Rather Be Healthy

Who better to speak the truth about the risks posed by genetically modified (GM) foods than Thierry Vrain, a former research scientist for Agriculture Canada? It was Vrain’s job to address public groups and reassure them that GM crops and food were safe, a task he did with considerable knowledge and passion.

But Vrain, who once touted GM crops as a technological advancement indicative of sound science and progress, has since started to acknowledge the steady flow of research coming from prestigious labs and published in high-impact journals; research showing that there is significant reason for concern about GM crops – and he has now changed his position.

Former Pro-GMO Scientist Cites GM Food Safety Concerns

Vrain cites the concerning fact that it is studies done by Monsanto and other biotech companies that claim GM crops have no impact on the environment and are safe to eat. But federal departments in charge of food safety in the US and Canada have not conducted tests to affirm this alleged “safety.”

Vrain writes:1

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

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

… I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat.”

“The Whole Paradigm of Genetic Engineering Technology is Based on a Misunderstanding”

This misunderstanding is the “one gene, one protein” hypothesis from 70 years ago, which stated that each gene codes for a single protein. However, the Human Genome project completed in 2002 failed dramatically to identify one gene for every one protein in the human body, forcing researchers to look to epigenetic factors — namely, “factors beyond the control of the gene” – to explain how organisms are formed, and how they work.

According to Vrain:

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

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

In other words, genetic engineering is based on an extremely oversimplified model that suggests that by taking out or adding one or several genes, you can create a particular effect or result. But this premise, which GMO expert Dr. Philip Bereano calls “the Lego model,” is not correct. You cannot simply take out a yellow piece and put in a green piece and call the structure identical because there are complex interactions that are still going to take place and be altered, even if the initial structure still stands.

Serious Problems May Arise From Horizontal Gene Transfer

GE plants and animals are created using horizontal gene transfer (also called horizontal inheritance), as contrasted with vertical gene transfer, which is the mechanism in natural reproduction. Vertical gene transfer, or vertical inheritance, is the transmission of genes from the parent generation to offspring via sexual or asexual reproduction, i.e., breeding a male and female from one species.

By contrast, horizontal gene transfer involves injecting a gene from one species into a completely different species, which yields unexpected and often unpredictable results. Proponents of GM crops assume they can apply the principles of vertical inheritance to horizontal inheritance, but according to Dr. David Suzuki, an award-winning geneticist, this assumption is flawed in just about every possible way and is “just lousy science.”

Genes don’t function in a vacuum — they act in the context of the entire genome. Whole sets of genes are turned on and off in order to arrive at a particular organism, and the entire orchestration is an activated genome. It’s a dangerous mistake to assume a gene’s traits are expressed properly, regardless of where they’re inserted. The safety of GM food is based only on a hypothesis, and this hypothesis is already being proven wrong.

Leading Scientists Disprove GMO Safety

Vrain cites the compelling report “GMO Myths and Truths”2 as just one of many scientific examples disputing the claims of the biotech industry that GM crops yield better and more nutritious food, save on the use of pesticides, have no environmental impact whatsoever and are perfectly safe to eat. The authors took a science-based approach to evaluating the available research, arriving at the conclusion that most of the scientific evidence regarding safety and increased yield potential do not at all support the claims. In fact, the evidence demonstrates the claims for genetically engineered foods are not just wildly overblown – they simply aren’t true.

The authors of this critical report include Michael Antoniou, PhD, who heads the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King’s College at London School of Medicine in the UK. He’s a 28-year veteran of genetic engineering technology who has himself invented a number of gene expression biotechnologies; and John Fagan, PhD, a leading authority on food sustainability, biosafety, and GE testing. If you want to get a comprehensive understanding of genetically engineered foods, I strongly recommend reading this report.

Not only are GM foods less nutritious than non-GM foods, they pose distinct health risks, are inadequately regulated, harm the environment and farmers, and are a poor solution to world hunger. Worse still, these questionable GM crops are now polluting non-GM crops, leading to contamination that cannot ever be “recalled” the way you can take a bad drug off the market … once traditional foods are contaminated with GM genes, there is no going back! Vrain expanded:3

“Genetic pollution is so prevalent in North and South America where GM crops are grown that the fields of conventional and organic grower are regularly contaminated with engineered pollen and losing certification. The canola and flax export market from Canada to Europe (a few hundreds of millions of dollars) were recently lost because of genetic pollution.”

American Academy of Environmental Medicine Called for Moratorium on GM Foods FOUR Years Ago

In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium on GM foods, and said that long-term independent studies must be conducted, stating:

“Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. …There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation…”

Despite this sound warning, GM foods continue to be added to the US food supply with no warning to the Americans buying and eating this food. Genetic manipulation of crops, and more recently food animals, is a dangerous game that has repeatedly revealed that assumptions about how genetic alterations work and the effects it has on animals and humans who consume such foods, are deeply flawed and incomplete. Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant claims genetically engineered crops are “the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen.” What he doesn’t tell you is that:
1.Industry-funded research predictably affects the outcome of the trial. This has been verified by dozens of scientific reviews comparing funding with the findings of the study. When industry funds the research, it’s virtually guaranteed to be positive. Therefore, independent studies must be done to replicate and thus verify results
2.The longest industry-funded animal feeding study was 90 days, which recent research has confirmed is FAR too short. In the world’s first independently funded lifetime feeding study, massive health problems set in during and after the 13th month, including organ damage and cancer
3.Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta rarely if ever allow independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citing the legal protection these seeds have under patent laws. Hence independent research is extremely difficult to conduct
4.There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the GM item in question has been approved, not a single country on earth is actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health effects

It Might Take More Than One Bite to Kill You …

“One argument I hear repeatedly is that nobody has been sick or died after a meal (or a trillion meals since 1996) of GM food,” Vrain said. “Nobody gets ill from smoking a pack of cigarettes either. But it sure adds up, and we did not know that in the 1950s before we started our wave of epidemics of cancer. Except this time it is not about a bit of smoke, it’s the whole food system that is of concern. The corporate interest must be subordinated to the public interest, and the policy of substantial equivalence must be scrapped as it is clearly untrue.”

Remember, Vrain used to give talks about the benefits of GM foods, but he simply couldn’t ignore the research any longer … and why, then, should you? All in all, if GM foods have something wrong with them that potentially could cause widespread illness or environmental devastation, Monsanto would rather NOT have you find out about it. Not through independent research, nor through a simple little label that would allow you to opt out of the experiment, should you choose not to take them on their word. As Vrain continued:

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

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

At present, the only way to avoid GM foods is to ditch processed foods from your grocery list, and revert back to whole foods grown according to organic standards.

Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. As stated on LabelitWA.org:

“Calorie and nutritional information were not always required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin labeling wasn’t required until 2002. The trans fat content of foods didn’t have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or frozen concentrate.

Doesn’t it make sense that genetically engineered foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The research we have is raising serious questions about the impact to human health and the environment.

I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522 will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or consumers.”

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn’t have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let’s not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state you live in.
•No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
•If you live in Washington State, please sign the I-522 petition. You can also volunteer to help gather signatures across the state.
•For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
•Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

The global March Against Monsanto happens tomorrow! Nearly three hundred cities will host what’s sure to be hundreds of thousands of protesters and activists around the globe who are taking a stand against Monsanto and GMOs.

YOU can join in the activities, too! Check this site to see if there’s a march planned near you:
http://occupy-monsanto.com/march-against-monsanto-may-25-2013/

And learn more about the event at this FB page:
https://www.facebook.com/MarchAgainstMonstanto

Here are my top 10 reasons to attend the March Against Monsanto!

#1) There will be tons of press coverage, so your voice will be heard
It’s hard to get your voice heard these days. But now’s your chance! Bring your protest sign, wear a shirt with a message, speak to news crews or even give a speech to the audience. This is your chance to have your voice heard on an issue of crucial importance to the future of life on our planet.

#2) Send a powerful message to Monsanto that their corporate evil will not be tolerated by the people of the world
Beyond the media watching this event, Monsanto will also be very closely monitoring what happens. (Look out for “Monsanto spies” at every event!)

When you show up and march with determination and passion, you help send a message to Monsanto that they will never stop the resistance against GMOs. We want to tell them they should find a way to transition out of the market while they still have time. Let Monsanto know that We the People won’t tolerate their genetic poisoning of the planet and the food supply!

#3) Learn more about GMOs and why they’re so dangerous for life on our planet
By attending these rallies, you’ll also learn a huge amount of valuable information about GMOs and why they’re so dangerous to us all. You might even learn something so powerful you feel compelled to share it with others.

And that’s how this works: Gathering knowledge and sharing it with the people around you so that they, too, can learn to avoid GMOs. Let knowledge be open-source!

#4) Listen to great speakers who share a message of inspiration and solidarity
At every city, speakers will be sharing their wisdom and rallying the crowd with inspiring, informative live speeches. Listen to these speakers and you’ll learn a lot!

#5) Meet and interact with like-minded people
Want to meet informed, intelligent, health-conscious people who aren’t dumbed-down like everyone else? Meet them at the March Against Monsanto!

Think about it: What kind of people come to these marches? The top 1% of the most informed, “awake” and environmentally-aware individuals on the planet. That’s my kind of crowd!

#6) Send a global message to food retailers that they should drop GMOs
Food retailers will also be watching this event, and as more and more people protest GMOs, more pressure will be placed on retailers to either label GMOs or drop them altogether.

And that’s what we want! At minimum, we want mandatory GMO labeling across the board. That way, shoppers can make an informed choice of what they’re buying at the grocery store.

#7) Get some outdoor exercise while joining a noble cause
Joining the march will give you a fantastic opportunity to get some healthy exercise while marching for a worthy cause. It’s not every day that you get to march with a group of fun, intelligent, informed people who truly represent the future of humankind (because they care about genetic integrity).

If for no other reason than this, join the March Against Monsanto and enjoy the stroll!

#8) Raise your spiritual karma score by standing up for universal justice
Need a little help in the karma realm? Marching against evil is always a good thing; especially when you’re taking a stand for universal justice: food freedom, farm freedom and the integrity of seeds on our planet.

The time to do something good is now!

#9) Show off your cool protest sign!
Bring an awesome protest sign and show it off to the crowd! I’ll be marching with my own sign, and I can’t wait to see what everybody else comes up with, too.

Make your sign large enough to be easily read in photos and news cameras. If your sign is awesome enough, it will get major play on the ‘net!

#10) Be part of a truly grassroots, non-hierarchical, non-centralized global protest
This entire event has come into existence organically, with no central planning or coordination. I don’t even know who put this together in the first place. And it doesn’t matter, you see, because as long as we each continue to do our part on this, we can feel hugely rewarded in knowing that millions of other people are also doing their part for the same common goal: the global outlawing or labeling of GMOs.

Join us in this march for the sole reason that it is the right thing to do. Become part of a peer-to-peer, decentralized movement of justice against a terrible evil that threatens our planet. Feel the power of the People as you join in this meaningful, grassroots effort to banish corporate evil from our food and farms.

Learn more:

http://occupy-monsanto.com/march-against-monsanto-may-25-2013/

https://www.facebook.com/MarchAgainstMonstanto

http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

In the early 1900s, the grasslands of the southern US plains were rapidly plowed up and turned into wheat fields.

The ramifications of this wheat boom can still be felt today, as wheat (along with corn and soybeans) remains one of the most common crops grown in the US. In fact, wheat, along with corn and rice, make up 60 percent of human caloric intake1 — a dietary shift that is contributing to the rising rates of insulin resistance and its related chronic degenerative diseases now plaguing many developed countries.

These “amber waves of grain” had another unforeseen effect as well, an almost “other worldly” manmade disaster known as The Dust Bowl, which is chronicled in the PBS film.

The Worst Manmade Ecological Disaster in American History

In the early 1900s, farmers swarmed the southern Plains to take advantage of cheap land offers, even though the area – with its high winds, hot summers and frequent droughts – was not well suited for agriculture. During World War I, in particular, wheat was a sought-after commodity. With wheat prices soaring, and promises from land developers that “rain follows the plow,” farmers quickly turned millions of acres of grasslands into wheat fields, paving the way for what would be one of the worst manmade disasters ever recorded.

As History reported:2

“When the drought and Great Depression hit in the early 1930s, the wheat market collapsed. Once the oceans of wheat, which replaced the sea of prairie grass that anchored the topsoil into place, dried up, the land was defenseless against the winds that buffeted the Plains.”

“Black Blizzards” Crossed the Plains

As the natural winds that cross the Plains picked up the dry, plowed-up soil, dense clouds of dust called “black blizzards” covered the region in an unprecedented years-long “storm.”

The Dust Bowl film includes interviews with 26 survivors of these black blizzards, who describe in vivid detail how the dust-filled winds could easily blister your face and carried with them an indescribable feeling of evil.

The dust killed crops and livestock and led to dust pneumonia (called the “brown plague”), bronchitis, coughing, asthma and shortness of breath in those living in the region. With no way to farm and conditions that at times made it treacherous to even venture outside, many were forced to abandon their homes and flee to safety. The worst of the storms reportedly occurred on April 14, 1935, dubbed “Black Sunday.” On that day, a cloud of dust crossed the region that literally turned day into night.

According to the film:3

“Once the winds began picking up dust from the open fields, they grew into dust storms of biblical proportions. Each year the storms grew more ferocious and more frequent, sweeping up millions of tons of earth, covering farms and homes across the Plains with sand, and spreading the dust across the country. Children developed often fatal “dust pneumonia,” business owners unable to cope with the financial ruin committed suicide, and thousands of desperate Americans were torn from their homes and forced on the road in an exodus unlike anything the United States has ever seen.”

Static Electricity, Plagues of Grasshoppers and Jackrabbits

The dust clouds themselves weren’t the only hurdles faced by those living in the Dust Bowl. Static electricity also became a major problem in the region, such that “blue flames leapt from barbed wire fences and well-wishers shaking hands could generate a spark so powerful it could knock them to the ground.”4 People driving through the region had to resort to dragging chains from their cars so the static electricity wouldn’t short out their engines.

The ecological disruption, meanwhile, impacted other species as well, unleashing plagues of jackrabbits and grasshoppers across the Plains. History reported:5

“If the dust storms that turned daylight to darkness weren’t apocalyptic enough, seemingly biblical plagues of jackrabbits and grasshoppers descended on the Plains and destroyed whatever meager crops could grow … Thick clouds of grasshoppers — as large as 23,000 insects per acre, according to one estimate — also swept over farms and consumed everything in their wakes.”

About eight years went by before the drought finally ended, saving the Plains from turning into an arid desert, and by the 1940s wheat prices were once again on the rise. A drought in the 1950s once again brought back dust storms to the region, but the damage was minimized by farmers using conservation techniques, as well as 4 million acres of government-owned land that had been restored to grasslands.

Could the Dust Bowl Happen Again?

As we once again struggle with droughts and the laws of nature continue to be manipulated by industrial farms and genetic modification, we could once again be brewing a dust storm of epic proportions … or another manmade ecological disaster that has never before been seen.

While many farmers in the Plains states now rely on irrigation from the Ogallala aquifer to water their crops in times of drought, this underground water reserve is in danger from overuse and, by some estimates, may only be able to keep up with water demands for another 25 years. There are many other warning signs that the poor farming practices being used today could backfire in the form of major environmental disasters as well …

Soil is actually depleting 13% faster than it can be replaced, and we’ve lost 75% of the world’s crop varieties in just the last 100 years. Over a billion people in the world have no access to safe drinking water, while 80% of the world’s fresh water supply is used for agriculture.

The Dust Storm May be One of the First Consequences of Monoculture

Monoculture (or monocropping) is defined as the high-yield agricultural practice of growing a single crop year after year on the same land, in the absence of rotation through other crops. Corn, soybeans, wheat, and to some degree rice are the most common crops grown with monocropping techniques. Monocultures are detrimental to the environment for a number of reasons, including the following:
•It damages soil ecology by depleting and reducing the diversity of soil nutrients
•It creates an unbuffered niche for parasitic species to take over, making crops more vulnerable to opportunistic pathogens that can quickly wipe out an entire crop
•It increases dependency on chemical pesticides, fertilizers, antibiotics and genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
•It increases reliance on expensive specialized farm equipment and machinery that require heavy use of fossil fuels
•It destroys biodiversity

Monoculture also was responsible for creating the Dust Storm, as wiping out the natural grasslands of the Plains to plant unprecedented amounts of wheat disrupted the entire ecosystem of the region, with disastrous consequences.

It’s imperative to understand that agriculture is a complete ‘system’ based on inter-related factors, and in order to maintain ecological balance and health, you must understand how that system works as a whole. Any time you change one part of that system, you change the interaction of all the other components, because they work together. It is simply impossible to change just one minor aspect without altering the entire system, which is exactly what happened during the Dust Storm.

Farming Destruction is Occurring Around the World

Areas around the globe have already experienced their own versions of the Dust Storm, fueled by similar assaults on the land. For instance, several thousand years of relentless grazing of domestic animals on mountainous slopes in China left nothing but barren ground. Rains that may have restored the land erode it instead, carrying fertile topsoil down the hillsides, effectively removing any chance for new growth to emerge. On the Loess Plateau in North-Central China, millions of tons of powder-fine silt were swept down into the Yellow River, not only obstructing its flow, but causing massive flooding and the river’s new name: China’s Sorrow.

Likewise, centuries of over-intensive farming in Ethiopia have destroyed nearly every inch of vegetation, leaving wide swaths of bone-dry desert. Heavy flooding has etched deep gullies into the land, sweeping topsoil downward and away with nothing to halt its progress. With not even a drop left for farmers to water their crops, their animals or themselves, the ensuing drought and famine has been catastrophic.

What is encouraging, however, is that both of these regions can give us hope, as they serve as models of how whole ecosystems can be restored through sustainable agricultural practices.

By allowing the land to rest, grasses and other plant species thought to be extinct have re-emerged. In Ethiopia, villagers have planted indigenous trees and vegetation, transforming the severely eroded terrain. Rainfall now absorbs into the ground, feeding a clear stream that flows year-round, aided by the cover of dense vegetation. This has saved the region from desert-induced annihilation and instilled hope for a future of continued sustainability, a lesson that needs to be learned around the globe.

Grazing Livestock to the Rescue?

I was so inspired by the video that I will actually be visiting the Allan Savory Institute in Boulder at his annual conference next month and very much look forward to it. In the TED Talk above, Allan explains how we’re currently encouraging desertification, similar to what nearly occurred during the Dust Bowl. Savory believes the best way to not only stop desertification, but also reverse it, by dramatically increasing the number of grazing livestock.

According to Savory, rising population, land turning into desert at a steady clip (known as desertification), converge to create a “perfect storm” that threatens life on earth. Desertification has long been thought to be caused by livestock, such as sheep and cattle overgrazing and giving off methane. But, according to Savory, we have completely misunderstood the causes of desertification. We’ve failed to realize that in seasonal humidity environments, the soil and vegetation developed with very large numbers of grazing animals meandering through. Along with these herds came ferocious pack-hunting predators. The primary defense against these predators was the herd size.

The larger the herd, the safer the individual animal within the herd. These large herds deposited dung and urine all over the grasses (their food), and so they would keep moving from one area to the next.

This constant movement of large herds naturally prevented overgrazing of plants, while periodic trampling ensured protective covering of the soil. As explained by Savory, grasses must degrade biologically before the next growing season. This easily occurs if the grass is trampled into the ground. If it does not decay biologically, it shifts into oxidation — a very slow process that results in bare soil, which then ends up releasing carbon.

Savory has developed a holistic management and planned grazing system that is now being implemented in select areas on five continents. In one area, increasing grazing cattle numbers by 400 percent, planning the grazing to mimic nature, and integrating the cattle with local elephants, buffalo and giraffes, has achieved remarkable results. I encourage you to view the video, because seeing is believing.

In the US, where corn and soy — much of which are genetically engineered — are rapidly overtaking native grasslands, a return to smaller-scale agriculture, complete with grazing herds, may be necessary for creating a more sustainable food system. Following Savory’s strategy, large herds could be moved across areas in planned grazing patterns, which would be beneficial for the environment, the health of the animals, and subsequently the health of humans consuming those animals.

Permaculture: Working With Nature to Prevent a 21st-Century Dust Storm

Geoff Lawton introduced the permaculture concept in Australia, where rebuilding functional ecosystems from the ground up restores them to their fullest potential. It can create an agricultural heartland even in the desert in as little as 3.5 years, including being fully self-sufficient year-round, cycling its own nutrients without the need for irrigation or artificial fertilizer.

“Permaculture is an ecological design system for sustainability in all aspects of human endeavor. It teaches us how to design natural homes and abundant food production systems, regenerate degraded landscapes and ecosystems, develop ethical economies and communities, and much more. As an ecological design system, permaculture focuses on the interconnections between things more than individual parts.”6

Virginia farmer Joel Salatin is a living example of how incredibly successful and sustainable natural farming can be. He produces beef, chicken, eggs, turkey, rabbits and vegetables. Yet, Joel calls himself a grass-farmer, for it is the grass that transforms the sun into energy that his animals then feed on. By closely observing nature, Joel created a rotational grazing system that not only allows the land to heal but also allows the animals to behave the way the were meant to — expressing their “chicken-ness” or “pig-ness,” as Joel would say.

Cows are moved every day, which mimics their natural patterns and promotes revegetation. Sanitation is accomplished by birds. The birds (chickens and turkeys) arrive three days after the cows leave — via the Eggmobile — and scratch around in the pasture, doing what chickens do best.

No pesticides. No herbicides. No antibiotics. No seed spreading. Salatin hasn’t planted a seed or purchased a chemical fertilizer in 50 years. He just lets herbivores be herbivores and cooperates with nature, instead of fighting it. It’s a different and refreshing philosophy.

Instead of making $150 per acre per year from a crop that produces food for three months, but lays fallow for the rest of the year, he’s making $3,000 per acre by rotating crops throughout the year, thereby making use of his land all 12 months — and maintaining its ecological balance at the same time. This generates complementary income streams while protecting the land from ecological disasters like that felt by the southern Plains.

You Can Start in Your Own Backyard!

If we learn just one thing from the Dust Bowl disaster of the ‘30s, it should be that humans can only push nature so far before it pushes back with a vengeance. Wayne Lewis, one of the Dust Bowl survivors, speaking from experience, said:7

“We want it now – and if it makes money now it’s a good idea. But if the things we’re doing are going to mess up the future it wasn’t a good idea. Don’t deal on the moment. Take the long-term look at things. It’s important that we do the right thing by the soil and the climate. History, is of value only if you learn from it.”

You might not be able to singlehandedly prevent history from repeating itself, but you can make a difference now for yourself, for your family and for your community that might have residual effects by:
•Growing your own vegetables is an increasingly popular concept for thousands of Americans. It can help you save money, involve everyone in the family and help create a store that can last through the winter.
•Organic gardening isn’t something extra you do – in fact it’s quite the opposite. It’s what you don’t do that makes the difference: no chemicals, pesticides, fungicides and herbicides on your plate! When you take control of what you eat, you’ll naturally enjoy better health, ensure and protecting future generations.
•Composting is another way to make what you already have work for you in the future. Save those scraps, from eggshells to coffee filters, and use them to feed your vegetable garden.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Factory food companies commonly use chemical preservatives, anti-microbials to mask inferior meat

After intense lobbying by Kraft Foods Global Inc. and Kemin Food Technologies, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), has agreed to reverse existing regulations that prohibit the use of three toxic meat preservatives.

According to Courthouse News Service (CNS), sodium benzoate, sodium propionate, and benzoic acid will now be permissible for use in preserving and treating meat and poultry products, despite having been previously banned. FSIS has long been of the persuasion that major food corporations would attempt to use such additives to “conceal damage or inferiority in meat and poultry,” but the agency’s view has apparently changed.

After Kraft submitted its own company-funded trials claiming that the three preservative chemicals are allegedly safe, and that they supposedly cannot be used to disguise sub par meat and poultry products, the USDA suddenly changed its mind about them. This is all according to its mouthpiece, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which made the announcement recently about the change.

“Kraft submitted data collected from its in-plant trials and from scientific studies that show that these substances do not conceal damage or inferiority, or make products appear better or of greater value than they are under the proposed conditions of use,” says FSIS.

Factory food companies commonly use chemical preservatives, anti-microbials to mask inferior meat
This is a nice story, but according to admissions made by both Kraft and Kemin, use of these additives will indeed be used to disguise inferior meat and poultry products. According to CNS, the two companies admittedly petitioned FSIS to allow use of the chemicals in liquid form to kill pathogens like Listeria monocytogenes, which typically only exist in tainted meat derived from factory farms.

Industrial agriculture is a filthy business, especially when animals are involved. Rather than have access to pasture and the outdoors, cows and chickens from factory farms live most, if not all, of their lives in confinement, where they wallow in their own feces, and sometimes even in the rotting carcasses of other dead animals. As a result, such animals become ill, and their systems infected with harmful pathogens that must be eliminated before human consumption.

The reason companies like Kraft and Kemin exist and thrive is because high-profit factory farms exist and thrive. And the only way these food corporations can “safely” sell their factory-farm food products to the public is to kill it, sanitize it, and smother it in antimicrobial agents like sodium benzoate, sodium propionate and benzoic acid.

So to claim that their goal in seeking approval for the three chemicals is not to conceal second-rate meat products is simply a lie. Low-grade meat products from squalid factory farms have to be disguised, otherwise the public would never purchase them.

Beyond this, the chemical substances in question are not even safe. Sodium propionate has been linked to causing gastrointestinal upset and respiratory problems, while sodium benzoate can cause DNA damage and promote the formation of cancer cells. And benzoic acid, which is often added to processed foods, can promote the development of asthma and hyperactivity, particularly in children.

“The continued ingestion of certain chemicals has been linked to cancer, fatigue, memory-impairment, imbalanced motor-function, diabetes, thyroid problems, confusion and far more,” says Creative Bioscience about food preservatives and additives. “Such food additives can stunt or stall weight loss and even cause more pounds to add on.”

Sources for this article include:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/03/12/55664.htm

http://creativebioscience.com

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

GMOs are just bad news, followed by more bad news

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand why genetically modified foods are dangerous, but if you look closely, you may just find the name of one listed among the names of more than 800 scientists from around the globe who have joined forces in an open letter to all world governments, outlining their detailed concerns over the alarming potential threat of biotech’s unauthorized, worldwide GM foods experiment.

In a country whose government and media appear only too eager to conjure up fear of “bioterrorism” and “biological weapons,” it’s shocking (albeit obviously deliberate) to what extent the GMO issue remains omitted from mainstream discussion. Consider that the message from these scientists seems to be that the whole planet is already under attack by the persistent and largely unchecked, reckless behavior of greedy, unruly U.S. corporations – corporations whose activities appear to be sponsored by the federal government. And whether you know it yet or not, your body is the battleground.

The letter, as posted by the Institute of Science in Society (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php), is a collective call for the immediate suspension of any and all releases of GM crops and products into the environment for at least five years, in order to allow for more thorough testing. The scientists further demand that all patents on life-forms and living processes – including seeds, cell lines and genes – be revoked and banned “for a comprehensive public inquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all.”

Life is a discovery, they say, not an innovation, and patents on life-forms and living processes “sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals.” Furthermore, they argue that GM crops provide no identifiable benefits either to farmers or consumers; instead, they offer only very significant risks to all living things.

GMOs are just bad news, followed by more bad news
Any consumption of GMO products is basically a smorgasbord of disaster, say these global scientists. In their thorough and fully cited open letter, they take biotechnology to task – making clear, undeniable connections between GM food crops and other products (like milk from cows injected with genetically modified Bovine Growth Hormone) and health problems for mammals in general. At the same time the GM crops themselves actually contribute to lower yields, increased use of herbicides/insecticides, unpredictable performance, poor economic returns, and a progressive monopoly on food by big corporations, they also encourage herbicide-tolerant weeds and pesticide-resistant superbugs, making their purported goal of “feeding the world” appear just as it is – clearly out of the reach of biotech industry. Scientists propose, instead, that these large food corporations are actually more the cause of world hunger currently, than they are the solution to it.

“It is on account of increasing corporate monopoly operating under the globalised economy that the poor are getting poorer and hungrier,” scientists say. “Family farmers around the world have been driven to destitution and suicide… Mergers and acquisitions are continuing.” Seed patent policies currently in place at biotech companies prevent farmers from saving and replanting seeds, an activity the scientists acknowledge, is one enjoyed even by third world farmers.

As promised; however, it only gets worse. Scientists agree that GMOs actually harm the delicate biodiversity necessary to the balance and maintenance of life on this planet. GM products, they say, “decimate wild plant species indiscriminately,” cause birth defects in mammals, kill insects essential to pollination like bees, lacewings, monarch butterflies, and pose other very serious threats related to horizontal gene transfer – for example, the “spread of antibiotic resistance marker genes that would render infections diseases untreatable, the generation of new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and harmful mutations which may lead to cancer.”

Multiple hazards to both animal and human health have already been identified by sources around the world, resulting either in bans on GM products or the adoption of strict labeling laws by many countries. Here in the U.S.; however, secret memoranda from inside the FDA have revealed its history of disregarding the warnings of its own scientists. Still, with a separate but similar mass appeal to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in 2009 failing to make a rippled, lasting impact, one can only hope that eventually the science on GMOs – and the growing number of people who know about it – will simply be too loud to ignore.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php

http://www.the-scientist.com

http://www.grain.org

http://www.naturalnews.com/037289_Monsanto_corporations_ethics.html

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

If you often give in to cravings for junk food, you’re not alone. We all do it sometimes, but those that manage it better will get and stay lean easier. My friend Chad has a great article below with some really powerful tips you can use to kill cravings. And I love the 6 foods he lists in #1…

4 Key Strategies for Killing Food Cravings
By Chad Tackett, CPT

When you’re constantly hungry, it makes choosing the right foods
at the right times really challenging.

Staying full and energized while eating fewer calories—that’s the
secret to long-term fat loss success.

Here are 4 key strategies for feeling satisfied after a healthy meal
and staying full longer. You’ll not only have a lot more energy, you’ll
crave (and eat) less later. . .

1. Eat your water. Yes, eat. Drinking water is great, and you should
throughout the day, but it doesn’t provide the same level of feeling
satisfied as when you eat foods high in water.

There is a separate mechanism in the brain that controls hunger and
thirst. If the food you eat contains water, it will stay in the stomach
longer while it’s being digested.

PLUS, foods high in water are naturally very low in calories – making
them ideal for fat loss.

Many fruits and vegetables contain 90 – 98 percent water! The
following are some of the most hydrating foods. . .

– Watermelon contains 92% water and electrolytes, such as
calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium – all of which
(positively) influence your metabolism!

– Grapefruit contains only 30 calories and is comprised of 90%
water!

– Cucumbers are 96% water and contain just 14 calories in an
entire cup!

– Cantaloupe is 89% water and contains only 27 calories per
1/2 cup!

– Strawberries contain just 23 calories per 1/2 cup and are made
up of approximately 92% water. Plus, strawberries rank as the
4th strongest antioxidant-rich fruit!

– Broccoli contains 90% water and anti-cancer nutrients that
help to detoxify the vast number of potential toxins that we
encounter each day. Plus, it’s a great source of fiber!

You may have noticed that these water-dense foods are all carbs.
Because they’re natural (and not processed), I’d suggest the portion
being about the size of your fist. So, a small grapefruit or a cup of
sliced strawberries, for example, would work well.

2. Fill up on fiber. Fiber is critical to fat loss in several ways: first,
fiber contains only 1.5 to 2.5 calories per gram, while other carbs
contain 4 calories per gram (fat contains 9 calories per gram).
Essentially, you can pile your plate with plenty of high-fiber foods
without worrying about caloric-overload.

In addition to being low-calorie, high-fiber foods are more filling.
Fiber is absorbed by our bodies more slowly than other foods,
which means we feel full longer.

Foods high in fiber are fruits and vegetables, beans, lentils, legumes,
and natural whole grains. Aim for at least 25-35 grams each day to
help reduce your caloric intake and keep you feeling full and
energized longer.

3. Include protein at every meal. A meal with carbs alone causes
blood sugar spikes and crashes, which leave you feeling tired, hungry,
and weak. Protein helps slow this from happening, so that the carbs
you eat aren’t converted to body fat, and allows for energy to be
released slowly.

Great protein sources are lean meats, fish, lowfat dairy, legumes,
and unprocessed soy products.

Your choice of protein should be approximately the size of your
palm. For example, a medium-sized chicken breast.

4. Don’t leave out healthy fat. Since fat is so calorie-dense, it’s
important that you eat it in moderation . . . BUT in small amounts,
it provides flavor and has a positive impact on slowing insulin
response, like protein.

My favorite healthy fat source are nuts and seeds because they
are also a great source of protein and fiber. Other excellent fat
sources are avocados, olives, and fatty fish (e.g., salmon).

The fat source you choose should be about the size of your
thumb. This is about 5 almonds for the average-sized woman
or 7 almonds for the average man.

*Putting this into Action*

Now that you know which foods keep you feeling full and
satisfied throughout the day, here are some great ideas that
combine them all together for one super fat-burning snack or
meal:

1. Stir in a little peanut butter (healthy fat) and protein powder
(protein) into oatmeal (fiber), topped with strawberries (water).

2. Dip cucumbers (water) in hummus (fiber and healthy fat) and
cottage cheese (protein).

3. Marinate broccoli (water and fiber) and boneless, skinless
chicken breast (protein) in a little olive oil (healthy fat) and
balsamic vinegar and wrap it in aluminum foil on the BBQ.

4. A bowl of Greek yogurt (protein) with pieces of watermelon
(water), topped with flaxseeds (fiber and healthy fat).

These meals will make you FEEL completely different.

Your mood and energy will stabilize. You won’t have that gnawing,
dissatisfied feeling anymore.

You’ll feel a lot more self-control when it comes to what you eat
and when you eat it.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Mike Geary
Certified Nutrition Specialist
Certified Personal Trainer

As you’re probably aware of by now, there’s a war being waged against raw milk. While raw milk sales or distribution are legal in many US states, and progress has been made toward improving access, there’s strong opposition to this trend. Each victory is hard-won.

Criminal trials centering around raw milk are scheduled to take place in both Minnesota and Wisconsin this year, and a new bill threatens to make herdshare illegal in North Dakota1.

(A herdshare is a private agreement between a farmer and an individual in which the farmer is paid to take care of an animal, cow for example, that belongs to one or more people. You essentially pay a onetime purchase fee to “buy a share” of a farmer’s herd, which entitles you to the benefits of owning that cow, such as a certain amount of milk each week.)

On May 20, the trial of Wisconsin dairy farmer Vernon Hershberger began at the Sauk County Courthouse. Hershberger is charged with four criminal misdemeanors that could result in a jail sentence of up to 30 months, along with fines totaling more than $10,000.

As previously reported, Hershberger’s farm was targeted by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) for supplying a private buying club with raw milk and other fresh produce.

It’s important to realize that there’s much more at stake than what meets the eye here. As stated in the featured article by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund2:

“DATCP has charged Hershberger with, among other things, operating a retail food establishment without a license. Hershberger repeatedly rejects this, citing that he provides foods only to paid members in a private buying club and is not subject to state food regulations.

“There is more at stake here than just a farmer and his few customers,” says Hershberger, “this is about the fundamental right of farmers and consumers to engage in peaceful, private, mutually consenting agreements for food, without additional oversight.

… “Hershberger, and other farmers around the country, are facing state or federal charges against them for providing fresh foods to wanting individuals. In recent months the FDA has conducted several long undercover sting operations and raids against peaceful farmers and buying clubs that have resulted in farms shutting down and consumers without access to the food they depend on.”

Each day, following the day’s hearings, which began on May 20 and is expected to go on for about a month, supporters are scheduled to gather at the Al Ringling Theater across the street from the Sauk County Courthouse where leaders in the food rights movement will hold live presentations and lectures.

Scheduled speakers include Virginia farmer Joel Salatin, Mountain Man show star Eustace Conway, and food rights organizer from Maine, Deborah Evans.

Raw Grass-Fed Milk is SAFER than Pasteurized, So Why the Persecution?

One of the most common excuses given for why farmers are raided, prosecuted, and shut down is that raw foods may be potentially harmful to human health. But to think that pasteurized milk is safer than raw milk from a healthy, grass-fed cow is simply not true.

And for those of you who have been lucky enough to try this illegal product as raw dairy milk, cheese, and yogurt – you know what an incredible difference there is in taste and texture. Tests have shown substantial nutritional benefits from raw milk as well, over the pasteurized and defatted products you typically find at your grocery store.

While the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warns that raw milk can carry disease-causing bacteria, what they completely overlook is the fact that these bacteria are the result of industrial farming practices that lead to diseased animals, which may then in turn produce contaminated milk. They make no distinction whatsoever between disease-riddled factory farmed milk and the milk from clean, healthy, grass-fed cows.

The former MUST be pasteurized in order to be safe for consumption. The latter does not. You definitely avoid drinking any raw milk from a conventionally-raised feed-lot cow! But drinking raw milk produced by grass-fed cows from clean, well-run farms, on the other hand, is actually far LESS dangerous than drinking pasteurized milk. In fact, not only does raw milk contain good bacteria that are essential for a healthy digestive system, raw milk also offers protection against disease-causing bacteria.

CDC data3 shows there are about 412 confirmed cases of people getting ill from pasteurized milk each year, while only about 116 illnesses a year are linked to raw milk. And research by Dr. Ted Beals4, MD, featured in the summer 2011 issue of Wise Traditions, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, shows that you are about 35,000 times more likely to get sick from other foods than you are from raw milk!

The science is equally clear on the above points, but that’s not why farmers like Hershberger are getting slapped with criminal charges. The larger issue at stake is the issue of food freedom—the right to sell, buy, and consume fresh food that hasn’t been produced by some multinational conglomerate.

Farmers have been getting a raw deal for some time now, as the dairy industry wants to keep a majority of the profits in their pockets. The local farmer to consumer model is not very beneficial to the big corporations, as they have brought the farmers share of many of these products down to less than 7 cents to the dollar in the retail market. Manufacturers, distributors and retailers are taking the majority of the profits from the farmer’s labor.

It’s really nothing more than Mafia strong arm tactics aimed at shutting down the competition. The reason why small-scale organic dairy farms are so threatening to the dairy industry is because they simply cannot produce safe raw milk in a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO). Cows raised under such conditions produce milk that must be pasteurized in order to be safe to drink, as the unnatural diet and environment dramatically alters the nutritional and bacterial composition of the milk.

Why are Farmers Being Jailed while Big Business Gets Off Scot Free?

Meanwhile, real criminal activities that place you and your family’s health at grave risk are being ignored, if not outright condoned, by the same agencies that are trying to jail small-scale farmers like Hershberger. For example, no less than 19 drug companies made AllBusiness.com’s Top 100 Corporate Criminals List for the 1990s. Their crimes included defrauding Medicare, Medicaid, and even the FDA; international price-setting; false claims; hiding serious problems with their drugs and, in one case (Ortho, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), obstruction of justice and eight counts of persuading employees to destroy documents in a federal investigation.

Yet not a single person from any of those companies has seen the inside of a jail cell. Not even when Pfizer was ordered to pay $2.3 billion to resolve criminal and civil charges relating to the painkiller Bextra in 2009, or when GlaxoSmithKline was found guilty in the largest health fraud settlement in US history last year.

Why is it that a company, which is run by individuals, can harm and kill tens of thousands of people and get off paying fines that really amount to pocket change, while small farmers face serious jail time for selling healthful food to willing buyers? We simply must band together to support our local farmers against such injustice, and protect your own right to buy and eat whatever food you see fit for your family.

Join the Fight for Food Freedom

The fight over raw milk stands as a symbol of the much larger fight for food freedom. Who gets to decide what you eat? You? Or the FDA? If the FDA and state agencies are allowed to impose their view of “safe food” on consumers, raw milk won’t be the only thing lost—all food will be pasteurized, irradiated, and genetically engineered. The effort to reclaim our right to buy and consume raw milk is leading the way for everyone who wants to be able to obtain the food of their choice from the source of their choice. So please, get involved! I urge you to get involved with the following action plan to protect your right to choose your own foods:
1.Get informed: Visit www.farmtoconsumer.org or click here to sign up for action alerts.
2.Join the fight for your rights: The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) is the only organization of its kind. This 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization provides a legal defense for farmers who are being pursued by the government for distributing foods directly to consumers. Your donations, although not tax deductible, will be used to support the litigation, legislative, and lobbying efforts of the FTCLDF. For a summary of FTCLDF’s activities in 2012, see this link.
3.Support your local farmers: Buy from local farmers, not the industry that is working with the government to take away your freedoms.

How to Identify a High-Quality Producer of Raw Milk

If you’re still unsure of where to find raw milk, you can locate a raw milk source near you at the Campaign for Real Milk Web site5. The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund6 (which helps farmers that have been raided and/or charged with a crime, like Hershberger) also provides a state-by-state review of raw milk laws7.

Getting your raw milk from a local organic farm is one of the best ways to ensure you’re getting high quality milk. If you’re thinking about purchasing milk from a small farmer, it would be very wise to visit the farm in person. Look around and ask questions, such as:
1.Does the farmer and his family drink the milk themselves?
2.How long has he been producing raw milk?
3.Are the cows clean?
4.What conditions are the cows raised in?
5.Are there any obvious sanitation questions?

Additionally, look for the following general conditions. If a cow is covered in filth and manure, stinks, is wet and cold and doesn’t look particularly comfortable, that could be a warning sign that her milk is less than ideal for raw consumption, even if it’s from a small, local farm.

Low pathogenic bacteria count (ie does the farmer test his milk regularly for pathogens?)

The milk comes from cows raised naturally, in accordance with the seasons

The cows are not given antibiotics and growth hormones to increase milk production

The milk is quickly chilled after milking

The cows are mainly grass-fed

Cows are well cared for

Support Your Local Farmers

Hershberger is just one of many farmers who has been unreasonably harassed and victimized in the war against raw food. There are many other examples. And every year there seems to be one bill or another aimed at taking away your rights to feed your family with whatever foods you see fit. For example, right now a new bill threatens to make herdshare illegal in North Dakota8.

This fight is about much more than just raw milk. It’s a fight for the most fundamental of rights—the right of farmers and consumers to engage in private, mutually consenting agreements for food, without additional oversight. We’re not dealing with drugs here. We’re dealing with FOOD!

Yet while Big Pharma can sell hazardous goods without major repercussions, farmers can’t sell healthful food without being harassed! This must end. One of the best ways you can support this movement is to support your local farmers by buying their food. You can also help make inroads by supporting the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund with a financial pledge.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

The more we learn about genetically engineered (GE) foods, the clearer the dangers become. I’ve warned you of the potential dangers of GE foods for many years now, as I was convinced that the artificial combining of plants with genes from wildly different kingdoms is bound to cause problems.

As the years roll on, such suspicions are becoming increasingly validated. In recent weeks, we’ve not only learned that GE corn is in no way comparable to natural corn in terms of nutrition, we’re also discovering the ramifications of dousing our crops with large amounts of glyphosate — the active ingredient in Monsanto’s broad-spectrum herbicide Roundup.

GE crops are far more contaminated with glyphosate than conventional crops, courtesy of the fact that they’re engineered to withstand extremely high levels of Roundup without perishing along with the weed.

A new peer-reviewed report authored by Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant, and a long time contributor to the Mercola.com Vital Votes Forum and Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has fortunately received quite a bit of mainstream media attention.

Their findings, along with the development of another breed of “gene silencing” crops, makes the need for labeling all the more urgent, and the advice to buy certified organic all the more valid.

How Glyphosate Worsens Modern Diseases

While Monsanto insists that Roundup is safe and “minimally toxic” to humans, Samsel and Seneff’s research tells a different story altogether. Their report, published in the journal Entropy,1 argues that glyphosate residues, found in most commonly consumed foods in the Western diet courtesy of GE sugar, corn, soy and wheat, “enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease.” According to the authors:

“Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body.”

The main finding of the report is that glyphosate inhibits cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, a large and diverse group of enzymes that catalyze the oxidation of organic substances. This, the authors state, is “an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals.”

One of the functions of CYP enzymes is to detoxify xenobiotics—chemical compounds found in a living organism that are not normally produced or consumed by the organism in question. By limiting the ability of these enzymes to detoxify foreign chemical compounds, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of those chemicals and environmental toxins you may be exposed to.

Dr. Stephanie Seneff has been conducting research at MIT for over three decades. She also has an undergraduate degree in biology from MIT and a minor in food and nutrition, and I have previously interviewed her about her groundbreaking insights into the critical importance of sulfur in human health. Not surprisingly, this latest research also touches on sulfur, and how it is affected by glyphosate from food.

“Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport,” the authors write.

“Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the ‘textbook example’ of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins.”

The Link Between Your Gut and the Toxicity of Glyphosate

The impact of gut bacteria on your health is becoming increasingly more well-understood and widely known. And here, we see how your gut bacteria once again play a crucial role in explaining why and how glyphosate causes health problems in both animals and humans. The authors explain:

“Glyphosate’s claimed mechanism of action in plants is the disruption of the shikimate pathway, which is involved with the synthesis of the essential aromatic amino acids, phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan. The currently accepted dogma is that glyphosate is not harmful to humans or to any mammals because the shikimate pathway is absent in all animals.

However, this pathway is present in gut bacteria, which play an important and heretofore largely overlooked role in human physiology through an integrated biosemiotic relationship with the human host. In addition to aiding digestion, the gut microbiota synthesize vitamins, detoxify xenobiotics, and participitate in immune system homeostasis and gastrointestinal tract permeability. Furthermore, dietary factors modulate the microbial composition of the gut.”

As noted in the report, incidences of inflammatory bowel diseases and food allergies have substantially increased over the past decade. According to a recent CDC survey, one in 20 children now suffer from food allergies2 — a 50 percent increase from the late 1990’s. Incidence of eczema and other skin allergies have risen by 69 percent and now affect one in eight kids. Samsel and Seneff argue it is reasonable to suspect that glyphosate’s impact on gut bacteria may be contributing to these diseases and conditions. They point out that:

“…Our systematic search of the literature has led us to the realization that many of the health problems that appear to be associated with a Western diet could be explained by biological disruptions that have already been attributed to glyphosate.

These include digestive issues, obesity, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, Parkinson’s disease, liver diseases, and cancer, among others. While many other environmental toxins obviously also contribute to these diseases and conditions, we believe that glyphosate may be the most significant environmental toxin, mainly because it is pervasive and it is often handled carelessly due to its perceived nontoxicity.

…[T]he recent alarming increase in all of these health issues can be traced back to a combination of gut dysbiosis, impaired sulfate transport, and suppression of the activity of the various members of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) family of enzymes.”

Former Navy Scientist Exposes Health Hazards of Glyphosate

Former US Navy staff scientist Dr. Nancy Swanson has a Ph.D. in physics, holds five US patents and has authored more than 30 scientific papers and two books on women in science. Ten years ago, she became seriously ill, and in her journey to regain her health she turned to organic foods. Not surprisingly (for those in the know) her symptoms dramatically improved. This prompted her to start investigating genetically engineered foods.

She has meticulously collected statistics on glyphosate usage and various diseases and conditions, including autism. A more perfect match-up between the rise in glyphosate usage and incidence of autism is hard to imagine… To access her published articles and reports, please visit Sustainable Pulse,3 a European website dedicated to exposing the hazards of genetically engineered foods.

According to Dr. Swanson:4

“Prevalence and incidence data show correlations between diseases of the organs and the increase in Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the food supply, along with the increase in glyphosate-based herbicide applications. More and more studies have revealed carcinogenic and endocrine disrupting effects of Roundup at lower doses than those authorized for residues found in Genetically Modified Organisms.”

“The endocrine disrupting properties of glyphosate can lead to reproductive problems: infertility, miscarriage, birth defects, and sexual development. Fetuses, infants and children are especially susceptible because they are continually experiencing growth and hormonal changes. For optimal growth and development, it is crucial that their hormonal system is functioning properly.

The endocrine disrupting properties also lead to neurological disorders (learning disabilities (LD), attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD), autism, dementia, Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder). Those most susceptible are children and the elderly.”

Warning! EPA Raises Limits for Allowable Glyphosate Residues

Amazingly, just as more independent reports are emerging confirming the health hazards of glyphosate and GMOs, the Environmental Protection Agency5 (EPA) is proposing to RAISE the allowed residue limits of glyphosate in food and feed crops! As reported by GM Watch 6:

“The allowed level in teff animal feed will be 100 parts per million (ppm); and in oilseed crops, 40 ppm. Allowed levels in some fruits and vegetables eaten by humans will also rise.”

Root and tuber vegetables, with the exception of sugar, will get one of the largest boosts, with allowable residue limits being raised from 0.2 ppm to 6.0 ppm. The new level for sweet potatoes will be 3 ppm.

“As a comparison, malformations in frog and chicken embryos were documented7 by Prof Andres Carrasco’s team at 2.03 ppm glyphosate, when injected into the embryos,” GM Watch writes.

Yet despite all the evidence, the EPA rule states:

“EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to glyphosate residues.”
Monsanto has in fact petitioned and received approvals for increases in residue levels for several crops. Why? Because the weeds are getting increasingly resistant, requiring farmers to increase the amount of Roundup they have to spray just to keep up with the superweeds created by the excessive use of the chemical in the first place…
The Rise of Superweeds

A recent article in Nature Magazine8 addressed some of the environmental and societal concerns associated with genetically engineered crops. One of them is the rise in crop-destroying superweeds, as weeds develop resistance to glyphosate. This was yet another possibility that was initially pooh-pooh’d by Monsanto. However, truth has a way of eventually becoming self evident, and now glyphosate resistance is becoming so obvious the facts are hardly disguisable. According to the article:

“As late as 2004, the company was publicizing a multi-year study suggesting that rotating crops and chemicals does not help to avert resistance. When applied at Monsanto’s recommended doses, glyphosate killed weeds effectively, and ‘we know that dead weeds will not become resistant,’ said Rick Cole, now Monsanto’s technical lead of weed management, in a trade-journal advertisement at the time.

The study,9 published in 2007, was criticized by scientists for using plots so small that the chances of resistance developing were very low, no matter what the practice.

Glyphosate-resistant weeds have now been found in 18 countries worldwide, with significant impacts in Brazil, Australia, Argentina and Paraguay… And Monsanto has changed its stance on glyphosate use, now recommending that farmers use a mix of chemical products and ploughing. But the company stops short of acknowledging a role in creating the problem…

Source: Ian Heap, International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds www.weedscience.org/graphs/soagraph.aspx (2013)

To offer farmers new weed-control strategies, Monsanto and other biotechnology companies, such as Dow AgroSciences, based in Indianapolis, Indiana, are developing new herbicide-resistant crops that work with different chemicals, which they expect to commercialize within a few years.”

What the author fails to mention is that some of these new herbicide-resistant crops are being designed to withstand chemicals that could be even more destructive, both environmentally and with regards to human health—especially in light of Samsel and Seneff’s new research.

For example, Dow AgroSciences has developed a new generation of genetically modified (GM) crops — soybeans, corn and cotton — designed to resist a major ingredient in Agent Orange, the herbicide called 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D).

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

Gene Transfer Hazards, and the Latest ‘Gene Silencing’ Crops

Nature Magazine also discusses the spread of transgenes to wild crops. Mexico in particular has reported the spread of GE corn despite the fact that GE crops are not approved for commercial planting in Mexico. It is believed that the transgenes originated in corn imported from the US, and that local farmers may have planted some of the corn originally purchased for consumption, not realizing they were genetically engineered.

Cross-breeding between native and GE varieties may have allowed for the continued spread of transgenic DNA. Sadly, once present, it’s virtually impossible to get rid of these transgenes, which means that native species may eventually be eliminated entirely—a fate that cuts deep into the heart of the Mexican people, where corn is considered sacred.

Latest Breed of GE Crops Can Silence Your Genes… What Then?

Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) has developed a type of genetically engineered (GE) wheat that may silence human genes, which could have truly disastrous health consequences.

Last year, University of Canterbury Professor Jack Heinemann released results from genetic research he conducted on the wheat, which unequivocally showed that molecules created in the wheat, intended to silence wheat genes to change its carbohydrate content, can match human genes and potentially silence them. Heinemann’s research revealed over 770 pages of potential matches between two genes in the GE wheat and the human genome. Over a dozen matches were “extensive and identical and sufficient to cause silencing in experimental systems,” he said.

Experts warned that eating this GE wheat could lead to significant changes in the way glucose and carbohydrates are stored in the human body, which could be potentially deadly for children and lead to serious illness in adults. Yet despite the seriousness of these findings, regulators are ignoring and dismissing such warnings. According to the Institute of Science in Society,10 the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has approved at least five such GE food products already.

Rather than using in vitro DNA modification (which is how Roundup Ready and Bt crops are created), this new breed of genetically engineered crops use a wholly different approach. In vitro DNA modification results in the creation of a new protein, but this new breed is designed to change their RNA content, thereby regulating gene expression within the plant. RNA is one of three major macromolecules, like DNA. Double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) is responsible for regulating more than one-third of human genes. By engineering the plant to produce dsRNA, the plant can be “instructed” to silence specific genes—within itself, and potentially within your body…

A Global Experiment Based on Faulty Assumptions is Bound to Take its Toll…

It is assumed that both DNA and RNA are broken down in your gut when you consume them in GE food, which is why they both have GRAS status (Generally Regarded as Safe). However, experiments dating back to the early 1990’s have contradicted this assumption.11 According to Dr. Mae Wan-Ho12 (for references, see the original article):

“There have been many publications documenting the ability of DNA to survive digestion in the gut and to pass into the bloodstream whenever investigations were carried out with sufficiently sensitive detection methods. DsRNA in particular, is much more stable than single stranded RNA. DsRNA produced in genetically modified plants survive intact after passing through the gut of insects and worms feeding on the plants.

Also, oral exposure of insect pests to dsRNA was effective in inducing RNA interference. Worms can even absorb dsRNA suspended in liquid through their skin, and when taken in, the dsRNA can circulate throughout the body and alter gene expression in the animal. In some cases the dsRNA taken up is further multiplied or induces a secondary reaction resulting in more and different secondary dsRNA with unpredictable targets. Thus, not only are dsRNA mechanisms universal to all plants and animals, there is already experimental evidence that they can act across kingdoms.”

Dr. Mae Wan-Ho also points out research from China, which has demonstrated that dsRNAs can survive digestion and be taken up via the gastrointestinal tract, and that microRNA (miRNA) from food can circulate in the human blood stream and have the potential to turn off human genes.

“The data also indicated that some dsRNAs from plants are found more frequently than predicted from their level of expression in plants; in other words, there may be a selective retention or uptake of some miRNA molecules,” she writes.

Most Consumers Still Unaware of GMO Risks

The biotech industry, led by Monsanto, is increasing their propaganda efforts to reshape their public image, and sway your opinion against the need to label genetically engineered foods. As The Atlantic recently reported.13

“Given its opposition to the labeling of GM foods… it seems clear that Monsanto wants you to close your eyes, open your mouth, and swallow.”

Indeed, many consumers are still in the dark about the very real risks that GE crops pose, both to the environment and human health. This is precisely what the biotech industry wants, even as increasing research demonstrates the many dangers associated with GE foods. For example, one recent study found that rats fed a type of genetically engineered corn that is prevalent in the US food supply for two years developed massive mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage, and other serious health problems. This was at dietary amounts of about 10 percent. Does 10 percent or more of your diet consist of genetically engineered ingredients? If processed foods form the basis of your diet, then you’re likely consuming FAR MORE genetically modified organisms (GMOs) than that…

Unfortunately, you can’t know for sure how many items in your fridge and pantry might contain GMO since the US does not require genetically engineered foods to be labeled. With the emergence of “gene silencing” crops and the latest findings from Samsel and Seneff, the need for labeling couldn’t possibly be greater.

Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. As stated on LabelitWA.org:

“Calorie and nutritional information were not always required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin labeling wasn’t required until 2002. The trans fat content of foods didn’t have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or frozen concentrate.

Doesn’t it make sense that genetically engineered foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The research we have is raising serious questions about the impact to human health and the environment.

I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522 will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or consumers.”

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn’t have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let’s not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state you live in.
•No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
•If you live in Washington State, please sign the I-522 petition. You can also volunteer to help gather signatures across the state.
•For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
•Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Optimal health is one of my passions and nutrition is one of the best tools I know of on how to achieve it. But the key to getting healthy organic vegetables, of course, is the health of the soil in which it’s grown.

Research scientist Dr. Elaine Ingham1 is internationally recognized as an expert on the benefits of sustainable soil science.

She was formerly an associate professor at Oregon State University and well on her way to full-tenure professorship when her research on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) led to her being forced to resign.

The biotech industry, led by Monsanto, funds a large part of the budget for Oregon State University, and her findings were not welcome as it threatened the University’s funding.

Dr. Ingham went on to develop a company called Soil Foodweb Inc., which helps farmers and gardeners understand the health of their soil. The company analyzes soil samples and also helps develop a composting plan that is specifically targeted for the plants you’re seeking to grow.

She’s also the chief research scientist at Rodale Institute which I plan on personally visiting in the near future. I’ll provide you with some video of that visit afterwards.

One of my new passions is to understand, at the deepest levels, how to achieve high performance agriculture by grilling the leading experts in the world, then digesting the information and sharing it with you in easy to understand and apply bits.

Helping Farmers and Gardeners Take Back Control of Their Soil Health

Just how is plant growth affected by the health of the soil? The key lies in having the right helper organisms; beneficial species of bacteria, fungi, protozoa, beneficial nematodes (not the weedfeeders), microarthropods, and earthworms—all of which contribute to plant growth in a number of different ways.

“If we get a problem like around the root systems, around the surfaces, above ground – the seed, the leaves, or the branches of the plant – these organisms will prevent diseases from being able to even find the plant,” she explains. “The pests won’t locate the plant. So, disease suppression, pest suppression, and all of those things are part of what the life in the soil does for your plant.”

Nutrient cycling is another major issue. According to Dr. Ingham, there’s no soil on Earth that lacks the nutrients to grow a plant. She believes the concept that your soil is deficient and needs added phosphorous or nitrogen etc in order to grow plants is flawed, and largely orchestrated by the chemical companies, because it’s based on looking at the soluble, inorganic nutrients that are partly present in your soil.

But the real nutrition your plants require actually is derived from microorganisms in the soil. These organisms take the mineral material that’s in your soil and convert it into a plant-available form. Without these bioorganisms, your plants cannot get the nutrients they need. So what you need is not more chemical soil additives, what you need is the proper balance of beneficial soil organisms. According to Dr. Ingham:

“It’s very necessary to have these organisms. They will supply your plant with precisely the right balances of all the nutrients as the plant requires. When you start to realize that one of the major roles and functions of life in the soil is to provide nutrients to the plants in the proper forms, then we don’t need inorganic fertilizers. We certainly don’t have to have genetically engineered plants or to utilize inorganic fertilizers if we get this proper biology back in the soil.

If we balance the proper biology, we select against the growth of weeds, so the whole issue with herbicides is done away with. We don’t need the herbicides if we can get the proper life back into the soil and select for the growth of the plants that we want to grow and against the growth of the weedy species.”

The Science of Ideal Microbial Balance for Plants

The science of establishing the ideal microbes for a specific plant is already well-established. Reference material on how to identify what those ideal bacterial, fungal, protozoan, nematode, and microarthropod communities are can be found in Dr. Inham’s books, which include:
•10 Steps to Gardening with Nature
•Soil Biology Primer (co-authored with Andrew R. Moldenke and Clive A. Edwards)
•The Field Guide for Actively Aerated Compost Tea (AACT)
•Compost Tea Quality: Light Microscope Methods
•The Compost Tea Brewing Manual

The first book, 10 Steps to Gardening with Nature, reviews many of these soil communities and explains the mechanisms behind how these life forms in the soil benefit your plants. You can also find valuable information and resources on the Rodale Institute’s website.2 Once you’ve identified the optimal communities of soil organism, you can then modify your compost to correct any imbalances. For example:

“Woody materials – saw dust, paper, cardboard, wood chips, and dry ground leaves that fell from the trees at the end of the growing season – are going to grow fungi. You choose whether you need more fungal or more bacterial. And then design your recipe for your compost according to what is missing in your soil, so you can put back in what is not there,” she explains.

Most people don’t realize that trees, shrubs and perennials require healthy levels of fungi rather than bacteria in the soil to optimize their health. The materials she described above can help create the environment to grow them. Also directly inoculating the soil with fungal cultures can accelerate the root colonization by the beneficial fungi.

Interestingly enough, you can use a starter culture to boost the fermentation and generation of beneficial bacteria, much in the same way you can boost the probiotics in your fermented vegetables. For compost, this strategy is used if you want to compost very rapidly. In that case, you can use a starter to inoculate the specific sets of organisms that you need to encourage in that compost. For optimal physical health, you need plant foods to contain the full set of nutrients that allows the plant to grow in a healthy fashion, because that’s the proper balance of nutrients for us human beings as well.

“When we look at a lot of the GMO plant material, and when we look at conventionally grown plant material, they may be extremely high one nutrient, but lacking in many, many others,” she says.

“We’ve done some studies of that in New Zealand, looking at facial eczema in dairy cows. We were able to cure all of the animals from that facial eczema, because it was a nutritional deficiency that was causing it. It wasn’t really a disease; it wasn’t an illness. It was a nutrient deficiency in the grass… If the food that you’re eating doesn’t contain the proper set of nutrients, you are not going to be healthy. You’ve got to get those nutrients in the proper balances back into the food you’re eating.”

Hybridization and Genetic Engineering are Two Very Different Animals

Many advocates for genetically engineered foods insist that “genetic engineering” has been done for centuries in the form of hybridization; so we’re really just using higher technology to achieve the same thing faster. This is a fatally flawed argument, as these two techniques are profoundly different and do not produce the same result. In normal breeding techniques, you never go outside of that species. You simply cannot breed one species with another species, such as a plant with an insect, for example.

“By definition, when we’re doing normal genetic manipulation using breeding methods, it’s all going to be done within the normal, natural restrictions of reproductive abilities of organisms. You can’t go outside of the species.”

Through modern genetic engineering techniques, they are mixing genetic material from entirely different kingdoms of organisms. There is absolutely nothing natural or normal about this process, and there’s nothing natural or normal about the end product that results from such cross-species manipulation. To even achieve this feat, genetic material must be blasted into the genetic material of the organism being altered with a high-powered gun.

Now, if you inject this unique genetic sequence into any random place on the DNA, most of the time the organism will not live. But on rare occasions, after the sequence has been blasted into countless cells, the organism may survive and begin to express the inserted trait. At that point, multiple different protein changes will occur, yet no one knows exactly which proteins were altered, how they were modified, or what metabolic processes are going to be disrupted because that new genetic material.

“When you look at GMOs, you have to understand each specific genetic engineering event. It’s hard to make a simple statement about the effect of all GMOs, because each one is a very specific mechanism,” Dr. Ingham says.

“When we’re really trying to understand each and every different kind of engineered organism, the effects are going to be mediated a little bit differently. But pretty much across the board, we don’t know exactly what’s going to happen with any engineered event, because we have not studied what happens when that GMO plant is subjected to extremes of weather or extremes of climate, for example. That, to me, is one area of major concern with every GMO that has been produced.”

How Bt and Roundup Ready Plants Threaten Plant, Animal and Human Health

Take the genetically engineered Bt plants, for example. In these plants, a specific genetic material for a single toxin protein has been separated from the bacteria (Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt) and placed into the genetic material of a plant, such as corn, soybean, and potatoes. Other Bt plants are also in the pipeline. According to Dr. Ingham, there’s very clear evidence of harm in animals that consume Bt plant material. They end up with severe ulceration, starting in the digestive system.

“We saw massive damage to the liver and to many of the internal organs in the body of those animals when we went to compare the Bt plant material fed to those animals versus non-Bt plant material fed to a herd that started out exactly the same. We’re seeing very clear effects,” she says.

Unfortunately, and tellingly, virtually none of this research is being done in the US because no one is willing to fund it, and patent laws effectively prevent independent safety research on patented seeds. However, research done overseas, in Australia and elsewhere, clearly show genetically engineered feed is causing severe health problems in animals. Yet there are no human studies to evaluate the health effects of eating foods that contain a protein toxin in every single cell…

“What’s the effect on human beings? We can show you what the effect is on animals. And it makes you really wonder if all the digestive problems we have right now might not be due to the fact that so much of the American public is ingesting this toxic protein,” she says.

Another genetically engineered type of plant is Roundup Ready plants, in which the plant material has been engineered to be resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. With the advent of Roundup Ready plants, farmers have had to dramatically increase the amount of glyphosate used. The reason for this is because when you apply Roundup to the soil in massive quantities, it causes a significant reduction in all of the beneficial organisms in the soil.

According to Dr. Ingham, Roundup causes “a massive balloon” of bacteria in the soils, because glyphosate is a bacterial food. This bacterial overgrowth then takes up all the soluble inorganic nutrients that are present in the soil, leaving the plants stressed through lack of nutrition. To combat this, farmers apply more fertilizers to keep the plants alive, and before you know it, a truly vicious circle has been created.

“Every single genetically engineered plant has to be really examined very carefully for the effect that it has on the whole ecosystem – on the soil, animal health, and human health. We just don’t have the studies. They weren’t done. They weren’t required,” Dr. Ingham says.

Disasters in the Making, and One That was Averted…

The research that cut Dr. Ingham’s career with Oregon State University short related to a particular genetically engineered (GE) bacterium that grows in soil. The USDA and EPA had not yet tested it. Instead, all of the test organisms they were using were non-soil organisms. When Dr. Ingham and her colleague placed that GE bacterium into the root systems of plants, and compared it against the parent plant that had no GE bacteria in the soil, they found that the GE Klebsiella planticola caused total death to all plants that they put into the system. They were within just TWO WEEKS of that genetically engineered organism being released outside when Dr. Ingham presented her data at a United Nations meeting, which prevented outdoor plantings. Still, the USDA didn’t want to believe the results and questioned the methodology.

“The results from that testing clearly shows that the genetically engineered organisms can be of a great deal of risk, higher than the parent organism,” she says. “We need to do a much better job of testing these genetically engineered versions of plants, microorganisms, or whatever we’re talking about. They need to be better tested. And that the regulatory language ‘genetically engineered organisms are of no greater risk than the parent’ is clearly incorrect. It’s invalid. We need to go back and think better of a valid regulatory statement by the USDA.”

Unfortunately, as I’ve discussed so many times before, the USDA-APHIS, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, has a revolving door going straight to the industry.

“For those who really want to look at that history, go talk to the folks at the Edmonds Institute out of Washington State, because they very well documented how much turnaround there is,” Dr. Ingham says.

“You come from the industry. You’re on the USDA panel, promoting every company that you came from in, and then you go back to that company. The US public needs to wake up and pay attention to what’s really controlling the regulations on these genetically engineered organisms. The regulatory literature is not scientifically valid. We need to stop that rotating door into the regulatory agencies, so that people coming from the industry are not writing the regulatory language. “

According to Dr. Ingham, Roundup Ready crops are already a disaster in the making, as the chemical removes nutrients from the soil, effectively “starving” the plants of the nutrients they need to thrive. Eating such plants is bound to have a detrimental health effect. Worse than Roundup Ready crops are probably Bt crops, as the research clearly shows how the Bt toxin in these plants are harming the digestive systems of pigs, cows, horses, and other livestock.

“If it’s causing that kind of damage to their digestive system, what’s it doing to human beings?” Dr. Ingham says. “It’s got to be causing the same type of damage. But we know nothing about it, because we don’t know when we’re actually eating a genetically engineered material that has those toxins in it.”

A Three-Step Self-Help Plan to Avoid Genetically Engineered Foods

Unfortunately, Americans have been prevented from making their own choices in this matter. The biotech industry has successfully thwarted any and all attempts at labeling GE foods in the US, so what can you do to protect yourself and your family from them? Dr. Ingham offers the following three suggestions:
1.Choose organic food. This is a must if you want to stop supporting the likes of Monsanto with your hard-earned dollars. Also, genetically engineered seeds and materials are not allowed in organic farming and food production, so at present it’s the only way to ensure you’re not accidentally buying something with GE ingredients.

Beware that the label “natural” or “all-natural” has absolutely NO meaning when it comes to GMO’s. There are no regulations preventing “natural” products from containing genetically engineered ingredients, so the natural label is not in any way interchangeable with the organic label.
2.Support GMO labeling campaigns. “You really want to know whether you’re eating potatoes that have a protein toxin in every cell of that potato that you’re eating,” she says.
3.Improve the soil in your garden and grow your own vegetables. This is my new passion so shortly I will be creating many helpful interviews with leading experts in the field on high performance agriculture to teach you simple strategies on how to easily do this in your home or local garden.

REMEMBER, ‘There is No Such Thing as a Safe GMO’

According to Dr. Ingham, due to the way genetic plant engineering is currently done, there’s really is no such thing as a safe GMO. It appears plant geneticists have no understanding of what they’re doing to the system as a whole. They believe they can tinker with one small aspect of agriculture, the seed, and it won’t affect anything else. This is foolish in the extreme.

“We need to go back to a less environmentally damaging way of doing agriculture. We need to get off the chemical addiction and return to putting the proper biology back into the soil,” she says.

Optimizing the soil with high performance agriculture techniques is a simple inexpensive and practical alternative to reliance on bioengineering, GMO crops and reliance on dangerous herbicides. The key to global climate change, to better nutrition in our plants, to human nutrition, and to human health is recognizing that we have destroyed the life in our agricultural soils. As modern agricultural techniques flourished, we failed to address its overall impact, and we’ve not fully understood the damage these techniques cause—until now.

“In the last 30 years, we have started to recognize and to understand what the damage is and how to easily – very easily – fix this. It’s not going to take billions of dollars to remedy the problems that we have with our soils. Erosion, cementation and water quality could be brought back very rapidly if we could just put the proper biology back in the soil.”

A lot of the work Dr. Ingham has done on GMO’s is available from the Edmonds Institute in Washington State. You may contact Beth Burrows as the institute to get those materials. For more information on proper soil treatments, see the Rodale Institute’s web site, or pick up one of Dr. Ingham’s books that I listed earlier. The book 10 Steps to Gardening with Nature by Dr. Ingham and Carole Ann Rollins is a good place to start. Another book that I recently read and thoroughly enjoyed, especially the last part, is Jeff Lowenfels’ book, Teaming with Microbes. There are many more details you need to know that are not presented in the book but it is a good start for some foundational concepts.

Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. As stated on LabelitWA.org:

“Calorie and nutritional information were not always required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin labeling wasn’t required until 2002. The trans fat content of foods didn’t have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or frozen concentrate.

Doesn’t it make sense that genetically engineered foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The research we have is raising serious questions about the impact to human health and the environment.

I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522 will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or consumers.”

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn’t have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let’s not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state you live in.
•No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
•If you live in Washington State, please sign the I-522 petition. You can also volunteer to help gather signatures across the state.
•For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
•Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Say NO to Aspartame – tell the FDA you don’t want unlabeled Aspartame in your Milk!

In the world of food, agriculture and feeding our children under the influence of giant corporations and special interests, there are bad ideas and then there are really bad ideas.

Right now, in the midst of a major childhood obesity epidemic, the giant dairy lobby is trying to force the federal government to redefine “milk” to include artificial sweeteners such as aspartame in children’s school lunches without proper labels.[1] So instead of chocolate or strawberry milk with sugar and high fructose corn syrup, which is currently labeled, Big Dairy now wants to replace that with aspartame in our children’s milk and pretend it’s a healthy choice for you and America’s children then do this by keeping it all a secret by not requiring proper labels!

Tell the FDA to not cave in to Big Dairy! Keep unlabeled Aspartame out of our milk! Keep reading and learn how Monsanto helped genetically engineer aspartame in U.S. facilities. The public comment period ends Tuesday May 21st! Every voice counts.

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/863?t=9&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

Aspartame has a long clouded history, with fraudulent science submitted during the original FDA approval process and not surprising, the company that created aspartame, G.D. Searle, was bought by Monsanto in 1985. In 1999, Monsanto admitted to genetically engineering bacteria to create aspartame, which is now used widely as an artificial sweetener in diet soft drinks, chewing gum and other diet foods as a sugar substitute.

Alarmingly, numerous studies have linked aspartame to mood alterations including anxiety, agitation, depression, headaches, insomnia, seizures and memory and learning problems and brain tumors. [2][3] Even worse, not long after aspartame won approval in 1981 the company, G.D. Searle, that manufactured aspartame was bought by Monsanto – hard to believe – and much of today’s aspartame sold on the market is genetically engineered. [4] Despite Monsanto’s early connection with aspartame, they sold the company in 2000 and no longer produce it.

That’s right, the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) believe that the way to boost sagging milk sales is to pump milk full of cheap synthetic GMO sweetener and then dump them unlabeled on America’s unsuspecting school children just to make a fast buck. [5] This is outrageous!

Tell the FDA to not cave in to Big Dairy – Keep unlabeled Aspartame out of our milk! Every voice counts.

It’s not surprising, if you know anything about the U.S. national school lunch program, that big agribusiness special interests use their corporate power to pump the least healthy commodity products into our children’s lunches, but this is one step too far!

In the past several years, agribusiness giants have been caught feeding our children lunch meat that didn’t meet basic safety standards met by fast food restaurants and then last year they were caught dumping pink slime in America’s school lunches as well. [6][7]

Unsafe meat, pink slime and now a load of artificial sweeteners like Aspartame – seriously?

Earlier this year, the FDA announced that they were taking public comments on a petition that the dairy lobby had filed “requesting that the [FDA] Agency amend the standard of identity for milk and 17 other dairy products to provide for the use of any safe and suitable sweetener as an optional ingredient.” [8] And now that public comment period is about to close on Tuesday May 21st and we need your help.

Under current FDA guidelines, dairy companies are already allowed to put artificial sweeteners in milk, but now Big Dairy wants to be able to do it unlabeled, without currently required labels such as “reduced calorie” or listing aspartame as an ingredient, which according to America’s two leading dairy lobbies “are not attractive to children”.

It’s hard to believe that these corporate dairy front groups are actually that bold, but it’s true.

Think somebody fell into the Orwellian milk tank?

If you think that’s rich, the IDFA and NMPF believe that adding aspartame and other artificial sweeteners to children’s milk “would promote more healthful eating practices and reduce childhood obesity”.

After decades of declining sales of milk, thanks to the fact that the dairy industry once widely pushed Monsanto’s genetically engineered rBGH into America’s milk, the dairy industry now believes it can save the day by pumping another synthetic compound like aspartame on an unsuspecting public without notifying us. [9]

This is outrageous and it must be stopped. Tell the FDA to keep unlabeled aspartame and other artificial sweeteners out of our milk!

Big Milk and Monsanto – Corrupting Milk and Truthful Labels

For those unfamiliar with the story, in the 1990s, a former Monsanto attorney found himself appointed to a position at the FDA just in time to write the federal guidelines that not only kept GMOs unlabeled, but also allowed Monsanto’s genetically engineered synthetic growth hormone rBGH onto the market – also without appropriate labels.

The attorney went so far in doing his job for his former employer that he actually drafted a new rule that forbade dairy farmers or milk companies to put a label on their milk that said – “Does not contain rBGH.”

That man’s name is Michael Taylor, who magically is back at the FDA once again, now under the Obama administration as the Second in Command. Taylor’s title is now Deputy Commission of Food and Veterinary Medicine.

You may start to have that sinking feeling, that something is not quite right with the agency governing our food and pharmaceuticals in the U.S., but don’t worry it gets worse.

Aspartame’s History of Flawed Science and Link to Health Problems – Brain Cancer and more

Today, aspartame is the most widely used artificial sweetener on the market, but it’s shrouded in controversy.

Every day millions of Americans guzzle gallons of diet sodas like diet Pepsi and diet Coke, not knowing that their zero calorie drinks contain a genetically engineered artificial sweetener that has a long and dubious history linking the chemical to serious health problems, fraudulent science and your friends at Monsanto.

While the FDA finally approved aspartame in 1981, it was over the large outcry of scientists and public health safety advocates who were concerned over the products’ safety and the fraudulent scientific studies that were originally submitted to the FDA.

Despite industry claims that aspartame is “the most tested food additive ever”, (that sure sounds familiar coming from Monsanto), the approval of aspartame was one of the most contested and controversial approvals in the history of the FDA.

While aspartame was initially approved by the FDA in 1974, the discovery that S.G. Searle company scientists submitted flawed data to the FDA from improperly conducted scientific studies, which found brain tumors in animals and a lack of studies for long-term health effects on humans forced the FDA to retract its approval.

By 1980, Searle had spent millions of dollars to win approval, but the FDA had serious concerns and “recommended against approving aspartame at that time, citing unanswered questions about cancer in laboratory rats.” [10]

Then in 1981, aspartame finally won approval after resubmitting scientific data under the Reagan administration and in 1985 Searle was taken over by your friends at Monsanto.

Aspartame and Monsanto’s new GMO synthetic sweetener in our food!

The story could end here, but by the 1990s, Monsanto switched from being one of the world’s largest chemical company to a biotech company and one of the products Monsanto genetically engineered early on was aspartame, something they were reluctant to inform the world and their millions of consumers about.

But Monsanto’s secret GMO aspartame didn’t stay secret for long. In 1999, a top political correspondent for the UK Independent revealed that Monsanto had been manufacturing aspartame through genetically engineering bacteria to create the sweetener at its US production facilities. [11]

This news came out during the 1999 “G8 summit of rich country leaders” who had decided “to launch an inquiry into the safety of genetically modified (GM) food”. According to the article:

“A Monsanto spokeswoman confirmed that aspartame for the US market is made using genetic engineering. But sweetener supplied to British food producers is not. However, consumer groups say it is likely that some low-calorie products containing genetically engineered aspartame have been imported into Britain.

“Increasingly, chemical companies are using genetically engineered bacteria in their manufacturing process without telling the public,” said Dr Erik Millstone, of Sussex University and the National Food Alliance.

Sure, the FDA now says that aspartame is perfectly safe and that it’s one of the “most tested” food additives ever. But if that’s the case, why is the dairy industry trying to sneak it into our milk unlabeled?

At Food Democracy Now! we believe that dairy companies shouldn’t be dumping aspartame or other artificial sweeteners in our children’s milk unlabeled.

Tell the FDA to block the approval of unlabeled aspartame in milk today!

Thanks for participating in food democracy,

Dave, Lisa and the Food Democracy Now! team

Sources:

1. Russian moo-lette? Milk may soon contain undeclared aspartame”, Examiner, March 3, 2013

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/854?t=14&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

2. “Sweetened Drinks Associated with Increased Depression Risk”, Mercola.com, January 21, 2013.

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/855?t=16&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

3. “Aspartame: By Far the Most Dangerous Substance Added to Most Foods Today”, Mercola.com November 6, 2011.

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/856?t=18&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

4. “World’s top sweetener is made with GM bacteria”, The UK Independent, June, 20, 2013.

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/857?t=20&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

5. “Flavored Milk; Petition to Amend the Standard of Identity for Milk and 17 Additional Dairy Products”, Federal Register, February, 20, 2013

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/858?t=22&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

6. “School Lunches Linked to Kids’ Obesity, WebMD”, March 15, 2010

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/859?t=24&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

7. “USDA Allows Meat In Schools that Doesn’t Meet Fast Food Chains’ Standards”, Huffington Post, December 18, 2009

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/860?t=26&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

8. “Tell Vilsack No Pink Slime in School Lunches”, Food Democracy Now!, April 10, 2012

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/861?t=28&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

9. “Flavored Milk; Petition to Amend the Standard of Identity for Milk and 17 Additional Dairy Products”, Federal Register, February, 20, 2013

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/858?t=30&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

10. “Aspartame”, Wikipedia, http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/862?t=32&akid=863.562101.j5JyEe

11. “World’s top sweetener is made with GM bacteria”, The UK Independent, June, 20, 1999.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.