Millions of Bees Turning Up Dead Around GMO Corn Fields Soaked with Neonicotinoid Pesticides


Reblogged room https://followingworldchange.wordpress.com

 

corn-crops-field-farm

By David Gutierrez, Natural News, January 21, 2016

(NaturalNews) As the European Union considers whether to lift restrictions on three pesticides in the neonicotinoid family, it would do well to consider the phenomenon, known to Canadian beekeepers, in which bees start dying in droves shortly after corn planting season.

“Once the corn started to get planted our bees died by the millions,” said beekeeper Dave Schuit in summer 2013, as reported by Eat Local Grown.

That spring, Schuit lost 600 hives containing 37 million bees. The same year, Canadian farmer Gary Kenny said that eight of the 10 beehives that he kept on his property died shortly after his neighbors planted corn in their fields.

Genetically modified (GM) corn is widely planted in Canada, but because the bee deaths occurred just after planting, the corn plants are not likely to blame for this particular die-off. Instead, beekeepers believe the cause is that the corn seeds were pre-treated with neonicotinoids. Air seeding causes neonicotinoid dust to fly off the seeds and into the air, drifting across the landscape.

Numerous studies point finger at neonics

In one study, researchers from American Purdue University examined the bees that died or were dying as part of the spring 2013 die-off. “Bees exhibited neurotoxic symptoms, analysis of dead bees revealed traces of [the neonicotinoids] thiamethoxam/clothianidin in each case,” they wrote. “Seed treatments of field crops (primarily corn) are the only major source of these compounds.”

A local Pest Management Regulatory Agency investigation also pointed to the same cause, concluding that corn seeds treated with those neonicotinoids “contributed to the majority of bee mortalities.”

“The air seeders are the problem,” said Paul Wettlaufer, a local farmer and director of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Neonicotinoids are “systemic pesticides.” They are applied to the seeds prior to planting, and then taken up into every tissue of the plant, including leaves, seeds, pollen, flowers and nectar. This makes them highly lethal not just to agricultural pests, but to all insects, and even birds that visit the plants for any reason.

“Large scale prophylaxic use [of neonicotinoids] in agriculture, their high persistence in soil and water, and their uptake by plants and translocation to flowers … put pollinator services at risk,” concluded one international research study.

Not only pollinators are threatened. Two major studies in 2015 found that the pesticides have widespread, dangerous effects on entire ecosystems. One, published in the journal Nature, found that neonicotinoid use was causing bird populations to crash. This is likely caused by both direct poisoning and by devastation of their invertebrate food sources.

Meanwhile, an analysis by the the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides, of 800 separate studies, concluded that even when used according to manufacturer guidelines, neonicotinoids wreak havoc on “non-target” species such as earthworms, insects, aquatic invertebrates and even lizards and fish. The pesticides are “likely to have a wide range of negative biological and ecological impacts,” the task force wrote.

The growing case for a ban

In 2013, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) placed a two-year ban on the use of three neonicotinoids, citing a likely risk to bees. The EFSA has now launched a new study to review that policy, with results expected in January 2017.

Yet the evidence for a ban on neonicotinoids is even stronger now than it was two years ago. Even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been forced to admit that the chemicals devastate pollinators. The agency recently announced the findings of field trials, finding that even very low level use of neonicotinoids (25 parts per billion in plant pollen and nectar), caused measurable drops in populations of honeybee hives.

Researchers believe that neonicotinoids damage bee brains, specifically the ability to process information related to orientation and direction.

Sources for this article include:

EatLocalGrown.com

ThePost.ON.ca

CBan.ca

TheEpochTimes.com

NaturalNews.com

DigitalJournal.com

TheGuardian.com

Bernie Sanders Takes On Monsanto, Vows To Protect Organic Farming And Push For GMO Labeling


January 5, 2016 by Amanda Froelich

The biotech industries are “transforming our agricultural system in a bad way,” says Senator Sanders.

Even before Senator Bernie Sanders decided to run for President of the United States, he was quite vocal about factory farming, big corporations, and the Biotech giants. In fact, as early as 1994, Sanders was fighting against companies such as Monsanto for using chemicals that impact human and animal health, reports Alt Health Works

Now a presidential candidate nominee, Sanders isn’t backing down from the biotech giants and is fighting harder than ever to protect peoples’ right to know what’s in their food.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, who is an avid supporter of genetically modified foods (GMOs), Bernie believes that the biotech industries are “transforming our agricultural system in a bad way.” He believes in mandatory GMO labeling (after all, he helped pass a mandatory GMO labeling law in Vermont) so consumers may be informed and make conscious choices.

Like activist and musician Neil Young, Sanders believes the GMO giants are trying to keep consumers in the dark about what they are eating (DARK Act), and supports family-owned and organic agriculture. 

 

Senator Sanders spoke about how to make sure our food is healthy and our farming is ethical during a private dinner event on December 27th.

In the video above, the presidential nominee states:

“The debate should be – how do we make sure that the food our kids are eating is healthy food. And having the courage to take on these huge food and biotech companies who are transforming our agricultural system in a bad way.” 

He also addressed the fossil fuel industry and said that it’s past due time we start shifting toward renewable and alternative energy. 

Before Sanders tackled the heavy topics in his speech, he transported the audience to his home state of Vermont. In the lush state, organic farmer’s markets and sustainable farming are becoming the norm; his vision is to lead an America where this is commonplace everywhere.

“We have hundreds of farmers markets (in Vermont), you’ll find people buying food, beef and poultry directly from farmers, and there’s a growing farm to school pipeline,” he says. “It’s something we’ve worked very hard on and I think all over this country people are concerned about the quality of food their kids are eating.”

 

http://www.trueactivist.com/bernie-sanders-takes-on-monsanto-vows-to-protect-organic-farming-and-push-for-gmo-labeling/?utm_source=af&utm_medium=ta&utm_campaign=af

Breaking: Monsanto Takes First Annual Loss In 6 Years, Lays Off 1,000 Employees


January 7, 2016 by True Activist

“Monsanto is facing the first drop in its annual earnings in six years as prices decline for its Roundup herbicide.”

Credit: DailyLounge.com

Credit: DailyLounge.com


Claire Bernish
January 6, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) St. Louis, MO —Agrichemical behemoth Monsanto plans to cut an additional 1,000 jobs to compensate, in part, for a slump in sales of its genetically-engineered corn seeds. The seeds led to a first quarter loss of $253 million — which, on the whole, represents a 17% drop in revenue.

“Monsanto has struggled in recent quarters to deal with slumping corn prices in the U.S., which have reduced demand for its best-selling product: genetically-enhanced [read: modified] corn seeds,” reported ABC News“Farmers are shifting more acres to other crops after surpluses of corn and other crops, including wheat, have squashed commodity prices.”

In fact, Monsanto’s sales have fallen roughly 20% over the past year — perhaps indicative of the growing backlash against both its ubiquitous, genetically-modified crops, as well as the glyphosate-based Roundup required to treat them. These financial hits mean the mega-corporation has been forced to restructure at a cost of between $1.1 billion and $1.2 billion — and together with the previously announced layoff of 2,600 people, Monsanto will now be trimming a full 16% of its total staff.

As Bloomberg reported:

“Monsanto is facing the first drop in its annual earnings in six years as prices decline for its Roundup herbicide”and “lower crop prices curb farmers’ purchases of the newest genetically modified seeds.

“Monsanto’s sales of seeds and genetic licenses fell 14 percent in the first quarter. Revenue in the agricultural productivity unit, which primarily makes Roundup, tumbled 34 percent.

Monsanto appears to be in a bit of trouble, despite its CEO, Hugh Grant’s claims that  the restructuring has to do with meeting profit goals. European and North American farmers simply aren’t buying the chemically-dependent seeds, particularly since the World Health Organization categorized glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” to humans — meaning it probably causes cancer.

In comparison to the same period last year, Monsanto’s revenue declined in every product category except GM soybeans.


This article (Monsanto Cutting 1,000 Jobs as Chemical Giant Takes First Annual Loss in 6 Years) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Claire Bernish and theAntiMedia.org

 

http://www.trueactivist.com/breaking-monsanto-takes-first-annual-loss-in-6-years-lays-off-1000-employees/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TrueActivist+%28True+Activist%29&utm_content=FaceBook

THE GMO SCRAPBOOK: NEW STUDY: STEADY CONSUMPTION OF GMOs LINKED TO …by Joseph P. Farrell


According to an article shared by Mr. M.D. with us here, there is a new study linking steady GMO consumption, and the pesticide Roundup, with genetic damage to livers and kidneys:

Study: Diet Full Of GMO Foods Deadly- Alters 4000 Genes In Liver And Kidney

This one says it all:

The new study is foreboding:

Published in the Environmental Health Journal,the new study suggests that even super low levels of Roundup exposure are deadly.

The study results showed that exposure to low-dose glyphosate concentrations, in an established laboratory animal toxicity model system, can result in liver and kidney damage, with potential significant health implications for people as well as our pets and wildlife populations.

The new study finds that even glyphosate (the main ingredient in Round-Up’s crop resistant formula) which is found in our water, can cause this damage alone–the study used a far lower level of glyphosate than is found in our drinking water, in fact America has the highest levels of glyphosate in our water than most of the world.  Many say the run off of Roundup which is sprayed along highways and can run into our ground water, hence our levels are higher than other countries that do not utilize the chemical as much as Americans. (It also is the grim reaper of monarch butterflies–81% decline in monarchs when it is sprayed in their habitats).

And they’re paying for it in Argentina:

Dr. Michael Antoniou, and his team from King’s College London, did the “follow-up” study to Dr. Seralini’s two year study on rats exposed to Roundup.  Although the new study by Antoniou was attacked and ad-hoc articles written to suppress by the biotech industry, like the Genetic Literacy Project,  the study has real results by real Scientists from a reputable College.

With both Seralini and Antoniou’s work we now have more evidence that Roundup causes damage to the liver and kidneys. Despite this, and the numerous other findings, such as the recent news from Argentinathat children are suffering from genetic damage at heavily sprayed GM soy sites in the country, there has been no international move to heavily examine Roundup, and hold Monsanto accountable for its poisoning of the people. (Boldface emphasis added)

This much is predictable: when a corrupt company like Mon(ster)santo/IG Farbensanto (or whatever you wish to call that hideous corporation) gets its hands on the food supply and lines the pockets of America’s bottomless supply of stupid and very corrupt politicians(see the current roster of Dummycrook and Republithug presidential candidates, or just look at Congress), then there’s bound to be long term trouble and repercussions.

Not the least of these, I suggest, is that when you buy off science itself, or actively seek to corrupt the scientific process itself by suppressing findings contrary to your own limited studies (designed only to reassure the corrupt politicians), that there will be a foreign  and domestic policy backlash; you cannot keep poisoning people – or getting said corrupt politicians to pass laws prohibitting you from growing a little garden – or poisoning people’s kids and afflicting them with liver disease, autism, or kidney disease, without there being a backlash. The article mentions Argentina, but we’ve all heard of the problems in India as well, and increasingly, this or that country in Europe is revolting against the easy breezy assurances of pro-GMO corporate science.

Now all this brings me to my high octane speculation of the day. Lately I’ve been watching – as regular readers here know – the messages and signals coming out of the United Kingdom, which in its quiet way is signaling, with growing frequency and intensity, its dissatisfaction with America’s calcified oligarchy. (Andf they, unlike us, did not have to do a major university study like Princeton’s to conclude that America is not a republic, it’s an oligarchy). Recall that op-ed piece just a couple of month’s ago in Britain’s Economist magazine; the “calcified” oligarchy isn’t my observation; it’s theirs. Then there was the BBC’s highly suggestive message-sending Worricker Trilogy. But if you’ve been watching the GMO issue, it’s been going on in Great Britian, though with predictably less fanfare than in North America. And every now and then, a prestigious British research institution or university – like King’s College, London (part of the University of London) – publishes a paper questioning GMO claims and safety. Indeed, this has been going on in Britain for some time: recall only the episode recounted by F. William Engdahl in his Seeds of Destruction that it took a personal phone call from President Clinton to Prime Minister Blair to get a certain study of GMO safety suppressed. (Yes, the GMO corruption goes that far folks.)

But nonetheless, such studies continue to be done in the UK, and every now and then we get to hear about them.

And with them, I wonder whether or not there are other messages being sent in the emerging world of GMO geopolitics, this time, not from New Delhi or Moscow or Buenos Aires, but from London. If so, you can’t blame them, for it only means that besides exporting war, America’s other major export in the past few decades has been poisonous foods. If the drones don’t get you, Mon(ster)santo will. And if so, then, if the scientific studies are any indicator in the UK, there is growing quiet opposition to the corruption of science, and the food supply. Prediction? We’ll really know the game is afoot when other agribusiness giants seek publicly to distance themselves from Mon(ster)santo specifically. Recall only that recent rejection by Syngenta of Mon(ster)santo’s takeover offer on the implied grounds that it(Syngenta) was dealing in good faith… followed by…well, silence… And in that silence, you could read the implication. And why was Mon(ster)santo seeking to do that? Well, one reason, you’ll recall, is that they wanted to move their corporate headquarters from St. Louis to London. And perhaps this King’s College study gives a bit of a glimmer as to why.

In the meantime, I very much doubt you’ll see IG Farbensanto’s products on the menu at the Palace.

See you on the flip side…

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Monsanto to face ‘tribunal’ in The Hague for ‘damage to human health and environment’


© Mal Langsdon
A global group of professionals, scientists and environmentalists – the Monsanto Tribunal – are preparing a trial for the GMO seed giant in The Hague. They say the crowdfunded action, determined to charge Monsanto with “ecocide,” is more than a symbolic move.

READ MORE: Putin wants Russia to become world’s biggest exporter of Non-GMO food

The Monsanto Tribunal’s goal is to research and evaluate all of the allegations made against Monsanto in connection to all the damages its products have caused to human health and the environment. It is scheduled to be held at The Hague from October 12 to 16 in 2016. The trial will wrap up on next year’s World Food Day.

One of the main goals the broad group of signees [ABOUT US] wants the tribunal to achieve is establishing “ecocide” as a crime. “Recognizing ecocide as a crime is the only way to guarantee the right of humans to a healthy environment and the right of nature to be protected,” The International Monsanto Tribunal says on its website.

The Tribunal will look into a range of charges, including what it says are Monsanto’s crimes against nature and humanity.

“The Tribunal will rely on the ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ adopted at the UN in 2011. It will also assess potential criminal liability on the basis of the Rome Statue that created the International Criminal Court in The Hague in 2002, and it will consider whether a reform of international criminal law is warranted to include crimes against the environment, or ecocide, as a prosecutable criminal offense, so that natural persons could incur criminal liability.”

Several bodies and groups are supporting the initiative, including the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), IFOAM International Organics, Navdanya, Regeneration International (RI), and Millions Against Monsanto, as well as dozens more farming and environmental groups.

The decision to proceed with the tribunal was announced by the groups shortly before the Sustainable Pulse report was published, which was part of the COP21 UN Conference on Climate Change that runs until December 11 in Paris.

“The time is long overdue for a global citizens’ tribunal to put Monsanto on trial for crimes against humanity and the environment. We are in Paris this month to address the most serious threat that humans have ever faced in our 100-200,000 year evolution—global warming and climate disruption,” the president of the Organic Consumers Association, Ronnie Cummins, said at the press conference.

Meanwhile, president of IFOAM and member of the RI Steering Committee Andre Leu accused Monsanto of ignoring the human and environmental damage created by its products. Leu added that the transnational is able to maintain its devastating practices “by lobbying regulatory agencies and governments, by resorting to lying and corruption, by financing fraudulent scientific studies, by pressuring independent scientists, and by manipulating the press and media.”

“Monsanto’s history reads like a text-book case of impunity, benefiting transnational corporations and their executives, whose activities contribute to climate and biosphere crises and threaten the safety of the planet,” Leu stressed.

The American-based company has enjoyed a good reputation in the US media and is known for its strong ties on Capitol Hill.

The Monsanto Tribunal argues that the company is responsible for the depletion of soil and water resources, species extinction, and declining biodiversity, as well as the displacement of millions of small farmers worldwide.

Farmers in certain countries have been taking these developments very hard. In India, an alarming wave of suicides tied to Monsanto’s practices has been registered among farmers.

Instead of traditional crops, farmers have been forced to grow GM cotton, which is more expensive and requires additional maintenance. In the last 20 years, this trend has driven some 290,000 farmers to commit suicide due to bankruptcy, according to India’s national crimes bureau records.

READ MORE: GMO that kills: GM-cotton problems drive Indian farmers to suicide

Subjecting Monsanto to real legal consequences will be a challenge, though, as the corporation has never lost a case.

The company is notorious for routinely suing farmers, which has earned it the reputation of a legal bully in the eyes of critics. According to Food Democracy Now, the GMO corporation has filed 145 lawsuits since 1997, because farmers had reused their seeds in a manner inconsistent with Monsanto policies. This even includes cases where the farmers themselves had sued Monsanto for the inadvertent cross-pollination of their organic crops with GMO seeds.

One lawsuit representing 300,000 farmers was thrown out of court – for the mere reason that the farmers had already been sued by Monsanto. According to Food Democracy Now, the judge called the farmers’ case “unsubstantiated.”

Untold damage has also been caused to the ecosphere by the dying-off of 970 million Monarch butterflies since 1990. The herbicides Monsanto sells eradicate a range of the prolific pollinators’ natural food sources. The statistic was released by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in February.

READ MORE: Monsanto monarch massacre: 970 million butterflies killed since 1990

People demonstrated in over 400 major cities across the world in May to tell the GMO giant they do not want its produce in their food. It was the third global March Against Monsanto (MAM).

They Truly Are Poisoning Paradise by Gary Hooser


Our community cannot rely on “good neighbors” to protect our health and environment. Government intervention is needed now.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced recently its intent to ban chlorpyrifos, a Restricted Use Pesticide, stating that it “ … could not conclude that the risk from aggregate exposure to chlorpyrifos meets the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) safety standard.” The report further states there is “potential for risks in small watersheds with high concentrations of farming where chlorpyrifos may be widely used.”

Numerous studies indicate children exposed to chlorpyrifos have lower IQs and poorer working memory which impacts learning, reading comprehension and the ability to pay attention. Columbia University reported “Even low to moderate levels of exposure to the insecticide chlorpyrifos during pregnancy may lead to long-term, potentially irreversible changes in the brain structure of the child … ”

So, the EPA has announced its intent to ban chlorpyrifos — yet its use will likely continue into the foreseeable future. Why?

Dow AgroScience, the largest supplier of chlorpyrifos in Hawaii, has no intention of stopping its use and will be fighting the EPA every step of the way.

This of course, is to be expected. The industry playbook originally written by Big Tobacco and adopted by the agrochemical industry starts with one primary strategy — obfuscate and delay.

First, it will claim the EPA is just wrong and that chlorpyrifos is safe. Then, it will claim that even if chlorpyrifos were dangerous, it’s only a little bit dangerous, and if people would just follow the label, all would be OK.

Along the way they will generate a media narrative that the EPA is bowing to political pressure from activists who do not understand science. They will tell us in so many words to suck it up, and that pesticides are a part of everyday life. In the end, they will demand more studies, then claim the resulting additional study outcomes are flawed.

To be clear, these corporations are not “good neighbors” and no amount of money thrown at agricultural scholarships can change this. To the contrary, their mission is dominated by the pursuit of corporate profits, with the protection of health, the environment and workers — always taking a back seat.

A genuine good neighbor, one who cared about how its actions might impact the health of children who live and play on the same street, would err on the side of caution and stop using chlorpyrifos now, and not wait for the EPA’s final directive banning it.

According to the state Department of Agriculture, 7,282 pounds of chlorpyrifos were sold in Hawaii during 2014.

A 2013 air sampling report by the state and Kauai County showed, “Five pesticides (including chlorpyrifos) were detected in the indoor and outdoor passive air samples and the high volume outdoor air samples collected at Waimea Canyon Middle School.”

In 2013-2014, state stream water testing found chlorpyrifos in the Kekaha Ditch on Kauai and in Hawaii County streams. The amounts found were small. But as noted in reports such as Columbia University’s cited above, study after study showed chronic long-term exposure to even very small amounts is harmful, especially to a developing fetus and the neurological systems of young children.

The state of Hawaii can and should ban the use of chlorpyrifos today. The Department of Agriculture can do this via rule-making, the Legislature can do it via law, and the governor can accomplish this via executive order.

The EPA says it is unable to confirm chlorpyrifos’ safety and that our drinking water may be at risk. Our government can stop this harm from occurring now. Why wait?

The above blog piece was first published in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on Sunday December 27, 2015

https://garyhooser.wordpress.com/2015/12/30/they-truly-are-poisoning-paradise/

 

ICYMI: Mark Ruffalo became a consumer champion just after Monsanto CEO blatantly lied on the air this month. “Hugh Grant must be made to feel uncomfortable for what he allows his company to do in the world. That is why I told him what I did and why I am sharing it with you.” http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/04/mark-ruffalo-monsanto/ #stopmonsanto #food #ag #GMOs #chemicals #labelGMOs #righttoknow #GMfood

Congress Keeps Anti-GMO Labeling Rider Out of Spending Bill Center for Food Safety | December 16, 2015 10:59 am


Center for Food Safety today praised Congress for not including a policy rider in the must-pass federal omnibus spending bill that would have blocked states from implementing mandatory genetically engineered (GE) food labeling laws. Three states—Connecticut, Maine and Vermont—have passed such laws, with Vermont’s slated be to be the first to go into effect in July 2016. All three democratically passed laws would have been nullified, while any future state GE labeling legislation would have been preempted. More than 30 states have introduced bills to labeling GE foods in just the past few years.

“We are very pleased that Congress has apparently decided not to undermine Americans’ right to know about the food they purchase and feed their families,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety. “Adding a rider to the budget bill that would nullify state laws requiring labeling and even forbidden federal agencies from mandating labeling would have been profoundly undemocratic and nothing short of legislative malfeasance. We will remain vigilant over the coming days and into the next legislative session to ensure our right to know is protected.”

The omnibus spending bill does include language previously agreed to by the Senate Appropriations Committee requiring that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) develop guidelines for mandatory labeling of GE salmon and prevent its sale until such labeling is in effect.

In July, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1599, dubbed by opponents the “Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act,” which preempts state and local authority to label and regulate GE foods. Instead, the bill sought to codify a voluntary labeling system approach, block FDA from ever implementing mandatory GE food labeling and allow food companies to continue to make misleading “natural” claims for foods that contain GE ingredients. The Senate chose not to take up that bill, despite heavy pressure from the food and biotechnology industries.

Anti-labeling interests then began pushing for the inclusion of the preemption rider in the must pass spending bill. Numerous Senators vocally opposed the inclusion of the preemption rider, successfully keeping it out of the bill. In particular, Senators Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Markey (D-Mass.), Sanders (D-Vt.), Leahy (D-Vt.), Reed (D-R.I.), Heinrich (D-N.M.), Warren (D-Mass.), Tester (D-Mont.), Merkley (D-Ore.), Boxer (D-Calif.) and Booker (D-N.J.) led a Dear Colleague letter opposing the rider. Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chairperson Mikulski (D-Md.) also worked to keep the rider out.

“In the absence of federal leadership, states have led the way by passing legislation intended to prevent consumer deception and give consumers the right to know,” said Kimbrell. “We thank those Members of Congress, as well as the thousands of Americans who contacted their Senators recently, for preventing this grossly unethical rider from seeing daylight.”

By an overwhelming margin, American voters say consumers should have the right to know if their food is genetically modified, with 89 percent in support of mandatory GE labeling, according to a new national poll. Nearly the same number of consumers would like to see the labels in an easy to read format.

Center for Food Safety supports bipartisan legislation introduced by Sen. Boxer and Rep. DeFazio called the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act, which would require that food manufacturers label foods that contain genetically modified ingredients. This common sense bill would guarantee all Americans the right to know what is in their foods while respecting the need by companies for a uniform, federal standard.

 

http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/16/anti-gmo-label-rider/

Media Blackout as France and Russia Both Announce Monsanto GMO Bans By Nick Meyer, September 19, 2015 ·


france russia gmo ban

Russia and France both announced their intention to ban GMO crops. PHOTO: Brecorder.com

When two of the most modernized and economically powerful countries in the world decide to ban a type of food crop that has made its way into roughly 70-80% or more of the U.S. food supply, you’d think it would be considered newsworthy.

But the United States media has missed the boat yet again on major happenings relating to GMO crops overseas.

Both Russia and France officially announced bans on Monsanto’s genetically engineered crops this past week, cementing their positions and upholding the will of the people in nations where public opinion is dead set on keeping the food and farming system natural.

“As far as genetically-modified organisms are concerned, we have made decision not to use any GMO in food productions,” Russia’s Deputy PM Arkady Dvorkovich announced at worldwide conference on biotechnology in the Russian city of Kirov according to the website RT.

“This is not a simple issue, we must do very thorough work on division on these spheres and form a legal base on this foundation,” he said. Russia has announced similar plans in the past but the announcement feels even more official considering the wave of GMO bans sweeping Europe these days.

France Plans to “Opt-Out,” Stay GMO Free

Meanwhile France also announced its plans to stay GMO Free by opting exercising its “opt-out” clause through the European Union.

In total, five nations in Europe have announced plans to ban the growth of Monsanto’s GMOs within their borders including Germany, Scotland, Latvia, and Greece.

 

The crops are allowed to be grown within the European Union but each country has its own ability to opt-out.

As noted in this article from Eco Watch, France’s main concerns stem from the environmental risks created by the crops, which are capable of contaminating non-GMO crops via wind pollination and causing other harm, especially when used with the herbicide, glyphosate, they are designed to withstand.

Monsanto’s MON810 genetically engineered corn, the only crop of its kind allowed in Europe, is a specific threat to natural agriculture in the country because of this concern.

American Media Silent on GMO Bans

A quick Google News search turns up virtually no results for the bans by Russia and France, aside from a few scattered alternative news sites.

With more Americans than ever before learning about GMOs and making their own decisions on whether to include such foods in their diet, and a huge vote looming in the Senate over a possible ban on mandatory GMO labeling in America (click here to learn more and take action), you’d think the news giants like NBC, Fox News, CNN and others would be chomping at the bit to get this news out to their readers and viewers.

But alas, they have chosen not to cover these stories, once again giving the American people an incomplete picture about the ongoing food experiment that they never consented to in the first place.

Nick Meyer writes for March Against Monsanto and the website

http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/media-blackout-as-france-and-russia-both-announce-monsanto-gmo-bans/

Celebrities Ditch Starbucks After Company Openly Supports Monsanto


Stealing our right to know
Print Friendly
Starbucks

I used to line up and get my latte everyday, but yesterday was my last one. ~ Neil Young

I, like Neil, have lined up at a Starbucks counter, waiting patiently behind ten people to get my caffeine fix. But there’s something that changed this habit. The coffee shop on every corner (there are almost 12,000 stores in the US) is helping to keep you in the dark about GMOs in your food and beverages. Recently, they have teamed up with Monsanto to sue Vermont over the recently passed GMO labeling initiative. What gives, Starbucks?

Neil Young is boycotting Starbucks, and you should too. The company obviously doesn’t think you have the right to know what is in your food. Why sue a small state that legally determined for itself that GMOs should be labeled? It once again comes down to money.

“Hiding behind the shadowy ‘Grocery Manufacturers Association,’ Starbucks is supporting a lawsuit that’s aiming to block a landmark law that requires genetically-modified ingredients be labeled,” Young wrote. “Amazingly, it claims that the law is an assault on corporations’ right to free speech.”

Starbucks once used only organic milk, but in the frenzy to grow bigger, they started using cow’s milk that is contaminated with GMOs due to the genetically altered soy, and corn given to many dairy cows as feed. This has led to countless consumers telling Starbucks to go organic and drop the GMO milk, or business will dwindle.

Starbucks also sells other items that are contaminated with GMOs, as many restaurants do. They don’t want to have to worry about what they feed their customers, just as long as those stocks and profits keep going up!

Starbucks has hidden their non-GMO support behind the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s front. Starbucks claims that the Vermont law requiring the labeling of genetically modified ingredients “is an assault on corporations’ right to free speech.”

Starbucks Says These Claims are False

In a statement on its website, Starbucks said a petition Young directed his followers to is wrong:

“Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law. The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their description of our position. Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling. As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we prefer a national solution.”

I’m not sure how any of that could be true when Starbucks is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association – a group dedicated to crush GMO labeling efforts. A post on GMA’s website, dated June 13, confirms its stance that Vermont’s GMO labeling law is unconstitutional.

Monsanto may be insulated from the general public’s opinion regarding GMOs, but Starbucks certainly is not. Now, as never before, we can show a major US retailer what we think about their GMO toxins with our joint refusal to pay another dollar for any product made by a company that wants us to suffer GMOs without our consent.

Vermont is a rural state containing only 600,000 people, but we are a vast nation with a resounding collective voice. We can tell Starbucks that if they are going to side with the most hated company in the world to sue Vermont, then we will side with the rest of the citizens in the US and stop patronizing their coffee shops.

If the Vermont law is successfully overturned, then the whole nations’ ability to demand labeling (or banning) of GMOs is put into question. We must ensure that the labeling law in Vermont stands.

I’m boycotting Starbucks. Will you?

Mark Ruffalo confronts Monsanto chief: “You are poisoning people.”


Reblogged from https://followingworldchange.wordpress.com

Mark Ruffalo is perhaps best known for his role as the Hulk, but in real life, Ruffalo is a different kind of superhero. The actor has spoken and written extensively on the horrors of environmental destruction, as well as the guilt assigned to corporations carrying out those atrocities. Recently, a chance meeting with Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant gave Ruffalo the opportunity to tell the GMO boss exactly what he thinks of the company and its practices: “You are wrong.”

Actor <a gi-track='captionPersonalityLinkClicked' href='/galleries/personality/209317' ng-click='$event.stopPropagation()'>Mark Ruffalo</a> participates in the People's Climate March on September 21, 2014 in New York City. The march, which calls for drastic political and economic changes to slow global warming, has been organized by a coalition of unions, activists, politicians and scientists.

Ruffalo keeps his finger on the pulse of business and politics when it comes to environmental issues, and he doesn’t pick and choose. The actor/activist/father/angry green guy works to raise awareness (and, in many cases, funding) for water conservation, carbon emissions limits, renewable energy, and public health. Monsanto has certainly been one of his targets in the past, especially as the company continues to fight to stop GMO-labeling requirements throughout the United States.

mark ruffalo, monsanto, monsanto ceo hugh grant, roundup, glyphosate, gmo, gmo foods, genetically modified foods, gmo labeling

When Ruffalo was preparing for a segment on his new film Spotlight at CBS This Morning, he jumped at the chance to tell the chemical boss what lots of people are probably thinking. Ruffalo recounts the chance meeting, describing how Grant came into the Green Room “ready to do high fives with his press agent,” which inspired the actor to seize this opportunity. Ruffalo reports telling Grant this: “You are wrong. You are engaged in monopolizing food. You are poisoning people. You are killing small farms. You are killing bees. What you are doing is dead wrong.”

Related: Tell world leaders to ban glyphosate, which has been linked to cancer, autism

Monsanto’s chief made a lot of slippery comments, slinging around vague statistics, and describing his position in non-committal language during the CBS interview. When the show’s hosts pressed him to defend Monsanto’s attack on GMO-labeling laws in various states, he hid behind the claim that only federal regulations will be effective. And, as has been the consistent message from the Monsanto camp, he denied any health hazard linked to the use of Roundup, the company’s top-selling pesticide. That position echoes a new study released this week conducted by scientists that Monsanto sponsored, but it doesn’t stop the onslaught of lawsuits from cancer patients who believe Roundup caused their illnesses.

Indeed, glyphosate – the active ingredient in Roundup – has been linked to cancer by the WHO, and the company has been paying out millions of dollars for the past several decades in an effort to keep the truth quiet. However, as more people learn about what this and other companies are doing to profit from the destruction of the planet, they are not likely to be able to keep their secrets much longer.

Via EcoWatch/republished from Mark Ruffalo’s Tumblr

Monsanto Put on Trial for Crimes against Humanity in The Hague


Note: The global walls are closing in on Monsanto, as the collective wakes-up to “TRUTH” about the matrix and it’s mechanisms of domination and control, the day of reckoning approaches…

 

Posted on Dec 3 2015 – 6:25pm by Sustainable Pulse

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA), IFOAM International Organics, Navdanya, Regeneration International (RI), and Millions Against Monsanto, joined by dozens of global food, farming and environmental justice groups announced today that they will put Monsanto MON (NYSE), a US-based transnational corporation, on trial for crimes against nature and humanity, and ecocide, in The Hague, Netherlands, next year on World Food Day, October 16, 2016.

Monsanto

Since the beginning of the twentieth century according to the groups, Monsanto has developed a steady stream of highly toxic products which have permanently damaged the environment and caused illness or death for thousands of people. These products include:

• PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyl), one of the 12 Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) that affect human and animal fertility;

• 2,4,5 T (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid), a dioxin-containing component of the defoliant, Agent Orange, which was used by the US Army during the Vietnam War and continues to cause birth defects and cancer;

• Lasso, an herbicide that is now banned in Europe;

• and RoundUp, the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the source of the greatest health and environmental scandal in modern history. This toxic herbicide, designated a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization, is used in combination with genetically modified (GM) RoundUp Ready seeds in large-scale monocultures, primarily to produce soybeans, maize and rapeseed for animal feed and biofuels.

Relying on the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” adopted by the UN in 2011, an international court of lawyers and judges will assess the potential criminal liability of Monsanto for damages inflicted on human health and the environment. The court will also rely on the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court in The Hague in 2002, and it will consider whether to reform international criminal law to include crimes against the environment, or ecocide, as a prosecutable criminal offense. The International Criminal Court, established in 2002 in The Hague, has determined that prosecuting ecocide as a criminal offense is the only way to guarantee the rights of humans to a healthy environment and the right of nature to be protected.

The announcement was made at a press conference held in conjunction with the COP21 United Nations Conference on Climate Change, November 30 – December 11, in Paris.

Speaking at the press conference, Ronnie Cummins, international director of the OCA (US) and Via Organica (Mexico), and member of the RI Steering Committee, said: “The time is long overdue for a global citizens’ tribunal to put Monsanto on trial for crimes against humanity and the environment. We are in Paris this month to address the most serious threat that humans have ever faced in our 100-200,000 year evolution—global warming and climate disruption. Why is there so much carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere and not enough carbon organic matter in the soil? Corporate agribusiness, industrial forestry, the garbage and sewage industry and agricultural biotechnology have literally killed the climate-stabilizing, carbon-sink capacity of the Earth’s living soil.”

Andre Leu, president of IFOAM and a member of the RI Steering Committee, said: “Monsanto is able to ignore the human and environmental damage caused by its products, and maintain its devastating activities through a strategy of systemic concealment: by lobbying regulatory agencies and governments, by resorting to lying and corruption, by financing fraudulent scientific studies, by pressuring independent scientists, and by manipulating the press and media. Monsanto’s history reads like a text-book case of impunity, benefiting transnational corporations and their executives, whose activities contribute to climate and biosphere crises and threaten the safety of the planet.”

Marie-Monique Robin, journalist and author of the best-selling documentary (and book by the same name), “The World According Monsanto,” said: “This International Citizens’ Tribunal is necessary because the defense of the safety of the planet and the conditions of life on Earth is everyone’s concern. Only through a collective resurgence of all living forces will we stop the engine of destruction. That’s why today I am calling on all citizens of the world to participate in this exemplary tribunal.”

Also speaking at the conference were Valerie Cabanes, lawyer and spokesperson for End Ecocide on Earth; Hans Rudolf Herren, president and CEO of the Millennium Institute, president and founder of Biovision, and member of the RI Steering Committee; Arnaud Apoteker, creator of the anti-GMO campaign in France, which became one of the priority campaigns of Greenpeace France, and author of “Fish in Our Strawberries: Our Manipulated Food;” and Olivier De Schutter, co-chair of the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPESFood) and former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.

Full list of founding organizations (so far) here.

Full list of Monsanto Tribunal Foundation organizing members here.

More information will be available at www.monsanto-tribunal.org/, after 2:30 p.m. EU time on December 3, 2015.

 

http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/12/03/monsanto-put-on-trial-for-crimes-against-humanity-in-the-hague/#.VmCx6r9RoSd

Can a Magic Spell Take Down Monsanto?


Can a Magic Spell Take Down Monsanto?

At this point in time, there’s no question that the corporate reign is upon us. Our politicians are beholden to their corporate backers, and everything we touch—from the gloves on our fingers to the chicken (or chicken-free) fingers we inhale at lunch—have deep roots tied to industry and the multinational corporations at the center of it all. But what if a magic spell—a death curse, specifically—could change all that?

Artist Steven Leyba has taken to putting a magic spell of sorts on Monsanto and other corporations at the forefront of human health and environmental destruction. And as unbelievable as it may sound, it may just be working.

The “any means necessary” ethos has become quite literal, especially for Leyba. Between 2010-2011, Leyba produced his 13th handmade book—his medium of choice. This one was focused specifically on Monsanto, the chemical-turned-engineered-foods poster corporation for everything wrong with the food system.

The massive food industry has become anathema for many, with locally grown and produced goods becoming the ultimate rebellious #Occupy-esque move in resisting corporate control over our food system. In 2012, the year after Leyba completed his book, sales of locally produced foods and goods topped $6.1 billion. And demand continues to rise–not just for local and organic foods, but for GMO-free and antibiotic-free foods, as well as foods free from artificial ingredients.

Like millions of Americans struggling with diet-related illnesses, Leyba tried to get healthier by changing his diet. “In 2010 I had been overweight and decided to get healthy. I started eating large amounts of fruits and vegetables from my local grocery store. I got sick and that was the time I found out about GMOs,” Leyba told Organic Authority in an email. “I was appalled. I couldn’t understand why I would get so sick by eating what I thought was so healthy. When I switched to organic food I got healthy again.”

Leyba said his motivation was deeply personal, but “also universal.”

“I had to make art about this,” he explains, “and in the process I learned how insidious the Monsanto corporation was.”

Leyba’s Monsanto book itself is thick and demented in appearance, like something you might find in an archeological discovery—perhaps an old alchemist’s or shaman’s handiwork. It’s constructed with canvas pages that he added grommets to, “I bolted the pages together and painted acrylic then sewed beads into the pages and collaged information about GMOs, anti-Monsanto pamphlets, and some of my writing against Monsanto,” he explains.

monsanto03

Most of the paintings were of Monsanto executives he says, including the company’s CEO Hugh Grant, as well as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (who worked for Monsanto for years). But it’s not exactly coffee table book material: “Their [sic] is pubic hair all over his 2 portraits,” Leyba explains. “I had the idea that in the future Monsanto would make it so everyone could grow their favorite foods on their faces: ‘You are what you eat, you eat what you are; MONSANTO,’” he explains.

But Leyba didn’t stop with his multimedia protest. A student of numerous art mediums, the occult, and Native traditions, Leyba publicly put a death curse on Monsanto and Nestlé, citing their for-profit eco-terrorism as his motivation. “Death curses work like any manifestation of will like Gestalt psychology; you visualize and act in accordance and at some point what you can conceive and believe you can achieve,” he explains.

“Medicine men practice this and even medical doctors to some extent practice this. They plant suggestions in people’s minds for healing and those people start to do things that promote their own healing,” he says. “For me I see a great need to identify the cancer (Monsanto and Nestlé) and attack with full force and mirror back this so-called Black Magic they are doing to all of us.”

For Leyba, “good art” can be both a psychological and emotional motivator. “I want the things that are killing people and the environment to die (Monsanto- Nestlé). I wish them death.”

Leyba points to Monsanto’s genetically modified foods and herbicides and Nestlé’s recent bad press over water theft in California, and the company’s links to child slavery in manufacturing its chocolate products. He says it is “a form of justice to project disdain and destruction on those that purposely destroy other people and the environment.”

And despite the growing demand for labeling GMO foods in the U.S. and more corporate transparency, Leyba says the corporations still get so much handed to them in the way of tax credits, subsidies, and corporate personhood.

“Multinational corporations have more rights than individuals,” he says, “and now with trade laws they have more rights than countries. My art forces the dialogue and creates the new language in opposition to corporations that believe in and act only on profits and losses. They are above and beyond the law. Except maybe the laws of nature.”

monsanto23

“Many may not believe in curses but many curses do work,” Leyba says, explaining that while death curses are not common in today’s world, from numerous Indigenous perspectives, they not only work, but are necessary.

Does he think the corporations can be forces for good? While Leyba did get the attention of Monsanto (he points to a Facebook thread where a company representative responded), he is doubtful that corporations, specifically the two he’s death-cursed, will be capable of making the type of transformation desperately needed.

“What is needed,” he says, “is for people to create the new symbols for change and not let corporations control the narrative.”

Despite the dark nature of Leyba’s work, he’s hopeful, too, “It’s wonderful how well the organic movement has spread,” and he says consumers can do their best to boycott these brands. “It’s hard with Monsanto because it is in everything. Nestlé has so many products but they can be identified. Corporations will adapt to the economic climate. I feel if more people were proactive in not buying the products, the big Goliath will have to adapt or perish.”

As for his art, Leyba says it has turned many people into creative activists. “It forces the conversation we all need to be having about fascist Trans-national corporations that decide what we eat and how we think about the world.” Leyba says the world “is tired of big business ruling their lives, bodies, and environment.”

“I encourage everyone to Death Curse Monsanto and Nestlé. Justifiable Death Curses are effective on many levels, fun, cathartic,” and says Leyba, “completely legal.”

Find Jill on Twitter and Instagram

 

All images courtesy of Leyba 

http://www.organicauthority.com/can-a-magic-spell-take-down-monsanto/

Note: Personally, IMO this is White Magic because it benefits humanity. And, it certainly gives a whole new meaning to “We are the ones we waited for”. I’ve always believed we will win the war to reclaim our planet thru accessing our Avatar skills, there a people working at some in some of the darkest corners to eliminate the dark ones and their technology.

For example, if  CERN has been taken down, it’s because people have been working in the background (most likely with ET/ID assistance) at the psychic level to break down the programming. So let’s get busy, if you’re not already spinning up magic to break down the matrix and create and new paradigm…it’s crunch time my friends! This is why we were born :)

Hemp Plant Found To “Eat” Radiation and Drive Away Toxicity – Hemp Fields Should Be Planted Around Fukushima


fukuActivists have been shouting they want an end to GMO foods for more than a decade now, and Cannabis Sattiva L. supporters have been at it for even longer, so why has the US government finally given farmers the right to legally grow industrial hemp, the non-hallucinatory, sister plant of medical marijuana?

It is safe to say that industrialized hemp should have been legalized years ago. With THC levels so low, you would have to smoke more of it than Snoop Dogg to get ‘high’ – and that’s a lot of Cannabis, it is ridiculous that it was classified as a drug at all. It has numerous uses and could replace many crops that require heavy irrigation and pesticides, like cotton, for example. Here’s the most interesting fact though – hemp plants ‘eat’ radiation.

When the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant Reactor 4 accident caused severe radioactive contamination in 1986, families within a 30-kilometer area of the site had to be evacuated. Radioactive contamination was later found at 100 kilometers from the accident site, and Fukushima radiation levels are still to be determined, with the Japanese government planning on dumping their overflowing radiated water tanks into the Pacific as we speak.

As with the Chernobyl incident, scientists are finding radioactive emissions and toxic metals–including iodine, cesium-137, strontium-90, and plutonium–concentrated in the soil, plants, and animals of Japan, but also now throughout the United States and all along the West Coast – from Canada to Mexico. Even the EPA has admitted that any living tissue can be affected by radiation exposure. High levels of thyroid disease and cancer have been reported in Japan, and our ocean is dying by the day. Scientists are also expecting that children born on the US West Coast will suffer a 28% higher incident of hyperthyroidism – a disease that accompanies radiation exposure. Even the livestock that grazed on irradiated grasses grown in contaminated soils developed meat with high concentrations of these unwanted toxins after Chernobyl, and Fukushima is exponentially worse.

Dr. Ilya Raskin of Rutgers University’s Biotechnology Center for Agriculture and the Environment, who was a member of the original task force sent by the IAEA to examine food safety at the Chernobyl site figured out that through phytoremediation utilizing hemp, among other plants, the soil, and thus the food supply could be saved from toxicity.

Phytoremediation is the process whereby green plants remove toxins from the soil. Plants can extract specific elements within their ecosystem and still thrive. They accumulate the toxins in their tissues and root systems but remain undamaged. Sunflowers have been known to do something similar for centuries, eliminating heavy metals and pesticides from damaged soil. Two members of the mustard family are also useful for this process – Brassica juncea and Brassica carinata, but it seems hemp is quite amazing at sucking up radiation.

Granted, the government is probably dumbfounded at what to do with the Fukushima radiation headed our way, but the legalization of hemp just might balance some of the toxicity scientists expect.  Fortunately, California, one of the states that will be hardest hit, has already legalized industrial hemp, but it has to wait for the federal government to give states the right before they can actually grow it. The Farm Bill only allows ‘research’ growth at certain institutions in 10 states currently.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp. In light of Fukushima, let’s join our countries’ founders to grow it too. You can help clean the soil in your area if hemp or medical marijuana has been legalized in your state, and help it to pass in further states by being vocal with your state and federal representatives.

Source:

http://www.nationofchange.org/did-government-give-industrial-hemp-pass-clean-radiation-states-1392388637

Massive Fire at Monsanto Facility Likely Arson, Says Investigators


photo from Anti-Media

by John Vibes / The Anti-Media

Earlier this week, a Monsanto research facility in France was burned to the ground. Monsanto and investigators suspect an arsonist was responsible for the blaze.

Monsanto representative Jakob Witten told Reuters that investigators “strongly suspect it was a crime as no electrical or other sources were found.”He added that “No Monsanto sites in Europe have so far been the victim of fires of criminal origin, this is unprecedented violence.”

The fire had multiple points of origin, meaning it is unlikely the fire was caused by an electrical malfunction or other natural causes. Investigators also noticed a strong smell of gasoline in different areas of the site.

France announced in June that it was banning sales of Roundup, Monsanto’s flagship herbicide, amid public pressure and the World Health Organization’s announcement that the product is probably carcinogenic. Further, last month the country announced it was strengthening its ban on genetically modified crops. Monsanto is one of the most hated corporations on the planet and faces particularly strong resistance in France. If the fire is confirmed to have been arson, it is possible this vociferous opposition might have been a motivating factor.

Nevertheless, the recent fire is merely the tip of the iceberg with regard to Monsanto’s recent problems.

The company recently moved to close three different research facilities to save money in the face of declining profits. As Reuters reported last week, Monsanto research centers in Middleton, Wisconsin, Mystic, Connecticut, and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, will soon be closed to cut costs.

Last month, the infamous company announced it would be cutting 2,600 jobs — 12% of its workforce — in order to lower costs. Monsanto also announced a loss of 19 cents per share in the most recent quarter. Profits are expected to remain low throughout the year.

The Associated Press reported that Monsanto lost $156 million in the final quarter of last year alone, and this year is expected to be even worse.


This article (Arson Suspected in Massive Fire at Monsanto Research Facility) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under aCreative Commons license with attribution to John Vibes and theAntiMedia.org.Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org.

 

http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2015/10/30/massive-fire-at-monsanto-facility-likely-arson-says-investigators/

Worst News Ever? World Health Organization Says Steak “Probably” Causes Cancer ~ ZeroHedge


Tyler Durden's picture

Back in June, we highlighted the sobering and yet totally unsurprising fact that Americans are, at the risk of being crass, getting fatter all the time.

Researchers had just released a new report based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and the conclusions were not encouraging. Around 35 percent of men and 37 percent of women are obese, the researchers said, adding that another 40 percent of men and 30 percent of women are overweight. In all then, some 74% of men are at risk, a rather precipitous increase over the past several decades:

And while none of that is particularly surprising given the proliferation of processed food and ready availability of 84 ounce Big Gulps at the local 7 Eleven, what was shocking about the report is the following: “This generation of Americans is the first that will have a shorter life expectancy than the previous generation, and obesity is one of the biggest contributors to this shortened life expectancy because it is driving a lot of chronic health conditions.”

Of course Americans are used to their sedentary lifestyle and have become accustomed to gorging themselves at meal time and if persisting in such creature comforts means shaving a few years off their lifespans well, for most people that’s probably a reasonable trade off.

But while Americans may not be frightened of heart attacks, they’re still generally scared of cancer and so one way to get everyone to stop blowing themselves up like balloons might be to make people scared to eat. Cue the World Health Organisation (via Reuters):

Eating processed meat can lead to bowel cancer in humans while red meat is a likely cause of the disease, World Health Organisation (WHO) experts said on Monday in findings that could sharpen debate over the merits of a meat-based diet.

 

The France-based International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the WHO, put processed meat such as hot dogs and ham in its group 1 list, which already includes tobacco, asbestos and diesel fumes, for which there is “sufficient evidence” of cancer links.

 

“For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal (bowel) cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed,” Dr Kurt Straif of the IARC said in a statement.

 

Red meat, under which the IARC includes beef, lamb and pork, was classified as a “probable” carcinogen in its group 2A list that also contains glyphosate, the active ingredient in many weedkillers.

 

The lower classification for red meat reflected “limited evidence” that it causes cancer. The IARC found links mainly with bowel cancer, as was the case for processed meat, but it also observed associations with pancreatic and prostate cancer.

Got that? Steak is now in the same category as weedkiller (Monsanto execs are laughing somewhere).


Here’s more color from Bloomberg:

The red meat study is just the latest of many that WHO has conducted since the 1970s, when it set out to identify and catalogue suspected carcinogens. The organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has evaluated 984 agents, from chemicals to careers, that can be linked to cancer.

 

They fall into one of five classifications, according to the strength of the evidence: agents or activities that definitely, probably, or possibly cause cancer in humans; those that probably don’t cause cancer; and those for which the evidence is inconclusive.

 

It’s important to note that the agents at the top aren’t necessarily the most dangerous. They’re the ones with the clearest evidence of hazard. WHO seeks to identify carcinogens “even when risks are very low at the current exposure levels, because new uses or unforeseen exposures could engender risks that are significantly higher,” the agency says. In other words, even though WHO has determined that red meat is a carcinogen, the report doesn’t quantify how much meat it would take to cross into the danger zone.

 

Full infographic here

The question now, we suppose, is whether this will be used as an excuse for government to begin ever so gradually enacting a set of paternalistic regulations on red meat and Lunchables in an all too familiar attempt by lawmakers to save us from ourselves.

Guard your steaks.

Tampons, sterile cotton, sanitary pads contaminated with glyphosate – study


© Marcos Brindicci
The vast majority ‒ 85 percent ‒ of tampons, cotton and sanitary products tested in a new Argentinian study contained glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, ruled a likely carcinogen by the World Health Organization.

Meanwhile, 62 percent of the samples tested positive for AMPA, glyphosate’s metabolite, according to the study, which was conducted by researchers at the Socio-Environmental Interaction Space (EMISA) of the University of La Plata in Argentina.

All of the raw and sterile cotton gauze analyzed in the study showed evidence of glyphosate, said Dr. Damian Marino, the study’s head researcher.

“Eighty-five percent of all samples tested positive for glyphosate and 62 percent for AMPA, which is the environmental metabolite, but in the case of cotton and sterile cotton gauze the figure was 100 percent,” Marino told Télam news agency. An English translation of the Télam report can be found here. The products tested were acquired at local stores in Argentina.

“In terms of concentrations, what we saw is that in raw cotton AMPA dominates (39 parts per billion, or PPB, and 13 PPB of glyphosate), while the gauze is absent of AMPA, but contained glyphosate at 17 PPB.”

The results of the study were first announced to the public last week at the 3rd National Congress of Doctors for Fumigated Communities in Buenos Aires.

“The result of this research is very serious, when you use cotton or gauze to heal wounds or for personal hygiene uses, thinking they are sterilized products, and the results show that they are contaminated with a probably carcinogenic substance,” said Dr. Medardo Avila Vazquez, president of the congress.

“Most of the cotton production in the country is GM [genetically modified] cotton that is resistant to glyphosate. It is sprayed when the bud is open and the glyphosate is condensed and goes straight into the product,” Avila continued.

Marino said the original purpose of his research was not to test products for glyphosate, but to see how far the chemical can spread when aircraft sprayed an area, such as cropland.

“There is a basic premise in research that when we complete testing on out target we have to contrast it with something ‘clean,’ so we selected sterile gauze for medical use, found in pharmacies,” he said.

READ MORE: Long exposure to tiny amounts of Monsanto’s Roundup may damage liver, kidneys – study

“So we went and bought sterile gauze, opened the packages, analyzed and there was the huge surprise: We found glyphosate! Our first thought was that we had done something wrong, so we threw it all away and bought new gauze, analyzed them and again found glyphosate.”

Argentina has had a tampon shortage in recent years based on the country’s policies concerning imports and foreign currency, according to reports in January. Most of the nation’s tampon imports come from Brazil, Miguel Ponce, head of the Chamber of Importers, told AP. Those tampons include American brands, such as OB and Kotex.

In 2014, 96 percent of cotton produced in the United States was genetically modified, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

Transnational agrochemical giant Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, of which glyphosate is the main ingredient, is sprayed over genetically modified crops ‒ which Monsanto also produces ‒ that are engineered to be resistant to the powerful chemical. Used the world over, glyphosate, which Monsanto first developed in 1974, is a broad-spectrum herbicide used to kill weeds, especially annual broadleaf weeds and grasses known to compete with commercial crops. GMO seeds have caused use of glyphosate to increase immensely since the 1990s, according to US Geological Survey data.

In March, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen,” as opposed to its previous designation, a “possible carcinogen.”

In the US, the herbicide has been considered safe since 2013, when Monsanto received approval from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for increased tolerance levels for glyphosate. In its original assessment, the federal regulator said glyphosate could be “used without unreasonable risks to people or the environment.”

Scientific studies have linked the chemicals in Monsanto’s biocides to Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, autism and cancer. Furthermore, as the most powerful multinational biotech corporation today, Monsanto has drawn the ire of farmers and consumers for its firm grip on the global food chain. The company’s control and advancement of GMO seeds is of prime concern, as they symbolize the company’s consolidation of agricultural processes.

The effects of biochemicals on wildlife, including pollinators such as honeybees and monarch butterflies, are also a point of concern. For instance, since 1990, about 970 million of the butterflies – 90 percent of the total population – have vanished across the United States, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. At least part of the blame rests on the boom in Roundup use. The herbicide is marketed to farmers and homeowners as an effective method for eliminating plants like milkweed, so it’s widely blamed for decimating the butterflies’ only source of food in the Midwest.

Two-thirds of European Union nations have requested allowance to ban GMO crops, pursuant to European Commission rules.

https://www.rt.com/usa/319524-tampons-cotton-glyphosate-monsanto/

Cancer Death Rates Now Doubled In Argentina’s GMO Agribusiness Areas


Americans Lining up to SUE MONSATANO ~ “MASS TORT” Rising


GMO Free USA's photo.
GMO Free USA with Elke Colangelo

Americans Lining Up to Sue Monsanto: Personal injury law firms around the U.S. are lining up plaintiffs for what they say could be “mass tort” actions against Monsanto due to Roundup herbicide caused cancers. Meanwhile, at least 700 lawsuits against Monsanto or Monsanto-related entities are pending, brought by law firms on behalf of people who claim their non-Hodgkin lymphoma was caused by exposure to PCBs. “We can prove that Monsanto knew about the dangers of glyphosate,” said Michael McDivitt, whose Colorado-based law firm is putting together cases for 50 individuals. “There are a lot of studies showing glyphosate causes these cancers.” We need to sue Monsanto out of existence, and then lock up their executives for crimes against humanity.

37 Million Bees Found Dead In Ontario, Canada After Planting Large GMO Corn Field


http://worldtruth.tv/37-million-bees-found-dead-in-ontario-canada-after-planting-large-gmo-corn-field/

BULGARIA-ENVIRONMENT-PESTICIDE-BEES-DEMO

Millions of bees dropped dead after GMO corn was planted few weeks ago in Ontario, Canada. The local bee keeper, Dave Schuit who produces honey in Elmwood lost about 37 million bees which are about 600 hives.

“Once the corn started to get planted our bees died by the millions,” Schuit said. While many bee keepers blame neonicotinoids, or “neonics.” for colony collapse of bees and many countries in EU have banned neonicotinoid class of pesticides, the US Department of Agriculture fails to ban insecticides known as neonicotinoids, manufactured by Bayer CropScience Inc.

Two of Bayer’s best-selling pesticides, Imidacloprid and Clothianidin, are known to get into pollen and nectar, and can damage beneficial insects such as bees. The marketing of these drugs also coincided with the occurrence of large-scale bee deaths in many European countries and the United States.

 Nathan Carey another local farmer says that this spring he noticed that there were not enough bees on his farm and he believes that there is a strong correlation between the disappearance of bees and insecticide use.

In the past, many scientists have struggled to find the exact cause of the massive die-offs, a phenomenon they refer to as “colony collapse disorder” (CCD). In the United States, for seven consecutive years, honeybees are in terminal decline.

US scientists have found 121 different pesticides in samples of bees, wax and pollen, lending credence to the notion that pesticides are a key problem. “We believe that some subtle interactions between nutrition, pesticide exposure and other stressors are converging to kill colonies,” said Jeffery Pettis, of the ARS’s bee research laboratory.

 The collapse in the global honeybee population is a major threat to crops. It is estimated that a third of everything we eat depends upon honeybee pollination, which means that bees contribute over 30 billion to the global economy.

A new study published in the Journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences revealed that neonicotinoid pesticides kill honeybees by damaging their immune system and making them unable to fight diseases and bacteria.

After reporting large losses of bees after exposure to Imidacloprid, banned it for use on corn and sunflowers, despite protests by Bayer. In another smart move, France also rejected Bayer’s application for Clothianidin, and other countries, such as Italy, have banned certain neonicotinoids as well.

After record-breaking honeybee deaths in the UK, the European Union has banned multiple pesticides, including neonicotinoid pesticides.

Disclaimer: All information, data and material contained, presented, or provided on WorldTruth.Tv is for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed or intended as providing medical or legal advice. Decisions you make about your family’s healthcare are important and should be made in consultation with a competent medical professional. We are not physicians and do not claim to be. Any views expressed here-in are not necessarily those held by WorldTruth.Tv

Joseph P Farrell – THE GMO SCRAPBOOK: AUSTRALIAN HIGH COURT STRIKES …


Another nice find, courtesy of Keri at https://followingworldchange.wordpress.com/

http://gizadeathstar.com/2015/10/the-gmo-scrapbook-australian-high-court-strikes-down-patents-on-genes/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GizaDeathStar+%28Giza+Death+Star%29

 THE GMO SCRAPBOOK: AUSTRALIAN HIGH COURT STRIKES ...
If you’ve been following the whole story of genetic engineering and patent law, particularly with reference to the uses, and abuses, thereof by the GMO “agribusiness sector,” then there has been a stunning development from Australia, as indicated in this article shared by many of you:Gene patents probably dead worldwide following Australian court decision

The significant passages for our high octane speculations of the day are these:

The court based its reasoning (PDF) on the fact that, although an isolated gene such as BRCA1 was “a product of human action, it was the existence of the information stored in the relevant sequences that was an essential element of the invention as claimed.” Since the information stored in the DNA as a sequence of nucleotides was a product of nature, it did not require human action to bring it into existence, and therefore could not be patented.

Although that seems a sensible ruling, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry has been fighting against this self-evident logic for years. The view that genes could be patented suffered a major defeat in 2013, when the US Supreme Court struck down Myriad Genetics’ patents on the genes BRCA1 and the similar BRCA2. The industry was hoping that a win in Australia could keep alive the idea that genes could be owned by a company in the form of a patent monopoly. The victory by D’Arcy now makes it highly likely that other judges around the world will take the view that genes cannot be patented.

This is a result that will have major practical consequences, and is likely to save thousands of lives. In the past, holders of gene patents were able to stop other companies from offering tests based on them, for example to detect the presence of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that were linked with a greater risk of breast and ovarian cancers. This patent monopoly allowed companies like Myriad to charge $3,000 (£2,000) or more for their own tests, potentially placing them out of the reach of those unable to afford this cost, some of whom might then go on to develop cancer because they were not aware of their higher susceptibility, and thus unable to take action to minimise their risks.

There are two obvious implications here from this ruling in Australia, which follows similar US Supreme Court rulings. The most obvious of these is that some of the genetic modifications of crops might also be subject to similar strictures, should cases be brought to the courts, and in the case of GMOs, corporations will now have to spend the money to litigate that specific modifications are exceptions to such guidelines and rulings. This will raise the cost of their products, introducing yet another element of cost-non-effectiveness into the rising body of evidence that GMOs, over time, are not cost effective, as nature adapts to human modifications faster than they can be made. Or to put it “country simple,” the rulings are major looming problems for the whole GMO enterprise over the long term. Court “findings” will now have to be made over a whole range of GMO patents. And this will take time, and money, and lots of it, since such findings will have to be filed for and fees paid, on a country-by-country basis: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the USA, Brazil, Argentina, France, … well, you get the idea. Anywhere where GMOs have been introduced, the right to charge licensing fees will have to be contested and won. Expect IG Farbensanto, Syncrudda, DuPonzanto and other GMO-agrubusiness companies to fight this tooth and nail, and with their customary meanness.

A more subtle implication, however, is how this ruling might transform the realm of genetic therapies and medicine as a whole, for the entire profit motive for the development of such therapies has been undercut. They may, or may not, turn out to be a bad thing, since the development of such therapies might perforce have to move into the public, i.e., the state sector. For fans and advocates of various forms of socialized medicine or national healthcare, this could be a boon. For those who don’t trust the Empire any further than they can toss it, it might be the reverse. Time will tell.

In any case, however, the rulings would appear to have sweeping implications for the whole host of bureaucratic and regulatory policies that have been emplaced surrounding GMOs, based as they have been on the assumption of the patentability of genetic modifications.

See you on the flip side…

joseph-p-farrell-2010-3
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,778 other followers

%d bloggers like this: