GMO Ticking Time Bomb Documentary

GMO Ticking Time Bomb is a must-see video offering an information-rich overview of the situation with GMOs. It features interviews with people like Jeffrey Smith, Ronnie Cummins, David Murphy and more. In the film, Rima Laibow also explains how Monsanto and DuPont formed a joint venture to create the "Epicyte gene" that causes permanent, irreversible infertility in both men and women. Watch it here, if you dare: There is a conspiracy of oppression taking place right now against free speech about GMOs. Just this week, YouTube censored a whistleblower video that exposed Whole Foods employees lying about the fact that Whole Foods sells masses of genetically modified foods and is therefore a significant financial supporter of Monsanto. It is now perfectly clear that this video was censored because of its truthful message, not because it actually violated any real terms of service with YouTube. That's the reality in which we now live: Telling the truth about GMOs is practically a crime. The mainstream media, meanwhile, refuses to cover the truth about GMO dangers. And the U.S. government itself is, of course, completely sold out to corporate interests and thus won't warn the American people about GMOs, either. We quite literally live in an age so bizarre and irrational that the simple act of warning fellow citizens about poison in the food is now systematically suppressed. The status quo wants you to eat your poison, shut up, stop asking questions and check yourself in at the nearest for-profit cancer center once those tumors start to show up. That's the new system of oppression and slavery in America: It's medical slavery, economic slavery and even thought slavery.

Monsanto Fails To Explain Away Tumors Caused From Eating GMO

Monsanto's efforts to dismiss new evidence linking its genetically modified (GM) corn to tumors has been thoroughly debunked in a public briefing by the food sustainability nonprofit Earth Open Source.

"NK603 must be immediately withdrawn from the market and all GMOs must be subjected to long-term testing," the briefing concludes.

In a two-year study, a team of French researchers led by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini found that rats fed Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" corn developed significantly more tumors than a control group not fed GM corn. The rats fed a GM diet also developed tumors that appeared earlier and behaved more aggressively, and died sooner than rats in the control group.

The study found similar effects in rats exposed to Roundup herbicide at levels currently considered safe by most regulators.

"Roundup Ready" crops have been engineered for resistance to Monsanto's top-selling herbicide glyphosate, marketed under the trade name Roundup. In the scientific literature, Roundup Ready corn is also known as NK603.

Monsanto's faulty defenses

Responding to the study, Monsanto claimed that the findings were not significant because tumor rates in the rats fed GM corn were "within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats, which is known for a high incidence of tumors." In other words, the company has claimed that the rats developed tumors simply because of their genetics, and that the tumor rates seen in the rats fed GM corn were similar to tumor rates in rats not fed GM corn in other studies.

In response to Monsanto's "tumor prone rats" argument, the briefing notes that while tumors did in fact occur in both groups of rats, they were both more common and more aggressive in the experimental group - and it is the difference between the two groups that is relevant for scientific study.

"This is a basic principle of science and it is worrying that attempts are being made by pro-GM lobbyists to override it in the interests of keeping the products of powerful multinational biotechnology companies on the market," the briefing reads.

The briefing also debunks Monsanto's "historical data" argument. First of all, the historical tumor data cited by Monsanto actually comes from a completely different strain of rats (Charles River Labs SD rats) than those used in the study (Harlan SD rats).

In fact, the researchers did compare their findings to historical tumor rates in Harlan SD rats, and found that all their results remained statistically significant. For example, the rate of tumors in rats fed GM corn was three times higher than the historical average tumor rates for the same strain of rats.

The briefing further notes that the very idea of using "historical data" to dismiss statistically significant findings is shoddy science, and the technique is rejected by serious scientists. Any legitimate scientific study includes a control group that is tested at the same time as the experimental group, because this is the best way to actually control as many variables as possible and make sure any differences observed are due to the variable being tested (in this case, consumption of GM corn).

 Rats in other studies may have been fed different diets, been at different phases of their life cycles, been exposed to other environmental pollutants, had a different genetic background, or been exposed to any number of other potentially relevant factors.

"The use of historical control data is an unscientific strategy used by industry and some regulators to dismiss statistically significant findings of toxicity in ... studies intended to evaluate safety of pesticides, chemicals, and GMOs," the briefing notes.

Burgers To Exterminate Mankind?

 

Hunger and malnutrition may kill millions of people in 20 years. The global tragedy is likely to be caused by three interrelated factors: fluctuations of food prices, extreme weather conditions and climate instabilities. The contradiction between the growing human needs and objective limits of resource become more and more serious.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the World Food Programme (WFP) released another intimidating statement connected with the growth of global food prices.

"The current situation in world food markets, characterized by sharp increases in the prices on corn, wheat and soybeans generated fears of the repetition of the world food crisis of 2007-2008," the statement said.

Back then, the growing food prices led increased malnutrition in Niger, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Burkina Faso. The food crisis also led to civil unrest there. This year, the food crisis may affect the Middle East - Yemen and war-torn Syria in the first place. 

The authors of the statement said that coordinated international actions may help cope with the local crisis quickly. They called for imediate action to prevent another large-scale food disaster in the coming months. Typically, the UN food departments see salvation in financial handouts to the crisis-stricken countries that give local authorities a possibility to buy foodstuffs. This is what they call "fast and coordinated international effort."

According to the World Food Programme (WFP), every ten-percent increase in the price of the food basket means that the programme must seek additional $200 million a year to spend the amount on food aid. There were three jumps in food prices during the recent five years. At the same time, UN agencies say that high food prices are just symptoms, not a disease.

"When the international community takes urgent measures to prevent price shocks, one must also struggle with the root causes of this increase," the statement said.

Many officials say that mankind should reconsider, if not a diet, then the sources of production of vital proteins. Ecologists and economists have repeatedly proved that the modern system of agriculture is flawed in terms of excessive focus on cattle-breeding. In its present scale, cattle-breeding is one of the main industries that pollute air, ground and water. The industry is also a huge consumer of resources.

Thus, more than half of all cultivated lands in the United States are occupied by forage crops. In other words, harvests are fed to livestock. Afterwards, harvests return to American people in the form of burgers. According to the UN, "even in good years, the global production of maize can hardly satisfy the world's need in food." In the USA, more than 90 percent of maize is grown for fodder. If the criticism of modern-day cattle-breeding on the part of vegetarians is primarily of humane character, then numerous rational arguments, supported by calculations of ecologists and economists suggest that the further development of this path will lead the world into a deadlock.

There are about 7 billion people living on Earth at the moment. However, the number of domestic animals on the planet nears 17 billion. All of them drink, eat and defecate in much larger quantities than humans.

Cattle consumes enormous amounts of fresh water and food grown by mankind. This is clearly an inefficient way to live, isn't it?

As the UN Food and Agriculture Organization predicted, the food production will have to be increased by 70 percent by 2050 to feed the population of the planet. The demand on livestock products will continue to grow in the coming decades. The meat consumption is expected to grow, by almost 73 percent by 2050, while the consumption of dairy products - by 58 percent compared to the current level of consumption, FAO experts said.

Meanwhile, the further expansion of agricultural areas for the production of animal fodder and the growing number of the livestock population may trigger an ecological disaster and lead to millions of hunger-related deaths.

In turn, the further deterioration of the environmental situation may lead to climate changes. According to forecasts from Oxfam charity organization, Oxford, it is droughts and floods that will cause a sharp rise in food prices in the coming years.

NOTE:  Simple solution, stop feeding cattle grains which they aren't designed to eat.  Let them eat grass which they are designed to eat.

Eat GMO? Liver Damage?

Genetically engineered wheat contains an enzyme suppressor that, when consumed by humans, could cause permanent liver failure (and death). That's the warning issued today by molecular biologist Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury in Australia.





Heinemann has published an eye-opening report that details this warning and calls for rigorous scientific testing on animals before this crop is ever consumed by humans. The enzyme suppressor in the wheat, he says, might also attack a human enzyme that produces glycogen.

Consumers who eat genetically modified wheat would end up contaminating their bodies with this enzyme-destroying wheat, causing their own livers to be unable to produce glycogen, a hormone molecule that helps the body regulate blood sugar metabolism. This, in turn, would lead to liver failure.

"What we found is that the molecules created in this wheat, intended to silence wheat genes, can match human genes, and through ingestion, these molecules can enter human beings and potentially silence our genes," said Heinemann in a press conference on the threat of GM wheat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI7n_caiTvE).

"We found over 770 pages of potential matches between these two genes in wheat and the human genome," he continued. "We found over a dozen matches that are extensive and identical, and sufficient to cause silencing in experimental systems.

The findings are absolutely assured. There's no doubt that these matches exist. ...from this information, we know that it's plausible there will be an adverse effect and therefore that's why we're calling for a particular battery of experiments to be done before humans eat this wheat."

Professor Judy Carman, biochemist and director of the IHER, Flinders University, Adelaide, added: "If this silences the same sort of gene in us -- as it silences in the wheat -- then, well, children who are born with this enzyme not working tend to die by the age of about five. And adults with this problem, just kind of get more and more sick, and more and more tired, until they get very very ill indeed."

She continues, "Before this comes near any human feeding studies, you need to undertake thorough animal safety assessments, where you actually look to see if the animals get sick. So you need to see if this genetic modification survives digestion and gets into the bodies of the animals.

You need to see what effect it has on them. You need to do proper long-term toxicology studies... you need to check for cancer, you need to see if there are any reproductive problems, and you need to check for allergies..."

GMO pushers want you and your children to be the guinea pigs
As you consider this information, keep in mind that GMO pushers want you and your children to eat GMOs that have never been safety tested on anyone! You are simply supposed to believe in the safety of GMOs, like a cult followers, without any scientific evidence proving it.

In today's corporate-run quack science agricultural system, YOU are the human guinea pigs. There is no science behind the safety of GMOs, and in fact the real science shows that GMOs cause infertility, sickness and disease in the animal tests that have been done. GMOs are a threat to humanity, and those who promote them are junk science villains who have sold their souls to the criminal biotechnology industry.

The GMO industry is so evil that it doesn't even want you to know you're eating GMOs! That's why industry giants are funneling tens of millions of dollars into a scheme to try to defeat Proposition 37 in California (www.CArighttoknow.org) which would legally mandate the labeling of GMOs on food products.

Even popular brands that "sound" natural are actually fighting against GMO labeling: Kashi, Larabar, Cascadian Farm, R.W. Knudsen, Silk and other brands have all betrayed consumers and are now the subject of a global Natural News boycott.

Australian regulators sell out to Monsanto
In commenting on all this, Dr Brian John of GM-Free Cymru said:

"What we see here is yet another example of a GM wheat variety released into the environment without any proper assessment of health and safety issues. CSIRO and the Australian and New Zealand regulators have long had a strategy of promoting GM crops which nobody actually wants, with a degree of enthusiasm that verges on criminal negligence.

We see a very similar scenario in the UK, where GM wheat is being grown at Rothamsted in spite of strong public opposition and in spite of zero market demand, just to satisfy the whims of politicians and multinational corporations. It is high time for this absurd and dangerous experiment with GM technology to be stopped in its tracks, since new evidence of harm to health and the environment now seems to be appearing on a weekly basis."

See the background on CSIRO:HERE

It shows that CSIRO has financial ties to Monsanto and other biotech companies.

Read the expert scientific opinion reports
(Thanks due to GMwatch.org for this list.)

Professor Jack Heinemann's Expert Scientific Opinion

Professor Judy Carman's Expert Scientific Opinion

Professor Michael Antoniou's Expert Scientific Appraisal of Heinemann and Carman's Work

Heinemann's Expert Scientific Opinion: Appendix 1

Heinemann's Expert Scientific Opinion: Appendix 2

Safe Food Foundation media release on the opinions

ABBREVIATIONS
CSIRO = Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
FSANZ = Food Standards Australia New Zealand
OGTR = Office of the Gene Technology Regulator


I am a molecular biologist. I have been an academic at the University of Canterbury since 1994. Prior to that, I was employed by the US National Institutes of Health. My doctorate was conferred by the University of Oregon at Eugene (1989) and my Bachelor of Science (with honours) degree from the University of Wisconsin, Madison (1985).

I am involved in risk assessment research and participate in risk assessment through evaluation of assessments provided to regulatory bodies and through the development of international guidance documents for risk assessment. I have over 100 scholarly works published on the topic of molecular biology, genetics, risk assessment and other scientific matters within my expertise. I publish in leading international journals and my work has been recognised by prestigious professional organisations for its excellence.

Food Inflation, Food Shortges & Food Riots

Dees Illustration

A devastating global food crisis unlike anything we have ever seen in modern times is coming. Crippling drought and bizarre weather patterns have damaged food production all over the world this summer, and the UN and the World Bank have both issued ominous warnings about the food inflation that is coming.

To those of us in the Western world, a rise in the price of food can be a major inconvenience, but in the developing world it can mean the difference between life and death. 

 

Just remember what happened back in 2008. When food prices hit record highs it led to food riots in 28 different countries. Today, there are approximately 2 billion people that are malnourished around the globe. Even rumors of food shortages are enough to spark mass chaos in many areas of the planet. When people fear that they are not going to be able to feed their families they tend to get very desperate. That is why a recent CNN article declared that "2013 will be a year of serious global crisis". 

The truth is that we are not just facing rumors of a global food crisis - one is actually starting to unfold right in front of our eyes. The United States experienced the worst drought in more than 50 years this summer, and some experts are already declaring that the weather has been so dry for so long that tremendous damage has already been done to next year's crops.

 

 On the other side of the world, Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan have all seen their wheat crops devastated by the horrible drought this summer. Australia has also been dealing with drought, and in India monsoon rains were about 15 percent behind pace in mid-August. Global food production is going to be much less than expected this year, and global food demand continues to steadily rise. What that means is that food inflation, food shortages and food riots are coming, and it isn't going to be pretty.

The United States exports more food than anyone else in the world, and that is why the entire globe has been nervously watching the horrific drought in the United States this summer with deep concern.

It has been the worst drought in more than 50 years, and it has absolutely devastated corn crops all over the nation. According to Bill Witherell, the U.S. corn crop this year "is said to be on a par with that of 1988 crop, the worst in the past thirty years."

Sadly, this will be the third year in a row that the yield for corn has declined in the United States.

That has never happened before in the history of the United States.

And coming into this year we were already in bad shape. In fact, U.S. corn reserves were sitting at a 15-year low at the end of 2011.

So where will we be at the end of 2012?

The official estimates for corn yields put out by the U.S. government just keep dropping, but many fear that they aren't dropping quickly enough. There have been some reports on the ground from some areas of the country that have been very distressing. The following is from a recent Wall Street Journal article....

Meanwhile, scouts with the Pro Farmer Midwest Crop Tour on Monday reported an average estimated corn yield in Ohio of 110.5 bushels per acre, down from the tour's estimate of 156.3 bushels a year ago. In South Dakota, tour scouts reported an average yield estimate of just 74.3 bushels per acre, down from 141.1 bushels a year ago.

Those are catastrophic numbers.

But farmers are not the only ones that have been impacted by the dry weather. A recent article by Chris Martenson summarized some of the other effects of this drought.....

Even though the mainstream media seems to have lost some interest in the drought, we should keep it front and center in our minds, as it has already led to sharply higher grain prices, increased gasoline costs (via the pass-through of higher ethanol costs), impeded oil and gas drilling activity in some areas (due to a lack of water), caused the shutdown of a few operating electricity plants, temporarily reduced red meat prices (but will also make them climb sharply later) as cattle are dumped in response to feed- and pasture-management concerns, and blocked and/or reduced shipping on the Mississippi River.

All this and there's also a strong chance that today's drought will negatively impact next year's Winter wheat harvest, unless a lot of rain starts falling soon.

Ranchers have had a particularly hard time during this drought. If you expect to pay about the same for meat this time next year as you are doing now you are going to be deeply disappointed. The following is from a recent Reuters article....

The worst drought to hit U.S. cropland in more than half a century could soon leave Americans reaching deeper into their pockets to fund a luxury that people in few other countries enjoy: affordable meat. 

Drought-decimated fields have pushed grain prices sky high, and the rising feed costs have prompted some livestock producers to liquidate their herds. This is expected to shrink the long-term U.S. supply of meat and force up prices at the meat counter.

All over the western United States pastures have been destroyed and there is not enough hay. It would be hard to overstate the damage that this nightmarish drought is doing to our ranchers....

I spoke with Caldwell [of Indiana horse rescue] and a number of other horse-rescue organizations around the country by telephone this week. The relentlessly hot dry weather, amplified in many areas by wildfire, has been devastating to farmers, ranchers and other horse owners. 

'Everybody is using their winter hay now. The pastures are destroyed and they probably won’t recover before winter,' said Caldwell. 'The price of hay has doubled, and the availability is down by 75 percent.' 

Caldwell is somewhat sanguine about his own lot, but not optimistic about what lies ahead. 

'Today the problem is not nearly as bad as it’s going to be,' he told me. 'It’s terribly bad today, but it is going to get a lot worse.'

But of course as I mentioned earlier this is not just an American problem.

The truth is that the entire globe is facing a rapidly growing food crisis.

According to the UN, the global price of food rose 6 percent in the month of July alone.

According to the World Bank, global food prices actually rose 10 percent during July.

Either figure is really, really bad.

The other day, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the World Food Program issued a joint statement in which they stated the following....

'We need to act urgently to make sure that these price shocks do not turn into a catastrophe hurting tens of millions over the coming months.'

If the price of food at our supermarkets suddenly went up 20 percent that would really stretch our family budgets here in the United States, but we would survive.

On the other side of the globe, such a price change can mean the difference between life and death. The following is from the CNN article mentioned above....

But step outside the developed world, and the price of food suddenly becomes the single most important fact of human economic life. In poor countries, people typically spend half their incomes on food -- and by 'food,' they mean first and foremost bread. 

When grain prices spiked in 2007-2008, bread riots shook 30 countries across the developing world, from Haiti to Bangladesh, according to the Financial Times. A drought in Russia in 2010 forced suspension of Russian grain exports that year and set in motion the so-called Arab spring.

Already, 18 million people in Niger, Mali, Chad, Mauritania and Senegal are dealing with very serious food shortages.

In Yemen, things are even worse....

Yemen has a catastrophic food crisis. Nearly half the population, 10 million people, does not have enough to eat. While 300,000 children are facing life threatening levels of malnutrition. 

The United Nations says Yemen is already in the throes of a disaster. 

'The levels are truly terrible. Whatever we do thousands upon thousands of children will die this year from malnutrition,' Unicef's man in Yemen, Geert Cappelaere, said. 

'In some areas child malnutrition is at 30%, to put it in context, an emergency is 15%. It is double that already.'

But this is just the beginning. These food shortages are going to spread and we will eventually see food riots that will absolutely dwarf the food riots of 2008.

Many scientists fear the worst. Some are even now warning that food shortages will become so severe that they will eventually force much of the globe on to a vegetarian diet....

Leading water scientists have issued one of the sternest warnings yet about global food supplies, saying that the world's population may have to switch almost completely to a vegetarian diet over the next 40 years to avoid catastrophic shortages. 

Humans derive about 20% of their protein from animal-based products now, but this may need to drop to just 5% to feed the extra 2 billion people expected to be alive by 2050, according to research by some of the world's leading water scientists. 

'There will not be enough water available on current croplands to produce food for the expected 9 billion population in 2050 if we follow current trends and changes towards diets common in western nations,' the report by Malik Falkenmark and colleagues at the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) said.

The days of very cheap meat are coming to an end. Meat will be increasingly viewed as a "luxury" around the globe from now on.

Sadly, there are some in the financial world that actually intend to make lots of money off of this crisis....

The United Nations, aid agencies and the British Government have lined up to attack the world's largest commodities trading company, Glencore, after it described the current global food crisis and soaring world prices as a 'good' business opportunity. 

With the US experiencing a rerun of the drought 'Dust Bowl' days of the 1930s and Russia suffering a similar food crisis that could see Vladimir Putin's government banning grain exports, the senior economist of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, Concepcion Calpe, told The Independent: 'Private companies like Glencore are playing a game that will make them enormous profits.'

Does that disturb you?

It should.

Driving up the price of food for starving people is not a good way to make money. Food is one of our most basic needs. When people are deprived of food they become very desperate.

Just look at what is already happening in Spain. The economic crisis in that country has just begun, and people are already looting supermarkets. You can see a video news report about Spanish activists looting 3 tons of food from local supermarkets right here.

Much of that food was donated to food banks, but in the future I am sure that the desperate "activists" will not be so generous when things get really tight.

In other areas of Spain, large numbers of people have been filmed digging through trash dumpsters for food.

Could you ever see yourself doing that? Don't be so sure that hunger will never come to America. Right now, a record 46.7 million Americans are on food stamps, and anti-hunger organizations all around the country are reporting more of a need than ever before.

For now the federal government is able to feed the tens of millions of Americans that do not have enough money for food, but what happens when a day comes when the federal government stops doing that?

And what happens if the drought in the United States continues throughout the winter and into next summer and Dust Bowl conditions return to the United States?

In a previous article entitled "17 Signs That You Better Start Preparing For A Nightmarish Global Food Crisis", I detailed some more of the reasons why people need to start preparing for food inflation and food shortages.

In the past we could always go out to the supermarket or to Wal-Mart and fill up our shopping carts with huge piles of very cheap food whenever we wanted to.

It will not always be that way.

Get prepared while you still can.

Meanwhile, many Americans continue to enjoy life as if nothing will ever change. For example, the "Rich Kids of Instagram" have been very busy showing off their wealth all summer long. You can see some of the ridiculous ways that they are blowing their wealth right here.

Sadly, they are just a product of our degenerating society. We have piled up wealth in these troubled times while the rest of the world has suffered.

But even our great wealth was not enough for us so we went out and borrowed trillions upon trillions of dollars. We have accumulated the greatest mountain of debt in the history of the world, but we are still not satisfied.

In the end, we will weep and howl in misery as everything that we have built falls apart around us.

More Than 50 Million Americans Short On Food

Being able to afford food has become more difficult for millions of Americans.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- More than 50 million Americans couldn't afford to buy food at some point in 2011, according to federal data.

Children in some 3.9 million households suffered from food insecurity last year, with their families unable to provide them with adequate, nutritious food at times.

Nearly 17 million Americans suffered from "very low food security," meaning they had to reduce the amount they ate, saying the food they bought did not last and they didn't have the funds to buy more. They typically found themselves in this situation a few days a month for seven months of the year.

The number of people in this category shot up by more than 800,000 from 2010, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released Wednesday. Women living alone, black households and the poor and near-poor were affected the most.


The report comes the day after the department said that a record 46.7 million received food stamps in June. Only 57% of food insecure households said they participate in a federal food and nutrition assistance program.

Food stamps, along with other safety net programs, have come into the spotlight during the 2012 election. President Obama has pushed to expand the initiative, while Republicans want to curtail

Stanford, Cargill Et Al Behind Anti Organic Study

Anti-organic "study" is not news, rather, coordinated propaganda campaign.
by Tony Cartalucci 

September 5, 2012 - Harry Wallop of the London Telegraph ends his anti-organic food editorial with the following sentence: 

"Tomorrow, the baby is going to get an extra dollop of pesticide-sprayed carrots."
Whether or not Wallop is as brain-addled as he leads on to being, the point of his editorial is to encourage similar attitudes amongst the Telegraph's readership, attempting to manipulate public perception in the wake of a recent Stanford "study" regarding organic food. 

Whether or not readers of the Telegraph will put their own health and that of their children at risk for the sake of protecting big-agri's bottom line and the faltering paradigm that big-agri products are safe for human consumption simply because Harry Wallop thinks its good to feed his baby with pesticide-sprayed carrots remains to be seen. 

The London Telegraph, when not fabricating news to support England's latest imperial adventures overseas, is at the forefront of many of the largest corporate-financier funded lobbying campaigns. Recently, someone has splurged, and splurged big on anti-organic food lobbying built atop a suspect Stanford study. 

A Flawed "Study" 

When entire news cycles are dominated by headlines built on a single university study, with editorials attempting to hammer in big-agri talking points, a lobbying effort is clearly afoot.
Two news cycles have already been dedicated to trashing organic food. Organic food is free of pesticides and genetic manipulation, both of which are proven to cause learning disabilities, decreased IQ, sterility, and a myriad of other health problems including a wide variety of cancers. 

This most recent anti-organic food campaign began with a Stanford study (and here) out of its Center for Health Policy (a subsidiary of Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies), examining the nutritional value of organic food versus non-organic. Food with pesticides on it had nearly the same nutritional value, the study claims, as organic food - completely skipping over the whole point of eating organic. 

Indeed, the nutritional value would be similar - but the entire point of eating organic is not because of vastly superior nutritional value, but to avoid the "extras" included with products from big-agri corporations. 

The Stanford study intentionally dismisses concerns regarding the presence of pesticides by simply claiming levels were within legal tolerances. No discussion was made on whether legal tolerances equated to safe tolerances, nor was there any mention made of the harmful effects of genetically modified organisms (GMO) or other controversial food additives found in non-organic food products. 

So why the strawman argument? 

A Corporate-funded "Study"
The Stanford Center for Health Policy states the following on its own website:
"The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) relies on support from its friends, as well as from national and international foundations and corporations, for the funding of the Institute's research, teaching and outreach activities." 

The Center for Health Policy is a subsidiary of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). So who are these "friends," national and international foundations and corporations funding the research of FSI and its subsidiary, the Stanford Center for Health Policy? 

Image: From Stanford Center for Health Policy's own website it is admitted that " national and international foundations and corporations" fund its research and "outreach activities." This confirms the suspicions of an increasingly aware public who saw the "study" as biased, contradictory of both logic and ethics, and the result of insidious corporate-funding.
....
According to FSI's 2011 Annual Report (page 38, .pdf) Agricultural giant Cargill, British Petroleum (BP), the Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation (heavily invested in both Cargill and big-agri giant Monsanto), the Ford Foundation, Google, Goldman Sachs, the Smith Richardson Foundation, and many other corporate-financier, Fortune 500 special interests. 

Image: From Stanford's 2011 FSI Annual Report (page 38, .pdf), of which the Center for Health Policy is a subsidiary, is funded by Cargill, the Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation (heavily invested in both Cargill and big-agri giant Monsanto), and a myriad of other Fortune 500 corporate-financier special interests. The report at face value is throwaway propaganda, but its funding reveals a more insidious, coordinated effort to manipulate public perception, stretching across academia, mass media, government, and big business. (click image to enlarge)
....
That none of this is mentioned, and the lack of independence and transparency involved in the study and its presentation to the public, overturns the credibility of both Stanford, and the Western media machine that so eagerly shoveled the results out to the public. Combined with the fact that the study itself is flawed, and the concerted, disingenuous nature with which it is being promoted to the public, a premeditated public relations campaign, bought and paid for by Stanford's FSI sponsors, most notably Cargill and the Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation is self-evident. 

What to Do? 

Quite obviously, one should continue eating organic. Additionally, the duplicitous nature exhibited by academia, the mass media, and the vast corporate interests overtly driving them both, demands from us to redouble our efforts at implementing full-spectrum boycotts aimed at big-agri as well as other Fortune 500 corporate-financier monopolies. This includes other processed food makers such as Pepsi and Coca-Cola, Kraft, and the myriad of subsidiaries they maintain. 

We should also redouble our efforts at supporting local farmers, attending and contributing to local farmers markets, and investigating the possibility of growing, if only a small percentage, our own herbs, fruits, and vegetables. 

Freedom and self-determination come from economic independence, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency. The most fundamental form of economic independence is having a safe, secure, and local food supply operated for, by, and of the people. 

Cementing this emerging paradigm, in spite of the crass, juvenile, even criminally irresponsible editorials like that of the Telegraph's Harry Wallop, and multimillion dollar "studies" subsidized by Cargill and the Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation, is the first step on extending this paradigm shift to other areas required for maintaining and advancing modern civilization. 

Update: Agricultural giant Cargill is in fact in direct partnership with Stanford University. Specifically, it has donated at least 5 million dollars for the creation of a Center on Food Security and the Environment (FSE). 

The center is allegedly "committed to helping feed a growing population while preserving the planet's natural resources." This will presumably be done through the use of patented Cargill biotechnology, have nothing to do with actually "helping feed" anything but Cargill's bottom line and corporate-financier domination of the global food supply, while Stanford simply leverages its reputation and credibility to give cover and badly needed legitimacy to Cargill's methods and agenda. 

Stanford's most recent "study" is essentially the university "giving back" to Cargill and others.
http://www.landdestroyer.blogspot.com/

Is There A Difference Between GMO Toxic Food Like Substances & Real Organic Food?

War On Home Gardens

A Canadian couple that has been growing a beautiful, meticulously-maintained front yard vegetable and herb garden has been ordered by city officials to uproot most of it by September 1 or else face lofty fines. CBC News and others are reporting that the town of Drummondville in Quebec is actually planning to ban all front yard gardens in the municipality beginning this fall; a move the spells the end of food self-sufficiency for many Canadians living in the area.

 









Michel Beauchamp and Josee Landry love to grow their own food. But the back yard of their well kept, Saint-Charles area home does not get enough natural sunlight throughout the day to grow the many varieties of fresh fare they have long enjoyed. So they asked their town's Environmental Services Inspector if it was permissible to grow food in their front yard, and they were given a verbal affirmative that this was not a problem.

"They used to have flowers growing, but Beauchamp has high blood pressure and wanted to eat healthier. So they planted cucumbers, tomatoes, zucchinis, beets, onions, and Brussels sprouts, among other vegetables," said CBC News about the garden. According to the same report, Beauchamp has lost an astounding 75 pounds since first planting the garden, and much of this is due to his having been able to grow and eat his own healthy food at home.

Drummondville changes its mind, betrays Beauchamp and his wife

But after the couple invested roughly $2,500 to install the garden, which is among the most tasteful and orderly front yard gardens that you will likely ever see, by the way (http://grist.org/list/city-officials-are-waging-a-war-on-gardens/), Drummondville officials turned on the couple and told them that they would have to remove most of their garden or else face a daily fine of up to $300 -- and the couple was given just seven days to comply with this demand.

According to city officials, every front yard garden in Drummondville has to contain at least 30 percent grass, a requirement that Beauchamp and his wife did not comply with when they installed the garden. It does not appear that the couple was ever even told about the requirement; as they had previously received approval to plant the garden as it currently is.

When Beauchamp and his wife challenged the city on the order, officials did not relent, but instead gave the couple a compliance extension, telling them that they had until September 1 to rip up part of their garden. The two are still fighting the city over the issue, though, and continue to try to convince officials to do away with the silly ordinance.

"It must be a right to be able to grow our own vegetables on our land," said Beauchamp to CBC News. "It is nonsense to ban it."

Meanwhile, Drummondville officials are moving forward with a new ordinance that will completely restrict front yard gardens altogether, no matter their size, which puts Beauchamp and his wife and many others out of the food self-sufficiency business. Since many back yards in the area are too small or do not receive the proper amounts of natural sunlight, many areas' residents will essentially be restricted from ever growing their own food unless they move.

Food oppression also escalating in the U.S.

Similar jack-booted oppression by local officials is taking place in the U.S. as well, including in Tulsa, Okla., where a woman recently had her entire front yard garden illegally bulldozed by city officials (http://www.naturalnews.com). Similar cases of home-grown food destruction have taken place in Georgia, Michigan, and New Jersey.

NOTE:   Vote with every dollar that you spend when you buy processed, dead food you are directly supporting the corporations that will eliminate your access for real food.  Kill the giant now, before it sickens you.

White House Chef Claims Future Food Will Be All Chemicals Not Real Food

Every two years, a consortium of Europe's most active minds converges at the Euroscience Open Forum to discuss the latest advancements in scientific research and innovation. But this year's meeting, which was held in Dublin, Ireland, featured a disturbing workshop held by White House executive pastry chef Bill Yosses, who explained and demonstrated to audience members how the food of the future will not actually contain real food, but rather various combinations of lab-created chemicals that mimic food.

As reported on Six One News, a feature of RTE News in Ireland, Yosses and several other food experts showed a live audience how to create various foams, gels, solids, and other food-like textured substances out of chemicals that, when combined, resemble things like lemon souffle and chocolate pudding. These food scientists then shared samples of these laboratory creations with audience members, who were told that the imitation food products are the wave of the future.

"You take the (chemical) compounds and you make the dish," said Herve This of AgroParisTech, a science and research organization based in France, to RTE News in Ireland. "So you have no vegetables, no fruit, no meat, no fish, nothing except compounds. And you have to create a shape, a color, a taste, a freshness, a pungency, an astringency, everything," he added, likening traditional cooking methods such as "cracking eggs" and using real food ingredients to "living in the Middle Ages."

White House executive pastry chef Bill Yosses shares a similar sentiment, as he believes creating fake food out of chemicals will actually help improve the quality of cuisine and availability of food. He told Six One News that chefs can use the information he presented to gain a "(better) understanding of what they're doing and use that to improve the processes, to improve not only the flavor but the hygiene, the longevity, how to store things."

"All that comes about from understanding cooking on a really molecular level," he added, with sort of a twinkle in his eye. But when he was asked if these same chemical food experiments are used at the White House in meals served to the Obamas, Yosses laughed and said no, explaining that "the First Family is looking for traditional, sort of 'happy recipes' that people are familiar with."

You can watch the disturbing segment in its entirety at:
<a href=http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2012/0712/media-3342255.html>This Link</a>

While intended to specifically showcase some of the more offbeat scientific developments circulating the "technosphere" today, the Euroscience Open Forum, including the troubling seminar on chemical-based "foods of the future," is actually a troubling foreshadowing of what may soon come for Americans. Some scientists are apparently of the strong persuasion that man-made food items are preferable to natural foods, and the former is what they hope the public will eventually accept.

The average person, in other words, will eventually be expected to happily eat green gelatin-like blobs made of chemical compounds, along with ambiguous cracker products that resemble "Soylent Green," while the White House and the world's other elites continue to eat wholesome, natural foods, including those hand-picked from Michelle Obama's organic garden.

100 Million + Poor In The US

Every single day more Americans fall into poverty. This should deeply alarm you no matter what political party you belong to and no matter what your personal economic philosophy is.

Right now, approximately 100 million Americans are either "poor" or "near poor". For a lot of people "poverty" can be a nebulous concept, so let's define it.

The poverty level as defined by the federal government in 2010 was $11,139 for an individual and $22,314 for a family of four.

Could you take care of a family of four on less than $2000 a month?

Millions upon millions of families are experiencing a tremendous amount of pain in this economy, and no matter what "solutions" we think are correct, the reality is that we all should have compassion on them. Sadly, things are about to get even worse. The next major economic downturn is rapidly approaching, and when it hits the statistics posted below are going to look even more horrendous.

When it comes to poverty, most Americans immediately want to get into debates about tax rates and wealth redistribution and things like that.

But the truth is that they are missing the main point.

The way we slice up the pie is not going to solve our problems, because the pie is constantly getting smaller.


Our economic infrastructure is being absolutely gutted, the U.S. dollar is slowly losing its status as the reserve currency of the world and we are steadily getting poorer as a nation.

Don't be fooled by the government statistics that show a very small amount of "economic growth". Those figures do not account for inflation.

After accounting for inflation, our economic growth has actually been negative all the way back into the middle of the last decade.

According to numbers compiled by John Williams of shadowstats.com, our "real GDP" has continually been negative since 2005.

So that means we are getting poorer as a nation.

Meanwhile, we have been piling up astounding amounts of debt.

40 years ago the total amount of debt in the United States (government, business and consumer) was less than 2 trillion dollars.

Today it is nearly 55 trillion dollars.

So we have a massive problem.

Our economic pie is shrinking and millions of Americans have been falling out of the middle class. Meanwhile, we have been piling up staggering amounts of debt in order to maintain our vastly inflated standard of living. As our economic problems get even worse, those trends are going to accelerate even more.

So don't look down on the poor. You might be joining them a lot sooner than you might think.

The following are 40 facts about poverty in America that will blow your mind....

#1 In the United States today, somewhere around 100 million Americans are considered to be either "poor" or "near poor".

#2 It is being projected that when the final numbers come out later this year that the U.S. poverty rate will be the highest that it has been in almost 50 years.

#3 Approximately 57 percent of all children in the United States are living in homes that are either considered to be either "low income" or impoverished.

#4 Today, one out of every four workers in the United States brings home wages that are at or below the poverty level.

#5 According to the Wall Street Journal, 49.1 percent of all Americans live in a home where at least one person receives financial benefits from the government. Back in 1983, that number was below 30 percent.

#6 It is projected that about half of all American adults will spend at least some time living below the poverty line before they turn 65.

#7 Today, there are approximately 20.2 million Americans that spend more than half of their incomes on housing. That represents a 46 percent increase from 2001.

#8 During 2010, 2.6 million more Americans fell into poverty. That was the largest increase that we have seen since the U.S. government began keeping statistics on this back in 1959.

#9 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of "very poor" rose in 300 out of the 360 largest metropolitan areas during 2010.

#10 Since Barack Obama became president, the number of Americans living in poverty has risen by 6 million and the number of Americans on food stamps has risen by 14 million.

#11 Right now, one out of every seven Americans is on food stamps and one out of every four American children is on food stamps.

#12 It is projected that half of all American children will be on food stamps at least once before they turn 18 years of age.

#13 The poverty rate for children living in the United States is 22 percent, although when the new numbers are released in the fall that number is expected to go even higher.

#14 One university study estimates that child poverty costs the U.S. economy 500 billion dollars a year.

#15 Households that are led by a single mother have a 31.6% poverty rate.

#16 In 2010, 42 percent of all single mothers in the United States were on food stamps.

#17 According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, 36.4 percent of all children that live in Philadelphia are living in poverty, 40.1 percent of all children that live in Atlanta are living in poverty, 52.6 percent of all children that live in Cleveland are living in poverty and 53.6 percent of all children that live in Detroit are living in poverty.

#18 Since 2007, the number of children living in poverty in the state of California has increased by 30 percent.

#19 Child homelessness in the United States has risen by 33 percent since 2007.

#20 There are 314 counties in the United States where at least 30% of the children are facing food insecurity.

#21 More than 20 million U.S. children rely on school meal programs to keep from going hungry.

#22 A higher percentage of Americans is living in extreme poverty (6.7 percent) than has ever been measured before.

#23 If you can believe it, 37 percent of all U.S. households that are led by someone under the age of 35 have a net worth of zero or less than zero.

#24 A lot of younger Americans have found that they cannot make it on their own in this economy. Today, approximately 25 million American adults are living with their parents.

#25 Today, one out of every six elderly Americans lives below the federal poverty line.

#26 Amazingly, the wealthiest 1 percent of all Americans own more wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined.

#27 The six heirs of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton have a net worth that is roughly equal to the bottom 30 percent of all Americans combined.

#28 At this point, the poorest 50% of all Americans now control just 2.5% of all of the wealth in this country.

#29 Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs. Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs.

#30 Right now, the United States actually has a higher percentage of workers doing low wage work than any other major industrialized nation does.

#31 Half of all American workers earn $505 or less per week.

#32 In 1970, 65 percent of all Americans lived in "middle class neighborhoods". By 2007, only 44 percent of all Americans lived in "middle class neighborhoods".

#33 Federal housing assistance outlays increased by a whopping 42 percent between 2006 and 2010.

#34 Approximately 50 million Americans do not have any health insurance at all right now.

#35 Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid. Today, approximately one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid.

#36 It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.

#37 Back in 1990, the federal government accounted for 32 percent of all health care spending in America. Today, that figure is up to 45 percent and it is projected to surpass 50 percent very shortly.

#38 Overall, the amount of money that the federal government gives directly to the American people has risen by 32 percent since Barack Obama entered the White House.

#39 It was recently reported that 1.5 million American families live on less than two dollars a day (before counting government benefits).

#40 The unemployment rate in the U.S. has been above 8 percent for 40 months in a row, and 42 percent of all unemployed Americans have been out of work for at least half a year.

Recently, I wrote a long article about why there will never be enough jobs in the United States ever again.

That means that a whole lot of Americans are not going to be able to take care of themselves.

As our economy gets even worse, there is going to be a tremendous need for more love, compassion and generosity all over the country.

Don't be afraid to lend a helping hand, because someday you may need one yourself.

NOTE: It's easy to grow edible foods in your garden, use raised beds, buckets, barrels, trelise against an exterior wall, hanging baskets etc. Every little bit helps you save money and eat fresh food, herbs & greens. Great selection of simple to grow Non Hybrid Organic Seeds

Wil Con-Gress Let Monsanto Write It's Own Laws?

Co-Authored by Colin O'Neil, Regulatory Policy Analyst at the Center for Food Safety

The agricultural biotech industry -- well, let's call it what it really is: the chemical industry -- has gone on the offensive as never before with a set of slippery policy riders to the House Farm Bill. It's a new low even for an industry that has spent years and tens of millions of lobbying dollars trying to dismantle the basic safeguards that stand between a regulated, healthy food supply and the profit margins chemical industry executives pine for. If passed, these riders would undermine the few laws that are currently in place to protect farmers' rights, our health and our environment from the many adverse impacts of genetically engineered (GE) crops.

Waking to the news this morning that the bill reported out of committee late last night with this suite of riders perfectly intact should give everyone interested in a safer, more secure food supply (and U.S. economy, for that matter) a definite chill, even during these incredibly hot July days. Why? Because one important question has become very real: Will Congress let the chemical industry write its own rules?

Deliberately buried in the House Agriculture Committee's voluminous discussion draft of the 2012 Farm Bill, these significant changes to the Plant Protection Act (PPA) -- one of the few statues that regulate GE crops -- will counter the gains that have been made to protect our food supply and the farmers who grow it. The provisions (Sections 10011, 10013 and 10014) would force the rushed commercialization of GE crops, create a backdoor approval for Dow's "Agent Orange" corn and eliminate any meaningful review of the impacts of these novel crops.

Science and time have shown that GE crops cause significant harm to agriculture and the environment. The overwhelming majority of these novel crops are engineered to be resistant to herbicides, such as Monsanto's Roundup, and have dramatically increased overall herbicide use by 382 million lbs. This spike has, in turn, caused an epidemic scourge of herbicide-resistant superweeds. And they have caused repeated transgenic contamination of non-biotech crop, costing farmers and businesses billions of dollars, as well as permanent contamination of the wild.

Federal courts have ruled for farmers, businesses and public interest plaintiffs numerous times, holding that USDA had violated federal law when approving GE crops by failing to adequately consider and regulate their harms. But rather than address these continued failures, the chemical industry's allies in Congress are trying to change the law via the Farm Bill. The logic being: if you can't win the game, change the rules.

These changes, if allowed to become law, would have numerous negative impacts and outlaw responsible governance. For example, one proposed rider would outlaw any review of GE crops' impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and other environmental laws. This suite of "biotech riders" would have a devastating impact on our country's protection of endangered species. It would also outlaw review by any agency other than the USDA. As a result, the potential impacts of GE crops, including increased pesticide use, on endangered species and other wildlife would not be assessed by our expert wildlife agencies, allowing a GE crop approval to go forward, even if it would cause the extinction of a protected species. Such changes in regulation leave our protected wildlife populations in severe jeopardy and undermine the agencies working hard to ensure their survival. Instead, USDA would only be required to perform narrow, newly established cursory environmental analysis. It even goes so far as to prohibit the Department from using any funds to conduct any additional environmental analyses, even if a federal judge deems such analyses necessary.

To make matters worse, the proposed riders include several means for "backdoor" approvals of GE crops. One rider would allow potentially dangerous GE crops to be commercialized without necessary safety assessments by establishing deliberately impossible deadlines for USDA to meet. Under this provision, if USDA fails to review and approve a GE crop within the short agency deadline, an immediate "default" approval and commercialization would be granted. Thus commercialization of novel GE crops could occur without any agency analysis, let alone any approval, taking place. This new one-year deadline to approve or deny an application (with an optional 180-day extension) will put unreasonable pressure on the Department and will undoubtedly impact its willingness to even attempt rigorous risk assessments.

It's no secret -- our federal agencies are underfunded and already swamped with the important task of reviewing and assessing new industry products, including GE crops. To suggest that approval of new crops that are resistant to toxic pesticides -- like 2,4-D and Dicamba -- should occur "automatically," without a thorough environmental and economic analysis, is absurd. It flies in the face of farmers' basic rights to grow their crop of choice, be protected from transgenic contamination and not be subjected to chemical drift from the use of ever-increasingly higher levels of toxic herbicides.

But it doesn't stop there. The riders also open up a proposed second backdoor approval opportunity for GE crops that have gone through an initial public comment period and are currently under review by the USDA. Under this condition, if USDA is unable to approve or deny a crop application within 90 days of the Farm Bill passage, then the crop would be deemed approved. That's right. If USDA can't get through the process on schedule -- a schedule created to make sure they won't -- then all the safeguards come down and a new GE crop enters the public sphere without a regulatory roadblock in its way.

And if that doesn't sound serious enough for you, consider the fact that one of the crops that this could apply to is Dow's 2,4-D corn. Some know it better as "Agent Orange" corn, a GE crop engineered to withstand exposure to one of the chemicals in the infamous Vietnam-era herbicide. There's no doubt about it, the deadlines would be impossible to meet given the volume of public and scientific comments the Department receives (the agency received over 350,000 on the proposed Dow corn approval alone) and the number of applications currently being considered.

Conventional (non-biotech) and organic farmers, as well as grain handlers, grain millers and processors have already suffered substantial economic losses in the past due to transgenic contamination from GE crops. If these proposed provisions become law, the Secretary of Agriculture may be unable to prevent costly contamination episodes, like Starlink corn or Liberty Link rice, which result in market rejection, loss of foreign and domestic markets and untold millions of dollars in lost revenue to farmers and the food industry.

But the chemical interests thought of that, too. They've inserted a rider that would compel USDA to establish an extremely controversial national policy for the "low-level presence" of GE material in crops, setting for the first time an acceptable level of GE contamination in non-GE crops in the U.S. The disassociation of the chemical industry's priorities from reality is almost inexplicable. Consumer demand for GE-free foods is higher than ever, both in the U.S. and abroad.

Any policy that intentionally allows for GE material in crops and does nothing to prevent contamination of conventional and organic crops poses serious and irreversible economic harm to thousands of farmers, handlers, food processors and manufacturers. And beyond that, this illogical and unreasonable policy would severely impact the capability to export U.S. agricultural products to vital foreign markets that have restrictions on GE material in food.

American agriculture is at a crossroads. The mere fact that these riders are actually under discussion in today's House Agriculture Committee Farm Bill mark-up session is a testament to the changed reality we are facing. Far from moving closer to a safer, healthier and better regulated food supply, we're all witness to an attempted shift away from those principles -- delivering our regulatory and decision-making powers over U.S. agriculture into the hands of industry. It's a scary scenario.

So, will Congress let the chemical industry write its own rules? For the sake of all American farmers, consumers and the environment, let's hope the House Agriculture Committee and other members of Congress will see the true intent of these riders and strike them from the Farm Bill before more damage is done.

Monsanto Launches Massive Campaign to Stop GMO Labeling

We’ve gone on at great lengths discussing the dangers of genetic modification. Monsanto’s GMO corn has been linked to weight gain and organ function disruption, while GMO crops and pesticides destroy our farmland and environment.

According to the Alliance of Natural Health, the grandchildren of rats fed GMO corn were born sterile. GMO is just one of those things to avoid, but with our own government in bed with Monsanto, it’s not easily done. Monsanto has recently launched a proverbial war against the open labeling of genetically modified foods, and only through activism and awareness can it be overcome.
The People Versus GMO

In February of this year, Vermont contemplated the Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act. The proposed bill prohibits GMO food producers from using keywords like “natural,” “naturally made,” “naturally grown,” and “all natural” to describe GMO ingredients and products. In the same month, the National Conference of State Legislatures reported that nearly 20 states were considering similar programs. Public surveys and studies also show a whopping 90 percent of the U.S. in favor of such practices.

In theory, this should make California’s GMO labeling initiative, which would require all foods within the state made with GM ingredients to carry a label stating so, a shoo-in. But let’s not get so hasty.

Leaders in the disinformation campaign launched against the labeling initiative cry out that it would be—like the infamous Proposition 65, “The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986”—a way for bounty-hunting trial lawyers to file suits against even natural food companies for supposedly selling products containing undisclosed GMOs.

Of course, GMO’s ally StopCostlyFoodLabeling.com receives funding from the Council for Biotechnology Information. It should be no surprise that the likes of Monsanto and Dow count themselves members of the said organization.
More Efficient than Prop 65

James C. Cooper, PhD in economics from Emory University, dismisses the comparison between California’s initiative and Proposition 65. In his report, he delineates the key differences between the two programs:

The Label GMO initiative allows producers 7 years to reduce GMO exposure of products from under 5 percent to zero.
Producers are immune from suit if they can provide a statement from their supplier or an independent organization that the food is certified organic and/or GMO-free.
Producers have 30 days to rectify violations with no liability.
Whereas plaintiffs keep “bounties” of 25 percent of civil penalties in Prop 65, the labeling initiative provides none.

It hasn’t been long since the Food and Drug Administration deleted 1 million signatures and comments from the “Just Label It” campaign calling for the labeling of GM foods, even after 55 politicians offered support for the initiative. It only shows that the fight against GMOs won’t be easy (or cheap).

Still, it’s worth fighting.

NOTE: If you appreciate the right to choose what foods you eat, then isn't it critical to vote with every dollar that you spend. Heck with the labels, you already know that anything with corn, soy, cottonseed etc, unless specifically stated as organic is likely GMO. Packaged foods are food like substances. Eat fresh, eat local.

Governments War On Small Farms

Why Is The USDA Interested In ALL Food Production?

The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food is promoting the Utah Garden Challenge in order to collect information about independent food production for the USDA.

The Utah Garden Challenge is a voluntary contest to register 10,000 gardens. The data mining project has a broad interest in any “resource” who is growing food:

Whether you grow a tomato in a pot, a row in a community garden, have backyard gardens, a CSA or working fruit and vegetable farm, we want to hear from you because you are an important resource as a food producer.
While the contest paints a proud face on independent food production, it is important to remember that registering with the government sets up a system to track, tax, permit or confiscate the registered item. Gun ownership is a good example of this scheme.

According to a pop-up window on the official website, participants’ gardens will be registered with the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS):

We need to know how much food is being produced in Utah. The Census of Agriculture is done every 5 years. Every agricultural operation in Utah, regardless of size, is vital to this question. If you produce $1000 of agricultural products, you can influence economic development and decision making by filling out a NASS survey. We will only share your information with NASS by your permission. Your response to the census of agriculture is protected by law. For more information, you can go to www.agcensus.gov.

In other words, people who produce $1000 or more worth of food have an impact on the food market, and the USDA wants to know about what you are doing in your backyard.

Victory gardens in America produced up to 40% of all vegetables consumed during World War II, with over 20 millon home gardens and community plots that produced over 9 million tons of food.

The USDA is notorious for its corrupt partnerships and revolving door business relationships with big commercial agriculture.

Government Crackdowns & Food Control

Food is under attack because if you can grow your own food, have access to water and shelter, then what use do you have for a government master?

The federal government has profoundly overstepped its constitutional authority on all fronts, and there are a number of examples of the USDA’s outrageous control over food that include SWAT team raids on raw milk sellers and fruit tree confiscation.

The Food Safety Modernization Act expanded the power of the FDA and its sister agency, the USDA. The law is bad for many reasons and is an overwhelming burden on small and independent farmers due to over-regulation and increase in paperwork and reporting.

Additionally, the FBI identifies people who store food as potential terrorists!

Why Is Utah A Threat?

1. A few months ago Utah voted down a Food Freedom Bill that would have made it a crime for anyone, including Utah state agents, to enforce the Food Safety Modernization Act’s unconstitutional mandates. It would have made farmers who trade only inside of state lines exempt. The bill was a direct constitutional challenge to federal overreach.

2. Highland City, Utah passed a Food Freedom ordinance that exempts residents from federal regulations on food that is produced, exchanged and consumed within city limits (state laws still apply)

Is The Military Refusing To Obey Unlawful Orders To Fire On Naughty Farmers?

Is the US military and the Bankster controlled federal government on a collision course? When one begins to connect the dots, with each dot representing a critical intersect point between the two entities, it strongly appears that an irrevocable bifurcation between the two is underway and the point of no return may have already been reached. Why else would we be witnessing the training of Russian troops to carry out policing activities in and around the Colorado Springs area later this month?

A report from the Daily Caller noted that the Labor Department has withdrawn a highly controversial Obama administration order which would've outlawed any form of child labor on family farms. This regulation would have dealt a death blow to the economic viability of America’s small farmers. As a result, food prices would have astronomically skyrocketed because all food production would have subsequently emanated from the large corporate owned farms.

As an aside, the large corporate owned farms were exempt from this Labor Department restriction and of course, illegal migrant labor would be permitted on the corporate farms as well. To many, the defeat of this illegal and unconstitutional child labor regulation marked a victory for the average American. However, there may be a more ominous message behind the rescinding of this policy as it becoming clear that the Obama administration is seeking to conceal the rift between its bankster benefactors and the US military as it is becoming clear that Obama suddenly backed away from a policy that the military refused to support.

The use of child labor on family farms is a long-established tradition in American history. It is the sole reason why America's schoolchildren have enjoyed three months off from attending school as children assisted their parents in the harvesting of crops. When we witness the Agenda 21 enforcement agents from the banker-run federal government actively seeking to control all food in order to make Americans entirely dependent upon the federal government, this latest Obama power grab makes a great deal of sense.

Only three days after the announcement of this illegally contrived Labor Department regulation banning child farm labor, the Obama administration withdrew its mandate citing “public outrage” as the sole reason. Really? Public outrage in only three days forced this dictatorial regime to do an about face? Who is Obama kidding? What about Obama’s lack of reaction to the public outrage over the banker bailouts that 95% of Americans vehemently opposed?

What about the previously ignored public outrage over the chicanery related to the passage of national healthcare that over 80% of Americans opposed? What about the ongoing public outrage over the sexual assault acts performed everyday by the criminal TSA as they continue to goose Granny and molest our children at the nation’s airports? Ninety percent of the country had not even heard of this farm labor policy. The Obama administration's explanation for withdrawing the policy over “public outrage” is ludicrous.

Curiously, the enforcement mechanism for this insane policy would've fallen to Homeland Security and amazingly, to the military. This means that forces of our military would have faced off against American farmers. There can be no doubt that many farmers would have defended to the death their historical right to property and parenting rights. The real reason for the withdrawal of the child farm labor policy has to do with the fact that the US military was not willing to murder American farmers on behalf of the Wall Street bankers and their large agricultural partners. The Obama administration is concealing this serious rift from the American people!

Further evidence of this growing conflict comes from Afghanistan as we should not forget that when Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, visited Afghanistan in March, there was an attempt on his life. Following the incident, all American soldiers in Panetta’s presence were unilaterally disarmed, thus providing another example of distrust between the two institutions.
It is also no secret that in recent months, America has positioned its military in the Gulf region to launch military strikes upon Syria and Iran.

It is also no secret that the Russians have threatened our government with war if America attacks its two aforementioned allies. This clearly casts Russia into the role of being a military enemy of the US. Why then, would the federal government mandate that enemy Russian paratroopers be trained at Fort Carson Army base in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in late May and early June of this year?

Yet, this is an undeniable fact as Defense Department spokesperson, Commander W. L. Snyder, told the New American, that Russian troops would be training in southern Colorado for three weeks in which they would be allowed to provide security at local baseball games and to participate in roadside checkpoints as well as to conduct war game military raids on local terrorist base camps. The unmistakable conclusion is that our enemies are being trained to interact with the American public and to participate in policing activities on American soil. Are you baffled? Well, so was I, until I realized that the Russian troops are only the enemy of our military and US citizens, not the enemy of the banksters who run the government!

Shouldn’t the presence of Russian troops on American soil be considered an act of war? Why then would Russian troops be given access to one of our most important and secure military bases in the country? Why then are Russian troops being allowed to view how our military will meet a crisis not to mention the fact that we are giving the Russian military access to the inner workings of a key military installation while training on American soil for the first time? Is this is just a significant military intelligence victory for the Russians?

Has the Obama administration lost its mind by revealing our military command and control capabilities in a crisis situation? Or, is this apparent abject stupidity on the part of the Obama administration being carried out with clear intent, precision and purpose to a level which would make Benedict Arnold jealous? Why else would Russian troops be trained to carry out policing activities on American soil in which they will supplant our domestic forces? There are still more dots to connect.

It has been widely reported that Homeland Security has purchased hundreds of bulletproof checkpoint structures along with several hundred million rounds of ammunition typically used in house to house fighting. We already know that the Fort Carson based Russians will be training with American weapons and ammunition. Are the dots beginning to take shape?

There can be no other purpose for the procurement of these materials, by Homeland Security, other than to use them in order to subjugate the American civilian population with American military weapons and Homeland Security provided ammunition.

Given the fact that the federal government has enacted unconstitutional detention policies through the NDAA, and it lists American veterans, Libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and Constitutionalists as domestic terrorists in the Homeland Security’s MIAC Report, it appears that the bankster run federal government and its Russian mercenaries are declaring war on average Americans as America enters into a very draconian state of martial law which will be enforced by foreign soldiers who will not hesitate to fire on American citizens.

We already know that 70% of all US military political donations go to Ron Paul. This fact, alone, places the bulk of the American military at odds with the despots who have taken over the federal government because Ron Paul is an anathema to the banker run government status quo. And when one adds to the fact that it's becoming common knowledge that nearly every Republican primary has been rigged against Ron Paul, should it be surprising that Ron Paul delegates plan to transform the Republican presidential candidate selection process into a brokered convention in which the current political fraud would have to be carried out in the clear light of day.

In this scenario, Ron Paul could win, so long as he would be alive to enjoy the fruits of this strategy. A Ron Paul presidency would spell the end of the Federal Reserve, the IRS and the Wall Street banker bailouts. And of course, there would not be a military industrial complex”cash cow” war with Iran and Syria under a Paul presidency.

Is anyone else's memory is reverting back to the Democratic California Primary held in 1968 in which, to the profound dismay of the establishment of that day, was won by Bobby Kennedy? If Ron Paul were to meet the same fate as Bobby Kennedy, would America likely accept another lone nut gunman assassination theory? Would the subsequent civil disobedience make the 1992 LA riots look tame by comparison?

Would the American military subsequently fire on Americans in the streets in order to restore order? Or, is it more likely that our bankster run government would use their Wall Street funded Russians assets to quell the disturbances and install a total banker run scientific dictatorship that would make Hitler and Stalin envious?

To the banksters, the Russian troops are a necessary evil because if American troops would not fire on American farmers, in defense of the now aborted child farm policy, then they cannot be counted on to fire on Americans at the whim of the banksters in support of the coming public disarmament and eventual total subjugation.

It is interesting to note that the movie depicting a Russian invasion of the US, Red Dawn, is being rereleased. As in the movie, the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming, and America may not have to wait long to discover the real reasons behind their military presence on American soil! The connecting of these dots clearly demonstrates that the powder keg is ready to explode, but what event will light the fuse?

There are plans in place for a mass evacuation of downtown Chicago in reaction to possible riots, on May 20-21, the dates of the upcoming NATO Summit? A Milwaukee based Red Cross memo indicates that there is indeed such a plan. Officials have been asked to make plans in order to assist Chicago residents in the event of a mass exit from Chicago.

Does the term, ”false flag” come to anyone else's mind? One doesn't have to have a doctorate in history to recall Operation Northwoods, Abel Danger and the relationship to 911. And one doesn't have to be a Jeopardy contestant to remember the London terrorist drills that coincided with the London subway bombings. And don't forget, the same exact events transpired a short time later in Spain!

With Russian soldiers chasing imaginary American “terrorists” on our soil, prudent Americans may wish to eliminate Chicago as vacation destination later this spring where it is rumored that Windy City will be the next Oklahoma City event.

On April 28, 2012, Ron Paul warned America to be on the alert for a false flag in the near future. Is America living in a time in which the possibility of a military coup is bubbling up to the surface and we are about to witness the bankster push back to America’s defiance to the New World Order? Will all Americans soon be forced to choose to take sides between supporting our loyal military or the bankster run government and its growing number of mercenary forces on our soil?

George Washington faced the Hessians and it is likely that will we soon be facing the Russians as they go house to house armed with newly purchased Homeland Security ammunition in order to arrest suspected dissidents and to seize our privately owned guns under the Obama supported U.N. Small Arms Treaty Ban.

When our sworn enemies have access to our military bases, are policing local baseball games, participating in traffic stops and are playing war games on American soil with Americans as their intended target, maybe we all should be asking more a lot more questions before the proverbial fuse is lit.

Regime's Guide To Good Compliant, Obedient Citizenship Guide

The Regime is working hard to make life easier for Americans. All they ask for is a little bit of unconditional compliance, but these pesky dissident Patriots keep throwing a wrench in the plans. It is vital that you do not cause difficulty for the Regime – they are only trying to do what’s best for you. Resistance is just plain rude.
This simple guide can assist you in avoiding a life of crime, punishable by indefinite detainment in the Gulag. The Regime is diligently searching for terrorists and you want to be above suspicion. (Really – you do, because suspicion is all that is necessary for punishment and confinement these days.)
1.) Never protest, peacefully or otherwise. The Federally Restricted Building and Grounds Improvement Act was put into place in order to protect our fearless leaders from actions that might publicly embarrass them. Governing is a difficult job, and they don’t need the likes of you cluttering the steps of the Capitol with your signs. It makes them feel badly.

2.) Don’t say mean things about the Regime on the internet. It’s not only hurtful, it’s illegal. Furthermore, due to CISPA, your internet providers and social networking sites now have a civic duty to snoop through you emails, status updates and forum posts, and then turn you in. And while we’re on this topic, using technology to shield your IP address is childish and only makes you look suspicious. If you don’t have anything to hide, then what are you so worried about?

3.) Never pay cash. It’s a clear sign of dissident behaviour. It’s very inconvenient for the Regime to track your spending if you don’t pay with a credit card or debit card. How are they supposed to know who just bought more ammo or 100 pounds of rice if you pay cash for it? Furthermore, you are cheating the big banks out of their fees and interest rates, which is very inconsiderate.

4.) Drink your fluoridated water. The Regime is fluoridating the water for your own good. The Regime wants you to have nice teeth. You might have brain damage, cancer or thyroid issues, but your teeth will be rinsed with fluoride with every sip you take. Demanding that your municipalities stop adding fluoride to the local water supplies is very ungrateful.

5.) Allow the teachers to teach. Teaching your kids at home is unnecessary and can cause a lot of problems for your child. A child who is a critical thinker is anathema among his or her peers. A child educated to do so is willful and disobedient, often rebelling when authority figures want to pat them down or handcuff them. Children need to learn to follow instructions without hesitation, and if benefits no one if you teach them to question authority. If a child needs to think for herself, the Regime will instruct her to do so. It is not a parent’s job to empower a child or attempt to influence him with regard to moral issues. The Regime has that covered.

6.) Don’t learn self defense techniques. Self defense classes, practicing at a firing range and hand-to-hand combat training are an insult to the Regime. The Regime will protect you. You simply don’t need to take things this far. If you want exercise, take up tennis.

7.) Do not videotape or otherwise record law enforcement officers or TSA employees. It’s just plain offensive to act as though these agents of the Regime would do anything that requires documentation. Sure, sometimes they get a little wound up and beat the daylights out of innocent people, but keep in mind, they are under a lot of pressure to stamp out domestic terrorism. And it isn’t going to kill you to get groped – it’s the price you have to pay for flying. If you just stand there quietly with your eyes downcast, the molestation will be over much more quickly.

8.) Eat your GMO, Big Agri fruits and vegetables. These foods have been specially formulated just for us. Sure, they contain only nominal nutrients in comparison to organically grown produce, but it’s just an insult to try to grow your own because you think it’s “better”. The FDA has worked hand in hand with Monsanto to provide you with a nutritionless abundance – the least you could do is eat it without complaint. Furthermore, taking vitamins to make up for the lack of nutrition is just a slap in the face to poor Big Agri, and really messes up the plan to keep us weak, lethargic and malnourished.


9.) Take your medication. The FDA and Big Pharma work hard to keep you medicated and calm. There are many benefits to today’s medications. First of all, a lifelong dependence on these medications allows a constant stream of income for Big Pharma. Secondly, psychiatric medications in particular calm your thinking, leaving you content to watch Dancing with the Stars instead of searching those horrible thought-provoking alternative news sites that brazenly criticize the Regime. For those of you who insist on taking herbal remedies instead of chemical medication, well, shame on you! Don’t you realize that you are taking money out of the pockets of the wealthy owners of pharmaceutical companies? You need to stop being so self-centered and consider others. Take your pills!

10.) Vaccinate your children. Kids today are at risk for so many horrible things. Thankfully, there is a vaccination for nearly every one of them. Sure, some kids will become autistic and uncommunicative after receiving the jab, but at least they won’t get whooping cough. The Regime is aware that the HPV vaccine doesn’t work very well and causes side effects in a large percentage of the girls who receive it, but how else are they going to secretly sterilize our female population?

As you can see, it really isn’t that difficult to stay out of trouble. If you only keep in mind that these rules are for your own good, you should have no trouble serenely being guided through life by the benevolent Regime. You, too, can reap the benefits of unconditional obedience.