands of corporations, Article, Seedling, January 2008.

Become part of the campaign:sign up here to contribute your ideas and subscribe for updates on Enviropig™.

 

Report Exposes Unstudied Risks of Monsanto’s

Genetically Modified “SmartStax” Corn

EU Members State critiques and leaked industry documents uncover safety questions

Ottawa, June 28, 2011. German group Testbiotech today released a critical new report that exposes unstudied questions in confidential industry documents from Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences on their genetically modified (GM) eight-trait corn called “SmartStax”, approved in Canada in 2009.

The GM SmartStax corn produces six different insecticidal toxins and is tolerant to two herbicides. It was allowed onto the market in Canada without a safety evaluation from Health Canada.

Testbiotech gained access to some confidential science evaluations prepared by Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences and presented to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for risk assessment of the GM corn. The group also examined a series of critiques from EU Member States of the EFSA decision and industry documents. In September 2010, EFSA declared the GM corn safe for human and animal consumption. However, the Testbiotech report concludes that the investigations carried out by industry were inadequate for examining health risks.

“Unlike European regulators, Health Canada didn’t even pretend to assess the safety of this new GM corn. The department just presumed that Monsanto’s SmartStax corn is a harmless amalgam of eight previously approved GM traits,” said Lucy Sharratt of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, “The new report exposes the depth of Health Canada’s ignorance on the safety of SmartStax corn. The significant human health and environmental risk questions raised by EU Members States were never asked by Health Canada.”

“The documents show alarming deficiencies in risk evaluations performed by both industry and EU regulators,” said Christoph Then of Testbiotech. “The documents reveal insufficient assessment of risks to human and animal health. For example, the corn was fed to poultry to test nutritional efficiency but there was no investigation of potential health risks.”

Today’s Testbiotech report also states that, “The industry dossiers not only have major defects in study design, they also lack independent quality controls.” In their report, Testbiotech raises the question of possible manipulation of data as one industry document states that, “…oversight ensured that the data were consistent with expectations.” The science submitted by industry is not peer-reviewed.

The data show a tenfold or even twentyfold variation in the content of the insecticidal toxins. The exact range of variation under changing environmental conditions was not determined, leaving questions about the genetic stability of the GM corn plants. There are no evaluated protocols to enable independent measurements of the content of the toxins.

“EFSA based its conclusion of safety to a large extent on data derived from the parental plants. But this approach is highly complicated since SmartStax has many insecticidal toxins, thus more interactions can to be expected. These interactions remain unstudied,” said Then. “Despite this limitation, the results of the risk assessment of parental plants alone show a wide range of uncertainties. For example, in one case even damage in kidneys is under discussion.”

“The critical comments from European countries provide important insights into the limitations of Monsanto’s data and the questions that Health Canada shrugged off,” said Sharratt. “Health Canada needs to immediately remove authorization for SmartStax and begin the human health risk assessment that it never bothered to perform,” said Sharratt.

-30-

For more information: Christoph Then, +49 151 54 63 80 40, info@testbiotech.org ; Lucy Sharratt, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, 613 241 2267 ext 25 coordinator@cban.ca.

Link to the report and the documents: http://www.testbiotech.de/node/515

Background on SmartStax in Canada

 

Corn

September 20, 2012, Press Release : Unprecedented Safety Study Finds Harm from GM Corn The first GM animal feeding trial conducted over the lifetime of laboratory rats to test Monsanto’s GM corn NK603 and their herbicide Roundup found tumours, multiple organ damage and premature death. (Séralini, G.-E., et al. "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize." Food Chem. Toxicol. (2012) NK603 was approved in Canada in 2001 and is grown for animal feed and processed food ingredients. For more information click here.

Consumer Advisory: GM Sweet Corn

Write to your grocery store! Ask at your farmers’ market, roadside stand and grocery store.

Genetically modified (GM) sweet corn is now being grown by some farmers who are selling at roadside stands, at Farmers’ Markets, and through some grocery stores. This a new GM crop from Monsanto – the sweet corn is designed to be insect resistant (its toxic to insects!) and herbicide tolerant (its used with Roundup herbicide!).

Take Action

1. Write to your grocery store and ask them if their fresh sweet corn supply is non-GM and ask them to make sure that all their sweet corn is non-GM for next year. The major grocery chains need to hear from you!
2. Buy organic sweet corn. Organic farming prohibits the use of genetic modification. Certified organic is your guarantee that your sweet corn is not genetically modified (and is also pesticide-free).
3. Ask your local farmer or manager at the farm stand or grocery store if the sweet corn they are selling is genetically modified (also called genetically engineered). Please send your responses to CBAN. Below is some information to help you get an answer. Please also write to your grocery store so your concerns go to head office!

More Information

Monsanto’s new GM sweet corn is engineered to be toxic to particular insects. The GM technology transforms the corn plant into a pesticide. In fact, the toxin, from the soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt, is expressed in every cell of the plant including the corn kernels. If certain insects, including the European corn borers, corn earworms, fall army worms and corn rootworm larvae, try to eat the corn, they will die. The Bt toxin attaches to receptors in the gut of some insects, rupturing the gut and killing the insect.

New Article!"GM Sweet Corn Kils Bugs But is it Also Tasty on the BBQ?" by Lucy Sharratt, CBAN Coordinator, September 2012, Common Ground Magazine

Ask at Your Store or Farmers’ Market

Below is some extra informationand a questionnaire to help you get an answer to your question.

• Some farmers may be growing GM sweet corn but not be aware that it is GM.
• Staff at the grocery store, or even the farm stand, will probably not be able to immediately answer your question and are very likely to be misinformed about GM foods.

GM corn is one of 4 GM crops grown in Canada: canola, soy, and white sugar beet (for sugar processing) are the others. The GM corn grown in Canada has been, until recently, all hard corn used for processed food ingredients and animal feed. The Canadian government does not label GM foods and does not keep statistics on how much GM is grown or where. CBAN researches and monitors GM foods for you: for more information please see http://www.cban.ca/gmfoods

• For Farmers: Does your sweet corn have insect protection? Monsanto and Syngenta both have GM sweetcorn varieties engineered to be toxic to insects such as the European corn borer and corn earworm.
• For Farmers: Is your sweet corn Roundup Ready? Monsanto’s new insect resistant sweetcorn is also herbicide resistant- it is resistant to Monsanto’s brand name herbicide.
• For Farmers: What company did you buy your corn seed from? GM sweet corn is available from seed dealers but sometimes seed companies do not clearly label the seeds as GM. For example, US seed company Seedway sells GM sweetcorn as “Genetically Enhanced” hybrid sweet corn seed. The sweet corn varieties are also called “insect protected hybrids” – the corn is a hybrid but it is also genetically modified. (Seedway also sells organic and untreated sweet corn seed.)
• CBAN has made a questionnaire that you can leave with your grocery store, produce or farm stand manager if necessary. Ask them to fill it out and get back to you.
• Download the PDF Questionnaire Here – or Download the Word Document Questionnaire here.
• You can also print “CBAN’s Quick Guide to GM Foods” to hand to them. (If you have this information from CBAN, you will most likely have more information than your grocery store manager.)

Please contact us:

If you find GM sweet corn, please inform CBAN of the location and of any details from your conversation with the farmer, farm stand manager or grocery store manager. Please send your information to coordinator@cban.ca or leave a message at 613 241 2267 ext 25. Fax 613 241 2506 Thank you for your action!

Stop "SmartStax" Eight-Trait GE Corn

June 28, 2011: German group Testbiotech released a critical new report that exposes unstudied questions in confidential industry documents from Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences on their genetically modified (GM) eight-trait corn called “SmartStax”, approved in Canada in 2009. The GM SmartStax corn produces six different insecticidal toxins and is tolerant to two herbicides. It was allowed onto the market in Canada without a safety evaluation from Health Canada.

Credit: Testbiotech

June 28, 2011 – Press Release: Report Exposes Unstudied Risks of Monsanto’s Genetically Modified "SmartStax" Corn: EU Member State critiques and leaked industry documents uncover safety questions

Backgrounders:

• Selected Comments from EU Member States and Listing of Studies Recommended
• Summary and Background on SmartStax corn and risk questions, CBAN.

Tell the Minister of Health its unacceptable that Health Canada did not assess the safety of ‘SmartStax’ before it was approved. Click here to send your instant email letter.

Action Resources:

• Instant email letter.
• Postcards to print and send to the Minister.
• Flyer on SmartStax for printing and folding.
• Talking points for calling or writing the Minister.
• Factsheet: Why ‘SmartStax’ is Dumb

  

Background: Health Canada did not assess the safety of “SmartStax” GM corn. Health Canada does not classify “SmartStax” as a “Novel Food” because it has previously approved the eight single GM traits in “SmartStax”, individually in earlier crops. Health Canada says that combining eight GM traits together does not create any new risks and does not need any safety evaluation. Health Canada did not even bother to rubber-stamp “SmartStax” – it was approved for release by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, without Health Canada.

Summary: On July 15, 2009 Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences announced that they received approval to introduce their new eight-trait GM corn ‘SmartStax’ in Canada and the US. But Health Canada did not assess ‘SmartStax’ for human health safety and did not even bother to authorize it. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency authorized the environmental release of ‘SmartStax’ but never conducted an environmental risk assessment and actually substantially weakened its environmental stewardship rules for the crop. Because the eight traits were previously approved in separate crops, Canadian regulators do not see anything new in combining the eight together – despite the fact that the Codex international food safety guidelines that Canada helped to negotiate clearly state that stacked traits can lead to unintended effects and should be subject to a full safety assessment.

Information Resources:

• Read the CBAN article in Alive Magazine. February 2010.
• CBAN Opinion: Stacked traits lack assessment, Western Producer, October 15, 2009.
• Monsanto response: Stacked Traits good for growers, Western Producer, November 5, 2009.
• Full Analysis: Why did Monsanto’s latest foods get a free pass from Health Canada? rabble.ca article
• Press Release: No Safety Assessment of GE Corn by Health Canada: Canada Ignores International Food Safety Guidelines. July 29, 2009.
• Press Release: CFIA ’s Irresponsible Rubber-Stamping of New Genetically Engineered Corn No environmental risk assessment, and reduced environmental stewardship requirements for new Monsanto/Dow “SmartStax”. July 24, 2009.
• CBAN letter to Health Canada. July 28, 2009.
• Response to Health Canada: ‘SmartStax’ Genetic Corn Really Safe? Montreal Gazette, CBAN Opinion Letter, July 30, 2009.
• CBAN letter to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, August 3, 2009.
• UN Codex Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants.
• CBAN Briefing Note on GE regulation in Canada.

Failure of Government Regulation

CBAN demands that:

• Health Canada immediately request that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency rescind its authorization of the genetically modified (GM) eight-trait corn called ‘SmartStax’ (Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences)
• Health Canada initiate a full food safety assessment of the GM corn as set out by the Codex Alimentarius Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants.
• Health Canada request the Canadian Food Inspection Agency halt any further approvals of stacked trait products until Health Canada has reviewed its Novel Foods Regulations and initiated a system-wide review of the entire regulatory system for GM foods and crops ("Novel Foods" and "Plants with Novel Traits").

• Click here to read the full letter from CBAN to Health Canada. July 28, 2009.
• Read the Minister of Health’s response.
• Click here to read CBAN’s letter to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, August 3, 2009.
• Read the CFIA’s response to CBAN.

The UN Codex guidelines for GM food safety assessment state that “unintended effects in recombinant-DNA plants may also arise through the insertion of DNA sequences an/or may arise through subsequent conventional breeding of the recombinant-DNA plant.’’ (this is how stacked trait GE crops like ‘SmartStax’ are produced – through the conventional breeding or crossing of GM plants) and that such crops should go through a full safety assessment (para 14, CAC/GL 45-2003).

The international Codex Alimentarius Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants clearly recommends safety assessments of stacked trait GE crops. The Guideline clearly states that unintended effects can arise not only from genetically engineered (GE) plants, but can also arise when those GE plants are crossed via conventional breeding (as in the case of stacked-trait crops such as ‘SmartStax’): “Unintended effects in recombinant-DNA plants may also arise through the insertion of DNA sequences an/ormay arise through subsequent conventional breeding of the recombinant-DNA plant” [bold added] (para 14, CAC/GL 45-2003). Furthermore, the Guidelines also state that such crops should go through a full safety assessment: “The assessment for unintended effects takes into account the agronomic/phenotypic characteristics of the plant that are typically observed by breeders in selecting new varieties for commercialization. These observations by breeders provide a first screen for plants that exhibit unintended traits. New varieties that pass this screen are subjected to safety assessment as described in Sections 4 and 5” [bold added] (para 17, CAC/GL 45-2003).

 

Apple

 

The small BC company called Okanagan Specialty Fruits is asking Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to approve a GM “non-browning” apple. The U.S. government could approve the GM apple soon. Contamination from GM apples threatens the future of our apples, and the farmers who grow them.

Press Release, August 14, 2012: GM Apple Jeopardizes Okanagan’s Reputation, say local groups

• Letter from Okanagan groups to Okanagan Specialty Fruits

New Resources

• Flyer on the GM Apple, August, 2012
• Factsheet on the GM Apple, August, 2012

Take Action

1. In BC : Collect signatures on the petition
2. Write to your provincial agriculture minister and ask them to take action to protect the apple growers in your area from the GM apple.
3. Write or call your federal Member of Parliament. You can look up their contacts using your postal code at www.parl.gc.ca
4. Join the campaign! If you are in BC contact the Okanagan Greens to join the campaign. Elsewhere in Canada, contact CBAN. CBAN is working with Bee SAFE, GE Free BC,Okanagan Greens Society, True Food Foundation, and Vigilance OGM to stop the GM apple.

   

Tell the government that you don’t want to eat a GM apple!

• Consumers don’t want the GM apple.
• BC apple growers have already rejected the GM apple.
• Contamination from GM apples is a risk to Canadian apple producers.
• Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are using public funds to review a GM apple no one wants.
• The government has not consulted with farmers and consumers and does not consider economic or social concerns before it approves a new GM crop.

Background

The GM “non-browning” apple is engineered to keep from going brown after being cut. This apple is designed for fast food companies and food processing companies. The technology was developed in Australia and licensed by the small BC company called Okanagan Specialty Fruits.

Okanagan Specialty Fruits asked for approval in the US in March 2010 and has just asked for approval in Canada. The GM apple has not yet been approved anywhere in the world.

The company wants approval to use of the GM trait in Golden Delicious and Granny Smith apples but they say they want to also engineer Gala and Fuji apples.

69% of Canadians oppose the GM apple! See the consumer survey commissioned by the BC Fruit Growers Association and the Quebec Apple Producers Association, July 3, 2012.

More Information

How is the apple engineered?

The company has silenced a gene in the apple that controls browning by inserting a range of genetic sequences – Modified apple DNA is inserted along with genetic sequences from at least three different species:

1. A regulatory gene switch from a plant virus (Cauliflower Mosaic virus promoter: CaMV 35S);
2. A terminator sequence from a bacterium (Agrobacterium tumefaciens taken from its Nopaline synthase gene: nos);
3. An antibiotic resistance marker gene from a bacterium (Streptomyces kanamyceticus), here the nptII gene (which confers resistance to the antibiotic kanamycin).

What are apple growers saying?

In 2001, BC apple growers stopped the GM apple from being field tested in Canada. The federal government agricultural station in Summerland in the Okanagan valley, an important fruit growing area, was preparing to start field trials but BC growers who were concerned about contamination stopped these field trials from happening. As a consequence, the company has tested all their apple trees in the U.S.

In September 2011, CBAN and organizations from across BC organized a series of public events to discuss genetic engineering. At an event in Keremeos, Lee McFadyen of Mariposa Organic Farm and the Live Earth Organic Growers Association pointed out that there are already several varieties of apple that are slow to brown. On the GM apple, orchardist Andrea Turner of the Similkameen Okanagan Organic Producers Association said, “The tree fruit industry cannot afford anything silly like that”. Read the concerns of the Similkameen Okanagan Organic Treefruit Growers Association, BC.

The U.S. Apple Association "does not support the approval of this product" and says "Consumers like their apples and are not calling for these new “nonbrowning” cultivars."http://www.usapple.org/consumers/all-about-apples/consumer-updates-information

"Apples are healthy and nutritious they way they are. Browning is a natural process that results from exposure to oxygen. There are already naturally low-browning apples in the marketplace. In addition if you just put some vitamin C fortified apple juice on sliced or cut apples it will also prevent browning." – Mark Gedris, Director of Membership & Communications for U.S. Apple Association

Resources

• July 27, 2012 – CBAN Letter to the Editor: GM Apple Not Simple, Published in the Western Producer
• Taking the bite out of GM apples, by Lucy Sharratt, Common Ground magazine, July 2012
• Apple Cravings, Harry Burton, Canadian Organic Growers, June 2012.

Background on Canadian "Public Consultation"

• July 9, 2012 – Press Release: GM Apple Closer to U.S. Approval: Farce of Canadian public consultation exposed
• Letter to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency from CBAN, Public Process Lacking on Genetically Engineered Foods: Request to halt regulatory evaluation of GE "non-browning" apple July 9, 2012.
• The CFIA "public comment" period is over. Read CBAN’s comments on the GM apple to the CFIA here.

 

Alfalfa

 

Share the video with your friends and family, screen the video at community events and film fests! You can request the file from us for screening. Click here to find out more information about the people behind the video.

Take Instant Action

Send your letter to the Minister of Agriculture instantly by clicking here!

More Actions

1. Share the video with your friends and family on facebook, embed the video on your website, "Like" the video!
2. Screen the video at your local events, include it in your local film fests.
3. Get signatures on the petition.
4. Print and download the flyer about GM alfalfa.
5. Ask your local health food store to put up this attractive poster about GM alfalfa! The store could also collect signatures on the petition, screen the video or display alfalfa-related foods!
6. Order buttons for your community group or event. Contact us.
7. Join the GM Alfalfa Campaign Action Listserve.
8. Donate today to support the campaign. Thank you for your support!
9. Send us your action ideas and share photos from your community. Contact us.

   

Even More Actions!

1. If your Member of Parliament is a Conservative: Click here for important action suggestions that could make a huge difference!
2. Farmers: you can send usyour testimonials about how alfalfa will impact your farm business. Email Lucy at coordinator@cban.ca
3. Farmers: We need videos of you talking about how important alfalfa is to your farm – What is alfalfa? Why is GM alfalfa such a big threat?
4. Groups and Businesses: Your group can sign the No to GE Alfalfa campaign statement. Please encourage organizations, producer associations, companies and community groups to sign!
5. Retailers: Download and print this poster for your store!
6. Retailers: Coming soon: "GM Alfalfa Campaign Action Kit for Retailers". Let us know if you are interested in receiving one.

Information

Summary: Alfalfa growers do not need or want GM alfalfa and have been trying to stop it for at least five years. Organic food and farming in the U.S. and Canada is under immediate threat from GM alfalfa. Conventional farmers will also lose their markets. The introduction of Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) herbicide tolerant (Roundup Ready) alfalfa would have serious negative impacts on many different types of farmers and farming systems, both conventional and organic. Because alfalfa is a perennial crop pollinated by bees, GM contamination is inevitable. GM alfalfa was actually approved in Canada in 2005 but still needs to go through one more step before it can be legally sold as seed in Canada.

Why is Alfalfa Important? Alfalfa (harvested as hay) is used as high-protein feed for animals like dairy cows, beef cattle, lambs, poultry and pigs and is also used to build up nutrients in the soil, making it particularly important for organic farming. If introduced, GM alfalfa would ruin export markets for alfalfa products and threaten the future organic food and farming in the North America.

What are Farmers Saying about GM Alfalfa?

Conventional and organic farmers agree that GM alfalfa is not wanted or needed: What conventional alfalfa producers told the House of Commons Agriculture Committee, June 7, 2010

Harmony Organic Dairy Co-op says Stop GM Alfalfa

Read the list of 127 farmer and consumers groups that say no to GE alfalfa.

Resources

Read the 2-page position paper on alfalfa from the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate.

Before the U.S. decided to allow GM alfalfa plantings in early 2011, groups in Canada sent their comments to the U.S. Department of Agriculture in response to their Draft Environmental Impact Statement on alfalfa. Read the about on the predicted impacts of GM alfalfa and the experience of GM contamination in Canada:

• The National Farmers Union
• Beyond Factory Farming
• The Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, Organic Agriculture Protection Fund
• National Organic Coalition (U.S. with Canadian signatories).

The Campaign So Far

Before the Federal election in Canada, May 2011: Conservative Members of Parliament purposefully delayed a vote (twice) on a motion for a moratorium on GM alfalfa at Agriculture Committee meetings. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Members all supported the moratorium so if the Conservatives had allowed the vote, the motion would have been approved and the motion would have passed to the House of Commons for a vote. The motion was proposed by the Liberal members of the House of Commons Agriculture Committee after huge public pressure to support Bill C-474 which would have required an assessment of export market harm before any new GM seed was permitted.

In 2007 a judge ruled that the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) approval of GM alfalfa was illegal and ordered the Department to conduct an environmental risk assessment to look into farmer concerns about contamination. In December 2009, the USDA released its draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for comment (this is the first time it has conducted this type of analysis for any GM crop). Canadian groups sent in their comments (see above) but in January 2011, the U.S. approved plantings of GM alfalfa. Resistance continues in the U.S.

Join the Campaign

Invitation from the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network and the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate:

The commercialization of genetically modified alfalfa — GM Alfalfa — planned by Monsanto and Forage Genetics International, would have a severe, negative impact on Canadian agriculture, markets, and our environment. A united effort by agriculture producer groups, consumer and environmental organizations, as well as concerned individuals, will prevent this from happening. A similar campaign stopped GM wheat in 2004.

This is your invitation to join together to put the brakes on GM Alfalfa.

We invite all organizations, producer associations, companies and community groups to endorse the "No to GM Alfalfa" campaign by signing on to the following statement (Your group’s name will be used in a list of groups that state opposition to GM Alfalfa):

• We oppose the sale, trade and production of GMO Alfalfa in Canada.
• We ask the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to reassess its approval for environmental release of GMO Alfalfa.
• We want the public to understand the hazards, costs and market losses that would result if GMO Alfalfa were released into our environment.

Sign the statement here! or email coordinator@cban.ca for more info.

See the list of groups that have endorsed the campaign.

The Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (SOD) is a Member of CBAN. SOD is the umbrella group for the organic sector in Saskatchewan. In 2001 the Organic Agriculture Protection Fund Committee was established by SOD in order to protect organic farms and food from contamination by GMOs. The OAPF Committee provided support to the legal action against Monsanto and Bayer to bring about an injunction to stop the commercialization of GMO wheat, and to make the biotech companies liable for losses to organic farmers due to contamination of certified organic crops and fields by GMO canola. In 2004 Monsanto withdrew its application to have GMO wheat approved in Canada.

 

Monsanto GM Smartstax corn risks exposed

SOURCE: http://www.commonground.ca/iss/241/cg241_smartstax.shtml

 

This year, we are eating from the first harvest of Monsanto’s eight-trait “SmartStax” genetically modified (GM) corn. Approved in 2009 and grown for the first time in North America last year, the new GM corn appears as processed food ingredients and feed for dairy and meat animals.
Canada’s approval of SmartStax corn exposed just how little Health Canada cares to investigate the potential risks of GM crops and foods – in the case of SmartStax, not at all. Now the process to approve SmartStax in Europe has identified many of the risk issues being ignored on both sides of the ocean. Confidential industry summaries of data as well as critiques by European experts show more studies must be done to determine any potential health and environmental risks.
No risk assessment in Canada
In July 2009, Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences announced they had received approval in Canada and the US to introduce their new eight-trait GM corn SmartStax (it combines technologies from both companies). However, Health Canada did not actually assess SmartStax for human health safety. Because the individual eight GM traits were previously approved in separate crops, Canadian regulators decided there was nothing new in combining the eight together. Health Canada assumed the corn was a harmless amalgam of GM traits and did not even issue any paperwork to rubberstamp its approval.
In September 2010, the GMO Panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded SmartStax “is unlikely to have adverse effects on human and animal health and the environment, in the context of its intended uses.” Unlike in Canada, the European Authority actually looked at some industry documents (summarizes of studies). The German non-governmental group Testbiotech published a report in June that examined these documents as well as critiques from regulators in European countries. Its report points to many safety questions still not being addressed in Europe – questions Health Canada should have asked but never did (Testbiotech, June 2011, “How industry and EFSA have been systematically undermining the risk assessment of ‘SmartStax” www.testbiotech.de/node/515)
More GM traits, more risks?
SmartStax corn is the first GM crop that has more than three GM traits “stacked” together. SmartStax produces six different insecticidal toxins (Bt toxins) and is tolerant to two herbicides. SmartStax is also known as MON 89034 x 1507 x MON 88017 x 59122, which represents the four GM events or parental lines bred together to make SmartStax. The possible implications of such complexity were entirely overlooked by Health Canada.
Canadian regulation is essentially based on the view that moving genes around is not inherently risky. Instead of examining the process of genetic engineering, Canada evaluates the end product using, in part, the widely discredited concept of “substantial equivalence.” Substantial equivalence allows for a comparison of a GM organism with its “equivalent” already out in the environment with a “history of safe use.” Health Canada’s approval of SmartStax is an extreme application of substantial equivalence. The European Food Safety Authority chose a similar approach. As Christoph Then of Testbiotech explains, “EFSA based its approval of SmartStax to a large extent on data derived from the parental plants. But this approach is highly complicated since SmartStax has many insecticidal toxins, thus more interactions can to be expected. These interactions remain unstudied.” (June 28, 2011, CBAN press release: “Report Exposes Unstudied Risks of Monsanto’s Genetically Modified “SmartStax” Corn: EU Member State Critiques and Leaked Industry Documents Uncover Safety Questions.”)
While insect resistant crops are engineered using genes from the naturally occurring soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), the risks posed by Bt toxins cannot be assessed by comparing them with the Bt toxins that occur naturally. As the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health states, “concerning all Bt toxins, a history of safe use cannot be argued on the basis of the safety of Bt sprays applied in organic farming. The inserted genes are truncated and arranged with expression modulating DNA parts originating from different organisms and permanently expressed compared to a tight timely Bt spraying schedule.”
Additionally, the Bt toxin Cry1A.105 in SmartStax was artificially synthesized and as stated by Austria, “There is no safe use of the new recombinant protein expressed by an artificially arranged insert such as Cry1A.105.”
In their comments on the EFSA SmartStax decision, regulators from Austria summarized: “A stacked organism has to be regarded as a new event, even if no new modifications are introduced.” This view is consistent with EU regulations and with United Nations Codex guidelines that Canada helped negotiate. Austrian experts take this view because “The gene-cassette combination is new and only minor conclusions could be drawn from the assessment of the parental lines, since unexpected effects (e.g. synergistic effects of the newly introduced proteins) cannot automatically be excluded.”

First resistance to Bt corn toxin found

http://www.ontariofarmer.com/sitepages/?aid=4160&cn=FEATURES&an=First%20resistance%20to%20Bt%20corn%20toxin%20found%20

August 5 – Purdue University researchers are reporting the first documented case of in-field resistance by corn rootworm to Bt corn in Iowa.

According to reports, the discovery followed multiple complaints about high damage to Bt corn with the Cry3Bb1 toxin in northeastern Iowa.

Christian Krupke, Purdue University entomologist, was quoted as saying hybrids with this toxin include "those formerly labeled as Yieldgard RW and VT3 hybrids. This toxin is also one of the proteins found in SmartStax hybrids."

"The good news is that the study tested the other major toxins deployed in North America against this pest, Cry34/35 (found in Herculex hybrids targeting rootworms and also in SmartStax hybrids), and no enhanced survival was found."

The article says entomologists must now determin how these insects are able to survive toxin exposure by discovering what combination of physiological and behavioral traits are occurring. In the meantime they’re telling producers to scout their Bt corn for any signs of rootworm survival.

 

$$IT ALWAYS ABOUT MONEY$$

The Anticipated Value of SmartStax^™ for US Corn Growers

Michele C. Marra, Nicholas E. Piggott, and Barry K. Goodwin

North Carolina State University

This study provides an estimate of the anticipated value of SmartStax^™ corn hybrids in the years after full commercialization. SmartStax^™ hybrids have an eight-trait stack of above-ground and below-ground insect-resistance traits and tolerance to two broad spectrum herbicides. Survey data, expert opinion, and public data sources were used to estimate the value of SmartStax^™ hybrids to growers. We consider the effects of varying spatial and temporal pest pressure, differing target insects, the current hybrid mix, the anticipated actions of competing seed companies, and geographical location on SmartStax^™ adoption and value. We estimate the total value of SmartStax^™ hybrids to growers, including the non-pecuniary value, to be $760.98 million per year in the Corn Belt. We then discuss the role that SmartStax^™ is expected to play in enhancing crop insurance programs.

Key words: biotechnology, crop insurance, non-pecuniary, partial budget, SmartStax.

Introduction

Since the late 1990s, agricultural biotechnology companies (Monsanto Company [Monsanto]; Dow AgroSciences, Inc. [Dow]; E.I. DuPont de Nemours Company, including its subsidiary Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. [Pioneer]; Syngenta Corporation [Syngenta]; Bayer Crop Science; and others) have been fiercely battling each other for market share. Recently, however, these companies have begun to cross-license their biotechnology traits to each other in some situations. For example, Monsanto licensed its Roundup Ready^® traits to Syngenta for inclusion in some of their corn hybrids. The latest and most comprehensive of these recent collaborations involves the new corn hybrids that combine Monsanto, Dow, and Bayer Crop Science traits and germplasm—SmartStax^™.

SmartStax^™ is an eight-trait stack of technologies that offers three yield-protection components. First, multiple modes of action for above-ground insect protection are offered in SmartStax via inclusion of YieldGard^® VT-Pro^™ and Herculex^® I. Second, SmartStax offers multiple modes of action for below-ground insect protection through inclusion of the YieldGard^® VT Rootworm^® and Herculex^® Rootworm traits. Finally, SmartStax offers dual herbicide tolerance for weed control through inclusion of the Roundup Ready Corn 2^® (glyphosate tolerance) trait from Monsanto and the Liberty-Link^® (glufosinate tolerance) trait from Dow.¹ The inclusion of all these traits in a single corn plant will result in increased pesticide durability and more complete control of the pests targeted by these traits, implying a higher yield and a much smaller required refuge area. Indeed, in July 2009, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved a smaller required refuge area for SmartStax, lowering it from 20% to 5% of planted corn acreage on a farm in the Corn Belt and from 50% to 20% in the Cotton Belt (PR newswire-First Call, 2009). These hybrids became available commercially in 2010, with an initial launch of about 3-4 million acres.² Full commercialization (i.e., when supply constraints no longer exist and adoption has reached its expected maximum) is expected to begin with the 2014 crop year.

The purpose of this article is to assess the anticipated value of the SmartStax corn hybrids at full commercialization. We estimate the anticipated value to growers, taking account of the benefits that affect utility directly and those that affect utility indirectly through profit. Then, using projections based on farm-level assessments, we assess the value of SmartStax to the innovators. Finally, we discuss the potential implications of SmartStax adoption for the crop insurance industry. This study is unique in the evaluation of a new crop biotechnology in that we consider the effects of varying spatial and temporal pest pressure, differing target insects, the current hybrid mix, the anticipated actions of competing seed companies, and geographical location on SmartStax adoption and value. Also, the calculation of the non-pecuniary benefits to growers takes account of any potential correlation between the various non-pecuniary characteristics’ values.

The Survey

A survey of 501 US corn growers was conducted in Spring 2009 that focused on the growers’ current insect-control practices, including insecticide applications and choice of brand/trait combinations, and how those practices might change with the introduction and adoption of SmartStax hybrids.³ To be eligible, respondents were required to be growing at least 250 acres of corn in 2009 and to be planting at least some of their corn acreage to insect-traited hybrids. Growers were surveyed in the three main agronomic zones in the US Corn Belt; the Western Corn Belt (WCB), the Central Corn Belt (CCB), and the Eastern Corn Belt (ECB). Figure 1 illustrates the geographies of the three zones. The sample was stratified so that total corn acreage represented by the survey respondents is 71,326, or 0.9%, of total WCB corn acres in 2008 (7.9 million acres); 146,946, or 0.8%, of total CCB corn acres in 2008 (18.4 million acres); and 78,362, or 0.8%, of total ECB corn acres in 2008 (9.8 million acres) (USDA NASS, 2009).

Figure 1. The geographies of the three zones: Western Corn Belt (WCB), the Central Corn Belt (CCB), and the Eastern Corn Belt (ECB).

The Anticipated Value of SmartStax for Growers

Change in Profit

A partial budgeting framework is employed to determine the value of SmartStax for growers, incorporating information derived from the survey and from other sources. Partial budgeting analysis provides a measure of the net change in profit resulting from a particular change in a farming operation. In a partial budgeting framework, only those items of value that change with the anticipated change in a farming operation are considered. This reduces the data requirements of the analysis while maintaining the underlying assumption of profit maximization if the change is scale-neutral (Piggott & Marra, 2007; Swinkels, Hogeveen, Zadoks, 2005; Tigner, 2006). The change in profit per acre for each grower in their respective agronomic zone is given by the sum of any additional gross revenue and cost reductions less the sum of any reduced gross revenue and cost increases as a result of the introduction of SmartStax. Finally, utilizing the change in profit for each agronomic zone, the total change in profit per acre from switching to SmartStax across all zones can be derived by calculating an estimated per-acre average of these changes in profits in each agronomic zone and then multiplying each per-acre average by the total number of acres in that zone and summing across zones. More formally this approach can be written as

(1)

where

ΔΠ^z_ss is the total change in profit from switching to SmartStax across all zones,

A_z is the total number of corn acres in zone z,

is the estimated average change in profit per acre in agronomic zone z, calculated as , and

Δπ_gz is the estimated change in profit from switching to SmartStax for grower glocated in zone z.

Increased Revenue

The expected increased revenue per acre in zone z is calculated as

↑ΔR_z^T = P^corn ●
B
Σ
b=1
A_bz Θ_z^b→SS ΔY_bz

(2)

where

↑ΔR_z^T is the expected increase revenue per acre in zone z,

P^corn is the price of corn in dollars per bushel,

A_bz = w_bz ● A_z is the estimated acreage of brand/trait combination b in zone zcalculated as the product of the estimated share of brand/trait combination b in zone z using the sample acreage of brand/trait combination b for grower g (i.e., , where A_gbz is the number of acres grower g planted to brand/trait combination b in zone z,

Θ_z^b→SS is the estimated proportion Θ of acres switching from brand/trait combination b to SmartStax (SS) in zone z, and

ΔY_bz is the estimated change in yield from switching from brand/trait combination b to SmartStax (SS) in zone z.

Survey respondents were asked to report the various brand/trait combinations they were planting in 2009 and their acres planted to each on their continuous corn acreage and separately on their first-year corn acreage. Conventional corn acres were assumed to be the remainder corn acres after all reported traited corn acres are subtracted from the grower’s reported total corn acres. Table 1 presents the average shares of total corn acres planted by the survey respondents to each brand/trait combination by agronomic zone in 2009. Survey respondents reported that Monsanto’s YieldGard VT Triple hybrids made up the largest share of 2009 total planted, insect-traited acres in the survey, with approximately one-half the insect-traited acres being planted to these hybrids in the CCB and ECB agronomic zones. These hybrids also represent the largest share of insect-traited acres in the WCB agronomic zone, but the share there is about 10 percentage points smaller than the shares in the other two zones. The brand/trait combination with the second largest share on insect-traited acres varies by agronomic zone, with YieldGard Corn Borer Roundup Ready hybrids taking second place in the WCB agronomic zone (13.8%), and Herculex Xtra coming in second in the CCB (8.2%) and the ECB (13.1%) zones. Single-trait, Roundup Ready corn hybrids made up 15% of planted corn acres in the WCB, 12.2% in the CCB, and 13.2% in the ECB. Non-traited planted corn acres ranged from 10.7% in the CCB to 12.1% in the WCB.

Table 1. All (continuous and first year) corn brand/trait penetration in 2009 by agronomic zone (share of total planted corn acres).

Monsanto and university field trial data from 2005 through 2008 involving 523 experiments (each with multiple observations) along with expert opinion from Monsanto agronomists and the SmartStax pricing lead were used to determine the expected change in yield associated with switching to SmartStax from each brand/trait combination. The estimated average change in yield from switching one acre of a particular brand/trait combination to SmartStax is shown in Table 2. The estimated yield gain when switching from the triple stacks (YieldGard VT Triple and Herculex Xtra) ranges from six bushels per acre for YieldGard VT Triple in the CCB to eight bushels per acre for Herculex Xtra and Agrisure 3000 GT in all agronomic zones. The yield gain for the double stacks (YieldGard Corn Borer/ Roundup Ready and Herculex Corn Borer/ Roundup Ready) and other traited brands is expected to be 11 bushels per acre, and the yield gain from switching the Roundup Ready hybrids to SmartStax is projected to be 16 bushels per acre across all agronomic zones. Growers planting the non-traited hybrids are not expected to switch to SmartStax, so their assumed yield gain is zero. The price of corn is taken to be the planting-time base price offered by the USDA Risk Management Agency for the 2009 crop insurance revenue products, which is $4.04 per bushel. The corn price is varied in the sensitivity analysis at the end of this section.

Table 2. Estimated yield gain from switching to SmartStax^™.

Table 3 shows the projected share of each brand/trait combination that is expected to switch to SmartStax in the first year of full commercialization (i.e., with no supply constraints). It is expected that all acres of both the triple stack and double stack YieldGard corn hybrids will switch to SmartStax because these traited hybrids are scheduled to be phased out by the time full commercialization of SmartStax hybrids is achieved (Monsanto Corn Pricing Lead, personal communication, August 2009). The Dow hybrids, Herculex Xtra and Herculex CBRR, are projected to undergo a switch to SmartStax by 20% and 10%, respectively—much less than the YieldGard hybrids. This lower projected adoption of SmartStax by Herculex users results from the fact that Dow is assumed to be planning to keep their triple and double stack products on the market throughout the full commercialization of SmartStax. Seventy-five percent of Roundup Ready acres are expected to switch to SmartStax. This high percentage is due to the smaller refuge requirement (5%) for SmartStax compared to other insect-traited hybrids (20%). Forty percent of other insect-traited acres are expected to be switched to SmartStax by 2014, while non-traited acres are not expected to be converted to SmartStax because we assume the growers planting them are either organic growers, are planting non-traited hybrids to obtain a premium for doing so, or they just do not care to adopt any traited hybrids. As a result of calculations using data from Tables 1–3 and Equation 2, the expected increased gross revenue after full commercialization of SmartStax is estimated to be $26.10 per acre in the WCB, $23.07 in the CCB, and $23.47 in the ECB.

Table 3. Proportion of acres currently in brand/trait combination projected to switch to SmartStax.

Reduced Costs

Reduced costs in this study are the insect-control cost savings, if any, brought about by changing acreage from current brand/trait combinations to SmartStax hybrids. These per acre cost savings in zone z are determined as

↓ΔC_z^{insectcontrol} =
G
Σ
g=1
R
Σ
r=1
w_rgz
I
Σ
i=1

(3)

where

↓ΔC_z^{insectcontrol} is the insect-control cost per acre savings in zone z,

w_rgz is the proportion of acres in rotation r planted by grower g in zone z (i.e.,A_rgz /A_gz), where the numerator is number of acres in rotation r planted by grower g in zone z and the denominator is grower g’s total planted acres in zone z,

C_irgz^{insectcontrol} is the per-acre insect-control cost for insect i (i = 1 if corn rootworm, i = 2 if black and/or Western bean cutworm, or i =3 for fall armyworm and/or corn earworm) in rotation r (r = 1 if continuous corn or r = 2 for first year corn) for grower g in zone z,

w_irgz^spray is the proportion of acres that are typically sprayed for insect i in rotation r by grower g in zone z (i.e., A_irgz^spray /A_rgz ), where the numerator is the number of acres sprayed for insect i in rotation r by grower g in zone z and the denominator is the number of acres planted in rotation r by grower g in zone z, and

Θ_irgz^spray is the probability that insect i in rotation r will be treated in any one year by grower g in zone z.

The survey respondents were asked to estimate their per-acre insecticide-control costs—including the cost of the insecticide(s) and the application cost—for controlling corn rootworm, black and/or western bean cutworm, and fall armyworm and/or corn earworm on both their continuous corn acres and their first-year corn acres. The average insect-control costs are presented in Table 4 as reported by survey respondents by agronomic zone and rotation.⁴ In all cases, the cost of controlling corn rootworm is reported to be higher in continuous corn rotation than the control costs in first-year corn rotations. This cost difference ranges from $0.59 per acre in the ECB to $3.44 per acre in the CCB. In the WCB, CCB, and ECB for continuous corn, fall armyworm/corn earworm control is most expensive; however, corn rootworm control is most expensive in first-year corn in the ECB. Control costs range from $10.29 per acre for corn rootworm in first-year corn in the WCB to $19.00 per acre for fall armyworm/corn earworm in the CCB.

Table 4. Insect control costs by target insect, rotation, and agronomic zone ($/acre).

Table 5 contains the reported typical proportions of acres treated for each insect type by agronomic zone and rotation. By far, areas threatened by the fall armyworm/corn earworm pest complex have the highest proportion of acres treated except for cutworm control in the ECB. The proportion of acres treated for corn rootworm ranges from 0.067 in the WCB in first-year corn to 0.178 in the ECB in continuous corn. The proportion of acres treated for black and/or western bean cutworm ranges from 0.200 in the ECB on continuous corn acres to 0.307 on first-year corn acres in the ECB. For the fall armyworm/corn earworm complex, the proportion of acres treated ranges from a low of 0.159 in the ECB on continuous corn to a high of 0.520 in the WCB on continuous corn.

Table 5. Typical proportion of acres treated by target insect, rotation, and agronomic zone.

Source: Survey data.

Respondents were asked to estimate the number of years out of five that they typically treat for each insect type on continuous and first-year acres. The relative frequencies are reported in Table 6. Corn rootworm is treated more frequently than the other insects in continuous corn in comparison to first-year corn in all agronomic zones. Treatment for the cutworm complex and the fall armyworm/corn earworm complex are reported to be much less frequent, with cutworm being treated more frequently than the fall armyworm/corn earworm complex.

Table 6. Probability of controlling target insect in any one year by rotation and zone.

Insect control costs, weighted by the typical proportion of acres treated and the frequency of treatment (the expression in parentheses in Equation 3), are shown in Table 7. These are the reduced costs from switching to SmartStax and are estimated to be $11.03 per acre in the WCB, $8.86 per acre in the CCB, and $5.68 per acre in the ECB. Adding the increased gross revenue to the reduced costs gives the net addition to gross revenue, which is $37.13 per acre in the WCB, $31.93 per acre in the CCB, and $29.15 per acre in the ECB.

Table 7. Insecticide application costs saved (weighted by proportion of acres treated and probability of treating; $/acre).

Increased Cost

The expected increased cost from switching to SmartStax is the additional trait cost the grower will pay if he/she switches brand/trait combination b to SmartStax in zone z.⁵ That is,

↑ΔC_z^trait =
Z
Σ
z=1
Θ_z^(b→SS)
G
Σ
g=1
B
Σ
b=1
ΔC ^s_gbz ● w_gbz

(4)

where

↑ΔC_z^trait is the increased cost per acre of switching to SmartStax in zone z,

Θ_z^(b→SS) is the estimated proportion Θ of acres switching from brand/trait combination b to SmartStax (SS) in zone z,

ΔC ^s_gbz is the difference between SmartStax and the current brand/trait price per acre for brand/trait combination b in zone z, and

w_gbz is the proportion of acres grower g has planted to brand/trait combinationb, (i.e., w_gbz = (A_gbz / A^b_gz) = [A_gbz / A_gbz]), where the numerator is growerg’s acres planted to brand/trait combination b in zone z and the denominator is grower g’s total planted brand/trait combination corn acres in zone z.

The typical projected differences in seed prices for each brand/trait combination relative to the expected price of SmartStax seed in each agronomic zone were based on Monsanto market research, combined with the expert opinion of Monsanto’s Corn Pricing Lead (personal communication, August 2009) and are shown in Table 8. Using the information from Tables 1, 3, and 8 and Equation 4, the increased costs are calculated to be $20.69 per acre for the WCB zone, $19.96 per acre for the CCB zone, and $20.45 per acre for the ECB zone. These increased costs—because they are the additional cost of the SmartStax traits relative to the traits growers are planting now—also measure the increased gross revenue to the innovators but do not reflect their R&D costs or the cost of producing the seed.

Table 8. Incremental cost of brand/trait combination relative to projected SmartStax seed cost ($/acre).

Reduced Revenue

No reductions in revenue are expected from switching to SmartStax. One component of reduced revenue could be the foregone price premium available in the marketplace for either conventional or organic field corn. However, we assume here that growers of conventional corn will not switch to SmartStax and, therefore, any price premium for conventional or organic field corn is not relevant. Since there is no reduced revenue, increased cost is equal to the net addition to cost component of the partial budget. Based on the data and assumptions described above, the net change in profit from the introduction of SmartStax in the first year of full commercialization is estimated to average $16.44 per acre for the WCB, $11.98 per acre for the CCB, and $8.70 per acre in the ECB.

Net Addition to Profit

The product of total planted corn acres in each agronomic zone in 2008 (USDA NASS, 2009) and the net change in profit estimates above gives estimates of the total net additions to profit (total on-farm benefit) of $128.94 million per year in the WCB, $205.61 million per year in the CCB, and $65.43 million per year in the ECB, for a grand total anticipated pecuniary benefit per year across all agronomic zones of $399.98 million. This estimate may be conservative for several reasons. First, we assume that none of the acres currently planted to Agrisure 3000 GT (triple-stack hybrids sold by Syngenta) or conventional hybrids will switch to SmartStax. Second, we assume that Dow will continue to market their double- and triple-stack hybrids and that a significant percentage of growers will continue to use them. And third, we assume that all producers who currently do not plant any insect-traited acres will not adopt SmartStax. The estimate could turn out to be an overstatement if a series of unusually good growing conditions exists throughout much of the Corn Belt in a particular period, so that the yield protection offered by the SmartStax trait combination is not fully utilized, if the incremental cost of the SmartStax trait combination is higher than the projections in Table 8, or if the price of corn falls below $4.04/bushel.

Sensitivity Analysis

Results of varying corn prices and the trait price differences are presented inTable 9. The corn price varies from $3.00 per bushel to $5.00 per bushel, and the SmartStax trait price differences were increased by 10% and lowered by 10% for each trait/brand combination compared with the projected price differences in the base case. The first thing to notice about Table 9 is that the anticipated change in profit per acre remains positive throughout so that even if corn prices are $3.00 per bushel and the SmartStax hybrids are priced 10% higher than projected, the technology remains profitable in all agronomic zones, albeit marginally so in the ECB ($0.62/acre). As global incomes begin to rise again as the global recession eases and the demand for protein (meats) and fuel (gasoline blended with ethanol)—and therefore corn—rebounds, the change in profit per acre for SmartStax hybrids is projected to increase to $22.64 in the WCB, $17.46 in the CCB, and $14.28 in the ECB, given currently projected trait pricing and assuming the change in demand for corn increases the average corn price to $5.00 per bushel.

Table 9. Sensitivity analysis: Per-acre net addition to profit by corn price and trait price.

The interval elasticities of the percent change in the net addition to profit from a 1% change in corn price are 1.43 in the WCB, 1.64 in the CCB, and 2.03 in the ECB. The interval elasticities with respect to a 1% change in trait price differences are lower, at 1.12 in the WCB, 1.43 in the CCB, and 1.90 in the ECB. Each elasticity increases moving eastward across the Corn Belt, implying that the net addition to profit is most sensitive to corn price changes and trait pricing changes as one moves eastward in the Corn Belt.

Change in Non-Pecuniary Benefits

Non-pecuniary characteristics are those characteristics embedded in a good for which no individual markets exist. Therefore, we must elicit the values of these characteristics some other way. In this study, we chose to ask producers to place values on these characteristics in a stated-preference format. Stated-preference techniques have been used to estimate these types of values for some time and have become a widely accepted elicitation format. We use a random-rotated, open-ended question format. This format has been shown to result in values that are not significantly different from values elicited from the dichotomous choice format (Loomis, Brown, Lucero, & Peterson, 1997). The open-ended question format also has been shown to be acceptable or preferred to other question formats if respondents are familiar with the characteristics or goods they are valuing or if the distribution of the reported values is important to the study objectives (Champ, Boyle, & Brown, 2003). Both criteria are met in this study.

Biotech corn insect traits have been commercially available since 1996 and have been adopted extensively across the Corn Belt.⁶ Further to this point, all respondents in the survey were required to have planted at least some insect-traited corn hybrids on their farm in 2009 and so should be familiar with their performance and their non-pecuniary characteristics. Open-ended questions result in a continuum of responses and so response distributions can be characterized easily. For example, in our study the distribution of the responses to each valuation question and to the overall non-pecuniary valuation question is positively skewed (see Figure 2 for the estimated probability density function [pdf] for the overall valuation question, for example), which implies that the median is the best measure of central tendency to use in describing the distribution. We randomly rotate the order of the non-pecuniary characteristics questions and also the order of the set of questions that apply to the insect-treated and non-insect-treated acres in order to eliminate any order effects on the stated values (Payne, Schkade, Desvousges, & Aultman, 2000).

Figure 2. Empirical probability functions of overall non-pecuniary value by zone.

The non-pecuniary characteristics of SmartStax hybrids include operator and worker safety, environmental improvement, convenience, yield risk reduction, and the option of being able to use two herbicides to control weeds by spraying over the top of the growing plants. They are similar qualitatively to those of other biotech innovations that have been valued in the past (e.g., Alston, Hyde, Marra, & Mitchell, 2003; Marra & Piggott, 2006; Piggott & Marra, 2007) except for the option of using two different herbicides to control weeds over the top. Table 10shows descriptive statistics of the response distributions of the valuation questions asked in the survey by agronomic zone and by whether the responses refer to insect-traited corn acres or non-insect-treated corn acres. Because the distribution of each characteristic considered separately and the distribution of the package of characteristics considered as a whole are negatively skewed, we consider the median of each as the more informative indicator of the distribution’s central tendency.

Table 10. Non pecuniary values and descriptive statistics ($/acre/year).

Convenience and yield risk reduction are the most highly valued characteristics in the set of non-pecuniary characteristics. As expected, the median values of these characteristics are highest in the CCB on insect-traited acres with each median value equal to $5.00 per acre per year. The median convenience value ranges from $1.75 per acre per year on non-insect-traited acres in the WCB to $5.00 per acre in the CCB on insect-traited acres. The value of yield risk reduction ranges from $2.00 per acre per year in the WCB on non-insect-traited acres to $5.00 per acre in the CCB and ECB regardless of whether the comparison of SmartStax to currently planted hybrids is on insect-traited acres or non-insect-traited acres.

Looking at the values of the separate characteristics gives a comparison of therelative values, but does not consider any possible interactions among the characteristics in the respondents’ preference functions (Johnston, Swallow, Allen, & Smith, 2002). Therefore, we use the respondents’ reported overall value in our calculation of the non-pecuniary benefits because it should reflect any potential interactions among the separate characteristics. The median value of the package of characteristics is consistently $10.00 per acre per year across all zones and whether valued on insect-traited or non-insect-traited acres. Therefore, the total value by zone of the non-pecuniary characteristics is equal to $79 million in the WCB, $184 million in the CCB, and $98 million in the ECB for an estimated total value of $361 million per year. The sum of the anticipated net pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefits of SmartStax when compared with currently planted hybrids is estimated to be $760.98 million per year in the Corn Belt.

Conclusion

This study provides a comprehensive and detailed estimate of the anticipated net increase in value to adopters of SmartStax hybrids in 2014, the first full year of commercialization. The estimates are based on grower survey data, field trial data, and expert opinion. The net addition to profit for the SmartStax hybrids totals $399.98 million per year. When combined with the anticipated additional non-pecuniary value of SmartStax of $361 million per year, the total anticipated value of SmartStax is estimated to be $760.98 million per year in the US Corn Belt.

After extensive underwriting and actuarial reviews, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) Board of Directors approved the Biotech Yield Endorsement (BYE) for the federal crop insurance program on September 12, 2007, for implementation in the 2008 crop year. This public insurance program was revolutionary in that, for the first time, the US federal government formally recognized the yield risk-reducing and yield-increasing benefits of biotechnology and further quantified these benefits in terms of reduced crop insurance premium rates. In its first two years, the program has saved US corn farmers and taxpayers in excess of $100 million through lower premium rates and reduced crop insurance subsidies.

Tangible evidence of the benefits associated with reduced yield risks and increased corn yields is obvious in the BYE crop insurance discounts and the resultant benefits that have accrued to US taxpayers and farmers. SmartStax will further enhance these benefits because the technology will be available on additional acres due to the reduced refuge, thereby providing the benefits of reduced risk across a wider portion of the growers’ acreage. This is true even if the insurance premium discounts are not increased to account for this lower risk because insurance premiums and terms of coverage are adjusted over time to reflect higher yields and lower production risk. In the immediate term, crop insurance providers and taxpayers will enjoy benefits in that indemnity payments should fall in response to adoption of SmartStax. In many areas, the crop insurance program has claims that exceed indemnities and any measures such as adoption of biotechnology that reduce risk will lower expected indemnities and improve the actuarial performance of the program.

An additional, complementary value of SmartStax hybrids is the timing of their commercialization and the recent announcement by the Risk Management Agency on November 4, 2008, of a Whole-Farm and Enterprise-Unit Pilot Program.⁷ This new pilot program offers producers who insure at the whole-farm or enterprise unit level an increase in premium subsidies. A whole-farm unit insures all of a grower’s acres of at least two insurable crops in a county. An enterprise unit is comprised of all of a grower’s acres of one insurable crop in a county. This new program, combined with SmartStax’s anticipated increased homogeneity in crop health, should lead to more grower confidence to insure their corn on a whole-farm or enterprise unit basis, rather than on a smaller unit basis, because of a lower likelihood of spot losses. Insuring these SmartStax acres under this unit structure will mean further savings to the SmartStax adopter because of this program’s premium discounts and the reduction in producer paid premiums.

It is clear that the additional value produced by SmartStax hybrids will be substantial. Sensitivity analysis shows that the additional profit from SmartStax is anticipated to remain significantly positive under a range of corn prices and relative SmartStax seed prices. SmartStax is expected to provide additional value for adopting growers, innovators, the Risk Management Agency, and taxpayers. Further study of the ex-post value of SmartStax hybrids should be made to confirm the projections from this study.

Endnotes

¹ For simplicity, all trademark information is assumed in the rest of the article.

² Although 3-4 million acres are a relatively small portion of total US corn acreage (2.4-3.2% of total US corn acres planted in 2009, as reported by the US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Services [USDA-NASS, 2009]), this is the largest launch in history of a crop biotechnology.

³ The survey instrument was developed by the authors and the computer-assisted telephone survey was conducted by Market Probe, Inc.

⁴ Numbers of observations are relatively low for all insect-control costs in the WCB and for the fall armyworm/corn earworm control costs across all rotations and agronomic zones. However, all means are statistically significant at the 5% level.

⁵ Note that seed-cost changes can differ from trait-cost changes, depending on the cost of the germplasm the grower chooses to plant.

⁶ In 2008, insect-traited hybrids were planted on 63% of all US corn acres in 2009, on 65% of corn acres in Illinois, and on 69% of corn acres in Iowa (USDA NASS, 2009).

⁷ http://www.rma.usda.gov/news/2008/11/1104wholefarm.html

References

Alston, J.M., Hyde, J., Marra, M.C., & Mitchell, P.D. (2003). An ex-ante analysis of the benefits from the adoption of corn rootworm resistant, transgenic corn technology. AgBioForum, 5(3), 71-84. Available on the World Wide Web:http://www.agbioforum.org.

Champ, P.A., Boyle, K.J., & Brown, T.C. (Eds.). (2003). A primer on nonmarket valuation. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Press.

Johnston, R.J., Swallow, S.K., Allen, C.W., & Smith, L.A. (2002). Designing multidimensional environmental programs: Assessing tradeoffs and substitution in watershed management plans. Water Resources Research, 38(7), 1-13.

Loomis, J., Brown, T., Lucero, B., & Peterson, G. (1997). Evaluating the validity of the dichotomous choice question format in contingent valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 10, 109-123.

Marra, M.C., & Piggott, N.E. (2006). The value of non-pecuniary characteristics of crop biotechnologies: A new look at the evidence. In R. Just, J. Alston, & D. Zilberman (Eds.), Regulating agricultural biotechnology: Economics and policy(Chapter 8, pp. 145-178). New York: Springer Publishers.

Payne, J., Schkade, D., Desvousges, W., & Aultman, C. (2000). Valuation of multiple environmental programs. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 21(1), 95-115.

Piggott, N.E., & Marra, M.C. (2007). The net gain to cotton farmers of a natural refuge plan for Bollgard II^® cotton. AgBioforum, 10(1), 1-10. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.

PR Newswire-First Call (2009, July 20). Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences complete U.S. and Canadian regulatory authorizations for SmartStax corn; Plans set to launch seed platform on 3 million- to 4 million-plus acres (Press Release). New York: Author. Available on the World Wide Web:http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=729.

Swinkels, J.M., Hogeveen, H., & Zadoks, R.N. (2005). A partial budget model to estimate economic benefits of lactational treatment of subclinicalStaphylococcus aureus mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science, 88, 4273-4287.

Tigner, R. (2006). Partial budgeting: A tool to analyze farm business changes(Ag Decision Maker File C1-50). Ames: Iowa State University Extension. Available on the World Wide Web:http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/wholefarm/html/c1-50.html.

US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical Services (USDA NASS). (2009, June 30). Acreage. Available on the World Wide Web:http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Acre/Acre-06-30-2009.pdf.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by Monsanto Company and the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station. We would like to acknowledge the extremely helpful input of Brian Naber, Holly Butka, Bob Jasper, and Tim Hennessy during the course of this study. We take responsibility for all remaining errors.

Major Investigation Into GMOs Following Tumor Study – The GMO debate is over; GM crops must be immediately outlawed; Monsanto halted from threatening humanity PART 2

MONSANTO MUST BE HELD LIABLE FINANCIALLY AND CRIMINALLY and may the sentences fit the despicable crime of slow kill GENOCIDE against all HUMANITY  and GENETIC Manipulation of Nature and the Environmental pollution by many different self replicating Genetically Modified Organism ex. GMO Seeds GMO Pollen GMO Plants GMO Animals and the most despicable of all GMO HUMANS to date 2 baby girls with the genes of three parents. If these two girls grow up and mate in the general population they will completely change the future generation genetic Code of humans forever. All of which could cause many unknown bad genetic side effect in future generations Also once introduced to the Gene pool cannot be removed or reversed.

GENETIC MODIFICATION OF ANYTHING IS DANGEROUS AT THE PRESENT TIME AS THE TECHNOLOGY HAS NOT BEEN WITH US LONG ENOUGH FOR SEVERE INTENSIVE LONG TERM RESEARCH AND STUDIES INTO EFFECT AND SIDE EFFECT AND THE INHERANT DANGERS THAT COME WITH GENETIC MODIFICATION

 

JUST SAY NO TO GENETIC MODIFICATION!!! A BIG

FKN NO!!! RIGHT NOW

 

 

From Zyklon B to GM corn: How GMOs transformed

food into a globalist weapon

Monday, September 24, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles…)

(NaturalNews) Zyklon B is a very effective chemical for killing humans. The trick is getting the victims to inhale it. Since most people won’t voluntarily inhale Zyklon B gas, you have to use some means of force to march them into chambers where the gas is released. Hence the use of guns in the hands of governments, the rise of the SS (known as "TSA" in modern America), and the rounding up of innocent citizens to be gassed to death during the Nazi regime. "Nazi," by the way, is shorthand for "national socialist party."
The Nazi approach to killing people was very effective in 1944, but it wouldn’t fly today in the age of instant messaging, Twitter, Facebook and other social media. It’s hard to keep a concentration camp a secret these days, especially if millions of people are being processed through them. If the Nazis had cell phone cameras in 1944, somebody would have snapped some photos, uploaded them to "NaziTube.com" and the whole cover would have been blown. (Or YouTube would have censored the videos and protected the Nazis from being outed, because YouTube routinely censors videos that expose bad government.)
Fast forward six decades or so, and you’ve got our modern world. All the same types of psychopathic killers still run the world’s most powerful governments and corporations, but they’ve figured out that in order to kill people, they’ve got to do it a little more covertly.
Specifically, there needed to be a way to get people to voluntarily kill themselves.

How to convince people to "genocide" themselves

Rounding people up at gunpoint is a messy business. It’s so much easier when you can just get people to take care of the act of killing themselves.

This image, fromEnlightenedRedneck.com, shows people voluntarily lining up for vaccine injections. They’ve been convinced, through a steady stream of propaganda, that vaccine shots reduce the risk of catching the flu.
What they’re not told is that flu shots increase the risk of catching influenza. They actually promote the very thing they claim to prevent, thereby causing more people to catch the flu and subsequently believe they need flu shots.
But the real genius of flu shots is that they contain chemicals that cause infertility and spontaneous abortions. Chemical adjuvants. Mercury-derived preservatives. Live viral strains of stealth cancer viruses. (SV40).
This is the new Zyklon B. Except you don’t need to round people up at gunpoint and stuff them into gas chambers. All you have to do is put a sign in front of a building and make sure it reads, "FLU SHOTS HERE" and people will literally line up to not only be injected with deadly poisons, but to even pay for itas well! (So there’s actually PROFIT to be made from getting people to kill themselves.)

Eating death

Another weapon in the soft-kill arsenal is, of course, genetically modified organisms (GMO).
GMOs are engineered with a toxic pesticide chemical that grows right inside the kernels of the corn. So when you eat the corn, you ingest the same poison that kills insects that feed on corn.
What does this poison do to humans? We’re about to find out in the years ahead, but in rats fed a lifetime of GM corn, they develop grotesque, deadly cancer tumors at an alarming rate.
Here are the pictures of rats fed genetically modified corn in a recent scientific experiment:

The evil genius of GMOs is that if you can hide them in the food supply, people will eat themselves to death and never know what caused their death. After all, the USDA and FDA say GMOs are safe, so it must be true, right?
GMOs are sort of like a "friendly" version of Zyklon B that you can use in pancake batter and muffins. It’s in your breakfast cereal and lunch boxes. GMOs deliver a little bit of death in every bite, and while they don’t kill you right away, the effects build up quietly, cumulatively, until you’re a walking time bomb of cancer and death.
If Hitler had GMO technology, he would have fed GM corn to the Jews and not even bothered with the trouble of constructing gas chambers. He could have disguised it as a "government assistance" program, offering free food to all those of Jewish ancestry. Oh yes, and free vaccines, too. The combination of vaccine chemicals and GMO toxins would have accomplished much the same thing as Zyklon B, but instead of being perceived as an evil monster, Hitler could have been heralded as the hero of the Jewish people for giving them "free food and medicine!"

You ever notice that when governments and non-profits like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation send "aid" to Africa, they never send food? They never teach sustainable farming? They never provide knowledge of local medicinal herbs so that the people can grow their own medicine?
Nope, it’s always "medicine" in the form of vaccines. The goal, of course, is to sterilize African men and women and thereby drastically lower the birth rate. This is perceived by the globalists as a "humane" way to ease their suffering. But it’s all done by deception. Instead of admitting they’re sterilizing the population, they pretend it’s "medicine" and that they’re "saving lives."
The mass vaccination of African children is cheered by ignorant American "progressives" who have been tricked into thinking that Africa’s problems could only be solved if we could inject everyone there with yet more viral strains and mercury preservatives. The insanity of the whole scheme never seems to cross the minds of those who blindly support it.

Death disguised as nourishment

When death is sufficiently disguised as nourishment or medicine, people will actually line up to kill themselves. Look at the example of ant bait:

When you want to kill ants, you use "ant bait." Described as a "syrup-like insecticide bait," this bait ispoisoned disguised as food.
The ants line up to eat it, just like humans lining up to eat GM corn and take vaccine shots. They think it’s nourishment, but it ends up causingdeath.
This particular ant bait, by the way, is made by none other than BAYER, the same company that makes your children’s aspirin. The same company whose chairman, Fritz ter Meer, was convicted of Nazi war crimes. Bayer is the offshoot of the evil pharmaceutical giant IG Farben which used Jewish prisoners for heinous vaccine medical experiments.
In fact, modern-day vaccines have their roots in Nazi medical experiments.
Today’s death chemicals, you see, are all disguised as something that claims to be beneficial: Food, vaccines and pharmaceuticals.
When you take a vaccine shot, swallow a pharmaceutical, or eat genetically modified food, you are, knowingly or not, metaphorically walking into a Nazi gas chamber and gassing yourself with Zyklon B. But the brilliance of the system is that people no longer have to be forced to do this… they will voluntarily do it to themselves and their children. Most parents will literally enforce the globalist genocidal agenda against their own children.

How to stop killing yourself one meal at a time

In contrast to 1944, today you have a choice. You have the power to stop poisoning yourself with GMOs, vaccines and medications.
It only takes a simple choice on your part… a choice to stop participating in the "culture of death" that’s being pushed on you by your doctor, television shows, the news media and government authorities.
The culture of death is steeped in GMOs, vaccines, medications, pesticides and chemical intervention. It leads to only one place: Genetic annihilation and premature death.
In contrast, the culture of LIFE celebrates the following things:
• Eating organics
• Growing your own food (or buying local)
• Naturally strengthening your immune system
• Using herbs and food as medicine, not pharmaceuticals
• Frequent exposure to healing sunlight
• Consumption of superfoods and nutritional supplements
• Overcoming nutritional deficiencies with trace minerals supplements
• Exercising in nature
• Raising children without toxic chemicals
• Honoring and respecting life and nature
• Living with humility and virtue
• Sharing wisdom with others
This is the culture that we espouse here at Natural News. This is what promises sustainable human life on our planet. And this is what is threatened by GMOs and the corporate monsters that push them on the population.
If you love life, STOP buying and eating GMOs. Support life, not death, in every meal you feed yourself or your children. Fight for food justice in our world. Do not allow yourself to become a victim of "food as a weapon."
Don’t be like the ants eating BAYER ant bait — death weapons disguised as food. Be wary of what you consume, what you inject and what you put on your skin. Protect yourself from chemicals and you and your children will have a future of health and abundance.
Remember: The modern holocaust has already begun. It’s a silent, slow, "scientific" holocaust that delivers death in the form of food and medicine.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037290_Zyklon_B_GMO_food_weapons.html#ixzz27PjNrByo

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

Author defends Monsanto GM study as EU orders

review

Science Desk

 

BRUSSELS (Reuters) — The French author of a study linking a type of genetically modified corn to higher health risks in rats dismissed criticism of his research methods on Thursday, describing the work as the most detailed study to date on the subject.

Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen and colleagues said on Wednesday that rats fed on Monsanto’s genetically modified corn or exposed to its top-selling weed killer suffered tumors and multiple organ damage and premature death.

But experts not involved with the study were skeptical, describing the French team’s statistical methods as unconventional and accusing them of going "on a statistical fishing trip."

Speaking at a news conference in Brussels on Thursday, Seralini defended the peer-reviewed study, which was published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.

"This study has been evaluated by the world’s best food toxicology magazine, which took much more time than people who reacted within 24 hours without reading the study," he told Reuters Television.

"I’m waiting for criticism from scientists who have already published material in journals … on the effects of GMOs and pesticides on health, in order to debate fairly with peers who are real scientists, and not lobbyists."

Earlier, the European Commission said it had asked the EU’s food safety authority, EFSA, to verify the results of the French study and report their findings.

"EFSA’s mandate is to verify what this group of scientists has presented, to look at their research conditions, look at how the animals were treated," Commission health spokesman Frederic Vincent told a regular news briefing.

"We hope that by the end of the year we will have an EFSA opinion on this piece of scientific research."

In 2003, EFSA published a safety assessment of the GM corn variety known as NK603, which is tolerant to Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer. The assessment concluded that NK603 was as safe as non-GM corn, after which the European Union granted approval for its use in food and feed.

Seralini said EFSA’s assessments were less rigorous than his team’s study.

"GMOs have been evaluated in a extremely poor and lax way with much less analysis than we have done. It’s the world’s most detailed and longest study. Therefore, some people are responsible and guilty of authorizing this GMO after only three months," he said.

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

Health Canada to review GM corn study, promises action

BY SARAH SCHMIDT, POSTMEDIA NEWS SEPTEMBER 23, 2012

A new study found that genetically modified corn elevated the risk of cancer in laboratory rats.

Photograph by: Nati Harnik, The Associated Press , Postmedia News

Health Canada said this week it will take action if its review of a new study, which found Canadian-grown genetically modified corn is linked to elevated risks of cancer, organ damage and premature death in rats, "demonstrates a risk" to Canadians.

The first-ever GM food safety study to test the entire life span of laboratory rats, newly published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, also found health impacts for rats exposed to Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup, the widest-selling herbicide in the world.

The French study, while challenged by some experts, is being taking seriously by the French government. On Thursday, it ordered an urgent review of the study assessing the safety of GM corn and said it will work for a Europewide ban of imports of the crop if the findings were found to be conclusive.

In Canada, where the GM corn is grown and used for animal feed and processed food ingredients, Health Canada said it would be premature to offer its assessment, saying departmental scientists are currently reviewing the findings.

"Should our review of this new study demonstrate a risk, Health Canada will take appropriate actions to protect the health and safety of Canadians," the department added.

The study of Monsanto’s GM corn NK603, approved by Health Canada in 2001 and engineered to withstand sprayings of the company’s herbicide Roundup, found that rats fed the GM corn or Roundup developed tumours faster and died earlier than rats fed nonGM corn.

The study involving 100 female rats and 100 male rats were split into groups and fed different amounts of either GM corn, Roundup herbicide or both, over two years. There was also a control group, which was fed regular corn and plain water.

Up to 50 per cent of males fed GM corn or Roundup and 70 per cent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 per cent and 20 per cent in the control group, the study found. And overall, rats fed GM corn or Roundup developed two to three times more tumours.

Females developed fatal mammary tumours and pituitary disorders, while males suffered liver damage, developed kidney and skin tumours and problems with their digestive system, the study states.

Regulatory authorities around the world, including Health Canada, require mandatory chronic animal feeding studies involving rats before approving GM corn and other GM foods, but none require full lifespan tests. Instead, the tests usually consist of 90-day rat feeding trials conducted by the biotechnology company.

Lucy Sharratt of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network zeroed in on this fact in calling for Health Canada to revamp its approvals system.

"This is the first-ever long-term study and it also happens to be a peer-reviewed study on the corn that Health Canada approved based on a 90-day study from the company that wanted it approved," Sharratt said. "The federal government needs to redesign the entire system that approves foods because our regulations are not designed to look for the types of problems these scientists have found."

© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist

Read more:http://www.timescolonist.com/technology/Health+Canada+review+corn+study+promises+

action/7286399/story.html#ixzz27PkpakwW

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

Renewed boycott announced against GMO pushing

mega-corporations

Jonathan Benson
Natural News
September 23, 2012

In a little over a month, Californians will head to the polls to decide whether or not they want the freedom to know the true contents of the foods they buy at the grocery store. And during this final push to raise awareness about the importance of mandatory labeling of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), the Alliance for Natural Health – USA (ANH-USA) has announced a renewed boycott against the mega-corporations that are working behind the scenes to stop you from knowing whether or not your food contains bio-engineered ingredients.

Proposition 37, a Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative, plainly states that raw or processed foods offered for sale to consumers must be properly labeled if they contain GMOs, and that no food products labeled “natural” can legally contain GMOs. Passage of this important ballot measure is the key to sparking GMO labeling laws nationwide, as it has the potential to drastically change for the better the way major food companies formulate their products. (http://www.carighttoknow.org/)

Several major chemical and food corporations; however, have been actively injecting tens of millions of dollars behind the scenes to stop Prop. 37 from becoming law. And many of these corporations own smaller companies and brands that are marketed as organic or “natural” in health food stores all across the country. It is important in these final days before the November 6 election tostop buying these brands, and support only healthy and organic brands that are not tied to major corporations fighting GMO labeling efforts.

Here is a list of the top corporations fighting GMO labeling efforts, as well as their subsidiary companies and brands. Many of these companies’ products and their respective brands are available in health food stores, and you should avoid supporting them because of their pro-GMO position:

• Pepsi — SoBe, Tazo, IZZE Sparkling Juice, Naked Juice, Naked Juice Coconut Water, Mother’s Cereals, Nut Harvest Nuts, Sabra Hummus, Stacy’s Pita and Bagel Chips, Aquafina

• Nestle — Gerber Organics, Juicy Juice, Perrier, Poland Spring, S. Pellegrino, PowerBar, Tribe Mediterranean Foods

• Coca-Cola — DASANI, FUZE Healthy Infusions, glaceau smartwater, glaceau vitaminwater, Honest Tea, Odwalla, Simply juices

• ConAgra — Alexia Foods, Lightlife

• Kellogg’s Company — Kashi, Bear Naked, Wholesome & Hearty (Gardenburger), Morningstar Farms / Natural Touch

• General Mills – Cascadian Farm Organic,Muir Glen, Good Earth, Larabar, Liberte Greek yogurt, Nature Valley

• Kraft – Halls cough drops

• Dean Foods / Land O Lakes – Silk, Horizon Organic

A more thorough list of the top companies fighting GMO labeling can be accessed here:
http://www.anh-usa.org/our-gmo-boycott-is-expanding/

ANH-USA has also created its own list of companies and brands that are tied to mega-corporations fighting against Prop. 37 and other GMO labeling initiatives:
http://www.anh-usa.org/boycott-companies-fighting-prop-37/

“Why is this GMO labeling fight so important? Once GMOs are labeled in California, it will bring a cascade effect in other states as well, since most national companies won’t create two labeling schemes, one for California and one for the rest of the country,” says ANH-USA. “Moreover, once products containing GMOs are labeled, people will stop buying them — and this economic pressure will be enough to force GMOs off the market.”

On the flip side, here is a list of companies that actively support Prop. 37 and GMO labeling efforts elsewhere (http://www.anh-usa.org/boycott-companies-fighting-prop-37/). These are the companies thatdeserve our unabashed support for their commitment to honesty and transparency in food labeling:

• Dr. Bronners

• New Chapter

• Uncle Matt’s

• Straus Organic

• Nature’s Path Organic

• Baby’s Only Organic

• Organic Valley

• Nutiva

• Lundberg Family Farms

• Amy’s Kitchen

• Eden Foods

To learn more about the Prop. 37 GMO labeling initiative in California, visit:
http://www.carighttoknow.org/

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

Monsanto Launches Damage Control Over

GMO/Cancer Study

Biotech giant attempts to discredit shocking findings

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
September 24, 2012

Biotech giant Monsanto has launched a desperate damage control effort in the aftermath of a French study which found that rats fed on Monsanto’s genetically-engineered corn were far more likely to suffer tumors, organ failure and premature death.

Aside from the details of the study, a wider question remains. If Monsanto and other GMO giants are so confident in the safety of their products and have no qualms about them being in the food supply, why have they spent a combined total of over $19 million dollars in an attempt to prevent Americans from knowing that their food is genetically modified?

Monsanto has bankrolled a huge campaign fronted by lobbyists in an effort to sink California’s Proposition 37, a bill that would simply mandate genetically modified food and ingredients be labeled at the retail level.

If genetically-modified food is safe and the studies have proven it is safe, why is Monsanto so desperate to keep its presence in our food hidden?

The recent study, conducted by scientists at the University of Caen and published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, found that 50 percent of male and 70 percent of female rats fed on a diet containing NK603 – a genetically modified corn produced by Monsanto – or those exposed to Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller – suffered tumors and multiple organ damage, causing them to die prematurely.

Monsanto immediately went into spin mode, issuing a press release over the weekend claiming that toxicologists and public health experts had found “fundamental problems with the study design,” without specifically explaining what those problems were.

Given the fact that Monsanto-funded scientists are routinely wheeled out in public to attack the abundance of evidence confirming the link between GMO and cancer, the reaction to the French study was unsurprising.

As Sayer Ji explains, the two previous studies before the French inquiry, the results of which claimed that there was no link between Monsanto’s Roundup Ready herbicide and cancer, were both funded by Monsanto itself.

A study published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology which exonerated Monsanto contained this glaring admission of a conflict of interest;

“The authors have disclosed the funding source for this research. JSM [study author] has served has a paid consultant to Monsanto Company….This research was supported by the Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri.”

Is it really just a coincidence that the first study in recent years not to be funded by Monsanto produces completely different results?

“There is no plausible mechanism for the results reported with genetically modified maize and the results are inconsistent with an extensive body of experience and scientific study,” Monsanto claimed in response to the French study.

However, the results are only inconsistent with previous (Monsanto-funded) studies because the French study went beyond the 90-day period which Monsanto had previously been able to hide behind in claiming their GMO products were safe.

As The Grocer highlights, the French investigation “Was the first study to look at the long-term effects of Roundup and NK603, which has been approved for human consumption based on 90-day feeding trials. Scientists found that rats developed mammary tumours and severe liver and kidney damages as early as four months in males and seven in females, compared with 23 months and 14 months respectively in a control group.”

Since tumors and other ailments were only discovered after a four month period, this throws into serious doubt previous (Monsanto-funded) studies the biotech giant pointed to as proving the safety of GMO because they failed to extend beyond a 90 day period, whereas the French study looked at the effects of GMO throughout the whole life span of the rats.

This again illustrates the fact that far from being inadequate or badly modeled, the French study was more extensive and more complete than any previous study – with the added bonus that it was not funded by Monsanto – it was completely impartial.

As we reported last week, apologists for Monsanto have jumped on the bandwagon in an effort to discredit the findings of the French study, lying by omission in an attempt to cast doubt on its findings.

David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge tried to question the accuracy of the study by highlighting that “The study’s untreated control arm comprised only 10 rats of each sex, most of which also got tumors.”

However, Spiegelhalter failed to acknowledge that it took these rats anything up to 19 months longer to develop tumors compared to those fed on Monsanto’s GM corn.

Having had its nose bloodied in various European countries and facing being kicked out of the European marketplace altogether, Monsanto is in panic mode right now. California’s Right to Know Act – otherwise known as Prop 37 – could spell the beginning of the end not only for Monsanto’s business model but for the whole GMO agenda across the globe.

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

Monsanto Apologists Attempt to Spin Shocking GMO

Study

Establishment trots out “experts” in desperate bid to debunk fact that genetically-engineered food is a threat to humanity

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
September 21, 2012

A shocking new study conducted by French scientists which shows that rats fed on Monsanto’s genetically modified corn suffered cancer and premature death has been met with a furious response from GMO apologists, who are desperately trying to cast doubt on the the study in an effort to discredit its findings.

50 percent of male and 70 percent of female rats fed on a diet containing NK603 – a genetically modified corn produced by Monsanto – or those exposed to Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller – suffered tumors and multiple organ damage, causing them to die prematurely, the study found.

The study was conducted by French scientists at the University of Caen and published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.

Almost immediately after the findings were made public at a press conference in London, numerous other scientists rushed to Monsanto’s defense and claimed that the study was inaccurate.

“This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted,” said Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King’s College London. “The statistical methods are unconventional … and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip.”

However, the statistical methods are perfectly straightforward. Only 30 percent of males and 20 percent of females in the control group of rats that were not exposed to Monsanto’s products died prematurely – meaning males were 30 per cent more likely to die prematurely after eating Monsanto corn and females a whopping 50 per cent more likely to die.

Sanders’ point about that particular breed of rat being prone to tumors treats the study as if it was conducted without using a control group of rats as a comparison, which is completely untrue.

David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge also tried to cast doubt on the accuracy of the study by highlighting that “The study’s untreated control arm comprised only 10 rats of each sex, most of which also got tumors.”

That statement again completely ignores the fact that the rats, whether they developed tumors or not, were statistically far more likely to die prematurely if they were exposed to Monsanto products. The figures don’t lie.

Monsanto continually points to studies they claim confirm the safety of GMO food, and did so again in the aftermath of the latest French study. However, all of those studies did not go beyond the 90 day reporting period unlike the Caen study which tracked the health of the rats throughout their life span. It was only after four months that the tumors and organ damage suffered by the rats became evident.

Monsanto is already very much on the ropes in Europe and faces being kicked out of the European marketplace altogether if its reputation continues to be denigrated – that’s presumably why a gaggle of “experts” have been trotted out by the establishment Universities – a lot of which routinely receive huge grants from Monsanto itself – in order to desperately try and debunk the study.

Meanwhile over in the United States, Monsanto and other GMO corporations have spent a combined sum of over $19 million dollars in an attempt to shoot down Proposition 37, the California bill that merely seeks to require genetically-modified foods and food ingredients to be labeled at the retail level.

If Monsanto and other GMO producers like DuPont, Bayer, Dow, BASF, and Syngenta are so confident that their genetically-engineered products are safe – why have they spent so much money attempting to prevent the public from knowing that they are in the food supply?

As Mike Adams points out, no matter how many apologists the establishment wheels out to cover-up for the fact that GMO represents an unparalleled environmental threat to humankind – the cat is already out of the bag.

“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,” he writes.

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

Monsanto goes on offensive over GM/cancer study

http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/health/monsanto-goes-on-offensive-over-gm/cancer-study/232744.article

24 Sep 2012 | By Elinor Zuke

 

Monsanto has moved to discredit research linking its GM maize and best-selling weedkiller Roundup to increased rates of cancer in rats.

The biotech giant claimed the peer-reviewed study, published last week in the journal Food & Chemical Toxicology, did not meet minimum scientific research standards.

It concluded that rats fed NK603 maize or drinking water containing small traces of Roundup developed multiple organ failure and died earlier than rats supplied with conventional maize and drinking water free from Roundup.

That was the first study to look at the long-term effects of Roundup and NK603, which has been approved for human consumption based on 90-day feeding trials. Scientists found that rats developed mammary tumours and severe liver and kidney damages as early as four months in males and seven in females, compared with 23 months and 14 months respectively in a control group.

“This study does not meet minimum acceptable standards for this type of scientific research, the findings are not supported by the data presented and the conclusions are not relevant for the purpose of safety assessment,” Monsanto claimed in a statement over the weekend.

“Toxicologists and public health experts find fundamental problems with the study design. Critical information about how the research was conducted is absent, and the data presented do not support the author’s interpretations.”

Monsanto said the research protocol fell short of standards set by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development. It claimed the source and quality of maize used was unclear, that critical details on diet preparation and intake were absent, there was lack of statistical analysis for mortality or tumour endpoints and a lack of data to support assertions about liver and kidney disease.

Monsanto also claimed the mortality and tumour incidences fell within the norm for the strain of lab rat used in the study.

“There is no plausible mechanism for the results reported with genetically modified maize and the results are inconsistent with an extensive body of experience and scientific study,” the company argued.

“Extensive animal and in-vitro (test-tube) data has demonstrated that glyphosate does not cause cancer or tumours, nor is an endocrine disrupter. This study does not provide information which calls into question the extensive safety evaluations of glyphosate or Roundup herbicides.”

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

Meet Monsanto’s Number One Lobbyist: Barack

Obama

Jon Rappoport
Infowars.com
September 24, 2012

During his 2008 campaign for president, Barack Obama transmitted signals that he understood the GMO issue. Several key anti-GMO activists were impressed. They thought Obama, once in the White House, would listen to their concerns and act on them.

These activists weren’t just reading tea leaves. On the campaign trail, Obama said: “Let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.”

Making the distinction between GMO and non-GMO was certainly an indication that Obama, unlike the FDA and USDA, saw there was an important line to draw in the sand.

Beyond that, Obama was promising a new era of transparency in government. He was adamant in promising that, if elected, his administration wouldn’t do business in “the old way.” He would be “responsive to people’s needs.”

Then came the reality.

After the election, and during Obama’s term as president, people who had been working to label GMO food and warn the public of its huge dangers were shocked to the core. They saw Obama had been pulling a bait and switch.

The new president filled key posts with Monsanto people, in federal agencies that wield tremendous force in food issues, the USDA and the FDA:

At the USDA, as the director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy, former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.

As deputy commissioner of the FDA, the new food-safety-issues czar, the infamous Michael Taylor, former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.

As commissioner of the USDA, Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack. Vilsack had set up a national group, the Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership, and had been given a Governor of the Year Award by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, whose members include Monsanto.

As the new Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.

As the new counsel for the USDA, Ramona Romero, who had been corporate counsel for another biotech giant, DuPont.

As the new head of the USAID, Rajiv Shah, who had preciously worked in key positions for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of GMO agriculture research.

We should also remember that Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Kagan, as federal solicitor general, had previously argued for Monsanto in the Monsanto v. Geertson seed case before the Supreme Court.

The deck was stacked. Obama hadn’t simply made honest mistakes. Obama hadn’t just failed to exercise proper oversight in selecting appointees. He wasn’t just experiencing a failure of short-term memory. He was staking out territory on behalf of Monsanto and other GMO corporate giants.

And now let us look at what key Obama appointees have wrought for their true bosses. Let’s see what GMO crops have walked through the open door of the Obama presidency.

Monsanto GMO alfalfa.

Monsanto GMO sugar beets.

Monsanto GMO Bt soybean.

Coming soon: Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn.

Syngenta GMO corn for ethanol.

Syngenta GMO stacked corn.

Pioneer GMO soybean.

Syngenta GMO Bt cotton.

Bayer GMO cotton.

ATryn, an anti-clotting agent from the milk of transgenic goats.

A GMO papaya strain.

And perhaps, soon, genetically engineered salmon and apples.

This is an extraordinary parade. It, in fact, makes Barack Obama the most GMO-dedicated politician in America.

You don’t attain that position through errors or oversights. Obama was, all along, a stealth operative on behalf of Monsanto, biotech, GMOs, and corporate control of the future of agriculture.

From this perspective, Michelle Obama’s campaign for home gardens and clean nutritious food suddenly looks like a diversion, a cover story floated to obscure what her husband has actually been doing.

Nor does it seem coincidental that two of the Obama’s biggest supporters, Bill Gates and George Soros, purchased 900,000 and 500,000 shares of Monsanto, respectively, in 2010.

Because this is an election season, people will say, “But what about Romney? Is he any better?” I see no indication that he is. The point, however, is that we are talking about a sitting president here, a president who presented himself, and was believed by many to be, an extraordinary departure from politics as usual.

Not only was that a wrong assessment, Obama was lying all along. He was, and he still is, Monsanto’s man in Washington.

To those people who fight for GMO labeling, and against the decimation of the food supply and the destruction of human health, but still believe Obama is a beacon in bleak times:

Wake up.

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

 

 

37 reasons why California’s Prop. 37 MUST pass

Ethan A. Huff
Natural News
September 19, 2012

(NaturalNews) In fewer than two months, Californians will have the unique opportunity to vote YES on Proposition 37, a ballot measure that will require retail food items made with or containing genetically-modified (GM) ingredients to be labeled as such. And in the face of concerted opposition to GMO labeling by Monsanto and the corporate food industry, which would rather keep the presence of GMOs in your food a secret, it is important that voters are aware of why passing a law requiring mandatory GMO labeling is crucial to food freedom.

As compiled by Hemi Weingarten over at the blog Fooducate.com, here are 37 reasons why California’s Prop. 37 ballot measure must pass:

1) The alleged environmental superiority of GM crops is questionable at best, and GMO production still requires the heavy use of pesticides and other toxic chemicals.

2) A popular misconception, selective breeding and hybridization are not the same thing as genetic modification. GMOs contain foreign genes for which the harmful side-effects are largely unknown.

3) Contrary to popular belief, there has never been a single long-term safety study conducted on any GMO.

4) Cultivation of GMOs leads to the proliferation of herbicide-resistant “superweeds,” for which there are no known solutions.

5) Monsanto, the largest purveyor of GMOs, is responsible for thrusting Agent Orange on the world — can this chemical company really be trusted?

6) Labeling GMOs will not increase food costs, as GMOs have been labeled throughout Europe for more than a decade without consequence.

7) Animal studies have shown that GMOs cause sterility within three generations — are GMOs really something we should be feeding our children?

8) There have been no long-term studies on the environmental impact of GMO cultivation.

9) GMOs are produced using “terminator” seeds, requiring farmers to buy new seeds every year from biotechnology firms.

10) GM corn, which is used in livestock feed, has been shown to severely harm animals — what must it be doing to humans?

11) GMO labeling has nothing to do with excessive government intervention and regulation, and everything to do with promoting honesty and transparency.

12) More than 90 percent of Americans in numerous surveys have indicated they support mandatory GMO labeling.

13) GM crops have never been shown to produce higher yields than conventional and organic crops, despite industry propaganda.

14) GMOs are extremely expensive to produce, which means the biotech industry is eager to market them whether they are proven safe or not.

15) Passage of Prop. 37 will boost sales for small manufacturers and producers, and increase crop diversity. It will steer agriculture away from the corporations and back into the hands of local communities.

16) Many GMOs contain inbred genes and pesticides that cannot simply be washed off before consumption. Bt corn, for instance, contains its own built-in pesticides.

17) GM crops poison useful insects, which become more prone to deadly infections and disease.

18) GMO cultivation is creating “superbugs” that are quickly evolving to develop resistance to pesticides.

19) GMOs contaminate non-GMOs through cross-pollination, a process that cannot be undone.

20) GMO cultivation eliminates biodiversity and ruins the heritage of farming wherever it is introduced.

21) Once introduced into the environment, GMOs can never be withdrawn.

22) Since GMOs were first introduced, rates of allergies and autoimmune disease have skyrocketed — coincidence?

23) All studies that claim GMOs are safe have been industry-funded. All studies that raise serious concerns about GMO safety have been independently funded.

24) The companies responsible for producing GMOs do not want them labeled — why?

25) The scientific community is divided on whether or not GMOs are safe, so how is it ethical for them to remain unlabeled?

26) GM crops are not the same as their non-GMO counterparts, both nutritionally and compositionally.

27) Consumers have a right to know whether or not they are eating GMOs.

28) Studies showing health consequences of GMO consumption are being blocked from scientific publication.

29) GMOs eliminate biodiversity and deplete soil nutrients.

30) GM traits have been shown to induce allergy transfer. Eating a GM soybean that contains a Brazil nut trait, for instance, can induce Brazil nut allergy.

31) Passage of Prop. 37 will cause major food manufacturers to improve product quality.

32) How can individuals be expected to “eat healthy” if they do not even know what their food contains?

33) Passage of Prop. 37 will cause a “ripple effect” throughout the U.S., benefiting everyone.

34) Passage of Prop. 37 is a bipartisan issue — no matter what your political affiliation, you have a right to know what is in your food!

35) Big Ag and Big Biotech are spending tens of millions of dollars to spread lies about Prop. 37′s “deceptive” nature — who are the ones really doing the deceiving here?

36) Revolving door between government and industry has prevented GMO labeling in the U.S. for almost 20 years — is it not time for the people to have their voices heard?

37) Transparency is the best way to “air out corruption,” for which the biotech industry is fraught.

Sources for this article include:

http://blog.fooducate.com

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.carighttoknow.org/

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

Monsanto-Funded Science Denies Emerging

Roundup-Cancer Link

Posted on:

Tuesday, June 19th 2012 at 11:00 am

Written by:

Sayer Ji, Founder

Monsanto-funded research has been proliferating as uncontrollably as their genetically modified (GM) plants, and the bugs increasingly resistant to them.

Two studies have appeared in scientific journals in the past eight months, both funded by Monsanto, and both discrediting a Roundup herbicide-cancer link.[i] [ii]

The context within which these new studies are appearing is the growing body of experimental research indicating that the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, along with the surfactants and related "inactive" ingredients found within glyphosate-based formulations, cause genetic damage associated with cancer initiation, and at levels far below those used agricultural applications and associated with real-world exposures.[iii] [iv] [v] [vi] [vii]

This has put manufacturers and proponents of glyphosate, as well as "Roundup Ready" GM plants in a vulnerable position. If, the precautionary principle is employed and a much-needed reclassification of glyphosate as a class III carcinogen to a class II or I occurs, the increasingly global dominance of GM-based food crop systems will come to a screeching, regulation-induced halt.

So, given the threat posed by non-industry funded research on glyphosate’s toxicity,  Monsanto has been putting money into research and development — but not in the reputable sense of the phrase — by paying for research to develop the storyline that, despite damning research to contrary, Roundup is still safe.

The newest study, published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology titled, "Epidemiologic studies on glyphosate and cancer: A review," declared its glaring conflict of interest in the following manner:

Even if no such conflict was explicitly declared, industry-funded research is almost exclusively positive, minimizing or denying harms to exposed populations associated with the products they are evaluating.

A salient example is the recent summary of 176 studies by Baker[viii] which found that published research looking into the impact of Bisphenol A on human health resulted in exclusively pro-industry findings:

Adding to the problem, the editorial boards of some of the journals within which the questionable science is printed are populated by paid consultants of the very industries they publish ostensibly impartial research on.

For example, the editor of the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology within which latest Monsanto-funded glyphosate-cancer review was published, Gio Batta Gori, is notorious for being a tobacco industry consultant and for publishing junk science in his journal, which has been called: "A Scientific Journal with Industrial Bias as Its Specialty."

His journal published research in 2003, provided by the same company, Exponent, which employs three of the researchers who authored the latest glyphosate-cancer study, as well as one author on the 2011 glyphosate-cancer study, on the purported non-carcinogenicity of dioxin, a highly toxic ingredient in Agent Orange.

Given these obvious conflicts of interest, from the bottom up and the top down, the time has come for people to enact reform with their dollars and their forks, and when worthwhile ballot initiative emerge, their votes.

#1: Stop buying anything not explicitly labeled non-GMO or certified organic, which amounts to the same assurance.

#2: Grow it yourself, or support local organic growers.

#3: Support the California Ballot Initiative to label GMOs.

---

[i] Developmental and reproductive outcomes in humans and animals after glyphosate exposure: a critical analysis. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2012 ;15(1):39-96. 

[ii] Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and non-cancer health outcomes: a review. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2011 Nov ;61(2):172-84. Epub 2011 Jul 21.

[iii] Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., Boulben, S., Hureau, D., Durand, G., and Belle, R. 2002. Pesticide Roundup provokes cell division dysfunction at the level of CDK1/cyclin
B activation. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 15: 326–31.

[iv] Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., Durand, G., and Belle, R. 2003. Embryonic cell cycle for risk
assessment of pesticides at the molecular level. Environnemental. Chemistry. letters. 1: 8–12.

[v] Marc, J., Belle, R., Morales, J., Cormier, P., and Mulner-Lorillon, O. 2004a. Formulated
glyphosate activates the DNA-response checkpoint of the cell cycle leading to the
prevention of G2/M transition. Toxicol. Sci. 82: 436–42

[vi] Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., and Belle, R. 2004b. Glyphosate-based pesticides affect
cell cycle regulation. Biol. Cell. 96: 245–49.

[vii] Marc, J., Le Breton, M., Cormier, P., Morales, J., Belle, R., and Mulner-Lorillon, O. 2005.
A glyphosate-based pesticide impinges on transcription. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.
203:1–8.

[viii] Baker, Nena (2008). The Body Toxic. North Point Press. p. 142. [cited from Lessig 2011, p. 25 Lay summary].

Sayer Ji is the founder and director of GreenMedInfo.com and co-author of the bookThe Cancer Killers: The Cause Is The Cure with New York Times best-seller Dr. Ben Lerner and Dr. Charles Majors. His writings and research have been published in the Wellbeing Journal, the Journal of Gluten Sensitivity, and have been featured on Mercola.com, NaturalNews.com, Reuters.com, GaryNull.com, and Care2.com. Check out his newest project: Dr. Gourmet.

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

French Study Finds Tumors and Organ Damage in

Rats Fed Monsanto Corn

http://truth-out.org/news/item/11639-french-study-finds-tumors-and-organ-damage-in-rats-fed-monsanto-corn

Wednesday, 19 September 2012 13:36By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | Report

(Image: JR / TO; Adapted: ressaure, NedraI)Rats fed a lifetime diet of Monsanto’s genetically engineered corn or exposed to the company’s popular Roundup herbicide developed tumors and suffered severe organ damage, according to a French study released on Wednesday.

The study could have a big impact on the battle over a California ballot proposal that would require groceries containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled as such. Monsanto has already donated $7.1 million to the campaign to defeat the proposal, known as Proposition 37.

The study links varying levels of both the Roundup herbicide and the transgenes in Monsanto’s patented NK603 corn to mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage.

The rats were either fed the NK603 corn alone, corn treated with agricultural levels of Roundup, or given water treated with Roundup at low levels commonly found in contaminated drinking water and used in agriculture in the United States. In each group, there were two to three more deaths among female rats compared to control groups, and the rats on the Monsanto diet tended to die more quickly.

Gilles-Eric Séralini, a professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen who lead the research team, told reporters on Wednesday that the rats’ diet reflected the kind of exposure that humans who eat genetically engineered food should expect.

"This is around the level [that] the American population may eat, where, unfortunately GMOs are not labeled," Séralini said. "In Europe, we have this labeling, and it helps us to avoid these compounds if necessary and promote personal choices."

Truthout combats corporatization by bringing you trustworthy news: click here to join the effort.

The research team concluded that NK603’s transgenic traits and the endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup herbicide could explain the results. The study is the first of its kind to link enzymes overexpressed by transgenes to health problems, Séralini said.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals cause health problems and cancers by impacting hormonal glands in mammals and are especially dangerous to children. Pesticide and herbicide critics often fear that chemicals used to kill weeds and pests could potentially be endocrine disruptors in humans.

Monsanto’s NK603 and other varieties of corn are genetically engineered to tolerate Roundup herbicide, which contains the plant poison glyphosate and other additives, so that farmers can spray whole fields of crops to kill weeds while sparing the genetically modified corn. Genetically engineered crops are also known as genetically modified organisms, or GMO’s.

Good News for Proposition 37

"The results of this study are worrying," said Gary Ruskin, who manages a campaign to pass the food-labeling initiative in California. "They underscore the importance of giving California families the right to know whether our food is genetically engineered, and to decide for ourselves whether we want to gamble with our health by eating GMO foods that have not been adequately studied and have not been proven safe."

Ruskin’s Yes on Proposition 37 campaign, which is supported by organic food companies and alternative health groups, has been vastly outspent by a campaign to defeat the ballot initiative funded by millions of dollars in donations from biotech chemical companies and food manufacturers such as Monsanto, DuPont, Bayer and Nestle.

Polls taken this summer, however, show that Proposition 37 remains popular among a majority of voters despite a multimillion-dollar campaign against the initiative.

GMO Information War

A spokesperson for Monsanto told Truthout that the company will thoroughly review the data, but pointed out that scientific claims made by Séralini in regards to previous studies on rats have been refuted by a European food regulatory agency.

In the past, Séralini, an independent scientist celebrated by biotech critics, has publicly wrangled with peer scientists, pro-industry groups and regulators over interpretations of data from 90-day studies on rats conducted by biotech companies that were used to justify regulatory approvals of Monsanto crops in several countries.

Séralini and his team believe the study released this week is more conclusive because it spans two years and followed the rats’ entire lifecycle.

"It’s bizarre and dramatic for us that the US government," said Séralini, "has not requested to make serious tests before releasing these products into the environment because these GMOs are pesticide sponges, and we know that pesticides can be harmful to humans."

Séralini also pointed out that his team started to see tumors after four months, while the industry studies on rats were limited to a three-month period.

"It shows the genetically modified foods should be withdrawn," said biotech critic and author Jeffrey Smith. Smith said the study further confirms reports he has heard from doctors and veterinarians who say they’ve seen their patient’s health improve after they stopped eating genetically engineered foods.

In 2010, a lead embryologist in Argentina named Dr. Andrés Carrasco survived an attacked by an angry mob  determined to keep him from speaking at a public event about his own research on Roundup, which found that the herbicide caused deformations in chicken embryos that resembled birth defects in humans being reported in the country’s agricultural areas where the herbicide is heavily used.

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

Major Investigation Into GMOs Following Tumor Study – The GMO debate is over; GM crops must be immediately outlawed; Monsanto halted from threatening humanity

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, 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

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

"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

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

• 

  Genetically modified foods…
  Are they safe?

  • GMO Health Dangers
  • The Campaign
  • Stop GMOs

  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.

  

  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.

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.”

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

• 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.

  

  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.

  

  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

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

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

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."

 

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.

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’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.

 

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

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

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.

 

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.

 

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’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.

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

(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 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."

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.”

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, 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.

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

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

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

U.S. Caught Creating Three New Computer Viruses

Obama administration touts cybersecurity while conducting cyber warfare

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Tuesday, September 18, 2012

While routinely touting the necessity for tighter controls over the Internet in the name of cybersecurity, the U.S. government has again been caught creating computer viruses to wage cyber warfare in the Middle East.

Researchers working for both Kaspersky and Symantec have separately discovered that the United States is almost certainly responsible for three new viruses that are being used in Lebanon and Iran to conduct espionage, having already been identified as the culprits behind the 2010 Stuxnet virus and this year’s closely related Flame virus.

Kaspersky and Symantec experts are still unsure as to what the newly discovered viruses are designed to do, but have confirmed that they are operating in the Middle East, including Iran and Lebanon, and that the, “approach to uploading packages and downloading data fits the profile of military and/or intelligence operations.”

The new viruses, programs code-named SP, SPE and IP, use malware packages that try to “communicate with command and control servers.” The new viruses could be offshoots of the Flame virus or completely different pieces of software.

“The findings are likely to bolster a growing view that the U.S. government is using cyber technology more widely than previously believed to further its interests in the Middle East,” reports Haaretz.

“The United States has already been linked to the Stuxnet Trojan that attacked Iran’s nuclear program in 2010 and the sophisticated Flame cyber surveillance tool that was uncovered in May.”

As the Washington Post reported earlier this year, the United States and Israel were also responsible for jointly developing the Flame virus, a huge malware assault that monitored Iran’s computer networks.

Despite months of inaccurate speculation blaming Russia or China for the outbreak of the 2010 Stuxnet virus, it was eventually admitted by the New York Times that, “US and Israeli intelligence services collaborated to develop a destructive computer worm to sabotage Iran’s efforts to make a nuclear bomb.”

The U.S. government’s continual efforts to develop computer viruses as a tool of cyber warfare might be more palatable were it not for the constant push by the executive and legislative branches to censor and regulate the Internet domestically in the name of cybersecurity.

Urging President Obama last month to pass an executive order that critics have denounced as another federal power grab over the Internet, Senator Jay Rockefeller justified the EO by claiming it was needed “to protect this country from the cyber threat,” even as the U.S. simultaneously launches aggressive cyber warfare campaigns against other countries.

Indeed, viruses created by the United States and Israel have even been cited as proof that restrictive cyber security legislation needs to be rubber stamped – by the very same government allied with the intelligence networks creating the viruses.

As we reported back in 2011, despite initial evidence clearly indicating the U.S. and Israel were behind the Stuxnet attack, a fact that was subsequently confirmed, major news websites still parroted the official narrative that Russia or China were to blame, even going to the lengths of ridiculing anyone who suggested otherwise as paranoid conspiracy theorists.

While claiming that it needs more power over the world wide web to prevent the spread of hostile computer viruses that could cripple U.S. infrastructure and sensitive networks, the U.S. government itself is creating those very same computer viruses to spy on and attack infrastructure and sensitive networks in other countries.

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

Operation Mockingbird 2012: NYT Writer Leaked Story Critical of Obama to CIA

Asked spooks to delete his emails after reading them; Paper claims correspondence was ‘mistake’

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Aug 30, 2012

Emails obtained by advocacy group Judicial Watch have exposed the fact that a senior New York Times employee, who covers national security for the newspaper, provided the CIA with advanced copies of an article another writer was preparing that was somewhat critical of the White House over the upcoming Hollywood film about the killing of Osama bin Laden.

The reporter, Mark Mazzetti, forwarded an advance copy of a Maureen Dowd column to a CIA spokesperson a full two days before it was set to be published. The article, published August 7th 2011, discussed the upcoming Kathryn Bigelow-Mark Boal film “Zero Dark Thirty”, and criticized the Obama administration for having “outsourced the job of manning up the president’s image to Hollywood.”

Mazzetti’s emails (below) show that he sent the piece to the CIA’s Marie Harf, on August 5th 2011, writing: “this didn’t come from me… and please delete after you read. See, nothing to worry about!”

Harf had previously emailed Mazzetti asking “any word?” Mazzetti had replied, “Going to see a version before it gets filed. My sense is there is a very brief mention at the very bottom of column about CIA ceremony, but that Boal also got high level access at the Pentagon.”

Judicial Watch obtained the document via the Freedom of Information Act. The full email can be viewed here.

In response to the revelations, New York Times Managing Editor Dean Baquet told POLITICOTuesday that it was “much ado about nothing”. However, later in the day, Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy sent a further email, claiming that Mazzetti had made “a mistake”:

“Last August, Maureen Dowd asked Mark Mazzetti to help check a fact for her column. In the course of doing so, he sent the entire column to a CIA spokeswoman shortly before her deadline. He did this without the knowledge of Ms. Dowd. This action was a mistake that is not consistent with New York Times standards.” Murphy wrote.

Readers will have a hard time believing this explanation. There was clearly a dialogue between Mazzetti and the CIA concerning the article. His request for correspondence to be deleted after reading, clearly indicates that he knew full well who he was sending the article to and that he could be landed in trouble if anyone discovered what he was doing.

It is blatantly clear that the CIA was leaning on Mazzetti, pressing him for information on what the Times was going to report, and that Mazzetti provided it. The fact that the CIA read Dowd’s column before her own editors did has severe consequences as far as freedom of the press goes, and should set alarm bells ringing.

In a piece in the London Guardian, Glen Greenwald cogently notes:

This exchange, by itself, is remarkably revealing: of the standard role played by establishment journalists and the corruption that pervades it. Here we have a New York Times reporter who covers the CIA colluding with its spokesperson to plan for the fallout from the reporting by his own newspaper (“nothing to worry about”). Beyond this, that a New York Times journalist – ostensibly devoted to bringing transparency to government institutions – is pleading with the CIA spokesperson, of all people, to conceal his actions and to delete the evidence of collusion is so richly symbolic.

The relationship between the New York Times and the US government is, as usual, anything but adversarial. Indeed, these emails read like the interactions between a PR representative and his client as they plan in anticipation of a possible crisis.

Regarding the Times’ initial response that it could not go into detail on the matter owing to national security, Greenwald notes:

…look at how the New York Times mimics the CIA even in terms of how the newspaper’s employees speak…This is what the CIA reflexively does: insists that, even when it comes to allegations that they have engaged in serious wrongdoing, you (and even courts) cannot know what the agency is doing because it is an “intelligence matter”.

Of course, the bigger picture behind this story is that while the Obama administration cited national security as a means of keeping details of the alleged Bin Laden raid under wraps, it simultaneously leaked supposedly classified security information to hollywood filmmakers, blatantly for propaganda purposes, in order to glorify the president on the big screen.

The entire scripted piece may fall flat on it’s face, however, given that one of the Navy Seals involved in the raid now says that Bin Laden, if you can believe he was present at all, was already dead from crossfire when the elite soldiers reached him. This description completely contradicts the official line that he was shot in the head after refusing to surrender and reaching for a weapon.

The New York Times has a long history of acting subserviently to the powers that be, rather than holding them to account.

Only last week we reported on the fact that the Times demonstratively scrubbed a passage in an article which revealed that the CIA was helping funnel arms to rebel groups that have aligned themselves with Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria.

Just last month, it was revealed that the Times, as a matter of course, allows the Obama administration control over quotes from public officials that it can and cannot publish.

It was The New York Times that was at the forefront of the dissemination of what turned out to be completely false intelligence pertaining to the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Reporting that contributed to almost a decade of war and the deaths of thousands, if not millions of innocent Iraqi people.

It was the New York Times that first learned of the NSA’s illegal wiretapping program aimed at innocent Americans in 2004. The paper sat on the story for a year after it was instructed to do so by the White House, in order not to affect the outcome of the election.

The Times routinely allows the CIA to vet the details it plans to publish from Wikileaks’ obtained material.

The Times obediently followed orders to conceal the identity of CIA spy Raymond Davis, when he was arrested by Pakistan. When Obama lied to the nation and described Davis as a US diplomat, the NYT printed his words as the truth, without question.

Glenn Greenwald again:

And that’s all independent of the chronic practice of the NYT to permit government officials to hide behind anonymity in order to disseminate government propaganda – or even to smear journalists as al-Qaida sympathizers for reporting critically on government actions – even when granting such anonymity violates its own publicly announced policies.

What all of this behavior from the NYT has in common is clear: it demonstrates the extent to which it institutionally collaborates with and serves the interests of the nation’s most powerful factions, rather than act as an adversarial check on them. When he talks to the CIA spokesperson, Mazzetti sounds as if he’s talking to a close colleague working together on a joint project.

It sounds that way because that’s what it is.

The Times was the vital cog in the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird, a secret campaign conceived in the 1950s to influence media output. Many believe, with some justification as we have seen, that Mockingbird continues to this day.

In a groundbreaking expose entitled ‘The CIA and the Media’, penned in 1977 for Rolling Stone, Carl Bernstein wrote:

The New York Times — The Agency’s relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. [It was] general Times policy … to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.

… CIA officials cite two reasons why the Agency’s working relationship with the Times was closer and more extensive than with any other paper: the fact that the Times maintained the largest foreign news operation in American daily journalism; and the close personal ties between the men who ran both institutions … .

Referring to Frank Wisner, the head of the Directorate of Plans of the CIA throughout the ’50s, writer Deborah Davis wrote in her 1979 biography of Washington Post owner, Katharine Graham:

By the early 1950s, Wisner ‘owned’ respected members of The New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles. Wisner referred to this apparatus as a “Mighty Wurlitzer”, referencing the theater organ capable of controlling diverse pipes, instruments, and sound effects from a central console.

Of course, it is not only the NYT that lies in bed with US intelligence. Sadly most of the nation’s mainstream media is now almost wholly controlled by the trifecta of political, military and intelligence elites.

—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, andPrisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

ALL US Agencies from DHS to NOAA Stocking up on Hollow Point Bullet Approx 4+bullet per American

DHS Classifies New Ammo Purchases Following Controversy

Federal agency blacks out amount of bullets being bought

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, August 15, 2012

The Department of Homeland Security has redacted information relating to the quantity of bullets it is buying following a controversy concerning the agency’s purchase of over a billion rounds of ammo, which many fear is a sign the federal government is preparing for civil unrest in the United States.

Despite the fact that documents are only supposed to be redacted if authorized by Congress or for national security reasons, a solicitation posted on the FedBizOpps website yesterday concerning ammunition purchases made by the DHS on behalf of Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) contains numerous blacked out sections.

The classified portions of the document include references to the amount of 223 62 and 223 64 grain ammunition being purchased.

The solicitation explains how the contract put out by the DHS to purchase the ammunition was not subject to “full and open competition,” a process justified by what the DHS claims was an “unusual and compelling urgency” to acquire the bullets, noting that there is a shortage of bullets which is threatening a situation which could cause “substantial safety issues for the government” should law enforcement officials not be adequately armed.

The Department of Homeland Security’s decision to black out sections of the document, including the number of bullets being purchased, is likely to be related to a massive controversy which has snowballed over the last few weeks pertaining to concerns as to why the federal agency has purchased well over a billion rounds of bullets over the last 6 months alone.

The DHS’ decision back in March to purchase of 450 million rounds of .40-caliber hollow point bullets that are designed to expand upon entry and cause maximum organ damage prompted questions as to why the federal agency required such powerful bullets and in such large quantities merely for training purposes.

This was followed up by a more recent order for a further 750 million rounds of assorted ammunition, including bullets that can penetrate walls.

Given the fact that the DHS is also acquiring riot gear in preparation for civil unrest which could take place at the upcoming DNC, RNC and presidential inauguration, the purchase of ammunition in such massive numbers has stoked fears that the federal government could be preparing to use force against the American people.

This screenshot illustrates how the DHS has blacked out information pertaining to the amount of bullets being purchased.

The trigger for this could be an economic collapse that causes angry Americans to flood the streets similar to scenes witnessed across Europe over the last two years.

As Mike Adams writes, “The U.S. government clearly sees the writing on the wall. What lays ahead for America is a day of unbearable reckoning. The financial collapse will wipe out savings accounts, pensions, investment funds and equities of the working class, all across the nation. Imagine bank accounts being reset to zero, “bank holidays” enforced at gunpoint. That will unleash a wave of violent protests, social chaos and even talk of revolution. The government will almost certainly respond with a declaration of Martial Law, the rolling out of highway checkpoints, and before long, the use of live ammo on unruly protesters.”

The Social Security Administration has also recently purchased a large quantity of hollow point bullets, potentially signaling that authorities fear welfare riots could occur if benefit payments cannot be made. The NOAA also recently purchased 46,000 rounds of hollow point ammunition.

The DHS’ decision to censor information related to bullet purchases for immigration authorities could also be an attempt to assuage concerns that the agency is expecting to have to resort to force to deal with a mass influx of immigrants from Mexico.

Back in December, Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano directed ICE to prepare for a substantial inundation of immigrants into the United States, calling for the plan to deal with the “shelter” and “processing” of large numbers of people.

During the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, it was revealed that the federal government had established a contingency program under the pretext of a mass influx of immigrants called Rex 84. The program was a secretive “scenario and drill” developed by the federal government to suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, assign military commanders to take over state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens determined by the government to be “national security threats.”

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

DHS To Purchase Another 750 Million Rounds Of Ammo

Second massive ammunition buy this year fuels fears of civil unrest

Paul Joseph Watson
PRison Planet.com
Monday, August 13, 2012

Fears that federal authorities are preparing for mass civil unrest have increased after it was revealed that the Department of Homeland Security is planning to buy a further 750 million rounds of ammo in addition to the 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets already purchased earlier this year.

A solicitation originally issued by the DHS in April but updated on Friday calls on suppliers to provide a plethora of different types of ammunition, including 357 mag rounds that are able to penetrate walls.

The PDF file for the solicitation lists the different units of ammo required by the thousand, with the total ammo purchase exceeding 750 million rounds.

“The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), Glynco, Georgia anticipates awarding multiple award indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity (IDIQ) firm fixed price (FFP) contracts for commercial leaded training ammunition (CLTA) of various calibers for law enforcement officer firearms training courses at the following FLETC facilities Glynco, GA, Artesia, NM, Cheltenham, MD and Charleston, SC and to other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies. The Government guarantees a minimum of 1,000 rounds per year on each resultant contract. Contracts will be for a base year and four (4) 12 month option periods,” states the synopsis.

Potential suppliers are required to respond to the solicitation before August 20.

The purchase comes in addition to an order for 450 million rounds of .40-caliber hollow point bullets which wasfulfilled by Alliant Techsystems Inc. back in March, news greeted by some as an indication that the DHS was arming itself in preparation to go to war with the American people.

Although the ammo purchases are ostensibly earmarked for training purposes, the DHS has been reticent to clarifywhy such an unusually large amount of rounds are necessary and why such powerful bullets are required merely for training drills.

This has led to speculation that the purchases are connected to confirmed preparations for civil unrest in the United States.

The DHS recently put out an order for riot gear in preparation for the upcoming DNC, RNC and presidential inauguration. The U.S. Army is also busy buying similar equipment.

The DHS also recently purchased a number of bullet-proof checkpoint booths that include ‘stop and go’ lights.

A recently leaked US Army Military Police training manual for “Civil Disturbance Operations” outlines how military assets are to be used domestically to quell riots, confiscate firearms and even kill Americans on U.S. soil during mass civil unrest.

On page 20 of the manual, rules regarding the use of “deadly force” in confronting “dissidents” are made disturbingly clear with the directive that a, “Warning shot will not be fired.”

The manual includes lists of weapons to be used against “rioters” or “demonstrators,” including “antiriot grenades.” It also advises troops to carry their guns in the “safe port arms” stance, a psychological tactic aimed at “making a show of force before rioters.” Non-lethal weapons and water cannons are also included.

The increasing likelihood of a full blown financial collapse in the coming months has also spurred federal agencies and the U.S. Army to hone their preparations for domestic disorder on a scale greater than riots witnessed in Europe over the past two years.

A 2008 report produced by the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Institute warned that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises which it termed “strategic shock.”

“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” stated the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, adding that the military may be needed to quell “purposeful domestic resistance”.

Last year, Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano directed ICE to prepare for a mass influx of immigrants into the United States, calling for the plan to deal with the “shelter” and “processing” of large numbers of people.

Watch a video analysis by Madison Ruppert below.

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

DHS Puts Out Urgent Order For Riot Gear

Federal agency expecting unrest at RNC & DNC

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, July 27, 2012

The Department of Homeland Security has put out an urgent solicitation for hundreds of items of “riot gear,” in preparation for expected unrest at the upcoming Republican National Convention, Democratic National Convention and next year’s presidential inauguration.

The DHS solicitation issued on Wednesday gave potential suppliers just one day to submit their proposals, with the equipment to be delivered to Alexandria, VA within a 15-day period after the award is made.

The riot gear will be worn by Federal Protective Service agents who are tasked with protecting property, grounds and buildings owned by the federal government.

Authorities in Tampa areexpecting massive numbers of demonstrators to travel to the RNC next month, with “free speech zones” readied to prevent protesters from leaving designated areas.

Government Security News features a list of riot gear the DHS is looking to obtain.

– 147 riot helmets – which must have an “adjustable tactical face shield with liquid seal” and be able to fit the “3M Full Face Respirator FR-M40B masks.”

– 147 sets of upper body and shoulder protection – which will “effectively protect the torso and shoulders from blunt force trauma” and “safely absorb blows delivered from blunt objects…”

– 152 sets of thigh and groin protection – which “protects the thigh area and has an adjustable and removable groin protector.”

– 147 hard shell shin guards – which can provide “substantial protection from flying debris, non-ballistic weapons, and blows to the leg” and should have an “optimized protective design for severe riot control or tactical situations.”

– 156 forearm protectors – which should shield the “entire forearm from the wrist to the elbow” and weigh approximately six ounces.

– 147 pairs of tactical gloves – which should ensure that the “Kevlar on back of hands is flame/flash retardant as well as cut protective” and that they utilize a “rolled finger tip design for excellent trigger sensitivity and fit.”

This is by no means the only indication that the Department of Homeland Security is gearing up for civil unrest inside the United States.

Back in March, the DHS awarded defense contractor ATK a deal to provide the DHS with 450 million rounds of bullets over a five year period.

The DHS has also recently purchased a number of bullet-proof checkpoint booths that include ‘stop and go’ lights.

Earlier this year, the federal agency also hired hundreds of new security guards to protect government buildings

In January, residents were stunned to see FPS agents armed with semiautomatic gunsstationed outside a Social Security office in Florida checking ID’s as part of an exercise.

The Federal Protective Service has also been used by the DHS to track the political activitiesof peaceful advocacy groups.

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

Social Security Administration To Purchase 174 Thousand Rounds Of Hollow Point Bullets

Preparing for civil unrest? Ammunition to be delivered to 41 locations across U.S.

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, August 15, 2012

UPDATE: DHS Now Covering Up Ammo Purchases?

First it was the Department of Homeland Security, then it was the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and now the Social Security Administration is set to purchase 174,000 rounds of hollow point bullets that will be delivered to 41 locations across the country.

A solicitation posted by the SSA on the FedBizOpps website asks for contractors to supply 174,000 rounds of “.357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow point pistol ammunition.”

An online ammunition retailer describes the bullets as suitable “for peak performance rivaling and sometimes surpassing handloads in many guns,” noting that the ammo is “a great personal defense bullet.”

The synopsis to the solicitation adds that the ammunition is to be shipped to 41 locations within 60 days of purchase. A separate spreadsheet lists those locations, which include the Social Security headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland as well as major cities across the country including Los Angeles, Detroit, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Denver, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Seattle.

Hollow point bullets are designed to expand as they enter the body, causing maximum damage by tearing apart internal organs.

It’s not outlandish to suggest that the Social Security Administration is purchasing the bullets as part of preparations for civil unrest. Social security welfare is estimated to keep around 40 per cent of senior citizens out of poverty. Should the tap run dry in the aftermath of an economic collapse which the Federal Reserve has already told top banks to prepare for, domestic disorder could ensue if people are refused their benefits.

Indeed, earlier this year the Department of Homeland Security ran a drill called Operation Shield which included turning the entrance of a Florida Social Security office into a checkpoint manned by Federal Protective Service officers armed with semiautomatic rifles.

“With their blue and white SUVs circled around the Main Street office, at least one official was posted on the door with a semiautomatic rifle, randomly checking identifications. And other officers, some with K-9s, sifted through the building,” reported the Daily Commercial.

A rash of solicitations by federal agencies for hollow point bullets in recent months has stoked fears that the government is preparing for civil unrest caused by a financial collapse on a scale similar or even larger to scenes already witnessed in Europe over the last two years.

As we reported yesterday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has put out a contract for 46,000 rounds of hollow point bullets along with 500 paper targets.

Despite initially asking the bullets to be delivered to the National Weather Service, NOAA claimed this was a “clerical error” and insisted the ammunition was being sent to the Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement. Why powerful hollow point bullets that are designed to tear apart internal organs are needed for practice shooting at paper targets has not been explained.

Back in March, Homeland Security purchased 450 million rounds of .40-caliber hollow point bullets that are designed to expand upon entry and cause maximum organ damage, prompting questions as to why the DHS needed such a large amount of powerful bullets merely for training purposes.

This was followed by another DHS solicitation asking for a further 750 million rounds of assorted bullets, including 357 mag rounds that are able to penetrate walls.

The DHS recently put out an order for riot gear in preparation for the upcoming DNC, RNC and presidential inauguration. The U.S. Army is also busy buying similar equipment.

The DHS also recently purchased a number of bullet-proof checkpoint booths that include ‘stop and go’ lights.

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

National Weather Service Follows DHS In Huge Ammo Purchase

Hollow point bullets designed to cause maximum organ damage

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Tuesday, August 14, 2012

UPDATE: DHS Now Covering Up Ammo Purchases?

UPDATE: Social Security Administration To Purchase 174 Thousand Rounds Of Hollow Point Bullets

Why would the National Weather Service need to purchase large quantities of powerful ammo? That’s the question many are asking after the federal agency followed in the footsteps of the Department of Homeland Security in putting out a solicitation for 46,000 rounds of hollow point bullets.

A solicitation which appears on the FedBizOpps website asks for 16,000 rounds of .40 S&W jacketed hollow point (JHP) bullets, noted for their strength, to be delivered to locations in Ellsworth, Maine, and New Bedford, Mass.

A further 6,000 rounds of S&W JHP will be sent to Wall, New Jersey, with another 24,000 rounds of the same bullets heading to the weather station in St. Petersburg, Florida.

The solicitation also asks for 500 paper targets to be delivered to the same locations in Maine, Massachusetts and New Jersey.

The National Weather Service is is one of six scientific agencies that make up the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The solicitation requires a response by August 21.

The NWS is following its federal counterpart the DHS in securing large quantities of ammo. Back in March,Homeland Security purchased 450 million rounds of .40-caliber hollow point bullets that are designed to expand upon entry and cause maximum organ damage, prompting questions as to why the DHS needed such a large amount of powerful bullets merely for training purposes.

As the Business Insider notes, hollow point bullets have been “illegal in international warfare since 1899.”

The DHS is also planning to purchase a further 750 million rounds of different types of ammo in a separate solicitation that also expires on August 20, including 357 mag rounds that are able to penetrate walls.

The DHS recently put out an order for riot gear in preparation for the upcoming DNC, RNC and presidential inauguration. The U.S. Army is also busy buying similar equipment.

The DHS also recently purchased a number of bullet-proof checkpoint booths that include ‘stop and go’ lights.

The federal government is clearly gearing up for the likelihood of civil unrest on a scale that could outstrip what we’ve already seen in countries across Europe.

While the establishment demonizes the second amendment in light of recent mass shootings and legislation is prepared to ban the sale of large quantities of ammunition online, the federal government is acquiring ammunition at levels necessary to fight a full scale domestic war.

UPDATE: The Washington Post now reports, via a statement from NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen, that the original solicitation contained a “clerical error” and that the “solicitation for ammunition and targets for the NOAA Fisheries Office of Law Enforcement mistakenly identified NOAA’s National Weather Service as the requesting office.” This still doesn’t explain why hollow point bullets, designed to cause maximum organ damage, are needed for shooting at paper targets. Was the delivery of the bullets to the NWS a cover for them being transferred somewhere else? It’s entirely possible given the sordid history of Fast and Furious, a federal government program under which guns were sent directly to Mexican drug cartels.

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

Big Sis Orders ICE To Prepare For Mass Influx of Immigrants

Directive follows leaked KBR memo requesting subcontractors to service detention camps

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, December 15, 2011

Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano has directed ICE to prepare for a mass influx of immigrants into the United States, calling for the plan to deal with the “shelter” and “processing” of large numbers of people.

“The Department of Homeland Security wants a plan to deal with sudden mass migrations of immigrants to the U.S.,” reports Government Security News.

“DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, according to a statement by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, recently directed ICE to develop a national-level mass migration plan. The plan will outline how to address the health care, sheltering, processing, transition and disposition of large numbers of undocumented individuals who might arrive in the U.S. as the result of a mass migration, said ICE on Dec. 13.”

Part of the preparations for sheltering and processing an influx of people includes the construction and manning of detention camps.

In 2006, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root was contracted by Homeland Security to build detention centers designed to deal with “an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S,” or the rapid development of unspecified “new programs” that would require large numbers of people to be interned.

Last week we received a leaked memo from a state government employee detailing KBR’s efforts to hire subcontractors to provide services required for temporary “emergency environment” camps located in five regions of the United States, indicating that many of the camps have now been constructed and are ready for use.

The construction of new detention camps inside the United States has provoked fears that the facilities could also be used to intern American citizens in the aftermath of a national emergency.

Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was established under the pretext of a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/US border, the same pretense used in the language of the KBR request for services.

During the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, however, it was revealed that the program was a secretive “scenario and drill” developed by the federal government to suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, assign military commanders to take over state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens determined by the government to be “national security threats.”

The National Defense Authorization Act, which could be signed into law by President Obama before the end of the week, hands the government power to have American citizens arrested and detained without trial.

With riots and civil unrest breaking out all over the globe, U.S. authorities have been preparing for similar disorder in America.

A report produced by the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Institute warns that the United States may experience massive civil unrest in the wake of a series of crises which it termed “strategic shock.”

“Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security,” stated the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, adding that the military may be needed to quell “purposeful domestic resistance”.

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

Rex 84: FEMA’s Blueprint for Martial Law in America

by Allen L Roland

We are dangerously close to a situation where ~ if the American people took to the streets in righteous indignation or if there were another 9/11 ~ a mechanism for martial law could be quickly implemented and carried out under REX 84.

The Cheney/Bush administration has a plan which would accommodate the detention of large numbers of American citizens during times of emergency.

The plan is called REX 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984. Through Rex-84 an undisclosed number of concentration camps were set in operation throughout the United States, for internment of dissidents and others potentially harmful to the state.

The Rex 84 Program was originally established on the reasoning that if a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA.

Existence of the Rex 84 plan was first revealed during the Iran-Contra Hearings in 1987, and subsequently  reported by the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987

” These camps are to be operated by FEMA should martial law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general’s signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached.”

And there you have it ~ the real purpose of FEMA is to not only protect the government but to be its principal vehicle for martial law.

This is why FEMA could not respond immediately to the Hurricane Katrina disaster ~ humanitarian efforts were no longer part of its job description under the Department of Homeland Security.

It appears Hurricane Katrina also provided FEMA with an excuse to “dry run” its unconstitutional powers in New Orleans, rounding up “refugees” (now called “evacuees”) and “relocating” them in various camps. “Some evacuees are being treated as ‘internees’ by FEMA,” writes former NSA employee Wayne Madsen.

“Reports continue to come into WMR that evacuees from New Orleans and Acadiana [the traditional twenty-two parish Cajun homeland] who have been scattered across the United States are being treated as ‘internees’ and not dislocated American citizens from a catastrophe“

We are dangerously close to a situation where ~ if the American people took to the streets in righteous indignation or if there were another 9/11 ~ a mechanism for martial law could be quickly implemented and carried out under REX 84.

Be forewarned ~ the Cheney/Bush administration will stop at nothing to preserve their power and their ongoing neocon mis-adventure and they have currently proposed having executive control over all the states National Guard troops  in a national emergency.

Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, called the proposal ” one step away from a complete takeover of the National Guard, the end of the Guard as a dual-function force that can respond to both state and national needs.”

The provision was tucked into the House version of the defense bill without notice to the states, something Vilsack said he resented as much as the proposal itself.

Under the provision, the president would have authority to take control of the Guard in case of  ” a serious natural or manmade disaster, accident or catastrophe” in the United States.

Do remember, to the Cheney/Bush administration ~ the Mob at the Gates that they truly fear is not terrorists but, instead, the people demanding the truth.

---

REX 84 AND FEMA

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/FEMA-Concentration-Camps3sep04.htm

MINDFULLY, 2004 – There over 800 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners. They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA should martial law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general’s signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached. . . The Rex 84 Program was established on the reasoning that if a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA.

Rex 84 allowed many military bases to be closed down and to be turned into prisons.

Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are the two sub programs which will be implemented once the Rex 84 program is initiated for its proper purpose. Garden Plot is the program to control the population. Cable Splicer is the program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government.

FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state and thus will head up all operations. The Presidential Executive Orders already listed on the Federal Register also are part of the legal framework for this operation.

The camps all have railroad facilities as well as roads leading to and from the detention facilities. Many also have an airport nearby. The majority of the camps can house a population of 20,000 prisoners.

Currently, the largest of these facilities is just outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. The Alaskan facility is a massive mental health facility and can hold thousands of  people.

Global Research Articles by Allen L Roland

THEY WANT ALL YOUR FKN GUNS

Indiana militiaman gets back his 41 guns, 100,000 rounds of ammunition from the feds

Thomas Piatek, member of the Hutaree militia, was charged with plotting to kill police officers and overthrow the government, but was acquitted by a judge in March who cited insuffient evidence.

By Jason Fields / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Sunday, July 8, 2012, 12:07 PM

ABC News 7

Earlier this year, Thomas Piatek of Indiana was freed by a judge who tossed out charges he and fellow militia members plotted to overthrow the federal government. Friday, Piatek got his guns back.

An admitted militiaman got 41 guns and more than 100,000 rounds of ammunition back from the government Friday.

The guns were confiscated when Thomas Piatek and six other members of the Hutaree militia were arrested in 2009 on charges that they planned to kill police officers and overthrow the government. He was acquitted in March, when a federal judge, Victoria Roberts, found there was insufficient evidence in the case. Piatek and the others then petitioned to get their weapons back.

The implements of destructions — which included an AK-47, handguns, shotguns, crossbows and swords — required two trips to take home, according to TV station WLS.

When Piatek arrived to pick up his property from the Hammond, Ind., police station, he was already packing heat.

“Just a piece, you know, whatever," Piatek said, according to WLS. "You got a phone, keys, whatever. It ain’t a thing with me."

Other members of the militia also got their guns back, but none had a collection to rival Piatek’s.

ABC News 7

Thomas Piatek even brought along a gun to pick up his guns. ‘It ain’t a thing with me,’ he said.

Piatek also got back military helmets, bulletproof vests, $100 cash and his cell phone, the Detroit Free Press reports.

The judge let weapons charges stand against two members of the militia, including its leader, David Stone Sr. Both pleaded guilty to possessing a machine gun, a federal crime.

“This is a victory for the Constitution," Piatek’s lawyer Arthur Weiss, who accompanied his client, said.

jfields@nydailynews.com

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/indiana-militiaman-back-41-guns-100-000-rounds-ammunition-feds-article-1.1109998#ixzz209D9NEWD

________________________________

U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?

While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
5. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Why U.S. Gun Sales Are Shooting For The Moon Frank Miniter Contributor

Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby Larry Bell Contributor

Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

More from contributor Larry Bell

Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her presidential election bid, Hillary Clinton is not generally known as a gun rights enthusiast. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As a New York senator she ranked among the National Rifle Association’s worst “F”-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans‘ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

President Obama’s record on citizen gun rights doesn’t reflect much advocacy either. Consider for example his appointment of anti-gun rights former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate U.S. representative to the U.N., and his choice of Andrew Traver who has worked to terminate civilian ownership of so-called “assault rifles” (another prejudicially meaningless gun term) to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Then, in a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama administration quietly banned the re-importation and sale of 850,000 collectable antique U.S.-manufactured M1 Garand and Carbine rifles that were left in South Korea following the Korean War. Developed in the 1930s, the venerable M1 Garand carried the U.S. through World War II, seeing action in every major battle.

As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.

If someone breaks into your home when you are there, which would you prefer to have close at hand: 1) a telephone to call 911, or 2) a loaded gun of respectable caliber? That’s a pretty easy question for me to answer. I am a long-time NRA member, concealed firearms license holder and a regular weekly recreational pistol shooter. And while I don’t ordinarily care to target anything that has a mother, will reluctantly make an exception should an urgent provocation arise. I also happen to enjoy the company of friends who hunt, as well as those, like myself, who share an abiding interest in American history and the firearms that influenced it.

There are many like me, and fewer of them would be alive today were it not for exercise of their gun rights. In fact law-abiding citizens in America used guns in self-defense 2.5 million times during 1993 (about 6,850 times per day), and actually shot and killed 2 1/2 times as many criminals as police did (1,527 to 606). Those civilian self-defense shootings resulted in less than 1/5th as many incidents as police where an innocent person was mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).

Just how effectively have gun bans worked to make citizens safer in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.

Recognizing clear statistical benefit evidence, 41 states now allow competent, law-abiding adults to carry permitted or permit-exempt concealed handguns. As a result, crime rates in those states have typically fallen at least 10% in the year following enactment.

So the majority in our Senate is smart enough to realize that the U.N.’s gun-grab agenda is unconstitutional, politically suicidal for those who support it, and down-right idiotic—right? Let’s hope so, but not entirely count on it. While a few loyal Obama Democrats are truly “pro-gun”, many are loathe to vote against treaties that carry the president’s international prestige, causing him embarrassment.

Also, don’t forget that Senate confirmation of anti-gun Obama nominee Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Many within the few who voted against her did so only because of massive grassroots pressure from constituents who take their Constitutional protections very seriously.

Now, more than ever, it’s imperative to stick by our guns in demanding that all Constitutional rights be preserved. If not, we will surely lose both.

—————————————-

Society Is Crumbling Right In Front Of Our Eyes And Banning Guns Won’t Help

Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse
Dec 17, 2012

What in the world is happening to America?  I have written many articles about how society is crumblingright in front of our eyes, but now it is getting to the point where people are going to be afraid to go to school or go shopping at the mall.  Just consider what has happened over the past week.  Adam Lanza savagely murdered 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.  42-year-old Marcus Gurrola threatened to shoot innocent shoppers and fired off more than 50 rounds in the parking lot of Fashion Island Mall in Newport Beach, California.  After police apprehended him, he told them that he “was unhappy with life”.  Earlier in the week, a crazy man wearing a hockey mask and armed with a semi-automatic rifle opened fire on the second floor of a mall in Happy Valley, Oregon.  He killed two people and injured a third.  On Saturday morning, a lone gunman walked into a hospital in Alabama and opened fire.  He killed one police officer and two hospital employees before being gunned down by another police officer.  So have we now reached the point where every school, every mall and every hospital is going to need armed security?  How will society function efficiently if everyone is constantly worried about mass murderers?

In response to the horrible tragedy in Connecticut, many in the mainstream media are suggesting that much stricter gun laws are the obvious solution.

After all, if we get rid of all the guns these crazy people won’t be able to commit these kinds of crimes, right?

Unfortunately, that is not how it works.  The criminals don’t obey gun control laws.  Banning guns will just take them out of the hands of law-abiding American citizens that just want to protect their own families.

Adam Lanza didn’t let the strict gun control laws up in Connecticut stop him from what he wanted to do.  Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and Adam Lanza broke at least threeof them.

However, if there had been some armed security officers or some armed teachers at that school, they may have had a chance to protect those dear little children from being brutally gunned down.

If gun control was really the solution to our problems, then cities that have implemented strict gun control laws should be some of the safest in the entire country.

But sadly, just the opposite is true.

For example, Chicago has very strict gun laws.  But 10 people were shot in the city of Chicago on Friday alone.  Chicago is now considered to be “the deadliest global city“, and the murder rate in Chicago is about 25 percenthigher than it was last year.

So has gun control turned Chicago into a utopia?

Of course not.

And it won’t solve our problems on a national level either.

You can find more statistics about the futility of gun control right here.

Well, how would things be if we did just the opposite and everyone had a gun?

Would gun crime go through the roof?

That is what liberals were warning of when the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring every home to have a gun.  But instead of disaster, the results turned out to be very impressive…

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

When criminals know that everyone has guns, they are much less likely to try something.  And often armed citizens are able to prevent potential mass murderers from doing more damage.  You can find several examples of this right here.

But of course most of our politicians are not interested in common sense.  Instead, they are obsessed with the idea that gun control will make our country “safe” again.

Senator Diane Feinstein says that she is ready to introduce a strict gun control bill in January that will “ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession” of many types of firearms.

Will such a law keep the criminals from getting guns?

No way.  Just look at what is happening with the cartels down in Mexico.  The criminals are always able to get guns.

If our “leaders” were really interested in stopping these mass murders, they would take a look at the role that mind-altering pharmaceutical drugs play in these incidents.  If you look at the mass murders that have occurred over the past several decades, in the vast majority of them the murderer had been using mind-altering pharmaceutical drugs…

The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) has raised concerns about severe acts of violence as side effects of anti-psychotic and antidepressant drugs not only on individuals but on society as well.

Just a month ago PRWeb described drug induced violence as ”medicine’s best kept secret.”

And the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHRI) is calling for a federal investigation on its web page which links no less than 14 mass killings to the use of psychiatric drugs such as Prozac and Paxil.

And guess what?

According to the Washington Post, one neighbor says that Adam Lanza was “on medication”.

But will our politicians ever consider a law against such drugs?

Of course not.  The big corporations that produce those drugs give mountains of money to the campaign funds of our politicians.

So the focus of the debate will remain on guns.

And a lot of liberals would have us believe that our society could be transformed into some type of “utopia” if we could just get rid of all the guns.

Unfortunately, that is simply not true.  Our society is in an advanced state of moral decay, and this moral decay is manifesting in our society in thousands of different ways.  The corruption runs from the highest levels of society all the way down to the lowest.

For those that believe that gun control would somehow “fix America”, I have some questions for you…

Down in Texas, one set of parents kept their 10-year-old son locked in a bedroom and only fed him bread and water for months.  Eventually he died of starvation and they dumped his body in a creek.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

A pastor in north Texas was recently assaulted by an enraged man who beat him to death with an electric guitar.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

Police up in New Jersey say that a man kept his girlfriend padlocked in a bedroom for most of the last 10 years.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

A 31-year-old man up in Canada was found guilty of raping an 8-year-old girl, breaking 16 of her bones and smashing her in the face with a hammer.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

According to the FBI, a New York City police officer is being accused of “planning the kidnap, rape, torture and cannibilization of a number of women”.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

A Secret Service officer that had been assigned to protect Joe Biden’s residence has been charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

Over in Texas, a very sick 29-year-old man stabbed his girlfriend to death and then burned his one-year-old baby alive because she had gone to court and filed for child support.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

Over in Utah, a 21-year-old man is accused of stabbing his grandmother 111 times and then removing her organs with a knife.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

There are more than 3 million reports of child abuse in the United States every single year.

Would banning guns keep that from happening?

An average of five children die as a result of child abuse in the United States every single day.

Would banning guns keep that from happening?

The United States has the highest child abuse death rate on the entire globe.

Would banning guns keep that from happening?

It is estimated that 500,000 Americans that will be born this year will be sexually abused before they turn 18.

Would banning guns keep that from happening?

In the United States today, it is estimated that one out of every four girls is sexually abused before they become adults.

Would banning guns keep that from happening?

If there was a way to take all of the guns away from all of the criminals, I would be all in favor of it.  Unfortunately, no government on the planet has been able to do that.

Instead, we have seen that criminals thrive whenever gun bans are instituted and the guns are taken away from law-abiding citizens.

But the bottom line is that our social decay will not be solved either by more guns or less guns.

Our social decay is the result of decades of bad decisions.  We have pushed morality out of our schools, out of government and out of almost every aspect of public life.  Now we are experiencing the bitter fruit of those decisions.

And this is not a problem that our government is going to be able to fix.  Violent crime increased by 18 percent in 2011, and this is just the beginning.

As our economy gets even worse, the rot and decay that have been eating away the foundations of America are going to become even more evident.  The number of Americans living in poverty grows with each passing day, and millions upon millions of people are becoming very desperate.

Desperate people do desperate things, and crime, rioting and looting are going to become commonplace in the United States in the years ahead.

So you can pretend that the government is going to be able to keep our society from crumbling all you want, but that is not going to help you when a gang of desperate criminals has invaded your home and is attacking your family.

We definitely should mourn for the victims in Connecticut.  It was a horrible national tragedy.

But this is just the beginning.  The fabric of our society is coming apart at the seams.  The feeling of safety and security that we all used to take for granted has been shattered, and the streets of America are going to steadily become much more dangerous.

I hope that you are ready.

EXCLUSIVE: DoD Report Reveals Some Detainees Interrogated While Drugged, Others "Chemically Restrained"

 

EXCLUSIVE: DoD Report Reveals Some Detainees Interrogated While Drugged, Others “Chemically Restrained”

Wednesday, 11 July 2012 00:00By Jeffrey Kaye and Jason Leopold, Truthout | Report

(Image: Jared Rodriguez / Truthout)Detainees in custody of the US military were interrogated while drugged with powerful antipsychotic and other medications that “could impair an individual’s ability to provide accurate information,” according to a declassified Department of Defense (DoD) inspector general’s report that probed the alleged use of “mind altering drugs” during interrogations.

In addition, detainees were subjected to “chemical restraints,” hydrated with intravenous (IV) fluids while they were being interrogated and, in what appears to be a form of psychological manipulation, the inspector general’s probe confirmed at least one detainee – convicted “dirty bomb” plotter Jose Padilla – was the subject of a “deliberate ruse” in which his interrogator led him to believe he was given an injection of “truth serum.”

Truthout obtained a copy of the report – “Investigation of Allegations of the Use of Mind-Altering Drugs to Facilitate Interrogations of Detainees” – prepared by the DoD’s deputy inspector general for intelligence in September 2009, under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request we filed nearly two years ago.

Over the past decade, dozens of current and former detainees and their civilian and military attorneys have alleged in news reports and in court documents that prisoners held by the US government in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan were forcibly injected with unknown medications and pills during or immediately prior to marathon interrogation sessions in an attempt to compel them to confess to terrorist-related crimes of which they were accused.

The inspector general’s investigation was unable to substantiate any of the allegations by current and former detainees that, as a matter of government policy, they were given mind-altering drugs “to facilitate interrogation.”

But the watchdog’s report provides startling new details about the treatment of detainees by US military personnel. For example, the report concludes, “certain detainees, diagnosed as having serious mental health conditions being treated with psychoactive medications on a continuing basis, were interrogated.”

Leonard Rubenstein, a medical ethicist at Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health and Human Rights and the former president of Physicians for Human Rights, said, “this practice adds another layer of cruelty to the operations at Guantanamo.”

“The inspector general’s report confirms that detainees whose mental deterioration and suffering was so great as to lead to psychosis and attempts at self-harm were given anti-psychotic medication and subjected to further interrogation,” said Rubenstein, who reviewed a copy of the report for Truthout. “The problem is not simply what the report implies, that good information is unlikely to be obtained when someone shows psychotic symptoms, but the continued use of highly abusive interrogation methods against men who are suffering from grave mental deterioration that may have been caused by those very same methods.”

Shayana Kadidal, the senior managing atty of the Guantanamo Project at the Center for Constitutional Rights, said the report, which he also reviewed, “reinforces that the interrogation system at Guantanamo was a brutal system.”

“One of the things that struck me after reading this,” Kadidal said, “is under the system set up by the [US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia], any statements detainees made during these interrogations would be presumed accurate even if detainees took medication that could produce unreliable information.”

“The burden ends up falling upon the detainee to prove what was said wasn’t accurate if they were challenging their detention” in habeas corpus proceedings, Kadidal added.

Explaining the rationale behind forcibly drugging detainees, the former commander of the Joint Medical Group at Guantanamo said, “some detainees were involuntarily medicated to help control serious mental illnesses,” according to the report, which added that an ethics committee approved of such plans.

“For example, one detainee had a piece of shrapnel in his brain which resulted in control problems and a limited ability to provide effective consent,” the report said.

The detainee with the shrapnel injury may be Abu Zubaydah. In 1992, Zubaydah had suffered a shrapnel wound to the head while fighting on the front lines of a civil war in Afghanistan. Brent Mickum, Zubaydah’s habeas attorney, said the high-value detainee has been routinely overdosed with Haldol, the only drug the inspector general identified that was used on certain detainees.

But the report suggests detainees were often not told what types of drugs they were given when they asked or for what purpose it was administered.

Brandon Neely, a former Guantanamo guard who was at the prison facility the day it opened in January 2002, told Truthout, “medics never informed the detainees what the medication was.”

“The medics walked around with little white cups that had pills in it a couple of times a day,” said Neely, who sometimes accompanied the medics when they distributed the medication. He added that if detainees refused to take it an “Immediate Reaction Force” team, who guards would call to deal with resistant or combative detainees, would administer the medication to prisoners by force.

Rubenstein said the failure to inform prisoners what drugs they were given means “some basic principles of medical ethics were cast aside, especially those requiring a doctor to explain his or her recommendation and seek consent for it as an affirmation of the dignity and autonomy of the patient.”

“Even where consent is not forthcoming and involuntary medication is allowed after voluntary medication is not accepted, it should never take place unless this process is followed,” Rubenstein said.

The cumulative effects of indefinite detention, interrogations, use of drugs, and other conditions of confinement also appear to have taken a toll on the detainees’ mental state and impacted the DoD watchdog’s ability to conduct a thorough investigation.

Indeed, when the inspector general sought to interview the attorney representing one detainee who claimed he was given mind-altering drugs during interrogations, the attorney responded, “at this state of his incarceration, [redacted] memory is severely compromised and, unfortunately, we are skeptical that he can provide you with any further details …”

The investigation also found instances where “chemical restraints” were used on detainees “that posed a threat to themselves or others,” which Rubenstein said, “is contrary to US Bureau of Prison regulations, decisions of the US Supreme Court and to medical ethics principles that forbid subordinating the patient’s medical interests to prison security.”

Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a Defense Department spokesman, said, “as a matter of long-standing department policy,” he could not comment on whether “chemical restraints” continue to be part of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), also known as Tactics, Techniques, Procedures (TTPs), at Guantanamo and other prisons operated by the DoD because “doing so might not only compromise security but [the SOPs] are ‘living’ documents, subject to regular change and updating.”

Media Report Sparked Probe

The inspector general’s yearlong probe was launched in June 2008, two months after the publication of a Washington Post report in which some detainees claimed they were forcibly drugged and coerced into making confessions.

One of the detainees at the center of The Washington Post report, Adel al-Nusairi, a former Saudi policeman who was imprisoned at Guantanamo from 2002 to 2005, is prominently featured in the inspector general’s report and identified as “IG-02.”

According to his attorney’s notes cited in The Washington Post, al-Nusairi claimed he was injected with an unknown medication that made him extremely sleepy just before he was interrogated in 2002. When his captors awakened him, he fabricated a confession for US interrogators in hopes they would leave him alone so he could sleep.

“I was completely gone,” al-Nusairi told his attorney, Anant Raut. “I said, ‘Let me go. I want to go to sleep. If it takes saying I’m a member of al-Qaeda, I will.'”

The inspector general’s review of al-Nusairi’s medical records showed he was diagnosed as “schizophrenic and psychotic with borderline personality disorder” and injected with Haldol, a powerful antipsychotic medication, whose side effects include lethargy, tremors, anxiety, mood changes and “an inability to remain motionless,” according to the watchdog’s report.

Haldol can also cause the usually irreversible movement disorder known as tardive dyskinesia. But the inspector general did not say that in his report. The inspector general noted al-Nusairi had told his interrogators he was being forced to take monthly injections that he no longer wanted to receive. The report said “uncooperative” detainees were sometimes forcibly injected with psychoactive medications.

But the investigation concluded there was “no evidence that [al-Nusairi] was administered shots during interrogation.”

Despite his diagnosis and the unreliability of the information he provided to his interrogators due to the effects of the antipsychotic medication, al-Nusairi was declared an enemy combatant after he confessed to being a member of al-Qaeda and imprisoned at Guantanamo for three more years before finally being repatriated to Saudi Arabia.

“I think any rational person would agree that confessions of terrorism while under the influence of mind-altering drugs are about credible as professions of love while under the influence of alcohol,” Raut, al-Nusairi’s attorney, told Truthout.

Two days after The Washington Post story was published, then-Sen. Joe Biden, who at the time was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee; and Sen. Chuck Hagel, a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter to DoD Inspector General Claude Kicklighter urging him to investigate the detainees’ allegations and to focus solely on whether the Department of Defense and its sub-agencies issued written and/or oral policy authorizing the use of “mind-altering drugs to facilitate interrogations.”

The CIA’s inspector general also conducted an investigation at the request of the Democratic lawmakers into the claims about the use of mind-altering drugs pertaining to detainees in custody of the agency. That report, which Truthout is also seeking under the FOIA, remains classified.

Investigative Gaps

The inspector general reviewed Department of Defense interrogation policy from 2001 through 2008 and interviewed more than 70 military intelligence and medical officials who had oversight of detainee operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo. Top military intelligence officials interviewed by the inspector general said they were “unaware” of any special access “black” program, policies, direction or order authorizing the use of drugs as an interrogation tactic or to “facilitate interrogations.”

The watchdog also looked at classified and open-source documents, including detainees’ medical records and 1,620 interrogation plans covering 411 detainees between August 2002 and January 2005.

“No interrogation plans were noted which mentioned drugging, medicating, or threatening to drug or medicate a detainee to facilitate interrogation,” according to the report, which added that a separate review of detainees’ medical records documenting their “physical and psychological care and treatment” did not turn up any evidence “of mind-altering drugs being administered for the purposes of interrogation.”

“The ‘headline’ here is that there’s no evidence of any organized, systematic [Department of Defense] effort to use drugs for interrogation purposes,” said Gregg Bloche, the author of “The Hippocratic Myth” and a health policy expert and professor of law at Georgetown University who also reviewed the inspector general’s report for Truthout. “Can isolated cases of drug use for interrogation purposes be absolutely ruled out? No – as the report acknowledges, there are gaps in evidence available to the [inspector general]. But if there were such cases, they were likely few and far between.”

But it appears that the probe did not scrutinize other documents, such as a second set of detainee medical records maintained by the Behavioral Science Consultant Teams or BSCTs that may have contained information relevant to the inspector general’s investigation into the use of mind-altering drugs during interrogations.

The BSCTs were made up of psychologists and other mental health technicians and, at one time, psychiatrists. The BSCTs work closely with interrogators in crafting interrogation plans based on the psychological assessments of a detainee’s weaknesses. The BSCT psychiatrists and at least one psychologist who passed a special Defense Department psychopharmacology program were able to administer drugs, at least in principle.

Human rights activists have long believed the Defense Department controlled a second set of detainee medical records, but evidence never surfaced to support the suspicions.

However, Truthout has uncovered previously unreported testimony from Army Surgeon General Kevin Kiley’s 2005 report on detainee medical operations in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan (pg. 18-13) that confirms the suggestion.

Kiley indicated that, while BSCTs were not medical personnel and “did not document the medical condition of detainees in the medical record,” they “did keep a restricted database which provided medical information on detainees.”

Rubenstein added, “if drugs were used those BSCT records should be consulted.”

Jose Padilla and “A Deliberate Ruse”

The report also delves into the area of so-called “truth” drugs, which are administered for their presumed mind-altering effects.

Since the start of the “war on terror,” intelligence officials have publicly said drugs like sodium pentothal should be introduced in interrogations as a way of getting “uncooperative” detainees to talk.

“We ought to look at what options are out there,” former FBI and CIA Director William Webster told reporters in 2002.

The inspector general’s report pointed to instances in which top military officials had considered introducing “truth” drugs during interrogations. The watchdog cited an October 2, 2002 meeting of Guantanamo interrogation command and legal staff where the use of “truth serum” on detainees was discussed as having a “placebo effect.”

George Bimmerle discussed the use of placebos as ersatz “truth drugs” in a classic 1961 CIA text titled “‘Truth’ Drugs in Interrogation.” Bimmerle wrote that placebos are “most likely to be effective in situations of stress.” The drugs are described as acting upon “a subject’s sense of guilt,” absolving a prisoner under interrogation of responsibility for giving up information, because it is assumed the effect of the drug was to blame.

Interrogators utilized the “placebo effect” when they questioned convicted terrorist Jose Padilla, a US citizen who was arrested in May 2002 on suspicion of plotting to build and detonate a dirty bomb and held as an enemy combatant at the US Naval Brig in South Carolina.

Padilla’s federal public defender, Michael Caruso, in a 2006 federal court filing, claimed Padilla was “given drugs against his will, believed to be some form of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) or phencyclidine (PCP), to act as a sort of truth serum during his interrogations.”

Sanford Seymour, the technical director of the US Naval brig in South Carolina where Padilla was held, however, vehemently denied the charge during a 2006 hearing to determine whether Padilla, a US citizen, was competent to stand trial. Seymour asserted Padilla was injected with an influenza vaccine.

But what Seymour failed to disclose, reported here for the first time, was that Padilla was given the flu shot during an interrogation session and told by his interrogators the injection was “truth serum.”

The inspector general’s probe determined “the incorporation of a routine flu shot into an interrogation session … was a deliberate ruse by the interrogation team, intended to convince [redacted, Padilla] he had been administered a mind-altering drug,” such as LSD.

Investigators from the inspector general’s office reached that conclusion after a visit to the Naval Brig where they reviewed records and interviewed Brig officials about Padilla’s claims.

Padilla’s name is redacted from the report, but it’s clear, based on the detailed descriptions of the allegations, the inspector general is referring to him. The report says the FBI and Joint Task Force 170, the “predecessor organization” of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, interrogated Padilla from June 2002 through October 2002. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) took over his interrogations from October 2002 through March 2003 at which point the FBI and DIA jointly conducted the interrogations.

The inspector general’s office also viewed some of Padilla’s interrogation videotapes where Padilla “expressed concern about the possible use of drugs to induce him to cooperate with the interrogators.”

“The most detailed discussion of truth serum occurred on November 14, 2002, after [redacted] declined to take a polygraph examination,” according to the inspector general’s report. “The interrogation video recording depicts that following the polygraph declination, [redacted] and the interrogator had a discussion of other techniques which could be used to verify [redacted] statements. Among the techniques described by the interrogator was the use of a ‘truth serum.'”

At the end of the tape, according to the inspector general, the interrogator told Padilla, “There is no such thing as a ‘truth serum.'” But the initial suggestion apparently affected the detainee when he was given a flu shot during his interrogation session about three weeks later. Padilla asked his interrogator why he was given a shot.

“It was necessary,” the interrogator said, “and proceeded to ask [redacted] what kind of shot he received.”

Padilla said he was told it was a flu shot, but as the interrogation wore on he said he did not feel well and asked, “what did you shoot me with? Did you shoot me with serum?”

Bloche, the health policy expert and Georgetown University law professor, said the ruse interrogators pulled on Padilla “sounds like a juvenile prank.”

“But it’s a serious breach of medical ethics,” Bloche said. “It undermines trust in military physicians and it’s an unfair insult to the integrity of the vast majority of military doctors, who quite rightly believe that this sort of thing is contrary to their professional obligation.”

The inspector general rebuked a government agency – possibly the DIA or FBI – involved in Padilla’s interrogation for failing “to follow legal review procedures” established by US Joint Forces Command.

Padilla was convicted of terrorism support charges in 2007. Recently, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal Padilla filed against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials. The high court let stand an appeals court ruling, which dismissed Padilla’s complaint related to his treatment at the Naval Brig. Caruso, Padilla’s federal public defender, did not return messages left at his Miami office for comment about the inspector general’s conclusions.

But just a few months after the deception on Padilla, according to the inspector general’s probe, an unnamed DIA “representative” came up with a list of 40 techniques at the request of a Pentagon “working group” overseen by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that met between January and April 2003 to discuss interrogation methods to use on detainees captured in the global war on terror.

The “DIA representative” was identified in a declassified 2009 Senate Armed Services Committee report that probed the treatment of detainees in custody of the US military as Dave Becker, the Interrogation Control Element (ICE) Chief at Guantanamo. Becker recommended to the “working group” the use of drugs, “such as sodium pentothal and Demerol,” which was number 40 on the list of interrogation methods presented to the “working group.” Becker said those drugs “could prove to be effective” and “relaxes detainee to a cooperative state.”

When Senate Armed Services Committee investigators interviewed him about the list of interrogation techniques, Becker said he had recommended the “use of drugs” to Rumsfeld’s panel because he’d heard “a rumor” that another agency “had used drugs in their interrogation program.”

The inspector general’s report went on to say the working group ultimately rejected the use of drugs. But the report failed to mention an important document: a March 2003 legal opinion sent to Pentgaon general counsel William “Jim” Haynes by Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel attorney John Yoo, which said drugs could be used in interrogations as long as they did not “disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.” Yoo’s memo was cited in the senators’ letter to the inspector general calling for the investigation. It’s unclear why it was not mentioned in the watchdog’s report.

The investigation also reviewed published reports prepared by the US government and human rights organizations revolving around the treatment of detainees in US custody. One report scrutinized was Kiley’s 2005 US Army surgeon general report on detainee medical operations in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan, which said a doctor refused “to provide cough syrup as a ‘truth drug'” to an Iraqi detainee. The inspector general interviewed this doctor, who indicated the request, which he turned down as unethical, came from his “brigade S-2 (Intelligence Officer).”

The surgeon general’s report also said a licensed practical nurse saw “sedatives (ativan, diazepam, etc.) being used by medical personnel to calm a [Iraqi] detainee so that the detainee would talk more.”

According to the DoD inspector general’s investigation, after the watchdog attempted to obtain a sworn statement from the nurse, identified in its report as a “non-commissioned officer,” about the use of sedatives on detainees, the nurse “elected to make a corrective statement” to what he had claimed three years earlier.

“Sedatives were only given to patient detainees to alleviate pain,” the nurse’s statement now says.

“They Said It Was Some Candy”

The inspector general’s office also received permission from the deputy secretary of defense to interview three detainees in January 2009 about their claims of being forcibly drugged during interrogations. An attorney for one of the detainees declined the interview request. The inspector general did not attempt to interview detainees who claimed they were administered mind-altering drugs during interrogations and have since been repatriated,

The names of the two detainees interviewed are redacted in the report.

The detainee told the inspector general after he was captured in Karachi, Pakistan, by Pakistanis in September 2002 where he held for three days he was transferred to the “Prison of Darkness,” in Kabul, Afghanistan for 40 days. He was then sent to the US prison base at Bagram for about a week and then shipped off to Guantanamo.

“[Redacted] stated that during an interrogation at Bagram he was given pills; green and red ones,” according to statements the detainee gave the inspector general in April 2009. “After I ate like three of them, my tongue started getting heavier. After that, I woke up and they (interrogators) said thank you very much, we’ve got what we need. After I ate the stuff, it was like a state of delusion … it took like three-four days to (feel normal again). I was not normal until I came to Cuba and then I started to feel my mind back. It was a state of delusion. Like everything was a dream. My sensation was not great.”

The inspector general asked the detainee if he was told what the pills were.

“At the time they said it was some candy. And I was so hungry so I ate it,” the detainee said.

The inspector general then asked the detainee if it was possible what he had experienced at the “Prison of Darkness” was due to exhaustion.

“I don’t remember exactly,” the detainee said. “If you saw my condition in the Prison of Darkness after 40 days of being tortured and having to stand all the time at Bagram. Those were things consuming my mind at the time … when I start to remember that, I get somewhat upset, because it was a terrible event in my life. When you had been standing for three-four days in a row, I was so tired, I was exhausted. I can’t describe those sensations.”

Interrogators who questioned the detainee were interviewed by the inspector general’s office. They did not remember the detainee “as each had interrogated over 100 persons during their respected assignments.” They denied giving detainees drugs or medication for “interrogation purposes” and never witnessed other military personnel administer detainees drugs. The interrogators said, however, they “frequently gave the detainees food and candy to reward or encourage them to talk,” such as “Fruit Loops,” “Jolly Ranchers,” “cookies,” “suckers,” and “Taffy’s.”

“Based on the statements provided by the interrogators and lacking any evidence of drugging, we concluded that we could not substantiate [redacted] allegation,” the inspector general’s probe concluded.

The inspector general also interviewed a detainee who was captured in Faisalabad, Pakistan, in March 2002 and claimed after he was transferred to Guantanamo that summer an interrogator told him “he would give me something that will make me talk.”

However, the watchdog was unable “to correlate this information with records and documents pertaining to [the detainee’s] interrogations.”

Responding to the completion of the investigation in August 2009, J. Alan Liotta, the principal director in the office of detainee policy, warned in a letter to the inspector general signing off on the document, “The release of this report is likely to generate media attention.”

“Please keep our office informed as to when it will be released and efforts to craft talking points regarding the release,” Liotta wrote, signing off on the report.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

___________________________

Government Report on Drugging of Detainees Is Suppressed

Tuesday 14 September 2010

by: Jeffrey Kaye and Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report

(Image: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: mike.benedetti, Dirty Bunny)

A major Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigation on the drugging of detainees held at Guantanamo and other Department of Defense (DoD) facilities was completed almost a year ago and shared with a key Senate committee. According to DoD spokesperson, Maj. Tanya Bradsher, the report is classified. News of the completion of the investigation and the OIG’s report came as a surprise to human rights advocates who had been involved in investigating the drugging claims. While the findings of the investigation is unknown, a spokeswoman for the Senate Armed Services Committee said the OIG’s investigation did not substantiate allegations of drugging of prisoners for the “purposes of interrogation.” The involuntary use of drugs on prisoners would violate a number of domestic and international laws, as well as basic ethical codes of the medical professions.

Truthout filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request last week to gain access to the OIG report. Kelly McHale, a senior FOIA Specialist who works in the Inspector General’s office, said Tuesday the Defense Department “may be unable to respond to your request within the FOIA’s 20 day statutory time period as there are unusual circumstances which may impact on our ability to quickly process your request.

“These unusual circumstances may be: (a) the need to search for and collect records from a facility geographically separated from this Office; (b) the potential volume of records responsive to your request; and (c) the need for consultation with one or more other agencies or DoD components having a substantial interest in either the determination or the subject matter of the records,” McHale wrote in an email in response to Truthout’s FOIA request. “For these reasons, we placed your request in our complex processing queue and will process it consistent with the order in which we received your request. Please note that we currently have an administrative workload of 105 cases.”

Stephen Soldz, president-elect for Psychologists for Social Responsibility, who also wrote about the drugging controversy in April 2008, told Truthout, “Given that ex-detainees’ accounts of other abuses have repeatedly proved reliable when they were independently corroborated by official documents and accounts from guards, there is no reason to doubt detainees’ accounts of drugging. Was ‘interrogation’ defined so narrowly as to exclude drug use designed to make detainees cooperate with interrogators or to instill terror or confusion in detainees?” Soldz asked.

The initial impetus for the OIG investigation was a Washington Postexposé by reporter Joby Warrick in April 2008. A few weeks prior to the Post story, Jeff Stein had written about the drugging of prisoners in an article at Congressional Quarterly, noting that the chief federal defender for supposed al-Qaeda suspect Jose Padilla asserted in a 2007 legal motion that Padilla was “was given drugs against his will, believed to be some form of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) or phencyclidine (PCP), to act as a sort of truth serum during his interrogations.” Warrick’s story described as an example of possible drugging the case of former Saudi detainee, Adel al-Nusairi. According to his attorney, “[Nusairi] was injected in the arm with something that made him tired – that made his brain cloudy. When he would try to read the Koran, his brain would not focus. He had unusual lethargy and would drool on himself.”

More recent accounts of drugging by detainees include charges by Abdul Aziz Naji, who was forcibly repatriated to Algeria from Guantanamo July 2010. Naji told an Algerian newspaper that detainees at Guantanamo were forced “to take some medicines for three months to drive them crazy, loosing [sic] memory and committing suicide.” According to an important exposé by Scott Horton at Harpers last winter, at least one of the three Guantanamo prisoners that DoD claimed committed suicide in 2006 had needle marks on both of his arms. According to Horton, the Obama administration has refused to open an investigation into these mysterious deaths, which allegedly took place at a previously unreported black site at Guantanamo, known informally as Camp No.

Warrick’s contention that “[a]t least two dozen other former and current detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere say they were given drugs against their will or witnessed other inmates being drugged, based on interviews and court documents,” led to movement in the otherwise glacial US Senate. Sens. Carl Levin (D-Michigan), Joe Biden (D-Delaware) and Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), representing the Senate’s Armed Services, Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees, respectively, sent letters to “the CIA and Defense Department inspectors general calling for an investigation.” The senators said they were reacting to the March 2008 article in the Post, as well as other public reports, confirming the use of drugs on “detainees,” and indicated the controversy “warrant[ed] a thorough investigation.”

While it is unknown how the CIA replied, the Inspector General’s office at DoD began a probe. The final report, entitled “Investigation of Allegations of the Use of Mind-Altering Drugs to Facilitate Interrogations of Detainees,” was finally published September 23, 2009.

Kathleen Long, a spokeswoman at the Senate Armed Services Committee, told  Truthout that the Committee received a copy of the September 2009 report, but it was marked as classified and she could not discuss the details. However, she was authorized to say that the OIG investigation “did not substantiate allegations” that mind altering drugs “were used for interrogation purposes” on detainees.

That still leaves a lot of questions. Reports have described the use of drugs for restraint of prisoners, facility control, as a condition of confinement, sedation during transport as well as use in interrogations. The use of drugs in mind control experiments, the purpose of which was to assess the effects of various controlled substances on the physical and psychological functioning of the individual, has been described by numerous authors, investigative journalists, Congressional committees and even (after decades of denial) the DoD.

The use of drugs for sedation or interrogations was raised in the May 10, 2005, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo from Stephen Bradbury to then-CIA Senior Deputy Legal Council John Rizzo on the “Combined Use of Certain Techniques That May Be Used in the Interrogation of High-Value al-Qaeda Detainees.” Bradbury noted that the OLC’s advice pertained only to interrogations and not “to conditions of confinement or detention, as distinct from the interrogation of detainees.” He notes that the CIA’s Office of Medical Services (OMS) rules allow the sedation of detainees during transportation. Even so, Bradbury writes that OMS reported they were “unaware” of the use of sedating drugs in the transport of detainees during the prior two years. This appears to be an admission that they were aware of such practices prior to May 2003. Bradbury told the CIA, “We caution that any use of sedatives should be carefully evaluated,” referencing violations of US anti-torture law as an example.

We need a corporate-free zone. Click here to support news and information free from advertising and commercial bias.

Nearly three years before the Bradbury memo, OLC memos written by John Yoo, with assistance from Jay Bybee and David Addington, had allowed for the use of mind-altering drugs in interrogations, maintaining such use was not torture unless it caused “permanent” or “profound” mental harm or damage. In 2006, when the new version of the Army Field Manual (AFM) on human intelligence collection was approved, it allowed an even less stringent ban on the use of drugs than Yoo had envisioned, dropping the OLC prohibition against use of drugs that could cause “profound mental harm,” a standard that could be met, according to Yoo, by induction of even a brief psychotic episode. In the version of the AFM in force prior to 2006, any “chemically induced psychosis” was forbidden. In the new AFM, still currently in effect, only drugs used that cause permanent, lasting harm are not allowable for interrogation use.

While the letters from Senators Biden, Hagel and Levin called for both CIA and DoD inspector general investigations, it is not known if the CIA ever initiated such an in-house review. In 2008, the Senate Armed Services Committee undertook a detailed “Inquiry into the treatment of detainees in US custody,” with two public hearings and a publishedreport. Nevertheless, the committee’s report did not include an investigation of any abuse by involuntary drugging.

Meanwhile, key personnel working in DoD intelligence circles have a history of exploring or advocating the use of drugs in interrogations. In July 2003, the CIA, in conjunction with the Rand Corporation and the American Psychological Association (APA) conducted a workshop entitled “Science of Deception: Integration of Practice and Theory.” The proceedings included a discussion on new ways to utilize drugs and sensory bombardment techniques to break down individuals under interrogation. Links to the description of this workshop have recently been scrubbed at APA’s web site. The meeting included the participation of DoD personnel and was co-organized by APA’s former senior scientist, Susan Brandon. Dr. Brandon is today research chief for the Behavioral Science Program within the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center (DCHC). A recent report by Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic described the DCHC as providing “intelligence operatives and interrogators…. [performing] interrogations for a sub-unit of Task Force 714, an elite counter-terrorism brigade.”

When the Washington Post story broke in 2008, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) publicly called for Congressional and Department of Justice investigations of the allegations of drugging detainees, noting that some of these abuses may also have involved forced medication “for therapeutic purposes” without informed consent. As one example of this sort of abuse, Brent Mickum, attorney for Abu Zubaydah, told Truthout that since Zubaydah was transferred to Guantanamo in 2006, he “has suffered upwards of 250 seizures due to the fact that he was treated and overdosed with Haldol. On two occasions I went down there to meet with him he was in no position to talk to me.”

Soon after the Post story appeared, then-President of PHR, Leonard Rubenstein (currently a visiting scholar at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) stated, “The forced medication of detainees without their consent, either for interrogation or as a chemical restraint, is an affront to the very foundations of medical ethics…. Even if used for purportedly therapeutic purposes, absent very exceptional circumstances, detainees have a right to consent to modes of treatment, just as others do and the Department of Defense has indeed recognized this right.”

“The Man in the Snow White Cell”

Last month, a government panel investigating interrogation techniques – the shadowy Intelligence Science Board, which has been linked to the creation under the Obama administration of the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or HIG – had one of their teaching papers posted online at Secrecy News. Entitled “Intelligence Interviewing: Teaching Papers and Case Studies,” the April 2009 study, ostensibly discussing the problems with getting good intelligence from coercive interrogations (i.e., torture), had no problem with one scenario that utilized severe isolation and sensory deprivation to loosen up a prisoner. The case is well-known to intelligence professionals and is known as “The Man in the Snow White Cell”:

In early 1972, [Nguyen] Tai [“the most senior North Vietnamese officer ever captured during the Vietnam War”] was informed he was being taken to another location to be interrogated by the Americans. After being blindfolded, he was transported by car to an unknown location and placed in a completely sealed cell that was painted all in white, lit by bright lights 24 hours a day and cooled by a powerful air-conditioner (Tai hated air conditioning, believing, like many Vietnamese, that cool breezes could be poisonous). Kept in total isolation, Tai lived in this cell, designed to keep him confused and disoriented, for three years without learning where he was.

Tai’s interrogation began anew….

Without doubt, the South Vietnamese torture gave Tai the incentive for the limited cooperation he gave to his American interrogators, but it was the skillful questions and psychological ploys of the Americans and not any physical infliction of pain, that produced the only useful (albeit limited) information that Tai ever provided. [Emphasis added.]

The ISB analysts never mention the deleterious effects that three years of psychological torture may have produced in the prisoner. It is indicative of the way in which psychological forms of torture have been buried in the public’s consciousness in lieu of preoccupation with more physical forms of torture, such as waterboarding.

Long ago, the CIA and military discovered that the use of physical methods of torture tended to cause more resistance, or too quickly broke down the prisoner and made him insensible. So, they studied and implemented a more psychological method that relied primarily on isolation, sensory deprivation or overload, sleep deprivation and induction of debility. The introduction of brutal “enhanced interrogation techniques,” reverse-engineered from the “Resistance to Interrogation” classes of the SERE schools, were never totally accepted by the intelligence community and may have had more to do with experimental protocols still only dimly understood than with any expected production of operational intelligence.

DoD Review: Guantanamo Medical Records Shared With Interrogators

One intriguing outcome from the DoD drugging investigation was a “Review of the Joint Task Force Guantanamo Inclusion of Detainee Mental Health Information in Intelligence Information Reports,” issued May 2010. A short summary of this review appears in Appendix G, “Detailed Summary Agency Oversight” of the July 30, 2010, report to Congress by the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. According to Long, the Senate Armed Services Committee has not been briefed on this report.

The investigation into use of mental health information in intelligence reports at Guantanamo had, as its initial public objective, whether interrogators and analysts were considering detainee mental health as “an indicator of reliability” when determining “reliability and accuracy of information” obtained through interrogations. By the time the investigation was completed in May of this year, the issue had become one of confusion over guidelines and procedures at Guantanamo over the sharing of medical information between health care personnel and interrogators. If nothing else, the recent report demonstrates that interrogations and examinations of detainees remain an ongoing issue at Guantanamo, even as it widely assumed that much of the focus on new intelligence has shifted to the interrogations at Bagram Air Base or DoD black site prisons in Afghanistan.

Controversies over the use of private medical and mental health information and records of detainees by interrogators in the prisons at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere were aired in medical journals going back some years. In the July 7, 2005, article “Doctors and Interrogators at Guantanamo Bay,” published in the New England Journal of Medicine, M. Gregg Bloche and Jonathan H. Marks warned against doctors and other medical personnel crossing the line between caregiver and interrogator. Such breaches of privacy would violate the privacy of medical and mental health treatment for the supposed benefit of the interrogator, some of whom use the information to inform their anxiety and fear-based approach to interrogation.

Clinical expertise has a limited place in the planning and oversight of lawful interrogation. Psychologists play such a role in criminal investigations and medical monitoring of detainees is called for by international legal instruments. But proximity of health professionals to interrogation settings, even when they act as caregivers, carries risk. It may invite interrogators to be more aggressive, because they imagine that these professionals will set needed limits. The logic of caregiver involvement as a safeguard also risks pulling health professionals in ever more deeply. Once caregivers share information with interrogators, why should they refrain from giving advice about how to best use the data?

Responding to the controversy around sharing medical records described in the Marks and Bloche article, a few weeks after the NEJM article was published, then-Army Surgeon Gen. Kevin Kiley assured the press that there was a “firewall” between interrogators and members of the Behavioral Science Consultation Teams (BSCTs) that work with the interrogators and medical records. Whatever the practice, the 2005 Standard Operating Procedure for the BSCTs at that time shows that while the BSCTs were to act as liaisons between interrogators and Guantanamo medical personnel, describing “the implications of medical diagnoses and treatment for the interrogation process,” it is clearly stated, “Neither BSCT personnel and interrogation teams have access to medical records of detainees.” Medical information coming from Guantanamo’s Joint Medical Group is limited to physical, medical and functional limitations “required to consider in order to ensure the safety of the detainee and US personnel, e.g. diabetes, heart condition, special diet or contagious condition.”

According to a communication from Stephen Soldz, the 2006 BSCT directives, “while establishing controls on use of medical records, made it clear that these records could be accessed for national security purposes. Thus, any firewalls could potentially be breached.” So, it is not surprising to hear that the May 2010 inspector general review of Joint Task Force Guantanamo on use of detainee medical records reports that, under the Obama administration, sharing of such records with interrogators is commonplace, the subject of shabby oversight ten years after the opening of the prison site:

Present regulatory guidance authorizes health-care providers to share detainee medical information with interrogators, but does not provide specific guidance on how to do so. As a result execution of these policies at Guantanamo has been inconsistent , resulting in confusion for both health-care providers and interrogation elements. [Emphasis added.]

Such confusion is not accidental. Oversight means that things that aren’t supposed to happen are in fact kept under some kind of control. Given the ongoing controversies about medical information being shared, it is important that, as part of a clear and open investigation of procedures at Guantanamo and other detainee prison sites, that the public be given an understanding of exactly what type of information is in those medical records and of what benefit such information might be to interrogators, the better to understand how such information might be abused and whether rules and procedures for the legal and ethical use of medical information are truly followed.

Nathaniel Raymond, director of PHR’s Campaign Against Torture, said “the American people will not know whether those standards were enforced properly unless there is complete transparency about what was done or not done in our name.”

“One classified Inspector General’s report does little to answer the disturbing questions raised by government documents, news reports and the statements of detainees themselves,” Raymond told Truthout in an interview.

For all its rules and Standard Operating Procedures, Guantanamo remains a lawless place, where maltreatment of prisoners continues and torture is by no means a banished evil. The continuation of Appendix Minterrogations at the facility, steeped in techniques such as isolation, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation and creation of strong fear, guarantees that abuse continues.

Because this is happening under a Democratic Party administration, oversight by former critics of the Bush administration – especially in Congress – is muted, for fear of tarnishing the reputation of the Democratic Party. That’s one major reason these stories are not being reported. No one is bothering to look, for fear of what they might find. Hence, no major investigations either, at least not for public consumption.

 

Stolen Haitian Relief Money

 

By Stephen Lendman (about the author)
opednews.com

Stolen Haitian Relief Money

Haitian Suffering Continues

by Stephen Lendman

Following Haiti’s catastrophic January 12, 2010 earthquake, billions of dollars in relief aid were raised. Suffering Haitians got virtually none of it.

Hundreds of thousands remain homeless. A cholera emergency still exists. On June 19, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent said:

“There is a significant probability of a major cholera emergency in Haiti in the coming months but resources have been severely diminished.”

Increased numbers of cases were reported in the Artibonite, Nord-Ouest, Nord-Est, Ouest, Gonave island, and homeless camps in Port-au-Prince and surrounding areas.

The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) estimates another 170,000 new cases by end of 2012.

Haiti’s problems are severe. Deep poverty, deprivation, and unemployment torment millions. Earthquake devastation compounded them. Little relief came. It was stolen for commercial development.

It’s common practice to divert relief aid to private developers. In 2004, a second tsunami struck Sri Lanka. The first one took 250,000 lives and left 2.5 million homeless throughout the region.

Coastal areas were scrubbed clean. Everything was gone. Sri Lankans living there lost everything. New rules prohibited rebuilding homes where they once stood. Buffer zone restrictions insured it.

Beaches were off-limits to people who once lived there. Displaced Sri Lankans were shoved into temporary grim inland camps. Soldiers prevented them from coming home.

At issue was developing coastal areas for profit. Luxury destinations were planned. Formerly occupied land was sold to commercial buyers. Privatization was the new game.

Displaced residents were entirely left out. What they lost, they never got back. Land grab money making became policy.

Tsunami victims in other ravaged countries suffered the same fate. The pattern repeated everywhere. People were prohibited from rebuilding where they once lived.

What nature wrought, corporate developers and corrupt politicians compounded by stealing their land for profit.

New Orleans Katrina victims suffered the same way. Blank became beautiful. Erased communities were replaced with upscale condos and other high-profit projects on choice city real estate.

Residents who once lived there were forced out. Politicians conspired with developers to assure they didn’t come back.

History not only rhymes, as Mark Twain once said, a lot of times it repeats. Haitians now suffer like Sri Lankans, other East Asian tsunami victims, and Katrina displaced New Orleans residents.

Haitians are no strangers to adversity and anguish. For over 500 years, they suffered severe oppression, slavery, despotism, colonization, reparations, embargoes, sanctions, deep poverty, starvation, unrepayable debt, and natural calamities.

They included destructive hurricanes and numerous magnitude 7.0 or greater regional earthquakes.

The last major one came in 1946. A magnitude 8.1 quake struck adjacent Dominican Republic. Haiti was also affected. Earlier catastrophic ones were in 1751 and 1770. Both devastated Port-au-Prince. In 1842 Cap-Haitien was destroyed.

In 2004, Washington militarized Haiti after ousting Jean-Bertrand Aristide. After January 2010, in came the marines.

After its worst catastrophe in nearly 170 years, Haitians need food, housing, medical care, clean water, and other vital services, not military forces confronting them repressively. They still do.

US marines are gone. MINUSTAH shock troops remain. For years, they’ve committed murders, kidnappings, extrajudicial detentions, rapes, non-sexual assaults, physical threats, and other type abuses. They’re enforcers for political and corporate crime bosses.

Haiti always was open for profit and exploitation. Earthquake devastation created new opportunities. The country was declared open for business. Washington and other Western predators took full advantage.

So did hundreds of for-profit NGOs. They skim most relief aid donations for themselves. So do corporate developers and other profiteers. They steal private donations and pledged amounts freely. Haiti’s pseudo-government then and now acquiesces.

No one helped Haitians like Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Two coups ousted him. Exile followed each time. He’s back but out of politics. Electoral manipulation installed Washington’s man.

Stealth Duvalierist Michel (Sweet Micky) Martelly became president. Most Haitians despise him. It hardly mattered. They had no say in preventing his illegitimate elevation to the nation’s highest office. Haitian suffering continues.

In January, Bill Quigley and Amber Ramanauskas headlined “Where the Relief Money Did and Did Not Go – Haiti after the Quake,” saying:

Despite billions in pledged and donated aid, “Haiti looks like the earthquake happened two months ago, not two years.”

Rarely does this news get covered. Over half a million people then remained homeless. They still do. Most debris lay where it fell. Cholera was killing thousands. It’s still out of control because too little is done to stop, control, and treat it.

Instead of relief going to help Haitians, it’s given to profiteering companies and NGOs. Haitians then and now ask where did the money go? It hasn’t helped them.

Washington diverted the largest amount. Instead of helping, it sent in the marines, let contracts for corporate predators, and funded well-connected profiteering NGOs. Haitians got hardly anything. They’re still waiting for desperately needed aid.

Their government got 1% of the money. Little went to Haitian companies or local NGOs. Private companies specializing in disasters got funding. Much of what was pledged never came. It happens every time.

Other funds received weren’t spent. Quigley and Ramanauskas are human rights lawyers. They said:

“Respect, transparency and accountability are the building blocks for human rights.”

“Haitians deserve to know where the money has gone, what the plans are for the money still left, and to be partners in the decision-making for what is to come.”

Once relief aid stops, they’ll be responsible entirely for solving problems so far not even addressed.

On July 5, The New York Times headlined “Earthquake Relief Where Haiti Wasn’t Broken.”

It provided a rare mainstream glimpse at how Haitians have been harmed and cheated.

“On the first anniversary of the Jan. 12, 2010 earthquake, in a sleepy corner of northeast Haiti far from the disaster zone, the Haitian government began the process of evicting 366 farmers from a large, fertile tract of land to clear the way for a new industrial park.”

They didn’t “understand why authorities wanted to replace productive agricultural land with factories in a rural country that had trouble feeding itself.”

Many other troubling incidents followed. Haitians are virtually helpless to stop it.

Bill Clinton co-chairs the so-called Haiti recovery commission. He celebrated the Caracol Industrial Park project by “cementing an agreement with the anchor tenant – Sae-A-Trading.” Wife Hillary helped seal the deal.

Sae-A is a South Korean clothing manufacturer. It’s a major supplier for Walmart and other large retailers.

They, like other local manufacturers, want to exploit Haitians lucky to have work no matter how poorly they’re paid and treated. They get below poverty wages. They’re treated little better than slaves.

Two and a half years after the quake, “Haiti remains mired in a humanitarian crisis.” Hundreds of thousands are homeless. They’re largely on their own to survive.

This and other commercial developments benefit profiteers, not Haitians. “Caracol Industrial Park is hardly reconstruction in the strictest sense.”

Its developers downplay labor and environmental concerns. They came to make money, not help Haitians. Sae-A has an odious reputation. It closed its Guatemala factory over troubled labor relations.

The AFL/CIO urged Haiti’s government not to accept them. A detailed memo described “egregious antiunion repression.” It includes “acts of violence and intimidation.” Guatemalan monitor Homero Fuentes called Sae-A “one of the major labor violators.”

Worker Rights Consortium executive director Scott Nova calls the company “a big player in a dirty industry with a track record that suggests a degree of ruthlessness even worse than the norm.”

Other critics expressed concerns about its Guatemalan labor and criminal law violations. Company executives used every dirty tactic imaginable to squeeze out profits. Manufacturing is conducted amidst intimidation, death and other threats on workers.

Nonetheless, Bill and Hillary Clinton welcomed Sae-A with open arms.

Caracol Bay contains Haiti’s most extensive mangrove reserve and valued coral reef. Better suited sites were bypassed. Haiti’s Audubon Society head Arnoud Dupuy called doing so “heresy.”

Environmental considerations were ignored. Despite objections, development went ahead as planned. It includes a heavy fuel oil power plant, a dense housing project, and port on a soon to be lost pristine bay.

Instead of promised “building back better,” profits superseded environmental and people concerns. Local backers and US officials downplayed the enormous damage done.

Haitians won’t be helped. They’ll be ruthlessly exploited for profit. Caracol’s mayor, Landry Colas, wasn’t consulted. He’d have picked a different site, he said.

This one is vast. It comprises nearly a square mile. It’s in Haiti’s north, south of Cap-Haitien. It’s bisected by the Hole of the North River and fed by the Massacre Aquifer.

Land was cleared last year. Small farmers were evicted. The tract resembles “a gravelly lunar landscape. Its perimeter is fenced, and outside the gate, a banner drapes a church, proclaiming “Sae-A Loves You.’ “

It reminds some of Orwell’s “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

Sae-A executives see Caracol Bay as a blank slate to develop and exploit as they wish. Haitians have a much different view. Land chosen has a history of foreign exploitation and agrarian struggle. Peasants alternated between occupation and eviction.

In 1986, residents reclaimed the land after Baby Doc Duvalier fell from power and fled to France. They divided it into hundreds of small farms. Many paid yearly rent to squat. The land’s replete with “collective memory.”

Bill and Hillary Clinton added more. Aggrieved Haitians won’t forget or forgive. The William J. Clinton Foundation and Inter-American Development Bank lured hundreds of potential investors to Haiti.

Big profits were promised. The industrial park was bait. Away from Haiti’s devastated south, it was ideal.

Ravaged areas remain troubled by slow rubble removal, problems securing land, and institutional ones.

Export processing zones aren’t new in Haiti. Choosing the best sites are prioritized. Professor Laurent Dubois calls developing industrial parks a “tired” idea, saying:

“The way I see it, in a deep, long, historical way, Haiti was founded by ex-slaves who overthrew a plantation system and people keep trying to get them to return to some form of plantation.”

“There have been cycles of (these) type project(s), where the idea is that foreign investment will modernize the country. But things have gotten progressively worse for Haitians.”

A local bank manager called developing a garment maquiladora zone a last resort idea. Free land, slave wages, extensive infrastructure development, and other investment incentives lured Sai-A. In return, it’s spending a modest amount.

Environmentalists were shocked that the company would anchor a giant industrial park. Before Haiti’s quake, they designated Caracol Bay to become the country’s first marine protected site.

Development imperils conservation. Haiti’s government chose the site. Washington’s heavy hand made the difference. It has valued soil and water resources. It’s ideal for farming.

Environmental impact studies weren’t done. After the fact, concerns were raised. It was too late. Caracol’s mayor Colas worries that his city will become another Cite Soleil slum.

He added that he feels like he’s being used. Signing ceremony attendees stop by City Hall, he said. They greet him, but there’s no relationship or involvement in planning or deals signed. Foreigners know more about what’s going on than he does, he complained.

Millions of Haitians have known nothing but brutal exploitation and numbing poverty for hundreds of years.

Caracol Bay and other commercial development projects change nothing. Haitian suffering continues.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago

His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”

http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

 

Al Gore, Agenda 21 And Population Control

 

Imagine going to sleep one night and waking up many years later in a totally different world.  In this futuristic world, literally everything you do is tightly monitored and controlled by control freak bureaucrats in the name of “sustainable development” and with the goal of promoting “the green agenda“.  An international ruling body has centralized global control over all human activity.  What you eat, what you drink, where you live, how warm or cold your home can be and how much fuel you can use is determined by them.  Anyone that dissents or that tries to rebel against the system is sent off for “re-education”.  The human population is 90 percent lower than it is today in this futuristic society, and all remaining humans have been herded into tightly constricted cities which are run much like prisons.  Does all of that sound good to you?  Well, this is what Agenda 21 is all about.

Yes, I know all this sounds like a plot from a science fiction novel.  But it is actually real.  178 nations have signed on to Agenda 21.  “Eco-prophets” such as Al Gore travel all over the world teaching us how wonderful “sustainable development” will be.  This agenda is being pushed in our schools, at our universities, on our televisions and in our movies.

So exactly what is Agenda 21?  The following is how the United Nations defines Agenda 21….

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

When you start doing deep research into Agenda 21, you will find that describing it as a “comprehensive plan” is an understatement.  Virtually all forms of human activity impact the environment.  The rabid “environmentalists” behind the green agenda intend to take all human activity and put it into a box called “sustainable development”.

One of the key elements of “sustainable development” is population control.  The United Nations (along with radical “environmental” leaders such as Al Gore) actually believes that there are far too many people on earth.

So what is the solution?

Sadly, they actually believe that we need to start reducing the population.

Just this week, Al Gore made the following statement regarding population control….

“One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women. You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children have, the spacing of the children.

You have to lift child survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families and most important — you have to educate girls and empower women. And that’s the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.”

Do you notice how whenever global leaders talk about “empowering” women these days it always ends up with them having less children?

This population control agenda is also reflected in official UN documents.

The following is language from a UN resolution that was adopted by the UN General Assembly that was designed to further the implementation of Agenda 21….

“….population growth rates have been declining globally, largely as a result of expanded basic education and health care. That trend is projected to lead to a stable world population in the middle of the twenty-first century… The current decline in population growth rates must be further promoted through national and international policies that promote economic development, social development, environmental protection, and poverty eradication, particularly the further expansion of basic education, with full and equal access for girls and women, and health care, including reproductive health care, including both family planning and sexual health, consistent with the report of the International Conference on Population and Development.”

Most Americans don’t grasp it yet, but the truth is that the global elite are absolutely obsessed with population control.  In fact, there is a growing consensus among the global elite that they need to get rid of 80 to 90 percent of us.

The number one commandment of the infamous Georgia Guidestones is this: “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”

Unfortunately, a very high percentage of our global leaders actually believe in this stuff.

Sadly, this philosophy is now regularly being reflected in official UN documents.  For example, the March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief begins with the following shocking statement….

What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?

Apparently the poorest nations are the primary target for the population control freaks over at the UN.

This agenda showed up again when the United Nations Population Fund released its annual State of the World Population Report for 2009 entitled “Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate“.

The following are three quotes that were pulled right out of that document….

1) “Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendants. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time.”

2) “No human is genuinely “carbon neutral,” especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way.”

3) “Strong family planning programmes are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns.”

If no human is “carbon neutral”, then what is the solution?

To those that are obsessed with Agenda 21 and “sustainable development”, the fact that you and I are alive and breathing air is a huge problem.

The population control agenda is also regularly showing up in our newspapers now.

In a recent editorial for the New York Times entitled “The Earth Is Full“, Thomas L. Friedman made the following statement….

You really do have to wonder whether a few years from now we’ll look back at the first decade of the 21st century — when food prices spiked, energy prices soared, world population surged, tornados plowed through cities, floods and droughts set records, populations were displaced and governments were threatened by the confluence of it all — and ask ourselves: What were we thinking? How did we not panic when the evidence was so obvious that we’d crossed some growth/climate/natural resource/population redlines all at once?

But Friedman is quite moderate compared to many of the “eco-prophets” that are running around out there today.

For example, James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia hypothesis, stated in an interview with the Guardian earlier this year that “democracy must be put on hold” if the fight against global warming is going to be successful and that only “a few people with authority” should be permitted to rule the planet until the crisis is solved.

A Finnish environmentalist named Pentti Linkola has gone even farther than that.  Linkola is openly calling for climate change deniers to be “re-educated”, for an eco-fascist world government to be established, for humans to be forcibly sterilized and for the majority of humans to be killed.

That doesn’t sound pleasant, now does it?

This agenda is even being taught by professors at our top universities.

The truth is that academia is brimming with nutjobs who want to see the vast majority of humans wiped out.

For example, Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka is a very prominent advocate of radical human population control.

In an article entitled “What nobody wants to hear, but everyone needs to know”, Pianka made the following shocking statements….

*First, and foremost, we must get out of denial and recognize that Earth simply cannot support many billions of people.

*This planet might be able to support perhaps as many as half a billion people who could live a sustainable life in relative comfort. Human populations must be greatly diminished, and as quickly as possible to limit further environmental damage.

*I do not bear any ill will toward humanity. However, I am convinced that the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.

Now keep in mind that this is a university professor that is teaching our kids.  People actually pay a lot of money to get educated by this guy.

If those pushing Agenda 21, “sustainable development” and population control get their way, the world is going to be a much different place in the future.

Just watch the video posted below.  It was originally produced by the Forum for the Future, a major NGO funded by big corporations such as Time Warner and Royal Dutch Shell.  In this video, the Forum for the Future presents their chilling version of the future.  Are you ready to live in a “Planned-opolis”?  Are you ready to use a “calorie card” and to have what you eat determined by a “global food council”?  This is the kind of tyrannical future that these radical environmental organizations want to impose on you and I….

Yes, the video is almost comical, but this is the kind of world that the global elite want to push us towards.

In fact, we see radical steps being taken all over the globe even now.

In Europe, the European Commission has unveiled a plan to ban all cars from major European cities by the year 2050.

In Europe, the mantra “carbon dioxide is causing global warming” has become gospel.  This banning of cars from city centers is all part of a draconian master plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in Europe by 60 percent over the next 40 years.

Hopefully this plan will never come to fruition, but the fact that the European Commission is seriously pushing it just shows how far things have progressed.

But we don’t have to peer into the future to see how this agenda is going to affect us.

Today, the U.S. government and governments all over the industrialized world have become so obsessed with reducing carbon emissions that now they even tell us what kinds of light bulbs we are allowed to buy.

There are millions of Americans that love the old light bulbs.  But soon we will not have the choice to buy them anymore.

What kind of freedom is that?

In some areas of the United States, government snoopers actually sort through the trash of residents to ensure that environmental rules are being followed.  For example, in the city of Cleveland, Ohio authorities have announced plans to have “trash supervisors” go snooping through trash cans to ensure that people are actually recycling according to city guidelines.

How would you feel if government officials went snooping around in your trash cans?

The world is changing.  The global elite have immense amounts of wealth and power and they are intent on imposing a radical environmental agenda on all the rest of us.

The reality is that many of the wealthiest and most prominent people in the world are absolutely obsessed with the green agenda and with population control.  Just consider the following quotes….

David Rockefeller: “The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”

CNN Founder Ted Turner: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Dave Foreman, Earth First Co-Founder: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

Maurice Strong: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Michael Oppenheimer: “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”

This radical agenda is even represented in the White House.

John P. Holdren, Barack Obama’s top science advisor, co-authored a textbook entitled “Ecoscience” back in 1977 in which he actually advocated mass sterilization, compulsory abortion, a one world government and a global police force to enforce population control.

On page 837 of Ecoscience, a claim is made that compulsory abortion would be perfectly legal under the U.S. Constitution….

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

On pages 942 and 943, a call is made for the creation of a “planetary regime” that would control the global economy and enforce population control measures….

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”

“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

On page 917, the surrender of U.S. national sovereignty to an international organization is advocated….

“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”

As mentioned earlier, Holdren is the number one science advisor to Barack Obama, and the truth is that the top levels of the U.S. government are packed with people that believe this stuff.

Yes, a lot of what you have read in this article sounds crazy.  But the global elite really do believe in population control and they really are seeking to implement a radical environmental agenda across the entire planet.

They want total control of everyone and everything so that they can impose the measures that they believe are necessary to “fix” the planet.

I have actually written quite extensively in the past about the radical green agenda of the global elite.  If you are interested in learning more, I would recommend the following articles….

*The Green Police

*Governments Around The World Are Eagerly Adopting The Strict Population Control Agenda Of The United Nations

*Yes, They Really Do Want To Reduce The Population – 22 Shocking Population Control Quotes From The Global Elite That Will Make You Want To Lose Your Lunch

*The Dangerous Myth Of Overpopulation

*One Less Child? Environmental Extremists Warn That Overpopulation Is Causing Climate Change And Will Ultimately Destroy The Earth

*Hillary Clinton: Population Control Will Now Become The Centerpiece Of U.S. Foreign Policy

*New U.N. Report: We Must Reduce The Population To Fight Climate Change

*The Population Control Agenda Behind The Global Warming Movement: For The Environmental Extremists At Copenhagen Population Reduction Is The “Cheapest” Way To Reduce Carbon Emissions

*To The Global Elite The Math Is Simple: Human Overpopulation Is Causing Climate Change So The Solution To Climate Change Is Population Control

So do you have an opinion that you would like to share about Al Gore, Agenda 21 or population control?

SCUMBAG, SCUM AGENDA, SCUMIEST FORM OF GENOCIDE

_____________________________

They Want To Sterilize American Women: Sterilization Won’t Cost Women A Penny Under Obamacare

Michael Snyder
The American Dream
July 13, 2012

Did you know that sterilization will not cost women a penny under Obamacare? A new regulation that goes into effect on August 1st requires that health plans cover sterilization for all women with “reproductive capacity”.

That includes teenage girls. According to the new regulation, women must have access to sterilization “without having to pay a co-payment, co-insurance or a deductible.” So women will not have to pay a single penny out of pocket if they want to get sterilized. Of course this sterilization mandate will make health insurance more expensive for all of us, but the social engineers in Washington D.C. feel that increasing access to sterilization is a very important public policy goal. So why are they doing this? They are doing this because they love death. They truly believe that they are saving the planet by reducing human numbers. That is why “family planning” is always at the very heart of the “green agenda”. They want to sterilize women because that will help keep the population down. And if there are less people running around, there will be less of us to ruin “their planet” with all of our pollution.

The new Obamacare regulation requires health insurance policies to offer 100% coverage for all “approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”

But to fully understand what is going on, you have to look at this in context with what is being implemented all over the globe.

Have you heard of Agenda 21? It is an international effort coordinated by the United Nations to make the world a more “sustainable” place in the 21st century.

To the social engineers at the forefront of this effort, the number one threat to “sustainable development” is overpopulation. That is why population control is one of the central pillars ofAgenda 21.

So all over the globe, family planning programs are being pushed and funded by the United Nations. In many UN-funded family planning facilities all over the planet sterilizations are being offered for free.

The United Nations seems absolutely obsessed with population issues. In particular, they seem quite determined to get women in poorer countries to have less children. For example,the March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief began with the following statement….

What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?

A statement like that should be setting off all kinds of alarm bells in your head.

Questions like that are only a few steps away from all-out genocide.

But the social engineers at the United Nations are so obsessed with “saving the earth” that the fact that human lives are being destroyed in the process does not seem to bother them.

Many in the environmental movement believe that the number one problem facing the earth is climate change, and many of them also believe that carbon emissions being produced by human activity are the number one cause of climate change.

So that makes all of us the number one enemy of the planet.

This disturbing philosophy was clearly reflected in a 2009 report released by the United Nations Population Fund entitled “Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate“. The following are three quotes that were pulled directly out of that report….

1) “Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendants. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time.”

2) “No human is genuinely “carbon neutral,” especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way.”

3) “Strong family planning programmes are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns.”

So the goal is to reduce the human population by as much as possible in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

That is why those associated with this movement like abortion and absolutely LOVE sterilization.

When a woman has an abortion, she might get pregnant again.

But when a woman is sterilized, her “problem” is gone for good.

And guess what?

Your tax dollars go to pay for abortions and sterilizations all over the planet. The following is an excerpt from an article entitled “The Population Control Holocaust” by Robert Zubrin…..

Of the billions of taxpayer dollars that the U.S. government has expended on population control abroad, a portion has been directly spent by USAID on its own field activities, but the majority has been laundered through a variety of international agencies. As a result of this indirect funding scheme, all attempts to compel the population control empire to conform its activities to accepted medical, ethical, safety, or human rights norms have proven futile. Rather, in direct defiance of laws enacted by Congress to try to correct the situation, what has and continues to be perpetrated at public expense is an atrocity on a scale so vast and varied as to almost defy description. Nevertheless, it is worth attempting to convey to readers some sense of the evil that is being done with their money.

If you have not read the rest of that article yet, you really should. You can find the rest of that article right here.

Developing nations all over the planet are often coerced into participating in these population control schemes through financial aid programs. For example, a recent article by Jurriaan Maessen detailed how the World Bank is actually using “financial assistance” as leverage to get developing nations to implement “family planning programs” in their countries….

According to two subsequent documents put out by the World Bank, its guidelines dictate that in order to qualify for World Bank lending, sovereign nations must implement population reduction objectives as outlined by the World Bank and UN Population Fund. If they refuse, lending will be withdrawn.

Already pre-tested and implemented in Yemen and Niger, these guidelines are destined for global implementation within the next decade, says the World Bank.

In very poor countries, money can be a very powerful motivational tool.

In fact, in some nations money is actually being directly offered to women in an attempt to get them to agree to be sterilized. As I have written about previously, health officials in India are offering motorcycles, televisions and even new cars to women in an attempt to get them sterilized.

In other countries, darker methods of coercion are used.

In Uzbekistan, the government has decreed that “surgical contraception should be provided free of charge” to all Uzbek women who volunteer for the procedure.

That kind of sounds like what the new Obamacare regulation is going to do in the United States.

But what starts off as “voluntary” often becomes “mandatory” eventually.

The following is from an article in the Independent that detailed the horrible forced sterilizations that are going on in many parts of Uzbekistan….

Saodat Rakhimbayeva says she wishes she had died with her newborn baby. The 24-year-old housewife had a cesarean section in March and gave birth to Ibrohim, a premature boy who died three days later.

Then came a further devastating blow: She learned that the surgeon had removed part of her uterus during the operation, making her sterile. The doctor told her the hysterectomy was necessary to remove a potentially cancerous cyst, while she believes he sterilized her as part of a state campaign to reduce birthrates.

“He never asked for my approval, never ran any checks, just mutilated me as if I were a mute animal,” the pale and fragile Rakhimbayeva said through tears while sitting at a fly-infested cafe in this central Uzbek city. “I should have just died with Ibrohim.”

According to rights groups, victims and health officials, Rakhimbayeva is one of hundreds of Uzbek women who have been surgically sterilized without their knowledge or consent in a program designed to prevent overpopulation from fueling unrest.

Sadly, Uzbekistan is not an isolated example. The truth is that forced sterilizations (often funded by the UN) have been happening all over the globe. This was detailed in length in a great article by Jurriaan Maessen. If you have not read it yet, I encourage you to go check it out right here.

Of course one of the biggest offenders of all is China. The Chinese have been enforcing their brutal “one child policy” for many years.

In China, if a woman tries to have a second child she is in danger of being arrested and dragged off to a clinic for a forced abortion. Often a sterilization is done on top of the forced abortion.

As the Epoch Times recently noted, enforcement of this one child policy can be absolutely brutal….

“Pregnant women lacking birth permits are hunted down like criminals by population planning police in China and forcibly aborted.”

One recent case of forced abortion in China made headlines all over the globe. The following is from a story that appeared in a New Zealand news source….

The family of a woman forced to undergo an abortion because she ran afoul of China’s one-child policy has accepted a cash settlement, apparently ending a controversy that caused a public uproar and embarrassed the government.

Feng Jianmei’s husband, Deng Jiyuan, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the family accepted the settlement of 70,600 yuan ($11,200) because they wanted to return to a normal life.

Feng was beaten by local officials and forced to abort her baby last month, seven months into her pregnancy, because she did not have 40,000 yuan ($6,300) to pay the fine for having a second child.

Local authorities have often violently imposed abortions and sterilizations in an effort to meet birth quotas set by Beijing, but photos of Feng lying on a hospital bed with the blood-covered baby, reportedly stillborn after a chemical injection, set off a public outpouring of sympathy and outrage after they were posted online.

Will we see scenes like this in the United States someday?

The new Obamacare regulation gets us another step closer.

The sad thing is that overpopulation is a myth. If resources were distributed more efficiently and there was not so much evil and corruption in the world, the earth could easily hold a lot more people than it does today.

Unfortunately, the social engineers that are running things do not see things that way.

In fact, this sick population control philosophy is represented at the very highest levels of the U.S. government.

For example, Barack Obama’s top science adviser, John P. Holdren, actually co-authored a book in 1977 in which he advocated mass sterilization of American women. The following is just one of the incredibly shocking quotes in Holdren’s book….

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Please keep in mind that Holdren is the number one “science adviser” to Barack Obama.

So what do these social engineers hope to achieve?

Well, the eventual goal is to reduce the population of the earth from 7 billion to about 500 million.

There seems to be a consensus among the “scientists” that write about these things that a global population of 500 million humans would be a “sustainable” level for the planet.

So how are they going to get rid of more than 90 percent of us and get the population down to just 500 million?

_________________________________

The Elite Believe That You Are Ruining Their Planet And They Want You To Stop Reproducing

Today, there are more than 7 billion people living on earth.  For the global elite, that is problem number one.  The vast majority of us don’t spend much time thinking about global population issues, but for many among the elite it is an absolute obsession.  Many of them truly believe that you are ruining their planet and they desperately want you to stop reproducing so much.  Among the elite, the belief that the world is grossly overpopulated and that this is causing most of our major global problems crosses all political, cultural and social boundaries.  This philosophy is taught as gospel at the vast majority of all colleges and universities on the planet, and it is being relentlessly pushed by the United Nations, the WHO, the World Bank and national governments all over the globe.  When most people think of “overpopulation”, they think of places such as India, but the truth is that those of us living in America are considered to be the worst offenders because our lifestyles are “polluting” the planet so rapidly.  In fact, one scientist recently estimated that a child born in the United States has a “carbon legacy” 55 times greater than a child born in India.  The elite are convinced that if they can reduce the global population far enough and get the remaining people living on earth to switch over to “sustainable lifestyles” that they will be able to save “their” planet.  But the draconian measures that would be necessary to achieve this dystopian dream would not be very palatable to the vast majority of us.  In fact, if the most radical population control advocates get their way, we will experience global tyranny on a scale never seen before.

Right now, most of us living in the western world are not prepared to accept “forced” population control measures and the global elite know this.  But the truth is that they absolutely love what is going on right now in places such as China.

In China today, a one child policy is strictly enforced, and women are literally pulled from their homes and taken to abortion clinics when they are found to be in violation.  The following example comes from a recent CNN article….

When Ji Yeqing awakened, she was already in the recovery room.

Chinese authorities had dragged her out of her home and down four flights of stairs, she said, restraining and beating her husband as he tried to come to her aid.

They whisked her into a clinic, held her down on a bed and forced her to undergo an abortion.

Her offense? Becoming pregnant with a second child, in violation of China’s one-child policy.

So does the international community condemn China for such actions?

No, in fact the United Nations gives China awards for their population reduction policies.

In the western world, there are also great efforts underway to reduce family sizes and to get women to choose not to have children.  But these efforts are always “voluntary”.  We are told that if women are “empowered” that they will always choose to have fewer children.

But many radical environmentalists are openly complaining that these voluntary methods are not getting the job done fast enough.

For example, the following is from a recent article by Julia Whitty for Mother Jones….

The only known solution to ecological overshoot is to decelerate our population growth faster than it’s decelerating now and eventually reverse it—at the same time we slow and eventually reverse the rate at which we consume the planet’s resources. Success in these twin endeavors will crack our most pressing global issues: climate change, food scarcity, water supplies, immigration, health care, biodiversity loss, even war. On one front, we’ve already made unprecedented strides, reducing global fertility from an average 4.92 children per woman in 1950 to 2.56 today—an accomplishment of trial and sometimes brutally coercive error, but also a result of one woman at a time making her individual choices. The speed of this childbearing revolution, swimming hard against biological programming, rates as perhaps our greatest collective feat to date.

But it’s not enough. And it’s still not fast enough. Faced with a world that can support either a lot of us consuming a lot less or far fewer of us consuming more, we’re deadlocked: individuals, governments, the media, scientists, environmentalists, economists, human rights workers, liberals, conservatives, business and religious leaders.

For radicals such as Whitty, things are never moving fast enough.  They truly believe that humanity is destroying the planet and that they are literally attempting to “save the world” by pushing for global population control.

But this kind of thinking is not just reflected in the writings of a few radicals.

The truth is that “scientific reports” advocating global population control are regularly featured in the most important newspapers all over the planet.

The following example comes from a recent article in the Guardian….

World population needs to be stabilised quickly and high consumption in rich countries rapidly reduced to avoid “a downward spiral of economic and environmental ills”, warns a major report from the Royal Society.

Contraception must be offered to all women who want it and consumption cut to reduce inequality, says the study published on Thursday, which was chaired by Nobel prize-winning biologist Sir John Sulston.

The assessment of humanity’s prospects in the next 100 years, which has taken 21 months to complete, argues strongly that to achieve long and healthy lives for all 9 billion people expected to be living in 2050, the twin issues of population and consumption must be pushed to the top of political and economic agendas.

When was the last time that you saw an article that was 100% opposed to global population control featured in an important newspaper?

Sadly, this population control agenda has a complete stranglehold on the scientific community.  The philosophy that the earth is massively overpopulated and that this overpopulation is causing most of our biggest problems is considered to be gospel at most of our colleges and universities today.

If you question this orthodoxy, you risk being academically blackballed.

Not only that, but the scientific community considers the biggest offenders of all to be Americans because of our “excessive” lifestyles.

For example, just check out what statistician Paul Murtaugh of Oregon State University said a while back….

“Using United Nations projections of fertility, and projecting statistically through the lifespan of the mother’s line—some lineages being short-lived, others indefinitely long—an American child born today adds an average 10,407 tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of her mother. That’s almost six times more CO₂ than the mother’s own lifetime emissions. Furthermore, the ecological costs of that child and her children far outweigh even the combined energy-saving choices from all a mother’s other good decisions, like buying a fuel-efficient car, recycling, using energy-saving appliances and lightbulbs. The carbon legacy of one American child and her offspring is 20 times greater than all those other sustainable maternal choices combined.”

Murtaugh also believes that a child born in the United States has a “carbon legacy” that is 55 times greater than that of a child born in India.

This helps to explain why the elite are so obsessed with abortion and “family planning”.

The elite are desperate to convince you to stop reproducing.

They truly believe that they are helping to “save the world” when they convince us to have less children.

In fact, the amount of money that is being spent to promote “family planning” around the globe is absolutely staggering.

For example, according to a recent MarketWatch article Bill and Melinda Gates plan to spend 4 billion dollars to get contraceptive devices into the hands of 120 million more women by the year 2020….

Melinda Gates recently announced a “new crusade” for her $32 billion Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. A recent Newsweek interview with Michelle Goldberg says it’s a “decision that is likely to change lives all over the planet.”

Gates has “decided to make family planning her signature issue,” by investing “billions to revolutionize contraception worldwide,” with substantial economic consequences.

The Gates decision will “be hugely significant for American women.” She’s “pouring money into the long-neglected field of contraceptive research, seeking entirely new methods of birth control,” a “whole new class of drugs,” some that could even work without hormones, and others, might be implantable devises that never need to be removed, can even be turned on and off by the woman.

While Bill and Melinda Gates portray their population control efforts as “humanitarian endeavors”, others among the global elite are more open about what they consider the “endgame” to be.

The following examples are from a recent article by Paul Joseph Watson….

– Finnish environmentalist guru Pentti Linkola, publicly called for climate change deniers be “re-educated” in eco-gulags and that the vast majority of humans be killed with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars confiscated and travel restricted to members of the elite.

– Another Finnish environmentalist writer, Martin Kreiggeist, hails Linkola’s call for eco-gulags and oppression as “a solution,” calling for people to “take up the axes” in pursuit of killing off the third world. Kreiggeist wants fellow eco-fascists to “act on” Linkola’s call for mass murder in order to solve overpopulation.

– In 2010, James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia hypothesis, told the Guardian that “democracy must be put on hold” to combat global warming and that “a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet because people were too stupid to be allowed to steer their own destinies.

There are a surprising number of people out there that actually advocate for mass murder and mass enslavement for the good of the planet.

Dave Foreman, the co-founder of Earth First, once stated that reducing the global population to 100 million people is one of his three main goals….

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

Sadly, this philosophy has even infected the U.S. government.  The truth is that billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been spent to promote population control around the globe, and it hasn’t mattered much whether Republicans or Democrats were in the White House.  The following is an excerpt from an article entitled “The Population Control Holocaust” by Robert Zubrin…..

Of the billions of taxpayer dollars that the U.S. government has expended on population control abroad, a portion has been directly spent by USAID on its own field activities, but the majority has been laundered through a variety of international agencies. As a result of this indirect funding scheme, all attempts to compel the population control empire to conform its activities to accepted medical, ethical, safety, or human rights norms have proven futile. Rather, in direct defiance of laws enacted by Congress to try to correct the situation, what has and continues to be perpetrated at public expense is an atrocity on a scale so vast and varied as to almost defy description. Nevertheless, it is worth attempting to convey to readers some sense of the evil that is being done with their money.

If you have not read the rest of that article yet, you really should.  You can find the rest of that article right here.

At this point, nearly every major international organization is involved in these population control efforts to at least some degree.

For example, a recent article by Jurriaan Maessen detailed how the World Bank is actually using “financial assistance” as leverage to get developing nations to conform to the global population control agenda….

According to two subsequent documents put out by the World Bank, its guidelines dictate that in order to qualify for World Bank lending, sovereign nations must implement population reduction objectives as outlined by the World Bank and UN Population Fund. If they refuse, lending will be withdrawn.

Already pre-tested and implemented in Yemen and Niger, these guidelines are destined for global implementation within the next decade, says the World Bank.

Isn’t that sick?

Later in that same article, Maessen discusses how the UN, the WHO, the World Bank and many other international organizations all work together to move this twisted agenda forward….

Returning to the essence, the intention and the strategy leave little for the imagination: a global consensus is in place between all the major transnational institutions and banks: the earth’s population must be brought down, with all means necessary. The World Bank uses financial tools to bring nations on their knees, demanding they cull their numbers; the UN guarantees the political legitimizing for these depopulation policies (Agenda 21); the Foundations develop the anti-fertility vaccines and GM Food, the World Health Organization takes care of the “health-standards” and distribution. With the help of this global construct, carefully coordinated from the top-down, the scientific dictatorship has circled the wagons around all of free humanity.

Sadly, there is so much more that could be said about all of this.  If you are interested in learning more about the disgusting population control agenda of the global elite, the following are 10 more articles I would recommend checking out….

#1 “They Love Death“

#2 “From 7 Billion People To 500 Million People – The Sick Population Control Agenda Of The Global Elite“

#3 “Al Gore, Agenda 21 And Population Control“

#4 “The Green Agenda Is About Getting Rid Of As Many Humans As Possible“

#5 “Governments Around The World Are Eagerly Adopting The Strict Population Control Agenda Of The United Nations“

#6 “Yes, They Really Do Want To Reduce The Population – 22 Shocking Population Control Quotes From The Global Elite That Will Make You Want To Lose Your Lunch“

#7 “One Less Child? Environmental Extremists Warn That Overpopulation Is Causing Climate Change And Will Ultimately Destroy The Earth“

#8 “Hillary Clinton: Population Control Will Now Become The Centerpiece Of U.S. Foreign Policy“

#9 “New U.N. Report: We Must Reduce The Population To Fight Climate Change“

#10 “To The Global Elite The Math Is Simple: Human Overpopulation Is Causing Climate Change So The Solution To Climate Change Is Population Control“

This population control agenda is not going away any time soon.

In fact, thanks to endless propaganda in the media, it is winning over more hearts and minds with each passing day.

Just ask some of your friends what they think.  If you are like most Americans, it is almost inevitable that you will have some friends that believe in global population control.

And without a doubt there will be readers that leave comments at the end of this article supporting the population control agenda of the global elite.

The idea that humanity is ruining the planet and that we need to dramatically reduce our numbers is being relentlessly pushed today.  Millions upon millions of people all over the world have bought into this lie hook, line and sinker.

Ultimately, this philosophy will lead us down a path that will end in absolute global tyranny.

So what do you think about this issue?  Please feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below….