The Svalbard seed bank, set like a concrete monolith in the minus 4 degree Celsius permafrost of a mountain on a remote island in the Svalbard archipelago between mainland Norway and the North Pole, shouldn’t determine the fate of our agricultural future. Though the remote bank has collected 860,000 seed samples from around the world, with the latest withdrawal being made from war-torn Syria, what are the true intentions behind a bank said to, “preserve as much of the world’s crop diversity as possible,”while seed supplies around the world are being monopolized by a few corporations, and indigenous, thousand-year old seeds are being wiped out by genetically modified versions?
Svalbard’s investors, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation,Monsanto, Syngenta, and other biotech interests tout this ‘seed saving’ monolith while simultaneously ravaging seed diversity, along with state laws throughout the US, and elsewhere on the globe, that prevent small farmers and gardeners from saving and sharing seed.
Currently, there are at least 100,000 global plant varieties endangered in the world. Extreme weather events, over-exploitation of ecosystems, habitat loss, and the cross-pollination of seed by genetically altered, terminator seed, contribute to the problem.
You could look at seed saving and seed sharing like open-source education. If you really want to democratize the flow of knowledge and information, you make it free, and offer it online, as many Universities now do. No one institution holds the entire knowledge on mathematics, art, literature, spirituality, or any other subject. Just as in nature, we require diversity of thought so that we don’t become automotons repeating a single, well-crafted agenda created by a handful of people.
Many farmers groups, non-profits, and governments are attempting to conserve seed diversity in their own communities, with more than 1,000 known seed banks, collaboratives, and exchanges around the world, but this time-honored tradition of seed saving is butting up against some very serious obstacles, which I’ll name in a moment.
Moreover, while the Svalbard seed bank seems to pass an initial sniff test, a little deeper digging can reveal other questions that many should be asking about such an expensive adventure in ‘protecting agriculture.’
Cary Fowler, senior adviser to the Global Crop Diversity Trust and the Svalbard seed bank, states,
“SSE’s seed bank and the Seed Vault are similar in many ways. Both primarily function as an insurance policy for other forms of conservation. In the case of SSE, that would be varieties grown yearly by gardeners. With the Seed Vault, its seed samples held by seed banks, such as the Dutch, Philippine, or Kenyan national facilities, or SSE. The Seed Vault, however, was physically built to last as long as anything on earth. Its location is obviously remote, which adds to its security. Svalbard is under Norwegian sovereignty, which reassures many, and it was no small matter that Norway offered to pay the entire cost of construction.”
Fowler also argues that the age-old habit of seed sharing by farmers and gardeners poses too great a risk for Svalbard not to to exist, but while he dismisses ‘conspiracy theories’ around Svalbard’s true purpose, he has yet to address that those theories are not the rhetoric of ‘rabid dogs’ as he suggests. Many US states have made it illegal for gardeners and seed libraries to share seeds without a permit.
The Criminalization of Seed Sharing
Even more alarming is the European Union’s recent move to ban all heirloom seed and criminalize the planting of seeds not registered with the government. TheEuropean Commission,
“. . .regulates the marketing of plant reproductive material of agricultural, vegetable, forest, fruit and ornamental species and vines, ensuring that EU criteria for health and quality are met. EU legislation applies to genera and species important for the internal market and is based on:
Registration of varieties or material;
Certification or inspection of lots of seed and plant propagating material before marketing.”
Many are concerned that the EU Commission will not enhance agriculture with the Plant Reproductive Material Law, but give more control to the handful of agriculture corporations which are already monopolizing the world’s seed. The draft text of the law reads such that the act of passing seed from one generation to the next would be a criminal act.
Another example of the laws which prohibit the free and unencumbered sharing of seed includes the state of Minnesota’s seed law. It is broad enough that it essentially prohibits gardeners from sharing or giving away seeds unless they buy an annual permit, have the germination of each seed lot tested, and attach a detailed label to each seed packet. This would obviously be a time-sucking, financially draining practice for most gardeners and small farmers, yet the Minnesota Department of Agriculture recently told seed libraries that they can’t distribute free seeds to gardeners unless they buy a permit and provide detailed labeling, even though the libraries aren’t selling the seeds, and only sharing them freely. The penalty for violating this law is a fine of up to $7,500 per day.
This is an example of just one law in a single state, but laws like these can be found in around 30 percent of states in the US.
Who Owns the World’s Seed?
This is even more alarming considering that just ten corporations now control 70-90 percent of all the seeds cultivated on this planet. These are:
Monsanto – 27% of market share
DuPont -17% of market share
Syngenta – 9% of market share
Land O’ Lakes/Winfield Solutions
As Mother Earth News suggests, rather than imposing laws that uproot the age-old practice of seed sharing, governments, should be nurturing the free exchange of locally adapted seeds. But then, this would put the power back in the hands of people, small groups, and widely varied indigenous agricultural knowledge, not a few power-hungry, seed monopolizing entities known for destroying the very lands they claim to want to protect, and fomenting wars within the ISIS-cabal matrix…
A junk food diet is clearly not healthy. Burgers widen our waistlines, raise our cholesterol levels and tighten our arteries. But scientists now think that even before it shows up as additional pounds on the scale, junk food is changing our bodies in other, surprising ways. It’s actually a form of malnutrition that could be making our immune systems attack our own bodies.
In a recent study published in the Journal of Immunology, scientists at Australia’s University of New South Wales investigated a typical western diet—one that’s high in saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Specifically, they looked at the diet’s impact on immune cells called T lymphocytes, or T cells.
The researchers fed mice a high-fat diet for nine weeks to see what effect it would have on the T cells before the mice gained weight. The results surprised study leader Abigail Pollock. “Despite our hypothesis that the T cell response and capacity to eliminate invading pathogens would be weakened we actually saw the opposite: the percentage of overactive T cells increased,”she explained.
This might sound great, but having more T cells doesn’t necessarily mean your immune system is stronger. In fact, when the immune system goes into overdrive, it attacks healthy parts of the body, resulting in autoimmune diseases like type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease.
Cell membranes—the bags that hold cells together—are made up of layers of fatty lipid molecules. Looking closely at the T cells, the scientists found that having extra fats in the diet actually changed the amount of lipid molecules in the cell membrane, which in turn, said Pollock, “changes the structure of the cell, altering the responsiveness of the T cells and changing the immune response.”
The team had shown previously that altering the lipid content of T cell membranes affects how they signal and activate each other, but this is the first time the effect has been shown in a living animal. More research is needed, they say, to figure out exactly what’s happening and determine which fats we could avoid to make sure our immune systems don’t go into overdrive.
Indeed, this is not the first study to show that a high-fat diet impacts the immune system; almost 20 years ago, scientists at the University of Oxford in the U.K. studied rats on diets rich in different fats. They found that the lymphocytes of rats fed a high-fat diet rich in palmitic acid grew more, whereas natural killer cells—another type of immune cell—of rats on a high-fat diet rich in stearic acid grew much less.
More recently, scientists at the University of Ulsan in South Korea compared obese mice on a high-fat diet and non-obese mice on a normal diet, and found that the obese mice had significantly lower levels of immune cells, including T cells, in their lymph nodes, where the immune cells wait until they are needed by the body. The lymph nodes near the intestine were much lighter in the obese mice and contained far fewer T cells than those of the control mice.
The scientists concluded that the accumulation of fat around the organs—visceral fat—due to a high-fat diet causes cells in the lymph nodes to self-destruct: “Dietary fat-induced visceral obesity may be crucial for obesity-related immune dysfunction,” they explained.
A high-fat diet won’t only affect your immune system; it could also impair your memory—and that of your kids. When they fed pregnant mice a diet high in lard, scientists at Capital Medical University in China found that the fat in their offspring’s brain was altered. The authors explain in their study: “Our research demonstrated that long-term high lard diet […] changed the brain fatty acids composition and damaged the memory and learning ability of mice.”
What’s in your burger and fries?
A junk food diet is rich in fat, but there are all sorts of other harmful things lurking in there too. Firstly, junk food is highly palatable—it tastes good. This makes us eat more and more, which is an even bigger problem because it’s also very high in calories. A small cheeseburger is 300 calories, the same as a whole (nutritious) meal. And you would rarely just eat a cheeseburger; adding fries (230 calories) and a soda (170 calories) takes the total to a whopping 700.
An excessive calorie intake leads to obesity, which has an impact on the immune system. Norwegian researchers found that being overweight led to inflammation—a sign of an overactive immune response. They studied this on a molecular level, to establish a link between metabolism, inflammation, heart attack and stroke. Their theory is that overeating provides our cells with too much energy and the tiny cellular engines—mitochondria—can stall…
Carlos Monteiro got his start in medicine in the 1970s as a pediatrician working in poor villages and slums in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. His patients were hungry, and it was written on their bodies: Many were anemic, underweight, and stunted. Today, Monteiro is a professor of nutrition at the University of São Paulo’s School of Public Health, a stately building surrounded by lush gardens. It’s a long way—figuratively, at least—from the shantytowns where he trained. His career has done a 180, too. Monteiro’s early research focused on malnutrition, but now he’s mostly occupied with the opposite problem: Brazilians, like most of their neighbors in the Americas, have gotten fat.
Over the course of his career, Monteiro, a lanky man with salt-and-pepper curls, has seen a public-health crisis emerge. In the mid-1970s, less than 3 percent of men and 8 percent of women in Brazil were obese. Today, almost 18 percent of adults are obese and more than half are overweight, according to the Ministry of Health, and the rates of chronic, diet-related diseases like diabetes and some cancers have grown. Monteiro has spent years parsing the data on what Brazilians eat; the most salient change he’s seen is the shift from eating foods you can prepare in an ordinary kitchen to what he calls “ultraprocessed products”—highly palatable admixtures of synthetic flavorings and cheap commodity ingredients that require little, if any, cooking. In other words, instant noodles, soda, and processed meats are edging out staples like beans and rice, cassava, and fresh produce.
“The local food system is being replaced by a food system that is controlled by transnational corporations,” Monteiro says. Monteiro, who takes a broad view of nutrition, says this dietary deterioration doesn’t just harm bodily health but also the environment, local economies, and Brazil’s rich food traditions. “We are seeing a battle for the consumer,” he adds.
Over the last 30 years, big transnational food companies have aggressively expanded into Latin America. Taking advantage of economic reforms that opened markets, they’ve courted a consumer class that has grown in size due to generally increasing prosperity and to antipoverty efforts like minimum-wage increases and cash transfers for poor families. And as sales of highly processed foods and drinks have plateaued (and even fallen, in the case of soda) in the United States and other rich countries, Latin America has become a key market. Between 2000 and 2013, soda sales in the region doubled. At the same time, the sales of ultraprocessed foods increased by nearly 50 percent, even as they rose just 2.3 percent in the United States and Canada.
Monteiro is part of a cadre of leaders who, in the face of this onslaught, are turning Latin America into a sort of food-policy laboratory. Some of the reforms they’ve enacted have also been proposed in the United States, but have been thwarted by the food industry and its political allies. Mexico, for example, enacted a tax on sugary beverages and junk food in 2014. Chile also taxes soda, and, like Ecuador, requires warning labels on unhealthy foods. Chile and Peru have also passed laws designed to strictly curtail the advertising of unhealthy foods.
Brazil, for its part, is a bit of a two-headed monster. On the one hand, its government has invested heavily in industrial agriculture, helping Brazil become one of the world’s largest exporters of soy and beef (as well as the top user of pesticides on the planet). But over the last dozen or so years, Brazil has also made huge progress against poverty and food insecurity while supporting the family farmers who produce 70 percent of the food that Brazilians eat. In 2014, the United Nations removed Brazil from its Hunger Map. It gave much of the credit to the zero-hunger policies of President Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, who put ending hunger and poverty at the center of his agenda, building on strong social movements that had coalesced around nutrition issues and agrarian reform.
In recent years, Brazil has inscribed the right to food in its Constitution and reformed its federal school-lunch program to broaden its reach while bolstering local farms. And in 2014, the Ministry of Health released new dietary guidelines that made healthy-food advocates across the world swoon. Monteiro helped lead the team that wrote them; the guidelines transcend a traditional nutrition-science frame to consider the social, cultural, and ecological dimensions of what people eat. They also focus on the pleasure that comes from cooking and sharing meals and frankly address the connections between what we eat and the environment…
This is an “anthology” of sorts about the etiology of the current cancer epidemic-pandemic.
C-A-N-C-E-Ris the word that strikes horror in the hearts and minds of every human alive. However, that always was not the case. I’m old enough to remember when cancer was a rather ‘rare’ disease or condition. Furthermore, I know medical doctors a little older than my ‘vintage’ who say that when they were in medical school, they were not taught very much about cancer, so much so, that when a cancer patient was in one of the wards in a teaching hospital, the entire class of physicians-in-training was trotted in to see that patient. How interesting?
Personally, I’m of the belief that there is not very much new under the sun EXCEPTwhat’s being designed and created by genetic modification and geoengineering. Cancer, undoubtedly, has been around in some form probably since very ancient times. However, the current ‘plague of cancers’, even though not an anomaly since just about everyone and his or her brother has or had it, became ‘profitable’ during the latter half of the twentieth century.
There is no doubt that cancer, as an ‘industry’, will become even more problematic—plus profitable—to the point where every person probably will contract cancer in some form or other, almost as if by some ulterior design. Why do I say that? Because of how cancer has been made into a “profitable business,” revenue stream and profit center for varied and numerous vested interests, when there actually are cancer cures controlling vested interests suppress or even keep for themselves. Is that too harsh to hear? Well, have you recently looked into or checked out the ridiculously-priced costs of cancer treatments and protocols? Like all wars, the “war on cancer” is profitable for vested interests.
For starters, the average cost of a new cancer drug is over $100,000 per year.
Newly-approved cancer drugs can cost about $10,000 on average per month, while some can top off at around, or over, $30,000 a month.
Contrast those prices with the cost of cancer drugs a decade or so ago, which were a mere ‘smidgen’ of only $4,500 a month. Talk about inflation, or is it medical-pharma rip-off time? Owning a ‘cancer insurance’ policy really doesn’t help defray many of those costs either. Usually a cancer policy will state that it provides a lump sum payment for “a covered cancer” or a recurrence of cancer. Some policies will provide a lump sum cash payout of X dollars upon diagnosis and that’s it!
This website gives the “average” medical costs for various types of cancers.
So how did allopathic medicine and humans become ‘partners’ in cancer?
The first documented case of cancer comes from ancient Egypt. According to the American Cancer Society, there are eight documented cases of breast cancer found on papyrus dating all the way back to 3000 B.C. Even the term cancer has been around for centuries— Hippocrates, the Greek physician who is widely considered the Father of Medicine, used the words carcinos and carcinoma to describe tumors. 
Incidentally, there is no mention of cancer per se, even though other diseases are mentioned, in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. However, individual interpretations, though, may lead some to conclude differently.
Cancer as a rarity in ancient times is not disputed, although some fossilized bone tumors have been found in ancient human mummies. The dreaded disease of antiquity was leprosy or what’s known in modern times as Hansen’s disease.
During the Renaissance in Europe, a better understanding of the human body began to develop and that led to more diagnostics, especially once post mortem operations (autopsies) became more of a routine procedure after death. The Renaissance’s Michelangelo, sculptor of “David,” was known to perform detailed anatomical dissections of “fresh cadavers,” which obviously led to his ability to ‘create’ a marble man of extreme anatomical elegance. Additionally, the invention of the microscope moved pathogenesis along to a great degree of sophisticated knowledge regarding diseased tissues.
It wasn’t until the 1900s that the ‘modern’ or current understanding about cancer and things called “carcinogens” began to appear in science and medicine. Coincidentally, or more accurately I say, parallel tracks relating to certain diseases began to manifest too. Those parallels encompassed man-made chemicals and cancer demographics! Currently the ‘buzz words’ also include epigenetics.
What went wrong
Some of the most egregious assaults upon the human organism that contribute to cancers are the inordinate use and amounts of toxic chemicals placed into food and water—deliberately! Food growing, processing, preserving, coloring and taste enhancement-chemicals do not belong in food—period! They adulterate food and our bodies causing biochemical and nutritional imbalances, including genotoxic DNA problems that program cancers. Neither do most of the man-made chemicals used in water treatment facilities belong in water—the second-most vital element, besides air, for maintaining life.
In my July 2016 book, Eat to Beat Disease, Foods Medicinal Qualities, I devote the Introduction to chronicling how agriculture and the food chain have been polluted chemically, basically since the Industrial Revolution, and especially since World War II when USA businesses and industries went haywire manufacturing, advertising and selling chemicals and pharmaceuticals as ‘needed elements to make life better’—“Better living through chemistry!” Unfortunately, consumers bought into and ‘embraced’ all the ‘kill’ chemicals for eliminating bugs, vermin, crab grass, weeds, etc. How hoodwinked were we not to realize that anything that can kill one life form, can and will do irreparable or long-term damage to other life forms higher up the food chain? Those “can’t do without” lawn chemicals now pollute our drinking water!…
Is the current cancer epidemic-pandemic a ‘man-made’ problem?
As I said in the beginning of this “anthology,” cancer has been around since ‘forever’, but the current rate of contraction is far beyond what could be termed ‘natural chances’. Everything, including pharmacology, which I’ve not discussed, is implicated in a “cause and effect” with cancer ideologies, especially anything having to do with “man-made” chemicals, a great quantity of which affects our food, water and the air we breathe.
Is it too late to do anything about the cancer epidemic-pandemic? What do you think?…
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies…
A new legal opinion penned by two former Justice Department officials bolsters warnings that the proposed merger between agroindustrial giants Bayer and Monsanto “is a five-alarm threat to our food supply and to farmers around the world.”
The white paper (pdf) by Maurice E. Stucke and Allen P. Grunes, both former employees of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, states that Bayer’sproposed takeover of Monsanto would:
Increase concentration in already concentrated industries for genetic traits, seed, and herbicides. For example, Bayer-Monsanto post-merger would account for approximately 70 percent of the U.S. acreage for cotton, with similar or higher shares in different regions of the U.S.
Increase Monsanto’s already significant market power and increase its dominance in herbicides and genetic traits for seed.
Eliminate not only the direct competition between Bayer and Monsanto for traits, herbicide, and crop seed, but also the head-to-head competition in agricultural biotechnology innovation markets and reduce opportunities for pro-competitive research and development (R&D) collaborations.
Likely lead to higher input prices, less choice and higher food prices for consumers, including fewer non-biotechnology options available to farmers and consumers.
Indeed, Stucke and Grunes write that given their findings, “the antitrust enforcers must not allow this merger to proceed.”
In July, Monsanto rejected Bayer’s $64 billion takeover offer as “financially inadequate,” but said it was open to continued negotiations. And this week, Bayer’s second-quarter figures—which revealed a weak crop sciences division—were seen by some as “justification for the acquisition.”
But nothing justifies a “five-alarm threat to our food supply and to farmers around the world,” declared Anne Isakowitsch, senior campaigner with global consumer watchdog SumOfUs, which publicly released the legal opinion on Wednesday.
“This new mega corporation would be the world’s biggest seed maker and pesticide company,” she said, “defying important antitrust protections, giving it unacceptable control over critical aspects of our food supply—undermining consumer choice and the freedom and stability of farmers worldwide.”
Many have observed that the Bayer-Monsanto deal is just one of several Big Ag mega-mergers—along with those between Dow and DuPont andChemChina and Syngenta—that “already threaten to hyper-consolidate the biotech seed industry,” as Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter said in May.
“The shocking consolidation in the biotech seed and agrochemical industry turns over the food system to a cabal of chemical companies that would make it even harder for farmers, consumers and communities to build a vibrant, sustainable food system,” she said at the time.
(NaturalNews) By now we’re all sadly aware of the terror atrocity in Nice, France that took the lives of at least 80 people. The attack was insane and horrific, and my prayers go out to all those affected by the senseless violence. Yet it isn’t just ISIS terrorists who are destroying lives in our world, and it’s not just trucks that damage our bodies and cause pain and suffering. The number of lives ripped from our world by the horrific attack on innocent people in France pales in comparison to what Whole Foods and the Organic Trade Association just did to 300+ million people in America as you’ll learn below…
“It’s important for the world to understand that it was the Organic Trade Association that killed our state GMO labeling laws by backing Monsanto’s Stabenow-Roberts bill,” Maine organic seed farmer and longtime OSGATA president, Jim Gerritsen, said in a statement.
“It’s clear that Organic Trade Association has come under the control of a small group of lobbyists controlled by giant-food corporations that also own organic brands. … The Organic Trade Association can no longer be trusted, and it’s clear that organic farmers can no longer condone this dubious trade association’s troubling behavior.”
Now passed by both the U.S. Senate and House, this bill outlaws all GMO labeling laws nationwide. It will cause millions of people to unknowingly eat foods containing genetically engineered ingredients linked to cancer tumors, digestive disorders, infertility and death. The bill makes GMO labeling entirely “voluntary” and has zero penalties for non-compliance. Even the FDA has said it would exempt as much as 99% of all foods from being labeled.
Chemical violence is another form of violence against women and children
There are many types of violence that can destroy lives. Kinetic violence is what we just witnessed in France with the mowing down of innocent bystanders by a 10-ton truck. Kinetic violence is what most people imagine when they hear the word “violence” but there’s another type of violence that’s causing widespread harm, suffering and death in our world: CHEMICAL VIOLENCE.
When chemicals damage our cells, our organs, our bodies and minds, that is a type of violence committed against our person, especially when we are denied the right to avoid them by knowing what we’re buying and eating. Chemical violence is a violation of every woman’s body, and I mention women in particular because they are the nurturers of the unborn (and the recently born who are still nursing). Yet “chemical violence” is precisely the kind of violence Whole Foods has tolerated for the last two decades while it continued to sell unlabeled GMOs to unsuspecting consumers, many of whom falsely believed Whole Foods sold no GMOs at all.
Whole Foods has also engaged in systematic marketing fraud by emblazoning its buildings with utterly fraudulent statements like the one you see in the photo below: “Nothing Artificial, EVER.”
That’s Aaron Dykes reporting from a Whole Foods parking lot in Austin, Texas. The claim “Nothing Artificial, Ever” implies that Whole Foods sells no GMOs, as GMOs are of course artificially engineered. This is just one of the multitude of lies and fraudulent deceptions Whole Foods has pulled off over the years, all while apparently plotting to push a Monsanto-favored law that would ban GMO labeling laws nationwide. (Whole Foods and Monsanto both agree that GMO labeling is bad for business… who’s gonna keep buying all their poisons if the labels tell the truth?)
Whole Foods sells products that are laced glyphosate… here’s what it did to lab rats
To this day, Whole Foods continues to sell a multitude of foods that contain glyphosate, the toxic herbicide chemical sold by Monsanto as “Roundup.” I know this because I have already tested products purchased at Whole Foods in my ISO accredited laboratory known as CWClabs.com, which is internationally recognized and accredited for conducting “analytical excellence” in food contamination analysis.
Using a combination of liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry and a sample prep technique involving solid phase extraction, I’ve already seen alarming concentrations of glyphosate in products I purchased at Whole Foods. Later this year, I’m going to publicly publish a list of glyphosate-laced products being sold by Whole Foods for the sake of science conducted in the public interest. No doubt Whole Foods’ lawyers will attempt to stop me from publishing this information, but they will fail. With your support and my laboratory, science will prevail against Whole Foods’ attempts to hide what they are selling and deceive their own oblivious customers.
Now that Whole Foods has conspired to cover up GMO labeling nationwide, independent labs like mine are the only remaining option for the public to know the truth about the chemical composition of products being retailed by Whole Foods. The more they cover it up, the more we publish the truth they don’t want you to know. Real science is Whole Foods’ worst enemy, and thanks to the support of Natural News readers, we now have real science working for We the People instead of the corporate backstabbers and chemical violence pushers. (By the way, if you wish to support our funding of these scientific initiatives, help support my new online store known as HealthRangerStore.com, where everything we sell is laboratory tested for known contaminants. And no, we don’t sell anything that’s GMO. My store is what Whole Foods only pretends to be…)
So just how “violent” is the chemical violence related to glyphosate and GMOs that Whole Foods continues to sell?
As these lab rat photos show from the Seralini Study, GMOs and glyphosate — the cancer-causing herbicide used on GMO crops — results in horrific tumors, intense human suffering and early death.
The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. The researchers said 50 percent of males and 70 percent of females died prematurely, compared with only 30 percent and 20 percent in the control group.
• Up to 50% of males and 70% of females suffered premature death.
• Rats that drank trace amounts of Roundup (at levels legally allowed in the water supply) had a 200% to 300% increase in large tumors.
• Rats fed GM corn and traces of Roundup suffered severe organ damage including liver damage and kidney damage.
• The study fed these rats NK603, the Monsanto variety of GM corn that’s grown across North America and widely fed to animals and humans. This is the same corn that’s in your corn-based breakfast cereal, corn tortillas and corn snack chips.
Whole Foods CEO Walter Robb caught on video supporting Monsanto-inspired anti-GMO labeling law
“Today, Congress trampled on consumer and states’ rights, choosing instead serve the interests of Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association,” said Ronnie Cummins, international director of the Organic Consumers Association. “This bill was written bought and paid for by corporations who clearly have something to hide. Replacing clear, on-package labels with a system that is convoluted, inconvenient and discriminates against the elderly, the poor and anyone without a smartphone or internet access is inexcusable, especially when consumers in 64 other countries have the right to that same information.”
Organic Trade Association betrays everyone, goes all-in for Monsanto
The streets of Nice, France are littered with the bodies of the dead and dying tonight, yet the cancer clinics of America will soon be littered with far more expansive suffering from the chemical violence victims of Monsanto, Whole Foods and the Organic Trade Association.
To the dismay of nearly the entire organic industry, the Organic Trade Association has now been entirely infiltrated by Monsanto’s minions — the disgusting factory food giants of the organic industry. At this point, the OTA is now wholly beholden to Monsanto and the interests of chemical agriculture. Essentially, biotech operatives strapped suicide vests to themselves, waltzed into the organic industry and detonated every last echo of credibility or honesty. They are no doubt celebrating the legislative bloodshed just like ISIS Jihadis in France.
Yes, these people really are terrorists
Lest anyone question the comparison of biotech operatives to ISIS terrorist, allow me to assure you they both operate with the same disregard for ethics, morals, human life and the environment. I have personally been death-threated, stalked and systematically defamed by biotech industry operatives and their Monsanto mafia lackeys in the media, some of whom are named on this website MonsantoMafia.com.
These people are the most vile, lawless, despicable destroyers of life ever to walk this world… and Whole Foods just combined forces with them to pass this shameful law that will deny all of us the right to know what we’re buying and eating. With the biotech infiltration of the Organic Trade Association, it’s now probably only a matter of time before GMOs will be redefined as “organic” and allowed into organic foods. That’s their goal: To destroy the very definition of “organic” by overrunning it.
The term “organic” is now very close to being meaningless, and that’s a huge loss for all people who are desperately attempting to protect life, health and the environment. To put in all in perspective, the number of people who are going to be killed by cancer caused by GMO-related herbicide chemicals over the next 10 years dwarfs the number of innocent victims just crushed to death in France. For every one victim of ISIS terrorism in our world, there are no doubt thousands of victims of the chemical agriculture industry that maliciously pushes deadly chemicals by threatening scientists, bribing government officials and fabricating bad science just like Big Tobacco once did to sell its own cancer-causing poisons to the world.
There are many ways that people needlessly die in our world. Whole Foods just contributed to a huge one that will now negatively impact all of us for decades to come. What I now know with certainty is that Whole Foods Market knows no shame and will stop at nothing to plow through the people on its way to corporate profits at any cost. When I see the streets littered with bodies laying in pools of blood and loved ones crying over their lifeless limbs, I can only think of Whole Foods and its malicious, utter betrayal of the very concept of what makes a food WHOLE to begin with. The corporation mocks us all — and mocks itself — by selling out to the interests of Monsanto and the chemical poisoners of our world.
The streets of France may be dripping with blood, but the food shelves of America are saturated with poison. And a huge quantity of that poison is sold inside buildings that carry the utterly false, misleading and fraudulent name of “Whole Foods.”
One of the best ways you can help stop chemical violence against women and children is to stop shopping at Whole Foods.
(NaturalNews) If you’ve ever wondered why corporations seem to hold so much sway over our government, look no further than who’s making all the decisions in Washington – and more importantly, where many of these people worked before being handed comfy, high-level positions at top government agencies.
The infographic below depicts a revolving-door relationship between Monsanto and the federal government that dates back many decades. You’ll probably recognize many of the names on the list, but chances are you had no idea these folks used to work for Monsanto or advocate for its interests before taking key positions of power on the taxpayer dime.
Both conservative and liberal politicians share history of affiliation with Monsanto
Donald Rumsfeld is one of the more prominent names that probably jumps out at you, as this former Secretary of Defense under both Gerald Ford and George W. Bush is remembered as one of the key Bush administration warmongers who helped propel forward the “War on Terror” following 9/11. Rumsfeld also just so happens to have been a former CEO for G.D. Searle, a pharmaceutical company that has since merged with Monsanto.
Another prominent, and probably surprising, name on the list is Clarence Thomas, a U.S. Supreme Court justice who many conservatives respect for his supposedly far-right stances on most issues. Thomas is a former lawyer for Monsanto who cast the deciding vote to hand the contested 2000 election over to George W. Bush.
Michael Taylor, who recently resigned from his position as deputy commissioner of the FDA, is another former attorney for Monsanto who fought on behalf of the company’s interests for seven years. Taylor also served as head of Monsanto’s Washington, D.C., office, an obvious conflict of interest considering the FDA’s job is to regulate the activities of corporations like Monsanto.
The very first Chief Administrator for the EPA, William D. Ruckelshaus, is another Monsanto hack who served on the company’s Board of Directors. Ruckelshaus, who was appointed back in 1970, later went on to become the acting director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and even held the position of Deputy U.S. Attorney General.
• Michael Kantor, a Monsanto lawyer and board member who served as campaign chair for the Clinton-Gore campaign in 1992, U.S. Trade Representative from 1993–1996, and U.S. Secretary of Commerce from 1996–1997.
• Margaret Miller, a top Monsanto scientist who oversaw getting the genetically-engineered growth hormone rBGH commercially approved despite a lack of evidence assuring its safety, and who in 1991 was appointed Deputy Director for the FDA.
• Islam Saddiqui, former vice president of CropLife America – a Monsanto affiliate – who was later appointed as Chief Agricultural Negotiator for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
• Anne Veneman, a former board member for the Monsanto biotech subsidiary Calgene, who in 2001 was appointed as head of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
• Rufus Yerxa, former Chief Counsel at Monsanto, who in 1993 was nominated as U.S. Deputy to the World Trade Organization.
• Richard J. Mahoney, former Monsanto CEO for 14 years, who served as Director of the U.S., Soviet, Japanese and Korean Trade Councils, as well as member of the U.S. Government Trade Policy Committee.