Category: GMO

Hidden GMOs

by: S. D. Wells

(NaturalNews) Half of all Americans will get cancer in their lifetime, and only half of them will survive. That’s at least one fourth of all Americans who will die from a preventable disease that virtually did not exist in America a century ago.

Now here comes a big question: Why will the other half never get cancer? Easy, simple answer that the half who get cancer never believe – organic food and natural medicine. Yet, medical doctors in America have totally convinced all the sheeple that the only way to prevent, treat, or cure any disease or disorder is with chemical medicine – another cause of cancer.

The naive, uneducated, stubborn junk-science eaters use all the same excuses, over and over and over. They say: “Organic food is too expensive,” or, “Those anti-vaccine fanatics are crazy,” or, “There’s no way food is going to heal my cancer,” or, “Cancer runs in my family,” or, “It’s all genetics,” or, “I’m going to a ‘world class’ cancer treatment center,” or, “We all die some day.” Sure, but who wants to die early, and from cancer?

Eating clean could never be more important than it is right now. The FDA approves all genetically modified foods and requires no labels, while nearly every other developing country in the world boycotts everything GMO, including U.S. food exports like corn and soy; just check Russia and Japan.

Western “science-based” medicine has never been more polluted, experimental, dangerous and cancer-causing than it is right now. The FDA accepts any drug where the corporation pays millions to have it “fast-tracked” into approval and distribution by rogue MDs, who know nothing but how to juggle multiple chemical medications for patients who are experiencing cancer cell mutations from the toxic food, water and other medications they’re already consuming, injecting and applying to their skins.

Organic food is not that hard to find, and it’s not expensive, especially when compared to cancer surgery, CAT scans, mammograms, surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatments. However, most people would expect healthy food to be located in the places where the government and the medical system should be looking out for citizen health and wellness, but that’s where you’ll find the worst kind of food a human being can consume. Also known as genetically mutated Frankenfoods, these foods are laced with bug-killing pesticides and weed-killing herbicides never meant for human consumption. If you don’t have cancer now, it’s not because you’re lucky, or because you have “good genes.” Have no doubt, nearly all cancer cases are caused by chemicals, and many of them show up in the places you would least suspect.

Here are the 8 most SURPRISING places you’ll find GMOs

#1. Hospital food: In the cafeteria and what is brought to your bedside. Sure enough, there’s that cancer-causing poison, right there at the hospital, where your body is desperate for clean food and clean water. But it won’t be getting any, unless your thoughtful, well-informed relatives are bringing you organic food and spring water at least three times a day.

#2. School food for children: At public schools across the country, what gets dropped on your child’s tray is no better quality than the food served in prisons. Pink slime for red meat, hormone and antibiotic-laced dairy products, artificially colored and synthetically flavored junk food snacks, and hydrogenated oil-soaked fries.

#3. Vaccines and flu shots: Your child is less immune and more vulnerable to infectious diseases if they get vaccinated, because today’s vaccines are lumped too close together, and full of neurotoxins that cause central nervous system disorders (like autism), extreme allergies for life (like peanuts, eggs, dairy, MSG and latex), and spread the very diseases they are injected with (like measles and polio)!

#4. Military rations: Can you believe it? Those men and women in uniform who have pledged to protect our country experience nervous disorders, depression, anxiety, immune deficiency, infections and brain fog, and it’s not all PTSD to blame, although the government would have everyone believe that’s the case. From diet sodas with aspartame, to nutrient-void rations that contain nothing but genetically modified soy, canola and corn materials, the strength and intelligence of the U.S. military is severely compromised by toxic food.

#5. Animal feed: Yep. Not only are most of the staple crops and produce grown in America infested with pesticides, but the food given to the animals – the very animals and their byproducts that all the carnivores will be consuming – that food is laced with cancer-causing toxic glyphosate and other known carcinogens.

#6. Top notch, fine-dining restaurants: You think because you’re eating under candlelight and you ordered the Filet Mignon, or the $50 plate of salmon or tilapia, that your meat isn’t tainted by genetically modified organisms? Did you know, if the meat is not organic and the cow wasn’t “grass-fed” that it was probably fed GM feed, and shot up with hormones and antibiotics? Did you know that “farm-raised” fish means they are raised in a lake or indoor tank where it’s over-crowded and the fish are also given artificial growth hormones and antibiotics? Plus, the FDA has approved genetically modified salmon that contains eel genes, and it’s not even labeled as such.

#7. Whole Foods supermarket (especially at the food bar): Want some GMO oils that cause cancer? Try the chicken salad, tuna salad, pasta salad, or potato salad at the Whole Foods prepared food bar.

#8. Foods labeled “gluten-free”: Most of these foods contain monosodium glutamate, which is genetically modified and causes migraine headaches and brain damage in infants.

No wonder cancer and Alzheimer’s are massive epidemics in the USA. At least, from now on, you won’t be so surprised, when you ask the food preparers where the food comes from!

Sources for this article include:

Learn more:




 by: Daniel Barker

(NaturalNews) Before you make that next sandwich, you may want to read the list of ingredients on your bread bag label – because there’s a very good chance that it may contain carcinogens.

A food additive used in bread called potassium bromate has been in the international news lately. Indian health officials have recently called for a ban on the use of the additive, which has been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals.

A testing of products in India found potassium bromate in 84 percent of 38 popular brands of bread, buns, pizza crusts and other baked goods.

Potassium bromate has already been banned in numerous countries, including the entire EU, the UK, Canada, China and Brazil.

Potassium bromate not banned in the U.S.

However, the use of potassium bromate has not been banned in the United States, and although all states require the listing of ingredients, only California requires a warning label for the additive to be included.

Potassium bromate is added to dough to make it stronger and more elastic. It also speeds up the bread-making process and gives baked products a white color.

Genotoxic effects of potassium bromate

Clinical studies measuring the effects of potassium bromate on humans have not been performed, but studies on human cells suggest that the chemical may indeed cause cancer.

In 2015, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) published a report on potassium bromate.

From Tree Hugger:

“‘Obviously there haven’t been any intentional studies that expose humans to high levels of potassium bromate,’ said Jose Aguayo, EWG database analyst and co-author of the report. ‘But there have been studies done on human cells.’

“Aguayo told TreeHugger that in studies of human cell cultures, potassium bromate has been seen to have a genotoxic effect, or in other words, causes damage to the cell’s DNA. Aguayo said that while this doesn’t prove potassium bromate causes cancer in humans, it suggests that it could.

“Manufactu[r]ers say that the baking process converts potassium bromate into a salt, potassium bromide. But if ingredients aren’t mixed at the correct ratios, or aren’t cooked properly, the original compound may remain. The EWG report cites testing in the UK where some samples of finished bread products were found to have potassium bromate residues.”

Other dangerous bread additives

Potassium bromate, however, is just one of many chemicals found in commercial bread products. Baked goods found on grocery store shelves in the U.S. and elsewhere typically contain numerous additives that are not only potentially harmful, but actually unnecessary.

As Vani Hari, the Food Babe, noted: “It only takes 4 ingredients to make bread – flour, yeast, water and salt, there’s really no need for all that other nonsense.”

As reported by Food Babe:

“Commercially available grain-based products that line grocery store shelves and are served at restaurants are unhealthy. They are full of ingredients that are not food, like azodicarbonamide (the same chemical in yoga mats and shoe rubber), other chemical dough conditioners, added sugars, artificial flavorings or coloring and GMOs. Flour can be treated with any of the 60 different chemicals approved by the FDA before it ends up on store shelves – including chemical bleach! Also, the industrial processing destroys nutrients, such as Vitamin E and fiber.”

Even many of the bread products that look healthy are actually loaded with sugar and other questionable additives. The label may say “100% Wholewheat,” but upon closer inspection you’re likely to find high fructose corn syrup and numerous preservatives on the list of ingredients.

When you buy bread products at the grocery store, always check the ingredient list – or better yet, learn to make your own delicious natural bread at home. You’ll save money while eating healthier and – believe me – your hot, homemade bread, fresh from the oven, will smell and taste better than anything you’ll find on the supermarket shelf!


Learn more:




image edited by Web Investigator 


New research shows that ultra-low dose exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, causes massive gene alterations in lab rats, according to a study published in the journal Environmental Health.

The report is the first in a series of studies observing the effects ultra-low doses of glyphosate have on gene expression profiles and the subsequent epigenetic changes, or changes that become inherited patterns of gene function, which can lead to other health problems down the road.

The research is being led by Molecular Geneticist Dr. Michael Antoniou with King’s College in London, and Cellular and Molecular Biologist Dr. Robin Mesnage, who successfully reverse-engineered the co-formulants in Roundup.

This was a major achievement considering that the identity of the herbicide’s “inert ingredients,” as well as their health effects on humans, were unknown and poorly understood prior to Mesnage’s discovery, which found that these supposed “inactive” ingredients may be more dangerous to humans than glyphosate alone.


Currently, Dr. Antoniou is using a bioinformatics software program called Qlucore Omics Explorer to analyze the effects ultra-low doses of glyphosate have on “gene expression profiles (transcriptomes), protein profiles (proteomes), and small molecule metabolite profiles (metabolomes) in rats and cell cultures.”

His research group, Gene Expression & Therapy Group, uses “cell and molecular analytical approaches to investigate transcriptional and post-transcriptional events that regulate gene expression including in response to various environmental stimuli,” such as commonly used pesticides and other chemical pollutants.

GETG is particularly interested in how brief chemical exposure during fetal development and early on in life permanently impacts gene control, as well as the effects of low-dose chemical exposure on the endocrine system.

“Such a fixed change in gene expression pattern can lead to all kinds of problems later in life ranging from obesity, diabetes, a propensity to certain cancers and so on,” said Dr. Antoniou.


If glyphosate, even in ultra-low doses, can alter gene expression during fetal development, is it possible that the herbicide can also cause severe deformation in animals?

On Monday, the Daily Mail published a shocking report revealing horrific animal mutations occurring in Argentina, the world’s largest user of glyphosate.

The mutations have quadrupled since Argentina upped its production of genetically modified soy, a crop designed to withstand high doses of Roundup. Farmers and the local media are blaming herbicides.


Earlier studies showed that ultra-low, environmental doses of Roundup caused damage in lab rats, which was observed in their urine, blood chemistry and anatomy.

Dr. Mesnage analyzed the transcriptomes of the livers and kidneys of ten rats exposed to ultra-low doses of Roundup for two years, as well as ten unexposed controls. The team used principle component analysis (PCA) visualization, heat map visualization and statistical analysis to observe the effects.

“Rats have around 28,000 genes, only a subset of which will be switched on in the liver and in the kidney. Each gene is a dimension of analysis so you have 28k variables, which you need to reduce to something manageable,” explains Dr. Antoniou.

“Using a PCA visualization, Qlucore allows you to graphically represent all these variables in just three dimensions, so that each animal occupies a particular location. Very quickly you can see how each animal relates to another and any treatment-related effect. If a number of animals are clustered together, you know that the effect is the same.”


“Heat map visualizations show the activity of each gene for each rat organ so you can see the variation in the group and whether it is homogenous,” Dr. Mesnage adds.

Using these techniques, researchers observed that the rats treated with Roundup had massive alterations in gene expression, while the control group did not.

Dr. Antoniou and Dr. Mesnage will continue their research using technology that allows them to “make predictions based on molecular ‘signatures.'”

“If you see an alteration in a certain pattern of gene function, you can compare that pattern to another batch of genes to see if the signature matches. By taking those alterations and looking at them collectively, you could predict over time that a certain health problem will be the outcome,” says Dr. Mesnage.

If such signatures can be identified, researchers will be able to conduct animal studies much faster, in a matter of months compared to years.

“Even though the exposure would be short, we are interested in whether we might still see an alteration in gene expression patterns in the blood, liver and kidney, even if the animal doesn’t show any overt health problems,” Dr. Mesnage adds.





(NaturalNews) Recent tests by the Portuguese No GMO Coalition showed that volunteers in the country had extremely high levels of glyphosate in their urine, placing their contamination rate well above that of many places in Europe. Every single one of the 26 volunteers had cancer-causing glyphosate in their urine; similar tests in Switzerland last year found glyphosate in only 38 percent of people. Meanwhile, testing by Friends of the Earth across 18 different European countries found glyphosate in just 44 percent of the urine samples tested.

It is not just the mere presence of glyphosate that is setting off alarm bells; the levels noted were also disturbingly high. The EU limit for acceptable levels in drinking water is 0.1 ng/ml. The average glyphosate value found in the Portuguese volunteers’ samples was 26.2 ng/ml – a whopping 260 times higher than the maximum legal limit!

Meanwhile, testing of more than 2,000 Germans found an average of 1.1 ng/ml, and the highest value noted in that country was 4.2 ng/ml. The range of values for Portuguese volunteers went from 12.5 to 32.5 ng/ml, which means that even the worst German case was better than the least contaminated Portuguese case!

Children showed the highest glyphosate levels

It is also worth noting that the youngest volunteers showed a higher average value (26.7 ng/ml) than the group as a whole, and this phenomenon was also noted in the German study. The researchers also point out that the values higher than 20 ng/ml are the highest amounts ever recorded in people who do not have professional exposure to glyphosate – a clear indication that the poisoning is coming from the food and/or water supply.

Unfortunately for the Portuguese, glyphosate is the most widely used chemical herbicide in their country. More than 1,600 tons of this toxic chemical are sold there each year. There has been a rise in its use for controlling weeds in olive groves, something that was traditionally done via mowing, grazing, or tillage. It is being overused in the country’s orchards and vineyards, and urban street spraying is also believed to play a role.

Nevertheless, similar practices also occur in other European countries, and it is not clear why the levels are so much higher in the Portuguese volunteers. The Portuguese No GMO Coalition is calling for official testing on the country’s soil, food, air, water and citizens – something that has not been done in more than a decade. The country’s Ministry of Agriculture does monitor food for more than 300 pesticide residues, but glyphosate is somehow not on its list.

Private testing shows large-scale global poisoning

This illustrates why it is so important for groups such as the Portuguese No GMO Coalition to take matters into their own hands and carry out tests to uncover just how widespread this problem is. Governments do not always look out for the best interests of their people, and concerned citizens have the power to draw attention to these problems.

A similar effort is currently underway by to uncover the presence of heavy metals in the tap water of various American cities. In addition, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, tested more than 800 foods in his cutting-edge analytical lab to determine the presence of a host of toxins. This information can be found in his book, Food Forensics.

Such efforts are doing a lot to highlight the problem of dangerous substances in our food and water supply. As people become more aware of these issues, they are starting to demand that food companies use honest labeling practices, and are trying to put an end to this large-scale global poisoning.

The news of Portugal’s far-reaching glyphosate contamination comes as the date approaches later this month for EU member states to vote on the re-licensing of glyphosate.

The Coaltion stated that, “Portugal must now face the problem and find solutions both at the national and European levels in order to clarify the reasons for such high human contamination and reduce it by several orders of magnitude.”

Despite the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer calling the chemical a “probable human carcinogen,” its use still continues mostly unabated around the world, thanks largely to the efforts of Big Agri company Monsanto, who have been known to fudge research results, smear doctors and journalists who speak out about glyphosate’s ill effects, and bribe government officials to protect their business interests.

Sources include:

Learn more:




by: Daniel Barker

(NaturalNews) If you’ve ever wondered how McDonald’s manages to make its french fries look so “appealingly” consistent in color, the answer is likely to make you never want to eat them again.

It turns out that the reason the fast food giant is able to serve fries that look almost unnaturally perfect has to do with the fact that they use a very unnatural and toxic chemical to achieve the desired result.

Best-selling food author and activist Michael Pollan has revealed the secret behind Mickey D french fries’ uniform unblemished appearance, and it’s not appealing at all.

In the YouTube video below, Pollan describes the process:

As Pollan explains, McDonald’s uses only one type of potato to make their fries – a variety called Russet Burbank.

Russet Burbanks are longer than the average potato, which enables McDonald’s to sell, as Pollan notes, “red boxes with a little bouquet of very long [fries].”

The fast food corporation’s choice of potatoes is understandable from a marketing point of view, but there’s a lot more to the story. …

Although Russet Burbank potatoes enable McDonald’s to produce attractive-looking long fries, the variety has an inherent “defect.” Russet Burbanks are very susceptible to a condition known as “net necrosis,” which causes a brown discoloration inside the potato.

Net necrosis is caused by aphids, and since McDonald’s will not buy potatoes with net necrosis, farmers use a toxic pesticide called Monitor to eliminate them from potato fields.

According to Pollan, Monitor is so toxic that, “farmers won’t venture outside into their fields for five days after they spray.”

After harvesting, the potatoes are stored in huge, stadium-sized sheds, where they can “off-gas” for six weeks before they are “edible.”

How toxic is Monitor pesticide?

Monitor is one of several pesticide products on the market that contain the active ingredient called methamidophos.

So, just how toxic is methamidophos?


“Methamidophos is a highly toxic, highly regulated systemic and residual organophosphate insecticide … Its health effects are consistent with all organophosphates, and result in the inhibition of the enzyme cholinesterase which disrupts normal transmission of nerve impulses. Because of its toxicity, it is highly regulated throughout the world. …

“Methamidophos is highly toxic via all routes of exposure. It has been found to have negative effects on reproductive effects including one study [which] found decreased sperm levels in men … .”

Sort of makes those nice little “bouquets” of golden fries in the red boxes sound a bit less appealing, doesn’t it? Unless, of course, you’re looking for a cheap method of birth control and don’t mind the accompanying nervous system damage.

All joking aside, no one should be eating McDonald’s fries (or any other of the uniformly unhealthy products Mickey D sells, for that matter).

Kicking the fast food addiction

Pollan goes on to describe McDonald’s use of unhealthy amounts of sugar, salt and fat in its products to make them more addictive. He points out that the fast food industry uses made-up terms such as “cravability” and “snackability” as euphemisms for their addictive qualities.

As an illustration of how unhealthy these fast food products are, Pollan notes that, “even poor women who cook have healthier diets than wealthy women who don’t.”

In other words, virtually anything cooked at home is healthier than the garbage-disguised-as-food that McDonald’s and other fast food purveyors serve to the public.

If you want to lead a healthy lifestyle and not fall victim to obesity, diabetes and outright poisoning from toxic chemicals, you must first kick the fast food addiction that so many Americans suffer from.

Once you get in the habit of eating fresh, organic foods, and begin noticing the difference (not only in your physical health but also in the superior flavor of such foods), you’ll wonder why you ever ate fast food to begin with.


Learn more:




In case you’ve forgotten the section on the food web from high school biology, here’s a quick refresher.

Plants make up the base of every food chain of the food web (also called the food cycle). Plants use available sunlight to convert water from the soil and carbon dioxide from the air into glucose, which gives them the energy they need to live. Unlike plants, animals can’t synthesize their own food. They survive by eating plants or other animals.

Clearly, animals eat plants. What’s not so clear from this picture is that plants also eat animals. They thrive on them, in fact (just Google “fish emulsion”). In my new book, “A Critique of the Moral Defense of Vegetarianism,” I call it the transitivity of eating. And I argue that this means one can’t be a vegetarian.

Chew on this

I’ll pause to let the collective yowls of both biologists and (erstwhile) vegetarians subside.

A transitive property says that if one element in a sequence relates in a certain way to a second element, and the second element relates in the same way to a third, then the first and third elements relate in the same way as well.

Take the well-worn trope “you are what you eat.” Let’s say instead that we are “who” we eat. This makes the claim more personal and also implies that the beings who we make our food aren’t just things.

How our food lives and dies matters. If we are who we eat, our food is who our food eats, too. This means that we are who our food eats in equal measure.

Plants acquire nutrients from the soil, which is composed, among other things, of decayed plant and animal remains. So even those who assume they subsist solely on a plant-based diet actually eat animal remains as well.

This is why it’s impossible to be a vegetarian.

For the record, I’ve been a “vegetarian” for about 20 years and nearly “vegan” for six. I’m not opposed to these eating practices. That isn’t my point. But I do think that many “vegetarians” and “vegans” could stand to pay closer attention to the experiences of the beings who we make our food.

For example, many vegetarians cite the sentience of animals as a reason to abstain from eating them. But there’s good reason to believe that plants are sentient, too. In other words, they’re acutely aware of and responsive to their surroundings, and they respond, in kind, to both pleasant and unpleasant experiences.

Check out the work of plant scientists Anthony Trewavas, Stefano Mancuso, Daniel Chamowitz and František Baluška if you don’t believe me. They’ve shown that plants share our five senses – and have something like 20 more. They have a hormonal information-processing system that’s homologous to animals’ neural network. They exhibit clear signs of self-awareness and intentionality. And they can even learn and teach.

It’s also important to be aware that “vegetarianism” and “veganism” aren’t always eco-friendly. Look no further than the carbon footprint of your morning coffee, or how much water is required to produce the almonds you enjoy as an afternoon snack.

A word for the skeptics

I suspect how some biologists may respond: first, plants don’t actually eat since eating involves the ingestion – via chewing and swallowing – of other life forms. Second, while it’s true that plants absorb nutrients from the soil and that these nutrients could have come from animals, they’re strictly inorganic: nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus and trace amounts of other elements. They’re the constituents of recycled minerals, devoid of any vestiges of animality.

As for the first concern, maybe it would help if I said that both plants and animals take in, consume or make use of, rather than using the word “eat.” I guess I’m just not picky about how I conceptualize what eating entails. The point is that plants ingest carbon dioxide, sunlight, water and minerals that are then used to build and sustain their bodies. Plants consume inasmuch as they produce, and they aren’t the least bit particular about the origins of the minerals they acquire.

With respect to the second concern, why should it matter that the nutrients drawn by plants from animals are inorganic? The point is that they once played in essential role in facilitating animals’ lives. Are we who we eat only if we take in organic matter from the beings who become our food? I confess that I don’t understand why this should be. Privileging organic matter strikes me as a biologist’s bias.

Then there’s the argument that mineral recycling cleanses the nutrients of their animality. This is a contentious claim, and I don’t think this is a fact of the matter. It goes to the core of the way we view our relationship with our food. You could say that there are spiritual issues at stake here, not just matters of biochemistry.

Changing how we view our food

Let’s view our relationship with our food in a different way: by taking into account the fact that we’re part of a community of living beings – plant and animal – who inhabit the place that we make our home.

We’re eaters, yes, and we’re also eaten. That’s right, we’re part of the food web, too! And the well-being of each is dependent on the well-being of all.

From this perspective, what the self-proclaimed “farmosopher” Glenn Albrecht calls sumbiotarianism (from the Greek word sumbioun, to live together) has clear advantages…




Vitamin C

by: J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) So, you’ve decided to supplement your diet with extra vitamin C because you don’t think you’re getting enough, but you want to know where the brand you are considering purchasing actually comes from. Those are good instincts on your part, because the truth is, if you were planning on picking up a bottle of vitamin C from a local grocery store or online, chances are really good that the product you would have received would not have lived up to your expectations of high quality.

As noted by Natural News editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, lab science director of CWC Labs, and author of the new book, Food Forensics, most common supplements on the market today are filled with hidden toxins, despite the fact that they’re marketed as being “pure” and, sometimes, “organic.”

One of those is vitamin C:

Here’s another whopper that’s sure to open some eyes: Nearly all the “vitamin C” sold in vitamins across America right now is derived from GMO corn.

This means that many of the supplements sold at Whole Foods, the vitamins sold on, the pills at your local pharmacy, and especially the products at the grocery store are (nearly) all routinely made with genetically modified vitamin C. It’s typically called “ascorbic acid,” and nearly 100% of the ascorbic acid used in the natural products industry is derived from GMOs.

Sourcing non-GMO vitamin C requires you to go outside the United States. There is no existing supply chain of certified organic, non-GMO ascorbic acid available anywhere in America (at least not to my knowledge). You can’t even run batches of non-GMO ascorbic acid production in the USA because all the facilities are contaminated with residues of GM corn.

Rest assured that all those cheap “vitamin C” pills sold at retail are derived from genetically modified corn.

100 percent guaranteed clean

Later that same year, we also reported that some of those same commercial vitamin C supplements do little to protect you from winter colds and flu, and may actually be adverse to your health, because, again, they aren’t really vitamin C.

We noted:

Most supplements being sold as “vitamin C” do not contain true, natural vitamin C at all, but is “ascorbic acid,” a synthetically manufactured chemical derived from glucose using a chemical process involving microorganisms, acetone – a dangerous solvent and sodium hypochlorite bleach.

Synthetic ascorbic acid does not have the same biological properties and therefore benefits as true vitamin C found for example in fruits, berries, vegetables and many other natural sources.

What makes biological vitamin C more effective is because when it occurs naturally – as in clean foods or as a clean supplement – it contains a number of other crucial elements like enzymes that make it much more available to the digestive system and the body as a whole.

Fortunately, there actually is a vitamin C that has been thoroughly vetted and meticulously tested by Adams and his CWC Labs team. And it’s guaranteed to be free of GMOs and many of the toxins that are found in products that are made in China.

You can help others

What’s more, when you purchase a bottle of it, you’re going to be doing someone else in need a huge favor. Through Adams’ Nutrition Rescue project, one bottle of clean vitamin C will be donated to those in need around the world for every bottle sold.

“As part of my ongoing mission to save lives and treat nutritional deficiency all around the world, I’m announcing a new initiative called “NUTRITION RESCUE.” It can not only vastly improve your own health; it can help save lives all across the globe,” he says on the project’s web page.

“The idea is very simple: We source the cleanest, non-GMO vitamin C from the United Kingdom and offer it to quality-conscious customers. Every bottle that’s purchased generates another bottle of vitamin C that gets donated to someone else in need. …

“With hundreds of millions of people around the world now malnourished and suffering from basic nutritional deficiencies, therapeutic-grade vitamin C is in desperate need all across the planet,” he continued.

Learn more:



BacteriaCredit: Getty Images/Hemera (MARS)

by Dr. Mercola, Guest, Waking Times

Your body houses some 100 trillion bacteria, and about 1 quadrillion viruses (bacteriophages). In essence, we’re little more than walking microbe colonies, seeing how these bacteria outnumber your cells 10 to 1, and the bacteriophages in turn outnumber bacteria 10 to 1.

These organisms perform a wide variety of functions, and we’ve now come to realize that they need to be properly balanced and nourished if we want to maintain good physical and mental health.

While the Human Genome Project (HGP) was expected to result in gene-based therapies to more or less rid us of disease, it actually revealed that your genetic makeup plays a much smaller role than anyone imagined.

Your genes, as it turns out, are only responsible for about 10 percent of diseases.1

The remaining 90 percent are induced by environmental factors, and researchers are now realizing that your microbiome may be among the most important factors, as genes are turned on and off depending on which microbes are present!

Emerging science also shows that your microbiome can be rapidly altered, for better or worse, based on factors such as diet, lifestyle, and chemical exposures.

This is a double-edged sword, no doubt, considering how many of our modern conveniences (such as processed foods, antibiotics, and pesticides) turn out to be extremely detrimental to our gut flora.

On the other hand, your diet is one of the easiest, fastest, and most effective ways to improve and optimize your microbiome. So the good news is that you have a great degree of control over your health destiny.

Human DNA Contains Microbial Genes

Remarkably, some of the most recent research suggests bacteria may even have played a role in the diversification and alteration of human DNA, by way of horizontal gene transfer.2 , 3

According to researchers, potentially hundreds of microbial genes have slipped into our DNA over the course of mankind’s history, including genes that help your immune system defend itself against infections. It’s possible other genes helped mankind adapt to changing diets and environmental conditions.

It seems not a month goes by without new revelations about how bacteria influence our lives. Here, I’ll review some of the most recent findings gaining more widespread acknowledgment.

How Gut Bacteria Influence Your Weight

Bacteria appear to influence human health and disease in two key ways. While an overabundance of certain bacteria have been linked to various diseases, other microbes appear to be actively involved in preventing certain disease states.

When they’re lacking, you end up losing this protection, which allows the disease process to set in.

For example, by eradicating four species of bacteria (Lactobacillus, Allobaculum, Rikenelleceae, and Candidatus arthromitus), researchers were able to trigger metabolic changes in lab animals that led to obesity.4

As time goes on, it seems increasingly reasonable to think that obesity is largely influenced by gut bacteria. This in no way changes the fact that certain foods will make you pack on the pounds, the bacteria just play a major role in facilitating that process.

The foods known to produce metabolic dysfunction and insulin resistance (such as processed foods,fructose/sugar, and artificial sweeteners) also decimate beneficial gut bacteria, and it may well be that this is a key mechanism by which these foods promote obesity.

Chemicals may also contribute to your weight problem by way of your gut microbiome.

For example, a study5 published in the July issue of Environmental Health Perspectives found that persistent organic pollutants (POPs) found in food altered the gut microbiome in mice, thereby contributing to the development of obesity and metabolic dysfunction.

Another study6,7 found that one microbe called Akkermansia muciniphila helps ward off obesity, diabetes, and heart disease by lowering blood sugar, improving insulin resistance, and promoting a healthier distribution of body fat…

New Research Shows How Much Fiber Different Diets Provide

American Gut Project is the largest, open source and crowd funded microbiome project in the world. Below is a box-and-whisker plot of the results. Their research14 has collected data from over 5,000 patients who have submitted samples and dietary questionnaires. They’ve been able to calculate the fiber and the median daily fiber intake for various dietary groups, which is as follows:

  • Paleo-Like: 19 g/day
  • Omnivore: 19 g/day
  • Paleo: 25.1 g/day
  • Omnivore, but no red meat: 27.8 g/day
  • Vegetarian: 32.8 g/day
  • Vegan: 43 g/day



Are You Getting Enough Fiber and Fermented Foods in Your Diet?

Ideally, include a variety of fermented foods and beverages in your diet, because each food will inoculate your gut with a mix of different microorganisms. There are many fermented foods you can easily make at home, including:

  • Fermented vegetables, including pureed baby foods
  • Chutneys
  • Condiments, such as salsa and mayonnaise
  • Cultured dairy, such as yogurt, kefir, and sour cream
  • Fish, such as mackerel and Swedish gravlax

As for fiber, dietary guidelines call for 20 to 30 grams of fiber per day. I believe an ideal amount for most adults is likely much higher, perhaps twice as much. Many whole foods, especially fruits and vegetables, naturally contain both soluble and insoluble fiber…


How Your Gut Microbiome Influences Your Mental and Physical Health



Rosemary Mason MB ChB FRCA

Farm Wars

Open Letter to the Director General of the BBC and the former Defra (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs) Minister Lord de Mauley 

Lord Hall & Lord de Mauley: Monsanto’s own long term studies in rats in 1990 showed an increased risk of cataracts following exposure to Roundup®: why are you protecting Monsanto?


Annual rates of admission for cataract surgery in England rose 10‐fold from 1968 to 2003. A 2016 study by the WHO: ‘A global assessment of the burden of disease from environmental risks’ says that cataracts are the leading cause of blindness worldwide.   Anthony Samsel is the US scientist who obtained Monsanto’s early studies under FOI from the US EPA which showed that Monsanto (and the US EPA) knew that glyphosate caused cancer but concealed it. He said: “Forty years of glyphosate exposure have provided a living laboratory where humans are the guinea pigs.”

Lord Hall: BBC Farming Today 18 March 2016: President of Monsanto Brett Begemann was interviewed.  Why was Prof Christopher Portier not asked to speak on behalf of IARC?

Asked by the interviewer about whether glyphosate was carcinogenic, the President dismissed as nonsense the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) statement that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic in humans. He said: “I trust the science.” Why did the BBC not reveal the massive dispute between IARC and some MEPs who rebelled and asked for FOIs, and the German Rapporteur Member State BfR and EFSA’s risk assessment of glyphosate?

Lord Hall: The BBC and the British Press know that the Science Media Centre is industry-financed but are quite untroubled by the knowledge: what does the BBC say about deceiving the public?

Nature World View 2012: Colin Macilwain, a science policy writer from Edinburgh who has worked as a reporter and an editor from both sides of the Atlantic wrote about plans to replicate Britain’s Science Media Centre (SMC) in the United States, which he said was “fraught with danger.” Furthermore, he said: “…the British press — led by the BBC which treats the Confederation of British Industry with the deference the Vatican gets in Rome — is overwhelmingly conservative and pro-business in its outlook. It is quite unperturbed by the fact that SMC sponsors include AstraZeneca, BP, Coca-Cola, L’Oreal, Monsanto, Syngenta (as well as Nature Publishing Group) but not a single environmental non-governmental organization (NGO) or trade union.”

Rat-feeding study condemned as a fraud by industry-financed UK SMC and EFSA

In September 2012 Séralini and his colleagues from CRIIGEN in France published a 2-year rat feeding study on GMO Maize and Roundup®. They reported liver and kidney damage, tumours and evidence of endocrine disruption. However, the ‘expert opinion for journalists’ (Monsanto and GM scientists) reporting for the UK Science Media Centreaccused Séralini’s team of fraud and said the paper should be withdrawn. The paper was widely reported around the world apart from in Britain.

  • However, in November 2015 Prof Séralini was awarded Whistle blower of the year by German Scientists for his work on GMOs and Glyphosate; “After the research was published, Prof Séralini was attacked by a vehement campaign by ‘interested circles’ from the chemical industry as well as the industry-financed British Science Media Centre.
  • In the High Court in Paris, Séralini’s team won defamation and forgery cases on the team’s GMO and pesticide research. The Parisian High Court has ruled that French Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, a scientist known for his controversial research linking GM feed with cancerous tumor growth in rats, was right when he concluded that GMOs are unsafe for human consumption.

Lord de Mauley:  Why did you conceal from the public ‘The Open letter from America’ hand delivered to the Prime Minister on 11/11/2014 warning the UK against GM crops and glyphosate?

“Living with GMOs: Citizen to Citizen: From 57 million citizens in the US to citizens, politicians, and regulators in the UK and the rest of the EU about the hazards of genetically modified crops.

Through our experience we have come to understand that the genetic engineering of food has never really been about public good, or feeding the hungry, or supporting our farmers. Nor is it about consumer choice. Instead it is about private, corporate control of the food system.”  

Lord de Mauley: Why didn’t you forward the paper by Samsel & Seneff to the German Rapporteur Member State as you promised in your letter of 31/08/2013 to Lord Hylton?

Samsel and Seneff (2013) Glyphosate’s suppression of Cytochrome P450 enzymes and amino acid biosynthesis by the gut microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases in which they explained, in metabolic terms, how glyphosate could cause diseases and conditions associated with those on a Western diet, including Gastrointestinal Disorders, Type 2 Diabetes, Obesity, Depression, Autism, Infertility, Cancer and Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and autism, ALL OF WHICH THE UK POPULATION HAS BEEN SUFFERING FROM…


Monsanto: Cancer, Cataracts, and Ecocide



image edited by Web Investigator 

Chemical fertilizer pollutes the environment, disrupts the climate and damages human and animal health.

%d bloggers like this: