GMO Makers, Their Puppets in Academia, and The New York Times
Monsanto et al Mislead Public Using Every Trick in the Book
November 2, 2015 | Jonathan Latham
GMO scarecrow in cornfield. Photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from Gareth Williams / Flickr, David Prasad / Flickr
With a debate raging over whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe, it seems reasonable that people would look toward the media, academia and scientists for answers. But major biotech companies like Monsanto, Bayer and Dow know this, too, and seem to be engaged in an effort to rig the results.
GMOs are produced by recombinant DNA technology. How it works sounds like science fiction, or something out of a horror movie. Imagine: Genes from an insecticide are inserted into the genome of the corn plant, thus producing a crop that resists insects. The insecticide is made from the protein of a bacteria closely related to anthrax, and it works by making the guts of the insect explode.
Critics, such as the Center for Food Safety, say that GMOs are insufficiently tested and may be dangerous. There are high-profile campaigns in three Western states to label GMOs as such, so that consumers can know what they are buying and eating. At the same time, food businesses have been scrambling to ban, or remove, the warning labels.
Are GMOs dangerous? For answers to such questions, we normally turn to reputable scientists associated with reputable universities. Surely we can trust them to give us objective information. Or can we? It turns out that biotech heavyweights like Monsanto, Bayer et al have been paying reputable people from reputable institutions to swing the debate in their favor.
A treasure trove of emails — obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by a US non-profit and acquired by The New York Times — reveals that academia is infested with professors who are paid to vigorously promote GMOs on behalf of the biotech industry, which also includes trade associations such as CropLife America.
And some academics have even sabotaged the efforts of others to publish facts that contradict the claims of these professorial shills for GMOs.
But to learn how deep the problem goes, you would need to find the links to those emails, and dig through layer upon layer of them.
Of course, if you don’t have time for that, you always can rely on The New York Times to give you the low-down on Big Food’s propaganda efforts. Or can you? The Times — whose motto is “All The News That’s Fit to Print” — has published a curiously tame and seriously incomplete version of what is buried in those emails.
“Fit to Print”
On September 6, The New York Times website ran “Food Industry Enlisted Academics in GMO Lobbying War, Emails Show”, by Eric Lipton. The print edition featured a further watered-down headline: “Emails Reveal Academic Ties in a Food War.” The emails themselves are presented only in the electronic version of the paper in a sidebar.”
At first sight, the Lipton article is impressive. He exposes a number of individuals from various institutions, but focuses mainly on Kevin Folta — Chair of the Department of Horticulture at the University of Florida.
Folta secretly took expenses, and $25,000 of unrestricted money, from Monsanto to promote GMO crops. And Lipton reports a damning quote showing Folta’s close relationship with Monsanto, something he had previously denied:
“I am grateful for this opportunity and promise a solid return on the investment,” Folta wrote after receiving the $25,000 check.
Lipton also mentions Folta’s participation, with other academics, in a website run by the biotech industry, GMO Answers. A PR firm hired by the industry provided questions from the public, such as, “Do GMOs cause cancer?”
But, as Lipton reports, Ketchum, the PR firm, did more than provide the questions — it also provided answers which Folta used nearly verbatim.
No Scientific Misconduct?
In the scientific community, none of this was exactly news. The basic facts had already been revealed in a leading scientific journal, Nature, by Keith Kloor, who also had access to the emails.
It is odd that this was first reported by Kloor, a pro-biotech journalist who works for a pro-biotech publisher. Or perhaps not so odd, given that Kloor went on to state that the emails “do not suggest scientific misconduct or wrongdoing by Folta” — even after Folta was on record as denying he had received any biotech funding.
Not disclosing such funding is definitely considered scientific misconduct. So why did Kloor rush to exonerate him?
Was Kloor’s story a pre-emptive strike to defuse the issue of wider biotech corruption of academia? Was Lipton’s?
The damning emails originally came to light earlier this year, when a newly-formed activist group called US Right to Know (USRTK) set in motion Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests directed at 14 (now 43) prominent public-university scientists. These academics were suspected of working with (and being paid by) the biotech industry and/or its PR intermediaries. (The emails released via FOIA — reputedly totalling in the tens of thousands — are the source of Kloor’s and Lipton’s highly selective reporting.)
One might think that if these 43 scientists had nothing to hide, such a request would have generated little attention outside academia.
In fact, the FOIA requests from USRTK triggered a huge outcry in various quarters about the “harassment” of public scientists. This led to op-eds in the LA Times, the controversial removal of scientific blog posts defending USRTK, and much else besides.
What would a good PR company recommend to its clients in such a situation? Preempt the upcoming firestorm: Have various media outlets run ahead of USRTK to publish a version in which small-fry like Kevin Folta are the villains. This lets other, more prominent players, off the hook.
So, if that was the strategy of the food industry and its allies, what exactly were they trying to hide?
Not “Fit to Print”
Here are just a few examples of what you would never guess — from reading The New York Times — is going on.
• Gates Foundation Funds Cornell University Training of GMO Spokespersons
Heavily involved in this project are senior members of the university’s administration, such as Ronnie Coffman, Director of Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Science, and Sarah Evanega Davidson, now director of the Cornell Alliance for Science, who were funded (to the tune of $5.6 million) by the Gates Foundation.
The Alliance is a PR project and international training center created for the promotion of GMOs with various events, such as their “Ask Me Anything” panels held at universities around the country. This was an idea originally pitched by Kevin Folta to Monsanto over a year earlier. Among the speakers invited by the Alliance to Cornell in September were Tamar Haspel (The Washington Post) and Amy Harmon (The New York Times).
• A Dirty Trick to Destroy an Opponent
A group of pro-GMO scientists colluded with the editor of a prestigious journal in hatching a plot to destroy the credibility of Russian scientist and GMO critic, Irina Ermakova. Her discoveries on the harmful effects of feeding GM soy to rats had caused a great deal of concern to the biotech industry.
First, Andrew Marshall, the editor of the journal, Nature Biotechnology, invited her to answer a set of questions about her work, giving her the impression this would be ”her” article. She was even sent a dummy proof with her name on it. But what he actually published was something else: Her comments, followed by a critique by scientists with no expertise in her specialized field, who tore apart her work using self-serving logic.
They replaced most of her references with those chosen to bolster their own case — falsely creating the impression she had no data to support her claims and no agreement among other specialists. Ermakova was neither told of the critique nor offered a chance to answer it, which would have been standard.
The scientists involved: Bruce Chassy, Professor Emeritus, University of Illinois. (As reported by
The New York Times article referenced earlier, he was also heavily involved in an effort to persuade the Environmental Protection Agency to drop its proposal to tighten the regulation of pesticides used on insect-resistant seeds). Vivian Moses (Professor Emeritus, King’s College, UK), Val Giddings (Senior Fellow, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation) and Alan McHughen (Professor, University of California, Riverside).
• Monsanto’s Ventriloquism Through 3000 Non-Existent Scientists
Professor C.S. Prakash (Tuskegee University) is the convener of the influential listserv AgBioWorld — the all-important conduit for a petition signed by 3000 scientists calling for the retraction of a 2001 scientific paper showing GMO contamination of Mexican corn (Quist and Chapela 2001).
As detailed in an article called The Fake Persuaders, the scientists who initiated the petition, and made inaccurate and inflammatory statements about the authors, were not real people. However, their emails could be traced back to servers belonging to Monsanto or Bivings, a PR company that was working with Monsanto at the time.
• Monsanto Manipulates American Association for the Advancement of Science
Nina Fedoroff (Pennsylvania State University) is the most prominent of the scientists referenced in The New York Times story. She was the 2011–2012 President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. During her presidency, Fedoroff, who is also a contributor to the Times, used her position to coordinate and sign a letter on behalf of 60 prominent scientists. This letter — which was based on disinformation about the risks of biotechnology — was sent to the EPA as part of an effort to defeat the expansion of their regulatory powers over the biotech industry.
The real coordinator was Monsanto, but Fedoroff participated in phone conferences and email exchanges with them — and the prominent lobbyist Stanley Abramson — and she gets credit in the emails for “moving the ball far down the field.”
• Money from the Biotech Industry to University of Florida
Kevin Folta’s home base, the University of Florida, received over $10 million from Syngenta; over $10 million from DuPont; over $1 million from BASF, and over $1 million from Monsanto. What did they get in return?
Label GMO Foods, Label GMO Professors
Folta rarely acted alone. Emails reveal that his networks are filled with economists, molecular biologists, plant pathologists, development specialists, and agronomists. Their role was to repel legislative, media, and scientific threats to the GMO and pesticide industries — all the while keeping their industry links hidden.
As one of them wrote, “We are all bad-ass shills for the truth. It’s a pleasure shilling with you.” Or, as Folta himself put it: “I’m glad to sign on to whatever you like, or write whatever you like.”
In view of all of the above, it does not seem unreasonable to want GMO foods to be labeled as such. And perhaps the academics who speak for them should also be labeled.
SHOCK The Fall of Monsanto & GMO MAM Protest Millions March WorldWide Video Peaceful Protestors
How to get rid of Trolls on Youtube
RIGHT CLICK TO DOWNLOAD REPORT
GMOs will unleash global killer ‘ecocide’ across the planet, warns prominent scientist
Posted on March 14, 2014
A top scientist and “risk engineering” expert is now publicly warning that GMOs pose a dire, genuine threat to the continuation of life on Earth. Nassim Taleb, author of The Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness, says that GMOs have the potential to cause “an irreversible termination of life at some scale, which could be the planet.”
His full explanation is presented in this public paper which describes how even a small risk per crop species can still result in global ecocide if pursued with abandon. As Taleb explains, “The risk of ruin is not sustainable, like a resource that gets
depleted in the long term (even in the short term). By the ruin theorems, if you incur a tiny probability of ruin, as a “one-off” risk, survive it, then repeat the exposure, you will eventually
go bust with probability 1.” (Where “probability 1? means a 100% chance.)
Rational thinking automatically leads to skepticism of GMO safety
This sober, scientific conclusion is of course entirely rational and founded in clear thinking. Self-deluded GMO zealots and paid Monsanto trolls predictably try to gloss over these risks in their quest for profits and power, but that does not mean such risks do not exist.
In fact, as Taleb convincingly argues, genetically engineered crops are specifically designed to have a survival advantage over conventional crops, allowing them to better resist droughts or infestations of pests or weeds. This survival advantage — if it’s as real as seed manipulators claim — means genetically engineered plants can out-compete non-GMO crops in open fields. The genetic pollution which is already underway across North America will only get worse, therefore, and there’s no reversing it because all living systems — even genetically engineered ones — have a natural drive to spread, multiply and survive.
The result is that GMO crops will out-compete and thereby displace non-GMO crops over time. Why does this matter? Because the rise of GMOs is nearly synonymous with the collapse of genetic diversity in seeds and food crops. You don’t have to go back very far in history to find examples of mono-cultured food crops failing due to lack of genetic diversity, either:
– The Irish Potato Famine of 1845-1852 was caused by over-reliance on a genetically narrow food crop. Shockingly, one-third of the Irish population relied on a single crop, and when potato blight (a fungal microorganism) successfully attacked the crop, over one million people died from starvation.
– The current crisis in world banana production is caused because nearly all commercial banana trees are genetically identical clones.
– The near-collapse of Florida citrus due to disease is also caused by a striking lack of genetic diversity across citrus orchards.
A loss of genetic diversity is a pathway to global disease and starvation
Any legitimate scientist in the fields of anthropology, genetics or agriculture will warn you that low genetic diversity is the first step toward crisis and collapse of any given population. When genetic diversity is lost, the entire species becomes vulnerable to being wiped out by epidemic disease.
This principle is irrefutable and widely recognized as truth among nearly all scientifically-literate thinkers… except those pushing GMOs, of course. Those denialists selectively edit “scientific truth” to exclude any concerns that might question the wisdom of displacing the world’s treasure of seed diversity with corporate-patented seeds. The Precautionary Principle is gladly thrown out the window when corporate profits are to be realized from doing so.
Transgenic GMOs could cause catastrophic ecocide
Beyond the loss of genetic diversity, Taleb is also concerned about the possibility of catastrophic transgenic effects which could somehow weaken the world’s food crops in ways human scientists never intended or anticipated. Murphy’s Law — which states that if something can go wrong, it will — is widely recognized as a frustrating truth across physics, medicine, computer science and space exploration. Yet it is magically and irrationally declared null and void only for GMOs, where the roll of the dice quite literally threatens the sustainability of future life on our planet.
As Taleb explains, even if the chance of any single genetically engineered crop going wild and unleashing global crop failures is very small, the fact that companies like Monsanto and DuPont seek to dominate the global seed supply by perpetually releasing more and more genetically engineered crops means that sooner or later, a genetic catastrophe is all but inevitable.
If you play Russian Roulette every weekend, in other words, and there really is a live round in one of the gun’s chambers, sooner or later you are bound to blow your brains out. This is true even if the revolver has 1000 chambers (with 999 of them empty) so that the odds of losing seem incredibly small each time you play. (Interestingly, Taleb uses this exact same illustration in his paper…)
As Taleb also explains in his paper, the cost of losing is so great that even tiny odds of failure may not be acceptable. After all, we’re talking about the entire future of life on our planet.
GMOs may unleash mass global crop failures followed by starvation and disease
I warned about precisely this issue two years ago in my “Murdered by Science” series of articles which discussed how careless applications of science are putting the very existence of the human race at risk. (And for the record, I am not anti-science. I am 100% pro-science when the Precautionary Principle is honored.)
Those articles, widely derided by prostitute scientists paid by corporations to troll the web and attack reason, are in fact even more urgent to read today, in 2014. In those articles, I pointed out that GMOs are in the most extreme class of pollutants because they are self-replicating. While chemical spills can eventually be cleaned up, and even heavy metals can be remediated over time, genetically engineered DNA that escapes into the wild can never be put back into a box.
Self-replicating pollution is the worst class of pollution, far exceeding even the risk of nuclear accidents wiping out humankind. “As humans, we are ill equipped to understand the mathematics behind such risks,” writes Taleb. And he’s correct: human brains are not hard-wired to fully grasp the long-term implications of self-replicating pollution. In the same way, most people are utterly incapable of accurately imagining the long-term outcomes of compounded interest – a phenomenon which eerily reflects the spread of self-replicating pollution.
How dishonest science fools the uneducated masses
Because humans are not hard-wired to grasp the long-term risks of self-replicating pollution (as posed by genetically engineered crops), it is all too easy for paid prostitute-scientists to pull the wool over the eyes of the public and falsely claim GMOs present no risks whatsoever. This is why every single scientist who is currently promoting GMOs is, in fact, a threat to the continuation of human life on our planet. By deceiving the public and glossing over the very real threats to life posed by GMOs, they directly contribute to the spread of GMO genetic pollution which may end in genuine catastrophe and massive loss of life.
Imagine the global collapse of all GM corn crops. Or imagine the collapse of global soy production. Every crop which is GMO has some risk of being wiped out in a catastrophic manner caused by the un-natural manipulation of the crop’s genetic code.
The history of scientific advancement, of course, is rife with huge failures to foresee unintended consequences. Perhaps the most important example of that is found in the current rise of superbugs across modern hospitals. Utterly unforeseen by the world’s top scientists and pharmacological researchers, superbugs have now risen to such prominence in our health care system that even the CDC has warned that the age of antibiotics is over.
Superbugs, in fact, were a product of antibiotics. As drug companies churned out the drugs to “beat disease” — and doctors prescribed those drugs to hundreds of millions of patients worldwide — the perfect environment was created for the nurture and spread of antibiotic-resistant superbugs, many of which are fatal to patients.
I personally knew three people who were killed in U.S. hospitals by superbug infections. Superbugs are the new death pandemic in America, and they are currently killing 48,000 Americans each year. They were unleashed by scientists who had no intention of causing death and destruction. Rather, those scientists working on antibiotics genuinely believed they were saving lives with no downside.
At first, it all seemed true — antibiotics inarguably saved many lives early on. But now, antibiotics are in fact the reason why deadly superbugs have escaped the reach of modern medicine and genuinely threaten the human race with incurable infections.
Scientists are not immune to making catastrophic mistakes that cause massive death
The superbugs lesson desperately needs to be understood by the self-deluded prostitute-scientists currently pushing GMOs. Importantly, they need to swallow their arrogance for just long enough to understand that your INTENTION does not control the long-term effects of your ACTIONS.
Just because you wish for GMOs to “feed the world” does not mean they will. In fact, positive intentions can and do frequently blind scientists to the downsides of their own innovations. In example after example, scientists who believed they were pursuing technology for the betterment of humankind ended up inadvertently contributing to mass death and destruction.
The Manhattan Project, anyone?
But at least the dropping of atomic bombs on civilian populations in Japan was a catastrophe that could be contained. The damage, although immense, was limited and could not mysteriously multiply itself over time. GMOs, on the other hand, are like seeds of mass destruction because they can replicate, spread and conquer.
So controlling them may not be possible once they are unleashed. And they have already been unleashed. Genetic pollution is now widespread across our agricultural landscape, and the vast majority of organic farms in the USA have experienced some level of contamination from genetically engineered crops.
Why so few people are capable of rationally discussing the ecological risks of GMOs
In a very real sense, most human beings are cognitively incapable of participating in any rational discussion of these issues. This includes most scientists, by the way, who are themselves just as vulnerable to peer influences and false mythologies as anyone else. In the name of “science,” far too many scientists today merely embarrass themselves by pushing obscenely silly arguments in defense of GMOs, claiming utterly stupid things like, “humans have tinkered with the genetic code of plants for thousands of years. Genetic engineering is no different.”
Although this is the most frequently-invoked argument by GMO denialists, it is blatantly idiotic and grossly deceptive from the start. Selective breeding of various phenotypes within the genetic pool of a given species in no way equates to cross-species DNA manipulation which combines insect or soil genes with plant genes. Any person who even attempts to equate these two concepts does nothing more than affix a giant “DUNCE” sticker to their own foreheads. (And yes, numerous scientists invoke this silly argument every single day, across the mainstream media.)
Taleb also addresses this same issue head-on in his public paper, explaining:
Top-down modifications to the system (through GMOs) are categorically and statistically different from bottom up ones (regular farming, progressive tinkering with crops, etc.) There is no comparison between the tinkering of selective breeding and the top-down engineering of taking a gene from an organism and putting it into another. Saying that such a product is natural misses the statistical process by which things become “natural.”
The abandonment of caution in the quest for profits
The next idiotic argument put forth by desperate prostitute-scientists is that GMOs aren’t dangerous because there’s no evidence they are dangerous. As stupid as this sounds, it is also the faith-based argument of the chemical industry which insists “all chemicals are safe until such time as they are proven dangerous.”
If this bass-awkwards logic sounds familiar, it’s because it is also invoked by the processed food industry in claiming that all food additives, preservatives and chemicals are inherently safe unless and until they are proven dangerous.
What all this non-logic has in common is an illogical presumption of safety. This has always been the argument of the mass poisoners of our world. Regardless of the poison being discussed — BPA, mercury fillings, pesticide chemicals, DDT, toxic heavy metals, triclosan, MSG and more — its corporate backers have consistently and predictably hired swaths of prostitute-scientists to declare the substance to be “safe until proven otherwise.”
The tragic lesson of lead arsenate pesticides
This presumption of safety sooner or later ends very badly. For over a hundred years, the heavy metals pesticide lead arsenate was “presumed safe.” Made primarily of lead and arsenic, it was indeed very effective at killing pests that threatened food crops. So farmers across North America and around the world sprayed it on their food crops, producing amazing quantities of food… at first, anyway.
Before long, the lead and arsenic bio-accumulated in agricultural soils, poisoning the trees that produced the food as well as the customers who ate it. To this day, soils across the world remain heavily poisoned by these deadly heavy metals, which is one of the reasons why so many superfood products sold today contain such high levels of heavy metals (see the Natural News Forensic Food Lab results for examples).
Lead arsenate — just like GMOs — was “presumed safe” because it didn’t cause immediate death to anyone. According to corporate-sponsored prostitute-scientists, anything that doesn’t kill you within seconds is automatically presumed to be safe. All long-term implications of the chemical or technology are willfully swept under the rug and ignored. Corporations lean on government regulators until the cover-up becomes policy. At that point, both government and industry become active collaborators in the mass poisoning of the human race.
And that’s the whole point of my breakthrough article, The Battle For Humanity is Nearly Lost which covers this collusion in more detail.
In conclusion: No self-replicating technology can be presumed safe if we hope to survive
I am of the opinion, by the way, that human civilization will not survive the next 100 years. Our species is too shortsighted, too driven by greed and too easily manipulated to survive its own corporate-led destruction. The quest for short-term profits blinds nearly everyone to long-term implications. The fact that the masses are already heavily poisoned by this very process makes it nearly impossible for the public consciousness to achieve sufficient lucidity to halt the quickening pace of self-destruction.
So in one sense, I only write this out of a fondness for galactic amusement, not out of any real hope that humanity can save itself from destruction via heavy metals, synthetic chemicals, pharmaceuticals and GMOs. But on the off chance that I am wrong in my prediction of humanity’s demise, if we are to survive as a species, such survival will necessitate the global embracing of the Precautionary Principle across all realms of science and technology.
Because even if we halt Monsanto and agree to have all the criminal biotechnology scientists halted from committing ecocide, we are all very likely going to be overrun by artificial intelligence before the year 2050, regardless of what else happens in agriculture or synthetic chemicals. Just as with GMOs, today’s most brilliant computer scientists are wholly incapable of understanding the long-term implications of the race for conscious machines and advanced AI tech. The result will almost certainly be that humans will invent the technologies that destroy humanity, and we will all go down in history as the race of sentient beings who were smart enough to invent amazing technologies but too stupid to restrain them.
Originally posted on:
Scroll down for many articles, documents, documentaries and more.
Also see. https://atruthsoldier.wordpress.com/category/50-harmful-effects-of-genetically-modified-gm-foods/
Monsanto Bate Fish Song
See full post here. http://canadiansituations.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/march-against-monsanto-halifax-nova-scotia/
Bionics, Transhumanism, and the end of Evolution (Full Documentary)
Published on Feb 26, 2015
Documentary 2014 bbc documentary,bbc,national geographic,documentary,national geographic documentary,Str.
Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international cultural and intellectual movement with an eventual goal of fundamentally transforming the human .
Bionics, Transhumanism, and the end of Evolution Full Documentary 360p Documentaries Full Length 2014, National Geographic Documentary , Documentary History .
Full Documentary | Bionics, Transhumanism, and the end of Evolution Discovery & Documentary documentary national geographic history channel full documentary . Bionics, Transhumanism,.
WTF! Bill Gates Depopulation Plans Caught On Camera MONSANTO, FOOD RIOTS, EUGENICS
Published on Jun 18, 2013
Bill Gates on people that “have no benefit whatsoever”. The troubling history of Bill Gates Sr “one of the grandfathers of eugenics still going strong today” in the US. ABC reports tens of thousands of women across the States from 1929 to 1974 forcibly sterilized. The Times notes Gates Jr has held a secret billionaire summit with Michael Bloomberg and George Soros to “curb overpopulation”.
Why is Gates buying millions of dollars in shares of Monsanto and funding sterilization programs, Monsanto’s response to our interview request, and what happens to scientists who cross the genetically modified cyclops.
Seek truth from facts with investigative reporter Anthony Gucciardi, How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis author Frederick Kaufman, Genetic Roulette director Jeffrey Smith, and chairman of Nestle Peter Brabeck-Letmathe.
Bill Gates on people that “have no benefit whatsoever”. The troubling history of Bill Gates Sr “one of the grandfathers of eugenics still going strong today” in the US. ABC reports tens of thousands of women across the States from 1929 to 1974 forcibly sterilized. The Times notes Gates Jr has held a secret billionaire summit with Michael Bloomberg and George Soros to “curb overpopulation”.
Why is Gates buying millions of dollars in shares of Monsanto and funding sterilization programs, Monsanto’s response to our interview request, and what happens to scientists who cross the genetically modified cyclops.
Seek truth from facts with investigative reporter Anthony Gucciardi, How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis author Frederick Kaufman, Genetic Roulette director Jeffrey Smith, and chairman of Nestle Peter Brabeck-Letmathe.
Be sure to check out these posts with much more information. Monsanto Protests in Halifax N.S.
October 2013 Breaking News Labs Mixing Human DNA Animal DNA 1 of 5 – Last days news prophecy
Published on Jan 12, 2013
2014 Breaking News What do U know about Transhumans – Last days final hour news prophecy
2014 Breaking News What do U know about Transhumans? Animal Animal Hybrid human animal Genetic Hybrid Engineering? 2 of 5 Last days final hour news prophecy update
1 of 5
3 of 5
4 of 5
5 of 5
Breaking News Hybrid human animal Genetic Hybrid Engineering
Genetic engineering human-animal genetic hybrid
National Geographic article to describe an experiment in 2003, during which Chinese scientists at the Shanghai Second Medical University successfully fused human cells with rabbit eggs
animal-human mixtures schb.org.uk
2013 BREAKING NEWS WARNING TO HUMAN RACE human-animal genetic hybrid or chimera Human dog thousands of labs worldwide with animal human experiments this is sick and funded by the world Governments.
The UN is now and in preparation through 2025 worldwide. Gods Judgement will happen World war 3.
We are in the end times last days the medical field is playing god DANGEREOUS times we are living.
Part Human part animal genetic hybrids A parahuman is a human-animal Genetic engineering hybrid or chimera hybrid.
For Years Scientists have done extensive research into the mixing of genes or cells from different species, e.g. adding human (and other animal) genes to bacteria and farm animals to mass-produce insulin and spider silk proteins, and introducing human cells into mouse embryos.
Para humans have been referred to as “human-animal hybrids” in a vernacular sense that also encompasses human-animal chimeras. The term parahuman is not used in scientific publications.
The term is sometimes used to sensationalize research that involves mixing biological materials from humans and other species.
According to Daily Mail, as of 2011, more than 150 human-animal hybrid embryos were created in British laboratories since the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CREATION OF ANIMAL-HUMAN MIXTURES: 5. Animal-Human Transgenesis 6. Animal-Human Gestation 6.1. Placing a human embryo into an animal 6.2. Placing human sperm into an animal
6.3. Placing an animal embryo into a human 6.4. Placing animal sperm into a woman
7. Animal-Human Hybrid Embryos 7.1. Embryo containing cells made up of both human and animal chromosomes 7.1.1. Non-human eggs into which human nuclei are inserted
Frog-Human Hybrid Entities 7.1.2. Animal-Human chromosome transplant Mouse-Human Hybrids 7.2. Non-human eggs stripped of their chromosomes into which human nuclei are inserted Gametal Cow-Human Hybrid Embryos Gametal Rabbit-Human Hybrid Embryos 7.3. Mixing of Animal and Human Gametes Genetic Human-Hamster Hybrid Embryos 18/10/2010 Ethics of animal-human mixtures
schb.org.uk/…/report – animal-human … 2/22 8. Animal-Human Chimeras
8.1. Animal-Human Chimeras Created Through Xenotransplantation 8.2. Animal-Human Embryonic and Fetal Chimeras 8.2.1. Incorporation of Human Stem Cells into Post-natal Animals 8.2.2. Incorporation of (1) Human Stem Cells into Post-blastocyst Stages of Non-human Embryos or
(2) Non-human Stem Cells into Post-blatocyst stages of Human Embryos Genetic Human-Mouse Chimeric Fetuses Genetic Sheep-Human Chimeric Fetuses Genetic Monkey-Human Chimeric Fetuses
Genetic Pig-Human Chimeric Fetuses 8.2.3. Incorporation of (1) Human Pluripotent Stem Cells into a Non-Human Blastocyst or its Preliminary Embryonic Stages or
(2) Non-human Pluripotent Stem Cells into a Human Blastocyst or its Preliminary Embryonic Stages Genetic Human-Mouse Chimeric Embryos Glossary
References Nevertheless, mixtures between biological species are relatively rare in nature, and most such entities would be less ‘fit’ than their progenitors.
With respect to animal-human mixing, no evidence of any entities being born has ever been recorded but new developments in crossing the species barrier may no longer limit animal-human mixtures to the domain of mythology. Indeed, procedures have recently been developed by scientists which mix human and animal biological elements to such an extent that it questions the very concept of being entirely human.
For example, concern for animal-human mixtures was raised in 2001 by the UK Animal Procedures Committee which indicated in its Report on Biotechnology that though questions may exist as to the likely fate of such animal-human mixtures, there may be a deeper repugnance at the thought of their very existence. Indeed, The Regulation of New Biotechnologies and published in 2004, that the crossing of the animal-human boundary was, in some respects, quite complex and subtle but that the mixing of human and animal tissues and materials was not by itself objectionable.
In other words, in the context of therapy and preventive medicine, the President’s Council accepted that the transplantation of animal parts to replace defective human ones could be considered as ethical. Moreover, the Council had no overriding objection to the insertion of animal-derived genes or cells into a human body – or even into human fetuses.
Best Kept Secret!!! Human Animal Hybrids Exist Today! Scary
Human Animal Hybrids Exist! Animal human #hybrids, secret lab experiments, future technology, ancient codes; it’s all here! Have you ever noticed the eye and the pyramid on the #U.S. dollar bill? Tom Horn presents evidence that these are “codes” and symbols of high-level Freemasons, and their purpose is to evoke and welcome the coming of the #Anti-Christ.
A #parahuman or para-human is a #human-animal #hybrid or #chimera also known as cytoplasmic hybrids. Scientists have done extensive research into the mixing of genes or cells from different species, e.g. adding human (and other animal) genes to bacteria and farm animals to mass-produce insulin and spider silk proteins, and introducing human cells into mouse embryos.
#Transhumanism (abbreviated as #H+ or h+) is an international cultural and intellectual movement with an eventual goal of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. Transhumanist thinkers[who?] study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as the ethics of developing and using such technologies. The most common thesis put forward is that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label “posthuman”.
The contemporary meaning of the term transhumanism was foreshadowed by one of the first professors of futurology, FM-2030, who taught “new concepts of the #Human” at The #New School in the 1960s, when he began to identify people who adopt #technologies, lifestyles and #worldviews transitional to “posthumanity” as “#transhuman“. This hypothesis would lay the intellectual groundwork for the #British philosopher Max More to begin articulating the principles of transhumanism as a futurist philosophy in 1990, and organizing in #California an intelligentsia that has since grown into the worldwide transhumanist movement.
Influenced by seminal works of science fiction, the transhumanist vision of a #transformed future humanity has attracted many supporters and detractors from a wide range of perspectives. Transhumanism has been characterized by one critic, Francis Fukuyama, as among the world’s most dangerous ideas, to which Ronald Bailey countered that it is rather the “movement that epitomizes the most daring, courageous, imaginative, and idealistic aspirations of #humanity”
Through our It’s Supernatural TV show, #Messianic Vision radio show and ISN (the It’s Supernatural Network) we are committed to teaching you how you can do the same works Jesus did and even greater (John 14:12). Thanks to your support we are able to continue producing It’s #Supernatural!, Messianic Vision and ISN to mentor you and other believers around the worl
Secret Genetic Experiments Human-Animal Hybrids [Video Documentary] – Dulce Base is an alleged secret alien underground facility under Archuleta Mesa on the Colorado-New Mexico border near the town of Dulce, New Mexico in the United States. Claims of alien activity there first arose from Albuquerque businessman Paul Bennewitz.
Starting in 1979, Bennewitz became convinced he was intercepting electronic communications from alien spacecraft and installations outside of Albuquerque. By the 1980s he believed he had discovered an underground base near Dulce. The story spread rapidly within the UFO community and by 1990, UFOlogist John Lear claimed he had independent confirmations of the base’s existence.
Political scientist Michael Barkun writes that Cold War underground missile installations in the area gave superficial plausibility to the rumors, making the Dulce base story an “attractive legend” within UFOlogy. According to Barkun, claims about experiments on abductees and firefights between aliens and the Delta Force place the Dulce legend “well outside even the most far-fetched reports of secret underground bases.”
Secret Genetic Experiments Human-Animal Hybrids [Video Documentary]
Dulce Base was featured in an episode of the history Channel program UFO Hunters. The show’s investigators traveled to Dulce to conduct interviews and visit the Archuleta Mesa where the base is reportedly hidden. It was also featured in an episode of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura.
UFO Hunters is an American television series that premiered on January 30, 2008 on The History Channel, produced by Motion Picture Production Inc., and ran for three seasons.
Jon Alon Walz was the Executive Producer of the show and was responsible for selling the series to History Channel after a bidding war for the rights to the show broke out between History Channel and Sci-Fi Channel (now Syfy).
Secret Genetic Experiments Human-Animal Hybrids [Video Documentary]
The concept for the show was tested in a segment of History Channel’s 2006 UFO special entitled “Deep Sea UFOs”, produced by Motion Picture Production Inc, which featured two of the final four cast members. “UFO Hunters” was not a spin-off from a 2005 History Channel special with the same title.
The tagline of the show is: Hoax or History?
The series should not be confused with a similarly themed and titled UFO Hunters, a special that debuted the same day and time on the Sci-Fi Channel, (now SyFy), and created by the producers of Ghost Hunters, but which only aired one episode.
Bring Your Own Doc : TheTruth About Your Food with FOOD, INC. Filmmaker Robert Kenner
Published on Jul 17, 2012
Oscar-nominated director, Robert Kenner joins us to talk about the film and food industries and his film’s runaway success.
Showcasing clips from the movie, we go into the inspiration behind the production, as well as the process of shooting and how the film’s success has spring-boarded Robert into a new realm of being an activist.
Robert Kenner’s Food, Inc., is one of the top grossing theatrical documentaries of all time, selling nearly 500,000 DVDs. Food Inc. received widespread critical acclaim, including an Academy Award nomination, and has influenced current food policy decisions. An esteemed collaborator with PBS American Experience, he received a Peabody and an Emmy for Two Days in October, in addition to directing The Road To Memphis for the Martin Scorsese series, The Blues.
Mr. Kenner continues to work in film and social media action to transform the food system.
00:01 BYOD Introduction.
00:23 Food, Inc., Clip: “The Dollar Menu.”
02:46 Subsidizing food that makes us sick, and how cheap food is expensive.
04:49 Food, Inc., Clip: Medication bills and Diabetes.
06:35 Robert’s choices for shooting the family.
08:25 The effects of the film on the family and their community.
09:53 Finding the story as a filmmaker.
11:31 Concerns over taking on the food industry and being sued.
14:31 The national school lunch program–accepting all grades of “food.”
15:01 Describing “pink slime,” and the new chemical based food system.
18:15 Food, Inc., Clip: Barbara Kowalcyk.
23:13 Robert gives more information on the case of the Kowalcyks and food-born illness.
25:31 Keeping the film entertaining while exposing the lie.
27:19 Deciding which areas of the food industry to feature.
27:55 Food, Inc., Clip: Chicken farming.
31:16 Paying the cost for talking to Food, Inc, and a whole other species of chicken.
33:27 Upgrading farms into factory standards.
34:35 FixFood and going from filmmaker to activist.
38:19 Ten films inside one issue and being free from knowledge.
40:45 Fewer farmers than ever and the subsidized market.
43:11 Food, Inc., Clip: Farmer Joel and the debate for centralized oversight.
47:06 The new film industry about the food industry.
47:44 How did the film find an audience, DVD sales and support from Oprah.
50:26 The Daily Dig Down.
55:22 Parting words from Robert.
Trans-Humanism / Genetic Modification of all Life / Nano-Technology / HAARP / Geoengineering – Film
Published on Nov 24, 2012
OUTSTANDING VIDEO . . .
Genetic Modification of all Life!!! New Documentary Film
Enslavement of the human race
This is part of the Endgame but not all . . .MUST WATCH
The State of our World
‘Trans Formation’ By Max Igan
Trans-Humanism / Genetic Modification of all Life / Nano-Technology / HAARP / Geoengineering -Film
The latest film by Max Igan, one of the greatest humans to ever walk this planet. This man deserves his rightful place in the history books, right next to the greatest minds of all time.
Max Igan’s YouTube Channel:
http://thecrowhouse.com/home.html [Max Igan’s Website]
Electromagnitism and Chemtrails
Transhumanism is – http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?ww=6&w=transhumanism
Trans Humanism genetic modification of all life nano technology. HAARP nanotechnology nano transformation trans formation humanism is. Nanoparticles nanotech what is nanotechnology. Future technology transformation
Monsanto is the single most criminally insane dangerous Corporation on this planet.
The World According to Monsanto
Published on 6 Sep 2012
Hello my friends, be prepared for some challenging truths and be warned, our governments are being exposed for the puppet pretend democracies they are…. big BUSINESS calls the shots. People …. just in the way of their progress. We can change our fate, if we unify and use the only weapon feasible to beat the global elite ( major share holders in Monsanto) People Power. uploaded by Uploaded by eboyuk on May 18, 2011
There’s nothing they are leaving untouched: the mustard, the okra, the bringe oil, the rice, the cauliflower. Once they have established the norm: that seed can be owned as their property, royalties can be collected. We will depend on them for every seed we grow of every crop we grow.
If they control seed, they control food, they know it — it’s strategic. It’s more powerful than bombs. It’s more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world.
The story starts in the White House, where Monsanto often got its way by exerting disproportionate influence over policymakers via the “revolving door”.
One example is Michael Taylor, who worked for Monsanto as an attorney before being appointed as deputy commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1991. While at the FDA, the authority that deals with all US food approvals, Taylor made crucial decisions that led to the approval of GE foods and crops.
Then he returned to Monsanto, becoming the company’s vice president for public policy.
Thanks to these intimate links between Monsanto and government agencies, the US adopted GE foods and crops without proper testing, without consumer labeling and in spite of serious questions hanging over their safety. Not coincidentally, Monsanto supplies 90 percent of the GE seeds used by the US market.
Monsanto’s long arm stretched so far that, in the early nineties, the US Food and Drugs Agency even ignored warnings of their own scientists, who were cautioning that GE crops could cause negative health effects.
Other tactics the company uses to stifle concerns about their products include misleading advertising, bribery and concealing scientific evidence
Genetic Roulette: The Dangers of GMO
Published on May 11, 2013
Lee Ann Mcadoo Interviews Jeffrey M Smith on the Dangers of GMO. His documentaries shattere the biotech industry’s claim that genetically modified (GM) foods are safe.
In this new DVD he presents never before seen evidence that points to how genetically engineered foods are contributing to rising disease rates.
Get informed and protect you and your family from these very real dangers with this powerful and money saving special.http://www.infowarsshop.com/Genetic-R…
The Sick Story of GMO Genetically Engineered Food People As Lab Rats
Published on Jan 22, 2014
A genetically modified organism (GMO) is created in the lab using scientific methods to splice characteristics or traits of one plant on to the DNA of another plant in order to obtain a desired result (such as resistance to pests to produce higher yield crops).
While on the outside this may appear to be a potentially beneficial process for humans, the negatives associated with genetic engineering (GE) and genetic modification (GM) are quite substantial.
The Organic Consumer’s Association (OCA) has a summary of the major hazards of promoting genetically engineered crops and foods, and here are the highlights:
Toxins and poisons, causing disabilities, short and long-term health problems, and even death in some cases.
Increased cancer risk because of genetically engineered hormones given to feed animals.
Skyrocketing food allergies as a result of foreign proteins being spliced into the gene structures of our foods.
Reduced food quality and nutritional values.
Increased exposure to pesticide residues because of the agrochemicals being used on GE crops (contrary to GE propaganda which argues that these crops don’t need as many chemical treatments).
Genetic pollution as bees, birds, and insects pollute non-GMO crops with GM genetic matter, resulting in the potential loss of wild species of plants and insects.
Reduction in the populations of beneficial insects and soil fertility.
Contributions to the creation of superbugs and superweeds as well as new viruses and pathogens as these pests become immune to the herbicides and pesticides genetically built into GE crops.
Dismantling of small farm systems that support farming families.
Examples of genetically modified foods
There are only a few GM vegetables and fruits that are allowed to be distributed and/or grown in the US, yet because these are highly versatile foods, they can be found in a vast number of processed and prepared foods – everything from soda to potato chips to veggie burgers to pasta.
These are the genetically engineered crops allowed in the US food supply:
Corn (including canola and corn oils, high fructose corn syrup, etc)
Cotton (including cottonseed oil)
How to Avoid GMO food
Read the PLU labels. If the five digit PLU number starts with “8,” the food is either genetically modified or genetically engineered (not all GM foods can be identified because PLU labeling is optional).
If the five digit PLU number starts with “9,” it’s organic. Also, by watching for the absence of either the 8 or 9, which means the produce is neither organically grown or genetically modified, you can recognize traditionally grown produce.
Buy foods labeled “100% certified organic.” Laws in both the U.S. and Canada do not allow food labels that say “100% certified organic” to contain any genetically engineered food, including animals that have been fed genetically modified feed. Be aware, however, that if the food is simply labeled “organic” it can still contain genetically modified ingredients up to 30%.
Look for the labels “non-GM” or “GMO-free.” These can be hard to find, but if you are able to support manufacturers that produce foods that are not genetically engineered you encourage other manufacturers to follow their lead.
Buy whole, fresh foods rather than processed ones. Foods that you cook and prepare yourself are almost always healthier than anything you can buy ready-made.
Monsanto’s Dirty Dozen: The 12 Most Awful Products Made By Monsant
When you take a moment to reflect on the history of product development at Monsanto, what do you find? Here are twelve products that Monsanto has brought to market. See if you can spot the pattern…
#1 – Saccharin
Did you know Monsanto got started because of an artificial sweetener? John Francisco Queeny founded Monsanto Chemical Works in St. Louis, Missouri with the goal of producing saccharin for Coca-Cola. In stark contrast to its sweet beginnings, studies performed during the early 1970s,* including a study by the National Cancer Institute in 1980, showed that saccharin caused cancer in test rats and mice.
After mounting pressure from consumers, the Calorie Control Council, and manufacturers of artificial sweetenersand diet sodas, along with additional studies (several conducted by the sugar and sweetener industry) that reported flaws in the 1970s studies, saccharin was delisted from the NIH’s Carcinogen List.
A variety of letters from scientists advised against delisting; the official document includes the following wording to this day: “although it is impossible to absolutely conclude that it poses no threat to human health, sodium saccharin is not reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen under conditions of general usage as an artificial sweetener.” (*Read the Chemical Heritage Foundation’s History of Saccharin here.)
#2 – PCBs
During the early 1920s, Monsanto began expanding their chemical production into polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to produce coolant fluids for electrical transformers, capacitors, and electric motors. Fifty years later, toxicity tests began reporting serious health effects from PCBs in laboratory rats exposed to the chemical.
After another decade of studies, the truth could no longer be contained: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a report citing PCBs as the cause of cancer in animals, with additional evidence that they can cause cancer in humans. Additional peer-reviewed health studies showed a causal link between exposure to PCBs and non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, a frequently fatal form of cancer.
In 1979, the United States Congress recognized PCBs as a significant environmental toxin and persistent organic pollutant, and banned its production in the U.S. By then Monsanto already had manufacturing plants abroad, so they weren’t entirely stopped until the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants banned PCBs globally in 2001.
And that’s when Monsanto’s duplicity was uncovered: internal company memos from 1956 surfaced, proving that Monsanto had known about dangers of PCBs from early on.
In 2003, Monsanto paid out over $600 million to residents of Anniston, Alabama, who experienced severe health problems including liver disease, neurological disorders and cancer after being exposed to PCBs — more than double the payoff that was awarded in the case against Pacific Gas & Electric made famous by the movie “Erin Brockovich.”
And yet the damage persists: nearly 30 years after PCBs have been banned from the U.S., they are still showing up in the blood of pregnant women, as reported in a 2011 study by the University of California San Francisco.
#3 – Polystyrene
In 1941, Monsanto began focusing on plastics and synthetic polystyrene, which is still widely used in food packaging and ranked 5th in the EPA’s 1980s listing of chemicals whose production generates the most total hazardous waste.
#4 – Atom bomb and nuclear weapons
Shortly after acquiring Thomas and Hochwalt Laboratories, Monsanto turned this division into their Central Research Department. Between 1943 to 1945, this department coordinated key production efforts of the ManhattanProject—including plutonium purification and production and, as part of the Manhattan Project’s Dayton Project, techniques to refine chemicals used as triggers for atomic weapons (an era of U.S. history that sadly included the deadliest industrial accident).
#5 – DDT
In 1944, Monsanto became one of the first manufacturers of the insecticide DDT to combat malaria-transmitting mosquitoes. Despite decades of Monsanto propaganda insisting that DDT was safe, the true effects of DDT’s toxicity were at last confirmed through outside research and in 1972, DDT was banned throughout the U.S.
#6 – Dioxin
In 1945, Monsanto began promoting the use of chemical pesticides in agriculture with the manufacture of the herbicide 2,4,5-T (one of the precursors to Agent Orange), containing dioxin. Dioxins are a group of chemically-related compounds that since become known as one of the “Dirty Dozen” — persistent environmental pollutants that accumulate in the food chain, mainly in the fatty tissue of animals. In the decades since it was first developed, Monsanto has been accused of covering up or failing to report dioxin contamination in a wide range of its products.
#7 – Agent Orange
During the early 1960s, Monsanto was one of the two primary manufacturers of Agent Orange, an herbicide / defoliant used for chemical warfare during the Vietnam War. Except Monsanto’s formula had dioxin levels many times higher than the Agent Orange produced by Dow Chemicals, the other manufacturer (which is why Monsanto was the key defendant in the lawsuit brought by Vietnam War veterans in the United States).
(Pictured at left, Anh and Trang Nhan, with their father, when they first arrived at the Hoi An Orphanage; below are the same brothers shortly before Trang’s death. Source: Kianh Foundation Newsletter, Dec. 2011)
As a result of the use of Agent Orange, Vietnam estimates that over 400,000 people were killed or maimed, 500,000children were born with birth defects, and up to 1 million people were disabled or suffered from health problems—not to mention the far-reaching impact it had on the health of over 3 million American troops and their offspring.
Internal Monsanto memos show that Monsanto knew of the problems of dioxin contamination of Agent Orange when it sold it to the U.S. government for use in Vietnam. Despite the widespread health impact, Monsanto and Dow were allowed to appeal for and receive financial protection from the U.S. government against veterans seeking compensation for their exposure to Agent Orange.
In 2012, a long 50 years after Agent Orange was deployed, the clean-up effort has finally begun. Yet the legacy of Agent Orange, and successive generations of body deformities, will remain in orphanages throughout VietNam for decades to come.
(Think that can’t happen here? Two crops were recently genetically engineered to withstand a weedkiller made with one of the major components of Agent Orange, 2,4-D, in order to combat “super weeds” that evolved due to the excessive use of RoundUp.)
8 – Petroleum-Based Fertilizer
In 1955, Monsanto began manufacturing petroleum-based fertilizer after purchasing a major oil refinery. Petroleum-based fertilizers can kill beneficial soil micro-organisms, sterilizing the soil and creating a dependence, like anaddiction, to the synthetic replacements. Not the best addiction to have, considering the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil…
#9 – RoundUp
During the early 1970s, Monsanto founded their Agricultural Chemicals division with a focus on herbicides, and one herbicide in particular: RoundUp (glyphosate). Because of its ability to eradicate weeds literally overnight, RoundUp was quickly adopted by farmers. Its use increased even more when Monsanto introduced “RoundUp Ready” (glyphosate-resistant) crops, enabling farmers to saturate the entire field with weedkiller without killing the crops.
While glyphosate has been approved by regulatory bodies worldwide and is widely used, concerns about its effects on humans and the environment persist.
RoundUp has been found in samples of groundwater, as well as soil, and even in streams and air throughout the Midwest U.S., and increasingly in food. It has been linked to butterfly mortality, and the proliferation of superweeds. Studies in rats have shown consistently negative health impacts ranging from tumors, altered organ function, and infertility, to cancer and premature death. Reference the above “GMO Risks” page which includes countless references to support these statements.
#10 – Aspartame (NutraSweet / Equal)
An accidental discovery during research on gastrointestinal hormones resulted in a uniquely sweet chemical: aspartame. During the clinical trials conducted on 7 infant monkeys as part of aspartame’s application for FDA approval, 1 monkey died and 5 other monkeys had grand mal seizures—yet somehow aspartame was still approved by the FDA in 1974.
In 1985, Monsanto acquired the company responsible for aspartame’s manufacture (G.D. Searle) and began marketing the product as NutraSweet. Twenty years later, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a report listing 94 health issues caused by aspartame.
#11 – Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH)
This genetically modified hormone was developed by Monsanto to be injected into dairy cows to produce more milk. Cows subjected to rBGH suffer excruciating pain due to swollen udders and mastitis, and the pus from the resulting infection enters the milk supply requiring the use of additional antibiotics. rBGH milk has been linked to breast cancer, colon cancer, and prostate cancer in humans.
#12 – Genetically Modified Crops / GMOs
In the early 1990s, Monsanto began gene-splicing corn, cotton, soy, and canola with DNA from a foreign source to achieve one of two traits: an internally-generated pesticide, or an internal resistance to Monsanto’s weedkiller RoundUp.
Despite decades of promises that genetically engineered crops would feed the world with more nutrients, drought resistance, or yield, the majority of Monsanto’s profits are from seeds that are engineered to tolerate Monsanto’s RoundUp—an ever-rising, dual income stream as weeds continue to evolve resistance to RoundUp.
Most sobering however, is that the world is once again buying into Monsanto’s “safe” claims.
Just like the early days of PCBs, DDT, Agent Orange, Monsanto has successfully fooled the general public and regulatory agencies into believing that RoundUp, and the genetically modified crops that help sell RoundUp, are “safe.”
Except Monsanto has learned a thing or two in the past 100+ years of defending its dirty products: these days, when a new study proving the negative health or environmental impacts of GMOs emerges,
Monsanto attacks the study and its scientist(s) by flooding the media with counter claims from “independent” organizations, scientists, industry associations, blogs, sponsored social media, and articles by “private” public relations firms—frequently founded, funded and maintained by Monsanto.
Unfortunately, few of us take the time to trace the members, founders, and relationships of these seemingly valid sources back to their little Monsanto secret.
Fooling the FDA required a slightly different approach: click on the below chart compiled by Millions Against Monsanto to see how many former Monsanto VPs and legal counsel are now holding positions with the FDA. And don’t forget Clarence Thomas, former Monsanto attorney who is now a Supreme Court Justice, ruling in favor of Monsanto in every case brought before him.
A Baker’s Dozen: #13 – Terminator Seeds
In the late 1990s, Monsanto developed the technology to produce sterile grains unable to germinate. These “Terminator Seeds” would force farmers to buy new seeds from Monsanto year after year, rather than save and reuse the seeds from their harvest as they’ve been doing throughout centuries.
Fortunately this technology never came to market. Instead, Monsanto chose to require farmers to sign a contract agreeing that they will not save or sell seeds from year to year, which forces them to buy new seeds and preempts the need for a “terminator gene.” Lucky for us… since the terminator seeds were capable of cross-pollination and could have contaminated local non-sterile crops.
What’s the Result of our Monsanto Legacy?
Between 75% to 80% of the processed food you consume every day has GMOs inside, and residues of Monsanto’s RoundUp herbicide outside. But it’s not just processed food—fresh fruit and vegetables are next: genetically engineered sweet corn is already being sold at your local grocer, with apples and a host of other “natural” produce currently in field trials.
How is it that Monsanto is allowed to manipulate our food after such a dark product history? How is it they are allowed to cause such detrimental impact to our environment and our health?
According to the Organic Consumers Association, “There is a direct correlation between our genetically engineered food supply and the $2 trillion the U.S. spends annually on medical care, namely an epidemic of diet-related chronic diseases.
Instead of healthy fruits, vegetables, grains, and grass-fed animal products, U.S. factory farms and food processors produce a glut of genetically engineered junk foods that generate heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer—backed by farm subsidies—while organic farmers receive no such subsidies.
Monsanto’s history reflects a consistent pattern of toxic chemicals, lawsuits, and manipulated science. Is this the kind of company we want controlling our world’s food supply?
P.S. Monsanto’s not alone. Other companies in the “Big Six” include Pioneer Hi-Bred International (a subsidiary of DuPont), Syngenta AG, Dow Agrosciences (a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, BASF (which is primarily a chemical company that is rapidly expanding their biotechnology division, and Bayer Cropscience (a subsidiary of Bayer).
Click here to show sources
What are Roundup Ready & Bt Pesticide GMO crops? You need to know!
Published on Nov 3, 2012
Here is a great explanation on GMO and Bt pesticide. A must watch documentary by David Suzuki
Monsanto buys Blackwater the largest Mercenary Army in the World? UPDATE
Added by TheGreekZen on July 20, 2013.
Setting the Record Straight: Did Monsanto Really Buy Blackwater (Xe)?
A few weeks ago, SouthWeb published an article entitled ” Monsanto buys Blackwater the largest mercenary army in the world“. Since then, there has been a great deal of publicity over this potential purchase of Blackwater (now known as Academi, and Xe before that) by the mega corporation Monsanto.
While the two seem to be a great match, as they both fail to consider the morality and consequence of their actions, it seems that Monsanto is only involved with Blackwater in infiltrating activist groups who are opposed to the biotech giant — an operation quite sinister enough.
The truth of the matter is that Academi (Blackwater) was purchased by private investors, and the heavily sourced article written by Jeremy Scahill in The Nation actually says nothing about Monsanto buying Blackwater.
What the articles does say, however, is that Monsanto and Blackwater are indeed working together to target anti-Monsanto activists and organizations.
Known as far back as 2010, Blackwater’s client list included Monsanto, Chevron, Walt Disney and many more.
According to documents obtained by Scahill, it was also revealed that Monsanto was willing to pay upwards of $500,000 in order for Blackwater to join anti-Monsanto activist groups and infiltrate the ranks. Furthermore, a number of Internet-based tactics could be utilized as incognito PR for Monsanto, who undoubtedly knew opposition would mount against their GMO crops as more individuals became aware of the dangers.
Amazingly, the document stated that Monsanto was ‘concerned about animal rights activists’ and that they discussed how Blackwater could ‘have our person(s) actually join [activist] group(s) legally.’
Of course this occurred back in 2008, and Monsanto admitted in e-mails that the relationship lasted until around 2010 — near the time the information came to light. Raw Story reports:
In an… e-mail to The Nation, Wilson confirmed he met Black in Zurich and that Monsanto hired Total Intelligence in 2008 and worked with the company until early 2010.
Even though Monsanto may not have purchased Blackwater, their relationship with them remains quite clear. Both organizations are noted for their crimes against humanity, and they really do have a twisted synergy of sorts, so it is quite easy to see how the topic became viral.
While they may not be owned by the same individuals, one thing is clear: the relationship between these two companies is enough cause for alarm.
GMOs, Enslavement & Poverty: Seeds of Freedom Documentary
Published on 8 Nov 2012
I’ve always said, even if you don’t believe GMO seeds are unhealthy, there are many political reasons to reject the seeds. It’s a blueprint for slavery. It turns food into a weapon of mass poverty. The story of seed has become one of loss, control, dependence and debt. It’s been written by those who want to make vast profit from our food system, no matter what the true cost. It’s time to change the story.
The story of seed has become one of loss, control, dependence and debt. It’s been written by those who want to make vast profit from our food system, no matter what the true cost. It’s time to change the story. Narrated by Jeremy Irons.
Seeds of Freedom charts the story of seed from its roots at the heart of traditional, diversity rich farming systems across the world, to being transformed into a powerful commodity, used to monopolise the global food system.The film highlights the extent to which the industrial agricultural system, and genetically modified (GM) seeds in particular, has impacted on the enormous agro -biodiversity evolved by farmers and communities around the world, since the beginning of agriculture.
Seeds of Freedom seeks to challenge the mantra that large-scale, industrial agriculture is the only means by which we can feed the world, promoted by the pro-GM lobby. In tracking the story of seed it becomes clear how corporate agenda has driven the take over of seed in order to make vast profit and control of the food global system.
Through interviews with leading international experts such as Dr Vandana Shiva and Henk Hobbelink, and through the voices of a number of African farmers, the film highlights how the loss of indigenous seed goes hand in hand with loss of biodiversity and related knowledge; the loss of cultural traditions and practices; the loss of livelihoods; and the loss of food sovereignty. The pressure is growing to replace the diverse, nutritional, locally adapted and resilient seed crops which have been bred by small-scale farmers for millenia, by monocultures of GM seed.
Alongside speakers from indigenous farming communities, the film features global experts and activists Dr Vandana Shiva of Navdanya, Henk Hobbelink of GRAIN, Zac Goldsmith MP (UK Conservative party), Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, Kumi Naidoo of Greenpeace International, Gathuru Mburu of the African Biodiversity Network, Liz Hosken of The Gaia Foundation and Caroline Lucas MP (UK Green party).
This film is co-produced by The Gaia Foundation and the African Biodiversity Network. In collaboration with GRAIN, Navdanya International and MELCA Ethiopia .
Please support the original filmmakers by donating or purchasing the DVD here: http://seedsoffreedom.info.
Vandana Shiva – The Future of Food and Seed
Uploaded on 23 Apr 2011
Scientist, feminist, ecologist and author, Vandana Shiva, presenting the keynote address at the 2009 Organicology Conference in Portland, Oregon, on February 28, 2009.
pdxjustice Media Productions Producer: William Seaman
Farmageddon – The truth about the food and dairy industry
Published on 12 May 2012
****SAVE THIS DOCUMENTARY AS AN MP4 FILE TO WATCH RATHER THAN STREAM***
1) Highlight and copy this videos URL address:
2) Go to http://www.savetube.com
3) Paste the URL you just copied into the “VID” field and then click on VIDEO.
4) It will then give you options for download, download the MP4 file. You can then watch it without waiting for it to buffer and even better, burn it to DVD for others to see.
Americans’ right to access fresh, healthy foods of their choice is under attack. Farmageddon tells the story of small, family farms that were providing safe, healthy foods to their communities and were forced to stop, sometimes through violent ac-tion, by agents of misguided government bureaucracies, and seeks to figure out why.
Filmmaker Kristin Canty’s quest to find healthy food for her four children turned into an educational journey to discover why access to these foods was being threatened.
What she found were policies that favor agribusiness and factory farms over small family-operated farms selling fresh foods to their communities.
Instead of focusing on the source of food safety problems — most often the industrial food chain — policymakers and regulators implement and enforce solutions that target and often drive out of business small farms that have proven themselves more than capable of producing safe, healthy food, but buckle under the crushing weight of government regulations and excessive enforcement actions.
Farmageddon highlights the urgency of food freedom, encouraging farmers and consumers alike to take action to preserve individuals’ rights to access food of their choice and farmers’ rights to produce these foods safely and free from unreasona-bly burdensome regulations.
The film serves to put policymakers and regulators on notice that there is a growing movement of people aware that their freedom to choose the foods they want is in danger, a movement that is taking action with its dollars and its voting power to protect and preserve the dwindling number of family farms that are struggling to survive.
The Future of Food: What Every Person Should Know with Deborah Garcia
Uploaded on 28 Apr 2011
What should every person know about the food they ingest. The documentary “The Future of Food” changed the way we think about food(and continues to do so) by answering this very question.
But, just how has food actually changed? Do we need to worry about genetically modified foods? What about artificial foods? Learn all this more as Kurt Olson, host of the Educational Forum, sits down with Deborah Garcia the award winning creator of “The Future of Food.”
The Massachusetts School of Law at Andover
Genetically Modified Society : Operation Paul Revere InfoWars.com Contest
Published on 29 Apr 2013
Please share and redistribute ! 🙂 This project is non-profit , intended for educational use.
Documentary entered into the Operation Paul Revere InfoWars.com contest .. April 29, 2013
http://www.infowars.com (full running time 1hr 24min)
Produced and Directed by: Julio N. Rausseo
MANY thanks to those who contributed to help make this project happen !!!!!
Julio Rausseo traveled across the United States the past few months… from Washington DC to California…. from Chicago to Texas… seeking answers to several hot button issues.
Asking professionals, and activists, about genetically modified foods (GMO’s), the ever elusive topic of “climate change”, and weather modification.
He was able to ask questions of ( and get answers from) the Council on Foreign Relations, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack , NWS director Dr. Louis W. Uccellini, Storm Prediction Center Director Russell Schneider, PhD. , ADC President Dr. Rosalind Peterson, mulitple professors, researchers, and several activists.
This is the first part of a multi-series group of documentaries we’ve been planning.. you can expect more on the subject of “modification” in the future.
Cheers to Julio Rausseo for all he’s done, and again, thanks to those who gave to make these things happen.
Intro Audio: Many thanks for allowing the use!
TrucitatE – Apostica
If you would like to give , public fundraiser is here: Name Optional
Julio Rausseo will be setting up a fundraiser for himself in the near term future.
Dirt! The Movie. FULL MOVIE FREE HERE
Uploaded on 19 Jun 2011
FULL MOVIE FREE HERE http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi1936…
Jimmy’s GM Food Fight (BBC Documentary)
Published on 17 Jan 2013
Jimmy Doherty, pig farmer, one-time scientist and poster-boy for sustainable food production is on a mission to find out if GM crops really can feed the world.
We need to double the amount of food we produce in the next fifty years to feed the world’s growing population. Are GM crops the answer? Or are they a dangerous Frankenstein technology that could start an environmental catastrophe?
To find the answers Jimmy is on a journey that will take him from the vast soya plantations of Argentina to the traditional Amish farms of Pennsylvania; and from the cutting-edge technology of the GM laboratories to the banana plantations of Uganda.
Seeds of Death: Unveiling The Lies of GMO’s
– Full Movie 1 hr 10 min
Published on May 23, 2013
The world’s leading Scientists, Physicians, Attorneys, Politicians and Environmental Activists expose the corruption and dangers surrounding the widespread use of Genetically Modified Organisms in the new feature length documentary, “Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs”.
In preparation of the global March Against Monsanto, you are invited to watch our award-winning documentary Seeds of Death free.
The leaders of Big Agriculture–Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta–are determined that world’s populations remain ignorant about the serious health and environmental risks of genetically modified crops and industrial agriculture. Deep layers of deception and corruption underlie both the science favoring GMOs and the corporations and governments supporting them.
This award-winning documentary, Seeds of Death, exposes the lies about GMOs and pulls back the curtains to witness our planet’s future if Big Agriculture’s new green revolution becomes our dominant food supply.
A Question and Answer fact sheet deconstructing Monsanto’s GM claims and Big Agriculture’s propaganda to accompany the film is available online:
http://prn.fm/2013/05/24/gary-null-an… DEAD LINK
Senior Executive Producer / Writer / Director: Gary Null PhD
Executive Producer/Writer/Co-Director: Richard Polonetsky
Producers: Paola Bossola, Richard Gale, James Spruill, Patrick Thompson, Valerie Van Cleve
Editors: James Spruill, Patrick Thompson, Richie Williamson, Nick Palm
Music: Kevin MacLeod (Incompetech.com), Armando Guarnera
Graphics: Jay Graygor
DOCUMENTS TO DOWNLOAD Right click to save.
Go to this link for a library of Monsanto articles.
“The Monsanto Protection Plan”: Monsanto’s Deception Game on GMO in Europe
On May 31 world media headlines read similar to this from Reuters: “Monsanto backing away from GMO crops in Europe.” The original source for the story is attributed to a German left daily, TAZ which printed excerpts from an interview with an official spokeswoman of Monsanto Germany.
Ursula Lüttmer-Ouazane reportedly told Taz “We’ve come to the conclusion that this has no broad acceptance at the moment.” Her remarks were circulated worldwide and Reuters interviewed Monsanto corporate spokesman Thomas Helscher who reportedly said, “We’re going to sell the GM seeds only where they enjoy broad farmer support, broad political support and a functioning regulatory system. As far as we’re convinced this only applies to a few countries in Europe today, primarily Spain and Portugal.” 
Before the world opens the champagne to celebrate the death of GMO and its paired herbicides such as Roundup, it is worthwhile to look more closely at what was officially said and what not.
What Monsanto itself says
A visit to the official website of Monsanto Germany presents an official company press release referring to the media statements:
”Right now the media is flooded with reports that Monsanto has stopped the marketing of GMO seeds in Germany and the EU. That is not correct…”
Then on the parent website of Monsanto in St. Louis, the following statement appears:
“We have a robust business selling high-quality, conventional corn, oilseed rape and vegetable seeds to our farmer customers in Europe. We’ve been telling people in Europe for several years now that we’ll only sell biotech seeds where they enjoy broad farmer support, broad political support and a functioning regulatory system.
These conditions apply only to a few countries in Europe today, primarily Spain and Portugal. As Hugh Grant, our CEO told the Financial Times in 2009, ‘Europe’s going to make up its own mind in its own time.’
The only GM trait grown in Europe today is a corn resistant to the European corn borer, an insect that can do considerable damage to crops. Its cultivation accounts for less than 1% of the all corn cultivated in Europe (by hectares).” 
Both statements are worth closer attention.
First the German statement is a bit different from the US version. It officially denies as false the press reports that they have ceased marketing of GMO seeds in the EU.
Second, their statement that they concentrate on breeding and sale of conventional seeds and plant protection chemicals is nothing other than a description of what the present status of Monsanto sales in the EU, nothing more. Because of the limited use so far of Monsanto GMO seeds in the EU, Monsanto business by definition is focuses now where it earns money.
However the “plant protection chemicals” Monsanto refers to are primarily its own Roundup herbicide, which by license agreement with farmers must be sold paired with all Monsanto GMO seeds, but is also the number one weed killer sold in Europe and the world. It has also been proven to be highly toxic even to human embryo cells.
The US statement has interesting important differences. First it gives no hint of any change in Monsanto policy towards spreading GMO seeds in the EU. It states explicitly they will continue to spread GMO seeds in Spain and Portugal, both EU countries.
And it cites chairman Hugh Grant, not to be confused with the Hollywood actor, indicating the company expects the EU to come around on allowing its GMO. And it cites the present status of its GMO corn in the EU. Nothing more. No statement of a stop to GMO in the EU.
Yet for most of the world who don’t have time to research the official statements of Monsanto but merely glance at a Reuters or TAZ headline, the message has been delivered that Monsanto has given up its EU effort on proliferating its GMO seeds. The timing of the TAZ interview is suggestive of what seems to be a carefully orchestrated Monsanto PR deception campaign.
The TAZ original by writer Jost Maurin appeared on the same day, May 31, less than one week after March against Monsanto , a worldwide protest demonstrations against Monsanto, took place in more than 400 cities in some 52 countries around the world. 
The TAZ article that was then used as reference for all world media after, appeared under the emotional and factually misleading headline: Sieg für Anti-Gentech-Bewegung: Monsanto gibt Europa auf (Victory for anti-GMO Movement: Monsanto Gives up Europe).
The March against Monsanto was notable in several key respects. Most alarming for Monsanto and the GMO cartel was the fact that it was the first such demonstration not organized by anti-GMO NGOs such as Greenpeace or BUND or Friends of the Earth.
In Germany where this author participated as a speaker in one of the events, it was all organized by concerned activists via facebook. But the NGOs who formally oppose GMO were reportedly nowhere to be found as sponsors or even reportedly as active organizers.
That march presented Monsanto and friends with a frightening new element—the danger that that grass roots anti-GMO protest would spread and make life even more difficult for GMO proliferation in Africa, in China, India, Latin America and of course eastern and western Europe.
All indications are that the timing of the well-formulated TAZ interview, notably with a left newspaper openly opposed to Monsanto GMO, was an orchestrated attempt to “manage perceptions” and take the headwind out of the sails of the growing anti-GMO sentiment in the EU and abroad.
For the moment, Monsanto has gained a tactical victory in propaganda points as the broad public takes the retreat at face value. As one experienced opponent of Monsanto GMO put it, it bears all the hallmarks of a slick PR campaign, “like a Burson & Marsteller tactic that applies to many controversial bad practices and part of why it works is that it takes a long time to build consumer/activist energy and momentum, whereas the PR-company can start on a very short runway …”
What Monsanto has not done is to recall its already commercialized GMO Maize in the EU, that despite damning independent scientific study of some 200 rats over a two year span showing rats fed GMO maize and Monsanto Roundup herbicide showed dramatically more cancer tumors, higher death rates and organ damage compared with non-GMO-fed rats.
Moreover, Monsanto openly admits it is pushing its way deep into the eastern European market for seeds, though mentioning only conventional seeds. Monsanto Vice President for International Corporate Affairs, Jesus Madrazo, stated that the company has been focusing on gaining market share in the conventional corn market in Ukraine, and that Eastern Europe and South America are key growth areas for the company now.
Then in the USA, it has leaked out that Monsanto directly worked with its apparent current favorite US Senator, Roy Blunt, a Republican from Monsanto’s home state of Missouri and one of the major recipients of Monsanto campaign finance, to draft for Blunt an obscure paragraph Blunt got into a spending bill, a bombshell that exempts Monsanto from being sued for any damage its crops or chemicals cause.
Called by opponents the Monsanto Protection Act, many members of Congress were apparently unaware that the Monsanto Protection Act was a part of the spending bill that they were voting on.
The Monsanto bill, signed into law by President Obama despite hundreds of thousands of protest petitions not to, essentially gives Monsanto and other GMO purveyors legal immunity, even if future research shows that GMO seeds cause significant health problems, cancer, anything.
The federal courts no longer have any power to stop their spread, use, or sales.  The only other corporations in the US enjoying such outrageous legal immunity are the pharmaceutical vaccine makers.
What we have is a quite different picture from the slick spin reported by TAZ and from there picked up worldwide uncritically by mainstream media. Monsanto by its own open admission has not ceased marketing its GMO products and herbicides in the EU.
It has not ceased imports of its GMO soybeans and GMO corn into the EU where it has managed to escape the EU GMO labeling law.
Monsanto also states it is concentrating on building market share in eastern Europe, where often regulators are more “relaxed” and in the notoriously corrupt Ukraine.
They do not deny promoting GMOs there either; rather they state positively their focus on conventional seeds only.
Simply put, the geopolitical stakes behind Monsanto and the attempt to control the world’s most vital seeds of life are far too high for the company to raise the white flag of surrender so easily.
A Monsanto precedent
There is a relevant precedent for this Monsanto PR deception campaign. In 1999, after months of growing worldwide anti-Monsanto protest over the fact Monsanto had made a takeover bid to buy Mississippi company, Delta & Pine Land in order to acquire Delta’s patent on a radical new GMO technique known officially as GURTS (Genetic Use Restriction Technology) and popularly as Terminator technology.
Delta has won a patent together with the US Government’s USDA for the Terminator. It would force a GMO seed or plant to “commit suicide” after only one harvest, forcing the farmer to return each year to Monsanto to buy new seeds regardless the price or availability.
The Terminator image threatened to derail the entire fledgling GMO project at the outset such that Rockefeller University President and GMO financial sponsor, Gordon Conway, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, made a rush visit to meet Monsanto’s board and convince them to make what was a tactical retreat in order to limit damage to a very fragile GMO campaign worldwide.
Monsanto announced, deceptively it proved, that it would not pursue “commercialization” of Terminator technology and it dropped its takeover bid for patent holder Delta & Pine Land. The anti-GMO NGOs claimed a huge victory and nothing was heard for seven years until, with no fanfare, in 2006 Monsanto announced it was acquiring Terminator patent co-holder Delta & Pine Land. This time there was scarcely a peep from the anti-GMO lobby.
It remains to be seen if the forces for healthy non-GMO agriculture today prove as gullible as in 1999.
 Monsanto Germany Press Release, Stellungnahme zur Vermarktung von gentechnisch verbessertem Saatgut in Europa, May 31, 2013, accessed in http://www.monsanto.com/global/de/news-standpunkte/Pages/vermarktung-von-gentechnisch-verbessertem-saatgut-in-europa.aspx
 Monsanto, Monsanto Position on GM Cultivation in Europe, accessed in http://monsantoblog.com/2013/05/31/monsanto-position-on-gm-cultivation-in-europe/
 Jost Maurin, Sieg für Anti-Gentech-Bewegung: Monsanto gibt Europa auf, TAZ, 31.05.2013, accessed in http://www.taz.de/Sieg-fuer-Anti-Gentech-Bewegung/!117205/
 RT, Obama signs ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ written by Monsanto-sponsored senator, RT.com, March 28, 2013, accessed in http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/
 F. William Engdahl, Monsanto Buys ‘Terminator’ Seeds Company, Global Research, August 27, 2006, accessed in http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-buys-terminator-seeds-company/3082
ORDER DIRECTLY FROM GLOBAL RESEARCH
F. William Engdahl
This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”
This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.
The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production.
If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.
Engdahl’s carefully argued critique goes far beyond the familiar controversies surrounding the practice of genetic modification as a scientific technique.
The book is an eye-opener, a must-read for all those committed to the causes of social justice and world peace.
A Rude Awakening, Monsanto & Action Alerts
Posted by: “email@example.com” Sun Feb 7, 2010
Just for the info, all the ‘stuff’ you send them does no good & goes to the same place, as all other ‘stuff’.
Subject: A Rude Awakening, Monsanto & Action Alerts
[Monsanto: The World’s Poster Child for Corporate Manipulation and Deceit
NEW TEN-PART SERIES
Monsanto: The World’s Poster Child for Corporate Manipulation and Deceit
When Forbes magazine declared Monsanto as the Company of the Year
for 2009, millions of surprised people were forced to reevaluate
their opinions about a major corporation. Now they no longer
trust Forbes. Read Part 1
Follow the whole series Subscribe http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith
[Don’t Buy It – Cloned Animal Products] Keep Cloned Meat off Grocery Shelves
from entering the human food supply. Based upon flawed studies,
the FDA has claimed that eating meat and dairy from cloned
animals or their offspring is harmless to human health. Join
Friends of the Earth in keeping it off the shelves.
The FDA has lifted a voluntary ban on allowing cloned animal products
Send a Letter to Congress
Center for Food Saftey vs.
USDA–> [Tell the USDA: Keep GM Alfalfa out of the Fields]
Tell the USDA: Keep GM Alfalfa Out of the Fields
The USDA has analyzed the impacts of Roundup Ready alfalfa on the
environment, farmers and the public in an environmental impact
statement (EIS). Comments are accepted until February 16. Join
the Center for Food Safety in keeping GM alfalfa banned.
Sign the Petition
CREDO Customers Nominate Us to Receive Funds
When you use CREDO phone services, a portion of your monthly phone service fee is donated to nonprofits (at no extra cost to
you). If you’re already a member, please nominate the Institute for Responsible Technology as one of the non-profits to receive funds for 2010.
Was 2009 the Year the World Turned Against GM?
Seed Behemoth Monsanto Stumbles into Antitrust Trouble
Monsanto Options Volatile After GMO Research Report
[The World According to Monsanto DVD]
The World According to Monsanto
[Everything You HAVE TO KNOW About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods]
[HEALTHY EATING Starts with No GMOs! THE CAMPAIGN FOR HEALTHIER EATING IN AMERICA]
The Institute for ResponsibleTechnology is working to end the genetic engineering of our food
supply and the outdoor release of GM crops. We warmly welcome
your donations and support. Your donations are 100% tax
[Get the Non-GMO Shopping Guide]
Help us Create the Tipping Point in the American Marketplace!
[Spilling the Beans Facebook Icon]
JOIN US ON FACEBOOK http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=121443803326
Support Our Campaign
located at PO Box 469 – –
Fairfield, IA 52556 – United States of America.
Ecosystem and Food Supply Threatened by Gross Underestimate of Toxicity of Neonicotinoid Pesticides
June 18, 2013
By Dr. Mercola
Research has shown that many pesticides are neurotoxic and can cause disruptions to your neurological system and your brain. The reason why neurotoxins still enjoy widespread use on our food supply is really more about the bottom line for farming operations than it is about the science of human health.
Research has clearly and consistently linked pesticide exposure to Parkinson’s disease. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also considers 30 percent of insecticides to be carcinogenic.
All of these toxic chemicals are permitted on farms growing conventional and genetically engineered crops, and a large number of them can end up on your plate when you purchase conventionally-grown fruits and vegetables and/or processed foods.
But pesticides also have a dramatic impact on the health of our ecosystem. Neonicotinoids, such as Imidacloprid and Clothianidin, kill insects by attacking their nervous systems. These are known to get into pollen and nectar, and can damage beneficial insects such as bees.
These toxic chemicals have been implicated as one of the primary culprits in the mass die-offs of bees, and have subsequently been banned in some countries. The United States, however, is not among these countries…
But the effects of neonicotinoids do not end there. According to recent research by the American Bird Conservancy (ABC), the use of neonicotinoids in seed treatments is also responsible for the death of birds, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates and other wildlife.
Ecosystem Threatened by ‘Gross Underestimate’ of Toxicity of Neonicotinoids
Nicotine-related compounds called nicotinoids were initially introduced as a new form of pesticide in the 1990s, as widespread pest resistance rendered many older pesticides useless. Many seeds are now “pre-treated” with neonicotinoids, which are water-soluble and break down slowly in the environment.
Today, they are the most widely-used pesticides in the world. In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to find a pesticide that does not contain at least one neonicotinoid insecticide. In California alone, there are nearly 300 registered neonicotinoid products available.
The American Bird Conservancy (ABC), one of the leading bird conservation organizations in the US, is now calling for a ban on the use of neonicotinoids as seed treatments, and wants all pending applications for neonicotinoid products to be suspended pending an independent review of the products’ effects on birds, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife.
As reported by the American Bird Conservancy1:
“It is clear that these chemicals have the potential to affect entire food chains. The environmental persistence of the neonicotinoids, their propensity for runoff and for groundwater infiltration, and their cumulative and largely irreversible mode of action in invertebrates raise significant environmental concerns…”
ABC commissioned the world renowned environmental toxicologist Dr. Pierre Mineau to conduct the research, which resulted in a 100-page report2 titledThe Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds. Mineau’s report reviews 200 studies on neonicotinoids, including industry research obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act.
The report concludes that neonicotinoids “are lethal to birds and to the aquatic systems on which they depend.” Even more disturbing, contamination levels in both surface and ground water around the world are already beyond the threshold found to kill many aquatic invertebrates. According to this shocking toxicology assessment:
- A single kernel of corn treated with this type of pesticide can kill a songbird
- A single grain of wheat or canola treated with the neonicotinoids Imidacloprid can be fatal to a bird
- As little as 1/10th of a neonicotinoid-coated corn seed per day during egg-laying season can affect a bird’s reproductive capability
EPA Accused of Failing to Adequately Assess Environmental Risks
Disturbingly, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not adequately assessed the toxicity of neonicotinoids. Part of the problem, according to the featured report, is that the EPA is “using scientifically unsound, outdated methodology that has more to do with a game of chance than with a rigorous scientific process.” This has led the agency to grossly underestimate the toxicity of these chemicals. Furthermore3:
“The report also charges that there is no readily available biomarker for neonicotinoids as there is for cholinesterase inhibitors such as the organophosphorous pesticides. ‘It is astonishing that EPA would allow a pesticide to be used in hundreds of products without ever requiring the registrant to develop the tools needed to diagnose poisoned wildlife. It would be relatively simple to create a binding assay for the neural receptor which is affected by this class of insecticides,’ said Dr. Mineau.”
Dr. Mineau urges the EPA to require pesticide registrants to also provide the diagnostic tools necessary to diagnose cases of wildlife poisonings. So far, neonicotinoids have garnered the most attention and criticism for their role in bee die-offs—a worldwide phenomenon that took off once these newer pesticides became widely used. As stated by ABC4:
“The serious risk to bees should not be understated, as one-third of the US diet depends on these insect pollinators. The ABC assessment makes clear, however, that the potential environmental impacts of neonicotinoids go well beyond bees.”
Link Between Neonicotinoids and Bee Die-Off is ‘Crystal Clear,’ Lawsuit Maintains
A general consensus among beekeepers is that the bee die-offs are most definitely related to toxic chemicals, and neonicotinoids in particular.
The disappearance of bee colonies began accelerating in the United States shortly after the EPA allowed these new insecticides on the market in the mid-2000s. In May, beekeepers and environmental groups filed alawsuit against the agency over its failure to protect bees from these toxic pesticides.
Meanwhile, France has banned Imidacloprid for use on corn and sunflowers after reporting large losses of bees after exposure to it. They also rejected Bayer´s application for Clothianidin, and other countries, such as Italy, have banned certain neonicotinoids as well.
Neonicotinoids are used on most of American crops, especially corn. As mentioned earlier, these chemicals are typically applied to seeds before planting, allowing the pesticide to be taken up through the plant’s vascular system as it grows.
As a result, the chemical is expressed in the pollen and nectar of the plant, and hence the danger to bees and other pollinating insects… Needless to say, since the chemical is taken up systemically through the plant, it could also pose potential health risks to anyone eating the plant since it cannot be rinsed off.
Neonicotinoids affect insects’ central nervous systems in ways that are cumulative and irreversible. Even minute amounts can have profound effects over time.
One of the observed effects of these insecticides is weakening of the bee’s immune system. Forager bees bring pesticide-laden pollen back to the hive, where it’s consumed by all of the bees. Six months later, their immune systems fail, and they fall prey to secondary, seemingly “natural” bee infections, such as parasites, mites, viruses, fungi and bacteria.
The EPA5 acknowledges that “pesticide poisoning” may be one factor leading to colony collapse disorder, yet they have been slow to act to protect bees from this threat. The current lawsuit may help spur them toward more urgent action, which is desperately needed as the food supply hangs in the balance.
In March, the EPA sent Jim Jones, overseer of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, to talk to California almond growers and beekeepers, as mass die-offs of bees were seriously threatening this year’s almond crop.
But although beekeepers said Jones got the message that bees are in serious trouble, they were dismayed by the fact that he seemed more interested in finding new places for bees to forage rather than addressing the issue of toxic pesticides…
As usual, at the core of the problem is big industry, which is blinded by greed and enabled by a corrupt governmental system that permits the profit-driven sacrifice of our environment.
Unfortunately, this motivation reflects an extreme shortsightedness about the long-term survival of the human race, as well as of our planet. Clearly, if the goal of pesticides is to increase food yield to more easily feed 7 billion human beings, this goal falls flat on its face if it leads to the collapse of our food chain.
Pesticides Again Tied to Parkinson’s Disease
A recent meta-analysis published in the journal Neurology6, examined data from 104 studies published between 1975 and 2011, in search for a potential link between pesticides and Parkinson’s disease.
As many previous studies, it found one…Parkinson’s disease is a neurological disorder in which neurons in a region within your brain responsible for normal movement begin to die, causing the telltale shaking and rigidity associated with the disease.
“In 2011, a study of US farm workers from National Institutes of Health found some pesticides that are known to interfere with cell function were linked to the development of Parkinson’s disease.
Another study that was published in 2012 also reported that people with Parkinson’s disease were more likely to report exposure to pesticides, compared to people without the condition.”
In this latest analysis, exposure to pesticides was linked to a 58 percent increased risk of developing Parkinson’s. Some pesticides were clearly worse than others. Paraquat (a non-selective plant killer) and two fungicides, maneb and mancozeb, were found to double your risk. One of the study’s authors told Reuters that8:
“[T]he study’s results suggest that people should avoid contact with pesticides or – at least – wear proper protection when handling the chemicals.
The use of protective equipment and compliance with suggested, or even recommended, preventive practices should be emphasized in high-risk working categories (such as farming).”
How Modern Farming Methods Have Led to Toxic Food Supplies
Chlorinated hydrocarbons, or organochlorines like DDT were developed after World War II and remained widely used in agriculture for pest and weed control until Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring was published in 1962.
That book is credited with beginning the modern environmental movement, and through the involvement of scientists and ordinary concerned citizens many of the organochlorines were later phased out of use, according to the conditions of the Stockholm Convention of 19819.
Since then, these chemicals have been replaced by a slew of new herbicides, pesticides and fungicides designed to kill the things that threaten a farmer’s bottom line.
These include not just neonicotinoids, but also glyphosate—the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup.
Roundup was designed to be used in conjunction with Monsanto’s genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” seeds, which in turn have been genetically altered to withstand otherwise lethal doses of the chemical.
This way, only the non-modified weeds die while the crop survives the indiscriminate sprayings.
In theory, genetically engineered seeds were supposed to reduce the use of agricultural chemicals. It didn’t work out that way. Today, resistant “superweeds” are taking over large swaths of farm land, and in an effort to stay on top of increasing weed resistance, farmers using Monsanto’s genetically engineered (GE) seeds have progressively started using more and more Roundup.
The increased pesticide residue remains in the foods that wind up on your dinner table, as glyphosate is taken up systemically throughout the plant and cannot be washed off.
About 90 percent of the corn produced in the US is genetically engineered, and GE soybeans account for almost 95 percent of US production. In other words, if you’re eating non-organic corn or soybeans in the United States, you’re eating a genetically engineered crop that’s been repeatedly and thoroughly drenched in glyphosate.
The same applies to eating meats from animals raised in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), as they’re typically fed GE grains.
The danger to you and your children is very real, according to the latest research.
While Monsanto insists that Roundup is safe and “minimally toxic” to humans, a recent report published in the journal Entropy10 argues that glyphosate residues, found in most commonly consumed foods in the Western diet courtesy of GE sugar, corn, and soy, “enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease.” According to the authors:
“Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body.”
The main finding of the report is that glyphosate inhibits cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, a large and diverse group ofenzymes that catalyze the oxidation of organic substances.
This, the authors state, is “an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals.” One of the functions of CYP enzymes is to detoxify xenobiotics—chemical compounds found in a living organism that are not normally produced or consumed by the organism in question.
By limiting the ability of these enzymes to detoxify foreign chemical compounds, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of those chemicals and environmental toxins you may be exposed to—including other pesticides.
How You Can Avoid Toxic Pesticide Exposure
First and foremost, to limit your exposure to the most common agricultural chemicals, such as neonicotinoids and glyphosate, you want to buy as much fresh organic produce as possible, as synthetic chemicals are not allowed on organic crops.
For a good guide to which conventionally grown produce carry the lowest pesticide residues, and which you’re best off buying organic due to their heavy pesticide load, see my recent article, How to Find the Healthiest Fare in Meat and Produce Aisles.
Since years’ worth of these toxins now pollute our soils and waterways, including the sources of most if not all human drinking water, I also recommend investing in a good water filtration system for your home or apartment to ensure you are drinking the purest water possible.
Also consider a shower filter, as they may actually cause more damage to your body through your skin than from drinking unfiltered water. Additional recommendations to limit your exposure to toxic pesticides and herbicides include:
- Grow your own food. While this may be a challenge for many, nearly everyone, even those with a studio apartment or a dorm room can easily grow sprouts that can serve as a large percentage of the organic vegetables that you eat.
- Detoxify your lawn. If you have a lawn care service, make sure they are not using the organophosphate pesticide trichlorfon. Also, avoid using Roundup to control weeds around your home.
- Clean out your shed. The pesticide diazinon (sold under the brand names Diazinon or Spectracide) has been banned from residential, but there might be some left in your old garden shed.
- Use natural cures for a lice infection. Malathion is used for treatment of head lice. Don’t put a neurotoxin on your child’s head.
- Check your school’s pest control policy. If they have not already done so, encourage your school district to move to Integrated Pest Management, which uses less toxic alternatives.
GMO FEED TURNS PIG STOMACH TO MUSH! SHOCKING PHOTOS REVEAL SEVERE DAMAGE CAUSED BY GM SOY AND CORN
Originally published June 12 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor(NaturalNews) If you have stomach problems or gastrointestinal problems, a new study led by Dr. Judy Carman may help explain why: pigs fed a diet of genetically engineered soy and corn showed a 267% increase in severe stomach inflammation compared to those fed non-GMO diets.
In males, the difference was even more pronounced: a 400% increase. (For the record, most autistic children are males, and nearly all of them have severe intestinal inflammation.)
The study was conducted on 168 young pigs on an authentic farm environment and was carried out over a 23-week period by eight researchers across Australia and the USA. The lead researcher, Dr. Judy Carman, is from the Institute of Health and Environmental Research in Kensington Park, Australia.
The study has now been published in the Journal of Organic Systems, a peer-reviewed science journal.The study is the first to show what appears to be a direct connection between the ingestion of GMO animal feed and measurable damage to the stomachs of those animals.
Tests also showed abnormally high uterine weights of animals fed the GMO diets, raising further questions about the possibility of GMOs causing reproductive organ damage.Proponents of corporate-dominated GMO plant science quickly attacked the study, announcing that in their own minds, there is no such thing as any evidence linking GMOs to biological harm in any animals whatsoever.
And they are determined to continue to believe that, even if it means selectively ignoring the increasingly profound and undeniable tidal wave of scientific studies that repeatedly show GMOs to be linked with severe organ damage, cancer tumors and premature death.
“Adverse effects… toxic effects… clear evidence”
Lead author of the study Dr. Judy Carman stated, “We found these adverse effects when we fed the animals a mixture of crops containing three GM genes and the GM proteins that these genes produce.
Yet no food regulator anywhere in the world requires a safety assessment for the possible toxic effects of mixtures.
Our results provide clear evidence that regulators need to safety assess GM crops containing mixtures of GM genes, regardless of whether those genes occur in the one GM plant or in a mixture of GM plants eaten in the same meal, even if regulators have already assessed GM plants containing single GM genes in the mixture.”
The following photo shows one of the pig intestines fed a non-GMO diet vs. a pig intestine fed a GMO diet. As you can see from the photo, the pig fed the GMO diet suffered severe inflammation of the stomach:
Yet more evidence that GMOs damage mammals
The study adds to the weight of scientific evidence from others studies which show that rats fed a diet of GMOs grow horrifying cancer tumors and suffer premature death.
A scientific study published last year concluded that eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto’s Roundup chemical fertilizer was linked with rats developing shockingly large tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death.
That study was also criticized by corporate GMO trolls who argued that scientists should not show pictures of rats with large cancer tumors caused by GMOs because the pictures scare consumers into being afraid of GMOs.
That study also found that rats fed GM corn suffered severe kidney damage as well as shockingly high rates of premature death.
Why weren’t these studies done before GMOs were unleashed into the global food supply?
The GMO biotech industry was able to escape any meaningful regulation of GMOs in the United States by (ridiculously) claiming GMOs were substantially no different from non-genetically engineered crops. “They’re all the same!” we were told. And the USDA bought it.
So how did Monsanto patent its GM corn, then? You’re not supposed to be able to patent something unless it’s uniquely different. Thus, the very fact that Monsanto has acquired patents on its GMO crop varieties is proof that the company itself believes its seeds are different.
And what’s different about Monsanto’s GM corn? It produces a deadly insecticide grown right into every kernel.
That insecticide, of course, is what kills insects that try to eat the crop. And how does it kill those insects? It fatally damages their digestive systems. That same insecticide stays inside the corn even as the crop is turned into animal feed… or corn chip snacks… or flaked corn breakfast cereal.
Today’s Modern Food: It’s not what you think – Parts 1 and 2
Uploaded on Jun 28, 2011
This video examines the truth about our Nation’s food supply. The food we buy today is the product of a business who’s more concerned about their own profits than their customers health and the government regulators are looking out for the interests of the businesses rather than the American people’s well being.
The complete script for this video, as well as all the links to the articles, websites and videos in this presentation are available here:
The Miami Herald wrote on June 23rd 2011, chemically treated produce, highly processed foods, and refined ingredients like white flour and sugar cause sickness and disease as well as a host of minor ailments such as digestive issues and lack of energy.
The Herald Sun wrote on June 24th 2011, The New England Journal of Medicine published research that advised weight-watchers to cut out sugar-sweetened drinks, potatoes and refined grain foods such as white bread, white rice and low-fibre cereals. They urged people to eat more “natural” foods, such as
On June 19, 1999 The Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (the FDA) to prohibit the use of potassium bromate, which is used to strengthen bread dough. They charged that the FDA has known for years that bromate causes cancers in laboratory animals, but has failed to ban it.
The most common pesticide found in flour, 49% of all flour tested, is Malathion, believed to be a possible carcinogen, Neurotoxin and Hormone disruptor.
On January 28th, 2009 the Washington Post reported, “Study Finds High-Fructose Corn Syrup Contains Mercury.” The articles reports that “Almost half of tested samples of commercial high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) contained mercury, which was also found in nearly a third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products where HFCS is the first- or second-highest labeled ingredient, according to two new U.S. studies. ”
On July 27th, 1989 the Los Angeles Times reported, “FDA allows Genetically-Modified rBGH to Endanger Milk: FDA Ignores Evidence on Cancer Risks”
On December 7th, 2006 the Harvard University Gazette reported, “Hormones in milk can be dangerous.” The article states, “The milk we drink today is quite unlike the milk our ancestors were drinking” without apparent harm for 2,000 years, she said.
“The milk we drink today may not be nature’s perfect food. Butter, meat, eggs, milk, and cheese are implicated in higher rates of hormone-dependent cancers in general, she said. Breast cancer has been linked particularly to consumption of milk and cheese.”
On Feb 11th, 2009, CBS News reported, “Link Eyed Between Beef And Cancer.” In feed lots across the country, beef cattle are given growth hormones to make them fatter faster, to save money. Now questions are being raised about one of the most widely-used hormones, Zeranol, a synthetic estrogen implanted in cattle. A series of tests done for the Pentagon show a possible link between breast cancer and Zeranol.
On March 30th, 2011 Discovery News reported, “Food Packaging Harbors Harmful Chemicals” Plastic wrappers, food cans and storage tubs deposit at least two potentially harmful chemicals into our food, confirmed a new study.
By cutting out containers, people can dramatically reduce their exposures to these toxins. The chemicals — bisphenol A, or BPA, and a phthalate called DEHP — are known to disrupt hormonal systems in the bodies of both animals and people, leading to developmental and reproductive problems, as well as cancers, heart disease and brain disorders. And both appear in a wide variety of food packaging materials.
Because the manufacturers and the government ignore our concerns, it is going to be up to us to take charge of our nutrition and well-being.There are a few alternatives to the chemically laden foods available at your local supermarket.
You can buy organic, which unfortunately because of the current economics of food production, is more expense. Or you can grow and raise your own food, which is time consuming and hard work. But you have to ask yourself, “Is it worth improving the health of my family?”
If your diet and health is important to you, you will want to these eye-opening and heart-stopping documentaries on the truth about the foods we buy and eat every day.
Food Inc. Trailer
Food Matters Trailer
The World According to Monsanto Trailer
GMOs are unfit for human consumption
This pig stomach inflammation study suddenly provides yet more credible evidence that GMOs are unfit for human consumption and may be causing severe damage to the digestive systems of both humans and mammals.
Naturally, the GMO industry and all its paid online trolls, on-the-take “scientists” and multi-million dollar P.R. machine will try to viciously attack this study from every angle. They absolutely hate real science when that science calls into question their poisonous, deadly seeds and genetic pollution.
That’s why you won’t read this news anywhere in the mainstream media — the same media that utterly discredited itself a few weeks ago when it pretended the hugely successful global March Against Monsanto never even took place.
NOTE TO THE SELLOUT CORPORATE MEDIA: You have zero credibility remaining.
Virtually no one believes what you print. Everyone knows you have sold out your editorial agenda to Big Pharma, Monsanto, weapons manufacturers and the surveillance state.
The reason why alternative media like GM Watch and Natural News is rising while your own numbers keep plummeting is because we print the real news that really matters on liberty, food freedom, farm freedom, health freedom and self-reliance.
Maybe if you stopped intentionally lying to your readers on a daily basis while censoring important news on grassroots liberty, you might see some readers return to your publication…
Explanation of the key findings of the Judy Carman study:
Full scientific paper:
Background on Dr. Judy Carman:
Summary of the evidence against GMOs:
More details on the Seralini study on GMOs and rats:
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content.
Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products.
NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Monsanto and their biotech buddies would have you believe that they are super-heroes, set on saving hungry children from starvation wearing a dazzling fake-green cape. In fact, in a recent attack on activists, Monsanto’s CEO Hugh Grant said that because critics “can afford” organic food, we don’t care about the plight of those who can’t afford it.
“There is this strange kind of reverse elitism: If I’m going to do this, then everything else shouldn’t exist,” said Grant. “There is space in the supermarket shelf for all of us.”
Even Monsanto’s website is on the defense, with page after page attempting to justify what the biotech industry is doing to our food supply. It must be true if even leading “philanthropists” (and I use this term loosely) like Bill and Melinda Gates are behind the distribution of Monsanto crops across the globe. Right?
Actually, it’s all about the public’s perception. The push for acceptance of GMO foods has, thus far, been all about which team has the most money. Monsanto and their ilk can afford more television ads and more PR than anti-GMO activists can.
Because the biotech companies, Big Food, and Big Agri can pay to spread their message, many people are convinced by their pure propaganda that GMOs are a necessary evil if the Third World is to avoid millions of slow, agonizing deaths by starvation. Because biotech is able to afford to blanket the media with their perspective, their view point is accepted as the correct one because that is the only perspective that many people ever hear.
But just because they shout the loudest, that doesn’t make it true.
How we address these misconceptions can mean the difference between swaying people to examine these claims more closely or causing them to stick their fingers in their ears and sing, “lalalalala…” to block us out. Here are some of the most common myths that Monsanto and friends would like you to believe about the wonderful world of GMOs.
Myth #1: No one has ever proven that GMOs are harmful to people.
Monsanto mouthpieces have been quoted time, time, and time again stating the untruth that genetically modified organisms have never been proven to harm people. It seems that they believe, like Joseph Goebbels, the uncontested King of Propaganda, that if you repeat a lie often enough, and with enough conviction, that it becomes the accepted truth.
The reality: Just a few of the results of a GMO diet (based on peer-reviewed studies) are: grotesque tumors, premature death, organ failure, gastric lesions, liver damage, kidney damage, severe allergic reactions, a viral gene that disrupts human functions…you can read more HERE.
Myth #2: GMO crops are the only way to solve world hunger.
The most common pro-GMO argument that you will hear these days is that genetically modified crops are the only way to feed the world’s burgeoning population. Without them, proponents claim that hunger will claim the lives of millions over the next decade. In the gospel of biotech, GMOs are the answer to world hunger. If you protest against GMO technology, you are cast as a cold-hearted elitist and the deaths of all of those suffering children in ***** (pick-a-3rd-world-country) rest firmly on your doorstep.
Therefore, after getting the first year of good harvests, the following year they must continue buying seeds, leading to perpetual debt and enough financial despair in India (the Bt Cotton scandal) that an Indian farmer took his own life every 30 minutes, after becoming the indentured servant of Monsanto and drowning in insurmountable debt. Well over a quarter of a million farmers died by suicide before the country banned the sale of Bt cotton seeds.
Real Change News agrees that biotech farming methods are not the answer to world hunger. They recommend “agroecology”:
Numerous reports from nonprofit, governmental and international organizations have concluded that food can be produced sustainably by bringing ecological principles to agriculture through a practice known as agroecology.
The practice supports small-scale, traditional methods of farming and promotes crop diversity over a single-food crop, often referred to as a monoculture. Practicing agroecology also enables farmers to become independent and self-sufficient producers of natural, healthy foods.
Myth #3: GMOs need less pesticide spraying.
Monsanto claims that their Bt products require less spraying. It’s right HERE on their website (emphasis mine):
Crops with a Bt trait have been modified to produce a protein that is toxic to various forms of insect larvae. Bt proteins have long been used as topical sprays in conventional and organic agriculture because they are effective and can be used safely.
Crops that are genetically engineered to carry the Bt trait allow farmers to protect their crops while eliminating or significantly decreasing the amount of pesticides sprayed.
The reality: Unfortunately, the best laid schemes of mice, men, and Monsanto often go awry. The Cornucopia Institute reports that was true for the first couple of years, but then use of pesticides and herbicides increased dramatically.
(This, of course, resulted in a hefty profit for the producers of those chemicals who are…yep, you guessed it, Monsanto and the other biotech companies who produce the seeds.)
But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.
Both reports focus on “superweeds.” It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able to withstand increasing amounts – and often different forms – of herbicide.
At the center of debate is the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in MonsantoMON +2.23%‘s Round Up. Food & Water Watch found that the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012.” Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.
Check out this condescending blurb, straight from the horse’s …ummm….mouth (the Monsanto website):
Want to hear something extraordinary? Chances are, almost everything you’ve eaten in your entire life was genetically modified. The same was true for your parents…and your grandparents.
For more than 10,000 years, mankind has selectively bred plants and animals. The cows you see in farmer’s fields bear little resemblance to the ancient Aurochs from which they descended. And the corn you eat is the domesticated version of a wild grass called teosinte.
The reality: What our ancestors did, and what responsible farmers do, is cross-pollination of different varieties of the same plant. It is a low tech method that can occur naturally – but they just gave it a little bit of help in order to bring forth the desirable characteristics, like the drought-hardiness of one type of wheat combined with the shorter growing season required for another type of wheat.
This is selective breeding. Genetically modifying seeds is a whole different ballgame, however. Here’s a great explanation from the Food Renegade website:
Unlike hybrid seeds, GMO seeds are not created using natural, low-tech methods. GMO seed varieties are created in a lab using high-tech and sophisticated techniques like gene-splicing.
Furthermore, GMO seeds seldom cross different, but related plants. Often the cross goes far beyond the bounds of nature so that instead of crossing two different, but related varieties of plant, they arecrossing different biological kingdoms — like, say, a bacteria with a plant.
For example, Monsanto has crossed genetic material from a bacteria known as Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) with corn. The goal was to create a pest-resistant plant. This means that any pests attempting to eat the corn plant will die since the pesticide is part of every cell of the plant.
The resultant GMO plant, known as Bt Corn, is itself registered as a pesticide with the EPA, along with other GMO Bt crops. In other words, if you feed this corn to your cattle, your chickens, or yourself, you’ll be feeding them an actual pesticide — not just a smidgeon of pesticide residue.
What’s even worse is that biotech has the ability to produce their seeds with a built in “terminator technology.” This means that the seeds cannot be saved from one year to the next (unlike the cross-pollinated seeds with which they try to claim kinship).
Monsanto has patented the technology (called gene use restriction technology) but claims not to use it. This would produce sterile, lifeless seeds that could not be reused, leaving the farmers utterly dependent on the biotech companies for future crops while providing an ongoing stream of income for those companies. At this point they maintain their monopoly through a series of contracts and patents that require the repurchase of seeds annually.
Myth #5: If the FDA and the USDA allow GMO’s, they must be safe to consume.
Organizations like the FDA, the EPA, and the USDA all wear a shiny halo. They receive their power and influence from the mere fact that the public believes that their number one priority is the health and safety of the citizens they are supposed to be serving. All of the agencies vow that they are there to protect the public on their websites:
FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring that foods (except for meat from livestock, poultry and some egg products which are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture) are safe, wholesome, sanitary and properly labeled; ensuring that human and veterinary drugs, and vaccines and other biological products and medical devices intended for human use are safe and effective.
To expand economic opportunity through innovation, helping rural America to thrive; to promote agriculture production sustainability that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed others throughout the world; and to preserve and conserve our Nation’s natural resources through restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working lands.
The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment. EPA’s purpose is to ensure that all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work…
The reality: All of the above is just feel-good, warm and fuzzy rhetoric. Perhaps there are employees that truly believe in what they’re doing, but the leadership is as sickeningly tainted as Bt Corn.
Part of the reason Monsanto has been so successful in the courtroom has been the company’s incestuous ties to the US de facto government. Despite the blatant conflicts of interest, Monsanto executives have held Cabinet, judicial and policy-making positions in the Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations. When you’re sleeping with the enemy, the enemy tends to get away with all manner of crimes.
- Michael Taylor: VP of Monsanto > Deputy Commissioner of the FDA.
- Roger Beachy: Director of the Danforth Plant Science Center (paid for by Monsanto) >director of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
- Elena Kagan: Obama Solicitor General (when she famously took Monsanto’s side against organic farmers in the Roundup Ready Alfalfa case) > US Supreme Court justice.
- Clarence Thomas: General Counsel for Monsanto > US Supreme Court justice.
- Margaret Miller: Monsanto supervisor > Deputy Director of Human Food Safety.
- Donald Rumsfield: Board of Directors for Monsanto’s Searle Pharmaceuticals > US Secretary of Defense.
- Ann Veneman: Monsanto Board of Directors > US Secretary of Agriculture.
- Linda Fisher: Assistant Administrator at the EPA >VP of Monsanto > Deputy Administrator of the EPA.
- Dr. Michael A.Friedman: Deputy Commissioner of the FDA > Senior VP of Monsanto.
Make no mistake, the commissioners, directors, and secretaries of these agencies are put in place for a reason. That reason is to grease the wheels for the wealthy biotech firms (and drug companies and Big Food companies and…well, you get the idea). Through an abuse of trust placed in them by the American people, they abuse their power and practice deception on the grandest scale imaginable.
If the FDA, USDA, or the EPA approve something, you might want to view it with more suspicion than acceptance. If they can say that radiation and pesticides are acceptable in your food, but that raw milk isn’t acceptable for consumption…well, there’s something incredibly wrong here.
Myth #6: There is no nutritional difference between GMO’s and non-GMO’s.
Biotech will tell you that there is absolutely no nutritional difference between genetically modified food and its organic counterpart. They will cite the calories, the fiber, and all of the macronutrients, pointing out that they are identical.
They will scoff and roll their collective eyes at the “ignorance” of people who pay double to triple the price to avoid GMOs in their kitchens. Even television’s Dr. Oz came out on his show in support of the nutritional equality of GMO foods, saying that organic food was “undemocratic”.
The reality: A shocking report released on the blog Moms Across America last March revealed that the nutritional differences in GMO vs non-GMO corn were astounding. The report was from the non-GMO corn company De Dell, in Canada. Not only are the nutritional values different, but the levels of poison in the corn are toxic:
GMO Corn has 14 ppm of Calcium and NON GMO corn has 6130 ppm. 437 X more.
GMO corn has 2 ppm of Magnesium and NON GMO corn has 113ppm. 56 X more.
GMO corn has 2 ppm of Manganese and NON GMO corn has 14ppm. 7X more.
Look at the levels of Formaldehyde and Glyphosate IN the corn! The EPA standards for Glyphosate in water in America is .7ppm. European Tests showed organ damage to animals at .1ppb (.0001ppm) of Glyphosate in water. Our water levels allow glyphosate 7,000X higher than what has been shown to be toxic in animals. This corn has 13 ppm! 130,000 times higher than what is toxic in water!*
In a study that Dr. Huber reported, on Elizabeth Dougherty’s Talk Radio, .97 ppm of formaldehyde showed to be toxic in ingestion to animals. This corn has 200X that! That is why the animals , given a choice will not eat it at all, they can smell the formaldehyde!
There is more evidence of higher nutrient levels in non-GMO, organic foods:
- A study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry confirmed that tomatoes grown by organically contain more phenolic compounds. (source)
- A German study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry found that organically grown apples had a 15 per cent higher antioxidant capacity than their conventional counterparts. (source)
- A review by the AFSSA (France’s version of the FDA) concluded that “organic plant products contain more dry matter and minerals — such as iron and magnesium — and more antioxidant polyphenols like phenols and salicylic acid.” (source)
Myth #7: GMOs are impossible to avoid.
It’s true that GMOs lurk in over 70% of the processed foods that line the grocery store shelves. Even the mainstream media has reported on the omnipresence of genetically modified ingredients. This makes it very difficult to avoid them. The biotech companies have spent millions and millions of dollars in the fight against GMO labeling in an attempt to convince the public that the grocery costs will go up without their seeds.
The reality: It’s difficult but not impossible! Here are some tips to banish GMOs from your kitchen once and for all:
- Avoid all processed food. Every single bit of it. You don’t know what all of those scientific sounding ingredients are – and many of them are derived from things like GMO corn, soy, and canola.
- Spend one week cooking from scratch to help identify the places that processed foods are sneaking in. Use only single ingredients for one week: flour, rice, oats, organic milk and yogurt, grass-fed meat, organic fruits and vegetables, and basic pantry supplies (yeast, baking soda, etc.).
- Buy organic dry items like wheat, rice, and oats, in bulk.
- Grow your own. No matter where you live, make an effort to grow as much of your own food as possible. Even a salad garden in a sunny windowsill is a start.
- This is the only way that you can truly know what you are eating.
- Search out sources of real food near you. The next best option to your own garden is making friends with a local farmer at the market (find one HERE) – you can purchase many things in bushels at a much better price than the 1 pint baskets.
- Learn to preserve food. By canning, freezing, dehydrating, and root-cellaring, you can preserve your healthy harvests so that you are not hostage to the grocery stores in the non-growing months.
- Know what ingredients are most likely to be GMO. Over 85% of soy and corn in North America is GMO. That means that if an item is not labeled “organic” and contains one of those ingredients (in its many different disguises) that you are consuming somebody’s science experiment.
Myth #8: Monsanto has our best interests in mind.
All you need to do is read Monsanto’s website and it becomes clear. These people are the benevolent saviors of all mankind and their genetically modified seeds are the vehicle with which all of the world will be fed. Monsanto’s CEO Hugh Grant writes:
The sustainability of agriculture is also central to our three-point vision—produce more, conserve more and improve lives. But it isn’t just a vision. It’s the heart of our business. Whether that is through our work in the field with farmers, or in the communities where we operate around the world, it is core to our global operations and is a priority for how we steward our business every day.
Five years ago, Monsanto laid out an ambitious set of goals in sustainable agriculture focused on these key areas where our business could help to make a positive impact for farmers and broader society. We committed to support agriculture’s ability to produce more on the same footprint of land while conserving other natural resources.
At that time, we also committed to help improve lives by supporting new tools and approaches to help lift smallholder farmers out of poverty and improve their overall prosperity. Today, the more than 21,000 men and women of Monsanto around the world continue this important work.
At the risk of your breakfast, click HERE to learn more about Monsanto’s commitment to integrity, dialogue, transparency, sharing, benefits, respect, acting as owners to achieve results, and creating a great place to work.
The reality: A German magazine, Sustainable Pulse, views it a little differently. Last week they came out with an article that outlined the mysterious mishaps that have been befalling activists and researchers across Europe.
Here’s a link to the enlightening article (English version). Last month, just days before researchers were to present a damaging study, their computers were attacked by sophisticated hackers. The scheduled press conference had to be cancelled.
However, there are studies which show that the product may damage plants and animals and the latest study shows that many large city inhabitants now have the field poison in their bodies, without knowing it. Exactly what the spray can trigger in an organism is, as with so many things in this field, disputed.
Two days before the study across 18 countries was set to be published, a virus disabled the computer of the main organiser, Adrian Bepp. There was a threat that press conferences in Vienna, Brussels and Berlin would be cancelled. “We panicked”, remembers Heike Moldenhauer from BUND. The environmental activists were under extreme time pressure.
Moldenhauer and her colleagues have widely speculated about the motives and identity of the mysterious attacker. The genetic engineering expert at BUND believes the unknown virus suppliers wanted in particular to “generate confusion”. Nothing is worse for a study than a cancelled press conference: “we did ask ourselves at the time if we were seeing ghosts”, said Moldenhauer.
The article above also speculates that the US government itself is on board with spying on anti-Monsanto activists…it’s a must-read.
There’s more. This do-good company has hired the notorious mercenaries from the former Blackwater to help deal with activists. An article by Jeremy Scahill of the Nation explains that Monsanto has already given them over half a million dollars to help deal with activists:
According to internal Total Intelligence communications, biotech giant Monsanto—the world’s largest supplier of genetically modified seeds—hired the firm in 2008–09. The relationship between the two companies appears to have been solidified in January 2008 when Total Intelligence chair Cofer Black traveled to Zurich to meet with Kevin Wilson, Monsanto’s security manager for global issues.
After the meeting in Zurich, Black sent an e-mail to other Blackwater executives, including to Prince and Prado at their Blackwater e-mail addresses. Black wrote that Wilson “understands that we can span collection from internet, to reach out, to boots on the ground on legit basis protecting the Monsanto [brand] name…. Ahead of the curve info and insight/heads up is what he is looking for.”
Black added that Total Intelligence “would develop into acting as intel arm of Monsanto.” Black also noted that Monsanto was concerned about animal rights activists and that they discussed how Blackwater “could have our person(s) actually join [activist] group(s) legally.”
Black wrote that initial payments to Total Intelligence would be paid out of Monsanto’s “generous protection budget” but would eventually become a line item in the company’s annual budget. He estimated the potential payments to Total Intelligence at between $100,000 and $500,000. According to documents, Monsanto paid Total Intelligence $127,000 in 2008 and $105,000 in 2009.
Monsanto is taking surreptitious action against the movement, whether on their own or through the use of “contractors”. They have engaged in a social media war against activists. Mysterious things have been occurring on the social networks: posts have disappeared, some posts are hidden from the timelines of readers, and trolls abound on pages like March Against Monsanto and Occupy Monsanto. Readers often have difficulty sharing pertinent anti-GMO articles on social media. The internet war is ON.
Myth #9: GMOs are not harmful to the environment.
Biotech would have you believe that the farming of GMOs is as green an industry as organic farming, bringing prosperity and abundance to all.
The reality: We need look no further than the island of Molokai in Hawaii to see the horrible environmental damage wrought by Monsanto. Air quality and water quality are deadly because of Monsanto’s almost-2000 acre test facility.
The story of the island is heartbreaking: people are dying horrible deaths, infertility is rampant, and other farms are being tainted by cross pollination from the frankencorn growing there.
Workers wear head to toe protective gear during spraying, including respirators. Nearby residents, however, are not provided with such equipment and have no option but to breathe in the toxic dust that comes from the fields.
This is not merely anecdotal to the small island – worldwide, many areas around GMO farms report horrific bloody skin rashes, an uptick in asthma, and toxic pesticides that leach into the groundwater.
Myth #10: Get used to it. GMOs are here to stay.
Biotech wants you to believe that there is no sense in fighting them. They want you to just accept what they have to say and eat their tainted products. They hope that people feel like they are too powerful to fight and like the battle has already been won.
The reality: There is a war against GMOs and we, the resistance, are gaining ground. By sharing information like this and informing the public of the poisons that are being grown in our own back yard, we can fight back against biotech. By using the power of social media, by organizing and demonstrating like millions of people did during the March Against Monsanto, we can say no.
By refusing to purchase any products that contain GMOs , by refusing to consume GMOs at restaraunts, and by spreading the word about the dangers, we can make a difference.
By educating the public and letting them know that we have been deceived by the biotech industry, by Big Agri, and by Big Food, and that we have been betrayed by the elected officials and the agencies of our own government, we can stand united against these monolithic companies. We can remind them that the only way they will stay in business is if we, the consumers, purchase their products, and that we, the consumers, will not allow them to poison our families and our environment anymore.
Become a grocery store revolutionary.
This is war. If something could mean the difference between life and death for your children, between health and disease, between fertility or barrenness, wouldn’t you do anything to keep them safe? That’s why we can’t just sit there and watch this go on from the sidelines, shaking our heads.
It really is as simple as just saying no to GMOs but we all have to do it. We have to refuse to eat these so-called foods and we have to let people know why. We have to publicly expose these myths for the fiction that they are.
We have to use social media, talk to our friends, demonstrate, write letters to the editor…we have to shine the light on the lies. Education and information are the weapons for this fight.
Make no mistake – the encroaching takeover of our food supply is an extinction level event. Will you just watch it happen?
Credit: Thank you to the wonderful social media community that generously contributed to this article! Your activism makes the fight possible!
Excellent resource: Earth Open Source offers a deeply scientific analysis in their own report, GMO MYTHS AND TRUTHS REPORT
Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor. Her website, The Organic Prepper, where this article first appeared, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at firstname.lastname@example.org
How GMO Foods Will Be Eradicated & Monsanto Wiped Off The Food Chain
Monday, September 2, 2013
The outstanding video below just released by Dr. Mercola shares how genetically modified foods will be eradicated, thereby eliminating Monsanto from our food chain.
As Americans are rapidly awakening to the poisons of Monsanto’s genetically modified foods that we are being force fed, Americans are standing up strong while Monsanto is being dumped down the garbage chute, exactly where they belong.
Why IS Barack Obama allowing Monsanto to poison, not just the children of America and the world, but ALL of us?
Published on Aug 31, 2013
Natural health physician and Mercola.com founder Dr. Joseph Mercola interviews Jeffrey Smith on Genetically Engineered Foods.
Hedge funds, insider traders begin dumping Monsanto stock as reality of GMOs sinks in across Wall Street
Friday, August 23, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles…)
Tags: Monsanto, share prices, hedge funds(NaturalNews) Monsanto executives and insiders are dumping Monsanto stock in record volumes, sending the stock price spiraling downward. CEO Hugh Grant just sold off 40,000 shares at $97.74, and both Janet Holloway and Gerald Steiner — both high-level Monsanto executives — recently ditched more than 10,000 shares each. Tom Hartley also bailed on another 6,000 shares at $100.15. (See sources below.)Hedge funds, meanwhile, are also dumping Monsanto stock, most likely due to sharply increased “negative sentiment.” This means people increasingly don’t like Monsanto, and that’s a direct result of all the growing realizations about the dangers of GMOs, Monsanto’s predatory business practices, the company’s dangerous experiments that have already unleashed genetic pollution, and the fact that GM corn has been experimentally found to cause widespread cancer tumors in rat studies.Just the fact that Monsanto’s GE wheat trials got out of control and contaminated a wheat field in Oregon — causing Japan and South Korea to ban U.S. wheat imports — has resulted in 150 groups now demanding the USDA keep a tighter lid on Monsanto’s GMO experiments. These groups are fed up with seeing the market value of their crops destroyed by sloppy “open field” experiments being conducted by Monsanto that spread genetic pollution across the country and contaminate non-GMO crops. (Monsanto goes even further and actually sues the farmers whose fields they contaminated!)
Hedge funds dumping Monsanto
As InsiderMonkey.com reports, Monsanto “has experienced declining interest from the entirety of the hedge funds we track.”
The report goes on to say:
At the top of the heap, Jeffrey Vinik’s Vinik Asset Management said goodbye to the largest stake of the 450+ funds we monitor, totaling close to $100.8 million in [Monsanto] stock. Sean Cullinan’s fund, Point State Capital, also dropped its [Monsanto] stock, about $54.7 million worth.
These sales leave Stephen Mandel’s Lone Pine Capital with the largest holdings of Monsanto, over $613 million worth of the company’s stock. Natural News urges all investors to ditch Lone Pine Capital and take your money somewhere else that doesn’t invest in “the world’s most evil corporation.”
Blue Ridge Capital also owns over $320 million in Monsanto stock and should be immediately abandoned by all investors.
Monsanto share prices plummeting ever since the March Against Monsanto
So far this year, Monsanto (MON) share prices have plummeted from a high of $109 to a current trading range around $95. That’s a drop of nearly 13%, and the bad news for Monsanto just keeps coming.
For one, the European Union’s new food safety guidelines affirm the methodology and findings of the Seralini GM corn rat study. As much as the biotech industry and all its pimped-out science trolls have attempted to attack the study, the secret is already out: GM corn causes cancer tumors and consumers accurately see GM corn as equivalent to a “poison” symbol on foods.
The Seralini study, by the way, found that:
• Up to 50% of males and 70% of females suffered premature death.
• Rats that drank trace amounts of Roundup (at levels legally allowed in the water supply) had a 200% to 300% increase in large tumors.
• Rats fed GM corn and traces of Roundup suffered severe organ damage including liver damage and kidney damage.
• The study fed these rats NK603, the Monsanto variety of GM corn that’s grown across North America and widely fed to animals and humans. This is the same corn that’s in your corn-based breakfast cereal, corn tortillas and corn snack chips.
Anyone who is still investing in Monsanto is investing in this:
All food companies that use Monsanto’s corn will be punished in the marketplace
The future for sales of Monsanto’s GM corn look especially bleak due to the simple fact that GMO labeling is now inevitable. The consumer push to know what’s in our food is unstoppable, no matter how much lobbying Monsanto conducts in a desperate effort to keep consumers ignorant about what they’re eating.
Whole Foods, of course, has already announced mandatory GMO labeling on everything it sells by 2018. I believe Wal-Mart and other retailers are also considering a similar move, or they’ll lose market share to Whole Foods.
At the same time, major food manufacturers are realizing they must either get the GMOs out of their products or face a massive consumer backlash. As a result, there is currently a mad rush by food companies to get their products certified by the Non-GMO Project. Across the board, products that achieve Non-GMO Project Verified status experience an almost immediate 30% increase in salesnationwide.
Do the math: companies that use Monsanto’s GM corn are punished and boycotted in the marketplace. Companies that use non-GMO corn experience huge increases in sales. In food company corporate boardrooms all across America, this is a no-brainer: dump GMOs if you want to survive.
The same is also true for hedge funds and mutual funds: the more they invest in Monsanto, the more they stand to lose from the global outrage against Monsanto, GMOs and GM corn in particular.
Plus, I also happen to believe there will come a day when many of the top Monsanto executives will be arrested and prosecuted for their role in carrying out crimes against humanity (not just from GMOs but also from glyphosate). When that day comes, Monsanto share prices will obviously fall through the floor. The company may, in fact, implode like a dot-com bubble, leaving investors holding worthless paper instead of valuable shares… a kind of poetic justice for all those who furthered the means of such a destructive entity in the first place.
See the funds that still invest in Monsanto
The mutual funds still investing in Monsanto include:
• Fidelity Select
• American Century
• Rydex Basic Materials
• Hartford Growth
• ICON Materials
• Vanguard Materials
If you own any of these mutual funds, sell them now and invest somewhere else. Become an “activist investor” and put your money in companies that create a better world, not companies that destroy their world for their own selfish greed.
See a more detailed list at:
Why humanity will achieve victory against Monsanto
Monsanto is at war with humanity and the planet, but humanity will achieve victory against this evil corporate force of death and destruction. It is already happening in the marketplace and across the minds and hearts of millions of activists in stand in solidarity against corporate evil.
So spread the word about not just avoiding GMOs but also avoiding owning Monsanto stock in any form. If you have money invested in a mutual fund or hedge fund that owns Monsanto, sell the fund!Don’t let anyone use your money to further the profits of the biotech industry. Invest your money in something that helps humanity, not harms it.
Sources for this story include:
Savage Hybrid Dogs (Documentary)
Published on Jun 14, 2013
An investigation into reports of attacks on pets and livestock in Maine and Minnesota by strange hybrid canines.
Canid hybrids are the result of interbreeding between different species of the canine (dog) family (Canidae).
Members of the dog genus Canis: wolves, dogs (both common dogs and dingoes), Ethiopian Wolves, coyotes, and golden jackals cannot interbreed with members of the wider dog family: the Canidae, such as South American canids, foxes, African wild dogs, bat-eared foxes or raccoon dogs; or, if they could, their offspring would be infertile.
Members of the genus Canis species can, however, all interbreed to produce fertile offspring, with two exceptions: the side-striped jackal and black-backed jackal. Although these two theoretically could interbreed with each other to produce fertile offspring, it appears they cannot hybridize successfully with the rest of the genus Canis.
When the differences in number and arrangement of chromosomes is too great, hybridization becomes less and less likely. The wolf, dingo, dog, coyote, and golden jackal diverged relatively recently, around three to four million years ago, and all have 78 chromosomes arranged in 39 pairs.
This allows them to hybridize freely (barring size or behavioral constraints) and produce fertile offspring. The side-striped jackal and black-backed jackal both have 74 chromosomes. Other members of the Canidae family, which diverged seven to ten million years ago, are less closely related to and cannot hybridize with the wolf-like canids; the red fox has 38 chromosomes, the raccoon dog has 42 chromosomes, the fennec fox has 64 chromosomes. The African wild dog, however still has the same number, 78 chromosomes, as do the wolf-like canids but have yet to hybridize with any of them.