How Can GMO's Be So Bad? Dr Prescribed Non GMO Diets!

Are genetically modified (GM) foods making you sick – I mean really sick? Up until recently, all that we could say was thank goodness you’re not a lab rat; GM feed messes them up big time. GMOs (genetically modified organisms) appear to trigger the immune systems of both mice and rats as if they were under attack. In addition, the gastrointestinal system is adversely affected, animals age more quickly, and vital organs are damaged.

 When fed GM foods, lab animals can also become infertile, have smaller or sterile offspring, increased infant mortality, and even hair growing in their mouths. Have I got your attention?

Biotechnology corporations such as Monsanto try to distort or deny the evidence, sometimes pointing to their own studies that supposedly show no reactions. But when scientists such as French toxicologist G.E. Seralini re-­analyzed Monsanto’s raw data, it actually showed that the rats fed GM corn suffered from clear signs of toxicity – evidence that industry scientists skillfully overlooked.

Doctors Prescribe Non-GMO Diets; Remarkable Recoveries Result

Although there have been no human clinical trials, experts conclude that there is sufficient evidence from animal feeding studies to remove GMOs altogether. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called for a moratorium in 2009 based on their review of the research. According to their former president, Dr. Robin Bernhoft, the Academy “recommends that all physicians should prescribe non-genetically modified food for all patients, and that we should educate all of our patients on the potential health dangers, and known health dangers of GMO food.”

Today, thousands of physicians and nutritionists do just that, and they report that a wide variety of health conditions improve after people make the change. Here’s some recent examples:
1) Trial consultant LaDonna Carlton, had to take two pills, three times a day to suppress the painful cramps and constant diarrhea associated with her irritable bowel syndrome.

 “My doctor told me I would be on this forever,” says LaDonna. But then she met a new doctor, internist Emily Lindner, MD. “The first thing she did,” says LaDonna, “was take me off GMOs,” including soy, corn, canola oil, and sugar. “Within two months,” she says, “I didn’t need the medication any longer.”

Since LaDonna stopped preparing foods with GMOs, her husband Fred was swept along with the new diet. And he’s glad he was. “I feel 10 times better,” he says. At 73, Fred plays full court basketball, even with two artificial knees. The new diet, he says, “made me feel much younger... I feel like I’m 50.”

2) Interior designer, Carol Salb, also recovered from irritable bowel syndrome, as well as cold hands and feet, thinning hair, allergies, and daily congestion. “I felt better in two and half weeks [after going GMO-free],” she says. That was six years ago and she’s still going strong.

3) We interviewed former school teacher Theresa Haerle on her 25th day on a GMO-free diet, and she had already shed more than 10 pounds. Even more remarkable was her recovery from 30 years of colitis – by the third day of her diet. In addition, her skin problems started to clear, she had more energy than she’d had in years, and it no longer hurt to get out of bed in the morning.

4) Kids are also recovering. One middle schooler changed his diet and no longer suffers from incapacitating migraines and asthma. Another recovered from horrible pain in his gut.
Although these patient interviews had been set up by physicians, at the Institute for Responsible Technology we’ve heard similar stories for a long time. Laurie lost 35 pounds in one year. Paul’s restless leg syndrome is gone – unless he accidentally eats a GMO. Many say their symptoms go away when visiting Europe, where food companies removed GMOs long ago due to consumer rejection.

Dr. Lindner says, “I tell my patients to avoid genetically modified foods because in my experience, with those foods there is more allergies and asthma,” as well as digestive issues such as gas, bloating, irritable bowel, colitis, and leaky gut. “And what emanates from that,” she says, “is everything. Lots of arthritis problems, autoimmune diseases, anxiety... neurological problems; anything that comes from an inspired immune system response.”

The speed of recovery varies, usually depending on the symptom. “When I change people from a GMO diet to a GMO-free diet,” she says, “I see results instantaneously in people who have foggy thinking and people who have gut symptoms like bloating, gas, irritation. In terms of allergies, it might take two to five days. In terms of depression, it starts to lift almost instantaneously. It takes from a day, to certainly within two weeks.” Full results usually take about four to six weeks. Dr. Lindner doesn’t just eliminate GMOs in her dietary regimen, but that, she says, is the most critical component.

People who switch to non-GMO diets often do so by buying organic foods – which are not allowed to use GMOs. This raises a critical point in the analysis. Were the health recoveries stemming from eliminating GMOs or from other co-factors such as the reduction in chemicals and increased nutrition found in organics?

 Similarly, since most GMOs in our diet are found in processed foods, some people reduced GMOs by cooking from scratch. So they simultaneously eliminate additives that may contribute to disorders. And for others, they may also eliminate food categories, such as gluten or dairy, based on a diagnosis. So what’s really causing these dramatic recoveries?

Similar Livestock Stories – Without The Co-factors

Fortunately, the experience of numerous veterinarians and farmers around the world gives us insight. When they take livestock off GMO soy or corn and substitute the non-GMO equivalent, they don’t have these pesky co-factors. The animals are not eating organic, there’s no change in nutrients or additives, and yet the results are still impressive.

When a Danish pig farmer switched to non-GMO soy in April 2011 for his 450 sows and their offspring, within two days the animals’ serious diarrhea problems virtually disappeared. During the following year, death from ulcers and bloat, which had claimed 36 pigs over the previous two years, vanished. Conception rate was up, litter size was up, diseases were down, and birth defects were eliminated.

An Iowa farmer saw immediate changes in his 3,000 pig nursery after switching to non-GMO corn last December. Not only is there a lower rate of disease and medical bills, he says, “Our pigs are happier and more playful.”

A feedlot operator with 5,000 head of cattle also switched to non-GMO corn and reported, “We’ve had a lot less pneumonia and health issues since that time.” Like the pig farmer, the behaviour changed noticeably. His “cattle have been a lot calmer.” Many farmers who were struggling with high rates of infertility and miscarriages in their livestock say they turned the situation around after switching to non-GMO feed.

Renowned veterinarian and author Michael W. Fox, whose syndicated column has reached tens of millions, says that when GMOs were introduced to the marketplace, cats and dogs started suffering from much higher rates of allergies, itching, and gastrointestinal problems. He now has a file drawer full of letters from happy pet owners confirming that his advice to switch the pets to non-GMO and organic feed cleared up the problem.

Repeating Symptoms: From Lab Rats to Consumers

What is striking about all these reports is the similarity of experiences. Many of the same categories of disorders identified in animal feeding studies by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, (e.g. gastrointestinal, immune, and reproductive), also clear up in humans and livestock when they switch to a non-GMO diet. Moreover, these same problems are on the rise in the U.S. population since GMOs were introduced in 1996. Inflammatory bowel disease is up 40 percent. Multiple chronic illnesses nearly doubled in nine years. Food allergies, infertility, asthma, autoimmune diseases, etc., have accelerated among U.S. consumers, nearly all of whom eat GMOs without even knowing it.

Even autism rates may be impacted. When an autism specialist heard a scientist lecture about the behavioural, neurological, and physiological changes in mice, rats, and livestock fed GMOs, he told the speaker afterwards: “That’s exactly what we are finding in our autistic children.” Many parents report significant improvements in behaviour and gastrointestinal disorders in their autistic children, after they remove GMOs from the diet. (See resource list.)

How Could GMOs Be So Bad?

To understand how genetically engineered crops might contribute to so many serious disorders, it is helpful to understand a few details of the technology. GM crops have foreign genes inserted into their DNA, which is followed by cloning of those cells into plants.

1) Irrespective of which foreign gene is used, the very process of insertion and cloning causes massive collateral damage to the plants’ natural DNA. This has resulted, for example, in a new allergen in Monsanto’s GM corn and a huge allergen increase in their GM soy. Most of these types of unexpected side effects, which can add toxins or carcinogens to our meals, are never even screened for.

2) The GM crops on the market contain added genetic material from bacteria and viruses. These pieces of DNA, as well as the RNA and proteins they produce, have never before been part of the human diet; that can be a problem for the immune system. According to Martha Grout, MD, “Genetically modified foods create inflammation in the system.” Inflammation, in turn, can lead to a wide variety of diseases, including allergies, autoimmune diseases, diabetes, and heart disease. Dr. Emily Lindner likewise interprets the impact of GMOs as “an immune or inflammatory response” and treats it accordingly.

3) The gene inserted into certain GM corn and cotton varieties is designed to provoke a response – in insects that is. The gene produces a poison called Bt-toxin that kills certain bugs by breaking holes in their digestive tracts. In spite of assurances by the biotech industry to the contrary, a study published this year confirmed that the toxin also breaks holes in human cells. A Canadian study in 2011 found Bt-toxin from Monsanto’s corn circulating in the blood of 93 percent of the pregnant women tested, as well as in 80 percent of their unborn fetuses. Bt corn might therefore not only provoke an inflamed, leaky digestive tract, it might wreak havoc in our bloodstream, and in the delicate brains of infants whose blood brain barriers are not developed.

4) Three minor GM crops, papaya (grown in Hawaii and China exclusively), zucchini, and yellow crookneck squash, contain inserted virus genes designed to fend off disease. Eating these, however, may have the exact opposite effect on us. Viral genes can produce viral proteins, which as a class are well-known to suppress the body’s defences against viral infection. They can also be toxic.

5) The most widely used GMOs are called “herbicide tolerant,” including soy, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets, and alfalfa. This trait allows farmers to spray Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup, for example, on their Roundup Ready crops without killing them. The genes inserted into these plants produce proteins with allergenic properties. Perhaps of greater concern is that the sprayed toxins are concentrated into the food portion of the plant and end up in our diet. Roundup is linked to cancer, Parkinson’s, birth defects, and endocrine disruption.

6) And now the bad news. The only human feeding study confirmed that part of the gene inserted into Roundup Ready soybeans can transfer into DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines. If the transferred genes continue to produce proteins (and there is evidence suggesting it does), then we may have allergens, viral proteins, or even Bt-toxin continuously manufactured within our own digestive tracts.

OK, The Good News

Fortunately, as people learn about the health dangers of GMOs, feel better from non-GMO diets, and tell others, the non-GMO movement grows. There are now millions who seek healthier non-GMO foods. Since GMOs offer no consumer benefits; and since the major food companies in North America have already removed GMOs from their European brands due to consumer rejection, any measurable drop in sales that is linked with growing anti-GMO sentiment here will likely trigger a rapid race to non-GMO status.

The tipping point threshold is likely to require only about five percent of consumers.
A critical vote in California this November may accelerate the non-GMO revolution. A measure requiring mandatory labeling of GMOs is on the ballot. If passed, we think food companies would rather avoid GMOs than admit they use them. Especially since 53 percent of Americans say they would choose the non-GMO brands once labels give them a clear choice.

I’ll bet that after learning about the evidence of health dangers, that percentage is likely to grow.

NOTE:  Vote with your $$$$$ every dollar you spend on processed foods is supporting the destruction of our access to real food.  There is nothing edible in supermarkets EXCEPT in the outside aisles.  If it's in a bag, box or plastic bag it no longer is living food.

Why Are Small Family Farms Under Multiple Attacks?

In its latest move against small farmers who dare to operate outside the umbrella of CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) and Monsanto-dominated crops, the U.S. government has seized $70,000 from a small dairy farmer in Maryland. The feds did this under the "Bank Secrecy Act," which requires that paperwork be filled out for any cash deposit in excess of $10,000.

The farmers, Randy Sowers and his wife Karen, made deposits totaling more than $295,000 from May 2011 to February 2012, but each transaction was less than $10,000.

Now they are being accused of "structuring," a violation of federal currency reporting requirements, as the feds are accusing them of deliberately depositing money in increments of less than $10,000 in an attempt to evade Currency Transaction Reporting requirements.

Government Seizes $70,000 On What Grounds?

The dairy farmer's "crime" stems from his weekly sales at local farmers' markets. The sales averaged about the same amount each week and, dutifully, the Sowers deposited them. They'd reportedly never even heard of the Bank Secrecy Act or "structuring," but that was of no interest to the feds—the consistency of the amount the Sowers deposited, always less than $10,000, raised red flags to the feds, who claimed that this was indicative of a crime.

The government promptly seized about $70,000 from the bank account, then issued a warrant for the seizures. As reported by Food Freedom News:i

"The Dept. of Justice has since sued to keep $63,000 of the Sowers' money, though they committed no crime other than maintaining their privacy. Without funds, they will be unable to make purchases for the spring planting. When a similar action was taken against Taylor's Produce Stand last year, the feds seized $90,000, dropped the charges, and kept $45,000 of Taylor's money.

Knowing that most farms operate on a very thin margin, such abuse of power wipes out a family's income, and for a bonus, the feds enhance the monopoly power of Monsanto, Big Dairy and their supply chain.… Former Maryland assistant U.S. attorney Steven Levin told the paper [City Paper], "The emphasis is on basically seizing money, whether it is legally or illegally earned. It can lead to financial ruin for business owners, and there's a potential for abuse here by the government.""

The raid on the Sowers was conducted by an agency created in 2009 to go after money-laundering criminals. The agency started out with a bang by seizing $1.2 billion from a real money launderer, but it appears that what it's interested in now is making criminals out of small business persons, including small farmers.

Why Are Family Farms Under Attack?

If they're not seizing bank accounts, it seems the government will find other ways to attack small farmers. A family farm in rural Michigan—and possibly others—may be shut down by a new state law that designates certain breeds of hogs as a threat to neighboring hog breeders and croplands.

Basically, the fight is over the definition of feral hogs vs. domestic hogs. The dictionary definition of "feral" refers to an animal running wild. But Michigan authorities have taken it a step further and extended the definition to include enclosed private hunting preserves and small farms that house what authorities call an "invasive species" of hogs.

There is no genetic test to determine whether the species on these farms are truly invasive, so authorities are basing their cases against these farmers solely on visual observations. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) uses this vague description to describe the prohibited hogs, and makes it clear that this does not apply to the domestic hogs raised on CAFOs:ii

"Wild boar, wild hog, wild swine, feral pig, feral hog, feral swine, Old world swine, razorback, eurasian wild boar, Russian wild boar (Sus scrofa Linnaeus). This subsection does not and is not intended to affect sus domestica involved in domestic hog production."

Other descriptions supplied by the MDNR include such a wide variety of characteristics that virtually any pig other than the familiar pink domestic breed raised on CAFOs could potentially be deemed "feral":

Erect or folded/floppy ear structure
Straight or curly tail
Solid black, wild/grizzled, solid red/brown, black and white spotted, or black and red/brown spotted coat colorations
"Other characteristics" not currently known to the MDNR

Interestingly, the Big Pork industry has been planning this anti-feral pig campaign for years, and even bragged about it in a 2010 newsletter.iii It was the same newsletter where they declared a win against the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) in Ohio, where HSUS was seeking legislation to end the practice of sow gestation stalls (cages so small the sow can't turn around or move).

What this means for residents of Michigan is that soon they will be unable to purchase sustainably and humanely grown meat from the Mangalitsa "wooly" hogs raised on Baker's Green Acres farm. This particular breed is being raised by only a handful of small farms across the country; whereas more than 2 million pigs are slaughtered each week in the United States, only about 50 of them are Mangalitsas (which have been called the "it" pig by the New York Times, as several high-end restaurants and specialty markets have featured the rich, naturally raised meativ).

But, of course, this issue is about much more than pasture-raised pork from a heritage breed ... it's about your ability, your right, to purchase and consume pure, unadulterated food – a right that continues to be threated for those living in the United States.

FDA Also Threatens Your Right to Food Choice …

Another glaring example of government going out of its way to prohibit your access to pure, unprocessed food is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) war against raw milk. When the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) filed a lawsuit against the FDA over their raw milk ban, stating that banning raw milk in interstate commerce is unconstitutional, the FDA rebutted with the following extremely concerning and outrageous statements:

"There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food."
"There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds."
"Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish."
FDA's brief goes on to state that "even if such a right did exist, it would not render FDA's regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health."
"There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract."

Since when did the FDA have authority to tell you what you can and cannot eat and feed your children? Apparently they believe they've had it all along. If you go by these assertions, it means the FDA has the authority to prohibit any food of their choosing and make it a crime for you to seek it out. If, one day, the FDA deems tomatoes, broccoli or cashews capable of causing you harm (which is just as ludicrous as their assertions that raw milk is harmful), they could therefore enact such a ban and legally enforce it.

What this means is that freedom of food choice is a myth if you live in the United States, and this simply is not acceptable. No one, and certainly not any government agency, should be able to restrict your access to pure, unadulterated food, but the dairy industry and other industrial farmers that depend on CAFOs employ powerful lobbyists will stop at nothing to persuade government to remove the small farmers from the market entirely. The truth is, if enough people start demanding naturally, sustainably and humanely raised meat, dairy and produce, the giant farming monopolies that currently dominate the market would not be able to compete.

Their businesses depend on pesticides, CAFOs, genetically modified seeds, growth hormones and the like … so when they see all-natural creameries like the one operated by Randy Sowers and his wife Karen, or natural farms like Bakers Green Acres gaining loyal and growing customer bases, they get nervous – and they get the government involved in any way they can.

Please Support Your Local Small Farms

The healthiest food choices are nearly always those that come from responsible, high-quality, sustainable sources.

This is why I encourage you to support the small family farms in your area. This includes not only visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also taking part in farmer's markets and community-supported agriculture programs. Now that summer is almost here in the United States, fresh produce and other wonderful whole foods are available in abundance. Not only is the food so much tastier and healthier when you get it from sustainable, non-CAFO sources, but there is something about shopping for fresh foods in an open-air, social environment that just feels right. An artificially lit, dreary supermarket -- home to virtually every CAFO food made -- just can't compete.

If you want to experience some of these benefits first-hand, here are some great resources to obtain wholesome food that supports not only you but also the environment:

10 Common GMO Foods On Your Plate

There is a conspiracy of selling out happening in America. Politics and personal interest it would seem determine government policies over and above health and safety issues. When President Obama appointed Michael Taylor in 2009 as senior adviser for the FDA, a fierce protest ensued from consumer groups and environmentalists. Why? Taylor used to be vice president for Monsanto, a multinational interested in marketing genetically modified (GM) food. It was during his term that GMO's were approved in the US without undergoing tests to determine if they were safe for human consumption.

The danger of GMO's
The question of whether or not genetically modified foods (GMO's) are safe for human consumption is an ongoing debate that does not seem to see any resolution except in the arena of public opinion. Due to lack of labeling, Americans are still left at a loss as to whether or not what is on the table is genetically modified. This lack of information makes the avoiding and tracking of GM foods an exercise in futility. Below are just some of the food products popularly identified to be genetically modified:

1. Corn - Corn has been modified to create its own insecticide. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared that tons of genetically modified corn has been introduced for human consumption. Monsanto has revealed that half of the US's sweet corn farms are planted with genetically modified seed. Mice fed with GM corn were discovered to have smaller offspring and fertility problems.

2. Soy - Soy has also been genetically modified to resist herbicides. Soy products include soy flour, tofu, soy beverages, soybean oil and other products that may include pastries, baked products and edible oil. Hamsters fed with GM soy were unable to have offspring and suffered a high mortality rate.

3. Cotton - Like corn and soy, cotton has been designed to resist pesticides. It is considered food because its oil can be consumed. Its introduction in Chinese agriculture has produced a chemical that kills cotton bollworm, reducing the incidences of pests not only in cotton crops but also in neighboring fields of soybeans and corn. Incidentally, thousands of Indian farmers suffered severe rashes upon exposure to BT cotton.

4. Papaya - The virus-resistant variety of papaya was commercially introduced in Hawaii in 1999. Transgenic papayas comprised three-fourths of the total Hawaiian papaya crop. Monsanto bestowed upon Tamil Nadu Agricultural University in Coimbatore technology for developing papaya resistant to the ringspot virus in India.

5. Rice - This staple food from South East Asia has now been genetically modified to contain a high amount of vitamin A. Allegedly, there are reports of rice varieties containing human genes to be grown in the US. The rice will create human proteins useful for dealing with infant diarrhea in the 3rd world. China Daily, an online journal, reported potential serious public health and environment problems with genetically modified rice considering its tendency to cause allergic reactions with the concurrent possibility of gene transfers.

6. Tomatoes - Tomatoes have now been genetically engineered for longer shelf life, preventing them from easily rotting and degrading. In a test conducted to determine the safety of GM tomatoes, some animal subjects died within a few weeks after consuming GM tomatoes.

7. Rapeseed - In Canada, this crop was renamed canola to differentiate it from non-edible rapeseed. Food stuff produced from rapeseed includes rapeseed oi (canola oil) l used to process cooking oil and margarine. Honey can also be produced from GM rapeseed. German food surveillance authorities discovered as much as a third of the total pollen present in Canadian honey may be from GM pollen. In fact, some honey products from Canada were also discovered to have pollen from GM rapeseed.

8. Dairy products - It has been discovered that 22 percent of cows in the U.S. were injected with recombinant (genetically modified) bovine growth hormone (rbGH). This Monsanto created hormone artificially forces cows to increase their milk production by 15 percent. Milk from cows treated with this milk inducing hormone contains increased levels of IGF-1 (insulin growth factors-1). Humans also have IGF-1 in their system. Scientists have expressed concerns that increased levels of IGF-1 in humans have been associated with colon and breast cancer.

9. Potatoes - Mice fed with potatoes engineered with Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki Cry 1 were found to have toxins in their system. Despite claims to the contrary, this shows that Cry1 toxin was stable in the mouse gut. When the health risks were revealed, it sparked a debate.

10. Peas - Peas that have been genetically modified have been found to cause immune responses in mice and possibly even in humans. A gene from kidney beans was inserted into the peas creating a protein that functions as a pesticide.

The GMO link to strange disease
As early as 2008, NaturalNews.com reported about a condition called Morgellon's disease. The article went on to report the symptoms of the disease as follows: crawling, stinging, biting and crawling sensations; threads or black speck-like materials on or beneath the skin; granules, lesions. Some patients report fatigue, short term memory loss, mental confusion, joint pain and changes in vision. Furthermore, there have been reports of substantial morbidity and social dysfunction leading to a dip in work productivity, job loss, total disability, divorce, loss of child custody and home abandonment.

Prior to its reporting, the condition was dismissed as a hoax, but upon further investigation, the evidence pointed out that the disease was real and may be related to genetically modified food.

Despite this link being established, the CDC declared Morgellon's disease of unknown origin. Worse, the medical community could not offer any information to the public regarding a cause for the symptoms.

When a research study was conducted on fiber samples taken from Morgellons patients, it was discovered that the fiber samples of all the patients looked remarkable similar. And yet, it did not seem to match any common environmental fiber. When the fiber was broken down, and it's DNA extracted, it was discovered to belong to a fungus. Even more surprising was the finding that the fibers contained Agrobacterium, a genus gram-negative bacteria with the capacity of transforming plant, animal and even human cells.

Morgellon's disease is not the only condition associated with genetically modified foods. A growing body of evidence has shown that it may cause allergies, immune reactions, liver problems, sterility and even death. Moreover, based on the only human feeding experiment conducted on genetically modified food, it was established that genetic material in genetically modified food product can transfer into the DNA of intestinal bacteria and still continue to thrive.

Heeding the warning
Time and again, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has warned that GMOs pose a serious threat to health, and it is no accident that there can be a correlation between it and adverse health effects. In fact, the AAEM has advised doctors to tell their patients to avoid GMOs as the introduction of GMOs into the current food supply has correlated with an alarming rise in chronic diseases and food allergies.

This should come as no surprise. More than 30 years ago a food supplement called L-trytophan killed 100 people and affected 5,000 to 10,000 more. The cause was narrowed down to the genetic engineering process used in its production. If the symptoms had not had three simultaneous characteristics - namely, they were unique, acute and fast-acting - the disease could never have been identified.

If science could assure us with certainty that serious consequences do not wait for us at the end of the line, it might be to our best interest to let this opportunity pass. Progressive thinking in terms of profit is certainly not wrong. But to brush off precaution on the convenient argument that there is not enough evidence to prove that GM food is indeed harmful is sheer irresponsibility. It certainly is a lame excuse to offer in the event that GM foods are indeed proven to contain health hazards.

GMO Farmers Commit Suicide Every 30 Minutes

n what has been called the single largest wave of recorded suicides in human history, Indian farmers are now killing themselves in record numbers. It has been extensively reported, even in mainstream news, but nothing has been done about the issue. The cause? Monsanto’s cost-inflated and ineffective seeds have been driving farmers to suicide, and is considered to be one of the largest — if not the largest — cause of the quarter of a million farmer suicides over the past 16 years.

According to the most recent figures (provided by the New York University School of Law), 17,638 Indian farmers committed suicide in 2009 — about one death every 30 minutes. In 2008, the Daily Mail labeled the continual and disturbing suicide spree as ‘The GM (genetically modified) Genocide’.

Due to failing harvests and inflated prices that bankrupt the poor farmers, struggling Indian farmers began to kill themselves. Oftentimes, they would commit the act by drinking the very same insecticide that Monsanto supplied them with — a gruesome testament to the extent in which Monsanto has wrecked the lives of independent and traditional farmers.

To further add backing to the tragedy, the rate of Indian farmer suicides massively increased since the introduction of Monsanto’s Bt cotton in 2002. It is no wonder that a large percentage of farmers who take their own lives are cotton farmers, the demographic that is thought to be among the most impacted. Dr. Mercola, an osteopathic doctor that has been educating the world about natural health for many years, recently saw the destruction of traditional Indian farmers first hand. Dr. Mercola found out about the notorious ‘suicide belt’ of India, where 4,238 farmer suicides took place in 2007 alone.

Many families are now ruined thanks to the mass suicides, and are left to economic ruin and must struggle to fight off starvation:

‘We are ruined now,’ said one dead man’s 38-year-old wife. ‘We bought 100 grams of BT Cotton. Our crop failed twice. My husband had become depressed. He went out to his field, lay down in the cotton and swallowed insecticide.’

In India, around 60 percent of the population (currently standing at 1.1 billion) are directly or indirectly reliant on agriculture. Monsanto’s intrusion into India’s traditional and sustainable farming community is not only concerning for health and wellness reasons, but it is now clear that the issue is much more serious.

French Raw Milk Vending Machines vs California Toruture & Incarceration

'Thanks to the extraordinarily cruel and vindictive actions of the LA County and Ventura County District Attorneys' offices, California is rapidly losing its reputation as a state that promotes a healthy lifestyle. Instead, the state is becoming increasingly known as "the torture state" where senior citizen farmers and fresh food advocates are imprisoned, tortured, and charged with felony crimes for making fresh milk available to customers.

France, on the other hand, has embraced the health benefits of raw milk. There, innovative dairy farmer Michel Cantaloube has created a raw milk vending machine (see photo below). The vending machine is a tastefully-designed kiosk that blends right into the urban setting, allowing it to be set up on a street corner on a French town or even a major metropolitan area. Customers can purchase whatever quantity of raw milk they wish, and unlike in the United States, they don't even have to go through the bizarre paperwork of owning a "cow share."'

NAIS Isn't Dead Yet

Cattlemen who fought against the USDA’s National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and thought they squelched it until the USDA revived it as Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) , are donating money to the United Horsemen and the International Equine Business Association (IEBA), which, ironically, seem to be bringing in NAIS/ADT through the back door.

These two new organizations, promoting the sale of horse meat, primarily to foreign countries, and the reinstatement of (probably foreign owned) horse slaughter plants in the United States, are muddying the waters by trying to tie this to property rights.

Let’s just grab this bull by the horns.

If you haven’t heard about NAIS, it required that ranchers sign a PREMISES ID contract. In international law books, premises is NOT property, so ranchers were basically signing away their property rights . They became a “stakeholder” (a third party). The USDA wanted to make this mandatory.

Supposedly, NAIS was about food safety and “traceability.” However, most food safety issues are due to poor practices at deregulated, self-policing slaughterhouses (where RFID tags end up on the floor) and deregulated, self-policing meat packing plants. Not ranches. And since tags and microchips can easily be reprogrammed, they won’t prevent bioterrorism.

Bill Bullard, CEO of R-Calf, stated: “… USDA’s entire effort to implement a new form of animal identification system is driven not by a genuine desire to prevent and control livestock disease outbreaks, but rather, by a desire to conform to international trade standards.”

Conforming with international trade standards means conforming with the United Nations’ Agenda 21, its action plan, which has the stated objective of “the encouragement of communally and collectively owned and managed land.”

Since United Horsemen and IEBA seem to be trying to hitch their wagon to “property rights,” you might want to take a closer look.

ANIMAL ID SOLUTIONS

A United Horsemen press release claims the International Equine Business Association (IEBA) will include “forms of permanent identification and traceability” and has “contracted with Animal ID Solutions Inc., a Canadian company with operations in the United States” and “will utilize Animal ID Solution’s Global Animal Identification Network…”

On the Animal ID Solutions’ website, it states that its Global Animal Identification Network “Integrates/exports with other national and international traceability programs.”

Integrates with international traceability programs? Does this sound like a global NAIS/ADT?

If this is about food safety, it’s interesting that Animal ID Solutions has partnered with NCR Corp. NCR Corp. was responsible for the nation’s biggest Superfund site in Green Bay, Wisconsin, for contaminating the Lower Fox River and Green Bay with PCBs.

HOWDY, PARTNER

Animal ID Solutions Global Animal Identification Network has other “partners”: United Horsemen, the Horse Welfare Alliance of Canada, the International RFID Business Association (a trade association to promote an increase in the global marketplace for RFID), RFID Consultants.com (your “global portal” to RFID consultants) and the Animal RFID Consortium.

And these partners have partners. For example, the Animal RFID Consortium is partners with Middle East RFID Consortium.

Animal ID Solutions is owned by Lantz McLaren. However, Anne Olscher, who has also been listed as Animal ID Solutions’ owner and CEO, is co-founder of the Animal RFID Consortium, which operates under the “auspices” of the International RFID Business Association!

THE INTERNATIONAL SUMMIT OF THE HORSE

The 1st Summit of the Horse last year was sponsored by United Horsemen. Its President is Dave Duquette, a horse trainer from Oregon, and Vice-President was Wyoming State Representative Sue Wallis, who is now Co-Chair of the IEBA (along with Bill desBarres of Canada). The idea for the IEBA was supposedly spawned at this Summit.

At the upcoming 2nd Summit, one panel member is Callie Hendrickson of the Colorado Association of Conservation Districts.

If you look at the Colorado Association of Conservation Districts (CACD), , you’ll see that their sponsors include The Nature Conservancy and Izaak Walton League, two organizations promoting UN programs (which promote UN’s action plan, Agenda 21, and communally owned property).

CACD is partners with the USDA, Forest Service, EPA (all partners of the IUCN, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, which “links its mission” to Agenda 21) and the BLM. The BLM recently appointed Callie Hendrickson to their Wild Horse & Burro Advisory Board.

Retired Texas Congressman Charlie Stenholm, a lobbyist with the law firm Olsson, Frank & Weeda , will be a speaker at the Summit.

Last year, when Stenholm hollered “Lets feed China” during his Summit speech, did one patriotic American in the audience think about the implications of this? I mean, China owns about $1.1 trillion in U.S. bills, notes and bonds.

Stenholm’s firm also represents Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), whose member companies recently sponsored a big biotechnology convention in Chinaand seem to be partnering with Chinese companies.

BIO has also been pushing cloned animals, and they’ll most likely want to protect their members’ international patents.

How will they do this? For one thing, they’ll partner with international RFID consortiums, like the ones listed above.

In 2009, Stenholm asked cattlemen to “Keep an open mind about NAIS. It’s important for food safety and traceability in the event of a disease breakout…” I don’t know, but I wonder if Charlie Stenholm was “open-minded” enough to sign a Premises ID contract for his property.

Olsson, Frank & Weeda’s website states that “our attorneys were instrumental in enacting the FDA Modernization Act.” What was part of this? Traceability.