GMO Lawsuit Settles For $750M

ST. LOUIS • Bayer CropScience agreed here late Friday to pay up to $750 million to farmers in Missouri and four other states to settle lawsuits over contamination of the U.S. rice supply by LibertyLink genetically modified rice in 2006.

"It was a devastating blow to a lot of rice farmers, and I'm tickled to death that we've finally reached a settlement where Bayer for the first time has offered to make it right to these farmers," said St. Louis lawyer Don Downing, who was co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
"I think it sends a signal to those who develop genetically modified seeds that they need to keep those seeds very carefully contained until they're approved for human consumption," Downing said.

But, he added, "We were very careful all along … not to say that these lawsuits are anti-GMO (genetically-modified organisms) because many of our farmers use GM crops."

Bayer, based in Germany, released a statement that read, in part, "Although Bayer CropScience believes it acted responsibly in the handling of its biotech rice, the company considers it important to resolve the litigation so that it can move forward focused on its fundamental mission of providing innovative solutions to modern agriculture."
When it was discovered in the rice supply, LibertyLink had not yet been approved for sale for human consumption. Rice futures plunged, and Japan and European countries banned the import of U.S. rice.

The first of what would eventually grow to more than 400 lawsuits representing 11,000 plaintiffs were filed within weeks. Many were eventually consolidated in federal court here.

LibertyLink rice has since been approved but has not been commercially marketed.
LibertyLink corn, soybeans and canola are on the market, Bayer spokesman Greg Coffey said.
All farmers in Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi who planted long grain rice in 2006-10 — not just those who sued in state or federal court — can participate in the settlement, said Downing and co-lead counsel Adam J. Levitt. It also includes landowners who allow others to farm their land, but does not include importers, exporters, rice mills and others.

Under terms of the settlement, farmers who planted at least 85 percent of the roughly 2.2 million acres of rice during those years must sign up or Bayer can walk away from the deal.
Bayer said it has already "established appropriate provisions" for the settlement.

The settlement is broken down into three "pots" of money. The first, and the easiest to get, offers $310 an acre to compensate farmers for market losses and is available to those who had long grain rice planted in 2006-10, with lesser amounts for farmers who only planted in some of those years.

The second pot is for farmers who planted either of two rice varieties in 2006, Clearfield 131 or Cheniere, that were most affected by the contamination. Many of those farmers had to leave fields fallow, plant lower-value crops or spend money cleaning equipment of contaminated rice, plaintiffs' lawyers said. Farmers will have to show receipts documenting their planting of those varieties.

The third pot is for those who feel that they lost more, and requires more documentation, lawyers said.

Friday's settlement comes after a series of so-called "bellwether" trials set up to allow representative cases to proceed to trial and to give all sides a signal of what could come in pending cases.

Asked about compensation, Levitt said that lawyers had private fee agreements with the clients who sued. A "leadership team" of lawyers like Levitt and Downing and others who took on additional duties and expenses will receive additional money, he said.

In December 2009, a federal jury in St. Louis awarded $2 million to farmers. A different jury awarded $1.5 million in February 2010. Neither of those juries awarded punitive damages.
Last July, a federal jury in St. Louis awarded a Louisiana farmer, Denny Deshotels, $500,000 in one suit. Jurors were not given the option of punitive damages because of Louisiana law.

Two other bellwether cases settled, one a week into the trial and one the week before, Downing said.

In three state trials in Arkansas, jurors also found in favor of farmers, awarding $1 million in one trial, roughly $1 million or less in another and $6 million in actual damages and $42 million in punitive damages in the third, Downing said..

At trial, company lawyers argued that farmers who waited out the brief price hit suffered no losses and that Bayer was not negligent.

Friday's settlement had not yet been filed in federal court in St. Louis, but plaintiffs' lawyers announced the deal at 4:35 p.m. and Bayer released its own statement a short time later.
Asked to explain the timing of the settlement, Levitt declined to comment.

Coffey said, "We did release (the announcement) as soon as we could," noting it was shortly after the agreement was signed.

Downing would only say: "I can't tell you why it ended up late in the afternoon on a holiday weekend. You can perhaps speculate about that yourself."

Cultures For Health REAL Ginger Ale

In years past ginger ale was the tonic of choice if you had an upset stomach or the flu. Today’s ginger ale is little more than a ginger-flavored soda laden with high fructose corn syrup. To make the authentic brew our great grandmothers knew all you need are few basic supplies and a little patience. Bottle your ginger ale in airtight beverage bottles while it is still actively fermenting so it retains some fizz. Just be sure to store it in the refrigerator within a day or two after bottling it or it may create too much carbonation and burst your bottle.

Ingredients:

• 1 gallon filtered water
• 1-1/2 cups organic cane sugar
• 4 inches (approximately) of ginger root, peeled and grated
• 1/2 cup prepared vegetable starter culture (like Caldwell’s or Body Ecology) or 1/2 to 1 cup whey 

Instructions:

1. Place water in a large non-aluminum kettle. Stir in grated ginger root. Place over high heat and bring to a boil. Allow ginger water to boil for 3 minutes. 
2. Remove from heat and stir in sugar until dissolved. Let cool to room temperature. When sufficiently cool, around 80°F or less, stir in starter culture or whey.
3. Pour into airlock jars or plain mason jars with lids. If using plain mason jars release the pressure from the jar at least once a day by loosening the lid. You should hear a little gas being released. 
4. Keep at room temperature for 2 to 6 days, until the ginger ale is fizzy. You can strain out the pieces of ginger root at this time or leave them in if you like ginger pieces. Bottle in tightly capped beverage bottles and let sit at room temperature for 1 to 2 days before refrigerating.

Note: Lacto-fermented ginger ale mixed with kombucha is a great thirst quencher.  Check out the other delicious ideas that are super easy, healthy and offer a pleasant change from the supermarket toxins.

http://www.culturesforhealth.com?a_aid=4f249ab58dcb2

Even Cockroaches Reject Aspartame

• 
   
  This image made from video provided by Ayako Wada-Katsumata shows glucose-averse German cockroaches avoiding a dab of jelly, which contains glucose, and favoring the peanut butter
  
   For 30 years, people have been getting rid of cockroaches by setting out sweet-tasting bait mixed with poison. But in the early 1990s, a formerly effective product stopped working. Some cockroaches had lost their sweet tooth, rejecting the corn syrup meant to attract them.
  
   Later studies showed they were specifically turned off by the sugar glucose in the syrup. Scientists reported Thursday, May 23, 2013 that the key is an altered behavior of certain nerves that signal the brain about foods. (AP Photo/Ayako Wada-Katsumata)
• 
   
  This undated image made available by Ayako Wada-Katsumata and Andrew Ernst shows the head of a male German cockroach, showing the four major external chemosensory paired appendages pointed towards a flavored test substance dyed blue by researchers. For 30 years, people have been getting rid of cockroaches by setting out sweet-tasting bait mixed with poison. But in the early 1990s, a formerly effective product stopped working.<br><br>
  
   Some cockroaches had lost their sweet tooth, rejecting the corn syrup meant to attract them. Later studies showed they were specifically turned off by the sugar glucose in the syrup. Scientists reported Thursday, May 23, 2013 that the key is an altered behavior of certain nerves that signal the brain about foods. (AP Photo/Ayako Wada-Katsumata, Andrew Ernst)<br><br>

NEW YORK (AP) — For decades, people have been getting rid of cockroaches by setting out bait mixed with poison. But in the late 1980s, in an apartment test kitchen in Florida, something went very wrong.<br><br>

A killer product stopped working. Cockroach populations there kept rising. Mystified researchers tested and discarded theory after theory until they finally hit on the explanation: In a remarkably rapid display of evolution at work, many of the cockroaches had lost their sweet tooth, rejecting the corn syrup meant to attract them.<br><br>

In as little as five years, the sugar-rejecting trait had become so widespread that the bait had been rendered useless.
 <br><br>
"Cockroaches are highly adaptive, and they're doing pretty well in the arms race with us," said North Carolina State University entomologist Jules Silverman, discoverer of the glucose aversion in that Florida kitchen during a bait test.<br><br>

The findings illustrate the evolutionary prowess that has helped make cockroaches so hard to stamp out that it is jokingly suggested they could survive nuclear war.<br><br>

In a study published Thursday in the journal Science, Silverman and other researchers explain the workings of the genetic mutation that gave some roaches a competitive advantage that enabled them to survive and multiply.<br><br>

The key is certain neurons that signal the brain about foods.<br><br>

In normal cockroaches, glucose excites neurons that tell the brain "Sweet!" In the mutant insects, glucose activates neurons that say "Sweet!" and ones that say "Yuck!" The "Yuck!" neurons dampen the signal from the others, so the brain gets the message the taste is awful. This unusual nerve activity appeared in glucose-hating cockroaches collected from Puerto Rico as well as descendants of the Florida insects.<br><br>

The research focused on the German cockroach, a small kind that can hitch a ride into your home in a grocery bag, not that big lunk known as the American cockroach. Such finicky eating habits have also been seen in these smaller roaches in Southern California, Cincinnati, Indiana, South Korea and Russia. Scientists are now looking to see if other kinds of cockroaches show aversion to glucose.<br><br>

The new work is nifty science. But does it explain why you can't get rid of the little buggers in your kitchen?<br><br>

Probably not, said Coby Schal, another study author at North Carolina State.
Tests show that the glucose-hating cockroaches are happy to eat most types of bait these days, suggesting that manufacturers have removed the glucose or masked it, he said. (Bait ingredients are a trade secret.) <br><br>

What's more, the researchers found glucose-hating cockroaches in only seven of 19 populations they sampled from various locations.<br><br>

Frankly, if the bait you put out isn't working, it's probably because you're using it incorrectly, suggested Schal, who said he consults to the pesticide industry free of charge.<br><br>

Still, he said, the new work has potential to help many consumers. By studying how cockroaches evolve to evade our poisons, scientists may find clues to designing bait that the pests cannot resist.
 <br><br>
It's not clear when the Florida cockroaches first encountered bait with glucose or how quickly they ditched their taste for the sugar, he said. But he said it's reasonable to estimate that it took maybe only five years for that glucose aversion to spread to so many cockroaches that the bait was no longer effective. That's about 25 generations of German cockroaches, which can reproduce about one to three months after they're born, Schal said.<br><br>

The glucose aversion may have arisen in an individual cockroach in response to bait. Or it may have already been present in just a few individuals when the arrival of the bait suddenly gave them an advantage for surviving and reproducing. Their offspring would inherit the trait and increasingly replace other cockroaches.<br><br>

Michael Scharf, an entomologist at Purdue University who studies urban pests but wasn't involved in the new work, noted that since the 1950s, cockroaches have shown they can also evolve resistance to insecticides. He agreed the latest results should help scientists develop better products to control roaches.<br><br>


NOTE:  Remember Aspartame has changed it's name to further deceive consumers, it is now also called Amino Sweet

Kraft Mac & Cheese Labels Different For USA-GMO

The Reality Of Chemical Terrorism In our Food

Marco Torres, Prevent Disease
Waking Times

Is it really that hard for most people to believe that we are being assaulted on a daily basis by chemical terrorism?

Genetically modified foods, artificial flavours, colors, preservatives, emulsifiers, and sweeteners all made with toxic chemicals, all of which are proven toxic to human health. We are being bombarded on a daily basis by an astronomical level of toxicity, all controlled by these chemical terrorists on behalf of the food industry. Worse is we let them.

How many more toxins will we permit in our food supply before we stand united and simply say “we’ve had enough?” How long will it take until we assertively proclaim that we will not allow any more chemicals or toxins in our foods?

Since food and health regulators cannot properly do their job to protect the public, there will come a tipping point when the people will have to do it for them. We discuss toxic chemicals almost every day, but what percentage of the population is interested enough, curious enough or most of all disciplined enough to actually make the dietary changes necessary to rid all the toxins from the foods they eat?

 How many people can avoid all processed foods every single day? I would estimate that percentage to be extremely small. Barriers are typically societal pressure, convenience and income. The reality is that we could all have a safe and healthy food industry if we truly wanted it. There are just not enough of us that want it that badly….yet.

Every year or two we have a new chemical terrorist making its way into the food supply almost like clock work. Once the public becomes savvy to the harmful nature of the new toxin, it is then renamed, rebranded and often modified into a deadlier form than its predecessor. Aspartame and aminosweet, and high fructose corn syrup and corn sugar are two excellent examples.
Let’s take a look at some of the biggest offenders that are in more than 80% of the foods we eat.


Artificial Flavors and Colors
Artificial flavors and colors means it is derived from a chemical made in a laboratory and has no nutritional value. Every single artificial flavor and color in the food industry has some kind of detrimental health effect. These include neurotoxicity, organ, developmental, reproductive toxicity and cancer.

* Examples

- Glutamates
- Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)
- Maltodextrin
- Autolyzed Yeast Extract
- Disodium Guanylate
- Disodium Inosinate
- Blue 1, Blue 2
- Yellow 5, Yellow 6
- Red 3, Red 40

Genetically Modified Foods
GM Foods causes allergies, organ damage, cancer, immunotoxicty, and damaging transgenes which affect future generations. Many fruits and vegetables for sale in the U.S. are already genetically modified. The most commercialized GM fruit is papaya from Hawaii—about half of Hawaii’s papayas are GM.

* Examples
- Corn flour, meal, oil, starch, gluten, and syrup
- Corn Sweeteners such as fructose, dextrose, and glucose
- Modified food starch
- Soy flour, lecithin, protein, isolate, and isoflavone
- Most vegetable oils and vegetable proteins
- Canola oil (also called rapeseed oil)
- Cottonseed oil
- Anything not listed as 100% cane sugar

Toxic Preservatives 
Artificial preservatives are responsible for causing a host of health problems pertaining to respiratory tract, heart, blood and other. Some are very neurotoxic especially when combined with specific nutrients.

* Examples

- Antimicrobials
- Nitrites (i.e. Sodium Nitrite)
- Nitrates (i.e. Sodium Nitrate)
- Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA)
- Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT)
- Sulfites (i.e. Sodium Sulfite)
- Potassium Sorbate
- Benzoic Acid
- Propyl Gallate
- Sodium Benzoate

Toxic Emulsifiers 
An emulsifier replaces surface proteins and aids in forming the network in specific food recipes. There are no healthy non-organic emulsifiers. They are all toxic causing everything from infertility, digestive disorders and migraines.

* Examples 
- Polysorbate 80
- Mono-diglycerides
- Carrageenan
- Xanthan Gum (non-organic)
- Guar Gum
- Soy Lecithin or Soya Lecithin

Toxic Sweeteners
Sweeteners such as Neotame are thousands of times sweeter than sugar. They are all very potent, neurotoxic, immunotoxic and excitotoxic.

* Examples
- Aspartame
- High Fructose Corn Syrup
- Neotame
- Sucralose
- Sodium cyclamate
- Acesulfame-K

Toxic Adulterants 
Food fraud and economically motivated food adulteration is highlighted by some very toxic substances which cause cancer, glaucoma, digestive and liver disorders. These are added to foods to increase their color, volume or weight.

* Examples

- Metanil Yellow
- Potassium bromate
- Malachite Green
- Tamarind seeds
- Washing powder
- Argemone seeds

This list is by no means extensive. There are now hundreds of toxic additives in our food supply. Chemical terrorism in our food supply must end and it starts with you.

Please look at the ingredient lists before you purchase any processed foods. If you see any of these, don’t buy the product. Continue to educate yourself on the influx of new toxins introduced every year. Eventually, if we investigate enough the answers come. Rule of thumb, if the ingredient list has one chemical or more…it’s one too many.

About the Author

Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy.

Genetically Modified Democracy: Monsanto and Congress Move to Stomp on States' Rights

Reliable sources in Washington D.C. have informed the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) that Monsanto has begun secretly lobbying its Congressional allies to attach one or more “Monsanto Riders” or amendments to the 2013 Farm Bill that would preempt or prohibit states from requiring labels on genetically engineered (GE) foods.

In response to this blatant violation of states’ rights to legislate, and consumers’ right to know, the OCA and a nationwide alliance have launched a petition to put every member of Congress on notice: If you support any Farm Bill amendment that would nullify states’ rights to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we’ll vote – or throw – you out of office.

On Wednesday, May 15, an amendment to the House version of the Farm Bill, inserted under the guise of protecting interstate commerce, passed out of the House Agricultural Committee. If the King Amendment makes it into the final Farm Bill, it would take away states’ rights to pass laws governing the production or manufacture of any agricultural product, including food and animals raised for food, that is involved in interstate commerce. The amendment was proposed by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), largely in response to a California law stating that by 2015, California will allow only eggs to be sold from hens housed in cages specified by California.  But policy analysts emphasize that the amendment, broadly and ambiguously written, could be used to prohibit or preempt any state GMO labeling or food safety law.

Will the King Amendment survive the Senate? No one can be sure, say analysts. However few doubt that Monsanto will give up. We can expect that more amendments and riders will be introduced into the Farm Bill--even if the King Amendment fails—over the next month in an attempt to stop the wave of state GMO labeling laws and initiatives moving forward in states like Washington, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut and others.

Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) have admitted privately that they’ve “lost the battle” to stop GE food labeling at the state level, now that states are aggressively moving forward on labeling laws. On May 14, Maine’s House Ag Committee passed a GMO labeling law. On May 10, the Vermont House passed a labeling bill, 99-42, despite massive lobbying by Monsanto and threats to sue the state. And though Monsanto won a razor-thin victory (51 percent to 49 percent) in a costly, hard fought California GMO labeling ballot initiative last November, biotech and Big Food now realize that Washington State voters will likely pass I-522, an upcoming ballot initiative to label GE foods, on November 5.
  
If Monsanto can’t stop states from passing laws, then the next step is a national preemptive measure.  And all signs point to just such a power grab.  Earlier this year, Monsanto slipped its extremely unpopular “Monsanto Protection Act,” an act that gives biotech immunity from federal prosecution for planting illegally approved GE crops, into the 2013 Federal Appropriations Bill.  During the June 2012 Farm Bill debate, 73 U.S. Senators voted against the right of states to pass mandatory GE food labeling laws. Emboldened by these votes, and now the House Ag Committee’s vote on the King Amendment, Monsanto has every reason to believe Congress would support a potential nullification of states’ rights to label.

The million-strong OCA and its allies in the organic and natural health movement are warning incumbent Senators and House members, Democrats and Republicans alike, that thousands of health and environmental-minded constituents in their Congressional districts or states will work to recall them or drive them out of office if they fail to heed the will of the people and to respect the time-honored traditions of shared state sovereignty over food labels, food safety laws, and consumers’ right to know.

Trouble in Monsanto Nation.
Over the past 20 years Monsanto and the biotech industry, aided and abetted by indentured politicians and corporate agribusiness, have begun seizing control over the global food and farming system, including the legislative, patent, trade, judicial and regulatory bodies that are supposed to safeguard the public interest.

In the U.S., despite mounting evidence of the damage GE crops inflict on human health and the environment, approximately 170 million acres of GE crops, including corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa, papaya, and squash, are currently under cultivation. These crops, untested and unlabeled, comprise 41 percent of all cultivated cropland, or 17 percent of all cropland and pastureland combined. According to the GMA, at least 70 percent of non-organic grocery store processed foods contain GMOs. And GE grains and mill byproducts now supply the overwhelming majority of animal feed on the factory farms that supply 90 percent to 95 percent of the meat, eggs and dairy products that Americans consume.

Yet despite their marketplace dominance, record profits and enormous political clout in Washington D.C., Monsanto and the biotech industry are in deep trouble. Evidence is mounting that Monsanto’s top-selling herbicide, Roundup, is a deadly poison, destroying important human gut bacteria and likely contributing to the rapid increase of food allergies and serious human diseases including cancer, autism, neurological disorders , Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), dementia, Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Those most susceptible to poisoning by Monsanto’s Roundup are children and the elderly.

Scientists aren’t the only ones raising new questions about Roundup. Farmers are complaining that they’re being forced to spray more and more chemicals on crops increasingly under siege from a growing army of herbicide-resistant weeds.  The situation is so bad that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just raised the limits of Roundup residue allowed on grains and vegetables to even more dangerous levels. But just in case the EPA someday stops raising the limits, Monsanto, Dow and the biotech industry are working on a new “solution” to the onslaught of herbicide-resistant Superweeds: They’ve applied  for approval of a new and highly controversial generation of super toxic herbicide-resistant GE crops, including “Agent Orange”  (2,4-D and dicamba-resistant) corn, soybeans and cotton.

As a recent widely-circulated article points out,  

• “The use of 2,4-D is not new; it’s actually one of the most widely used herbicides in the world. What is new is that farmers will now ‘carpet bomb’ staple food crops like soy and corn with this chemical at a previously unprecedented scale—just the way glyphosate has been indiscriminately applied as a result of Roundup Ready crops. In fact, if 2,4-D resistant crops receive approval and eventually come to replace Monsanto's failing Roundup-resistant crops as Dow intends, it is likely that billions of pounds will be needed, on top of the already insane levels of Roundup being used (1.6 billion lbs were used in 2007 in the US alone).”

In addition to these Agent Orange crops, an expanded menu of genetically engineered organisms are awaiting approval. Next on the menu?  GE apples, trees, and salmon.

State Labeling Laws: The ‘skull and crossbones’ that terrify Monsanto
Monsanto’s greatest fear isn’t a federal government charged with protecting the health and safety of its citizens.  Congress and the White House seem only too happy to oblige the biotech industry’s unquenchable thirst for growth, power and dominance. No, it’s the massive, unstoppable (so far) grassroots movement of Millions Against Monsanto that strikes fear in the heart of the Biotech Bully. U.S. citizens are waking up. They’re demanding labels on genetically engineered foods, similar to those already required in the European Union. They’re calling for serious independent safety-testing of GE crops and animals, both those already approved (especially Monsanto’s Roundup-resistant crops) and those awaiting approval.

The anti-GMO movement has finally figured out, after 20 years of fruitlessly lobbying Congress, the FDA and the White House, that the federal government is not going to require labels on GE foods. Instead the movement has shifted the battleground on GMO labeling from Monsanto and Big Food’s turf in Washington D.C. to the more favorable terrain of state ballot initiatives and state legislative action—publicizing the fact that a state GMO labeling law will have the same marketplace impact as a national labeling law.

State laws spell doom for Monsanto. Companies like Kellogg’s, General Mills, Coca-Cola, Pepsi/Frito-Lay, Dean Foods, Unilever, Con-Agra, Safeway, Wal-Mart and Smuckers are not going to label in just one or two states.  Monsanto knows that U.S. food companies will go GMO-free in the entire U.S., rather than admit to consumers that their products contain GMOs.

As Monsanto itself has pointed out, labels on genetically engineered foods are like putting a “skull and crossbones” on food packages. This is why Monsanto and their allies poured $46 million into defeating a California ballot initiative last year that would have required labels on GMO foods. This is why Monsanto has lobbied strenuously in 30 states this year to prevent, or at least delay, state mandatory labeling laws from being passed. This is why Monsanto has threatened to file federal lawsuits against Vermont, Connecticut, Maine and Washington if they dare grant citizens the right to know whether or not their food has been genetically engineered or not.

And this is why Monsanto’s minions are trying to insert amendments or riders into the Farm Bill that will make it nearly impossible, even illegal, for states to pass GMO labeling laws. And there’s nothing to stop them when Congress is filled with pro-biotech cheerleaders who could care less that 90 percent of U.S. consumers want mandatory labels and proper safety testing of genetically engineered crops and foods.

Countering Monsanto’s Final Offensive: Throw the Bums Out!
Only a massive grassroots resistance will deter the U.S. Senate and House from stomping on our rights. Only an unprecedented campaign of public education, petition-gathering and grassroots pressure will be able to convince the ever-more corrupt and indentured politicians in Washington D.C. to back off.

Eighteen state constitutions have century-old provisions for state registered voters to collect petitions and recall state and local officials, forcing them to either resign or stand for reelection. But what very few Americans, and even members of Congress, realize is that 11 states have constitutional provisions to recall U.S. Senators and House of Representative members, as well as state elected officials.

It’s time we exercise the full power of direct democracy, not just state and municipal ballot initiatives. We must continue to support efforts like the current state ballot initiative to label GMOs in Washington state, and county ballot initiatives to ban GMOs, factory farms and other corporate crimes, in the 24 states and hundreds of counties and municipalities where these are allowed.  But we also need to use the power we have to recall and throw out of office our out-of-control Congressional Senators and Representatives as well.

If our elected officials in Congress continue to represent Monsanto and big corporations, rather than their constituents, then let’s throw the bums out! If the Washington political Establishment, both Democrats and Republicans, continue to trample on our inalienable constitutional rights and contemptuously disregard the 225-year principle of a shared balance of power between the federal government, the states and local government, then we have no choice but to recall them or throw them out of office.

Please join the nation’s organic consumers and natural health advocates in this strategic battle, the Food Fight of Our Lives. Please join this campaign to save, not only our right to choose what’s in our food, but our basic right to democratic representation and self-determination as well.  Sign the petition.  Tell your Congressmen and women, especially the 73 incumbents who voted last year to eliminate states rights’ to legislate on GMO labels, and those in the House this week who voted to support the King Amendment that “enough is enough,” “ basta ya.” Power to the People!

Still Eat Conventional Meat?

Still Eat Conventional Meat or Poultry? Preservatives, Antimicrobials, Antifungals, and Viral Sprays Saturate Factory Farmed Sources

70 percent of all beef and chicken sold in the United States, Canada, UK and Australia and many other countries contain a growing number of preservatives, meat glues, and antibacterial/antifungal/antiviral sprays. They also are commonly treated with carbon monoxide gas injections to make meat appear more fresh than it actually is.

Synthetic preservatives are added to 70 percent of all factory farmed meat and poultry to prevent spoilage, rancidity and mould growth.

Sodium Benzoate, Sodium Proprionate and Benzoic Acid

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has amended regulations that once banned the use of sodium benzoate, sodium propionate and benzoic acid in meat and poultry products, the Food and Drug Administration has announced.

In combination with ascorbic acid (vitamin C, E300), sodium benzoate and potassium benzoate form benzene, form known carcinogens. If a individual happens to consume any of these toxins after consuming ascorbic acid, a carcinogenic process may initiate.

The three preservatives had been on the list of prohibited antimicrobial substances the FSIS considered to have the potential to conceal damage or inferiority in meat and poultry.

The change follows a petition by Kraft Foods Global Inc., which wants to use the substances to help inhibit the growth of bacteria.

After consideration, the FSIS said it has "determined that sodium benzoate, sodium propionate and benzoic acid, under the conditions proposed in the petitions, are both safe and suitable for use as antimicrobial agents in certain RTE (Ready-to-Eat) meat and poultry products."

Nitrites/Nitrates

Nitrites and nitrates are also added to meat products during processing to inhibit the growth of bacteria and enhance color. Nitrites may be added directly to the meat product, but more frequently nitrates are added. Nitrites are used in pork, beef and poultry products to enhance colour. For example, nitrates are added to ham and bacon, giving them their characteristic pink colour. Some countries even permit the use of nitrites in fish products.

When nitrites combine with certain amino acids, N-nitroso compounds or nitrosamines are formed and these have been shown to be carcinogenic (cancer-causing). Our primary source of exposure to nitrates and nitrites is through the food we consume, however exposure to these compounds can also occur through drinking water.

Sulphites

They are used widely as preservatives in food to maintain food colour and prolong shelf-life. Sulphites can also be used in some pharmaceutical medications as a way of maintaining their potency.

Sulphites can trigger asthma or an anaphylactic-type reactions. Certain individuals, particularly those with asthma, may react to sulphites with allergy-like symptoms. It's one reason most pre-packaged foods are required to have an ingredients listing on the presence of sulphites on the label. The pre-packaged food product label will state “may contain” or “may contain traces of” sulphites and sulphite derivatives.

It is important to always read the ingredients’ lists and remember that sulphite derivatives exist and may be listed as:

E 220, E 221, E 222, E 223, E 224, E 225, E 226, E 227, E 228 (European names)
Potassium bisulphite/metabisulphite
Sodium bisulphite/dithionite/metabisulphite/sulphite
Sulfur dioxide
Sulphiting agents
Sulphurous acid

Meat Glue

Produced as Activa by Japan's Ajinomoto Company, it's scientific name is "transglutaminase" and it belongs to the family of clotting enzymes which are eight in number.

Meat glue is thrombin, a coagulation protein which together with the fibrous protein fibrin can be used to develop a "meat glue" enzyme that can be used for sticking together different pieces of meat. It can be made from blood taken from either cows or pigs.

The European Parliament had voted to ban bovine and porcine thrombin. The House said the meat glue has no proven benefit for consumers and might mislead them instead. One year later, all but one of the European Union nations voted in favor of using Thrombian, or Transglutaminase (TG). They now joining other developed nations such as the U.S., Canada, and Australia who approved the product.

This sort of thing has been a boon to the food industry, which can now treat all sorts of proteins like meat or fish as just another material to be processed, but in the hands of molecular gastronomists it's become a way to manipulate food in a way that would have been previously impossible. It's possible, for example, to make tenderloin rolls wrapped in bacon that hold together perfectly without the need for twine or toothpicks.

Viral Sprays

The FDA also approved a virus-cocktail spray that might prevent listeriosis. The spray, called LMP 102, is a mixture of six different special viruses called bacteriophages -- viruses that infect only bacteria, not people, animals or plants.

Bacteriophages, like all viruses, contain protein. These proteins can cause allergic reactions, just like milk proteins cause milk allergies.
The bacteriophages might also get into battle with the friendly bacteria in the digestive system, making it harder for the body to digest food. But that's a risk the FDA already takes by allowing the use of antibiotics on farms.
The FDA currently allows bacteriophages to be used in pesticides, including those sprayed on crops. But this is the first time that the FDA has regulated the use of bacteriophages as a food additive. Other countries actually use bacteriophages in antibiotic drugs.

The idea here is that these six bacteriophages will infect and kill any listeria bacteria that might linger on meats.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, use of this spray will have to be marked on the food just like any other ingredient on the label.
Consumers might soon see the words "bacteriophage preparation" on cold cuts. As always, although the virus spray is intended to make food safer, it does not come without its own risks.
Carbon Monoxide Treatment

Carbon monoxide (often referred to as CO) is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas, one measly oxygen molecule away from the carbon dioxide we all exhale. But that one molecule makes a big difference in that it does very, very bad things to the human body at very, very low concentrations.
CO is toxic because it sticks to hemoglobin, a molecule in blood that usually carries oxygen, even better than oxygen can. When people are exposed to higher levels of CO, the gas takes the place of oxygen in the bloodstream and wreaks havoc. Milder exposures mean headaches, confusion, and tiredness. Higher exposures mean unconsciousness and death, and even those who survive CO poisoning can suffer serious long-term neurological consequences.
Keeping meat at healthy temperatures is very challenging for grocery retailers. The actual surface temperature of displayed fresh meat is often much higher than the thermometer of the display case due to UV radiation from the display case lighting which penetrates the meat packaging and heats the surface just as the sun can cause a sunburn on a cold winter day. Various studies have found that the internal temperature of meat from display cases does exceed 50 degrees Celsius which is more than 10 degrees higher than recommended temperatures.

The meat consequently decomposes very quickly, so the meat industry heavily invested in modified atmospheric packaging which utilizes carbon monoxide gas to extend the shelf life and resist spoilage.

In a carbon monoxide system, with low oxygen, the carbon monoxide will react with the myoglobin and give the meat a bright red colour. The low oxygen mixture artificially limits the growth of spoilage organisms that are commonly caused by increased levels of heat in display cases.

So although carbon monoxide is a gas that can be fatal when inhaled in large quantities, the meat industry insists that it is not harmful to human health when ingested via atmospheric packaging.

This is not true of course since C. perfringens bacteria, the third-most-common cause of food-borne illness, has been proven to grow on what is considered fresh meat right out of the supermarket that is well within the expiry dates on the labels. Marissa Cattoi a lab tech who analyzes meat samples for a health and safety agency says the bacteria are commonly found on fresh grocery meat. "We commonly test for C.perfringens bacteria and about half of the fresh meat products that come in are positive despite them being within the expiry period. 100% of the these cases come from packagers who adopted atmospheric packaging methods such as the use of carbon monoxide gas," she stated.

Most atmospheric packaging will not be labeled. There also many foods that do not have to declare the presence of preservatives, unless the amount of the preservative is naturally occurring in, or added to, the product exceeds a certain concentration.

Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food

By Thierry Vrain

I retired 10 years ago after a long career as a research scientist for Agriculture Canada. When I was on the payroll, I was the designated scientist of my institute to address public groups and reassure them that genetically engineered crops and foods were safe. There is, however, a growing body of scientific research – done mostly in Europe, Russia, and other countries – showing that diets containing engineered corn or soya cause serious health problems in laboratory mice and rats.

I don’t know if I was passionate about it but I was knowledgeable. I defended the side of technological advance, of science and progress.

In the last 10 years I have changed my position. I started paying attention to the flow of published studies coming from Europe, some from prestigious labs and published in prestigious scientific journals, that questioned the impact and safety of engineered food.
I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat.

There are a number of scientific studies that have been done for Monsanto by universities in the U.S., Canada, and abroad. Most of these studies are concerned with the field performance of the engineered crops, and of course they find GMOs safe for the environment and therefore safe to eat.

Individuals should be encouraged to make their decisions on food safety based on scientific evidence and personal choice, not on emotion or the personal opinions of others.
We should all take these studies seriously and demand that government agencies replicate them rather than rely on studies paid for by the biotech companies.

The Bt corn and soya plants that are now everywhere in our environment are registered as insecticides. But are these insecticidal plants regulated and have their proteins been tested for safety? Not by the federal departments in charge of food safety, not in Canada and not in the U.S.

There are no long-term feeding studies performed in these countries to demonstrate the claims that engineered corn and soya are safe. All we have are scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely.

These studies show that proteins produced by engineered plants are different than what they should be. Inserting a gene in a genome using this technology can and does result in damaged proteins. The scientific literature is full of studies showing that engineered corn and soya contain toxic or allergenic proteins.

Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene – one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong.

The whole paradigm of the genetic engineering technology is based on a misunderstanding. Every scientist now learns that any gene can give more than one protein and that inserting a gene anywhere in a plant eventually creates rogue proteins. Some of these proteins are obviously allergenic or toxic.

I have drafted a reply to Paul Horgen’s letter to the Comox Valley Environmental Council. It is my wish that it goes viral as to educate as many people as possible rapidly. Any and all social media is fine by me. This can also be used as a briefing note for the councilors of AVICC or anywhere else. Thank you for your help. [Click here for original source with replies from Dr. Paul Horgen]
— Thierry Vrain, Innisfree Farm

I am turning you towards a recent compilation (June 2012) of over 500 government reports and scientific articles published in peer reviewed Journals, some of them with the highest recognition in the world. Like The Lancet in the medical field, or Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, or Biotechnology, or Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, European Journal of Histochemistry, Journal of Proteome Research, etc … This compilation was made by a genetic engineer in London, and an investigative journalist who summarized the gist of the publications for the lay public.

GMO Myths and Truths – an evidence based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops. A report of 120 pages, it can be downloaded for free from Earth Open Source. “GMO Myths and Truths” disputes the claims of the Biotech industry that GM crops yield better and more nutritious food, that they save on the use of pesticides, have no environmental impact whatsoever and are perfectly safe to eat.

 Genetic pollution is so prevalent in North and South America where GM crops are grown that the fields of conventional and organic grower are regularly contaminated with engineered pollen and losing certification. The canola and flax export market from Canada to Europe (a few hundreds of millions of dollars) were recently lost because of genetic pollution. Did I mention superweeds, when RoundUp crops pass their genes on to RoundUp Resistant weeds.

Apparently over 50% of fields in the USA are now infested and the growers have to go back to use other toxic herbicides such as 2-4 D. Many areas of Ontario and Alberta are also infested. The transgenes are also transferred to soil bacteria. A chinese study published last year shows that an ampicillin resistance transgene was transferred from local engineered crops to soil bacteria, that eventually found their way into the rivers. The transgenes are also transferred to humans.

 Volunteers who ate engineered soybeans had undigested DNA in their intestine and their bacterial flora was expressing the soybean transgenes in the form of antibiotic resistance. This is genetic pollution to the extreme, particularly when antibiotic resistance is fast becoming a serious global health risk. I can only assume the American Medical Association will soon recognize its poorly informed judgement.

In 2009 the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium of GM foods, safety testing and labeling. Their review of the available literature at the time noted that animals show serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.

 Monsanto writes “There is no need to test the safety of GM foods”. So long as the engineered protein is safe, foods from GM crops are substantially equivalent and they cannot pose any health risks.” The US Food and Drug Administration waived all levels of safety testing in 1996 before approving the commercialization of these crops. Nothing more than voluntary research is necessary, and the FDA does not even want to see the results.

 And there is certainly no need to publish any of it. If you remember 1996, the year that the first crops were commercialized, the research scientists of the US FDA all predicted that transgenic crops would have unpredictable hard to detect side effects, allergens, toxins, nutritional effects, new diseases. That was published in 2004 in Biotechnology if you recall seeing it.

I know well that Canada does not perform long term feeding studies as they do in Europe. The only study I am aware of from Canada is from the Sherbrooke Hospital in 2011, when doctors found that 93% of pregnant women and 82% of the fetuses tested had the protein pesticide in their blood.

This is a protein recognized in its many forms as mildly to severely allergenic. There is no information on the role played by rogue proteins created by the process of inserting transgenes in the middle of a genome. But there is a lot of long term feeding studies reporting serious health problems in mice and rats. The results of the first long term feeding studies of lab rats reported last year in Food and Chemical Toxicology show that they developed breast cancer in mid life and showed kidney and liver damage.

The current statistic I read is that North Americans are eating 193 lbs of GMO food on average annually. That includes the children I assume, not that I would use that as a scare tactic. But obviously I wrote at length because I think there is cause for alarm and it is my duty to educate the public.

One argument I hear repeatedly is that nobody has been sick or died after a meal (or a trillion meals since 1996) of GM food. Nobody gets ill from smoking a pack of cigarette either. But it sure adds up, and we did not know that in the 1950s before we started our wave of epidemics of cancer.

 Except this time it is not about a bit of smoke, it’s the whole food system that is of concern. The corporate interest must be subordinated to the public interest, and the policy of substantial equivalence must be scrapped as it is clearly untrue.

Thierry Vrain is a former research scientist for Agriculture Canada. He now promotes awareness of the dangers of genetically modified foods.

Use GMO Food Pyramid To Plan Diet of Disease & Death

Welch's Fruit Juice Is 80% Non Juice

(NaturalNews) If you buy fruit juices at your local grocery store, you might notice the Welch's brand juices sold in refrigerated cartons. Welch's calls them "refrigerated cocktails" and offers exotic-sounding flavors like Strawberry Peach, Dragon Fruit Mango Cocktail and Orange Pineapple Apple.

These products are aggressively marketed with pictures of splashy fruit and loud label claims like "Fruity and Refreshing!" But what Welch's doesn't reveal anywhere except in the fine print on its ingredients label is that these juice cocktails contain more high fructose corn syrup than fruit.

In fat, they contain so much high fructose corn syrup that the front label should actually show chunks of corn rather than the fruit they currently depict.

Is this corn syrup derived from GMO corn? See below for more...

Deceptively marketed and labeled

A Natural News investigation concludes that Welch's refrigerated cocktails are deceptively labeled and marketed. The Welch's website, for starters, hides the ingredients list from consumers, showing nutrition facts but not ingredients. High fructose corn syrup only shows up under ingredients, not nutrition facts.

The front label of Welch's Strawberry Peach product uses the phrase, "Fruity & Refreshing" in a prominent position on the label. But if this claim were accurate, it would actually say, "Corny & Refreshing" because it's made more from corn than fruit.

The front label (see picture below) also intentionally leaves out any mention of corn syrup even though high fructose corn syrup is the second most prominent ingredient of the product, right after water. It says:

Strawberry Peach flavored fruit juice cocktail blend made with apple, pear, strawberry and peach juices from concentrate.

No mention of corn.

The back label (see image below) begins with a giant, all-caps "LOVE" statement, jumping on the bandwagon of trying to associate LOVE with its product, even though no rational person would use the word "LOVE" to describe a highly refined liquid sugar that has been repeatedly linked to diabetes and obesity.

Welch's annual report admits it is aware that consumers seek to avoid HFCS

All this corn syrup is being pushed as fruit juice despite the fact that Welch's 2012 annual report openly admits the company is fully aware that consumers are attempting to avoid high fructose corn syrup.

It reads:

"Our mid-priced essentials line continued to grow in FY '12 with its powerful message -- no high fructose corn syrup."

The context of this statement clearly implies that "no high fructose corn syrup" is a benefit of its essentials line of products. Yet, simultaneously, Welch's continues to promote other products that contain alarming proportions of HFCS while avoiding any mention of corn on the front label.

80% water and corn syrup!

Only when you get to the back label do you learn that these Welch's fruit juice cocktails -- which are heavily adorned with photos and words that describe and imply "fruit" -- are actually 80% water and corn syrup.

The first two ingredients are Filtered Water (i.e. tap water) and High Fructose Corn Syrup. An easy-to-miss bit of text admits, "Contains 20% juice," meaning 80% of the beverage is not juice.

Nowhere does the product claim to be free of GMOs. As the vast majority of high fructose corn syrup produced in North America is derived from genetically modified corn, it is very likely that the HFCS used by Welch's is actually GMO. A genetic test would not confirm this, however, as the heavy processing of HFCS destroys genetic integrity, rendering genetic ID tests useless.

Here are the photos of the label: (story continues below)

Deceptive labeling pushes more high fructose corn syrup to children

Welch's fruit juice cocktails are depicted as if they were nothing but fruit juice. The photos, descriptive text and website text all imply they are made of nothing other than fruit juices. Nowhere on the product front label, website or promotional materials is corn depicted at all.

When consumers shop for fruit juices at their local grocery stores, they are easily misled by deceptive labeling practices such as those used by Welch's. Consumers use the pictures and prominent text on the front of the product as their primary cues to determine the composition of the product, and if that product label primarily depicts fruit and fruit juices, a typical consumer will incorrectly assume the product is primarily made of fruit and fruit juices. That same consumer will typically have no idea the product contains more corn derivatives than fruit juice.

Most consumers -- especially parents -- are actively trying to avoid high fructose corn syrup. This is often the reason why they choose fruit juice instead of sodas, as a matter of fact. Yet if they reach for Welch's juice cocktails, they are getting the exact same refined liquid sugar they were trying to avoid by choosing juice instead of soda!

Here at Natural News, we think Welch's should be ashamed of itself for pushing water and high fructose corn syrup as a fruit juice beverage. Its labeling practices deceive rather than inform consumers.

We urge you to call the Welch's comment line at 1-800-340-6870 and demand they stop selling high fructose corn syrup as fruit juice.

Corn is not a fruit. And corn syrup is not fruit juice. It is, however, often contaminated with mercury.

Demand that Welch's stop tricking consumers into thinking corn syrup is fruit juice.

Civil Disobedience Or Death By Design

Friends. How much time to we have left?

By my clock it's five minutes past midnight. We are into unchartered territory. Territory where only bravery and vision can hope to cut through the torpor and stupor which is bringing about the designed obsolescence of the human race and the transgenic re-engineering of the common gene pool of our planetary biodiversity.

As I write this, the technocrats in Brussels are lining up to enforce an Act designed put an end to our seeds. The saving and resowing of 'real' seeds. 

 

Those in high places believe we need to 'move-on' concerning the control of the food chain. It's time for total control. 

 

Only seeds registered and licensed by the State will be legal. And only those with money will be able to afford to do this exercise. The corporations will own the seeds and fulfill their ambition to have 'full spectrum dominance' of the food chain. “He who controls food controls the people”. Checkmate.

They have decided that its time to cease the perpetuation of a pattern of life on planet Earth that goes back to the birth of agriculture – and before.

That is what they are doing in Brussels 6 May 2013 and beyond. From now on, unless we cut free of obeisance to the centralised, totalitarian regimes whose takeover of our planet is almost complete, we will have only ourselves to blame. For we are complicit in allowing ourselves to become slaves of the Corporate State and its cyborg enforcement army. 

 

That is, if we continue to remain hypnotized by their antics instead of taking our destinies into our own hands and blocking or refusing to comply with their death warrants. This 'refusal' is possible. But it will only have the desired effect when, and if, it is contemporaneous with the birthing of the Divine warrior who sleeps in us all. The warrior who sleeps-on, like the besotted Rip Van Winkle in the Catskill mountains.

 We have arrived at the optimum point to draw a line in the sand. I say optimum, because the need for food faces everyone of us every day – so it's not possible to run and hide when it comes to eating. It's a bottom line necessity. It's a bottom line that is now one step from being removed from our control. I say 'one step' because we can turn around , draw our swords and say “No”.

Artists and spiritually inspired human beings are not exempt. In fact they will have a critical role to play in the great fight-back which is our one and only genuine resource at times of extreme crisis. And, in case some think otherwise, I want to state that this is such a time. No artist or spiritually inclined individual can claim to be such unless he or she is willing to enlist in the cause of protecting the sacred nature of life itself.

What the technocrats and their Illuminati masters cannot do is defy the power of the spirit – once its lit-up. And we must get it lit up – or die of starvation. Starvation of the spirit is just as prevalent as starvation from lack of food, on this tragic planet; perhaps more so. It's an artist's job to light-up the starving spirit by feeding it something that will bring it to life and steer it towards victory, not something that will encourage it to remain asleep.

I am a farmer, actor, activist and writer. I see no contradiction here. They are each mutually reinforcing elements of one life force. Of the gift of life which brought us here. And this gift of life starts as a seed. When lit-up - it presents the one power that can ultimately defeat the tunnel vision technocrats, the power besotted politicians, the blind Bilderbergers and the non-human will of the Illuminati overlords. They will all fall to our Excalibur once we remember how to use it.

Remember we must. To put an end to that darkly scheming little cabal which is, at this very moment, is dipping the ancient sacred seed into the patented petri-dish of a genetically engineered holocaust. Attempting to forever remove it from its origins in the subtle soil of a thousand lands. Fight this with a thousand shining swords, for it is we who are being engineered.

Those subverters of the sacred are convinced they will succeed in locking this seed away from the light - forever, and enlisting all humanity into their sinister power games. But, brave souls, nothing can stir us like a challenge to kill us off. Nothing can set the red corpuscles racing faster than the thought of an insentient trans-humanist cyborg future for us and our children. 

 

Pay them a fair price and offer to help them harvest it. Only connect. Connect. Never allow yourself to be just another number at the stupor-market check-out desk. Life begins when we turn and face our enemy and say NO

How Can You Tell If You're Eating Real Chicken?

By Dr. Mercola

The six decades’ old fast food franchise KFC recently rolled out Original Recipe boneless chicken in its 4,500 US locations.¹ The new slogan: “No mess. No fuss. No bones about it.”

The company is so convinced boneless chicken is the way of the future that they’re actually considering eliminating on-the-bone chicken from its menu altogether. According to the featured article:

“McDonald’s execs began experimenting with a range of non-burger options: chicken pot-pies, bone-in fried chicken, deep-fried onion chunks. None of them were successful, until they offered customers deep fried chicken chunks. The McNugget was born.

That was 1980, when about 80 percent to 85 percent of chicken consumed in the US was unprocessed... Ten years later, the numbers had almost reversed...

While the rotisserie chicken made a bit of a comeback in the mid-‘90s, the idea of eating the whole bird was, for the most part, a thing of the past... According to internal KFC surveys, nearly four out of five servings of chicken in the US today are off-the-bone, the inverse of 30 years ago.”

Why might this be “a big deal”? Well, for one, processed chicken nuggets, regardless of brand, are far more likely to contain all sorts of additives and fillers you’d be better off without.

For example, I wrote about the questionable ingredients of McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets back in 2010. Only half of Chicken McNuggets are actual meat. The other 50 percent includes corn derivatives, sugars, leavening agents and completely synthetic ingredients.

In a 2003 lawsuit against McDonald’s, Federal Judge Robert Sweet² even questioned "whether customers understood the risks of eating McDonald's chicken over regular chicken." But there’s yet another reason for my questioning the trend of going boneless, and it’s even less savory than that...

The Future of Food: Bioengineered Meat

Few are talking about this, but scientists have been working on bioengineering "cultured" meat for the past decade. According to a September 2011 Huffington Post article,³ scientists at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands claimed to be as little as 12 months away from delivering the world’s first bioengineered synthetic hamburger.

As of this writing, the hamburger has yet to be presented, although I doubt that means the plan has been abandoned.

The article also pointed out that London's Royal Society had released a global food supply report, in which they called for a synthetic meat solution to feed the world’s growing population without causing environmental destruction.

“The only barriers? Overcoming the social stigma and the RS scientists say it could take another decade before it rolls out to the masses,” the article states.

Then, in February 2012, The Economist⁴ followed up on the research. Other Dutch scientists, led by Dr. Mark Post at the Eindhoven University in the Netherlands, expressed hopes of decimating animal husbandry altogether by altering how meat for the masses is produced. The article explains how this laboratory-created meat is created:

“Dr. Post's cultures, grown from stem cells, are sheets 3cm long, 1.5cm wide and half a millimeter deep. To make the world's most expensive hamburger 3,000 of them will be needed. The stem cells themselves are extracted from cattle muscle and then multiplied a millionfold before they are put in Petri dishes and allowed to turn into muscle cells.

When they have done so, they are encouraged to exercise and build up their strength by being given their own gym equipment (pieces of Velcro to which they can anchor themselves in order to stretch and relax spontaneously). The fatty cells of adipose tissue, needed for juiciness, are grown separately and then combined with the muscle cells before the whole thing is cooked.

Producing meat in Petri dishes is not commercially viable, but Dr. Post hopes to scale things up—first by growing the cells on small spheres floating in tanks and ultimately by using scaffolds made of biodegradable polymer tubes, which would both add the third dimension needed for a juicy steak and provide a way of delivering nutrients and oxygen to the steak's interior.”

Sure, companies like KFC may have a point when they say they’re just changing their meals to meet the needs of the “chicken nugget generation.” But a side effect of getting used to the idea that chicken meat doesn’t have bones is that, at any point, the meat used in these processed nuggets could be exchanged for bioengineered meat, and no one would be the wiser...

I sincerely doubt bioengineered meat would be advertised, since it’s hardly a selling point—at least in the beginning. What the potential health ramifications might be from eating such meats are completely unknown, but it’s clearly not going to be identical to meat from an animal.

More Data Ties Human Illness to Farm Antibiotics

Seeing how commercially available bioengineered meat is still a ways away from being a reality you have to contend with, let’s bring the focus back to something more relevant to the present day, namely antibiotics in CAFO meats. Animals are often fed antibiotics at low doses for disease prevention and growth promotion. These agricultural uses account for about 80 percent of all antibiotic use in the US,⁵ so it's a MAJOR source of human antibiotic consumption.

According to a recent NPR report,⁶ data published by a joint government program⁷ from tests conducted on supermarket meat samples collected in 2011 by the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, reveals the presence of several disease-causing bacteria, including the super-hardy antibiotic-resistant versions of salmonella, Campylobacter and E. coli. According to NPR:⁸

“The implications were significant — that the bacteria had become resistant to antibiotics back at the farm because farmers were overusing them. The findings, released through the joint program of the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, got little attention when they were published in February. But this week, the Environmental Working Group, which opposes some of the livestock industry's use of antibiotics, analyzed the government data and highlighted some of their startling implications in a report.”

The report⁹ in question, aptly named “Superbugs Invade American Supermarkets,” points out that many of the meats tested contained “startlingly high levels” of antibiotic-resistant bacteria on:

• 81 percent of ground turkey
• 69 percent of pork chops
• 55 percent of ground beef
• 39 percent of chicken breasts, wings and thighs

Want Safer Meat? Buy Organic Pastured/Grass-Fed

Writing for the New York Times,¹⁰ David A. Kessler, former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 1990 to 1997, also recently sounded warning bells over the rise of antibiotic-resistant pathogens in livestock, urging the FDA to take the matter seriously. So far, the agency has only restricted on class of antibiotics, cephalosporin, from routine use in livestock.¹¹

“While the FDA can see what kinds of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are coming out of livestock facilities, the agency doesn’t know enough about the antibiotics that are being fed to these animals,” he writes. “This is a major public health problem, because giving healthy livestock these drugs breeds superbugs that can infect people. We need to know more about the use of antibiotics in the production of our meat and poultry. The results could be a matter of life and death.”

The misuse of antibiotics in livestock has now become “a direct source of foodborne illness,” EWG points out. Worse yet, because animals are given these antibiotics continuously, in low doses, pathogens are becoming increasingly resistant to the drugs, which means they no longer work to treat human disease either. The end result is that people are dying from infections that were once easily treatable.
Despite this, organic foods, which are by law produced without such pathogen-promoting methods, are the ones being consistently targeted “for safety reasons.” The truth of the matter is, conventionally grown mass-produced foods pose the greatest danger to your health, in multiple ways, and are the ones to be avoided if you’re at all concerned about food safety.

“To be safe, consumers should treat all meat as if it may be contaminated, mainly by cooking thoroughly and using safe shopping and kitchen practices (see EWG's downloadable Tips to Avoiding Superbugs in Meat),”¹² EWG suggests.¹³

One of the best ways to avoid contaminated meat is to avoid meat from animals raised in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), aka “factory farms,” and buying organic, pastured or grass-fed meats instead. Growth promoters such as antibiotics are not permitted in organic animal farming, and organically-raised animals are also healthier as a result of being pastured, so overall you’re getting far “cleaner,” healthier meat.

Organic, Cage-Free, Free-Range, or Pasture-Raised?

When it comes to chicken, there are a number of designations floating around, such as “organic,” “free-range,” “pastured” and “cage-free.” But while you may think these are interchangeable, they’re actually not. In many ways these labels are little more than creative advertising.

The definitions of "free-range" are such that the commercial egg industry can run industrial farm egg laying facilities and still call them "free-range" eggs, despite the fact that the birds' foraging conditions are far from what you'd call natural. For example, regulations on the use of the term "free-range" do not specify the amount of time the hens must spend outdoors or the amount of outdoor space each hen must have access to. Nor do they indicate that the hen must have access to a pasture diet.

True free-range hens (and eggs), now increasingly referred to as “pasture-raised,” are from hens that roam freely outdoors on a pasture where they can forage for their natural diet, which includes seeds, green plants, insects, and worms.

Large commercial egg facilities typically house tens of thousands of hens and can even go up to hundreds of thousands of hens. Obviously they cannot allow all of them to forage freely. They can still be called “cage-free” or “free-range” though, if they’re not confined to an individual cage. But these labels say nothing about the conditions they ARE raised in, which are still deplorable.

So, while flimsy definitions of "free range" and “cage-free” allow such facilities to sell their products as free range, please beware that a hen that is let outside into a barren lot for mere minutes a day, and is fed a diet of corn, soy, cottonseed meals and synthetic additives is NOT a free-range hen, and simply will not produce the same quality meat and/or eggs as its foraging counterpart.

Certified organic poultry is also the only poultry product that is 100 percent guaranteed to be antibiotic-free.¹⁴

So to summarize, what you’re really looking for is chicken and eggs that are both certified organic and true pasture-raised. Barring organic certification, which is cost-prohibitive for many small farmers, you could just make sure the farmer raises his chickens according to organic, free-range standards, allowing his flock to forage freely for their natural diet, and aren’t fed antibiotics, corn and soy.

Last year, I visited Joel Salatin at his Polyface farm in Virginia. He's truly one of the pioneers in sustainable agriculture, and you can take a virtual tour through his pasture-raised chicken farm operation in the following video.

Shopping Guidelines for Real, Health-Promoting Food

It is very difficult to control the quality of your food if you’re eating in a restaurant, which is why I recommend that you prepare the vast majority of your food yourself. If you’re going to occasionally dine out, you would be best served to avoid fast food places. Reclaiming your kitchen is part and parcel of healthful living, so you know exactly what you're putting in your body.

Whether you are grocery shopping or looking for dining options, the table that follows lists criteria to look for in identifying high-quality, health-promoting foods. If the food meets these criteria, it is most likely a wise choice and would fall under the designation of "real food."

Grown without pesticides and chemical fertilizers (organic foods fit this description, but so do some non-organic foods)	Not genetically modified
Contains no added growth hormones, antibiotics, or other drugs	Does not contain any artificial ingredients, including chemical preservatives
Fresh (keep in mind that if you have to choose between wilted organic produce or fresh conventional produce, the latter may be the better option)	Did not come from a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO)
Grown with the laws of nature in mind (meaning animals are fed their native diets, not a mix of grains and animal byproducts, and have free access to the outdoors)	Grown in a sustainable way (using minimal amounts of water, protecting the soil from burnout, and turning animal wastes into natural fertilizers instead of environmental pollutants)

If you're "hooked" on fast food and other processed foods, please review my article about how to wean yourself off fast food in seven easy steps. If you're currently sustaining yourself on fast food and processed foods, this is probably the most positive life change you could ever make.

And if you have children, remember that feeding your children home cooked meals can have far reaching benefits, extending even to your future grandchildren. Yes, that's right! It is now well known that dietary changes can prompt epigenetic DNA changes that can be passed on to future generations. For instance, pregnant rats fed a fatty junk food diet had daughters and granddaughters with a greater risk of breast cancer. Making wise food decisions can literally "override" genetic predispositions for disease.

 Grassland Beef

offers  grass fed and free range beef, chicken, pork and more....these premium quality meats don't taste like what you may be used to buying.