How GMO Farming and Food Is Making Our Gut Flora UNFRIENDLY

Two studies published in the past six months reveal a disturbing finding: glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup® appear to suppress the growth of beneficial gut bacteria, leading to the overgrowth of extremely pathogenic bacteria.

Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder  -  Originally Posted:  Thursday, March 28th 2013 at 5:00 am at GreenMedInfo

Late last year, in an article titled Roundup Herbicide Linked to Overgrowth of Deadly Bacteria, we reported on new research indicating that glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup® may be contributing to the overgrowth of harmful bacteria, both in GM-produced food and our own bodies.  By suppressing the growth of beneficial bacteria and encouraging the growth of pathogenic ones, including deadly botulism-associated Clostridum botulinum, GM agriculture may be contributing to the alarming increase, wordwide, in infectious diseases that are resistant to conventional antibiotics, such as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), which the CDC's director recently termed a 'nightmare bacteria.'

GMO Herbicides May Lead To The Overgrowth of Harmful Bacteria, Including Deadly Clostridum Botulinum

Now a new study published in the journal Anaerobe titled, "Glyphosate suppresses the antagonistic effect of Enterococcus spp. On Clostridum botulinum," confirms this herbicide's ability to adversely affect gut bacteria populations (i.e. generate dysbios).[i]  In an attempt to explain why Clostridum botulinum associated diseases in cattle have increased during the last 10-15 years in German cattle, researchers theorized that since normal intestinal flora is a critical factor in preventing Clostridum botulinum colonization in conditions such as infantile botulism perhaps the ingestion of strong biocides such as glyphosate found in GM cattle feed could reduce their natural, lactic acid bacteria dependent immune defenses as pathogenic microbes.

They reported on the toxicity of glyphosate to Enteroccocus, the most prevalent lactic acid bacteria species in the gastrointestinal tract of cattle, and concluded "Ingestion of this herbicide could be a significant predisposing factor that is associated with the increase in C. botulinum mediated diseases in cattle."

Of course, the implications of this finding extend beyond the health of cattle or poultry. The majority of American consumers who don't even have the legal right to know through truthful labeling if they are eating GMOs, are consuming non-organic, Roundup Ready soy, canola, cottonseed or soy on a daily basis, and therefore are being exposed to glyphosate residues year round; additionally, animals fed Roundup sprayed GMO plants will bioaccumulate glyphosate and/or glyphosate metabolites, adding to the consumer's bodily burden of these gut flora-altering, highly toxic chemicals.  

GMO Herbicides Kill More Than 'Weeds,' Are Broad-Spectrum Biocides

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum biocide. It does not discriminate by killing only the "weeds" that compete with the genetically modified plants resistant to it. In fact, it has been found to be toxic to human DNA at concentrations 450-fold lower than presently used in agricultural applications.[ii] When combined with adjuvants and other so-called 'inactive' ingredients, the glyphosate-formulations are far more toxic than their component ingredients taken in isolation.[iii] Nor are the toxic effects limited to plants. A 2012 study published in the journal Environmental Monitoring and Assessment found that Roundup herbicide has DNA-damaging effects to fish after short-term, environmentally low concentration exposures (6.67 μg/L, or, 6.67 micrograms per Liter).[iv]  For a comprehensive list of the toxic effects of Roundup and glyphosate visit our research page on the topic: Glyphosate formulations.

One of the most concerning adverse effects of glyphosate most relevant to the topic of this article is its destructive effects on the fertility of soil itself. In an earlier expose titled, Un-Earthed: Is Monsanto's Glyphosate Destroying the Soil?, concerning findings published in the journal Current Microbiology were discussed showing that Roundup® herbicide is having a negative impact on the microbiodiversity of the soil, including microorganisms of food interest, and specifically those found in raw and fermented foods.[v]

One of the key implications of this finding is that since many of the beneficial bacteria that make up the 100 trillion bacteria in our gut necessary for health come from our food, and these bacteria-rich foods nourish and help maintain the flora in our gut, the removal of key beneficial microorganisms from the  soil will likely result in profoundly disrupting the bacteria-mediated infrastructure of our health.

 

We Must Reject GMO Farming Practices Or Face Dire Consequences

We must, of course, consider carefully the origin of our food. Conventionally produced produce and animal products are often grown or fed from farming practices that involve the use of factory-farmed manure and raw human sewage. Animal and human excreta today is exceedingly toxic, and contains a wide range of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, hormones and antibiotic resistant bacteria and related pathogens that.  contaminate our food and our bodies if we choose to eat it. It also causes us to employ 'food security' technologies like nuclear waste-based food irradiation and bacteriophage sprays try to disinfect inherently toxic food, only generating different and sometimes far more dangerous compounds as a result.

Instead of succumbing to the intellectually unsophisticated concept that disease is primarily caused by germs 'out there,' rather than viewing our risk of infection as primarily determined by immune susceptibility 'in here,' we must shift our understanding radically if we are to survive the wholesale destruction of our biosphere, also entirely refraining from supporting, buying, consuming food produced through GM-based farming practices.  Our body is literally woven from the  molecular fabric of the body of the Earth. And so, when we poison or genetically modify our environment, and we poison and genetically modify ourselves.

---

Resources

• [i] Monika Krüger, Awad Ali Shehata, Wieland Schrödl, Arne Rodloff. Glyphosate suppresses the antagonistic effect of Enterococcus spp. on Clostridium botulinum. Anaerobe. 2013 Feb 6. Epub 2013 Feb 6. PMID: 23396248

• [ii] GreenMedInfo.com, Research: Roundup Diluted by 450-Fold is Still Toxic to DNA, Feb. 15^th, 2012

• [iii] GreenMedInfo.com, Research: Roundup Herbicide Toxicity Vastly Underestimated, Oct. 15th, 2012

• [iv] Environ Monit Assess. 2013 Apr;185(4):3201-7. doi: 10.1007/s10661-012-2783-x. Epub 2012 Jul 22.

• [v] Emilie Clair, Laura Linn, Carine Travert, Caroline Amiel, Gilles-Eric Séralini, Jean-Michel Panoff.Effects of Roundup(®) and Glyphosate on Three Food Microorganisms: Geotrichum candidum, Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus. Curr Microbiol. 2012 Feb 24. Epub 2012 Feb 24. PMID: 22362186

Technorati Tags: Roundup,GMO Herbicides,Bacteria,Herbicides,Gut Flora,GM Crops,GM,GMO,GMO Farming,Monsanto

11 Food Ingredients Banned Outside the U.S. That Americans Eat

Do you like M&Ms and Nutrigrain Bars? They both contain ingredients banned in other countries.  From ABC NEWS:

A recently published list of foods banned in countries outside the U.S. has riled the plates of many in the food industry.

Last week, Buzzfeed published a list of 8 ingredients banned outside the U.S. that are found in foods in America. The list was derived from the book, Rich Food Poor Food: The Ultimate Grocery Purchasing System (GPS)/(Kindle), written by husband and wife team Jayson Calton, who has a Ph.D. in nutrition, and Mira Calton, a licensed certified nutritionist.

Said Mira Calton: "We call it our GPS of grocery purchasing system: how to identify dangerous ingredients -- so people can shop safe and smart in the grocery store."

The book includes a list of banned foods and dangerous foods, which they call "poor food..."

Calton said manufacturers are not putting these ingredients in their food to be "bad people."

"It might have been part of their original formula and sometimes they don't know," Calton said.

The Food and Drug Administration assures the public that despite the frenzy over the list of ingredients banned in some countries outside the U.S., it is doing its job of monitoring food safety.

"As part of FDA's overall commitment to ensure the safety of the food supply, the agency uses an extensive, science-based process to evaluate the safety of food additives," the agency said in a statement to ABC News. "The law requires that the FDA determine there is reasonable certainty that an additive does not cause harm when it is used as intended. The agency continues to monitor the science on food additives and is prepared to take appropriate action if there are safety concerns. When determining that a food or ingredient is 'generally recognized as safe' or GRAS for its intended use in food, the same quantity and quality of evidence is required as is needed to approve a food additive."

Derek Lowe, a chemist who has a Ph.D. from Duke University, said the list is an example of "chemophobia." He told ABC News his reaction to the viral online list was "incredulity and revulsion."

"The thing is, I'm not reflexively saying people should eat all the food additives they can find. I don't myself. But the amount of understanding in the article was so minimal, it really pushed my buttons as a scientist," Lowe said.

The Caltons said they are not calling on the FDA to ban these ingredients, but they said "all of the ingredients on the list pose a potential danger to consumers and we feel the consumer should be made aware so that they can make an informed decision as to whether or not they want to buy a product with these ingredients."

Julie Jones, a professor emeritus with St. Catherine University in Minnesota and author of the textbook, Food Safety, said what drives one country to ban a food and not another often has to do with as much politics as it does science.

If one believes Paracelsus's principle, "the dose makes the poison," Jones said she believes these products have gone through the correct due diligence in the U.S.

"We have science and politics and they are different in each country," Jones said.

Here are 11 ingredients noted as banned in other countries and what some experts have to say about them:

Amazon inage

Blue #1 food coloring

Banned in Norway, Finland and France, Blue #1 and Blue #2 can be found in candy, cereal, drinks and pet food in the U.S., the Caltons say.

Kellogg's did not reply to multiple requests for comment about its use of Blue #1 listed as an ingredient in some Nutrigrain bars.

Michael Pariza, professor emeritus of food science and past director of Food Research Institute at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said most food dyes are not dangerous, with the exception of Yellow #5, but they can influence our perception of food -- for better or worse.

"Taste, appearance and smell all go together. You can have the most fantastic, nutritious thing in the world, but if it looks bad and smells bad, you're not going to eat it," he said.

Blue #1 was at one point banned in several other European countries, but the EU later certified it as safe, said Lowe. Norway banned almost all food dyes from 1978 until 2001, but since then, they have had virtually the same regulations as the EU, he added.

Lowe said synthesized compounds, when used in food, "are often things that are effective in small amounts, because they're so expensive," as is the case with artificial dyes.

"People see the bright colors in cake icing and sugary cereals and figure that the stuff must be glopped on like paint, but paint doesn't have very much dye or pigment in it, either," Lowe writes in his blog.

M&Ms

Getty Images

Blue #2 food coloring

"Until the twentieth century, food coloring was obtained from natural sources," Jayson and Mira Calton write in "Rich Food, Poor Food." "People gathered spices, like saffron and turmeric, to add rich hues to their otherwise bland-colored foods. While this method may have been somewhat limiting in shades, at least it was safe. Today, most artificial colors are made from coal tar."

Blue #2 is listed as an ingredient in Mars' M&Ms. In a statement from Mars, the company said, "Around the globe there can be slightly different formulations and products available based on both local requirements and consumer preferences. All the colors we use in our products, no matter where they are sold, comply with our own strict internal quality and safety requirements as well as all applicable laws, regulations and safety assessments relating to colors added to food. All colors are declared on the label in accordance with applicable national laws and regulations and always meet the highest safety standards."

Lowe said the concern about blue food dye's connection to brain cancer is "unproven," referring to studies in the 1980s with Blue #2. Lowe said rats were fed the dye over a long period in much larger concentrations -- up to 2 percent of their total food intake -- than even the most dedicated junk-food eater could encounter.

"Gliomas were seen in the male rats, but with no dose-response, and at levels consistent with historical controls in the particular rat strain. No one has ever been able to find any real-world connection," Lowe wrote.

Kraft Macaroni and Cheese

Amazon image

Yellow #5 (Tartazine), Yellow #6 food coloring

Yellow #5 is banned in Norway and Austria due to compounds benzidine and 4-aminobiphenyl, the Caltons say.

"Six of the eleven studies on yellow #5 showed that it caused genotoxicity, a deterioration of the cell's genetic material with potential to mutate healthy DNA," the book, "Rich Foods, Poor Foods," states.

Companies in the U.S. are required to list Yellow #5 in their ingredients because some people have sensitivity to it.

"Companies are so sensitive about allergies, but peanut allergies would be far more common than Tartazine," Pariza said.

Yellow #6 is banned in Norway and Finland, the Caltons say, but Lowe said the dye is approved across the EU.

Lowe said benzidine and 4-minobiphenyl are two different names for the same compound, which is known as a human carcinogen.

"But it's not a component of any food dye, certainly not of yellow #5, and it's not even any part of its chemical structure," Lowe said.

A spokeswoman for Kraft provided a statement to ABC News, stating, "The safety and quality of our products is our highest priority. We carefully follow the laws and regulations in the countries where our products are sold. So in the U.S., we only use ingredients that are approved and deemed safe for food use by the Food and Drug Administration."

The International Food Information Council has said food ingredients are "carefully regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure that foods containing them are safe to eat and are accurately labeled."

Kraft Catalina Dressing

Amazon image

Red #40

"Red #40 may contain the carcinogenic contaminant p-Cresidine and is thought to cause tumors of the immune system," according to "Rich Food, Poor Food". "In the UK, it is not recommended for children," the Caltons write, but it is approved for use in the EU.

The ingredient can be found in fruit cocktail, maraschino cherries, grenadine, cherry pie mix, ice cream, candy and other products, the Caltons say.

Lowe said he can't find evidence for risk of tumors due to Red #40 and Cresidine "is certainly not a contaminant in the dyestuff" but is one pure compound.

"There is a possibility for cresidinesulfonic acid to be produced as a metabolite, but that's a very different substance than Cresidine itself," Lowe said.

Jones said high amounts of some ingredients could be damaging to some people, but that depends on the amount of consumption and the content of one's diet in general.

"Unless you are crazy and you do drink 8 liters of pop a day, your diet is so disordered already, no wonder what you eat is toxic-- eating things in a way that never intended to be eaten," she said.

Kraft said, "The safety and quality of our products is our highest priority" and the company "carefully follow the laws and regulations in the countries where our products are sold."

Mountain Dew

Amazon image

Brominated vegetable oil

Brominated vegetable oil, or BVO, acts as an emulsifier in soda and sports drinks, preventing the flavoring from separating and floating to the surface. The ingredient is banned more than 100 countries because it contains bromine, a chemical whose vapors can be corrosive or toxic, the Caltons say.

Aurora Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for PepsiCo, which owns Mountain Dew, said, "We take consumer safety and product integrity seriously and we can assure you that Mountain Dew is safe. As standard practice, we constantly evaluate our formulas and ingredients to ensure they comply with all regulations and meet the high quality standards our consumers expect."

Lowe said the same chemical dangers of consuming a bromine directly can be said of chlorine.

Bromine-containing compounds can indeed cause bad reactions in people but not because bromine is a corrosive gas, he said.

"When a bromine atom is bonded to a carbon, as it is in BVO, it's no longer bromine-the-pure-element, any more than the chlorine in table salt is the World War I poison gas, or the phosphorus in your DNA is the burning white phosphorus found in military tracer shells," Lowe said.

Getty Images

Azodicarbonamide

This ingredient, which can bleach flour, is banned in Australia, the U.K. and many European countries, said the Caltons, who call it an "asthma-causing" allergen. Up to 45 parts per million is considered safe in the U.S. and it's found in a wide range of breads and baked goods here.

While Lowe acknowledges the chemical can be used to "foam" foamed plastics, "the conditions inside hot plastic, you will be glad to hear, are quite different from those inside warm bread dough," he said. In that environment, azodicarbonamide doesn't react to make birurea - it turns into several gaseous products, which are what blow up the bubbles of the foam, which is not its purpose in bread dough.

While repeated or prolonged contact to the chemical may cause asthma and skin sensitization, Lowe said that refers to the pure chemical and not 45 parts per million in uncooked flour.

"If you're handling drums of the stuff at the plastics plant, you should be wearing protective gear. If you're eating a roll, no," Lowe writes.

flatbread and bagel chips

Getty Images

Potassium Bromate (Bromated flour)

Potassium bromate, which strengthens dough, contains bromine, is also in brominated vegetable oil.

"The good news is that American bread manufacturers tell us that it disappears from the product during baking and deem that potassium bromate is safe as there is only negligible residue," the Caltons write in their book. "However, the pastry chefs in Paris disagree. In fact, government regulatory bodies in Europe, Canada, China, and many other regions have banned the use of this additive. In California, if potassium bromate has been added, a product must carry a warning label."

Lowe points out that bromate is different from bromide and bromine.

"Chloride is the anion in table salt, but it's also the anion in hydrochloric acid. Hypochlorite anion is laundry bleach," said Lowe. "Perchlorate anion is in solid rocket fuel. They're all different; that's the point of chemistry."

Olestra (Olean)

Olestra fat substitute is banned in the U.K. and Canada because it causes a depletion of fat-soluble vitamins and carotenoid, the Caltons say, "robbing us of vital micronutrients that our foods should be delivering."

It is found in Ruffles Light and Lay's WOW chips. Frito-Lay did not return a request for comment about its use of Olestra.

Lowe acknowledges that the non-caloric fat substitute interferes with the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins, "but potato chips are not a very good source of vitamins to start with," he writes.

He also points out that Olestra is found only in two brands of potato chips, "since it was a major failure in the market."

"And vitamin absorption can be messed with by all kinds of things, including other vitamins (folic acid supplements can interfere with B12 absorption, just to pick one). But I can agree with the plan of not eating the stuff: I think that if you're going to eat potato chips, eat a reasonable amount of the real ones," he writes in his blog.

Chex

Getty Images

Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA) and Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT)

Banned in England, and other European countries, "these waxy solids act as preservatives to prevent food from becoming rancid and developing objectionable odors," the Caltons write.

The state of California lists this ingredient as a possible carcinogen.

General Mills did not respond to a request about its use of BHT in Chex cereals.

Lowe said that BHT is approved by the EU and, "Animal studies notwithstanding, attempts to correlate human exposure to these compounds with any types of cancer have always come up negative."

Some dairy

Getty Images

rBGH and rBST

Recombinant bovine growth hormone and recombinant bovine somatotropin, a synthetic version of bovine growth hormone, can be found in nonorganic dairy products unless noted on the packaging.

"However, several regions, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and the European Union, have banned rBGH and rBST because of their dangerous impacts on both human and bovine health," the Caltons say.

American dairy producer, Stonyfield, opposes the use of rBST because of economics and cow health.

"An increase in milk supply generally leads to a drop in the price paid to farmers," Stonyfield says on its website. "Price drops have put many farms out of business."

In 1993, the FDA approved the use of rBST in dairy cows based on a review of existing scientific studies.

Beth Meyer, a spokeswoman for the American Dairy Association and Dairy Council Inc (ADADC), a regional organization representing dairy farmers in New York, northern New Jersey and northeastern Pennsylvania, said over the last 20 years rBST has been heavily researched and separate reviews by the National Institutes of Health, the joint World Health Organization/Food And Agriculture Organization Committee, the American Medical Association, as well as regulatory agencies in Canada and the European Union have corroborated the FDA's conclusion.

"RBST is one of many management tools used by U.S. dairy farmers to provide a safe, affordable food supply," she said.

Canada and several European countries have affirmed that milk produced from rBST cows is safe for human consumption. These countries don't allow the sale of rBST to local farmers for reasons including economics, social customs and general opposition to technological advances used to promote efficient food production, not human health concerns.

Bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is given to dairy cattle to increase milk production, Lowe said, and BGH levels in the milk of treated cows are not higher than in untreated ones.

"Secondly, BGH is not active as a growth hormone in humans - it's selective for the cow receptor, not the human one," he said.

Lowe points out BGH was banned in some countries due to animal welfare concerns. "As far as human health, there doesn't seem to be any evidence it's bad for humans," he said.

Chicken feed

Getty Images

Arsenic

The Caltons warn about traces of arsenic, which has been banned in all foods in the EU, that can be found in some chicken feed.

Last month, Johns Hopkins University scientists said they found amounts of arsenic in chicken that exceeded naturally occurring levels.

But the National Chicken Council says chickens raised for meat or broilers (for meat production) are no longer given any feed additives containing arsenic.

"Broilers used to be given a product called Roxarsone which contained trace amounts of arsenic, but it was pulled from the market in 2011 and is no longer manufactured. No other products containing arsenic are currently fed to broilers in the U.S." said Tom Super, spokesman for the council.

Lowe points out that 100 parts per billion of inorganic arsenic have been found in white rice, though he said that doesn't pose a human health risk.

Arsenic can be found in groundwater supplies in a number of countries, according to the World Health Organization.

"It's very hard to have a diet anywhere in the world that doesn't have a trace amount of arsenic," Jones said.

h/t to Tim Conway Jr. and TLA

Related: 

Is This Why the Europeans Don't Get Sick Like Americans Do? 

How Cells from an Aborted Fetus are Used to Create Novel Flavor Enhancers 

Stop Junk Food Marketing to Kids 

Americans Eat the Cheapest Food in the World, But What is It Really Costing? 

Some Baby Foods are Worse Than Junk Food 

Mad moms to food police: We'll eat what we want 

OBESITY CONSPIRACY: The U.S. Government Scandal that's Really Making You Fat 

Japan Cancels GMO Wheat Order After Concerns Over U.S. Grain Developed By Monsanto

Also checkout:  Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back to Health/(Kindle) 

Perils of Peanuts and Peanut Butter… Even Organic 

Margarine Verses Butter 

Splenda - safer than aspartame but is it really safe? 

You Are What You Eat: 7 Food Additives That Are Secretly Making Us FAT 

12 Food Additives to Remove From Your Diet 

Whole Foods Vows to Label GMO’s by 2018   

The Dangers of Genetically Modified Ingredients in Pet Food 

Dr Mercola: Bill Gates: One of the World’s Most Destructive ‘So-Called’ Do-Gooders? (Plus: Monsanto and GMO Foods) 

Monsanto Shill And USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack Says Government Will Change The Way Citizens Eat 

World Wide Obesity Epidemic 

Are You Eating, Drinking and Breathing Monsanto’s New ‘Agent Orange’?  

GM Foods Not Served in Monsanto Cafeteria 

Would You Vote for a Food Bill Monsanto Supports?

George Soros and Food Safety 

PDF File:  Liar, Liar: FDA Secrets, Scandals & Slip Ups! 

Dumbing Down Society Part 1: Foods, Beverages, and Meds (Media and Education) 

Senate Bill S.510 Passed… Quickly Explained Here

Technorati Tags: nutrition,banned foods,healthy food choices,food choices,Knowledge Is Power,educate yourself,junk food,Europe banned foods,Monsanto,Bill Gates,GMO,Aborted Fetus,GMO Foods,food additiaves,flavor enhancers,margerine,peanut butter,aspertame,Big Government,Big Business,JOMP,Big Agri-business,watch the other hand,you be the judge,food Czar,GM Foods

Whole Foods Vows to Label GMO’s by 2018

Video: The World According to Monsanto GMO Documentary

Story at-a-glance

• Whole Foods has announced it will make labeling of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients mandatory in its American and Canadian stores by 2018. Many expect other retailers to follow suit
• About 20 major food companies, including Wal-Mart, recently gathered for a meeting in Washington to discuss potential lobbying for a national GMO labeling program
• The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) recently announced the creation of a new nationwide campaign called the Organic Retail and Consumer Alliance (ORCA). The mission of the new alliance includes exposing and eliminating the misleading practice of “natural” labeling and marketing
• Organic food and products, by law and by third-party certification, are produced without the use of synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers, animal drugs, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), irradiation, nanoparticles, or sewage sludge, whereas so-called “natural” products are completely unregulated
• A critical assessment of the consequences of commercial cultivation of GE plants in the US for 20 years advises the EU to NOT follow the path of the US, as it has had profound negative impacts on farmers, seed markets, and consumers. Among the eight final recommendations, the report concludes that “There must be no large-scale, commercial cultivation of GE herbicide-tolerant or insecticide-producing crops,” and that all potential situations must be retrievable

By Dr. Mercola

Whole Foods recently announced the health food giant will make labeling of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients mandatory in its American and Canadian stores by 2018.

(Whole Foods stores in Great Britain already require GE foods to be labeled.) Many expect other retailers to follow suit.

Despite the five-year deadline, which may seem long for some, this announcement is incredibly encouraging and represents a major sign that all the efforts most of you put into the Proposition 37 campaign have paid off. We may have lost that battle but this, and other signs, strongly suggest we are winning the war.

Prop 37 raised an enormous amount of awareness about genetically engineered (GE) foods (a.k.a. genetically engineered organisms, or GMO’s). Many Americans didn’t even know they existed prior to the California campaign to require GE foods to be labeled.

The Prop 37 campaign also ushered conversations about food to the front pages of mainstream media. Over the past year, we’ve not only seen an increase in the number of stories on genetically engineered foods, more people are now also talking about other truth-in-labeling issues, and food safety in general.

People are waking up to the fact that we really don’t understand what we’re eating anymore, and they’re taking control of their food again. Now, other states, including Washington State and Missouri, are taking up the baton to label GE foods. In all, 22 states now have some sort of pending labeling legislation.

Seeing the writing on the wall, the National Cooperative Grocers Association (NGCA)¹ recently wrote a letter to their members that now also urges food manufacturers to stop funding or opposing GMO labeling. This is an absolutely stupendous victory for our side that finally vindicates the hard work so many of you put into this effort last year.

Whole Foods Responds to Consumer Demand for GMO Labeling

Whole Foods Co-Chief Executive Walter Robb recently told the Los Angeles Times:²

"This is an issue whose time has come. With cases like horse meat discovered in the U.K., plastic in milk in China, the recalls of almond and peanut butter in the U.S., customers have a fundamental right to know what's in their food.... 'The government has not been willing to take on this issue, so it's going to have to happen differently.'"

According to a February 2012 poll of potential voters in the 2012 US elections, 90 percent of responders were in favor of labeling GE foods. There’s really NO reason not to, aside from protecting the biotech industry’s profits. Americans are already responding favorably to those few products that are labeled. A. C. Gallo, president of Whole Foods, told the New York Times:³

“We’ve seen how our customers have responded to the products we do have labeled. 'Some of our manufacturers say they’ve seen a 15 percent increase in sales of products they have labeled [non-GMO].'”

According to the featured article:⁴

“Whole Foods' move will be copied by competitors, said Scott Faber, vice president for government affairs for the advocacy organization Environmental Working Group. 'Clearly, they're going to be the first of many retailers who will require labeling as a condition of sale in their stores.'"

It’s worth remembering that CA Prop 37 failed to be passed by just a few percentage points back in November, even though the food and biotech industry spent five times more money (a total of $46 million) on its propaganda campaign than the supporters of the measure. That’s really a good indication of how difficult this fight is for the industry. People want to know what they’re eating, and convincing Americans to lay aside their concerns about GE foods requires a lot of money and effort.

It’s a challenge they can overcome, no doubt. But people are increasingly seeing through the lame excuses, such as not wanting you to be “confused” by the labels, or that labeling would raise food prices, or that labeling is unnecessary because it’s “just as safe” as its conventional counterparts. It’s all nonsense, and fortunately, it’s not flying as well as it used to.

NCGA Urges All Vendor Partners to Support GMO Labeling Initiatives

As just mentioned, the National Cooperative Grocers Association⁵ (NGCA), a business services cooperative that represents 134 retail food co-ops across the US, sent out a letter on February 28 restating its support of GMO labeling, urging consumers to contact manufacturers directly with their concerns, and encouraging their vendor partners to “consider the kind of statement and negative impact that an organization makes by supporting or donating to campaigns designed to prevent the labeling of GMOs, whether on a state or national level.”

This is yet another sign that retailers and food manufacturers who opposed prop 37 have indeed been paying the price. Take the Cheerios fiasco, for example. General Mills spent over $1.1 million to deceive their customers by defeating Prop 37, and the backlash was significant. When General Mills' Cheerios brand released a Facebook app last December asking "fans" to "show what Cheerios means to you,” thousands used the app to express their disgust over the company's betrayal.

I believe we can expect far fewer brands to engage in biotech’s fight in future state initiatives. They really were not expecting the consumer backlash that followed in the wake of Prop 37, and are likely to be far less willing to take another bullet. The NGCA’s letter to their vendor partners reads in part:

“There was substantial consumer backlash from manufacturer financial support of campaigns to prevent GMO labeling in California. Now, campaigns calling for state level labeling of GMOs are active in a growing number of many other states. Many NCGA co-ops are supporting these campaigns and are also considering one or more of the following actions related to GMOs in food on a local level: discontinuing or boycotting items from companies that support antilabeling campaigns or whose products contain common GMO ingredients; excluding items that contain common GMO ingredients from store-level promotions and new item programs; and/or shifting more of their product assortment focus to certified organic brands.

...We believe GMO labeling will be a reality in the coming years and hope your organization will join us by showing leadership in this area through support of consumers' right to information to make informed purchase decisions.”

Organic Consumers Association Calls on Whole Foods to Move Up Labeling Timeline

Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now! who served as co-chair of Prop 37, has criticized Whole Foods timeline, saying “Americans need labeling of GMO foods today, not five years down the road,”⁶ adding that “had they supported Prop 37 sooner, Americans may have labeling right now.”

Similarly, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) issued a response to Whole Foods’ plan on March 11⁷ stating that, while it is encouraged by the plan, the five-year timeline is too long. The OCA urges Whole Foods to move up its labeling deadline to July 2015, and to “take the lead in the organic industry to end deceptive labeling practices by requiring all the stores' products that include the word 'natural' in their labeling or packaging to be GMO-free.” According to the OCA press release:

“Washington's I-522 is expected to pass in November 2013, becoming the first statewide mandatory GMO labeling law. The law establishes July 2015 as the deadline for compliance. Whole Foods Markets already complies with the U.K.'s mandatory GMO labeling law in its seven stores in that country. Whole Foods came under fire last year when the company dragged its feet in supporting Proposition 37, California's Right to Know GMO Labeling citizens' initiative. In October, CEO John Mackey confirmed in a blog post that Whole Foods stores knowingly sell Monsanto's genetically modified corn, without labeling it.”

Monsanto Responds to 'Affluent Consumer' Concerns

On March 14, Monsanto President Brett Begeman discussed Whole Food’s move in an interview on NPR radio.⁸ According to NPR:

“Monsanto President Brett Begeman, speaking at an ag event this week in Decatur, Illinois, called the move 'Big' and said it shows that the agriculture industry needs to come together to address the concerns of what he called the 'affluent consumer.'

Begemann: ‘How do we address their concerns and provide them the choice that they’re asking for without driving up the cost on the large part of the population that cannot afford another increase in the cost of food.' The potential of higher costs is one of the concerns companies have raised about the Whole Foods plan. Begmann says the ag industry needs to figure how to cooperate and co-exist with those who have different food policy views.”

ORCA Takes Proactive Role to Address ‘Natural’ Products Intentional Mislabeling

In related news, the organic and fair trade standards watchdog the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), recently announced the creation of a new nationwide campaign called the Organic Retail and Consumer Alliance (ORCA). The announcement was made at the national Expo-West Natural Products convention. This new alliance includes public interest groups, food producers and retailers, including co-ops, natural food stores, farmers markets, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) buying clubs and wholesalers.

ORCA’s mission is to “aggressively promote organic food and products, and expose and eliminate the misleading practice of 'natural' labeling and marketing that has slowed the growth of America’s $30-billion dollar organic sector.” In a press release, OCA’s National Director, Ronnie Cummins states:⁹

“Routine mislabeling and marketing has confused millions of U.S. consumers, and enabled the so-called ‘natural’ foods and products sector to grow into a $60-billion dollar a year powerhouse, garnering twice as many sales in 2012 as certified organic products. By exposing these misleading tactics, and promoting truth-in-labeling, we believe we can rapidly grow sales of certified organic and authentically natural food and products.”

This is indeed a huge problem, as numerous polls and surveys have shown that otherwise health conscious Americans do not understand the qualitative difference between organic and so-called “natural” products. Contrary to reality, the majority of consumers believe the “natural” label equates to “almost organic,” and many believe the “all-natural” label means a product is better than organic! That’s the power of word-association, and these industries are well aware of how the word natural “feels” to consumers who are in the dark about the regulatory differences between the labels... As stated by Cummins:

“This is outrageous, given that organic food and products, by law and by third-party certification, are produced without the use of synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers, animal drugs, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), irradiation, nanoparticles, or sewage sludge, whereas so-called 'natural' products are unregulated.”

To achieve its aims, ORCA members will use “a combination of public education, marketplace pressure, boycotts, class action lawsuits and state legislation to end misleading labeling practices in the 'natural' products sector.”

Consequences of 20 Years of Commercial Cultivation of GE Plants in the US

Just in time, as the GE issue is about to heat up once more, a critical assessment of the consequences of commercial cultivation of GE plants in the US was published. The report, published in Berlin, was commissioned in response to increasing pressure from biotech companies requesting broader authorizations to cultivate GE crops in the European Union (EU), where acceptance of such crops is much lower than the US. By looking at the effects that two decades worth of GE crop cultivation has had in the US, the report makes recommendations on how to best handle the technology in the EU. Presented by TestBiotech¹⁰ (which published the English version of the report),¹¹ some of the principal findings include the following damaging assessments:

• Consequences for farmers: Because the weeds have adapted to the cultivation of the genetically engineered plants, farmers are experiencing a substantial increase in both working hours and the amounts of herbicide they require. Cultivation of insecticide-producing plants have led to "an arms race in the field" against the pest insects, which have adapted quickly. Genetically engineered plants have been created to produce up to six different toxins. Costs for seeds have increased dramatically, without there being a substantial increase in yields or significant savings in the amounts of spray required.
• Impact on the seed market: The seed industry in the US is largely dominated by agrochemical industries such as Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta. In the future, it has to be expected that developments in the US will be strongly influenced by the interests of agro-chemical companies pushing for the cultivation of genetically engineered plants.
• Consequences for producers who avoid genetically engineered crops: Contamination with non-authorized genetically engineered plants has already caused billions of dollars worth of damage in the US.
• Consequences for consumers: Consumers are exposed to a whole range of risks regarding unintended substances from plant metabolism, from residues from complementary herbicides and from the properties of additional proteins produced in the plants. As yet, there is no way of monitoring the actual effects that consumption of these products might have.

The final recommendations come as no surprise to those well-versed in the many issues involved. It’ll be interesting to see if the EU will follow them or cave to industry pressure like the US. The report concludes:

"In light of the effects caused so far as a result of GE crop cultivation in the United States, the following recommendations can be made:

1. There must be no large-scale, commercial cultivation of GE herbicide-tolerant or insecticide-producing crops. Such crop cultivation is unsustainable and will lead to a ‘race’ to step up their cultivation.
2. Ensure that all potential situations are retrievable. Cultivation of crops such as rapeseed, which is extremely susceptible to spread through the environment, should be banned as a matter of principle. An absolute prerequisite for any release of such crops is that it must be possible to control their spread and their persistence in the environment.
3. Prevent cases of contamination. A particular focus on clean seed is needed because otherwise farmers will lose control over the cultivation of GE crops in their fields and it will no longer be possible to adequately differentiate between products in the subsequent stages of the food production chain.
4. Risk assessments and risk research should not be geared to economic interests. Under EU law, environmental and consumer protection clearly take precedence over other interests. This must be applied more rigidly in practice. Directives based on EFSA risk assessments must be tightened up significantly and the preconditions for independent risk research must be specifically fostered.
5. The health effects of consuming products made from GE crops must be monitored. Under EU law, the monitoring of the impact on public health and the environment of products authorized for marketing in the EU is compulsory, but has only been partially implemented.
6. To allow for the differentiation of products on the feed markets, labeling should be extended to include animal products. The EU should also focus specifically on the search for alternatives to existing feed production and import markets.
7. To prevent further concentration on seed markets, seed patenting must be stopped.
8. A plan for research into alternatives must be mapped out. In many areas conventional breeding is a cheaper, more productive and safer alternative for the production of new seed varieties. This approach should be specifically fostered in the future."

Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people's initiative 522, "The People's Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act," will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. As stated on LabelitWA.org:

"Calorie and nutritional information were not always required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin labeling wasn't required until 2002. The trans fat content of foods didn't have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or frozen concentrate.

Doesn't it make sense that genetically engineered foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The research we have is raising serious questions about the impact to human health and the environment.

I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522 will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or consumers."

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn't have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let's not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state you live in.

• No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
• If you live in Washington State, please sign the I-522 petition. You can also volunteer to help gather signatures across the state.
• For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
• Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.

Technorati Tags: GM crops,GM foods,GE labeling,Monsanto,Whole Foods market,GMO foods,GMO labeling,Dr. Mercola,Monsanto GMO documentary

Got Cancer? Milk poisoning cover-up Fox whistle-blower of Monsanto

Video:  Got Cancer? Milk poisoning cover-up Fox whistle-blower of Monsanto

Related:

Video:  RAW MILK ? COWS MILK OR BREAST MILK ?: What’s better for health & weight

Video: SOY-THE DEADLY POISON_ FRIGHTENING

Book:  The Whole Soy Story

Technorati Tags: food,milk,soymilk,soy,GMO,Cancer,watch the other hand,Big Business,Big Agribiz,food supply. Monsanto,Fox News

The Dangers of Genetically Modified Ingredients in Pet Food

Story at-a-glance

• If you’re feeding your dog or cat a commercial pet food containing corn-based ingredients, chances are those ingredients are genetically modified. Over 60 percent of corn grown in the U.S. is genetically modified.
• Studies of rats fed GM corn show evidence of severe kidney and liver disease, negative effects on the heart, spleen, and other organs, massive tumors, and premature death.
• While the impact of GM foods on dogs and cats has not been scientifically studied, many scientists suspect these products have some common toxic effects and may cause disorders of the liver, pancreas and kidneys in humans and animals.
• Dr. Michael W. Fox believes the high number of skin and food allergies, and other allergies associated with GI disorders in dogs and cats are caused or aggravated by novel proteins and other contaminants found in genetically modified crops.
• Even conventionally grown corn is not a biologically appropriate food for dogs or cats. Both corn and soy products are linked to a wide variety of health problems in companion animals.

By Dr. Becker  -  Cross-Posted at Just One More Pet

For those of you still feeding your dog or cat a commercial pet food with corn-based ingredients – which includes most inexpensive pet foods on the market today – here's a big heads-up and another reason to reconsider the diet you're offering your four-legged companion.

Chances are the corn products in your pet's food are genetically modified (GM). This means the seeds have been chemically altered to produce plants that can withstand repeated spraying with Monsanto's Roundup weed killer.

Estimates in 2009 were that over 60 percent of corn grown in the U.S. is genetically modified, and according to more recent information from NaturalNews.com,¹ Monsanto has disclosed that half the sweet corn grown on U.S. farms comes from genetically modified seed.

Genetically Modified Corn and Its Effect on Rats

Previous studies have shown that genetically modified corn causes significant kidney and liver disease in rats after only a 90-day feeding trial,² and has a negative effect on other organs as well, including the heart and spleen.

Now a new lifetime study of rats fed a diet containing GM corn shows they not only died earlier than rats on a standard diet, they developed mammary tumors and severe kidney and liver damage as well.³

According to researchers, half the male rats and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with 30 percent of males and 20 percent of females in the control group.

Lead researcher Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, believes his study involving the full lifespan of rats gives a more comprehensive and realistic view of the risks of GM corn than 90-day feeding trials. A rat at three months is still a young adult.

GM Foods and Your Pet

If you're wondering how GM corn might affect your dog or cat, unfortunately, the specifics have yet to be studied. However, in an article published in 2009 in the journal Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition regarding GM foods, the authors, Greek scientists, assert:

"The results of most of the rather few studies conducted with GM foods indicate that they may cause hepatic, pancreatic, renal, and reproductive effects and may alter hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters the significance of which remains unknown. The above results indicate that many GM foods have some common toxic effects. Therefore, further studies should be conducted in order to elucidate the mechanism dominating this action. Small amounts of ingested DNA may not be broken down under digestive processes and there is a possibility that this DNA may either enter the bloodstream or be excreted, especially in individuals with abnormal digestion as a result of chronic gastrointestinal disease or with immunodeficiency."⁴

Dr. Michael W. Fox has also compiled an extensive list of the potential risks of genetically modified foods, including:

• The toxic insecticidal agent Bacillus thuringiensis is present in most GM crops in the U.S. that wind up in animal feed and pet food.
• Glufosinate and glyphosate, which are herbicides, are applied to millions of acres of genetically modified crops across the U.S. and other countries. These poisons are absorbed by the crops – which are engineered to be herbicide resistant – while decimating everything else growing in the area and much of the aquatic life in nearby bodies of water.

  These herbicides cause kidney damage in animals, endocrine disruption and birth defects in frogs, and are lethal to many amphibians. Glyphosate has also been linked to miscarriages, premature births, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, in humans.

• Nutritionists and other health experts increasingly are connecting the rise in human allergies, including skin conditions and inflammatory GI disorders to broader consumption of GM foods and food additives – in particular, GM soy products containing novel proteins. Dr. Fox suspects the high number of skin and food allergies, and other allergies associated with GI disorders are caused or aggravated by these novel proteins and other contaminants in genetically modified crops.
• Independent animal feeding safety studies show adverse or unexplained effects of GM foods, including inflammation and abnormal cell growth in the GI tract, as well as in the liver, kidney, testicles, heart, pancreas and brain.
• GM crops have proven to be unstable and prone to unplanned mutations – which means we don't really know whether the food being grown from these plants is safe or nutritious.

Dr. Fox's advice to pet owners is to buy only food with USDA Organic certification. He also advises consumers to avoid all prepared foods, including cooking oils that contain corn and soy products, since these are the products most likely to originate from GM crops.

In addition to Dr. Fox's advice, I recommend omitting grains entirely from your carnivorous pet's diet. Corn and soy ingredients are not biologically appropriate ingredients in dog and cat food, even if they are conventionally grown. Both these ingredients are linked to a wide variety of health problems in companion animals, including allergies, skin disorders, oral disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and cystitis.

Technorati Tags: GMO,Monsanto,Dr. Becker,Just One More Pets,genetically modified foods,GMO Pet Food,pet food,healthy food choices

Health department raids community picnic and destroys all food with bleach

Video: Swat Teams Raid US Farms, Destroy Food with Bleach and kill Livestock

We were told our food was unfit for consumption and demanded that we call off the event...

Quail Farm

The evening was everything I had dreamed and hoped it would be. The weather was perfect, the farm was filled with friends and guests roaming around talking about organic, sustainable farming practices. Our guests were excited to spend an evening together. The food was prepared exquisitely. The long dinner table, under the direction of dear friends, was absolutely stunningly beautiful. The music was superb. The stars were bright and life was really good. And then, …for a few moments, it felt like the rug was pulled out from underneath us and my wonderful world came crashing down. As guests were mingling, finishing tours of the farm, and while the first course of the meal was being prepared and ready to be sent out, a Southern Nevada Health District employee came for an inspection.

Community Dinner at Quail Farm

Because this was a gathering of people invited to our farm for dinner, I had no idea that the Health Department would become involved. I received a phone call from them two days before the event informing me that because this was a “public event” (I would like to know what is the definition of “public” and “private”) we would be required to apply for a “special use permit.” If we did not do so immediately, we would be charged a ridiculous fine. Stunned, we immediately complied.

We were in the middle of our harvest day for our CSA shares, a very busy time for us, but Monte immediately left to comply with the demand and filled out the required paper work and paid for the fee. (Did I mention that we live in Overton, nowhere near a Health Department office?) Paper work now in order, he was informed that we would not actually be given the permit until an inspector came to check it all out. She came literally while our guests were arriving! In order to overcome any trouble with the Health Department of cooking on the premises, most of the food was prepared in a certified kitchen in Las Vegas; and to further remove any doubt, we rented a certified kitchen trailer to be here on the farm for the preparation of the meals.

The inspector, Mary Oaks, clearly not the one in charge of the inspection as she was constantly on the phone with her superior Susan somebody who was calling all the shots from who knows where.

We were told our food was unfit for consumption and demanded that we call off the event because:

EH Specialist II Mary Oakes

1. Some of the prepared food packages did not have labels on them. (The code actually allows for this if it is to be consumed within 72 hours.)
2. Some of the meat was not USDA certified. (Did I mention that this was a farm to fork meal?)
3. Some of the food that was prepared in advance was not up to temperature at the time of inspection. (It was being prepared to be brought to proper temperature for serving when the inspection occurred.)
4. Even the vegetables prepared in advance had to be thrown out because they were cut and were then considered a “bio-hazard”.
5. We did not have receipts for our food. (Reminder! This food came from farms not from the supermarket! I have talked with several chefs who have said that in all their years cooking they have never been asked for receipts.)

At this time Monte, trying to reason with Susan to find a possible solution for the problem, suggested turning this event from a “public” event to a “private” event by allowing the guests to become part of our farm club, thus eliminating any jurisdiction or responsibility on their part. This idea infuriated Susan and threatened that if we did not comply the police would be called and personally escort our guests off the property. This is not the vision of the evening we had in mind! So regretfully, again we complied.

The only way to keep our guests on the property was to destroy the food

Bleach is poured on organic food

I can’t tell you how sick to my stomach I was watching that first dish of Mint Lamb Meatballs hit the bottom of the unsanitized trash can. Here we were with guests who had paid in advance and had come from long distances away anticipating a wonderful dining experience, waiting for dinner while we were behind the kitchen curtain throwing it away! I know of the hours and labor that went into the preparation of that food. We asked the inspector if we could save the food for a private family event that we were having the next day. (A personal family choice to use our own food.) We were denied and she was insulted that we would even consider endangering our families health. I assured her that I had complete faith and trust in Giovanni our chef and the food that was prepared, (obviously, or I wouldn’t be wanting to serve it to our guests).

Farm food is destroyed

I then asked if we couldn’t feed the food to our “public guests” or even to our private family, then at least let us feed it to our pigs. (I think it should be a criminal action to waste any resource of the land. Being dedicated to our organic farm, we are forever looking for good inputs into our compost and soil and good food that can be fed to our animals. The animals and compost pile always get our left over garden surplus and food. We truly are trying to be as sustainable as possible.) Again, a call to Susan and another negative response. Okay, so let me get this right. So the food that was raised here on our farm and selected and gathered from familiar local sources, cooked and prepared with skill and love was even unfit to feed to my pigs!?! Who gave them the right to tell me what I feed my animals? Not only were we denied the use of the food for any purpose, to ensure that it truly was unfit for feed of any kind we were again threatened with police action if we did not only throw the food in the trash, but then to add insult to injury, we were ordered to pour bleach on it.

Food Lined up to Be Destroyed by Health Department

Now the food is also unfit for compost as I would be negligent to allow any little critters to nibble on it while it was composting and ingest that bleach resulting in a horrible death. Literally hundreds of pounds of food was good for nothing but adding to our ever increasing land fill! At some point in all of this turmoil Monte reminded me that I had the emergency phone number for the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) on our refrigerator. I put it there never really believing that I would ever have to use it. We became members of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund several years ago as a protection for us, but mostly to add support to other farmers battling against the oppressive legal actions taken against the small farmers trying to produce good wholesome food without government intrusion. The local, sustainable food battle is being waged all across America! May I mention that not one battle has been brought on because of any illness to the patrons of these farms! The battles are started by government officials swooping down on farms and farmers like SWAT teams confiscating not only the wholesome food items produced but even their farm equipment! Some of them actually wearing HAZMAT suits as if they were walking into a nuclear meltdown! I have personally listened to some of their heart wrenching stories and have continued to follow them through the FTCLDF’s updates.

Please Help By Signing the Petition!

Change.org|Then Start an Online Petition »

Source: A Distinctive World ^  - Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:06:09 PM · by Sopater – h/t to AJ

Related:

Feds Attack Family Farms. . . Again

Last summer, The Blaze reported on the Obama administration’s double-pronged attack on family farms

Earlier tonight (03.15.12) on GBTV: Do you recognize your country? Glenn shreds Obama’s farming regulation & dares media to print his comments on the Afghanistan War. Find out his take and see if the press takes Glenn up on the challenge. Don’t miss it tonight at 5pm (or on demand) only on GBTV!

Judge Rules Against Organic Farmers in Monsanto Case; Infowars Nightly News

Dr Mercola: Bill Gates: One of the World’s Most Destructive Do-Gooders? (Plus: Monsanto and GMO Foods)

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

Gates Video

Story at-a-glance

• Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, aims to end world hunger by growing more genetically engineered food crops—a philanthropic plan that may be gullible at best, and destructive at worst, both to the environment and humanity
• Monsanto and other biotech companies have collaborated with the Gates Foundation via the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to promote the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa
• Gates supports the use of Golden Rice, which has been genetically modified to produce beta-carotene that your body can convert to vitamin A. It’s promoted as a way to alleviate vitamin A deficiency, which is common in developing countries. However, beta carotene is fat soluble, and many third-world inhabitants eat a very low-fat diet, which would seriously impede or block the conversion.
• According to one study, a woman would have to consume 16 pounds of Golden Rice per day to get the recommended amount of vitamin A; a child would have to eat 12 pounds, raising serious doubts about the usefulness of this invention

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

By Dr. Mercola

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In recent years, it has become disappointingly clear that Gates may be leading the pack as one of the most destructive “do-gooders” on the planet… His views on what is required to make a difference in poverty- and disease-stricken third world nations are short-sighted and misinformed at best. A recent article in the Seattle Times¹ joins me in arguing that Bill Gates’ support of genetically modified (GM) crops as a solution for world hunger is based on unsound science. A team of 900 scientists funded by the World Bank and United Nations, investigated the matter over the course of three years, and determined that the use of GM crops is simply NOT a meaningful solution to the complex situation of world hunger.

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

“Philanthropy is the Enemy of Justice”

In a recent article with the same headline, “Philanthropy is the Enemy of Justice”, Robert Newman criticizes² the choice of Bill Gates as the designated “voice” of the world’s poor at the World Economic Forum, held in January.

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

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

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

I agree. Donating patented seeds, which takes away the farmers’ sovereignty, is not the way to save the third-world poor. As reported by Netline last year³, Monsanto and other biotech companies have collaborated with the Gates Foundation via the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to promote the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in Africa. The Gates Foundation has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to AGRA, and in 2006 Robert Horsch was hired for the AGRA project. Horsch was a Monsanto executive for 25 years. In a nutshell, the project may be sold under the banner of altruism and ‘sustainability’, but in reality it’s anything but. It’s just a multi-billion dollar enterprise to transform Africa into a GM-crop-friendly continent.

Conflicts of Interest Abound

Gates’ philanthropic methods came under scrutiny back in August 2010, when it was discovered that The Gates Foundation had purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock; dramatically increasing its previous holdings—and hence its financial conflicts of interest—in the biotech firm. AGRA-Watch commented on the ties stating⁴:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to a shocking report⁵, regulators were aware as early as 1980 that glyphosate, the active chemical ingredient of Roundup, caused birth defects in lab animals. However, the information was not made public. Instead, regulators misled the public about glyphosate’s safety, and with the introduction of Roundup Ready crops, the use of Roundup has skyrocketed.

According to Monsanto. NO⁶:

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

Golden Rice: a “Trojan Horse”

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

However, while this sounds all well and good in theory, the reality of a beta-carotene producing rice may not be all it’s cracked up to be. According to Food Freedom⁷:

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

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

The soundness of the idea becomes even more questionable when you consider the unrealistic amounts of rice you’d have to consume each day to obtain the recommended amount of vitamin A. As stated in a golden rice case study from Iowa State University⁸:

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

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

Learn More about Genetically Engineered Foods

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

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

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

To learn more about GM foods, I highly recommend number of great films and lectures available, including:

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

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

Is sure seems like it at times. Genetically engineered seeds are now banned in Hungary, as they are in several other European countries, such as Germany and Ireland. Peru is also following the precautionary principle, and has even passed a law that bans genetically modified ingredients within the nation for 10 years⁹.

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

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

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7387331n

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

Your Opportunity to Eliminate Genetically Engineered Foods from the U.S.

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

Video:  Obama Promises to Label GMOs

Labeling of genetically engineered food is way overdue… Here’s how you can get involved to rectify the situation:

• Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort
• Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the California Ballot. It may be the only chance we have to label genetically engineered foods.
• Distribute WIDELY the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications.
• For timely updates, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
• Look for in-depth coverage of the issue at the Institute for Responsible Technology, subscribe to Spilling the Beans, and check out their Facebook or Twitter.

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

Be assured that what happens in California will affect the remainder of the U.S., so please support this important state initiative, even if you do not live there!

Source: Dr. Mercola

Related:

GM Crops Are Sown in Wildlife Refuges Across U.S.

Genetically Modified Food to Make Mankind “Retarded” (Controllable) Already in the 21st Century

Bill Gates Confirms Population Reduction Through Vaccination on CNN

Bill Gates: Register Every Birth by Cellphone To Ensure Vaccination, Control Population Growth 

Monsanto Battle Continues After Suing Midwest Farmers for Saving Seeds