GMO Ticking Time Bomb Documentary

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

Retired USDA Biologist On Chemtrails & Geo Engineering

To Get All 15 Presentations From The Historic “Consciousness Beyond Chemtrails Conference” Visit The Main Website (DVDs or Digital Downloads Available): http://www.consciousnessbeyondchemtrails.com/

August 17th – 19th, 2012 marked the largest stand ever against Chemtrails! Over the course of 3 days in Los Angeles, and live online around the world, 16 leaders in Geoengineering research met to show the Unity and Collective efforts we are now taking against these “Aerosol Crimes!”

7 Things Pesticides Do To Your Body

Pesticides are designed to kill, although the mode of action they use to put the stranglehold on pests varies. Whether it's nerve gas–like neurological disruption, the unbalancing of key hormones, or the stunting of a plant's ability to absorb life-sustaining trace minerals from the soil, none of the chemical interventions seems all that appetizing, especially considering that chemical residues routinely wind up on and even inside of the food we eat everyday. Pesticides are also blamed for diminishing mineral levels in foods.

 


Agrochemical supporters tend to fall back on a "the dose makes the poison" theory, meaning tiny exposures aren't really that harmful. Increasingly, though, independent scientists are debunking that belief, even proving that incredibly tiny doses could set a person up for health problems that might not crop up until decades down the line. Luckily, eating organic, less processed foods can cut back on your pesticide exposure.

Here are 7 health problems associated with pesticide-based agrochemicals.

Diabetes
Scientists have been noticing a link between pesticides and diabetes for years. The latest evidence comes out of the Endocrine Society's 94th Annual Meeting, where Robert Sargis, MD, PhD, released the results of a study that suggest tolyfluanid, a fungicide used on farm crops, creates insulin resistance in fat cells. A 2011 study published in Diabetes Care found that overweight people with higher levels of organochlorine pesticides in their bodies also faced a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

Prevent it: To save money on organic fare raised without pesticides, cook with organic dried beans. In the home, avoid using chemical air fresheners and artificially scented products—these things are also blamed for inducing type 2 diabetes.

Read more: 11 Surprising Diabetes Triggers

Cancer
More than 260 studies link pesticides to various cancers, including lymphoma, leukemia, soft tissue sarcoma, and brain, breast, prostate, bone, bladder, thyroid, colon, liver, and lung cancers, among others.

Prevent it: The President's Cancer Panel suggests eating organic and avoiding plastic to lower your risk of environmentally triggered cancers.

Autism & Other Developmental Diseases
How do you get autism? The world's leading autism researchers believe the condition develops from a mix of genes and the pollutants encountered in the mother's womb and early in life. Many insecticides effectively kill bugs by throwing off normal neurological functioning. That same thing appears to be happening in some children. A 2010 Harvard study found that children with organophosphate pesticide breakdown materials in their urine were far more likely to live with ADHD than kids without the trace pesticide residues.

Prevent it: Switching to an organic diet rapidly eliminates pesticide residues in the body.

Obesity
Some agrochemical pesticides act as hormone disruptors, meaning they act like a fake version of a naturally occurring hormone in your body, they block important hormone communication pathways in the body, or they interfere with your body's ability to regulate the healthy release of hormones. More than 50 pesticides are classified as hormone disruptors, and some of them promote metabolic syndrome and obesity as they accumulate in your cells, according to 2012 study appearing in Environmental Health Perspectives.

Parkinson's Disease
More than 60 studies show a connection between pesticides and the neurological disease Parkinson's, a condition characterized by uncontrolled trembling. The association is strongest for weed- and bug-killing chemical exposures over a long period of time, meaning it's important to keep these toxic compounds out of your household routine.

Prevent it: Don't turn to chemical interventions to kill bugs in your home or garden. Instead, use natural pest control measures.

Infertility
Pesticides spell trouble in the baby-making department, thanks to their bad habit of not staying put. For instance, atrazine, a common chemical weed killer used heavily in the Midwest, on Southern sugar cane farms, and on golf courses, has been detected in tap water. Doctors and scientists point to published evidence tying atrazine to increased miscarriage and infertility rates. Other pesticides cause a plunge in male testosterone levels. A 2006 study found chlorpyrifos, a chemical used in nonorganic apple and sweet pepper farming, and carbaryl, a go-to pesticide in strawberry fields and peach orchards, caused abnormally low testosterone levels.

Prevent it: Avoid the worst summer fruit, the kinds most likely to be laced with toxic pesticides. Instead, choose organic grapes, strawberries, and imported plums.

Birth Defects
Babies conceived during the spring and summer months—a time of year when pesticide use is in full swing—face the highest risk of birth defects. During these months, higher pesticide levels turn up in surface waters, increasing a mother's risk of exposure. Spina bifida, cleft lip, clubfoot, and Down syndrome rates are higher when moms become pregnant during high season for pesticides.

Prevent it: To protect yourself, use a water filter that is certified by NSF International to meet American National Standards Institute Standard 53 for VOC (volatile organic compound) reduction. This will significantly reduce levels of atrazine and other pesticides in your tap water.

USDA Admits Killing Millions Of Birds, Bees & Bats

The USDA has been under fire recently for its admitted assault against nature, after multiple investigations have uncovered its deliberate tampering with both plants and animals alike. One such investigation has put an end to the mystery surrounding the death of millions of birds, with USDA documents revealing the organization’s role in the massive slaughter.

In addition to the mass bird killings, it turns out the USDA was fully aware that a highly-popular herbicide chemical was a known bee-killer, which may have aided the bee decline. The USDA has also threatened the genetic integrity of the nation’s crops. Information has surfaced regarding the USDA’s illegal approval of Monsanto’s biotech crop, sugar beets. These crimes are simply an excerpt from the long list of USDA crimes that are continually being exposed.

In December of 2010, mystery struck the world. Reports of mass fish and bird die-offs were coming in from Texas to Sweden. The first occurrence in the series of strange events started in Arkansas, where 3,000 birds fell from the sky. In the following days and weeks, similar incidents were reported with no solid explanation.

The reason has now been found, thanks to documents found on the USDA’s website. Claiming to be protecting farmers from predators, the birds were victims of a little-known government program. Like millions of other animals since the Bye Bye Blackbird program was created in the 1960?s, the birds were poisoned and killed for being considered a nuisance to farmers. It is important to take note that many of these animals don’t pose any immediate threat to farmers.



In the 1960?s the USDA established a program referred to as the Bye Bye Blackbird program. This program is solely responsible for the mass killings of what could ultimately be millions of birds across the nation. In 2009 alone the USDA poisoned and killed over 4 million birds. The documents state whether or not the deaths were intentional or unintentional on the government website. You can find extremely large numbers, such as 22,276 blackbirds marked as intentionally euthanized. Here is some data from the USDA itself:

Brown-headed cowbirds: 1,046,109

European Starlings: 1,259,714

Red-winged blackbirds: 965,889

Canadian Geese : 24,519

Pigeons: 96,297

Grackles: 93,210

Starlings European: 1,259,714

These numbers are simply the top for 2009. Let us not forget about all the other years animals have been killed since the 1960?s when the program was first created.

According to Natural News :

A Nebraska farmer was apparently complaining that the starlings were defecating in his feed meal. The answer to this conundrum apparently isn’t to cover your feed meal but rather call the USDA and ask them to poison thousands of birds. The USDA complied, apparently agreeing this was a brilliant idea. So they put out a poison called DRC-1339 and allowed thousands of birds to feed on that poison.

“Cows are supposed to eat grass. If you are running a cow operation where the birds are eating your grain and you think the birds are the problem, the real problem is that you’re feeding cows the wrong food! If you raise your cows on grass, the birds don’t get into the grain and you don’t have to poison the birds.

“You see, when one ecological element gets out of balance (feeding grain to cows, for example), it then causes another problem that must be dealt with in some other destructive way (such as poisoning the birds). This cycle of disharmony continues and escalates until entire ecosystems are out of whack. Then the USDA shows up with a pickup truck full of poison bait and goes to work poisoning animals. The solution isn’t to keep poisoning animals and trying to control populations through toxic chemicals but rather to return to holistic web-of-life farming methods that work in harmony with nature rather than treating nature as the enemy.”

The government is committing what many people would call a crime. Killing mass amounts of animals via poison is a flagrant act of violence against nature that should not be tolerated or encouraged. People aren’t allowed to hunt in certain regions of the United States, but the government is allowed to kill off animals by the millions. Something is terribly wrong with this picture.



In recent years the world honey bee population has plummeted in North America. This is important because bee pollination is crucial for the fertilization of many crops. Just as many potential explanations arose over the mysterious bird deaths, many different theories have been proposed to explain the bee decline. Electromagnetic radiation, malnutrition, and climate have all taken the heat of critics looking for answers. Recently, however, a document was leaked revealing that a bee-killing pesticide put in use by the EPA may be to blame. Adding to the controversy, more records have emerged showing that the USDA was fully aware of the pesticide’s threat to not only bees, but humans. The two-month-old report released by the USDA itself unveiled that the toxic insecticide used on plants are not only a threat to insects’ central nervous systems, but are also a threat to the internal systems of humans.

Imidacloprid, one of the neonicotinoid family of pesticides introduced over the past 15 years, is likely to be responsible for Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), the recently observed phenomenon in which bees abandon their hives en masse, according to the study by scientists from the Harvard School of Public Health in the United States.





The study, to appear in the June issue of The Bulletin of Insectology, provides “convincing evidence” of the link between imidacloprid and CCD, claim the authors, led by Alex Lu, associate professor of environmental exposure biology in the school’s Department of Environmental Health. It follows two other widely publicised studies, from Britain and France, published last week in the journal Science, which strongly suggested that neonicotinoids were linked to the declines in bees and other pollinating insects seen in Europe and the US.

Neonicotinoids, which attack the central nervous system of insects, are considered by some scientists as dangerous to species which are not the compounds’ principal targets, because they are “systemic” – meaning they do not just sit on the surface of a plant but are taken up into every part of it, including the pollen and nectar, where they can be ingested repeatedly by bees and other pollinating insects.





Twice in the past three years, the Government has been asked, on the basis of compelling evidence, to suspend the use of the new generation of neonicotinoid pesticides, until the increasingly worrying evidence that they are extremely harmful to bees and other pollinating insects has been shown to be unfounded.

The first occasion was in 2009, by a coalition of environmental groups led by Buglife, the invertebrate conservation charity; the second was in 2011 by the Labour MP Martin Caton, after paper’s disclosure that America’s leading bee scientist had found a harmful link. On each occasion the request was ignored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.





Sugar Beets created by corporate giant Monsanto Company, who is leading the genetically modified food market, make up for about half of the nation’s sugar supply. The approval of these beets was initially made in 2005, granting Monsanto the right to plant genetically modified sugar beets that could withstand sprayings of the herbicide marketed as Roundup. The entity responsible for the approval? The USDA. Unfortunately, the USDA hadn’t conducted a thorough review of the biotech crop, making the approval flagrantly illegal. To make matters more complicated, the USDA issued permits which allowed companies to plant seedlings that would later produce seed for future sugar beet crops. Judge White, the federal judge who deemed the approval illegal, issued that the seedlings be removed immediately. The immunity that the sugar beets possess against the herbicide being used on them is not exhibited by any other plant, or even humans. With excessive herbicide use comes more poisoned organisms consuming the sugar beets and thus becoming sickly. Additionally, conventional and organic crops are subject to contamination from an overflow of pesticides.





If you thought Monsanto’s lack of testing on their current GMO crops was bad before, prepare to now be blown away by the latest statement by the USDA. Despite links to organ damage and mutated insects, the USDA says that it is changing the rules so that genetically modified seed companies like Monsanto will get ‘speedier regulatory reviews. With the faster reviews, there will be even less time spent on evaluating the potential dangers. Why? Because Monsanto is losing sales with longer approval terms.

The changes were expected to take full effect in March when they’re published in the Federal Register. The USDA’s goal is to cut the approval time for GMO crops in half in order to speedily implement them into the global food supply. The current USDA process takes longer than they would like due to ‘public interest, legal challenges, and the challenges associated with the advent of national organic food standards‘ says USDA deputy administrator Michael Gregoire.

This is just a small fragment taken from a list of . The USDA seems to be recklessly endangering life on this planet with its disregard for what it was created to protect. The reports and documents revealed in this article may very well be the tip of the iceberg.

The recently-released document unveiling the bee decline is two years old, and is most likely not the last to be uncovered. It is only a matter of time before more secretive documents come out highlighting the USDA’s shameless lack of respect for life. The USDA has not been forced to openly admit to these claims due to a lack of mainstream media attention. It took investigative journalism to discover these documents and it will take future investigation to oust even more of the USDA’s corruption.

USDA Greenlights Utterly Toxic GMO Corn For You To Gobble Up

You've got to keep an eye on US regulatory agencies in the second half of December. That's when watchdog journalists like me tend to take time off—and regulators like to sneak gifts to the industries they're supposed to be regulating. This year, I was alert enough to detect this gift from the FDA to the meat industry; but the USDA caught me napping. The agency made two momentous announcements on GMO crops, neither of which got much media scrutiny. It deregulated Monsanto's so-called drought-tolerant corn, and it prepared to deregulate Dow's corn engineered to withstand the herbicides 2,4-D and dicamba. More on the later this week.

The drought-tolerant corn decision, which came down on Dec. 21, was momentous occasion, because it marked the first deregulation of a GMO crop with a "complex" trait. What I mean by that is, the other GMOs on the market have simple, one-gene traits: a gene that confers resistance to a particular herbicide, like Monsanto's Roundup Ready seed or a gene that expresses the toxic-to-bugs properties of the bacteria Bt, as in Monsanto's Bt seed. But a plant's use of water is a complex process involving several genes; there's no single "drought tolerant" gene. Generating such traits in plants that succeed in field conditions has been considerably more tricky for the agrichemical giants than than simple traits.

And indeed, Monsanto has staked huge PR capital on its ability to do just that. In a famous 2008 press release, the company declared it would "double yield in its three core crops of corn, soybeans and cotton by 2030, compared to a base year of 2000," using patented seeds that will simultaneously "reduce by one-third the amount of key resources required to grow crops." It placed complex traits like drought tolerance at the center of its effort, promising seeds that would "result in more production per unit of land, and reduced use of energy, fertilizer and water per unit produced."

The drought-tolerant corn the USDA signed off on in December is the first approved crop of that kind. The trouble is, it doesn't work very well. The USDA acknowledged as much in its Nov. 11 Final Environmental Assessment of the crop. It makes clear that the product's "drought tolerance" extends only to "moderate" drought conditions, and it has the same "minimum water requirements" as conventional corn.

And then it drops this bombshell, citing Monsanto's own field tests: "It is prudent to acknowledge that the reduced yield-loss phenotype of MON 87360 does not exceed the natural variation observed in regionally-adapted varieties of conventional corn (representing different genetic backgrounds)." Translation: In areas of the US corn belt where drought is a factor, conventional breeders have already developed varieties that do just as well under moderate-drought conditions as Monsanto's genetically altered product.

It added that these non-GMO varieties are "readily available," and will remain so once Monsanto's product is sold commercially. There are two things to say about this. The first is, it means that Monsanto's novel product offers precisely nothing to farmers that isn't already available to them—and without the need to pay a hefty GMO licensing fee. The second thing that comes to mind is that Monsanto's dominance of the corn seed and trait market could mean that those "readily available" conventional varieties might not be readily available for very long once the company starts distributing its new seed. Already, there are areas in the corn belt in which farmers say they can't buy non-Bt corn. Could Monsanto do the same thing with its drought-tolerant corn?

Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists' Food and Environment Program who has a paper forthcoming on the industry's vexed efforts to make breakthroughs in drought tolerance, told me that it was "very possible" that Monsanto could use its market muscle to push big commodity farmers in the corn belt to use the company's unnecessary product. "They could even use it as a loss leader, sell it at cost or even a loss, and then reap the PR benefits of a having a drought-tolerant product used on millions of acres."

So even though Monsanto's first complex-trait product is essentially a failure, it could still manage to ram it down farmers throats, and then be able to boast that it has its first super-seed out in the field. Meanwhile, the fact remains that the agrichemical industry still hasn't produced a complex-trait product that works any better than conventional breeding.

And it's not clear that the industry will ever succeed on this front, except in PR terms. Take another complex trait the industry has been promising for years: making plants more efficient in their use of nitrogen fertilizer. Stanford biologist Peter Vitousek put it to me like this in an interview for an article two years ago: "Plants have been evolving for millions of years. I doubt that [GMO] plant breeders will be able to hit upon anything for nutrient utilization that nature already hasn't tried."

In 2009, Gurian-Sherman published a paper showing that the industry had yet to generate a successful nitrogen-efficient crop after a decade of research, even as traditional plant breeders had continued to make gains. More than two years later, Gurian-Sherman's analysis still holds.

NOTE: Isn't it clear by now that the dominant society and their corporations intend to remove the availability of fresh, unadulterated real food. Imagine America where only synthetic, toxic garbage is available to eat, unless you grow it yourself, as long as they allow that to conflict with their profit schemes. While there is a choice, it is critical to vote with every dollar that you spend by NOT supporting anything with GMO.

This won't be easy, because almost every packaged foods, including many natural ones contain GMO ingredients. Isn't your health worth it?

Senator Rand Paul Takes On FDA ~ BRAVO!

8 Most Common Reactions To Grain Free Eating

As I’m sure you’ve seen, eyes raise and questions arise when you order a burger wrapped in lettuce or discard a “wrap” and eat the contents. And then, when you answer with ”Oh, I don’t eat grains,” minds boggle and mouths gape as they stumble to grasp the notion of someone who doesn’t eat bread or pasta. Eventually, though, they fire off responses, challenges, questions, and proclamations. This isn’t right, this isn’t possible, this doesn’t agree with their idea of how people should eat. It just isn’t normal. You’re not normal, and you should be ashamed of yourself for introducing a new paradigm. But not all are personally offended by your decision. Some are honestly curious and flabbergasted. Some just want to know why someone would give up grains and how they get along without them.

So, what kind of stuff do we hear out there in the wild?

Rather than just linking to yet another MDA post, maybe on why grains are unhealthy or how to give them up, let’s take a look at the eight most popular and prevalent questions and then try to come up with some good responses to them. I’ll give both longer ones and succincter ones (that you can fire off in an elevator).

“Oh, is that a low-carb thing?”

While grains represent an easy, cheap source of carbohydrates (that most sedentary people simply don’t need), they also contain “anti-nutrients,” proteins and lectins and other nutritional factors that impair digestion, perforate the intestinal lining, increase inflammation, and can even exacerbate or (possibly) induce auto-immune diseases.

Since the purpose of life is to reproduce and that grain has to make it into the ground to germinate and turn into a plant, grains don’t want to be eaten, and they use the anti-nutrients to dissuade consumption in lieu of the running, climbing, flying, crawling, biting, and stinging that animals use to survive.

Response: “Kinda, but it’s more than that. In order to survive and spread their genes, a grain uses anti-nutrients to dissuade animals from eating them. Some animals have adapted quite well, but humans haven’t, so I choose not to eat them.”

“I could never give up bread. And aren’t grains the staff of life?”

For the past several thousand years of human history, bread has been a staple food. The ancient Egyptians baked it. The Greeks and Romans made it. You probably grew up with it. It was – and is – cheap and filling. Today, because billions simply need calories from wherever they can get them, grains are the ticket, the “staff of life.”

But it’s not like we’ll wither away into nothingness, all because we failed to heed the biological dietary necessity to eat grains ordained by some higher power. Grains aren’t the staff of life in an inherent sense, but rather because they’re cheap, reliable, and easy to work with. They provide calories and a modicum of nutrients to people who absolutely require those calories, regardless of any nutritional downsides. Having joint pain and bloating because you ate some whole wheat, while unpleasant, is better than dying of starvation because you refused it.

Response: “An unfortunately large number of people are forced to subsist on grains as a staple, because they’re cheap and plentiful and calories are scarce, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best way to eat. Grains aren’t necessary if you have access to plenty of fresh animals and plants.”

“Where do you get your fiber?”

As if only cereal grains contain non-starch polysaccharides. As if all the world’s inulin, pectin, chitin, beta-glucans, and oligosaccharides are found solely in wheat, barley, rye, rice, oat, and corn. As if some of the richest sources of soluble fiber – you know, prebiotics, or the kind that our gut bacteria can ferment and convert into metabolically-active short chain fatty acids – aren’t fruits, roots, nuts, and green vegetables. And, as if the richest sources of insoluble fiber – the metabolically-inert stuff that pretty much nothing can digest and which serves only as a bulking agent for improving the robustness of our bowel movements – aren’t whole grains.

Response: “I get my fiber from fruits and vegetables. Best of all, our gut bacteria can actually digest the fiber from fruits and vegetables, thereby producing short chain fatty acids that improve our metabolic health. Grain fiber is just a bulking agent that fills your toilet bowl.”

“What about the USDA food pyramid?”

What about it? Take a look around you. The obesity rate is the highest it’s ever been, and almost everyone who’s not obese is “just” overweight. Diabetes is on the rise. People live out the end of their lives relying on a complicated cocktail of pharmaceuticals and medical apparati just to eke out a few more years.

All this, despite the majestic, all-powerful USDA dietary recommendations informing everything we put into our collective mouths. How’s that USDA food pyramid working out for us so far, I’d like to ask. I’m not necessarily assigning a causative role to the pyramid (though it certainly plays a role, in my view) in the obesity epidemic. I’m just saying that it has done absolutely nothing to staunch the rise of diet-related illness. I’m saying it doesn’t have a real impressive track record.

Response: “Since the USDA food pyramid was released in 1992, the obesity rate has increased unabated. What about it?”

“That must be terribly inconvenient. What do you eat for breakfast? What about sandwiches? What about dining out?”

Well, you see, all you gotta do for a bread-free sandwich is spread a little mayo on your right hand, some mustard on the left, and pile on the avocado, the deli slices, and the tomato slices in between. Easy as pie. Seriously, though, I don’t get this question. Have these people never heard of bacon and eggs? Omelets? A steak and salad? Do they think a sandwich is indivisible? That once you place the final slice of bread atop the meat, lettuce, and cheese the sandwich can never be altered, that you physically cannot pry the bread off the innards? Have they ever even witnessed the creation of a sandwich? Are they going to weird fascistic restaurants that force you to consume the bread and pasta? I just don’t get this one. I really don’t.

Response: “Just take off the bread and eat the other stuff. Bam.”

“Everything in moderation, I say. I don’t like to deprive myself of anything.”

Ah, yes, the eminent voice of reason. “Everything in moderation”, they say. Trans-fat? Bring it on, or else it’s deprivation! Margarine? Slather it on my veggies! Must not deprive! Arsenic? Sure, I’ll have a bite! Why not? That said, I’m just not seeing where the deprivation comes in. I fail to see how not eating a food that leads to poor health, digestive upset, and bloating is somehow deprivation. You could say that I’m technically depriving myself of feeling like crap by not eating grains, but that’s a good kind of deprivation. If you want to be quite literal, eating grains deprives you of a full, healthy existence.

Response: “When I eat grains, I feel terrible, bloated, and not like myself. The way I see it, I’d be depriving myself of a full, rich, healthy, happy life if I were to eat grains in moderation. Besides, do a rib-eye, some buttered broccoli, and a glass of red wine sound like deprivation to you?”

“I’ve been eating grains all my life and don’t seem to have a problem.”

You may not have an obvious problem now, but that’s only because you’ve grown accustomed to your body and it to your diet. The signals of discomfort are dulled, and the intensity of the pain has reduced. You’ve gotten used to the stomach upset, the intermittent bouts of diarrhea. You know how all those “things just happen” as you get older, a view that is reinforced when you see the same thing happening to everyone else around you (all of whom also happen to eat grains)? How you start going downhill at 40, it becomes hard to lose weight, all that stuff. Spend some time looking at what everyone is eating – grains, grains, and more grains – and you might notice a connection.

Response: “I felt the same way until I tried ditching them for 30 days. All those little niggling aches and pains and complaints that I figured were just an inevitable aspect of life have disappeared. I feel better than ever.”

“Where do you get your minerals?”

Although whole grains may look nutrient-dense, simply looking at the mineral content of a whole grain on a nutrition website tell you very little about how your body absorbs (or doesn’t absorb) those minerals. Remember those anti-nutritional factors present in most whole grains? Another one is called phytic acid, which binds to minerals in the grain and prevents their absorption in the gut. Calcium, zinc, magnesium, iron, and several others are susceptible to the lure of phytic acid, and research shows that cultures who rely on grains for the bulk of their macronutrients and micronutrients display deficiencies in these and other minerals.

Response: “Since they’re bound up to phytic acid, the minerals in grains aren’t really even all that bioavailable to your body. What you see listed on the nutritional facts isn’t what you’re actually absorbing and assimilating. I get my minerals from plants, fruits, and animals, which our bodies can actually absorb.”

Whenever you deviate from the norm, people are going to ask questions and try to challenge you. That’s fine and totally understandable. Remember – there was a time when all this Primal stuff sounded crazy to you, too. We are different. And people are going to react.

They’re going to be defensive, inquisitive, accusatory, or all of the above. Try not to be defensive yourself. Try to maintain composure and think back to when the idea of giving up grains was utter madness, take a nice diaphragmatic breath, and respond. This is a time to educate, and perhaps even inspire. Utilize it.

Organic Watergate & How The USDA Allows Almost 300 Synthetics Into Organics

Lawfully Tainted Organics—How Did that Happen?

You've probably heard the health conscious mantra popularized by Michael Pollan: "If you can't pronounce it, you shouldn't be eating it."

The easiest way to side step synthetic food additives has been to simply eat certified organic foods. But we've seen an increasing number of questionable additives being approved for use in organics.

There are currently almost 300 non-organic and synthetic compounds approved for use in organic farming or food production. The video shows a long list of such ingredients—all of which are supposed to have been carefully reviewed for safety prior to approval.

But just how rigorous were those reviews, and are these additives really safe and appropriate for use in organics? Mark rightfully points out that fighting for the integrity of the organic label is well-worth it, considering the fact that conventional foods are allowed to use thousands of synthetic processing aids and additives, plus residues from a myriad of agricultural chemicals and genetically engineered ingredients.

Research by the Cornucopia Institute reveals disturbing evidence showing that large corporate interests have infiltrated the process, and that the rules put in place to maintain organic integrity are severely compromised.

"... It seems evident that the people doing the supposedly careful scientific reviews and approving these chemicals have mostly been affiliated with the same corporate agribusinesses and the same food producers that are lobbying for their use," Mark says.

"We thought organics would be different from the rest of the money-dominated corruption in Washington... But the corporations that have gobbled up most of the pioneering organic businesses are relentless in their short-sighted pursuit of profit."

The Organic Watergate

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is charged with enforcing the laws regulating organic foods, so how are improprieties occurring? According to Mark, what we have here is nothing short of an Organic Watergate. He explains:

"An incident last fall caused Cornucopia staff to do a cursory review of many non-organic and synthetic ingredients that have been approved for use in organics since the USDA took over regulation in 2002. And what do we find?

A corporate and governmental conspiracy to allow almost any chemical petitioned by agribusinesses in organic food, regardless of the fact that Congress mandated review of all such substitutes to make sure that they will not damage the environment or human health."

In November, 2011, the USDA's National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) held a meeting in Savannah, Georgia. During that meeting, two 12-billion-dollar corporations-- Martek Biosciences (a division of the Dutch biotechnology giant DSM), and WhiteWave (a division of the dairy behemoth Dean Foods)—received approval for synthetic, genetically mutated DHA and ARA oils derived from algae and soil fungus, which are then grown in a medium of genetically engineered corn products and organics.

Furthermore, the oil is then extracted from this biomass using synthetic solvents including hexane, a neurotoxic byproduct of gasoline refinement that is specifically banned in organics. Martek Biosciences' lobbyists duped the NOSB into believing that banning hexane was enough of a safeguard but they failed to look at the other petroleum-based solvents used (illegal in organic production). " But petrochemical solvent extraction is just the tip of the iceberg. Other questionable manufacturing practices and misleading statements by includedi:

Undisclosed synthetic ingredients, prohibited for use in organics (including the sugar alcohol mannitol, modified starch, glucose syrup solids, and "other" undisclosed ingredients)

Microencapsulation of the powder (possibly using nanotechnology), which are prohibited under organic laws

Use of volatile synthetic solvents, besides hexane (such as isopropyl alcohol)
Recombinant DNA techniques and other forms of genetic modification of organisms;

mutagenesis; use of GMO corn as a fermentation medium

Heavily processed ingredients that are far from "natural"

Shocked by this incident, the Cornucopia Institute began a more in-depth review of other chemicals approved for use in organics, to determine whether proper procedures and safeguards were followed in the past.

"Guess what? For the most part, sadly, they were not," Mark says.

One of the first products the Cornucopia Institute looked at was carrageenan. Like most people in the industry, the initial belief was that it was natural and benign since it comes from seaweed. However, as it turns out, carrageenan is an inflammatory agent tied to serious intestinal disease and is even categorized as a "possible carcinogen." Just how did that get approved for use in organic foods?

The Integrity of the Organic Label has Been Compromised

The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) provides a structure for reviewing non-organic ingredients being petitioned for approval for use in organic foods, in order to assure the integrity of the organic label. The first line of defense is the National Organics Standards Board (NOSB), which must, by law, maintain a certain diversity of members:

4 farmers
2 handlers (processors/marketers)
3 environmentalists
1 conservation expert
3 representatives of the public or consumers
1 certifier
1 retailer
1 scientist

The intention was for this board to act as a balance against competing interests and corporate power. Unfortunately, abuses and obvious violations of the Congressional intent have been rampant.

According to Mark:

"The most egregious example of this was when a corporate employee of General Mills was nominated as the "consumer representative." There was such a strong backlash that her name was withdrawn and later she was nominated and served in a slot reserved for a scientist. She might have technically qualified as a scientist. But by filling a slot with a corporate representative that Congress obviously intended as an independent voice, the board's agribusiness bias was reinforced.

During the Obama administration, a full-time employee of a 700-million-dollar-a-year agribusiness was appointed as a "farmer." And a similar "farmer" was just appointed to the board, this time a manager at Driscoll's, the giant, primarily conventional berry producer in California."

Absurd Bias Showing up in "Independent" Technical Reviews

Before an ingredient can be approved for use in organic foods, it must undergo a technical review by the NOSB. As you can see by the list of mandated board members above, the NOSB is not a scientific panel; rather these organic industry stakeholders are meant to use their individual field of expertise and judgment to help evaluate each petition. In order to do so, the petition must include accurate and comprehensive scientific data from truly independent sources.

According to Mark:

"One of the problems of the recent Martek proposal was the gross level of bias exhibited in the technical review (TR) supplied to the NOSB. Even though materials that are highly processed by bleaching or deodorizing have previously been deemed as "synthetic," the Martek materials presented in the TR as "natural."

Natural?

From genetically mutated strains of algae never existing before in nature? Instead of presenting independent research regarding a material, the TR was filled with biased statements lacking the required scientific citations. How could the NOSB use their best judgment in evaluating the Martek petitions without sound scientific advice?"

Making matters worse, it turns out that of the handful of industry experts who have been advising the NOSB on scientific matters, one of them, Dr. Theuer, co-authored 45 of approximately 50 technical reviews during a two-year span in the 1990s—virtually all of them in support of approving the synthetic material in question for use in organics.

And if you think matters may have gotten better since then, think again. USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack was appointed to his post despite massive public outcry, as he was well-known for his agribusiness and biotechnology industry bias'. He's been a strong supporter of genetically engineered crops (including bio-pharmaceutical corn), Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), and animal cloning, for example. The USDA now contracts the Organic Center to produce technical reviews for the NOSB. And who's behind The Organic Center?

According to Mark:

"[The Organic Center] began as the non-profit organic arm of the powerful Organic Trade Association (OTA) and are generally controlled and funded by the same giant corporations that run that OTA. The rest of The Organic Center's leadership reads like a who's who of giant corporations involved in organics: Aurora Dairy, the giant distributor UNFI, the vegetable giant Earthbound Farms, Safeway Grocers, Organic Valley, Whole Foods, and no fewer than four individuals with financial relationships to Dean Foods and their WhiteWave division."

Talk about proverbial foxes guarding the organic chicken coop... Mark points out that some of the board members of The Organic Center are even from the same companies petitioning for, and/or supporting the use of synthetics in organics! So how can employees of The Organic Center be expected to actually provide wholly independent technical reviews and solid scientific advice to the NOSB, when their bosses are neck-deep in corporate interests?

Carrageenan—Another Ingredient that Should Never have Been Approved

As mentioned earlier, once the Cornucopia Institute began reviewing carrageenan, a seaweed derivative used as a stabilizer, it became clear that just like Martek's DHA/ARA oils, it does not belong in truly organic foods. This is a timely issue, as carrageenan is currently up for a sunset reevaluation by the NOSB. (By law, all synthetic ingredients in organics must be reevaluated every five years.) According to Mark:

"When carrageenan was first reviewed in 1995, the NOSB, as required by law, looked at the potential environmental and health impacts after examining a technical review produced by three experts with corporate agribusiness ties: Dr. Steve Harper, director of R&D at Small Planet Foods (now owned by General Mills), Dr. Richard Theuer, a vice-president of R&D at Beech Nut, and Dr. Stephen Taylor, professor of food science at the University of Nebraska and defender of genetic engineering. Dr. Taylor has published studies on genetically engineered organisms (GMO) and allergy risks, co-authored by agribusiness scientists at DuPont and Pioneer Hi-Bred (manufacturers of chemicals and organic seed).

This technical review hardly mentions some potential serious health impacts from degraded carrageenan, failing to cite any of the research to inform the board that historically, as much as 25 percent of carrageenan on the market was categorized as degraded. Current research shows all types of carrageenan can degrade in the body and can create serious known health impacts.

A number of peer-reviewed published papers that should have been cited indicate that degraded carrageenan causes inflammation and can cause serious intestinal abnormalities. Degraded carrageenan is also considered a possible carcinogen, and it's in organic foods! There is no doubt that carrageenan is an inflammatory agent. In fact, in testing anti-inflammatory drugs, laboratory animals are given carrageenan to produce inflammatory symptoms. There's no secret in the medical community that this is a problem.

The technical review also failed to document the known environmental hazards from discharge of alkaline water, the deleterious impacts of seaweed farming to coral reefs, coastal ecosystems, and mangroves. By law, organics is supposed to do no harm. By law, these environmental externalities needed to be considered. Now, carrageenan is up for review again this year. As before, no negative environmental impacts and no human health threats were recognized by the NOSB's industry-friendly handling subcommittee, which unanimously again recommends its approval.

We must oppose the relisting of carrageenan and assure that it is taken out of organic foods. It shouldn't be in any food – conventional or organic. We need to be careful about reviews of all synthetics and organics. We need to re-review them, and the weight of your voice will help us make this argument."

A Call to Action

The Cornucopia Institute are now pursuing a pressure campaign aimed at the organic program at the USDA, and at the National Organics Standards Board, to persuade them to review the manipulation and misinformation provided at the November NOSB meeting, which led to the approval of synthetic, genetically mutated DHA and ARA oils—ingredients that have been "confidently linked" to health problems in infants.

"We need to be careful about reviews of all synthetics and organics. We need to re-review them," he says.

On the Cornucopia Institute's website, you'll find a proxy letter calling for careful scrutiny of all synthetics and organics; a creditable and independent review process; and a diverse NOSB that truly reflects the organic community as Congress intended. Please take a moment to download and sign the proxy letter, and mail it back to the Cornucopia Institute.

"We will deliver your message as an organic industry stakeholder to the powers in Washington, who can preserve or destroy organics," Mark says. "Please download and sign the proxy letter that's posted at Cornucopia.org to amplify our message and your voice...

The law requires the imperative to make sure we have independent oversight. Please, don't reject organics because corporations have acted recklessly and the USDA has failed to do their legally mandated job. Organic farmers and their ethical processing and marketing partners need your support now more than ever, and your family deserves authentic organic food."

NOTE: We believe that the USDA honestly represent both sides. On the one hand they accept significant input/contributions from the industrial food giants and on the other hand they extract organic certification fees from those who's intention is to provide pure, unadulterated food. As consumers, we're being forced to choose between pesticides and the growing indifferences between Organic & GMO.

In fact, the USDA is pushing hard, with Monsanto's persuasive might to allow all GMO's as organic. We can only vote with our $$$$ by rejection all conventionally grown food, and force a higher level of honesty into our foods.

Another option is to reject the USDA compromised whores and create a legitimate certification for all pure, natural, unadulterated foods that serves both the spirit, law & intention of real food.

We can't all grow it ourselves, but we can participate at some level with those who do.

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.

Is The USDA Your Friend & Concerned About Your Access To Fresh, Wholesome, Natural Food? Think Again!

What Is Organic, Really?

According to USDA Organic Label Certifications:

"100 percent organic," means that products must contain only organically produced ingredients and "approved processing aids."

"Organic," products must consist of at least 95 percent organically produced ingredients. The remaining ingredients must consist of USDA approved non agricultural (non-organic) substances.

"Made with organic ingredients," processed food products must contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients.

The perception that there is nothing better than USDA Organic Certification is just a perception, the reality is that in the growing and processing of USDA Organic foods, about 275 "approved non agricultural (synthetic chemicals) are allowed. That also includes anything for which there isn't an organic equivalent.

So, stretching the imagination, horse manure or Mercury could be included in food and the food could still be certified as Organic, since there isn't commercially available organic horse manure or mercury. That is how Soy lecithin slithered it's way into so many organic foods, a substance considered to be a dangerous industrial toxin.

There are many different organic certifications and if eating pure wholesome, natural, unadulterated foods is important to you, it will take buying from farmers & manufacturers that you know and trust or a learning curve to wade your way through the various certifications to see what's allowed that you might not want to eat.

Sadly, not all manufacturers stay pure, we've discovered that they change ingredients from time and that's when you vote with your dollars and let the manufacturer know of your decision.

USDA Claims Ownership To The Word Organic, You Must Pay To Play

Political control freaks (thieves) have moved one step further to the twilight zone. In order to sell your home grown fruit at the now centrally planned “farmers market” you must submit a “crop plan” and have your Garden inspected by filling out a “farm schedule.” After that’s done you’re more than welcome to sell your oranges once you fill out your various tax forms, sign the ten page 8000 word contract agreement with the city manager, pay your filing fees and attain your organic certification and proper permits. As Rockefeller said: “competition is sin.”

organic or·gan·ic [awr gánnik]

Adjective:

1. of living things: relating to, derived from, or characteristic of living things

2. developing naturally: occurring or developing gradually and naturally, without being forced or contrived

3. intrinsic: forming a basic and inherent part of something and largely responsible for its identity or makeup

4. naturally efficiently organized: being made of parts that exist together in a seemingly natural relationship that makes for organized efficiency need to integrate the various functions of the department into an organic whole

5. agriculture avoiding synthetic chemicals: relating to or employing agricultural practices that avoid the use of synthetic chemicals in favor of naturally occurring pesticides, fertilizers, and other growing aids

6. food produced without synthetic chemicals: grown or reared without the use of synthetic chemicals a wide range of organic produce.

7. medicine of body’s organs: relating to the organs of the body, specifically to basic changes in them brought about by physical disorders.

8. chemistry based on carbon: belonging to a family of compounds that have chains or rings of carbon atoms linked to atoms of hydrogen and sometimes oxygen, nitrogen, and other elements.

noun (plural or·gan·ics)
organic substance: an organic substance, especially a fertilizer or “pesticide”

15th century. Directly or via French Latin organicus Greek organikos “of an organ, instrumental”

Feds To Outlaw Children Working On Private Family Farms Or Working With Animals

For civilization to persist, each subsequent generation must be equipped by the previous one with the knowledge and skills to grow food, which traditionally occurs on family-scale farms from parent to child, or from seasoned expert to young amateur. But new labor laws being proposed by the U.S. Department of Labor (DoL) would prohibit children from performing many of the routine farm chores they have been involved with for centuries, which some see as a direct attack on small-scale agriculture.

The Daily Caller reports that the DoL, under the guidance of the Obama Administration, is proposing that child labor laws be modified to prohibit children under the age of 16 from working with animals, for instance, or from being allowed to work with food storage bins. The proposal also seeks to prohibit children from "being employed in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials," which essentially makes it a crime for farmhands to touch produce once it has been picked.

Originally put forward by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis last fall as a way to further protect children from unsafe working conditions, the proposal threatens unprecedented government overreach into the normal operating procedures of private farms. And while the new provisions would reportedly contain an exemption for children working on farms owned by their parents, they would still drastically limit the freedom of children to learn about agriculture from a young age.

You can view the DoL's proposal announcement here:
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/whd/WHD20111250.htm

"I started working on my grandparent's and uncle's farms for a couple of weeks in the summer when I was 12," said John Weber, a 19-year-old college student majoring in agriculture, to The Daily Caller. "The work ethic is a huge part of it. It gave me a lot of direction and opportunity in my life. If they do this it will prevent a lot of interest in agriculture. It's harder to get a 16-year-old interested in farming than a 12-year-old."

Many others also share Weber's sentiments, as they too have told reporters in recent days about how being immersed in a farming environment that involved performing farm chores from a young age was crucial to their now-developed understanding and appreciation of agriculture. Without these experiences, many of these individuals likely would have ditched farming and chosen other professions instead.

Federal government to take over all on-farm safety training programs
Besides all the restrictions, the labor law proposals would also end the federal government's support for independent safety training and certification courses taught by youth-based agricultural groups like 4-H and FFA. Instead, children interested in agriculture would have to take a 90-hour federal government training course that would likely be far less beneficial and effective, and a lot more bureaucratic.

So not only does the government want to dictate who can and cannot work on farms, but it also wants to steer the entire ship of early childhood agricultural education. And since the government has made it abundantly clear in recent years that it favors industrial, genetically-engineered agriculture systems over family-scale farms (http://www.naturalnews.com/033387_Obama_GMOs.html), we all know where this crackpot, government-run endeavor would lead.

Endgame goal to separate Americans from their land, from their animals, and ultimately from each other
As benign as such proposals may seem to some -- the government is only trying to protect the children, right? -- they truly represent just another nail in the coffin of individual liberty, particularly as it pertains to private agriculture. If you have been following the escalating trend of government tyranny against small farms and food freedom in recent years, it should be abundantly apparent that the government's primary goal in these new proposals is not to protect children from danger, but rather to further separate Americans from the food they eat.

Working hand-in-hand with Monsanto and the drug companies to create a total monopoly on food and health, the federal government is working feverishly to remove Americans from their own land, and create a culture of complete ignorance about food, nutrition, and agriculture. If Americans have no idea how to farm, in other words, they will be at the mercy of a centralized agricultural system that dispenses only chemical-laced genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and other toxic substances for consumption.

The only way to stop all this madness is to refuse, in the form of blatant civil disobedience, any and all provisions and restrictions that erode or destroy our freedom to grow, buy, sell, and eat the foods of our choice. And this includes continuing to teach each new generation, regardless of whatever laws may or may not be passed, how to independently produce safe food without interference by government tyrant

NOTE: Living in a rural, agricultural area it's common practice for girls & boys to help out driving tractors, combines, feeding the animals, gardening and everything else associated with farm life. The kids love it and learn about where food comes from and how to produce it. I completely agree with Mike's article, this isn't about kid safety it's about controlling your access to natural, healthy food.

If you value natural food, rather than pesticide sprayed, hormone, antibiotic, vaccine injected, waste by product fed beef & chicken, then every time you buy a product that doesn't support your beliefs, you are adding another nail to the coffin. Vote with your $$$$ and support small, natural farms and the healthy, wholesome products that feed your family

Horses To Be Slaughtered For Meat In The USA

The owner of a New Mexico slaughterhouse is defending his plan to become the first plant in the nation since 2007 to handle horses after an outcry from politicians and animal activists.

In interviews with the Roswell Daily Record and the Albuquerque Journal on Friday, Valley Meat Co. owner Rick De Los Santos said he's trying to revive his failing business and that what he's proposing is legal.

The horses he plans to process are being slaughtered anyway in Mexico and his operation would be overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and meet much higher standards, he said.

The company's application for federal inspections at the plant just outside Roswell triggered an outcry when it became public Friday, with New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez calling on the USDA to deny his application.

If his application to the USDA is approved, De Los Santos said horse meat will be exported to Mexico and be for Mexican consumption. He said the exportation of horse carcasses might be a better option than exporting live horses to Mexico, which involves holding the horses at the border. De Los Santos also said horse slaughter methods in Mexico may be less humane than in the U.S.

"There's no regulation as to how they (slaughter horses) in Mexico," De Los Santos told the Daily Record. "It's nowhere close to the USDA standards."

Horse slaughter has effectively been blocked since Congress withheld funds for USDA inspections of horse meat plants in 2006. But a recently passed agriculture bill provides the money.

De Los Santos said the official number for live American horses exported to other countries for slaughter is 100,000; but the figure may be closer to 130,000.

"All I'm saying is we can take some of those and slaughter them here," De Los Santos told the Journal.

The company, which has a 7,290 square-foot plant on a 10-acre site, has been slaughtering cattle for about 20 years, but has recently been unable to continue doing business because the cost of cattle has risen dramatically with the recession.

The company that once had 40 to 45 employees is currently not operating. Slaughtering horses, De Los Santos said, might be the only way to save his company. He laid off his last 10 employees three weeks ago.

"All we're doing is trying to make a living," he said. "My whole life is invested in this business." He said he was unaware until recently that, if approved, his company would be the only slaughterhouse in the U.S. to slaughter equines.

The USDA is reviewing Valley Meat's application for a grant of inspection, which would put federal inspectors in the plant to oversee the processing. The agency said Friday that it had earlier rejected three horse-processing applications because the plants would also process cattle. The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service bars the processing of horses with any other animal.

If he receives USDA approval, De Los Santos told the Journal that he planned to slaughter 20 to 25 horses per day to start "which is not a whole lot, compared to what's available."

The meat from his plant would be exported by an El Paso partner, whom he declined to name, into Mexico. "Everyone who's ever eaten tacos in Mexico, I guarantee you they've eaten horse meat down there," he said. "It would never be my intention to sell it in the U.S."

Valley Meat's application to the USDA was disclosed this week by Front Range Equine Rescue, which obtained USDA documents and emails through a federal records request.

Gov. Martinez, a Republican, and Attorney General Gary King and State Land Commissioner Ray Powell, both Democrats, voiced opposition to the horse slaughtering plan Friday.

King called the prospect of a horse slaughtering operation in the Roswell area "a terrible idea" while Powell, a veterinarian, said: "New Mexico can do much better by these intelligent and gentle creatures."

Martinez's office said the governor plans to send a letter to the USDA urging the federal agency not to allow the horse slaughtering operation, and she will seek the support of New Mexico's delegation in Washington, D.C.

'A horse's companionship is a way of life for many people across New Mexico. We rely on them for work and bond with them through their loyalty," Martinez said.

'Despite the federal government's decision to legalize horse slaughter for human consumption, I believe creating a horse slaughter industry in New Mexico is wrong and I am strongly opposed."

EPA Approves Agent Orange Pesticide

The Environmental Protection Agency has refused a petition that aimed to ban the sale of a powerful pesticide linked with cancer — and while already available, a surge in sales is expected as scientists ready a new crop resistant to the chemical.

Not only has the EPA rejected a petition that sought to prohibit the domestic sale of the dangerous 2,4-D pesticide — a key ingredient in Agent Orange — but the main manufacturer of the chemical predicts that sales will skyrocket in the coming months. The reason, it would seem, is that Dow Chemicals is awaiting federal approval of a genetically engineered crop they’ve created that will be resistant to 2,4-D.

If approved, farmers will be able to plant the frankencrop corn variant and douse their fields with the pesticide to eliminate unwanted weeds with greater success. Although 2,4-D isn’t currently used to a large degree on corn fields, all that could soon change for the country’s most successful crop. Opponents argue, though, that the potential side effects of the pesticide are enough to push for a ban on 2,4-D altogether.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental watch group, has argued that expose to 2,4-D has caused in some cases cancer, hormone disruption, genetic mutations and neurotoxicity, reports the New York Times. In voting not to hear the petition against the pesticide, however, the EPA says that they believe there to be a lack of evidence that would be significant enough to raise suspicion.

“After considering public comment received on the petition and all the available studies, EPA is denying the request to revoke all tolerances and the request to cancel all registrations,” the agency says in their explanation this week.

According to the National Resources Defense Council, the truth behind the toxicity of the chemical is quite the contrary.

“This dangerous pesticide is lurking all over the place – from ball fields and golf courses, to front lawns and farms – exposing an enormous amount of the American public to cancer and other serious health risks,” NRDC senior scientist Dr. Gina Solomon wrote earlier this year. “There’s no reason to continue allowing a toxic Agent Orange-ingredient in the places our children play, our families live and our farmers work. EPA must step up and finally put a stop to it.”

The NRDC is not alone in their opposition, either. The Center for Food Safety has also fought to ban the sale of 2,4-D as Dow develops their pesticide resistant-crop. “Dow’s ‘Agent Orange’ corn will trigger a large increase in 2,4-D use — and our exposure to this toxic herbicide — yet USDA has not assessed how much, nor analyzed the serious harm to human health, the environment or neighboring farms,” the center’s executive director, Andrew Kimbrell, warns. “This novel corn will foster resistant weeds that require more toxic pesticides to kill, followed by more resistance and more pesticides — a chemical arms race in which the only winners are pesticide/biotechnology firms.”

In discussing the seriousness of the consequences, Dr. Amy Dean adds to the Center for Food Safety that “Many studies show that 2,4-D exposure is associated with various forms of cancer, Parkinson’s Disease, nerve damage, hormone disruption and birth defect.”

“Because it poses significant health risk, exposure should not be increased, but significantly reduced to protect the public’s health,” the doctor insists.

The 2,4-D chemical was also instrumental in the formula for Agent Orange, the chemical weapon used by the US during the Vietnam War that is believed to have either killed, maimed or disfigured one million people.

The NRDC had filed their petition to end sales of 2,4-D back in November 2008. After over two years of waiting without response, they sued the EPA in February for not acting quickly enough, Only on April 9, 2012 did the EPA officially announce it would deny the petition. Mae Wu, a lawyer with the group, tells the New York Times that the NRDC was “disappointed that it has taken this long to deny our petition” and also “disappointed that they are not protecting public health by getting this toxic chemical off the market.”

Do You Know If You Are Already Eating Cloned Meat?

It may come as a surprise, but you may be consuming cloned meat on a regular basis. In fact, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (head of the USDA) says that he has no idea whether or not cloned meat has been sold inside the United States — or even how much. But instead of investigating or setting up parameters, the USDA asserts that it is safe in their view so there is no cause for alarm. It is currently forbidden by the agency itself for any producer to distribute or sell cloned meat.

The news came back in August of 2010, when U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack went on record saying that he really doesn’t know whether or not cloned meat is being put on dinner tables nationwide. The announcement was made after the United Kingdom’s Food Standards Agency told consumers that meat from descendants of cloned animals had already entered the food supply. Of course the agency made the statements a year after the cloned products leaked into the food chain. Still, just like the USDA, the UK’s FSA stated that they believe cloned meat poses no risk, so citizens should not panic. The reason? They say that cloned meat has ‘ no substantial difference’ to traditional meat, and therefore it is safe.

The statements echo those of Monsanto, whose genetically modified creations have been linked to everything from organ damage to toxicity-induced cell death.

Here’s what Tom Vilsack’s response is to whether or not cloned meat is being sold in United States stores and subsequently being eaten by citizens:

“I can’t say today that I can answer your question in an affirmative or negative way. I don’t know. What I do know is that we know all the research, all of the review of this is suggested that this is safe,” Vilsack said to reporters.

Conventional meat packing industries and suppliers often utilize disturbing growth techniques with zero regard for the welfare of the animals and the consumer. It is not to believe that cloned meat would slip into this chaotic process and be passed off as traditional meat.

In order to avoid the threat of not only cloned meat but a copious amount of antibiotics (that you will soon be eating), you should search for high quality meat sources that utilize grass as a main feed source. The antibiotic problem is so pervasive, in fact, that a judge recently ordered the FDA to remove antibiotics from animal feed in order to halt the production of super viruses.

Why risk your health? GrassLand Beef offers naturally grass fed beef, pork, chicken & other meats, without any steroids, hormones, vaccines, antibiotics or chemical enhancers.

Monsanto Threatens To Suit Vermont If They Require GMO Labels

Even though the state of Vermont is trying desperately to pass a bill which would require GMO foods to be labeled, the state’s efforts are being threatened by biotech giant Monsanto. In retaliation of the GMO labeling bill, Monsanto has threatened to sue Vermont if any such bill is passed. Sadly, Vermont elected public officials may surrender to the threats and intimidation brought about by the GMO creator.
Monsanto Threatens Lawsuit Against Vermont for GMO Labeling Bill

The bill, known as the ‘VT Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act’, or H-722, was introduced to the Vermont House of Representatives by Representative Kate Webb of Shelburne on February 1st, 2012. The bill would require the labeling of not only products filled entirely with GMOs, but also for those partially created using GM ingredients. What’s more, GMO food manufacturers using promotional labels such as “natural,” “naturally made,” “naturally grown,” “all natural,” and other similar statements, would be prohibited.

Despite a majority (6 to 5) of Agriculture Committee members supporting passage of the bill, and thousands of people voicing their support for the bill, legislators of Vermont are putting the labeling bill on hold and refusing to take a vote. Legislators are calling for more public hearings on April 12, while only four weeks remain until legislature is postponed.

Of course Monsanto’s tactics are far less than surprising. The GMO giant has been using lawsuits and threats of lawsuits for over 20 years in order to force their unlabeled genetically modified creations on the population.

In 1994, Vermont became the first state to require milk and dairy products derived from cows injected with the controversial genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone to be labeled. In response to such an action, Monsanto sued in Federal Court. The corporation won on the note that dairy corporations have the first amendment “right” to hide rBGH injection even though the synthetic hormone, now banned in 27 countries, has been shown to increase risks for both breast and gastrointestinal cancer in peer-reviewed research (while also causing severe health damage in cows).

Monsanto has also been using their scare tactics — intimidation and tactical lawsuits on small farmers — in order to force their genetically modified seeds and growth hormones onto these individuals. In fact, between 1997 and 2010, Monsanto actually filed 144 lawsuits against American family farmers. In addition, another 700 were settled out of court for unknown amounts.

Monsanto wants more than anything to take out American family farms and dominate the agricultural industry with their own mutant seeds. This is the same kind of practice that Monsanto operates outside of the United States as well, driving thousands of poor farmers to suicide by ruining their family farming practices. Monsanto’s actions have even helped to lead to a farmer suicide occurring every 30 minutes.

So will Monsanto’s bullying actions put a stop to Vermont’s Right to Know Bill? Tens of thousands of people want nothing more than for the bill to pass, but time will tell.
540x80 papaya leaf extract Monsanto Threatens Lawsuit Over GMO Labeling Bill

NOTE:

The good news is that you can Vote With Your Dollars and say a loud NO to GMO! Tell them you’re not buying their Frankenfood and pesticides.

Even giants fall without customers buying their goods.

When purchasing fresh natural fruits and vegetables, those tiny labels on the fruit will help you avoid GMO like the poison it is!

These labels are for US markets, if anyone has information for other markets, it would be helpful to other readers.

Conventional Food Labels, grown with herbicides, pesticides and harmful fertilizers, have four digits on their label and start with the digit 4. Such as 4922.

Organic Food Labels, are five digits and starts with number 9, such as 99222. You can feel safe to grab all foods with this label, it’s organic and safe to eat or serve to your family and animals.

Genetically Modified Labels, start with the digit 8, as in 89222. This is important to know as it clearly identifies the product as GMO. You can drop it and run!

Don’t forget to tell the supermarket manager why you won’t buy GMO. I find managers are interested and more than concerned about what consumers want. They will not continue to stock their shelves with products that consumers reject. If we are to reclaim our health, we must reject GMO.

There are currently seven food crops that have been genetically engineered and are available commercially:

* Soy another dangerous food
* Corn
* Cottonseed
* Canola
* Hawaiian papaya
* Zucchini
* Crook neck squash

This means avoiding anything with Soy or Soy lecithin found in many chocolate, teas, thousands of products.

Corn Syrup, Corn Sugar or High Fructose Corn Syrup found in thousands of everyday foods.

Canola oil is used in many snack foods and in frying.

Some Foods That May Have GM Engineered Poisons are found in common everyday foods such as:

infant formula, salad dressing, bread, cereal, hamburgers and hotdogs, margarine, mayonnaise, cereals, crackers, cookies, chocolate, candy, fried food, chips, veggie burgers, meat substitutes, ice cream, frozen yogurt, tofu, tamari, soy sauce, soy cheese, tomato sauce, protein powder, baking powder, alcohol, vanilla, powdered sugar, peanut butter, enriched flour and pasta and hundreds of things that you would never suspect.

Vote with your $$$$$

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.

GMO Pig Lost It's Canadian Funding

Genetically modified pigs that excrete less waste may be euthanized before they could be slaughtered for human consumption, according to a report out of Canada. The current herd of Enviropigs, which digest their feed more efficiently, just lost their funding.

Unless the university finds other funds, it will euthanize the current herd of 16 animals, the Reuters report said, citing Lori Bona Hunt, a spokeswoman for the University of Guelph. Their genetic material will be cryogenically preserved and could potentially still be studied.

Enviropig’s research team had applied for approval to sell the animals for human consumption in the U.S. and Canada. Neither the Food and Drug Administration nor Health Canada has made a decision.

The FDA is still supposed to rule at any time — that’s been the case for months — on the sale of genetically modified salmon for human consumption. Whatever happens with the fish, it looks like it will not be accompanied by genetically modified bacon.

Why eat garbage? Control what you eat and know what the animals you eat, eat.

Try US Wellness Meats sells quality grassland meat products

Why Does USDA Need 326,000 Rounds Of Ammo?

In the last few weeks the fact that the Department of Homeland Security recently ordered 450 million rounds of hollow point ammunition (which was on top of the 2 million ordered in 2009) has been heavily discussed by numerous alternative media outlets.

For their part, the corporate controlled media and the DHS itself have chosen to stay quiet, refusing to answer inquiries as to why they need millions of hollow point bullets at a time when they are largely focusing on domestic operations.

A recent report by RT highlighted this fact:

The DHS has signed off on an “indefinite delivery” from defense contractors ATK that will include, for some reason, nearly 500 million high-power ammunition for .40 caliber firearms.

The department has yet to discuss why they are ordering such a massive bevy of bullets for an agency that has limited need domestically for doing harm, but they say they expect to continue receiving shipments from the manufacturer for the next five years, during which they plan to blow through enough ammunition to execute more people than there are in the entire United States.

“We are proud to extend our track record as the prime supplier of .40 caliber duty ammunition for DHS,” reads an official statement from Ron Johnson, ATK’s president of Security and Sporting, who adds that his group will also be giving up weaponry to the DHS subdivision of ICE, or Immigrations and Custom Enforcement.

While ammunition itself seems not too unreasonable of a request by a major federal entity that emphasizes domestic durability and safeguarding the country from coast to coast, the choice — and quantity — of its hollow point order raises a lot of questions about future plans for the DHS.

ATK says they won their contract with the US government by being able to provide them with 450 million HST bullets, which it describes as “the next generation in high performance duty ammunition.”

Apparently Homeland Security is not the only domestic government agency that has bought a large amount of ammunition in the last 7 months.

In a post published on the now infamous Fbo.gov website, the US Forest Service (USDA) solicited and secured a bid for over 300,000 rounds of ammunition (scary raw milk farmers beware) including:

Added: Sep 28, 2011 5:15 pm

(1) 40 caliber, 180 grain, 120,000 rounds or equivalent,
(2) 9 mm, 124 grain, 50,000 rounds or equivalent,
(3) .38 caliber, 135 grain, 10,000 rounds or equivalent,
(4) .380 caliber, 90 grain, 6,000 rounds or equivalent,
(5) .223 caliber, 64 grain, 87,500 rounds or equivalent,
(6) 12 gauge 00 buck, 15,000 rounds or equivalent,
(7) 40 caliber frangible, 10,000 rounds or equivalent,
(8) 9 caliber frangible, 10,000 rounds or equivalent,
(9) .223 caliber frangible, 10,000 rounds or equivalent,
(10) 12 gauge 1 oz slug, 7,500 rounds or equivalent

The cartridges shall be delivered to Albuquerque, NM.

An article from the Prepper Podcast Radio Network also cited a bid from the US Fish and Wildlife services and a solicitation from the FBI.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services require the following items, Exact Match Only, to the following:

1. Remington Frangible .40 Caliber Pistol Ammunition – 2,500 rounds

2. Remington .40 Caliber Pistol Ammunition (180 grain) Full Metal Jacket – 6,000 rounds

3. Remington .223 Caliber Rifle Ammunition (62 grain) Full Metal Jacket – 3,000 rounds

4. Remington FX Marking Cartridges (9 mm) – 2,000 rounds

These requirements seem normal considering the possibility of running into grizzly bears and wolverines. These, to me, are acceptable quantities to order.

And of course the FBI needs about 100,000,000 rounds of .40 caliber ammunition for law enforcement needs. It posted the request November 15, 2011 and the order will be awarded this week. Oddly, it states a fixed price indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity type contract; however the pricing requirements go up to 100,000,000 rounds.

That’s right, the US government apparently needs over 750 million extra .40 caliber rounds for use in what can only be assumed to be future “domestic operations.”

Dangerous Michigan DNR Declares Natural Pork INVASIVE To Protect Toxic Big Pork Growers